What evidence is there to support the position that the Bible is truly the Word of God to mankind?

First, like @Harmen, I'd like to clarify what I mean when I say the Bible is God's word.  From there, I can get to a better answer to your question.
What does the statement "The Bible is God's Word" mean?
The traditional Evangelical view in the Scripture as God's word is that it was inspired by God.  The actual term used is "God-Breathed".  Further clarification on this statement is taken from truthnet.org.

The Bible was written under “Inspiration” from the Holy Spirit.  The
word inspire is dervived from the latin word “inspirare” meaning  “To
breathe upon or into something”.  God revealed Himself through
individuals to speak to a much larger audience.  In the same way some
one would pick up a pen.  The pen would becomes the tool in the hand
of the writer, the prophet is God’s pen in revelation.
The Bible is a collection of books.  As the prophets received
revelation the books were colleceted in manuscript1 form.  The
orginal manuscript, written by the prophet is known as the autograph.
The autograph is inspired by God from the first generation.  The
autograph is then copied to additional manuscripts.  As the
manuscripts wear out over time from use and enviroment the manuscript
is again copied onto a new scroll. This process of copying the old
manuscript  to a new manuscript is known as manuscript transmission.
Over a period of time the manuscripts from accepted prophets were
collected.  This collection of manuscripts is known to us as the
Bible.

What evidence exists to support the statement that the Bible is God's Word?
In the book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh Mc Dowell notes that if God created man with a desire to know Him, we would expect His message to have some unique properties:

It would be widely distributed so man could attain it easily
It would be preserved through time without corruption
It would be completely accurate historically.
It would not be prone to scientific error or false beliefs held by the people of that time.
It would present true, unified answers to the difficult questions of life.

The Bible stands alone as the only religious text that can claim it meets all the above criteria.
Test 1:
The first qualification listed above is any message from the Creator would have to distribute His message to a wide audience. The Bible is next to none in this test. It is the most published book in history, with the widest distribution of any published work. It has been translated into more languages than any other book. It is the most sold book in history. It was the first book published with moveable type. It is still the #1 best seller of any book. Now, none of these feats prove that the Bible was inspired. They are, however, consistent with what we would expect of God's message if He were trying to let us know about Himself and His plan for us. In other words, one cannot disqualify the Bible on this point. Many other ancient writings fall short, but it behaves as we would expect.
Test 2:
The Bible has orders of magnitude more manuscript evidence, supporting the fact that it has been preserved though history, than any other book in antiquity. More can be found here.
Test 3:
Extra-Biblical accounts of history and supporting archaeological discovers confirm a great deal of what's in the Bible.  More can be found here.
Test 4:
Of course, there's little agreement on one of the big issues - Young-Earth Creation vs. Old-Earth Creation vs. Evolution, so I won't even both trying to use that.  The evidence that exists can be used to support any view if you twist it enough.  However, aside from that, the Bible does outline medical wisdom that is far ahead of it's time.
Again, from here:

When Genesis was written, The Greeks were beginning to tell of
Apollos' flight across the sky in a flaming chariot. The Egyptians
were worshipping the sun as Ra, deifying it. The Mesopotamians
referred to the sun as "Shamosh" and called it the god of justice.
Genesis, however, calls the sun "a light in the expanse of the
heavens" and views it as a thing, one created by God. That the Bible
does not follow the naiveté of those ancient religions is often
overlooked, since modern man is much more knowledgeable in the
mechanics of nature. We take for granted that someone touching an
infectious person or a corpse should practice good hygiene and wash
thoroughly in running water before proceeding to anything else, but
this "discovery" has only been a medical reality for 150 years. The
book of Leviticus, though, requires this same procedure.
One cannot
find ideas as arcane as blood-letting or consuming ram's horn for
fertility, or all the other mythical cures for ills that were thought
to be science in those days. The Bible is not a science book. It does
not focus on scientific facts about the creation, but where it
mentions those things, it is accurate in its representation. This is
exactly what we'd expect if the Bible had its origin in the One who
created the universe and its scientific laws.

There's also a neat little chart showing Biblical teachings compared to the "science" of the time here.
Test 5, from the same source as above:

Thus far we have examined several evidences of the accuracy and the
reliability of the Bible by comparing it to outside sources and what
we know is true. Now, I'd like to turn our attention to the text of
the Bible itself to show how it validates itself as the word of God.
Again, I remind you that we have a collection of different documents
that were written over one and a half millennium, that are devoted to
discussing the most controversial and emotionally charged topics man
has known. The incredible thing is that they all agree. Taken
together, the Bible presents a single, unified message of actions and
attitudes by which man can live. This is an unprecedented feat.
To have sixty six books written by about forty authors, from kings and
nobles to fishermen and soldiers, in three languages and on three
continents, be of the same mind is just not humanly possible. Why, the
editorial writers in our newspapers can't even agree when they come
from the same culture and similar educational backgrounds.
To demonstrate the remarkability of this accomplishment, we can
propose an experiment. Imagine a classroom of thirty students at the
high-school level. The teacher has decided on the class writing a
novel for a class project. Each student will be assigned one chapter
and they will then gather the papers together to assemble the finished
work. The topic chosen is "Why God is important in man's life," but
there is no outline and there are no rules as to what that statement
means. Because the students are all the same age and live in the same
area at the same point in time, they have a tremendous advantage over
the Biblical writers, but to expect a congruent work is ridiculous.
The fact that the Bible is a unified message shows that its origin
comes from beyond man.
Because the Bible claims it is the word of God, it requires of itself
a stricter assessment. The Old Testament is filled with the
authoritative phrase "Thus sayeth the LORD" . The fact that men
recognized it from the time it was first penned as authoritative gives
it a measure of strength. The laws that were required of the Jews were
very arduous. Because they chose to accept them as commandments from
God before any significant length of time had elapsed to mythicalize
them shows that the people believed with their lives that these
documents were from God. Jesus Himself validates the Old Testament by
regarding it as the word of God and authoritative in all things

Also, not mentioned in the tests from Josh McDowell, there's the test of prophecy.
The Bible contains many prophecies, some made hundreds of years before they were fulfilled.  Many of these are very specific, not vague statements like the ones you see from Nostradamus, for example.
A few, with probability calculations are presented here.

Finally, none of this constitutes absolute proof, and atheists and non-Judeo-Christians have been arguing against all of this evidence for years.  The idea that there would be people that scoff at the Biblical account of creation and the flood, for example, is even predicted in 2 Peter 3.

2 Peter 3:3-7 (KJV)
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying,
Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep,
all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the
heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in
the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with
water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the
same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of
judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

This, of course, is perfectly in harmony with Jesus' teaching in the book of John 3 (Also KJV).

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to
condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not
is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the
only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light
is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light,
because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth
the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be
reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his
deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

In short, no amount of evidence is going to be enough to prove the Bible's truth, that it's God's Word, or even the existence of God to those that simply don't want to believe.  The evidence is there, it's up to each of us to determine whether we're convinced by it, and how we want to respond to it.


Is there a Christian basis for using garlic, crosses, and holy water against evil?

In Catholic Tradition and culture, vampires only exist in scary novels/movies, and garlic is only used for seasoning delicious meals.

However, crosses, holy water, and various other holy objects and gestures can be ordained by the Church as sacramentals.

Sacramentals are material objects, things or actions (sacramentalia) set apart or blessed by the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of the East, the Anglican Churches, the Independent and Old Catholic Churches, and the Lutheran Churches to manifest the respect due to the sacraments, and so to excite pious thoughts and to increase devotion, and through these movements of the heart to remit venial sin, according to the Council of Trent (Session XXII, 15).

Sacramentals are sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments. They signify effects, particularly of a spiritual nature, which are obtained through the intercession of the Church. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions in life are rendered holy.

  The characteristics of sacramentals

  Sacramentals are instituted for the sanctification of certain
  ministries of the Church, certain states of life, a great variety of
  circumstances in Christian life, and the use of many things helpful to
  man. In accordance with bishops' pastoral decisions, they can also
  respond to the needs, culture, and special history of the Christian
  people of a particular region or time. They always include a prayer,
  often accompanied by a specific sign, such as the laying on of hands,
  the sign of the cross, or the sprinkling of holy water (which recalls
  Baptism).

  Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized
  person is called to be a "blessing," and to bless. Hence lay people
  may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns
  ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration
  reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons).

  Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way
  that the sacraments do, but by the Church's prayer, they prepare us to
  receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it. "For well-disposed
  members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and
  sacramentals sanctifies almost every event of their lives with the
  divine grace which flows from the Paschal mystery of the Passion,
  Death, and Resurrection of Christ. From this source all sacraments and
  sacramentals draw their power. There is scarcely any proper use of
  material things which cannot be thus directed toward the
  sanctification of men and the praise of God." (CCC 1668-1670)

The Rituale Romanum clearly defines the order in which a priest or deacon may bless a sacramental. Sacramentals such as crosses, holy water, and blessings are employed during most rituals in the Catholic Church.  These rituals range anything from Baptism (which itself is a protective exorcism) to weddings to demonic exorcisms.

