What is the origin of the Devil's red pointy costume and pitchfork?

These attributes are a bizarre combination of images, some inherited from classical mythology, that don't particularly belong together (though there is a reason behind all of them, and even a smidgen of Scriptural support). Our modern image is a blend between:

Satyrs, the lust-filled tempters (goat legs, horns, beard)
Pluto, ruler of the Underworld (pitchfork)
Fairly generic colour imagery (red and black)
The mediaeval bestiary (bat wings)

In more detail:

Cloven hooves, horns, tail, shaggy legs and pointed beard - These are the attributes of fauns or satyrs. Compare - though perhaps not if at work, due to goat penis - this image from Wikipedia, a plate from c.520-500 BC. Satyrs are generally associated with lust, barbarity, and bad behaviour, more or less because goats are randy, willful, and eat all your food.. Thomas Boys (1792-1880), writing in Notes and queries, 5 November 1859, suggests the link is with the Hebrew se'irim (hairy wild beasts, probably the object of pagan worship) in Isaiah 13:21, 34:14, etc. In the Septuagint these are daimonia (demons!) and English translations like the KJV often use "satyrs". There may also be some sheep-and-goats connection going on.
Pitchfork - This comes from Pluto/Hades, the Greek god of the underworld. While his usual attribute is a sceptre, indicating his sovereignty, this was sometimes depicted as a bident or two-pronged pitchfork (for reasons that we're not really sure about). His brothers Poseidon and Zeus also used forked weapons - in some sense they mirror one another, as rulers of their respective realms. In the post-classical era, the bident became part of the standard representation. Satan got the same tool because he was put in the same role as Pluto.
For the colour, the devil is not invariably red in mediaeval imagery - in Chaucer, he's green! - and the most common colour is black. Grimm (Deutsche Mythologie) attributes this to the association of the devil with darkness in general, as God is associated with light (most famously in John 1). The night also suggests hiding and secrecy. This has classical precedent - Pluto again - but the notion is pretty generic. Meanwhile, red means blood, violence, and passion. Red-haired people were unfortunately often considered "evil" because of this connection, and Judas was usually shown with red hair. It is also the colour of fire and the New Testament considers hell to be fiery. There's the red dragon in Revelation 12:3 just to cement it further.
Bat wings, at least, are not classical. In the Middle Ages, the devil was depicted with a wide variety of monstrous attributes, indicating that he was unnatural and cursed. Bat wings are one example, and of course bats are pretty inherently spooky, since they are scary-looking creatures of the night. Jeffrey Burton Russell (Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages, Cornell University Press, 1984) says that these wings first appear in the twelfth century, as a corrupted version of (feathered) angel wings.
Russell's general chronology has the 'monstrous' devil image appearing first, thanks to the third-century Desert Fathers. After a fad for 'humanoid' devils (ie, Satan disguising himself as a normal-looking human) from the sixth to eleven centuries, these dominated for the rest of the Middle Ages. They have not wholly disappeared, as a glance at the nearest death metal album cover will confirm, though the wings are the only monstrous feature to be really ubiquitous now.

This particular combination has become more and more "standard". Of course, it is helpful for the viewer to have some standardization, so that we can instantly recognize who in the painting is meant to be Satan. But even this collection of attributes allows for some diversity in interpretation: one can draw a caricatured or cartoon Satan, or an imp, or a Miltonic anti-hero.


Other than non-Trinitarian, what terms are there for Christians who don't believe in the trinity?

The most useful term is one of those you already mentioned: non-trinitarian.

The technically correct—but practically speaking useless—term is unnitarian. As you already found out, the latter quickly becomes confusing due to its overlap with a specific denomination that has other theological (in)distinctives. There is one more related term, Arianism, which is particularly useful in tracing references to various groups that have denied the divinity of Jesus. You will usually find this term used in the context of identifying sects that differ from orthodox doctrine in not acknowledging the divinity of Christ.

Even armed with the 'right' terms, I am afraid your search may prove harder than you expect. I will take the liberty of suggesting a few reasons why this hunt will be difficult:

What you describe as your target does not exist.

To my knowledge there is no group that matches the criteria you set out. The long tail of non-trinitarian sects only gets farther off center from the ones you identify as "radically divergent".
Even theoretically speaking, it could not tenably exist.

If you are going to build a faith around a non-trinitarian version of God you are going to have to do something with the Bible. Either you discard it entirely or you give it a makeover. In order to write Christ's divinity out of the NT, you will have to take such liberties in interpretation that you will no longer have any reason to believe much of the rest of it. The foundation will be so moved that any cohesive structure you build on top of it will by necessity bear little resemblance to Christianity.

This latter route has of course been tried. It is a well traveled road. Most of those who have traveled it historically take the form of 'reconstructionist' sects—Jehovah's Witnesseses and Mormons being the best known examples. The former believe Jesus to be more angelic than divine (or human) and redefine the role of 'Messiah'. The latter completely redefine the nature of divinity such that humans can become god(s).

Alternatively there are some less well known 'renewal' sects that take a slightly different tact*. The one that comes to mind as non-trinitarian is Oneness Pentecostalism.

Finally, whatever you look for, remember in the end you are not looking for what suits you but for what is true no matter how much it might not suit you.

* For info on how this is different see What is the difference between the Jehovah Witnesses and Pentecostal Churches?, but note that in general Pentecostalism is Trinatarian so that question is only useful for understanding the relation of reconstuctionist vs. renewal sects. Oneness Pentacostal is a subset with several extra distinctives including excluding trinatarianism.


How does the Catholic church prioritize different sources of information in coming to doctrinal/theological conclusions, and how do they justify that?

The Church's Theological Notes or Qualifications

Listed below are the so-called theological notes and their associated censures from the table in Sixtus Cartechini, S.J.'s 1951 work De Valore Notarum Theologicarum (On the Value of the Theological Notes), which confessors have used when dealing with erudite penitents; it's also available in Italian translation. The theological notes are a way of classifying the proximity of a theological proposition to Divine Revelation. For a good history of the development of these notes, see The development of the theological censures after the Council of Trent: (1563-1709) by John Cahill, O.P.

Theological note: Dogma.
Equivalent terms: Dogma of faith; de fide, de fide Catholica; de fide divina et Catholica.
Explanation: A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God.
Examples: The Immaculate Conception; all the contents of the Athanasian Creed.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy
Effects of denial: Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited.
Remarks: A dogma can be proposed either by a solemn definition of pope or council, or by the Ordinary Magisterium, as in the case of the Athanasian Creed, to which the church has manifested her solemn commitment by its long-standing liturgical and practical use and commendation.
Theological Note: Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith
Equivalent term: De fide ecclesiastica definita
Explanation: A truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium.
Example: The lawfulness of communion under one kind.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy against ecclesiastical faith.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, and, if publicly professed, automatic excommunication and forfeiture of membership of Church.
Remarks: It is a dogma that the Church's infallibility extends to truths in this sphere, so one who denies them denies implicitly a dogma or Divine faith.
Theological Note: Truth of Divine faith.
Equivalent term: De fide divina.
Explanation: A truth revealed by God but not certainly proposed as such by the Church.
Example: Christ claimed from the beginning of His public life to be the Messias.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Error (in faith).
Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, but no loss of Church membership. May incur a canonical penalty.
Theological Note: Proximate to faith.
Explanation: A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God.
Example: Christ possessed the Beatific Vision throughout his life on earth.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Proximate to error.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.
Theological Note: Theologically certain.
Equivalent term: Dogmatic fact; theological conclusion.
Explanation: A truth logically following from one proposition which is Divinely revealed and another which is historically certain.
Example: Legitimacy of Pope Pius XI.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Error (in theology).
Effects of denial: Mortal sin against faith.
Theological Note: Catholic doctrine.
Equivalent term: Catholic teaching.
Explanation: A truth authentically taught by the Ordinary Magisterium but not as revealed or intimately connected with revelation.
Example: Invalidity of Anglican Orders; validity of Baptism conferred by heretic or Jews.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Temerarious.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.
Remarks: The expression Catholic doctrine is sometimes applied to truths of a higher order also, but never of a lower one. In some cases the appropriate censure may be graver than "temerarious".
Theological Note: Certain.
Equivalent term: Common; theologically certain.
Explanation: A truth unanimously held by all schools of theologians which is derived from revealed truth, but by more than one step of reasoning.
Example: The true and strict causality of the sacraments.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Temerarious.
Effects of denial: Usually, mortal sin of temerity.
Remarks: Proportionately grave reason can sometimes justify an individual who has carefully studied the evidence in dissenting from such a proposition; since it is not completely impossible for all the theological schools to err on such a matter, although it would be highly unusual and contrary to an extremely weighty presumption.
Theological Note: Safe.
Explanation: Affirmed in doctrinal decrees of Roman Congregations.
Example: That Christ will not reign visibly on earth for a thousand years after Antichrist.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Unsafe/temerarious.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin of disobedience and perhaps imprudence.
Remarks: Exterior assent is absolutely required and interior assent is normally required, since, though not infallible, the Congregations possess true doctrinal authority and the protective guidance of the Holy Ghost.
Theological Note: Very common/commoner.
Explanation: The most solidly founded or best attested theological opinion on a disputed subject.
Example: Antichrist will be of the tribe of Dan.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: None.
Effects of denial: None.
Remarks: Very common or commoner opinions can be mistaken and there is no obligation to follow them though prudence inclines us to favour them as a general policy. It should be noted that an opinion which is "very common" is less well established than one which is "common" which implies moral unanimity of theological schools.
Theological Note: Probable.
Explanation: A theological opinion which is well founded either on the grounds of its intrinsic coherence or the extrinsic weight of authority favouring it.
Example: Judas received Holy Communion at the Last Supper. Judas did not receive Holy Communion at the Last Supper.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: None.
Effects of denial: None.
Remarks: The better founded of two conflicting opinions is referred to as more probable; but Catholics are free to prefer some other opinion for any good reason.