About exorcisms...

Yes, the Catholic Church performs hundreds of real exorcisms every year. Demonic possession in the Church is very real, and sacramentals have been used since apostolic times to battle evil spirits.

But don't be fooled by over-blown Hollywood concoctions of "head-spinning" myths and "green vomit" superstitions about how the Catholic Church supposedly performs exorcisms.

The most realistic and accurate portrayal one will find of how the Catholic Church performs the rite of exorcism is The Rite with Anthony Hopkins.

  When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus
  Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the
  Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism. Jesus
  performed exorcisms and from him the Church has received the power and
  office of exorcizing. In a simple form, exorcism is performed at the
  celebration of Baptism. The solemn exorcism, called "a major
  exorcism," can be performed only by a priest and with the permission
  of the bishop. The priest must proceed with prudence, strictly
  observing the rules established by the Church. Exorcism is directed at
  the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession
  through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church.
  Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter;
  treating this is the concern of medical science. Therefore, before an
  exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is
  dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness. (CCC
  1673)

The Catholic Encyclopedia says about sacramentals:

  One of the most remarkable effects of sacramentals is the virtue to
  drive away evil spirits whose mysterious and baleful operations affect
  sometimes the physical activity of man. To combat this occult power
  the Church has recourse to exorcism and sacramentals. Another effect
  is the delivery of the soul from sin and the penalties therefor. Thus
  in the blessing of a cross the Church asks that this sacred sign may
  receive the heavenly blessing in order that all those who kneel before
  it and implore the Divine Majesty may be granted great compunction and
  a general pardon of faults committed.

Its important to recognize that sacramentals, such as crosses and holy water, are not magical.  They are not idols.  They are simply material objects that are connected to the heart of the Church (the 7 sacraments instituted by Christ) via the ordaining power of the Holy Spirit and are entrusted to the priesthood of all believers for both edification and protection.

All sacramentals draw their power from Jesus Christ...who is God.

And from my personal experience, garlic is only effectively used when its sprinkled on buttered toast.


If A = x and B = x and C = x then why isn't A = B = C? (Trinity)

Person and Godhead do not belong to the same genus.

This is your argument, and it makes use of the transitive property of identity: "Jesus is God, and the Father is God, therefore Jesus is the Father."

The problem is that "Jesus" is a person, and "God" is an essence or substance.  Let's look at a similar argument: "Joe is human, and Martha is human, therefore Joe is Martha."  This argument fails for much the same reason.  Joe is not the same sort of thing as human, just as Jesus is not the same sort of thing as God.  The transitive property of identity requires the same sort of things being compared.


Did Mary stay with Elizabeth till the birth of John the Baptist?

Cornelius à Lapide, S.J.'s commentary on Luke 1:56:

There is a question here whether the Blessed Virgin remained until the nativity of John. Theophylact, Euthymius, Jansenius maintain that she did not.
They prove this

because the Blessed Virgin came in the sixth month, and remained, as it were, three months (Vulg. quasi tres menses), therefore she departed before the ninth month was completed, and therefore before Elizabeth gave birth to the child;
because after the departure of the Virgin, S. Luke relates the birth of the child, without making any mention of the Virgin;
and chiefly, because it was not fitting that the Virgin should be present at the birth;
because it was proper that she should avoid the crowd which would gather together at the birth.

The contrary opinion is equally, and even more, probable; and is maintained by Origen, S. Ambrose, &c.—

because it would have been discourteous to remain up to the birth and leave immediately before it;
because at the time of the birth Elizabeth most needed the presence, help, and consolation of the Virgin;
because the Virgin remained three months for this very purpose, that she might behold, embrace, and bless John, the wonder of the world, and the forerunner of Christ, and on the other hand that John when born might behold and venerate the mother of the Lord, and Christ the Lord in her. Whence Bede says, “Mary remained until, Elizabeth’s full time having come, she saw the nativity of the forerunner of her Lord, on account of whom chiefly she had come.”

Private revelation among the mystics holds this latter opinion, too. See the end of ch. 9 of The Life of Mary as Seen by the Mystics.
Direct quotes from St. Ambrose, Theophylact, and St. Bede appear in St. Thomas Aquinas's Catena Aurea on Luke 1:56:

St. Ambrose: Mary abode with Elisabeth until she had accomplished the time of her bringing forth; as it is said, And Mary abode, &c.
Theophylactus: For in the sixth month of the conception of the forerunner, the Angel came to Mary, and she abode with Elisabeth three months, and so the nine months are completed.
St. Ambrose: Now it was not only for the sake of friendship that she abode so long, but for the increase also of so great a prophet. For if at her first coming the child had so far advanced, that at the salutation of Mary he leaped in the womb, and his mother was filled with the Holy Spirit, how much must we suppose the presence of the Virgin Mary to have added during the experience of so long a time? Rightly then is she represented as having shown kindness to Elisabeth, and preserved the mystical number.
St. Bede: For the chaste soul which conceives a desire of the spiritual word must of necessity submit to the yoke of heavenly discipline, and sojourning for the days as it were of three months in the same place, cease not to persevere until it is illuminated by the light of faith, hope, and charity.
Greek exegesis: For it is the custom for virgins to go away when the pregnant woman brings forth. But when she reached her own home, she went to no other place, but abode there until she knew the time of her delivery was at hand. And Joseph doubting, is instructed by an Angel.


What is the earliest surviving reference to the Paschal Greeting?

There is a tradition in the Eastern Orthodox Church that the saying was made popular by Mary Magdalene when she supposedly addressed Emperor Tiberius in Rome with the words “Christ is risen.”  Mary Magdalene witnessed most of the events surrounding the crucifixion. She was present at the mock trial of Jesus; she heard Pontius Pilate pronounce the death sentence; and she saw Jesus beaten and humiliated by the crowd. She was one of the women who stood near Jesus during the crucifixion to try to comfort Him. The earliest witness to the resurrection of Jesus, she was sent by Jesus to tell the others (John 20:11-18).

The greeting is based on Luke 24:34. Translations throughout church history, from the Latin Vulgate (c. AD 400) to the ESV (2001) have translated this verse nearly identically: “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”  See also Matthew 28:1-9 which describes the resurrection events as witnessed by Mary Magdalene and the other women who were present.

The Russian Orthodox Church says this about the Paschal Greeting:

  “Do you know the origin of this custom?  It is quite an ancient one.  According to tradition, it began with the Equal to the Apostles St. Mary Magdalene.   After the Lord’s Ascension, she came to Rome to preach the Gospel.  Standing before Emperor Tiberias and saying, “Christ is Risen!” she presented him with a red egg.  In those days, it was customary for poor people to give their friends, benefactors, the wealthy, and authorities, an egg on the New Year and on birthdays, as a sign of respect.  Following Mary Magdalene’s example, early Christians began giving eggs to one another on the days celebrating Christ’s Glorious Resurrection.  They passed that custom on to us.” [1]

Apparently the words “He is risen” were spoken at Augustine's baptism on Easter Eve AD 387.  The Paschal Homily of St John Chrysostom (ordained AD 386 and made Patriarch or Archbishop of Constantinople in 386) may be the origin of the Paschal Greeting.  It was written circa 400 AD but says nothing about Mary Magdalene or Emperor Tiberius, or the giving of eggs. [2] See also ‘The Origin and Meaning of the Paschal Greeting (April 2007’) – link below.

It may be worth checking on The Gospel of Mary, which was discovered in the Akhmim Codex in Cairo, Egypt, in 1896. It was not made public until 1955, when it was published due to the popularity of the Nag Hammadi library. Written in Greek and Coptic, the Gospel of Mary codex is dated to the 3rd (Greek) and 5th (Coptic) centuries A.D. The gospel of Mary is mentioned in the writings of some of the early church fathers as early as the 3rd century A.D. In the only known copy of the text, ten entire pages are missing, including the first six pages. As a result, it is difficult to arrive at a coherent and consistent overall message.  The gospel of Mary was not written by Mary Magdalene or any other Mary of the Bible. The Gnostic teachings found in the gospel of Mary date it to the late 2nd century A.D. at the earliest.  It may say something about Mary Magdalene going to Rome to preach to Emperor Tiberius.  However, I have no intention of digging into that spiritual can of worms!

[1] https://stjohndc.org/en/content/origin-and-meaning-paschal-greeting

[2] http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/sermon.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20130403014524/http://www.stjohndc.org/Russian/feasts/FeastsE/e_pascha_greeting07.htm

Other possible source of information: “Christ is risen!” Resp. “He is risen indeed! Alleluia!” A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1992).


This question would not have even made sense to anyone prior to Copernicus, let alone to anyone who originally heard or received this image.

When this story was first received, there would have been no other body for him to land on. The earth was the center of all, and the "wandering stars" aka other planets, were just lights in the sky.