Compared with the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral"

Thus, to answer the question:

It seems it could (very loosely) be ordered this way, in terms of weight:

Tradition,
Scripture,Scripture would come after Tradition because a truth of divine faith (de fide divina) is ranked #3—after a Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith (de fide ecclesiastica), #2, or a defined dogma (dogma de fide), #1; all truths in Holy Scripture that have not been explicitly been defined as dogmas are truths of divine faith (de fide divina).However, it's not quite correct to place Scripture as less weight than Tradition because Scripture is a part of Tradition.
human reason.This ranks after Tradition and Scripture because reason is subject to faith, pace the rationalists. See: the First Vatican Council's section in Dei Filius on Faith & Reason.The rest of the theological notes could loosely be considered in the category of "reason," but this is not quite correct because theological conclusions (note #5) can include one premise from natural reason and another from Revelation. Here's an example, where the major premise comes from Revelation and the minor premise from human reason:Also, human reason would come after Tradition or Scripture because sacred doctrine (sacra doctrina) is the supreme science, being the noblest and most certain.Ranking human reason #3 is also problematic because certain truths (the præambula fidei or "preambles of faith") are required first before Tradition, Holy Scripture, and dogma can even be understood in the first place; so, in this sense, certain perennial truths of human reason (which the philosophers have discovered, e.g., that truth exists, humans can attain truth, humans have immortal souls, etc.) would rank first. These truths are listed in De Valore Notarum Theologicarum ch. 6 on theologically certain propositions.

If "experience" means "private revelation," it would not appear here. Private revelations do not of themselves have Magisterial authority, although the Magisterium can declare them as free of error. If "experience" does not mean "private revelation" but something along the lines of "that which helps us reason," it would be ranked #3 alongside human reason.

From what has been said above, it appears that the Catholic understanding cannot neatly fit into a "Wesleyan Quadrilateral."

The loci theologici

The loci theologici are what you seem to mean by "different sources of information" which theologians use "in coming to doctrinal/theological conclusions." Melchior Cano (1509-1560) treated them his De Locis Theologicis. They are:

the authority of

Holy Scripture,
Catholic tradition,
general councils,
the Roman Church,
the Fathers,
the Schoolmen;
natural reason,
philosophers and doctors in civil law,
history.

Cano said the last three are useful but not necessary, and he thought there could be more.


What is the biblical basis against Sola Fide (salvation by faith alone, apart from works)?

The question could be worded better. Even the reformers would disagree with Sola Fide as you've described it (with the exception of Luther, perhaps).
A common passage against Sola Fide is found in James 2:

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15  If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16  and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19  You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21  Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

The problem is that there is more than one aspect of salvation. There is justification, that which is Sola Fide, and there is sanctification, which is accomplished by the Holy Spirit and is manifest by good works. This is why 2nd Peter tells us

10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

So salvation is never Sola Fide. However, salvation is also never of works.


According to Catholicism, what particular truth will the great apostasy deny?

Cardinal Manning, the most prominent father at the First Vatican Council who was responsible for the definition on papal infallibility, lists some signs of "the persecution which Antichrist shall inflict upon the Church of God," in the 4th lecture of his Temporal Power of the Vicar of Christ, "The Perpetual Conflict of the Vicar of Christ" (all 4 lectures in printed form from TradiBooks as The Pope and The Antichrist), pp. 147ff.:

  "1. The first sign or mark of this coming persecution is an indifference to truth." (p. 148)

and

  "2. The next step which indicates the fulfilment of the prophecies is the persecution of the truth." (p. 151)

These would seem to be an "apostasy from the truth".

(adapted from this answer to "How can one identify the Anti-Christ, can he be a Bishop opposing the Papacy in relation to 1 John 2:19-20?")

The philosophical foundation of the heresy of Modernism is agnosticism, that one cannot know (ἄ = "not", γνωστος = "to know"). Commenting on Pius XII's anti-Modernist encyclical Humani Generis, Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. writes that Modernists have redefined what truth is:

  Finally, [Modernists] consider the traditional definition of truth «chimerical»: «Adaequatio rei et intellectus», the conformity of judgement with extra-mental being and with its immutable laws, and they want to «substitute for it» this new definition: Conformitas mentis et vitae, the conformity of our judgment with life and with its subjective exigencies, and this leads to an «insufficiently objective certainty» regarding the existence of God, as in the proof proposed by Kant.

To redefine truth could be considered an "apostasy from the truth".


When will the Millennial Reign prophesied about in Revelation 20 take place?

There are certain key events in Revelation that we can at least put in order. As you note in your question, however, no one knows the day or the hour.

The millennial reign of the righteous will take place after the first resurrection and after the "dragon" (presumably Satan) is bound, and continues through the second resurrection, at which point a new heaven and a new earth will be made and the righteous will live forever with Christ.

The First Resurrection takes place at Christ's coming and consists of the Righteous Christians only. It is this coming of Christ that "of that day and hour knoweth no man", and is generally what people mean when they say "rapture".

  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
  1 Thessalonian 4:16-17

The First and Second Resurrection and the Final Judgement of all souls is detailed further in Rev. 20.

  4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [This is who takes part in the First Resurrection. They are those that are in Christ; they are Christians; they are the righteous]
  5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. [This is the millennial reign. The righteous have been raised and rule the Earth with Christ.]

It will be 1000 years after the resurrection of the righteous that the remaining souls, the wicked, will be resurrected for Judgement.

  12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God [This is the only place that makes sense for the second resurrection, and we already know from verse 5 that it is 1000 years after the First Resurrection]; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. [After being raised they are judged]

Then Revelation 21 continues with the creation of the new heaven and new earth, then finally wraps up the whole vision.

  And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
  Rev. 21:1

These verses (the whole book, even) are very poetical, but these verses together show that the millennial kingdom will exist between the two resurrections. This is, of course, assuming that everything about Revelation is literal and not metaphorical in some sense. For metaphorical interpretations, you will have to ask different questions with specific frameworks requested (pre-, post-millennial, etc.). At which point, I suggest you acquaint yourself with various views before asking: What are the differences between the different millenialisms?

Order of events:

Second Coming of Christ.
First resurrection, wicked destroyed.
Thousand year reign with Christ on Earth.
Second resurrection, wicked cast into the Lake of Fire.
A new heaven and a new earth, and God will dwell with man.


Is the Gospel book censed, or the reader, or both?

[Answer from high-church Anglican/Catholic perspective.]

The deacon is not censed — or should not be censed — at the reading of the gospel. The thurifer should hand the thurible to the deacon, who censes the book. The thurifer generally remains while the gospel is read, and indeed the gospel may end up proclaimed from within the cloud.

Incense is

a ceremonially purifying agent
a symbol of honour (incense was given to the Christ-child and used in Temple worship)
a symbol of prayer rising (cf Ps 141:2)
a pleasant smell (the smell of heaven, as opposed to sulphur, the smell of The Other Place)

The deacon is not censed at this point because he is not the Word, he is merely the agent. The point of censing the gospel is to show it honour; it is the Word proclaimed.

As to “official sources” (from the comments), that’s surprisingly difficult. The modern documents of the Roman Church such as the General Instruction of the Roman Missal don’t lay down the ceremonial; it’s all tradition.

The English Missal is just about the most authoritative extant English source for high ceremonial, is available and more accessible. It was published in 1921, and probably reflects what was laid down at the Council of Trent, which carried out the last major revision of Catholic worship.

  Thurifer While the responsory is in singing the Deacon shall place the Book of the Gospels on the Altar: and the Priest, the Deacon ministering the incense-boat, shall place incense in the censer. Then shall the Deacon say the prayer: Cleanse my heart, and taking the book from the Altar ask a blessing of the priest. Afterward, the Subdeacon holding the book between two Acolytes with lighted candles, the Deacon shall sign and cense the book, and sing the gospel in the customary manner, whereafter the Subdeacon shall bear the book to be kissed by the priest, who is also censed by the Deacon.

The book was (is) censed before to show honour to the proclaimed Word; the celebrant was censed afterwards because he is acting in Persona Christi, which I can see might raise all sorts of other questions.

While this level of ceremonial can be found these days if you look hard enough, most celebrations nowadays are simpler; some actions have been removed. In particular, the book of the gospels is kissed by the person who reads it unless the celebrant is a bishop; and the celebrant is not censed after the reading. The Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani published in 1969 lays down what should happen now, in the absence of specific directions in the 2010 version.

  131 Dum Alleluia vel alter cantus profertur, si adhibetur incensum, ad impositionem thuris secerdoti ministrat, deinde, ante sacerdotem inclinatus, benedictionem petit, submissa voce dicens, Iube, domne, benedicere. Sacerdos eum benedicit, dicens: Dominus sit in corde tuo, etc. Diaconus respondet: Amen. Deinde librum Evangeliorum, si est in altari, sumit et ad ambonem pergit, ministris, si adsunt, cum candelabris et incenso pro opportunitate eum praecedentibus. Ibi populum salutat, librum incensat et proclamat Evangelium. Quo finito, librum osculo veneratur, secreto dicens, Per evangelica dicta etc., et ad celebrantem redit. Si vero homilia non fit neque symbolum dictur, potest manere in ambone pro oratione universali, recedentibus ministris.