One of the most commonly applied ruled of hermeneutics is that a text can not mean what it could not mean to the original hearers. In other words, if a lie is held widely enough, it must be addressed in terms of the lie. Our cosmology may have changed, but to the original storytellers, it was the truth.

Bear that in mind, and the answer to your question becomes obvious: there was no other place for Him to go.


Reminiscent of

Ephesians 6:4And you, fathers, provoke not your children to anger: but bring them up in the discipline and correction of the Lord.

St. Thomas's commentaryWhen he says And you, fathers, provoke not your children to anger, it is not that the fathers must give in to their will in all matters. Here it must be noted that the authority of a father with respect to his child is different from that of a master with respect to his servant. For the master employs his servant to his own advantage, but the father manages his child for the child’s advantage. It is necessary that fathers educate their children for the children’s own good; not, however, by excessively restricting or subjecting them.

and

Colossians 3:21Fathers, provoke not your children to indignation, lest they be discouraged.

St. Thomas's commentary on Colossians for this verse is similar to his Ephesians one above.


According to Catholicism, it it possible for Satan and/or his satellites to roam the earth, while still being in hell?

From the Blog of Archdiocese of Washington:

  Thus, though consigned to Hell, it would seem that some or all of the
  demons have the ability to roam the earth as well. Demons, however, do
  not have bodies and thus do not “roam the earth” the way we do. Their
  “roaming” is more an indication of their capacity to influence than
  their ability to move from one place to another. Further, Satan and
  demons are described as being “chained,” “in prison,” or “in
  darkness.” This is likely a way of indicating that their power to
  influence or “roam” is limited in some way. This does not say that
  they do not wield considerable power, just that it is not unbounded.
  If you think it is bad now, just imagine what it will be like when
  their power is unchained! You can read more about it here


What is the biblical basis for “the Sinner’s Prayer” and do Protestants believe that saying the prayer make one a Christian?

There is an example in scripture, spoken by Jesus, of the prayer of a sinner :

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Luke 18:13,14 [KJV]

I think this is the reason for the saying 'The Sinner's Prayer' and I think this is the reason that Protestantism, largely, advocates that those who genuinely feel their distance from God, their proneness to sin and their burden of past sins, should pray to God in penitence.
There is another saying :

What must I do to be saved ?
Acts 16:30 [KJV]

said by the Philippian jailor who was ready to commit suicide.
A prayer, in a way, but not exactly addressed to God, rather addressed (as many do, in their first approaches of repentance) to someone who represents God - an 'ambassador of Jesus Christ'.
The publican was in the temple, praying. The jailor was trembling and had already thrown himself down at the feet of the apostle. These men were at an extremity. They had reached the lowest ebb. They were distraught.
These prayers were wrung from them at the lowest point of their lives. They were far off from God : and they knew it. And these prayers were answered, and that immediately, in  both cases, without delay.
The publican went down to his house, justified, without further ado. Just as Abel received a witness (from God) that he was righteous (in God's sight) after he offered the firstling of his flock, and the fat thereof, Hebrews 11:4.
Protestantism exists because justification by faith was preached by the Reformers. They taught that justification is by faith and that justification is a matter of the righteousness of God, not the righteousness of the law or the righteousness of humanity.
And they taught that genuine, penitent prayer receives an answer from God Almighty to the sinner who approaches in confession and repentance and faith. No works are required. Good works (in abundance) will, undoubtedly, follow. But no works of any kind can ever justify from sin. For that, blood must be shed - and that, from a clean sacrifice.
What is completely removed from this, is the practice of putting words into the mouths of people who are, largely, quite happy in sin, quite happy with life, quite content to be ungodly - and then promising them eternal salvation by the performance of a solitary, brief ritual.
There is no comparison between this objectionable modern practice and these examples of real repentance recorded in scripture.


Did Adam and Eve ever practice animal sacrifice?

Premise

We cannot conclusively say that Adam and Eve performed the any sacrifices, but the evidence is very heavy that they did and it was ordained by God and likely that He instructed them in it or even did the first one Himself.

It is definitely clear that sacrifice was instituted very early.

Abel and Cain apparently performed sacrifices, Abel bringing animal material and Cain bringing plant material. The ensuing rivalry between the two led to the infamous 'first murder'. It has been argued that Cain knew animal material and animal life was the requirement and his obvious 'cannot be wrong' attitude and jealousy was what led him to murder his own brother.

But did Adam and Eve sacrifice?

One should think that Cain and Abel were told by someone that it was necessary. It is possible that God Himself told them to do so, considering they were also on the same plain speaking terms, demonstrated when God questions and subsequently curses Cain. However, Genesis 3:21 is curious stating just after God declared punishments for the fall:

  The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

God Himself made the garments for Adam and Eve. Depending on your views of whether there was death before the fall this may or may not be significant. Since you do not specify a tradition I will stick to literal Bible interpretation, in which this view, that there was no death mentioned until this verse, therefore, no death before the fall, is well supported.

So many have hypothesized that God Himself actually performed the very first sacrifice for Adam's and Eve's sins. This site argues that for example. Always leading by example, Adam and Eve then mimicked God's righteous actions and began performing sacrifice. Whether you take this view or not it is indisputable that God approved of the animal's killing so that would leave only Adam or Eve to actually perform the sacrifice. It really does not matter, though, who did it first because just one generation later Cain and Able are sacrificing as if it is a regular thing, showing that it was already instituted and the most likely time was Genesis 3:21. Also, if God did this first sacrifice, He did not do any others, again leaving the task to Adam and Eve.

Now it is not until the reveling of the Law that frequency and reasons for sacrifice were known to us at least. This is more than 1000 years later. It is clear that there were thanksgiving reasons, as Noah did in your example, and it is implied that Cain and Able were performing a possibly annual or other time frame sacrifice as required by God. There are also a few examples of reasons for sacrifice in the story of Abraham. The most notable being told to do so by an angel of God when Abraham was told to sacrifice his own son Isaac. So there may have been very well understood reasons by the ancient persons for sacrifice that may have even been started with Adam and Eve shortly after the fall, but the only indication of those 'rules' becoming written is Leviticus with Moses. It is entirely possible that those sections in Leviticus were only parroting what had been done since the beginning.

Conclusion

So we cannot conclusively say that Adam and Eve started the sacrifice rituals, but the evidence is very heavy that they did and it was ordained by God and likely that He instructed them in it or even did the first one Himself.


Old Testament Evidence of the Hypostatic Union

In the Old Testament God does take physical forms however the incarnation of the Messiah is unique. Hypostatic union means human and divine natures united in one person. It would be misleading to say the OT appearances of God as an angel, man or tree are hypostatic union. Some helpful references from the tanakh -
 The Hebrew Bible Teaches Complex Monotheism Long Before Greek Philosophical Religion :

  In the following quotes, Sommer points to God’s visit with Abraham in
  Genesis 18-19 as an example of early biblical teaching attesting to
  the one, true God’s multiplicity of personhood. Genesis 18, a J text,
  provides one of the most revealing cases. At the outset of that
  chapter, we read, “Yhwh manifested Himself to Abraham amidst the trees
  of Mamre while Abraham was sitting at the entrance of his tent, at the
  heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and saw three men coming toward
  him” (Genesis 18.1-2). The juxtaposition of these two sentences (which
  are from a single Pentateuchal source) implies that Yhwh appears in
  the form of three men, or, at least in the form of one of the three
  men. 8 Abraham, however, does not realize that his visitors are not
  human. He directs his attention especially to one of these men, whom
  he addresses in the singular, using the obsequious courtesy normal in
  the ancient Near East: “My Lord, if you find me acceptable, please do
  not pass by your servant” (18.3). All three men subsequently speak in
  18.9; in 18.10 one visitor, still not identified explicitly, predicts or promises to return months later, at which time Abraham will have a
  son. Thus this visitor speaks prophetically, which is to say, in God’s
  voice, though whether this is because the visitor is God or merely
  represents God is not made clear. (The alternation between singular
  and plural continues throughout this passage.) Finally, in 18.13 the
  narrator stops being coy and simply refers to one of the visitors as
  Yhwh. Two of the visitors leave, and the one who remains with Abraham
  is now clearly identified as Yhwh (18.22); Abraham’s knowledge is now
  parallel to the reader’s, for in the discussion that follows it is
  clear that Abraham now knows who the remaining Visitor is. The other
  two beings are subsequently refer to as angels (19.1) It is clear that
  Yhwh appears in bodily form to Abraham in this passage; what is less
  clear is whether all three bodies were Yhwh’s throughout, or whether
  all three were Yhwh’s at the outset of the chapter but only one of
  them is by its end, or whether the other two were merely servants
  (perhaps human, perhaps divine) who, for no clear reason, were
  accompanying Yhwh. In any event, the being who certainly was Yhwh was
  less than the deity’s full manifestation. The visitor was not
  recognizable as God to Abraham at the outset, and he (He?) acts with a
  humility unbecoming a deity as h/He stands waiting before Abraham (at
  least according to what even traditionalist scholars regard as the
  original text of verse 22). Further, even though the visitor is
  clearly identified as Yhwh by the middle of the chapter and refers to
  God in the first person while speaking, h/He announces h/His intention
  to “come down” from heaven to observe Sodom and Gomorrah in verse 21 –
  even though H/he is already down on earth at this point. This visitor
  clearly is and is not identical with Yhwh; more precisely, He is Yhwh,
  but is not all of Yhwh or the only manifestation of Yhwh; rather, He
  is an avatar, a “descent” of the heavenly God who does not encompass
  all of that God’s substance. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God
  and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 40-41