Ceremonial is never added, it's only simplified. Between 1921 and 1969, the ceremonial changed so that the book is no longer routinely processed to be kissed and the celebrant is no longer censed. The deacon himself has never been censed at the gospel.


We don't see Jesus "acting" (physically moving to) his parables. Instead what is shown in scriptures is the vast relationship between every-day life and the parables. They depicted the message to be practiced "every-day". There are many categories for parables, specially the agricultural ones. Many people rejected his messages so he explained his messages through parables like Isaiah prophesied (John 12:38)


Did Christ have the freedom to choose to avoid crucifixion?

Yes.

Jesus' own words to Peter are relevant here:

  Matthew 26:52-54 (ESV)
   52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53  Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54  But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?"

The way I read it, Jesus genuinely had a choice to call out an army of angels that would have been enough for world domination.


Are there any denominations that baptize ONLY in the Name of Jesus?

Oneness believers believe that for water baptism to be valid, one must be baptized in the name of Jesus, rather than the mainstream baptismal formula in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. They believe this follows the example found in Acts 2:38;

  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in
  the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall
  receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

"Jesus-Name" is a description used to refer to Oneness Pentecostals and their baptismal beliefs. The Oneness revival movement was sparked by a sermon given by R. E. McAlister in 1913 in which he stated,

  "Apostolic baptism was administered as a single immersion in a single
  name, Jesus Christ...The words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were never
  used in Christian baptism."

Churches that accept the oneness belief include: United Pentecostal Church International, Affirming Pentecostal Church International, Apostolic Assemblies of Christ, Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus, Apostolic Gospel Church of Jesus Christ, Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God, and Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Those who hold to the Trinitarian formula most certainly would not consider such a baptism to be valid because Trinitarians recognize Oneness believers as Modalists, and modalism was named a heresy in the third century. Considering that up until the year 1826 the Catholic Church used to execute heretics, I would assume that they would not consider those individuals Christian today unless they were re-baptized using the traditional formula.


Let me make some general points about the scriptures that I hope will help your understanding.

The gospel writers did not necessarily describe everything that Jesus did in chronological order. They grouped teachings according to themes and intent, to convey particular messages.
It is very unlikely that Jesus gave any particular teaching only once. As he traveled around he almost certainly repeated key teachings many times. The gospel writers would not have listed all the times he said a particular thing (why waste ink and paper saying something that was already written). So they may have recorded a saying the first,  second or ninety-ninth time he said it. See above.
The summary of the law may not be unique to Jesus.  Certainly the two parts are both Old Testament quotes,  and the combination may have been known before Jesus.


How can an all powerful supreme being be either good or evil?

If you're asking for an answer from a Christian perspective, which implies that you will accept, for the purposes of the answer, the presuppositions inherent in a "Christian answer" such as that God is who the Bible claims he is...

You're making a false assumption in the question.  Good or evil are not concepts that man made up and applied to God.  Good and evil are concepts defined by God, and understood by us, his creation.  As the Creator of the universe, it is He who defines what anything is.  He created things as he saw fit, and if He says something is this, or something is that, it is so.

We, as His creations merely understand, through the senses and ability to reason that he created in us, or through his revealed word to us.

Therefore God defines what good and evil is.  Being God, it makes sense that "Good" is defined as according to His word,in line with His character, and as revealed to us by Him.

It is only from an atheistic mindset that one could claim that "good and evil are traits we made up and applied to God".  The ability to say that cannot exist without the presupposition that God is imaginary, and a creation of man.  From the Christan perspective, this is exactly the opposite of the truth.


What did God mean when He said to Moses, "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh"?

Found a useful thought on the page https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2004206#h=23:0-24:0, which notes:

  How was Moses made “God to Pharaoh”? Moses was given divine power and authority over Pharaoh. Hence, there was no need to be afraid of that king.

Highlighted here on another page https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002564#h=27:0-28:0
 is the following idea:

  Aaron served as a prophet, not in the sense of foretelling future events, but by becoming Moses’ spokesman, or mouthpiece.

Consider that the Pharaoh was himself seen as a god, and that Moses acted in behalf of the "God of gods", who "removes kings and sets up kings" (Daniel 2:21,47). It must have been a fearful thing to be at the Pharaoh's mercy, as the Egyptians would probably have obeyed the Pharaoh without any questions asked. As consequence, it may have been the first time for someone to speak against the Pharaoh at all, not to mention the bold and open manner in which it was to happen. No wonder then that Moses could do with all the reassurance he could get!


Did Martin Luther take exception to the gospels in any way?

Yes and no. He preferred the gospel of John over the synoptic gospels, under his somewhat unusual view of revelational clarity within the canonical books. i.e. some books are more clear and powerful then others. For example, many would agree that Romans is more useful than proverbs in terms of communicating the message of salvation, but Luther was much more adamant about this kind of idea.
Luther was somewhat critical of the canon (in the modern biblical sense) partly because he distrusted the apocryphal additions made by the Catholic church and partly because of his suspicion of any book in the Bible that seemed in any sense to support what he understood as the Catholic teaching of works based righteousness. Therefore although Luther included James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation in his Bible (he even included the non canonical apocryphal books) he placed his own views of them in his ‘introductions’. In his introductions we find most of his canonical views.
Luther did not seem to have any objections to Esther, only to some portions not found in the original:

Six additions to the book of Esther, comprising 107 verses not in the Hebrew text, were inserted into the text in the Greek Version, added on at the end in the Vulgate. Oesterley, An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha, p. 183. The ancient Greek and Latin versions of the book of Daniel contain three principal additions not found in the original Hebrew and Aramaic text; these are included among the Apocrypha as separate “books”: The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 99 (uther, M. (1999). Luther's works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.)

Regarding Luther’s preference of books that clearly outlined the gospel over and above those that were less clear in terms of justification, Luther thought of the clearer ones as ‘noblest books’. He did not imply that the other writings were not canonical juts that they were less massive in their depth of revelation into what was ‘core’.

[Which are the true and noblest books of the New Testament]
[From all this you can now judge all the books and decide among them which are the best. John’s Gospel and St. Paul’s epistles, especially that to the Romans, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the true kernel and marrow of all the books. They ought properly to be the foremost books, and it would be advisable for every Christian to read them first and most, and by daily reading to make them as much his own as his daily bread. For in them you do not find many works and miracles of Christ described, but you do find depicted in masterly fashion how faith in Christ overcomes sin, death, and hell, and gives life, righteousness, and salvation. This is the real nature of the gospel, as you have heard.

If I had to do without one or the other—either the works or the preaching of Christ—I would rather do without the works than without his preaching. For the works do not help me, but his words give life, as he himself says [John 6:63]. Now John writes very little about the works of Christ, but very much about his preaching, while the other evangelists write much about his works and little about his preaching. Therefore John’s Gospel is the one, fine, true, and chief gospel, and is far, far to be preferred over the other three and placed high above them. So, too, the epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter far surpass the other three gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.]( Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 35: Luther's works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.) (361–362). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.)
Thus we see that although the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were scripture to Luther, they were not as clear as some other books, like the Gospel of John.
Regarding a book like Revelation, Luther has an odd freedom (and should I add confusion). One on hand he seems so unrestrained to be so bold as to deny its canonicity, partly because he was critical of anything not clear to his own understanding amidst the corruptions at the church at the time and partly due to its slow recognition into the canon within church history. On the other hand, one has to wonder why was he confused about its clarity of the gospel?  To confuse the issue more he later changed his view and accepted it as canonical! (For the preface of 1522 his opinion was it was not canonical, volume 35 pp. 398–399 then from the preface from 1530 p. 411 he accepted that it was).
Also Luther was not so dogmatic about ‘his opinion’ as it was changing amidst the dramatic theological revolutions in which he seems to be at a center place. He was very ‘free’ in having a non-dogmatic opinion and willingness to express it without fear of being put to death. In his earlier introduction of Revelation he shows his 'opinion' approach while granting others free opinion as well:

About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel.( Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 35: Luther's works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.) (398). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
)

This example really shows what Luther was all about. He was a leader whose vision was changing and adapting as he went along transforming Christianity into a more Christ centered establishment that answers the question 'What about me?' He was not the type of theologian that writes a few things, never changing his mind like Calvin's institutes built upon the groundwork of Luther. Rather as a true pioneer and leader of a populace he, recognizing many errors at the time and while leading a new understanding of what the Bible was really saying, steered away from anything that would get in the way of that vision, even distrusting (temporarily) a few Epistles he did not have a confident understanding about. Most likely the final protestant canon that is used today would have been Luther’s view if he lived a bit longer.


Why does God command the Israelites not to boil a goat in its mother's milk?

There is much debate about this one but I think the Rabbis never understood it, which causes trouble to some Christian commentators as well.  It reminds me of this:

  For it is written in the Law of Moses:“Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? (1 Corinthians 9:9, NIV)

The Apostle applies this to establishing an argument that ministers should be paid for their effort. A prohibition is there about an animal but for the purposes of how we treat each other.

In this case about a goat and its mother, the lesson is we ought to respect the tender relationship of an animal and her young. The law is established about less important things to make a stronger point. God honors the relationships of a goat and her child.  How much more than should we honor the relationship of parents and children? We should not despise relationships that God honors so strictly.


In Catholicism, what does "mystical" mean?

St. Alphonsus di Liguori's The Glories of Mary explains all the parts of the Litany of Loretto. Regarding the "Rosa Mystica," he writes:

  "Rosa mystica:" Mystical rose. It is said of Mary in the holy Canticles that she was the inclosed garden of God: "Hortus conclusus soror mea sponsa."* And St. Bernard, explaining this passage, says that the Lord planted in this garden all the flowers that adorn the Church, and among others, the violet of humility, the lily of purity, and the rose of charity. The rose is red; and therefore Mary is called the rose, according to the Idiot, on account of the ardent charity with which her heart was always inflamed towards God and towards us.† And where can we find an advocate who is more occupied with our salvation and who loves us more than Mary? We acknowledge that one alone in heaven is solicitous for us, as St Augustine says of her.‡ Oh my dear mother, if I could love thee as thou lovest me! I will not, however, fail of doing what I can to honor and love thee; my sweet Lady, obtain for me the grace to be faithful to thee.

  * iv. 12.
  † Rosa rubicunda per Dei et proximi charitatem; Dei ignens calor charitatem denotat.
  ‡ Unam solam in cœlis fatemur esse solicitam.

The Oxford English Dictionary gives many meanings for "mystical":

  Theol.

  a. Having a spiritual character or significance by virtue of a
  connection or union with God which transcends human understanding.

  2.

  b. Relating to or designating a hidden, symbolic, or spiritual meaning
  (or some aspect of this) underlying the literal meaning of a passage
  of Scripture. Cf. allegorical adj., anagogical adj., tropological adj.

  a. More generally: mysterious, enigmatic, obscure, esoteric; of hidden
  meaning or nature; having an unknown or mysterious origin or
  influence. Cf. mystic n. 2.

  b. Of a person: obscure in speech, mysterious in behaviour; versed or
  apparently initiated in occult or esoteric knowledge. Obs.

  Relating to or dealing with spiritual or transcendental matters, esp. communion of the soul with God or some higher spiritual power;
  concerned with spiritual mystery, religious awe, etc. Also: relating
  to or characteristic of mystics or mysticism. Cf. mystic adj. 5,
  mystical theology n. at Special uses.
  Of or relating to mysterious or occult rites or practices. Cf. mystic n. 3. Also in extended use.
  Secret, concealed; unconfessed. Obs.

  mystical theology   n. the branch of theology that deals with the
  attainment of direct communion of the soul with God.

For a good overview of mystical theology, see this by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.From Fr. Hardon, S.J.'s Catholic Dictionary:

  MYSTICAL BODY

  The Catholic Church established by Christ as an extension and
  continuation of the Incarnation.

  In the words of Pius XII, "If we would define and describe the true
  Church of Jesus Christ -- which is the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic
  Roman Church -- we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or
  more divine than the expression 'the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ' --
  an expression that flows spontaneously from the repeated teaching of
  the sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers."

  The term "body," when referring to the Church, derives its meaning
  from the analogy used by St. Paul, where he speaks of Christians: "You
  are the Body of Christ, member for member" (I Corinthians 12:27), and
  of Christ: "the Head of His Body, the Church" (Colossians 1:18).

  Corollary to being a body, the Church must have a multiplicity of
  discernible members because the possession of parts is an essential
  feature of anything bodily. And just as a natural body is formed of
  different organs with different functions arranged in due order, so
  the Church is bound together by the combination of structurally united
  parts, and has a variety of members that are reciprocally dependent.
  Another name for this interdependence is the hierarchy, with its
  graded levels of orders and jurisdiction, of superiors and subjects,
  beginning with the Sovereign Pontiff and terminating in the laity.

  The body (soma) that St. Paul identifies with the Church is a living
  reality, and like every organism requires suitable means to enter into
  life, to grow and mature and prosper according to its nature.
  Similarly in the Catholic Church, the sacraments are available for
  every spiritual need and circumstance of human life.

  Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church regards herself as the Body of
  Christ. He was the originator of the Church by his preaching and
  choice of the Apostles to carry on his work, by his death on the Cross
  when he merited the graces to be channeled through the Mystical Body,
  and by the descent of the Holy Spirit, whom he sent on Pentecost. He
  continues to rule the Church from within by supernatural means that
  are permanent and constantly active within the members.

  The Church is called Mystical because she is a mystery, which God
  revealed to be true but whose inner essence must be accepted on faith
  and without full comprehension by the mind. Otherwise than in other
  societies, the end or purpose of the church is not temporal or earthly
  but heavenly and eternal; its spiritual bond is the will of God;
  incorporation in the Church effects a profound internal change in the
  members; and the whole reality is called supernatural because it leads
  to the destiny of seeing God in the beatific vision after death. But
  the Roman Catholic Church is mainly said to be the Mystical Body of
  Christ because it is sacramental. The Church is the great sacrament of
  the New Law, instituted by Christ for the communication of invisible
  grace to the whole world.

  MYSTICAL INTERPRETATION

  The explanation of some biblical person, object, or occurrence in the
  past as having a divinely intended meaning or function in the future.
  Thus Adam prefigured Christ, the Passover anticipated the Cross and
  the Eucharist, and the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century
  of the Christian era symbolized the end of the world. To be valid, the
  basis for the interpretation must be found in Scripture or sacred
  tradition.

  MYSTICAL ROSE

  A traditional title given to Mary, and an invocation in the Litany of
  Loreto. As the rose is considered the queen of flowers, so Mary in
  invoked as Queen of All Saints. As described by sacred writers, she is
  the "mystical rose without thorn," the "rose of paradise," and the
  "rose bringing salvation to all who call upon her."

  MYSTICAL THEOLOGY

  The science of the spiritual life, with stress on the operation of
  divine grace. It deals with the higher forms of mental prayer and with
  such extraordinary phenomena as are recorded in the lives of the
  saints. It is the science of the study of the mystic states. It is
  commonly distinguished from ascetical theology, which emphasizes free
  co-operation with and predisposition for divine grace.

  MYSTICAL UNION

  The union of a soul with God in deep contemplation. It is
  characterized by a deep awareness of the divine presence, and has a
  variety of grades, not necessarily successive, but distinguished by
  spiritual writers. They are: the two nights of the soul (senses and
  spirit) before mystical union, the prayer of quiet, the full union,
  ecstasy, and spiritual marriage or transforming union.


What did St. John Chrysostom mean by saying there is no difference between what is demanded from the monastics and the laity?

My understanding of this statement (and it has simply developed organically through practice in the Church - I cannot quote a definitive answer from anyone) ... is that laymen, just as monastics, are responsible for entering spiritual battles with the passions, developing virtues, resisting temptations, praying regularly, doing good to others, and all the rest that goes into forming us into the likeness of Christ (by the grace of God).

I don't think it is intended to say that a layman should keep the exact same prayer rule or fasting rule, attend as many services, etc. as a monk any more than it is saying that a monk should have children and sacrifice himself for the spiritual development and good of his family. It is not in the particular details that we are exactly the same, but in the overall goal and, where applicable, to the general responsibilities, though perhaps not the exact method or quantity of practice.

There can be an idea that "only monks struggle with the flesh/demons" and the rest of us are somehow "off the hook" for these efforts, and I believe that is what we must realize is really the same for both of us. Whatever life a person finds themselves in, they are to seek God and be formed in His image through that life.

I hope that makes sense. :) Lord forgive me if I've made any error there.


In which denominations are Sunday school classes categorized distinctly by grade/age level?

My experience has been that this is not so much a function of denomination as church size.

To wit:

I've preached at Baptist churches where there was one room for all kids - because there were fewer than 5 kids on a given Sunday.  (Remember, there are a lot of churches out there with less than 40 people!)
I've preached at an Episcopal church with 3 classes - one for under 5s, one for 1st - 3rd grade, and one for 4th - 6th grade.  Again, with a regular attendance of about 100, that was the best grouping that preserved both critical mass (you need more than one kid!) and some age separation (don't put 4th graders with 4 year olds.  Neither wants to be with the other.)  Indeed, when an influx of children warranted it, we rejiggered the age boundaries.
I've taught Sunday School in a Baptist church that insisted on one grade per age, and on those Sundays when your one kid didn't show up, well, it was rather demoralizing.
I've been part of a mega church that had three or four classes for each grade.  There, we used the highly biblical model of looking deep into the child's soul, and assigning them a class based on the first letter of their last name.

In short, this isn't a doctrinal thing, it's a practical thing.  You need enough kids to get an actual class, but you want to keep them about the same age too.  That's a function of church size, not theology.


How did the Church fathers of the first four centuries understand 2 Corinthians 5:21?

Church fathers from the first four centuries understand Christ being called "sin" to mean that Christ bore our sin.