  A similar phenomenon occurs in the famous J narrative in Genesis 32 in
  which Jacob wrestles with a being initially described simply as a
  “man” (32.25). One soon senses that this man is in fact some sort of
  otherworldly being, because he cannot remain on earth once the sun
  rises and because his name is a secret. (It is perfectly normal to
  find a text referring to an angel as an [man] in the Hebrew Bible; see
  Genesis 18.2, 19.1, Judges 13.16; Zechariah 1.8, 11; Daniel 9.21.)
  Jacob names the place of this encounter Peniel (“face of God”), saying
  “I have seen ‘elohim face to face, yet my life was saved” (32.31). The
  word 'elohim' can refer both to a lower ranking divine being (or angel)
  and to the God also known as Yhwh, and it is not clear which meaning
  the text intends here. Hosea 12.4-6, interestingly takes it to mean
  both as it summarizes this story in poetic parallelism: “In his might
  he wrestled ‘elohim, He wrestled an angel (mal’akh) and prevailed….It
  was Yhwh, the God of hosts; Yhwh was His name.” One might initially
  suggest that in the first of these lines the word 'elohim' means the
  plural noun “divine beings” and not the singular noun “God,” but the
  text goes on immediately to identify the 'elohim:' “It was Yhwh…”
  (12.6). In other words, in Hosea 12 the being who wrestled with Jacob
  was not a mal’akh who also could be called an 'elohim;' rather, it was
  the God Yhwh, who can also be termed a mal’akh. The reason for the
  apparent confusion between God and angel in these verses from Hosea is
  simply that both passages, Hosea 12 and Genesis 32, reflect a belief
  that the selves of an angel and the God Yhwh could overlap or that a
  small-scale manifestation or fragment of Yhwh can be termed a mal’akh.
  – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient
  Israel, p. 41

  Evidence of this sort of angel is not limited to the Pentateuch. In
  the story of the commissioning of Gideon, a mal’akh appears to Gideon
  from underneath a tree and speaks to him (**Judges 6.11-13), but as the
  story progresses, we are told simply “Yhwh turned to face him and
  said…” (verse 14).** Like Abraham in Genesis 18, Gideon at first does
  not realize that his visitor is divine. As James Kugel observes Gideon
  “is certainly unaware that this is “the angel of the LORD,” or else he
  would do what everyone else does in such circumstances, bow down in
  reverential awe. Instead, he fixes on the stranger’s pious greeting in
  order to give him a somewhat impious retort [which can be
  paraphrased:] “Oh yeah? If the LORD is with us, where is He now?” Then
  the angel turns to him and says, “Go in this strength of yours and
  save Israel yourself from the Midianites – am I not the one who is
  sending you?” Certainly this should have tipped him off: who could
  this “I” be if not God Himself? Yet it is only after the next
  exchange, when he is told, “But I will be with you and you will defeat
  the Midianites to a man,” that Gideon begins to suspect that the
  visitor is not an ordinary human. Even so, he is still not sure: he
  wants proof, a sign…It is only after the flame magically consumes the
  offering and the angel himself disappears that Gideon’s moment of
  confusion may truly be said to be over.” The reader may share some of
  Gideon’s confusion. The text variously identifies the speaker as Yhwh
  (verses 14, 16) and Yhwh’s mal’akh (12, 20, 21). Indeed, Gideon’s
  visitor sometimes speaks in the first person of God (verses 14, 16)
  and sometimes in the third (verse 12). One might want to argue that
  Yhwh was located in heaven and spoke through a lower ranking divine
  being sent to earth with a message, but it is specifically Yhwh who
  turns His face toward Gideon in verse 14. At the same time, we are
  told (verse 22) that Gideon saw Yhwh’s mal’akh, and even though it was
  Yhwh who turned to face Gideon, it was the mal’akh who left the place
  (verse 21). The text seems self-contradictory only if one insists that
  an angel is a being separate from Yhwh. On the other hand, if one can
  understand angel as a small-scale manifestation of God or even a being
  with whom Yhwh’s self overlaps, the text coheres perfectly well. –
  Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel,
  p. 42-43


Have Christians ever followed Leviticus?

When it comes to questions asking "Are there any Christians that do such-and-such" it's very hard to answer, because Christianity is a very diverse group and there are highly likely to be at least a few Christians that do almost anything. However in this case I'm going to go out on a limb and answer "No". Here are my reasons.

The first part of Leviticus deals with animal sacrifice. Not just occasional sacrifice, but regular and frequent. It's unlikely that Christians would be doing this without us having heard about it. Even Jews have not followed the sacrifice rules in Leviticus since around 70AD. Additionally it is explicitly taught in Christian scripture that Christ's sacrifice has made animal sacrifices unnecessary. It's a key part of Christianity not to make the Levitical sacrifices.
A later part of Leviticus deals with clean and unclean food. Again Christians were explicitly told by God (as recorded in Acts 10) not to follow those rules.

There are Christians who spend most of their time interacting with the Jewish community, and some of them follow the dietary rules of Judaism, to avoid giving offence. That's approved of in scripture. However even they will not follow the animal sacrifice rules.

Summary: I'm pretty confident in being able to answer "no".


How did Matthew conclude that Isaiah 7:14 refers to Jesus?

Since all scripture is inspired by God1, no one comprehends it except by the Spirit of God2.

There are at least a couple of ways from scripture that may have enabled St. Matthew to present what he was writing as a fulfillment of the Isaiah passage.

Since he was the Gospel writer, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, God, who inspires all scripture, and
Since he was an Apostle, when the LORD opened their minds to understand the scriptures3.

Were he not an Apostle, the third way to know would have been from they to whom it had been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God4 as was the case with the Ethiopian Eunuch to whom Philip, beginning with a passage from Isaiah, told of the good news of Jesus5.

1. cf. 2 Tim 3:16 (RSVCE).
2. cf. 1 Cor 2:11 (RSVCE).
3. cf. Luke 24:45 (RSVCE).
4. cf. Luke 8:10 (RSVCE).
5. cf. Acts 8:26-40 (RSVCE).

Please see also bruisedreed's answer. It's an excellent addendum.


What is the minimum amount of action required to get in to heaven?

The basic issue is this:

If you don't share the nature of God, going to heaven will be impossible.  But just imagine that it was, and you went to heaven without sharing God's nature, then it would actually be torture: God revealed to you in all His power, Glory and Holiness would be an unbearable terror - seeing eternal realities with clarity would necessitate the greatest of apprehension as you would know that your existence is anti-thetical to the most powerful being in existence whose merest breath could shred you to sub-atomic particles - you would not experience joy in any measure, only the most fearful apprehension possible.

You might say: "But, but... isn't God loving and merciful??"
Yes he is, but He is also Holy - so Holy that anything of sin cannot withstand his presence.

So the minimum action required is that you become a partaker of the divine nature.  Perhaps if your friends are kind enough to share the gospel with you again, you will realize how it important it is that you listen carefully.

If you don't want to wait that long, perhaps you could avail yourself of resources like this: http://peacewithgod.jesus.net/

  Are the former being too strict on themselves? Are the latter looking for an "easy way out" in allowing them to lead a life of sin?

Without knowing specifics, it would not pay to be dogmatic, but in regard to the former - probably not, and the latter - almost certainly.


Is faith the only thing we need to attain salvation?

There are a number of verses which can be brought.

Romans 5:1 — Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 4:5 — But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 3:28 — Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

There is also

James 2:24 — Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

... which might support the different view that we are justified simply by works and how we act. However, context is important and James goes on to say

James 2:26 — Indeed, as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

The point is that faith engenders good works.

Matthew 5:16 — Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Galatians 5:22 — But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

We are not justified by slavishly following the Law (which is what “not justified by works” is saying) — we are justified by faith, and that faith will transform our lives with the fruit of the Spirit which pervades every act so that our works show that we are justified.
Peter wrote of this in 2 Peter 1:

1 3 His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But whoever does not have them is short-sighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.

Peter deliberately lists the fruits of the Spirit. In "making every effort" to add those virtues to faith, Peter is saying "allow the Spirit to do his work" because a living faith will engender good works (cf James 2:26). Any effort we bring to bear for ourselves is using our conscience to do good works. Verse 4 says that we participate in the divine nature by virtue of God's great and glorious promises. This means that it is necessary that we believe those promises will be fulfilled: this is faith.
This is not to say that good works are not inherently good! They point towards — and ultimately come from — God, as Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI have pointed out. One's conscience is God-given, formed by the natural Law, and in doing what we inherently perceive to be good we are allowing the Spirit to work in our lives.
But we are saved by faith. That is all that is necessary. Everything else comes from faith.