Eusebius (260–340), for example, connects this verse with the idea that Christ, "descending into our state of slavery[,] took away our sins."1

Cyril of Alexandria (376–444) emphasizes that Christ himself did not sin:

  We do not say that Christ became a sinner, far from it, but being just, or rather in actuality justice, for he did not know sin, the Father made him a victim for the sins of the world.2

Ambrose (340–397) makes a connection with Galatians 3:13:

  So, was the Lord turned into sin?  Not so, but since he assumed our sins, he is called sin.  For the Lord is also called an accursed thing, not because the Lord was turned into an accursed thing but because he himself took on our curse.3

Gregory of Nazianzus (329–390) also sees John 1:1 as a related passage:

  The passage "The Word was made flesh" seems to me to be equivalent to that in which it is said that he was made sin or a curse for us; not that the Lord was transformed into either of these—how could he be?  But because by taking them upon him he took away our sins and bore our iniquities.4

Proof of the Gospel, 4.17
Letter 41 in Fathers of the Church, v. 76
The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord, 6.60, in Fathers of the Church, v. 44
Letters on the Apollinarian Controversy, To Cledonius (101)


In LDS (Mormon) theology, what is the Aaronic Priesthood and to whom is it conferred?

In the Doctrine and Covenants, section 107 verses 13-17 we read:

  13 The second priesthood is called the Priesthood of Aaron, because it
  was conferred upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their
  generations.

  14 Why it is called the lesser priesthood is because it is an
  appendage to the greater, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, and has power
  in administering outward ordinances.

  15 The bishopric is the presidency of this priesthood, and holds the
  keys or authority of the same.

  16 No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this
  priesthood, except he be a literal descendant of Aaron.

  17 But as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority
  to officiate in all the lesser offices, he may officiate in the office
  of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found, provided
  he is called and set apart and ordained unto this power by the hands
  of the Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Verses 16 & 17 get to the heart of your question.  Only Aaron and his sons have a legal right to the authority.  When a descendant of Aaron is not present, then a High Priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood can officiate in the office of bishop, which in LDS theology is the presiding authority in the Aaronic Priesthood.

Today, all worthy young men, starting at age 12 can be ordained to an office in the Aaronic Priesthood.  There are a total of four offices:  deacon, teacher, priest, and bishop.  The worthy 12-years olds are ordained to the office of a deacon.  When they turn 14, if they are still worthy, they are ordained to the office of a teacher.  At 16 they can be ordained a priest.

Later, (age 18 or so) they can, with approval from their priesthood leaders, be advanced to the Melchizedek Priesthood, and ordained to the office of an elder.  This is why LDS missionaries are referred to as "Elder."

The duties of the Aaronic Priesthood are spelled out clearly in the Doctrine and Covenants.  We also teach the young men of the church that the purposes of the Aaronic Priesthood are:

  Become converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ and live by its teachings.
  Serve faithfully in priesthood callings and fulfill the responsibilities of priesthood offices.
  Give meaningful service.
  Prepare and live worthily to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood and temple ordinances.
  Prepare to serve an honorable full-time mission.
  Obtain as much education as possible.
  Prepare to become a worthy husband and father.
  Give proper respect to women, girls, and children.

  (Taken from Handbook 2: Administering the Church)

As to how long they hold the priesthood, as long as they remain worthy, it is not taken from them.  More responsibilities are added as they progress, but "once a deacon, always a deacon."

If you are interested in knowing more about the particular duties of the Aaronic Priesthood in the LDS faith, I would be happy to share them as well.  But you probably have to ask that as a separate question.


Are names of godparents written on Baptism Certificate?

It totally depends on the church that issue the certificate.

In many denominations - especially Baptists and other evangelical congregationalist denominations - the certificate itself is generated by the church secretary.  It is not a legal form, even if it can be used as a proxy for a birth certificate in some circumstances. In a Roman Catholic church, or another more hierarchical one, the pastor may have less discretion as to the form of the certificate, but good pastoral care will usually lead him to find another solution.

As a non-official document, pastors can exercise discretion in how it is made out - and if there is a genuine request to help another's feelings, good pastoral care would suggest that a pastor should make a reasonable effort to accomodate the request.

In situations where the godparents' names do not appear on the certificate, the pastor would usually be willing to sign some form of acknowledgement that the parents have selected whomever as a godparent.

The key duty of a godparent, other than shock, horror, renouncing Satan is to vouch for the Christian upbringing of the child.  Even if the godparent is not present, if he or she is willing to take the same vow, most pastors would likely honor the request, and signify it some fashion if requested.


How does the revelation of Blessed Emmerich harmonize the teaching of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy in Mary's Assumption?

Before I begin, I will start with a caveat!

The revelations of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich are a treasure chest of information that can not be always verified or completely sanctioned by the Church. Because Blessed Catherine Emmerich did not write her own revelations, but were in fact written and edited by Brentano, the Church in her process of beatification would not allow these revelations to be taken as means to support her case. The reason, although doubtful, was that  Brentano may have added or altered the revelations in question.

The caveat being said, I personally believe that for the most part these revelations are bang on and historical research and modern archaeology have truly vindicated this caveat all together.

Now let us se how these revelations harmonize and to what degree with the two great Churches of the East and West.

The Assumption of the Virgin Mary was dogmatically defined by Pope Pius XII on 1 November 1950, in the apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus by exercising papal infallibility. While the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church believe in the Dormition of the Mother of God (Dormition of the Theotokos or "the Falling Asleep of the Mother of God"), whether Mary had a physical death has not been dogmatically defined.

Although not an infallible statement Pope John Paul II said on June 25, 1997 that “Mary experienced natural death prior to her assumption into Heaven." See the General Audience of Pope John Paul’s statement: Mary and the human drama of death.

While the Catholic Church speaks of Mary’s Assumption and the Eastern Orthodox speaks of Mary’s Dormitione,; the Churches in question are basically expressing the same faith in slightly different angles so to speak.

  Many Catholics believe that Mary first died before being assumed, but they believe that she was miraculously resurrected before being assumed. Others believe she was assumed bodily into Heaven without first dying. Either understanding may be legitimately held by Catholics, with Eastern Catholics observing the Feast as the Dormition.

  Many theologians note by way of comparison that in the Catholic Church, the Assumption is dogmatically defined, while in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Dormition is less dogmatically than liturgically and mystically defined. Such differences spring from a larger pattern in the two traditions, wherein Catholic teachings are often dogmatically and authoritatively defined – in part because of the more centralized structure of the Catholic Church – while in Eastern Orthodoxy, many doctrines are less authoritative.

    Orthodox tradition is clear and unwavering in regard to the central point [of the Dormition]: the Holy Virgin underwent, as did her Son, a physical death, but her body – like His – was afterwards raised from the dead and she was taken up into heaven, in her body as well as in her soul. She has passed beyond death and judgement, and lives wholly in the Age to Come. The Resurrection of the Body ... has in her case been anticipated and is already an accomplished fact. That does not mean, however, that she is dissociated from the rest of humanity and placed in a wholly different category: for we all hope to share one day in that same glory of the Resurrection of the Body which she enjoys even now. - Assumption vs. Dormition

The revelations of Catherine Emmerich are in complete harmony with both Churches on this and adds nothing new except more details in her narration.

This poses a problem for the Eastern Orthodox who maintain Mary died at Jerusalem.

  A narrative known as the Euthymiaca Historia (written probably by Cyril of Scythopolis in the 5th century) relates how the Emperor Marcian and his wife, Pulcheria, requested the relics of the Virgin Mary from Juvenal, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, while he was attending the Council of Chalcedon (451). According to the account, Juvenal replied that, on the third day after her burial, Mary's tomb was discovered to be empty, only her shroud being preserved in the church of Gethsemane. In 452 the shroud was sent to Constantinople, where it was kept in the Church of Our Lady of Blachernae (Panagia Blacherniotissa).4

  According to other traditions, it was the Cincture of the Virgin Mary which was left behind in the tomb, or dropped by her during Assumption.

  The Armenian Patriarchate Armenian Apostolic Church of Jerusalem and Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem are in possession of the shrine. The Syriacs, the Copts, and the Ethiopians have minor rights.

  A legend, which was first mentioned by Epiphanius of Salamis in the 4th century AD, purported that Mary may have spent the last years of her life in Ephesus. The Ephesians derived it from John's presence in the city, and Jesus’ instructions to John to take care of Mary after his death. Epiphanius, however, pointed out that although the Bible mentions John leaving for Asia, it makes no mention of Mary going with him.5 The Eastern Orthodox Church tradition believes that Virgin Mary lived in the vicinity of Ephesus, where there is a place currently known as the House of the Virgin Mary and venerated by Catholics and Muslims, but argues that she only stayed there for a few years.

  The pilgrim Antoninus of Piacenza, writing of travels in 560-570 CE, mentions in that valley was "the basilica of the Blessed Mary, which they say was her house; in which is shown a sepulchre, from which they say that the Blessed Mary was taken up into heaven." Later, Saints Epiphanius of Salamis, Gregory of Tours, Isidore of Seville, Modest, Sophronius of Jerusalem, German of Constantinople, Andrew of Crete, and John of Damascus talk about the tomb being in Jerusalem, and bear witness that this tradition was accepted by all the Churches of Easbt and West. - Tomb of the Virgin Mary

Twelfth-century façade of Mary's Tomb at Jerusalem

In 1881, while using the revelations as described in the book by Brentano based on his conversations with Emmerich, a French priest, Fr. Julien Gouyet discovered the house of Mary at Ephesus.

  Discovery in Turkey

  On October 18, 1881, relying on the descriptions in the book by Brentano based on his conversations with Emmerich, a French priest, the Abbé Julien Gouyet discovered a small stone building on a mountain overlooking the Aegean Sea and the ruins of ancient Ephesus in Turkey. He believed it was the house described by Emmerich and where the Virgin Mary had lived the final years of her life.

  Abbé Gouyet's discovery was not taken seriously by most people, but ten years later, urged by Sister Marie de Mandat-Grancey, DC, two Lazarist missionaries, Father Poulin and Father Jung, from Smyrna rediscovered the building on July 29, 1891, using the same source for a guide. They learned that the four-walled, roofless ruin had been venerated for a long time by members of the mountain village of Şirince, 17 km distant, who were descended from the early Christians of Ephesus. The house is called Panaya Kapulu ("Doorway to the Virgin"). Every year pilgrims made a pilgrimage to the site on August 15, the date on which most of the Christian world celebrated Mary's Dormition/Assumption.

  Sister Marie de Mandat-Grancey was named Foundress of Mary's House by the Catholic Church and was responsible for acquiring, restoring and preserving Mary's House and surrounding areas of the mountain from 1891 until her death in 1915.[16] The discovery revived and strengthened a Christian tradition dating from the 12th century, 'the tradition of Ephesus', which has competed with the older 'Jerusalem tradition' about the place of the Blessed Virgin's dormition. Due to the actions of Pope Leo XIII in 1896 and Pope John XXIII in 1961, the Catholic Church first removed plenary indulgences from the Church of the Dormition in Jerusalem and then bestowed them for all time to pilgrims to Mary's House in Ephesus.

Taking away the indulgences from the Church of the Dormition in Jerusalem and bestowing them on Mary’s house in Ephesus, the Catholic Church showed to the world which tradition it not only favoured the Ephesus tradition, but modern popes have shown which tradition they believed to be more authentic.

  The Roman Catholic Church has never pronounced on the authenticity of the house, for lack of scientifically acceptable evidence. It has, however, from the blessing of the first pilgrimage by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, taken a positive attitude towards the site. Pope Pius XII, in 1951, following the definition of the dogma of the Assumption in 1950, elevated the house to the status of a Holy Place, a privilege later made permanent by Pope John XXIII. The site is visited and venerated by Muslims as well as Christians. Pilgrims drink from a spring under the house which is believed to have healing properties. A liturgical ceremony is held here every year on August 15 to commemorate the Assumption of Mary.

  Papal visits

  Pope Paul VI visited the shrine on July 26, 1967, and Pope John Paul II on November 30, 1979. Pope Benedict XVI visited this shrine on November 29, 2006, during his four-day pastoral trip to Turkey. - House of the Virgin Mary

As for the actual tomb of the Virgin Mary the Catholic Encyclopedia states the following:

  The tomb of the Blessed Virgin is venerated in the Valley of Cedron, near Jerusalem. Modern writers hold, however, that Mary died and was buried at Ephesus.

Catherine Emmerich’s revelations tell us that Mary lived at Ephesus with St. John, there she died and was placed in a tomb. St. Thomas having missed the funeral rites, asked to see her in the tomb, but she was no longer there!

What is more is that the tomb itself although not far from her house remains unknown. She states in the writings that at a future date the tomb of the Virgin Mary will be discovered...

  The Blessed Virgin's Burial

  When it was time to bear the coffin to the grotto, one half-hour distant, Peter and John raised it from the litter and carried it in their hands to the door of the house, outside of which it was again laid on the litter, which Peter and John then raised upon their shoulders. Six of the Apostles thus carried it in turn. The coffin hung between the bearers as in a cradle, for the poles of the litter were run through leathern straps, or matting. Some of the Apostles walked before the coffin praying, and after it came the women. Lamps, or lanterns on poles, were carried.

Before reaching the grotto, the litter was set down. Four of the Apostles bore the coffin in, and placed it in the hollow of the tomb. All went, one by one, into the grotto, where they knelt in prayer before the holy body, honoring it and taking leave of it. Then the tomb was shut in by a wicker screen that extended from the front edge of the tomb to the top of the vaulted wall above. Before the entrance of the grotto they made a trench, which they planted so thickly with blooming flowers and bushes covered with berries that one could gain access to it only from the side, and that only by making his way through the underwood.

On the night following the burial took place the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin into Heaven.

House of the Virgin Mary in Ephesus

  In her visions, Sister Emmerich described with great detail the geography of Ephesus, its location to the sea and the many roads leading into the major port city in Asia Minor. She mentioned many caves in the mountain. The location was described as “some three and a half hours from Ephesus.” Today, the car ride from Ephesus to Meryem Ana Evi, up the paved road to Bulbul Dagh, is less than thirty minutes. But in the 1st Century, the trek up the mountain side would have taken several hours. In describing the mountain, Emmerich says that, “This hill slopes steeply towards Ephesus,” which Bulbul Dag does as it rises to the south of the ancient city of Ephesus.

  In Blessed Emmerich’s visions, Mary was visited on occasion by “an Apostle or disciple on his travels,” and, of course, Emmerich saw one man going in and out of the house more often than others, and said, “I always took him to be [Saint] John.” She had a revelation that St. John did not remain permanently near the Blessed Virgin, but, “He came and went in the course of his travels. Emmerich said of the house St. John had built for the Blessed Virgin that it was unique among the village in that, “Mary’s Home was the only one built of stone . . . built of rectangular stones, rounded or pointed at the back.”  She said that, “Between the Blessed Virgin’s dwelling and Ephesus runs a little stream which winds about in a very singular way.”

  Sister Emmerich accurately described the view from the top of the mountain on which Mary’s Home was built. She said, “A little way behind it was the summit of the rocky hill from which one could see over the trees and hills to Ephesus and the sea with its many islands.” - The House of the Blessed Virgin, Mary (Selçuk, Turkey)

Further reading can be pursued with the following sources of information:

REGARDING MARY'S AGE
MARY'S HOUSE IN EPHESUS
THE DEATH OF THE HOLY VIRGIN
Maryemana Evi —
The Virgin Mary's House Near Ephesus


Bimah or bema is not only a word in the Greek language.  This is a phrase that was likely borrowed from Hebrew.  בּימה Bema is a platform in Hebrew and is where the Word of G-d, the Torah, is read from.  So it only stands that the NT Scriptures which many argue were composed first in Hebrew or Aramaic, but if that line of thinking is rejected we do know that the writers of the New Testament were Jewish.  Some say the sole exception is Luke, but there are arguments for his being Jewish as well.

So if Bema is Hebrew and means "raised platform" or high place, a term very familiar in the Tenakh, then a seat on that platform where the Word is read or pronounced from would become, of course, the bema seat.

  From Keil and Delitzsch's commentary on Isaiah 53:9, "(Note: The usage
  of the language shows clearly that bâmâh had originally the meaning
  of "height"(e.g., 2Sa 1:19). The primary meaning suggested by
  Böttcher, of locus clausus, septus (from בו ם = מהב , Arab. bhm ),
  cannot be sustained. We still hold that בם is the expanded בא , and
  במה an ascent, steep place, or stair. In the Talmud, bâmâh is
  equivalent to βωμός ,an altar, and בּימה (Syr. bim ) equivalent to the
  βῆμα of the orator and judge; βωμός ,root βα , like the Hebrew
  bâmâh , signifies literally an elevation, and actually occurs in the
  sense of a sepulchral hill, which this never has, not even in Eze
  43:7.)"

So in answer, it is not a term of redundancy but rather a misunderstanding of what the word means vs. what it has come to be understood to represent.

The understanding of the Jewish mindset is not that of a king sitting on a throne like the kings of the Medes and Persians but rather as in

  John 12:48 KJV, "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath
  one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall
  judge him in the last day."

The Word was read from the Bema, a seat can also mean a place of position or power.  The seat of power/government  This idea and understanding of judgement fits in line with the understanding of Judaism that the books of life will be read and judgement pronounced by the ultimate Judge of the Quick and Dead.
Where would be the place the Judge would read from the Book?  The Bema, of course.
Getting back to the mindset in which these Scriptures were written helps one to more easily understand how phrases came about because they were intimately tied to the culture and contained within the Word.


Which Protestant churches as of today officially recognize homosexual marriage unions?

I think these are the same churches that approve ordination of lesbians. You can find a list here.

When reading the list keep in mind that some traditional churches have a wide range of different churches under the same umbrella.  For example, one Lutherian or Anglican church might openly preach against homosexuality of any kind, while just a few blocks away, another might ordain a lesbian as their rector or senior pastor!


Did Baptist and Methodists ever believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel?

Baptists in the main are part of the Reformed Protestant church, subscribing to the Westminster Confession of Faith, and you quote what C.H. Spurgeon said in 1866: “You remember how our Lord, who is the true Michael, the only great Archangel, said at the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel, ‘I beheld Satan as lightning falling from Heaven.’” (Our Lord’s Transcendent Greatness, Dec. 2, 1866) In 1868 he said: “We read that Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels, and the dragon was cast down. . . Michael is the Lord Jesus, the only Archangel.” (The Angelic Life, Nov. 22, 1868) Spurgeon also said: “We rejoice in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Michael of the angels, the Redeemer of men. For by Him we see Satan cast out and all the powers of evil hurled from their places of power and eminence.” (The Blood of the Lamb, The Conquering Weapon, Sept. 9, 1888) Source: three of his published sermons.