Why does Jesus refer to serpents positively in Matthew 10:16?

The Bible has many metaphors for many things. Some of them use the same item in two different contexts in two different ways. Immediately, I can think of Christ's use of the word "sign" and how he would and would not provide one (John has seven signs which demonstrate Christ as Lord, but the Synoptics say that signs will not be given). The asp was something deadly and was a sign of wickedness, but when it was raised on a staff, it became a instrument of healing.

I think that "serpent" here is probably just a snake.


According to Mormonism, what are angels?

The Bible Dictionary distributed with LDS editions of the Bible contains a fairly complete doctrinal explanation of the LDS view of angels.  A few key points:

Angels are of the same race of creation as humanity, distinct from mortal humans by being in a different phase of the eternal lifecycle:

  These are messengers of the Lord and are spoken of in the epistle to
  the Hebrews as “ministering spirits” (Heb. 1:14). We learn from
  latter-day revelation that there are two classes of heavenly beings
  who minister for the Lord: those who are spirits and those who have
  bodies of flesh and bone. Spirits are those beings who either have not
  yet obtained a body of flesh and bone (unembodied) or who have once
  had a mortal body and have died and are awaiting the Resurrection
  (disembodied). Ordinarily the word angel means those ministering
  persons who have a body of flesh and bone, being either resurrected
  from the dead (reembodied), or else translated, as were Enoch, Elijah,
  etc. (D&C 129).

Not all angels are on God's side:

  There are references to fallen angels in 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 1:6.

  The scriptures speak of the devil’s angels. These are those spirits
  who followed Lucifer and were thrust out in the war in heaven and cast
  down to the earth. See Rev. 12:1–9; D&C 29:36–38; Moses 4:1–4; Abr.
  3:27–28; and as alluded to by Peter and Jude cited above.

And contrary to the image posted above:

  Angels do not have wings (HC 3:392).


Does traditional Calvinistic monergism include limited synergism in the doctrine of justification?

I would argue there is no synergism whatsoever in justification. The natural man, the Bible points out, is not sick and needing a doctor. He is dead and needs resurrection. Dead people don't raise themselves. They need to be raised (passive voice very intentional here). Therefore, the Holy Spirit must raise people from the dead and give them a new heart. Otherwise, they will not desire God. God the Holy Spirit, that is, changes peoples' wills so that they want God. Before that, people hate God and do not want Him.

The traditional Reformed ordo salutis is, IIRC, the following:

Predestination, Effectual Calling, Regeneration, Conversion, Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, Glorification. Now the steps of Effectual Calling through Adoption happen nearly instantaneously, so I'm merely writing them out in this way as a logical progression more than as a time progression. Also, all steps up through and including Adoption are completely monergistic. Sanctification is synergistic: 100% God, and 100% man, although even the part that we do is utterly dependent on God's strength.


I think the anonymous contributor is referring to Luke 4.

16 [Jesus] went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
           because he has anointed me
           to proclaim good news to the poor.
      He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
           and recovery of sight for the blind,
      to set the oppressed free,
19       to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Luke 4:16-20 (NIV)

A Yovel, I assume is a Jubilee, and if this is the story that the contributor is referring to, then he is saying that Jesus was declaring a Jubilee (probably in verse 19), along with other significant theological points. However, saying confidently that this occurred in AD27 is quite tenuous. We don't know exactly when this story happened (if at all) because we don't know how old Jesus was at the time and we aren't even sure what year he was born (though most scholars agree on 4BC).
I found an article that discusses the theological significance, according to the Catholic perspective, on this verse and that it mentions Jubilee.
In light of this, the information in general is relevant, and somewhat interesting to the topic of that Wikipedia article, but it needs to be completely rewritten to include that this is not a universal understanding of these verses (I've never heard that Jesus was proclaiming a literal Jubilee) and especially that the year is unknown, but we could guess it within about a six year window (based on theories for Jesus' birth year and how old he was at this point).


Should the "angel of the abyss" be capitalized?

Your observation that the NIV capitalises the word “Abyss” is interesting, because none of the other Bible translations I have looked at say “Abyss”.  Instead, they refer to “the bottomless pit”.  Examples:

Revelation 9:11 NWT: They have over them a king, the angel of the abyss.  In Hebrew his name is Abaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon.

Revelation 9:11 KJV: And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Revelation 9:11 ESV: They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit.  His name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon.

Revelation 9:11 NLT: Their king is the angel from the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon –the Destroyer.  Notes: The king of the locusts is identified in three ways: (1) as the angel from the bottomless pit (probably different from the fallen star, in Revelation 9:1, who unlocked the abyss rather than coming from it); (2) as Abaddon (“destruction”), often paired with death (see Job 28:22; Psalm 88:11), and (3) as Apollyon – the destroyer (see 1 Corinthians 10:10). There is also a connection with the Roman emperor Domitian, whose patron god Apollo was symbolized by the locust.

The NIV capitalises the name “Abyss” in Luke 8:31 and in the 8 places where the name appears in Revelation.  In Romans 10:7 it uses the expression “the deep”.
The NWT uses the word “abyss” in Luke 8:31, Romans 10:7, Revelation 9:1, 11; 11:7; 17:8; and 20:3. The word is never capitalised.
The KJV uses the expression “the deep” in Luke 8:31 and in Romans 10:7.  Elsewhere, in Revelation, the KJV uses the expression “the bottomless pit”.
Given that the NIV appears to be the only translation that capitalises the word “abyss” perhaps we need to find out why the NIV says “Abyss” when other translations say “the bottomless pit.”
As has already been pointed out, a person’s name (such as Abaddon, Apollyon, Domitian, Apollo) demands capitalisation.  Places that are not proper nouns, such as “the bottomless pit” or “the deep” are written in lower-case.  It therefore seems reasonable to apply that rule to “the abyss”.
Likewise, to say “the angel” is correct.  If the Bible gives a name to an angel (for example, Michael or Gabriel) then it would still be correct to say “the angel Michael” or “the angel Gabriel” because there are millions of angels.  Angels are not unique.  But names are.
Why the NIV is the exception to that rule concerning "the abyss", I cannot say.


How do priests choose who is going to be the main celebrant at Mass?

This question has many facets in it and may be a little intermingled in it explication for some, but I will give it my best effort possible.

Let us start by stating who (which priests) can say Mass.

  Can.  905 §1. A priest is not permitted to celebrate the Eucharist more than once a day except in cases where the law permits him to celebrate or concelebrate more than once on the same day.

  §2. If there is a shortage of priests, the local ordinary can allow priests to celebrate twice a day for a just cause, or if pastoral necessity requires it, even three times on Sundays and holy days of obligation.

  Can.  906 Except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least some member of the faithful. - The Ministers of the Most Holy Eucharist

How do religious priests (Benedictines, Dominicans and so on) know who is going to be the Main Celebrant at Mass?

For priests of Religious Orders this question is quite simple.

Priests of Religious Orders take turns being the Main Celebrant at Mass. Each week a different priest has a turn at being the hebdomidarian. This liturgical function starts at Matins on Sunday morning and concludes at compline on Saturday evening. Priests will take turns as being the weekly hebdomidarian by order of rank and seniority. For example the prior will be the Main Celebrant one week and then followed by the sub-prior, who in turn would be followed by priests according to their date of solemn professions.
The Hebdomidarian will, in addition to being the Main celebrant at Mass, will also perform the liturgical duties laid down in the Collectarium. Benedictine abbots will be the Main Celebrants at High Masses like Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, Annunciation, Assumption and so on. They will also be the Main Celebrant at the funeral of one of their community. If the abbot is impeded for some reason, the prior will take his place.

  The Collectarium, a book for the use of the hebdomidarian, which contained the texts and the notes for the prayers, chapters, and blessings. - Wikipedia

As for the liturgical life in a particular diocese, the Bishop would normally be the Main Celebrant at a concelebrated Mass, but not always. When the local bishop is present at Mass, he is the Presider of the Mass. The bishop will not concelebrate Mass as a concelebrant in his own diocese unless there is one of greater rank present than himself, such as the pope.

  There are several occasions when the diocesan bishop could participate in Mass without concelebrating. For example, if a bishop attends a Mass celebrating a priest's jubilee anniversary, or a funeral for a priest's parent, he will often not concelebrate because the bishop would have the obligation to preside at the Mass.

  "The liturgical norm in force, which carries with it a theological principle rooted in the wisdom of the Fathers, confirms with all evidence the necessity that the Bishop preside at the celebration, whether he celebrates the Eucharist or not.

  "The Ceremonial of Bishops in n. 18 says 'In every community of the altar gathered together under the Bishop as its sacred minister, the symbol of that charity and unity of the mystical Body, without which there can be no salvation, is shown. It is most fitting, therefore, that when the Bishop is present at a particular liturgical action, where the people is gathered, that he, as the one signed with the fullness of the sacrament of Order, presides at the celebration. This is not done to increase the exterior solemnity of the rite but to signify in a more vivid light the mystery of the Church. It is fitting also that the Bishop should join presbyters with himself in the celebration. If, however, the Bishop presides at the Eucharist but does not celebrate it, he himself takes charge of the liturgy of the word and concludes the Mass with the rite of dismissal.' - When a Bishop Doesn't Concelebrate at a Mass

In parishes the Main Celebrant of the Eucharist is generally the parish priest as he is the highest ranking priest in charge of the salvation of all the souls in the parish. This privilege may be deferred to a different priest for a number of reasons, such as marriages, funerals, silver anniversaries of priesthood and so on.


According to Roman Catholicism, is it a sin to vote for pro-choice politicians?

Yes, if the candidate was voted for because they were pro-abortion

Pope Benedict XVI (formerly Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) succinctly summed up the Catholic Church's teachings in the memorandum "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles":

  A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion [due to being in a state of mortal sin], if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

In other words:

Voting for a pro-abortion candidate because they are pro-abortion is a mortal sin
Voting for a pro-abortion candidate despite you not supporting that stance is remote material cooperation*, but may be permitted (i.e. not sinful or a venial sin) if you have proportionally strong reasons for doing so

* "Remote mediate material cooperation is cooperation by supplying the occasion or material for the commission of a morally wrong action, but is further removed from the immoral act itself. In the nursing home example above, the person who sells drugs to the nursing home would know the kind and quantity of drugs sold. She has no intention of providing the means for the nursing home to endanger patients by drugging them into a stupor to reduce staff requirements. She sells drugs to legitimate customers and provides any informational assistance necessary about the drugs. Her intention may be to earn a living in a field that can heal or reduce the suffering of others. Remoteness can vary by degrees, with one cooperative action being more remote than another." (Source)

So are Catholics obligated to vote for a pro-life candidate, regardless of their other positions?

Based on the above, a Catholic is not obligated to vote for a pro-life candidate if they have good reason not to, although that good reason should be weighed in proportion to abortion. So being pro-life does not automatically give the politician a free pass over any other moral failings or guarantee a Catholic vote.

To use an extreme example, say that a politician were against all forms of abortion, but planned to commit genocide against every minority ethnic group in their country. In that case, a Catholic would not be obligated to vote for them simply because they are pro-life, and would be permitted to vote for a pro-abortion candidate who does not advocate for such atrocities.  On the other end of the spectrum, if getting a tax break is your sole reason for voting for a pro-abortion candidate, it's unlikely to be considered a proportionate reason when compared to the killing of an unborn child, and the Church may consider that sinful.

What about voting or campaigning for a pro-abortion ballot initiative?

Voting specifically for a pro-abortion law on a ballot would be sinful, as would campaigning for such a position. From the same memorandum, which cites the encyclical Evangelium vitae:

  In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it' [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it


Why do some Bible Translations omit John 7:53-8:11?

The simple answer is that there are some older manuscripts that lack the reading.  If credence is placed in the older manuscript, then the reading is left out.  The assumption is that the older manuscripts are closer to the source documents.

By the way, many view the New World Translation with suspicion. It is a product of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses.) From what I've heard, there isn't much known about how they created the translation.


Do Lutherans have a rebuttal for the Jesus > Religion argument

I don't really label myself to a certain sect, though I do go to a baptist church, and this is my rebuttal:

We're supposed to worship collectively and hear teachings from God's appointed leaders. Jesus wants us to break bread, together, in remembrance of Him (not just in practice, but in worship also). We are the body of Christ, brothers and sisters in Jesus, and being a member of the body, we need to incorporate ourselves with other members and become part of the family; not cut ourselves off. When one part of the body isn't getting it right, you can't blame the entire body. But it is our job to set them straight. We need to be there for each other to build each other up in love, faith, motive, knowledge/wisdom/understanding of God's Word, etc., and this is done within the church. People use the word "religion" to define such things..

When the guy in that video talks about religion, he seems to be referring to people who practice over worship, and have motives of self interest, and that is what he should say. He shouldn't refer to it as "religion". There is much Christian religion out there that are 100% in it for Christ, and this guy doesn't acknowledge that and makes religion as a whole look foolish.

Here is a cool rebuttal video from a Lutheran guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbsadOQK_6A


What significance do the church fathers attribute to Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross of Christ?

From Thomas Aquinas Catena Aurea, an extract of Origen's comments (There are a number of sites hosting English Translations of the Catena Aurea on the internet.  Here is one such):

  Origen: Or, as they went out, they laid hold of Simon, but when they drew near
  to the place in which they would crucify Him, they laid the cross upon
  Him that He might bear it. Simon obtained not this office by chance,
  but was brought to the spot by God's providence, that he might be
  found worthy of mention in the Scriptures of the Gospel, and of the
  ministry of the cross of Christ. And it was not only meet that the
  Saviour should carry His cross, but meet also that we should take part
  therein, filling a carriage so beneficial to us. Yet would it not have
  so profited us to take it on us, as we have profited by His taking it
  upon Himself.

Also in the Catena Aurea, commentary from Venerable Bede (who translated a significant amount of the Church Fathers' writings in his day):

  Bede: Or, since this Simon is not called a man a Jerusalem, but a
  Cyrenian, (for Cyrene is a city in Libya,) fitly is he taken to mean
  the nations of the Gentiles, which were once foreigners and strangers
  to the covenants, but now by obedience are heirs of God, and joint
  heirs with Christ. Whence also Simon is fitly interpreted ‘obedient’,
  and Cyrene ‘an heir’. But he is said to come from a country place, for
  a country place is called ‘pagos’ in Greek, wherefore those whom we
  see to be aliens from the city of God, we call pagans. Simon then
  coming out from the country carries the cross after Jesus, when the
  Gentile nations leaving pagan rights embrace obediently the footsteps
  of our Lord’s Passion.

While not exhaustive, this is a sampling of some of the Church Fathers' comments on Simon of Cyrene.  These point to Simon's symbolic position as an example to believers to "pick up your cross and follow me."


How is Moses' and Jesus' contradictory teaching regarding oaths reconciled?

Various creeds and confessions can be utilized in answering a question like this one. A general view has been that Jesus is denouncing or correcting actions that were abusing oaths and the inherent trust meant to be attached to them.

We should also take note of James's teaching in James 5:12 (ESV):

  But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

From the WCF 22 (American Revision):

  A lawful oath is part of religious worship, (Deut. 10:20) wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God
  to witness what he asserteth, or promiseth, and to judge him according
  to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth. (Exod. 20:7, Lev.
  19:12, 2 Cor. 1:23, 2 Chron. 6:22–23)
  The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence. (Deut.
  6:13) Therefore, to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glorious and
  dreadful Name; or, to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and
  to be abhorred. (Exod. 20:7, Jer. 5:7, Matt. 5:34, 37, James 5:12)
  Yet, as in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the
  Word of God, under the new testament as well as under the old; (Heb.
  6:16, 2 Cor. 1:23, Isa. 65:16) so a lawful oath, being imposed by
  lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken. (1 Kings 8:31,
  Neh. 13:25, Ezra 10:5)
  Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but
  what he is fully persuaded is the truth: (Exod. 20:7, Jer. 4:2)
  neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good
  and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and
  resolved to perform. (Gen. 24:2–3, 5–6, 8–9)
  An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation. (Jer. 4:2, Ps.
  24:4) It cannot oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being
  taken, it binds to performance, although to a man’s own hurt. (1 Sam.
  25:22, 32–34, Ps. 15:4) Nor is it to be violated, although made to
  heretics, or infidels. (Ezek. 17:16, 18–19, Josh. 9:18–19, 2 Sam.
  21:1)
  A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed
  with the like faithfulness. (Isa. 19:21, Eccl. 5:4–6, Ps. 61:8, Ps.
  66:13–14)
  It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: (Ps. 76:11, Jer. 44:25–26) and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made
  voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty, in way of
  thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want,
  whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties: or, to
  other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.
  (Deut. 23:21–23, Ps. 50:14, Gen. 28:20–22, 1 Sam. 1:11, Ps. 66:13–14,
  Ps. 132:2–5)
  No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in
  his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of
  ability from God. (Acts 23:12, 14, Mark 6:26, Numb. 30:5, 8, 12–13) In
  which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life,
  professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being
  degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful
  snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself. (Matt. 19:11–12, 1
  Cor. 7:2, 9, Eph. 4:28, 1 Pet. 4:2, 1 Cor. 7:23)

  The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research
  Systems, Inc., 1996).

From the Heidelberg Catechism:

  QUESTION 99.  What is required in the third commandment?