Well, does that mean he believed the pre-incarnate Christ to be a created angel? Give  the Reformed Protestant position he took, the answer has to be “No” and here is the evidence for that. John Gill, a Baptist pastor (circa 1750) wrote this about Michael the Archangel based on Jude 1:9:

  "Yet Michael the Archangel.... By whom is meant, not a created angel,
  but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ;”

Going further back to Reformed Protestant beliefs in the 16th century, John Calvin's comment regarding "Michael" and Christ are revealing. They come only in reference to Daniel 12:1. It is significant that in this passage (and previously in chapter 10), Michael is not explicitly called an "angel," but rather the "mighty prince." If we consider Calvin's comments in context, it is clear that he is NOT saying the ANGEL Michael is Christ.

  John Calvin: "Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of
  those who refer this to the person of Christ because it suits the
  subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of
  his elect people....The angel...calls Michael the mighty prince, as if
  he had said Michael should be the guardian and protector of the elect
  people." Source: Calvin, Commentary on Daniel 12:1, Lecture 65 John
  Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, 12:1, Lecture
  65, trans. T. Myers vol. 2 p. 369 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
  1979)

Most non-Trinitarians who quote this passage leave out the first 5 or 6 words, and thus make it appear that Calvin believes that the Angel Michael is Christ. However, the first clause, and the tell-tale "but", signal that this is not the case. Calvin believes that Michael, in the book of Daniel, is not necessarily the archangel (though he admits this possibility). If not, Michael prefigures Christ in His role as Head of the church. Calvin implies a strict dichotomy: If Michael is an angel, he's not Christ; if not an angel, Christ makes the most sense, given the context.

Elsewhere in his commentary on Daniel, Calvin says that the identification of Michael is open to question. In another work, he warns against too much speculation about angels in general, and specifically of trying to "ascertain gradations of honor" among them (Institutes, I, xiv, 8). He admits that some angels, including Michael, may seem to be placed in positions over their peers, but Calvin enjoins us to refrain from drawing any conclusions from this. His commentary on Jude 9 identifies "Michael the Archangel" as one of many angels ready to do service to God, not as the pre-Incarnate Son. His commentary on Hebrews makes it clear that Calvin views Scripture teaching that Christ is "above the angels" (Commentary on Hebrews 1:6). (1)

Extracts from post by Robert Hommel (October 2006) http://forananswer.blogspot.co.uk/2006/10/did-john-calvin-really-teach-that.html][1]

As for Methodists, here is John Wesley’s position [2]:

  “Daniel 10:13 Withstood me – God suffered the wicked counsels of
  Cambyses to take place awhile; but Daniel by his prayers, and the
  angel by his power, overcame him at last: and this very thing laid a
  foundation of the ruin of the Persian monarchies. Michael – Michael
  here is commonly supposed to mean Christ. I remained – To counter –
  work their designs against the people of God. Daniel 10:21 – Michael –
  Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of
  the earth desert or oppose it.”

  https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/daniel/daniel-10.html
  [2]

  Daniel 12:1 –“ For the children – The meaning seems to be, as after
  the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be
  yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your
  prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation.”

  https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/daniel/daniel-12.html
  [3]

This means that even though Baptists and Methodists have noted a connection between Michael, the Archangel, and Jesus Christ as deliverer of the nation of Israel, they are careful to acknowledge that he is The Mighty One of Isaiah 9:6 (whereas all angels are ‘mighty ones’- note the difference) so that his superiority over all created angels (Hebrews chapter 1) demands a difference of status that is unique. All Baptists and Methodists agree with the ancient creeds that state Jesus, the Word of God, is uncreated. Angels are created. Jesus, as the uncreated Word of God, created all the angels (John 1:1-3), and their comments about Michael (the Prince of his peculiar, i.e. particular, people Israel, accord with the key point that, in Daniel 10:1, Michael is the unique ‘protector of his church’ which, in the time of Daniel, meant the nation of Israel. That has, by Christ’s incarnation, expanded into the Christian congregation which includes both believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Any comments Baptists and Methodists have made about Jesus in relation to the Archangel must be viewed in context of them unambiguously declaring Christ to be the uncreated, eternal Word of God, who is God, not a created angel.


When was the first recorded account of pre-tribulation teaching?

John Darby (1800-1882), often considered the father of dispensationalism and one of the founders of the Plymouth Brethren, tends to be given credit for inventing the doctrine, or at least for having "provided the intellectual mantle that helped make it respectable." (1 2 3 4). Anti-pre-trib sources often allege that he got it from a certain Margaret MacDonald, who could be described as a proto-Pentecostal, but that's not generally seen as plausible by scholars (for instance, F.F. Bruce, who instead says that "it was in the air in the 1820s and 1830s among eager students of unfulfilled prophecy.")

C. I. Scofield (1843-1921) is also an important figure in the development of the doctrine, which popularized, legitimized, and gave authority to dispensationalism and related doctrines in the century since first publishing one of the most successful study Bibles in the world. Of course, the fact that Darby's and Scofield's eschatological schema is the default position of so many Christians owes much to writers such as Hal Lindsey (The Late Great Planet Earth) and Tim LaHaye (Left Behind) as well.

Pro-pre-trib sources would say that the seeds of the doctrine were present in the teachings of churchmen well before Darby, dating back to the first century. They may list Papias, Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian as supporters of the doctrine. (1 2)

However, the pre-tribulationist Larry Crutchfield says in his article, "The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation in the Apostolic Fathers":

  With few exceptions, the premillennial fathers of the early church believed that they were living in the last times.  Thus they looked daily for the Lord's return. ... It should be noted that dispensationalists have neither said that the early church was clearly pretribulational nor that there are even clear individual statements of pretribulationism in the fathers.  As Walvoord says, "the historical fact is that the early church fathers' view on prophecy did not correspond to what is advanced by pretribulationists today except for the one important point that both subscribe to the imminency of the rapture."

Crutchfield is referring to page 25 of John Walvoord's (a fellow pre-trib advocate) The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation. Just prior to that (page 24) Walvoord says:

  The preponderance of evidence seems to support the concept that the early church did not clearly hold to a rapture as preceding the end time tribulation period. Most of the early church fathers who wrote on the subject at all considered themselves already in the great tribulation. Accordingly Payne, as well as most other posttribulationists, takes the position that it is self-evident that pretribulationism as it is taught today was unheard of in the early centuries of the church. Consequently the viewpoint of the early church fathers is regarded by practically all posttribulationists, whether adherents of the classic view or not, as a major argument in favor of posttribulationism. However, the fact that most posttribulationists today do not accept the doctrine of imminency as the early church held it diminishes the force of their argument against pretribulationism.

Others list post-Reformation pre-Darby writers who wrote things that seemed to agree with the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture, but here too, it is at least clear that their idea of the rapture was not well developed. Such cited writers include John Gill and Increase Mather.

So to sum up, early church fathers taught the imminence of Christ's return, which is vital to pre-tribulation doctrine, though they believed they were in the midst of the tribulation. Many centuries later, Darby systematized the teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture, which Scofield helped rocket to popularity.


How do Christians explain commonalities between their religion, other major faiths and obscure isolated tribal belief systems?

Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is likely to be the correct one, and such commonalities are generally explained by Christians by appealing to the simplest solution: when two separate entities share several common traits, it's generally because they derive from a shared origin.

The Old Testament gives a few tantalizing glimpses of things that make a lot more sense in the context of Christianity, especially in the account of events that predate the Law of Moses, but the record is rather sketchy, and mostly limited in scope to the people of Israel and their predecessors.  But from extrabliblical historical and religious works of similar antiquity we get a picture of the rest of the world, and of striking similarities in the details of their worship customs, and the further back you go, the more things converge.

To give just one example, we typically think of ancient Greece as the birthplace of Western thought, but religiously they were anything but!  If you were to mention to an ancient Israelite the notion of a God of thunder and lightning and fertility, who is the leader of the pantheon and lives on top of a mystical mountain, he would immediately recognize the concept: you're talking about Baal, the chief god of the Caananites!  (And in fact Zeus's consort's name is only one syllable different from Baal's Asherah.)

Now the name Baal is a Hebraicized version of the Babylonian Bel, and Babylon was built at the site of Babel, where humanity was once gathered together before dispersing from that point.  (There's been some very interesting research into ancient Babylonian history that identifies the legendary Tower of Babel with the Ziggurat of Babylon, for example.)  And one of the high points of Baal's legend was a resurrection tale involving him being murdered by his enemies and coming back to life a few days later, imagery that should be immediately familiar to any Christian.  Where did this notion come from?  From when a good portion (all?) of humanity, including true worshipers of the Lord, lived in and around the land of Babel, of course.

These sorts of convergences show up all over the place when you start looking at the details of ancient religious systems, and they only really make sense if you assume a common origin.


What is the prayer roll at an LDS temple, and how is it used?

A name is written down on a piece of paper by a patron, or office worker (if the name is called in), and placed in an envelope of sorts.  This is put on the alter during the prayer circle.   The words of the prayer is up to the officiator but generally speaking a generalized prayer that their needs will be met is said along with other things.

We believe that putting a name on the "prayer roll" will enable that individual with greater blessings from Heaven based on their needs.

As for the tradition, I don't know, but I did learn some things from @Daniel's link.


Do the Roman catacombs confirm the early Church believed in the doctrine of the communion of saints?

What is the communion of saints?

The ninth article of the Apostles' Creed  is, 'the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints'.

The unity and cooperation of the members of the Church on earth, in Purgatory, in Heaven is also called the Communion of Saints.