  ANSWER.
  That we must not by cursing, or by false swearing, nor yet by
  unnecessary oaths, profane or abuse the name of God; nor even by our
  silence and connivance be partakers of these horrible sins in others;
  and in sum, that we use the holy name of God no otherwise than with
  fear and reverence, so that he may be rightly confessed and worshiped
  by us, and be glorified in all our words and works.

  Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds, with Translations, vol. 3 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1882), 343–344.

From the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church

  XXXIX  Of a Christian Man’s Oath

  As we confess that vain and rash Swearing is forbidden
  Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his Apostle, so we
  judge, that Christian Religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may
  swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity,
  so it be done according to the Prophets’ teaching, in justice,
  judgment, and truth.

  Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical
  Notes: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds, with Translations, vol. 3
  (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1882), 513–514.

Another helpful teaching can be found in J. I. Packer's Concise Theology:

(Note that he begins by citing Neh 5:12–13.)

  Truth in relationships, especially between Christians, is divinely commanded (Eph. 4:25; Col. 3:9), and truth-telling is specified as integral to authentic godliness (Ps. 15:1–3)…

  Oaths are solemn declarations that invoke God as a witness of one's statements and promises, inviting him to punish should one be lying. Scripture approves oath-taking as appropriate on solemn occasions (Gen. 24:1–9; Ezra 10:5; Neh. 5:12; cf. 2 Cor. 1:23; Heb. 6:13–17), though at the time of the Reformation the Anabaptists declined the practice as part of their rejection of involvement in the life of the secular world. They appeals to Jesus' condemnations of oaths devised and designed to deceive as if it were a rejection of oath-taking as such rather than a call for honest speech and a warning against the temptation to use words that give false impression, with manipulation and exploitation as one's real purpose (Matt. 5:33–37; cf. James 5:12).

  Vows to God are the devotional equivalent of oaths and must be treated with equal seriousness (Deut. 21:23; Eccles. 5:4–6). What one swears or vows to do must at all costs be done (Ps. 15:4; cf. Josh. 9:15–18). God requires us to take seriously not only his words but out own as well. However, "no many may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded" (Westminster Confession XXII.7).

  J. I. Packer, Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs. (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 1993), 190–192.


What word describes the heresy of "Jesus is the Son of Himself"?

I think this could be considered a type of modalism: the belief that there is only one person of God, who appears in different times or contexts as the father, son, and holy spirit, but does not by nature have true relations between these. In modalism, "father" and "son" are only labels for human benefit, not true descriptions of how God is, and so you could get the nonsensical conclusion that Jesus is his own son.


What are the most striking disagreements (if any) between the early Church Fathers of the second century?

One of the most striking disagreements in the early church and even today was on the question of the virginity of Mary at Christ's birth and thereafter.

In the early church and even still today, we all agree that a virgin conceived and carried to term Christ.  The disagreement was on what happened next at His birth.  This disagreement subsequently also factored into the question of the relationship of the brothers of Jesus; were they also born from Mary or from elsewhere?  We won't go into that issue, but will focus on the birth of Christ.  There are two diametrically opposed views.

Which Gate and How?

To understand the conflict in the very early church, we will start with John of Damacus who wrote something remarkable around 725.

  But just as He who was conceived kept her who conceived still virgin, in like manner also He who was born preserved her virginity intact, only passing through her and keeping her closed. The conception, indeed, was through the sense of hearing, but the birth through the usual path by which children come, although some tell tales of His birth through the side of the Mother of God. For it was not impossible for Him to have come by this gate, without injuring her seal in anyway.
  -source-

John tells us of the belief in a "normal" birth through the "south gate".  Apparently he believes that, but has no way to explain it.  He also references the belief Christ was born out the "east gate"; that is, from Mary's side.  He even gives credence to this belief as "not impossible".  [added editions are in brackets] [OTOH, John may be referencing again the "south gate"; that it wasn't impossible to remain intact (somehow).]  So to where does this idea arise [of a "normal" birth but with gate(s) regardless of south or east remaining intact]?

The idea sources to the infancy gospel of James wherein it is said that Mary remained a virgin even in the act of giving birth.  This means one of two things.  Neither are good.  One she retained all of the afterbirth (placenta, blood, umbilical cord, etc).  Two she was never really pregnant with Christ.  This group was lead by Origen, Valentinus, and others.

As mentioned, this idea stays alive all the way to John of Damascus still commenting on the idea that Christ was born from Mary's side (east gate).  Moreover we find the idea in the Trullo Council 692 in Constantinople defining no afterbirth at Christ's birth in Canon LXXIX.

  As the Catholic Church has always taught the Virgin-birth as well as the Virgin-conception of our Blessed Lord, and has affirmed that Mary was ever-virgin, even after she had brought forth the incarnate Son, so it follows necessarily that there could be no childbed nor puerperal flux.
  -source-

No childbed or birth flux, which means no afterbirth, umbilical cord, blood, placenta or all the normal things from a normal human birth.  That was what was denied according to this view.

Here again is the source of this idea.

  And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to thee: a virgin has brought forth -- a thing which her nature admits not of.

Why?  Her nature of being pregnant would be to bring forth a newborn, but also the rest of what it means to be pregnant.

Valentinus put it this way.

  “he has brought his body down from above and passed through the Virgin Mary like water through a pipe.  He has taken nothing from the virgin womb…”
  Panarion of Epiphanius H7

Marcion, quoted from Tertullian, put it this way, denying the afterbirth, the normal birth in the normal human way.

  Of course you [Marcion] are horrified also at the infant, which is shed into life with the embarrassments which accompany it from the womb;6991 you likewise, of course, loathe it even after it is washed, when it is dressed out in its swaddling-clothes, graced with repeated anointing, smiled on with nurse’s fawns. This reverend course of nature, you, O Marcion, (are pleased to) spit upon; and yet, in what way were you born? You detest a human being at his birth; then after what fashion do you love anybody? Yourself, of course, you had no love of, when you departed from the Church and the faith of Christ.
  -source-

Ouch.  Tertullian draws a line in the sand here between believing as the Church does in a normal human birth versus the "not normal".  Unfortunately again, this idea nonetheless remained within and found its way some 550 years later in the aforementioned Council Canon.

Normal Birth in the Normal Way

On the other hand you have those in the church who agreed that Christ was born normally in the normal way.  This meant exactly what it means (virginity, defined as intactness, was ended).   This group was lead by Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and others.

I've already shown Tertullian commenting on the false idea of ever-virgin due to the idea of Mary retaining the after-birth or not even having any.  Here is Clement of Alexandria who wrote about 200 also coming against that idea.  He also mentions the source (Infancy Gospel of James).

  "But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin."
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vii.xvi.html

That is to say they taught that Mary because of Jesus' birth remained in the childbirth state, remained a virgin after she brought forth, but Clement disagrees with them.

The context of Clement's quote is found in the first sentence and provides more clarity.

  But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.
  -ibid-

Again his conclusion is not that Mary remained in the birth state as a perpetual virgin, but rather that scripture remained virginal.

  Now [in contrast to the heretics] such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth.
  -ibid-

Cyril of Jerusalem wrote about 350 and lays out the same argument that the only way Christ took flesh was to be born normally of the virgin.  Note his insistence against the heretics on when that ended because Christ was both Son of God and Son of Man.

  Since God then beareth witness, and the Holy Ghost joins in the witness, and Christ says, Why do ye seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth let the heretics be silenced who speak against His humanity, for they speak against Him, who saith, Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.  Adored be the Lord the Virgin-born, and let Virgins acknowledge the crown of their own state:  let the order also of Solitaries acknowledge the glory of chastity for we men are not deprived of the dignity of chastity.  In the Virgin’s womb the Saviour’s period of nine months was passed:  but the Lord was for thirty and three years a man:  so that if a virgin glories because of the nine months, much more we because of the many years.
  -source-

Let me men glory because of Christ's virginity.  Let the women glory for the Virgin Mary's 9 months.  9 months, not her whole life because to do so was to support the heretical idea that Christ took nothing from the Virgin and merely passed through her.

Conclusion

It may seem strange to our ears to hear this conflict in the words of those from some 2,000 years ago as they argued about the nature of Christ.  After all, most Christians would agree He is Son of God and Son of Man; they just aren't sure how.  Still that was the context of the argument about the nature of His birth and thus His nature.  Did He just pass through Mary or was He born normally?  Was there just an appearing or was the birth human complete with umbilical cord, blood, and placenta?

On the one side were those like Valentinus, Marcion, and Origen who believed and taught that Jesus took nothing from Mary and merely passed through her.  They taught there was no normal birth, but rather that Christ just apppeared at her side.  She remained in the childbirth state as a virgin.

On the other side were men like Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyril of Alexandria who taught that Christ was born normally.  Let the virgins glory in Mary's nine months.


If the Holy Trinity is defined as three distinct faces, people or persons of God, does this not directly contradict the first commandment?

If God is un-created and infinitely and eternally perfect then it is reasonable that He possesses uncreated, infinite, eternal integrity.  If this is so then there can be no ontological difference between who He is, what He says, and what He does.  He has revealed Himself to us in this fashion in Scripture.

God the Father is who He is

  Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
  yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. - 1 Corinthians 8:4-6

God the Son is what He says

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
  - John 1:1

  And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. - John 1:14

God the Spirit is what He does

  Then he said to me, “This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts. - Zechariah 4:6

Being, saying, and doing are distinct and separate for us created, finite, temporal creatures.  These three are distinct in God but not separate because he is infinite and eternal.  One God...3 distinct yet inseparable expressions.

I hope this helps.


How did the wise men (Magi) know the country where the new king was born?

I think what you're looking for is detailed in Matthew 2:1-12:

  After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, ‘Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.’

  When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. ‘In Bethlehem in Judea,’ they replied, ‘for this is what the prophet has written:

  ‘“But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
      are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
  for out of you will come a ruler
      who will shepherd my people Israel.”’

  Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, ‘Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.’

  After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshipped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.

So, they headed first West (because of the sign of the star), then to the capital of the country they found themselves (Jerusalem), then zoomed in further by heading for Bethlehem (on the advice of Herod's staff) and finally to the exact house, because the star was above it.

(Perhaps they should simply have followed the star all the way, instead of detouring via Jerusalem?)


How have commentators historically viewed the death of the fetus in Exodus 21?

Many commentators throughout church history have addressed this issue, though not all of them have done so while specifically citing or quoting the passage in question.  Thus, for example, we can't necessarily agree with modern editors when they tell us that the Didache (1st/2nd century) and the Apostolic Constitutions (4th century) were referring to Exodus 21:23:

thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten (Didache)
Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten (Apostolic Constitutions, 7-1)

The same thing is true of Tertullian's famous opposition to abortion.1 That being said, we do have several examples of both church fathers and later commentators dealing with the passage directly.
Augustine, Theodoret, and Aquinas
Augustine (d. 430) and Theodoret (d. ~460) both directly address this passage in series of answers to questions about Exodus.  Augustine's full answer is not available online in English,2 but his position has been summarized as follows:

Based on the Septuagint text, Augustine feels constrained to accept the view that abortion before formation is not homicide. [...] Early abortion is not counted as homicide because, while the soul may be present, it is in an insensible state.3

The reference to the Septuagint here is necessary because Augustine was using a version of the Bible that did not accurately reflect the meaning of the original Hebrew text.  The Septuagint, translated into English, reads:

And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life4 [emphasis added]

Given this translation, it's not surprising that Augustine and Theodoret interpreted the passage the way they did.  Theodoret provides more insight, particularly with respect to the case of the "unformed" fetus:

It is the general opinion that life is communicated to the fetus when its body is fully formed in the womb. [...] If the infant comes out with human features—that is, fully formed—the case is to be considered murder, and the guilty party must pay with his own life.  But if it comes out before it is fully formed, the case is not to be considered murder, since the miscarriage occurred before the animation of the child.  Nonetheless, the party responsible is to make recompense.5

From this understanding, perhaps aided by Aristotelian philosophy, developed the doctrine of ensoulment, that is, that fetuses do not gain souls upon conception.  For example, though Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) condemned abortion, he does not interpret this passage to mean that early ("pre-formation" and therefore "pre-soul") abortion is murder:

He that strikes a woman with child does something unlawful: wherefore if there results the death either of the woman or of the animated fetus, he will not be excused from homicide, especially seeing that death is the natural result of such a blow.6 [emphasis added]

Nonetheless, these authors agreed that at least for some fetuses, this passage teaches that abortion is murder.  At least partially due to a faulty translation, these authors held that early abortions were not murder, and some made it explicit that they were instead finable offenses.
Reformation era
In the Reformation era and subsequent centuries, a similar understanding continued, but some Christians began treating this passage as referring to fetuses without qualifying their age.  John Calvin (d. 1564) calls it a "great absurdity" to consider only the death of the mother a capital crime:

It ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a foetus in the womb before it has come to light. On these grounds I am led to conclude, without hesitation, that the words, “if death should follow,” must be applied to the foetus as well as to the mother.7

The Geneva Study Bible (1599) adopts a similar understanding.8 John Trapp (d. 1669) understands "no mischief" to mean that "no life be lost" but says:

There is a time, then, when the embryo is not alive; therefore the soul is not begotten, but infused after a time by God.9

Matthew Poole (d. 1679) applies the passage to both mother and child, but leaves the status of early fetuses as ambiguous:

"No mischief follow," neither to the woman nor child; for it is generally so as to reach both, in case the abortive had life in it.10

Summary
Unfortunately, not many pre-1800 commentators deal with this text explicitly and take a position, and even fewer do so in works that we have in English.11  However, those that do agree that this Exodus 21 teaches, at least for "formed" fetuses, that causing the death of an unborn child is a capital offense.

References:

Apology, Chapter IX.
St. Augustine Questions on Exodus (French).  See question 80 in particular, a portion of which is available in the work cited immediately below.
Soul of the Embryo, p119
Brenton's Septuagint
The Questions on the Octateuch, 48
Summa Theologica, Second Part of Second Part, Question 64, Article 8, Reply to Objection 2
Harmony of the Law, v3, Sixth Commandment
Geneva Study Bible, Ex. 21:22
Complete Commentary
English Annotations on the Holy Bible
For example, Adam Clarke, though born around 1760, published his work in 1832, so he is too late.  John Gill is pre-1800, but merely marks the debate and does not take a position.  Calmet's works are only available in French and Latin.


Is secularizing Christian symbols blasphemy?

2Pe 2:1  But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

  Strong's Greek heresies

  G139

  αἵρεσις

  hairesis

  hah'ee-res-is

  From G138; properly a choice, that is, (specifically) a party or (abstractly) disunion. (“heresy” is the Greek word itself.): - heresy [which is the Greekord itself], sect.

  Tit 3:10  A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
  Tit 3:11  Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

  Strong's Greek heretic

  G139

  αἵρεσις

  hairesis

  hah'ee-res-is

  From G138; properly a choice, that is, (specifically) a party or (abstractly) disunion.
  (“heresy” is the Greek word itself.): - heresy [which is the Greekord itself], sect.

Magical creatures would not be a heresy with any relation to the Christian faith as described in the Bible by a Bible Literalist. The creatures and beings never held any union with Christianity to disunion. A heretic according to the greek and bible context is someone who split off into a separate group and refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of other groups or receive correction by people they should be associated with. Heresy eventually leads to denying the Lord Jesus Christ Himself but not all things which deny Christ are heresy.

  Mat 13:44  Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

  2Co 6:15  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
  2Co 6:16  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
  2Co 6:17  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

  Luk 11:20  But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.

Jesus very frequently used parables to tell stories however you notice that in every parable the power of God is absent. He does not make stories up about God using his power in any other way than through His ministry and the ministry of the prophets. Always his stories are relating some common principle and doctrine of the word. Jesus never describes God's power as a magic trick nor does he relate the majesty of His excellency in any other way than reverence. He never compares the devil and the Father in some kind of tug of war. He describes the power from God which is used to cast out devils as finger power, not hand and definitely not arm as if God is barely do anything. All other stories pale in comparison to those thought of by the Master however we can judge them by some of the characteristics which the master left for us.

  1Ti 1:4  Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

  2Ti 4:4  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

  1Ti 4:7  But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.

  Tit 1:14  Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

  2Pe 1:16  For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

  G3454

  μῦθος

  muthos

  moo'-thos

  Perhaps from the same as G3453 (through the idea of tuition); a tale, that is, fiction (“myth”): - fable.

Fable is a bad Bible word but despite the fact that the word fable can cover all fiction doesn't mean that it's Bible usage includes every possible work of fiction because as I just pointed out much of Jesus's ministry was fictions which told moral stories. 1Ti 1:4 the word heed could also be translated pay attention to or be cautious about with the central idea of regard and respect. Again 4:4 of the same book shows that people have gone further into idolatry and have stopped respecting the truth in favor of their work of fiction. Verse 7 points out the error of receiving heathenish or wicked old wives tales.

  Deu 12:2  Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree:
  Deu 12:3  And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

Children need to be taught to respect the word and to disrespect all other things which are not the word. The primary way you do this is by spending time with them in the word and prayer. Taking them to church where they have a fun time while learning God's word. Children have difficulty telling the difference between reality and fantasy and they need to be taught that certain commonly believed things are in fact imaginary. The Bible might call this destroying the altar or hewing down the graven image.

  1Co 13:11  When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

  Jas 4:17  Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

If you taught your children: This is just imaginary there is real supernatural power but it is not anything like this. There is no santa claus ect ect. We devote our life to believing in Jesus but Jesus does not need us to believe in Him. Abraham probably worshiped the moon before he met God like Abraham we don't worship the moon. Its just a rock. God does not tug of war with the devil its easy for Him. I'm certain you can show your children the movie and it would not be blaspheme. However if you have a doubt "this might be sin", "they might turn from Christ as a result of seeing it" or the like you should refrain. You can find an in detail synopsis of the movie at the movie spoiler here.