And the Church teaches:

  Fully conscious of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus
  Christ, the pilgrim Church from the very first ages of the
  Christian religion has cultivated with great piety the memory of the
  dead, and "because it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for
  the dead that they may be loosed from their sins", also offers
  suffrages for them. The Church has always believed that the apostles
  and Christ's martyrs who had given the supreme witness of faith and
  charity by the shedding of their blood, are closely joined with us in
  Christ, and she has always venerated them with special devotion,
  together with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy angels. The Church
  has piously implored the aid of their intercession. To these were soon
  added also those who had more closely imitated Christ's virginity and
  poverty, and finally others whom the outstanding practice of the
  Christian virtues and the divine charisms recommended to the pious
  devotion and imitation of the faithful. [...] - Dogmatic Constitution
  on the Church, Lumen gentium, 50.

Answering

To find out whether the Roman catacombs bear out this communion of saints, one would need to examine their inscriptions and paintings. This New advent article Roman Catacombs gives some examples of the inscriptions:

  "gave up his soul to God"

and

  "Sweet Simplicius, live in eternity"

and in the Catacomb of Domitilla, third century there is:

  . . . . SPIRITVS
  TVVS IN REFRIGERIO

  The beginning of the inscription, containing the name, has
  disappeared. "May thy spirit be in refreshment". The very ancient
  prayer in the Canon of the Mass entreats for the dead locum
  refrigerii, lucis et pacis (a place of refreshment, light, and
  peace).1

The article then continues to say the paintings of the catacombs conveyed pictorially the same ideas as the inscriptions.

I see these as demonstrating the communion of the saints, with the latter two praying for the departed.

Chapter V of the book Epitaphs of the Catacombs: Or, Christian Inscriptions in Rome During the First Four Centuries by Rev J. Spencer Northcote D.D entitled The Teaching of Christian Epitaph about Death and the Dead has the following introductory summary:

Contrast between Pagan and Christian epitaphs — Christian epigraphy perfected by degrees, but its general character shown from the first ; simple, hopeful, and joyous ; less religious in the fourth and later centuries —
Life and love characteristics of the most ancient epitaphs — Some exceptions, chiefly of later date — An episcopal instruction on death in the third century — Language of epitaphs denotes belief in future resurrection — Acclamations for the dead ; of life in God, peace, refreshment — These phrases and some others explained — The same prayers found in the Liturgies, ancient and modern — Prayers addressed to the dead by surviving friends and relatives — Religious character of these prayers and their orthodoxy.

The chapter then gives examples:

  [...]

  In eternal sleep. Aurelius Gemellus, who lived ... years and 8  months and 18 days. His mother made this for her dearest well-
  deserving son. In peace. I commend [to thee], Bassilla, the
  innocence  of Gemellus.
  Lady Bassilla [= Saint Bassilla], we, Crescentinus and Micina,  commend to thee our daughter Crescen[tina], who lived 10 months  and
  ... days.
  Matronata Matrona, who lived a year and 52 days. Pray for thy  parents.

  [...]

  Amerimnus to his dearest well-deserving wife, Rufina. May God  refresh thy spirit
  Sweet Faustina, mayest thou live in God.
  Refresh, O God, the soul of
  Bolosa, may God refresh thee, who lived 31 years ; died on the 19th  of September. In Christ.

Conclusion

Thus the living were commending the recently dead to a saint already
dead; the dead were being petitioned to pray for the living; and God is petitioned to refresh the souls of the departed, all clearly manifesting the communion of saints.

The Commemoration for the dead.

Meménto étiam, Dómine, famulórum famularúmque tuárum N. et N. qui nos præcessérunt cum signo fídei, et dórmiunt in somno pacis.

Be mindful, O Lord, of thy servants and handmaids N. and N., who are gone before us, with the sign of faith, and sleep in the sleep of peace.

He joins his hands, prays a little while for those dead whom he means to pray for, then with his hands stretched out, continues:

Ipsis, Dómine, et ómnibus in Christo quiescéntibus, locum refrigérii, lucis et pacis, ut indúlgeas, deprecámur.

To these, O Lord, and to all that rest in Christ, we beseech thee, grant a place of refreshment, light, and peace.

Information for the Visit to the Catacombs.


Is there a group of Christians that believes that Jesus was resurrected metaphorically rather than physically?

The rule is "no", but like every rule there are exceptions. So "yes".

It should be stressed that such views are not mainstream, majority or orthodox in any way. However there are groups that claim to be Christian and hold to a metaphorical view of Christ's resurrection. Likewise, there are groups who claim to be Christian but don't even believe that Christ existed or believe that he wasn't the Christ (God incarnate) or all sorts of other claims. Again, these are not representative of Christian theology but they do exist in the sphere of people who claim to be Christian.

The most obvious early example would be the Gnostics. Wile Gnosticism pre-dated Christianity, it was syncratistic and embraced pieces of other belief systems. It was not uncommon for Gnostic groups after the first century to claim to be Christian while dening the physical resurrection1 and other core Christian beliefs.

  For the Gnostic any resurrection of the dead was excluded from the outset; the flesh or the substance is destined to perish. 'There is no resurrection of the flesh, but only of the soul', say the so-called Archonites, a late Gnostic group in Palestine. -- Kurt Rudolph2

In fact, most Christian creedal statements starting very early on specifically include a note about the resurrection specifically to counter Gnostic and other belief systems that denied this:

  [...] He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, [...] -- The Nicene Creed

In modern times, similar views enjoy wide circulation, esp on the internet among all sorts of backgrounds including those with more modern culture than historic knowledge, heterodox Christians, new-age movements, and even atheists. However popular, the view tends to be vague having no concrete name or identifiable following. The concept of a metaphorical resurrection and ongoing appreciation for a long dead good-moral-teacher* are rather assimilated into some other world view and the whole thing is stamped as "Christian" in the sense that it incorporates some terminology and history from Christianity without subscribing to its primary doctrines.

The most obvious exception to this modern trend is the Jehovah Witnesses -- a well established sect with organized concrete beliefs that include a metaphorical view of Christ's resurrection. Their belief about the atonement of Christ requires that he stay physically dead: otherwise the work he accomplished in death would be un-done. While orthodox Christian belief has Christ being physically raised from the dead by the power of the Spirit, JW belief says that he was raised as a Spirit while his body stayed in the grave.

One other major group that bears mentioning because they make their stand on Christ's resurrection being metaphorical would be Baha'i Faith. They do not pretend to be Christian but do co-opt quite a lot of terminology and claim to have the proper interpretation/context3 that makes sense out of some other Christian beliefs. If you want an article showing where they are coming from, try How to understand the inner (batin) and outer (zahir) meanings of the Resurrection of Christ in order to successfully prospect and teach Evangelical Christians and other Bible-believers the Baha'i Faith.

Once you finish with that chaff, go back to Scripture and have a look at some solid ground. Here is Peter's (eyewitness) testimony:

  Acts 2:29-32 (ESV)
  29  “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30  Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31  he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32  This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.

Check out The Treatise on the Resurrection for an early source describing Gnostic beliefs on teh resurrection. It's confusing because he claims that resurrection is not an illusion but real, but you need to understand that in context with Gnostic belief that the physical world is just at illusion that we must escape to enter the real. The article draws a one to one parallel between Jesus resurrection and ours, this resurrection being an escape from the physical into a different reality.
Gnosis (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), p. 190.
http://bahai-library.com/uhj_resurrection_bible

* Gag


Why did God create us so that it is in our nature to sin?

"When God created us in His image" is in your question. Maybe "His image" means:
We have spirits, consciousness, emotions and use language, but does not mean we are uncreated, all knowing, or have any moral strength of our own separate from God. One can disagree with this definition but I suggest your question implies we all agree on some obvious meaning. Also the question does not, I think, show awareness of the following:

God made Adam.

God is perfect. Adam was made perfectly to fit God's purposes.

God's purpose was that only Jesus would fulfil the law.Mat 5v17 I did not come to destroy but to fulfil. [the Law].

Adam was not made capable of fulfilling the Law.

At first Adam had peace with God. In Gen 2v16 Adam is not ashamed to be in God's presence. But nothing had been required of him so far. [A car in a showroom with no brakes is not perfect but it only becomes a problem when it is driven]. Temptation exposed Adam's inability.

Rom 11v32 God has committed them all to disobedience that He might have mercy on all. [might=subjunctive=a possibility]. The possibility of having mercy on all, or any, is created by the necessary condition of all being trapped, or
committed to disobedience. The Greek word for trapped used here is the same as used in Luke 5v6 for fish enclosed. It is something done to fish, or men, and not something they initiate.

To blame [blame implies fault] God is not the way out of sin even though we have been made incapable of the holiness necessary to fulfil the Law. Admitting to God we are sinners and turning to Him for forgiveness is the way out of sin.


How are the teachings in the Book of James consistent with Salvation by Grace alone?

If you (say you) have faith but don't have works, do you really have faith?

Works are the result of faith. They don't save you. If you have faith, it is only natural that you will have works. James's question is to people who have no works. Why don't you have any works? Where is your faith?

  Matthew 12:33 (NASB)
  "Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit."

[The sum total of] Our works reveal what we really believe. If we believe God loves everyone, won't we act like it and be unselfish? Won't we put their interests or needs ahead of our own? This is the fruit of faith.

Our works do not save us, for our belief (faith) is what puts us in a position to receive God's grace. They only reveal (to us, more than others) what we have faith in.