How can apologists argue that if Jesus did not rise again then Christianity and the Church would not have lasted, when other religions have?

The comment by @curiousdannii points us in the right direction.

Origins of Major religions.

1) Judaism also calls on its believer's to remember the miracles that set them free from Egypt (an event I believe happened). They were led by Moses, a literate man raised and educated by Egyptian royals. Under Moses, they survived several military attacks, and his disciple, Joshua, was then a great military leader who conquered a large territory. Clearly the success of Judaism is dependent upon a foundational period with a charismatic leader and then a military genius.

2) Buddhism was started by a prince who had the opportunity to hire teachers and study religious ideas. Siddartha was scientific in his approach to religion, trying ascetism of  various kinds, abandoning that which did not work. His ideas are clearly the work of a first rate intellect. His rise to prominence required decades, during which time there is no evidence that he faced great persecution.

3) Islam was started by Mohammed, who began a lengthy and successful series of military conquests, and was succeeded by others who continued in that path. During its first century, Islam conquered half of the lands along the Meditteranean sea and Persia to the east.

4) Hinduism's origins are shrouded in mystery. Since no one knows who started it or under what conditions, no conclusions can be drawn related to this question.

5) Zarathustra, founder of Zoroastrianism, did suffer opposition by the leaders of his time, but eventually persuaded a king to follow his teachings, thus cementing a place in society for his ideas.

6) Christianity, by contrast was started by uneducated people:

  When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they
  were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note
  that these men had been with Jesus. (Acts 4:13)

The Romans launched ten major persecutions against the Church, lasting for over 250 years. From the very beginning, its followers were on the run. Whatever sustained it, it was not the same as what sustained these other religions during their formative years.

No return to Judaism.

There is a second line of reasoning as powerful as the first. Jesus claimed to be God the Son, but also one with the Father. If he did not rise from the dead, then either God was dead, and there would no longer any reason to worship him, or he was not really God, and there would be no reason to worship him. That would leave Jesus as:

a healer, like Elijah and Elisha
a teacher, like Ezra or Moses
a paragon of wisdom, like Solomon or Daniel
a prophet, like Isaiah
a righteous sufferer, like Job

Considering that - apart from claims to divinity - Jesus’ teachings are merely a distillation or restatement of the Law, the Prophets and the Writings, what do you have? No reason not to return to Judaism. The fact that the church, which began by worshiping at the temple, did not just dissolve back into temple worship and become a reform movement within Judaism is proof that it had something distinctive. The only distinctive things Christianity had (at first) to make it different from Judaism were the incarnation of God, the substitutionary atonement on the cross, and the resurrection. You need the resurrection to prove the first two, so all you really have is the resurrection.

That is why Paul preached “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” (1 Cor 2:2)

Partial Counterexample: Sikhism:

The history of Sikhism is a counterexample to this apologetic argument, because it resembles Christianity in some respects.

They suffered severe persecution by the Mughal empire, followed by the British
Many of their lead Gurus were executed
After centuries of suffering, they acquired political power
They preach radical equality of all castes...
... equality of men and women, including the foundation of schools for women
They forbid the practice of Sati (wife burning)
Preach tolerance of Muslims and Hindus
Hold regular community meals where all people of all levels of society and all races are invited to eat for free

The most important difference is that Sikhs strongly discourage talk of myths, magic and miracles. Their religion focuses on ethics, generosity, morality and equality. Thus they have no supernatural backstory to be invalidated, so there was no problem that the death of a guru promising resurrection or some other miraculous claim could invalidate their beliefs. The teachings on equality alone surely earned their religion many followers. Thus Sikhism is not a real counterexample, but it comes closest among the major world religions.


Reconciling Peter in Acts with Deuteronomy/Psalms on the burden of the Law?

Peter was referring to the same laws Jesus condemned in Matt. 23:4, "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."

All of your quotes were from the OT and referred to the OT laws. Peter and Jesus were talking about the man-made laws added on top of those. See Mark 7:7, "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

As a result, Jesus said in Matt. 11:28-30, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

If they were not burdened, then why would He give this invitation? His "yoke" is indeed light, but the man-made laws the Israelites submitted to were not.


Why does the pope not wear a biretta?
It not only is not part of the Roman Catholic tradition, it would be at odds with the traditions of the  Norbertines or White Canons who actually wear a white biretta.

The biretta may be used by all ranks of the Latin clergy cardinals and other bishops to priests, deacons, and even seminarians (who are not clergy, since they are not ordained). Those worn by cardinals are scarlet red and made of silk. After the Second Vatican Council the ceremony of giving the galero to cardinals was replaced with giving the biretta. The biretta of a bishop is amaranth in color, while those worn by priests, deacons, and seminarians are black. The pope does not make use of the biretta.
The Tridentine Roman Missal rubrics on low Mass required the priest to wear the biretta while proceeding to the altar, to hand it to the server on arrival and to resume it when leaving. At solemn Mass the sacred ministers wore it also when seated.
Cardinals bear no tuft or "pom" (they are given their birettas and zuchettos by the Pope who elevated them in a ceremony named a consistory – they will form a line, and kneel before him when receiving them), bishops bear a purple pom, priests who have been appointed as prelates to certain positions within the Vatican wear a black biretta with red pom, diocesan priests and deacons wear a black biretta with or without a black pom. It is often asserted that seminarians are only entitled to wear a biretta without a pom-pom, but there would seem to be no formal ruling on this point. Priests in monastic and mendicant religious orders that have their own habits (Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.) do not generally wear birettas: in most circumstances, even liturgical, the monastic hood took the place of the biretta. Canons Regular generally do—for instance the canons of the Order of Prémontré wear a white biretta. Clerks Regular (that is, post-Renaissance religious orders primarily dedicated to priestly ministry, for instance the Jesuits and Redemptorists) generally wear a black biretta with no tuft. Other priests who belong to various forms of community life, as the Congregation of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri for instance, generally also wear birettas, but without a pom. - Biretta (Wikipedia)

No pope has ever tried wearing a white biretta as a papal tradition. It belongs to the Order of Canons Regular of Prémontré.

Hallowed White Biretta of the Norbertines
The 'traditional' biretta at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum, is also white, to correspond to the white Dominican habit.
Besides the pope as the head of the Universal Catholic Church places the scarlet red biretta on the head of newly created cardinals at Rome.
The biretta
 is a liturgical vestment reserved to clerics below the level of Sovereign Pontiff. Thus a pope has no biretta.


What is the significance of "Zealot" in Acts 1:13?

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealotry I'll quote an interesting part here.

  The Zealots objected to Roman rule and violently sought to eradicate it by
  generally targeting Romans and Greeks. Zealots engaged in violence against
  other Jews were called the Sicarii.[9] They raided Jewish habitations and
  killed Jews they considered apostate and collaborators, while also urging
  Jews to fight Romans and other Jews for the cause. Josephus paints a very
  bleak picture of their activities as they instituted what he characterized
  as a murderous "reign of terror" prior to the Jewish Temple's destruction.

This says A LOT about what Jesus was able to accomplish in assembling his 12.  Considering he had a tax collector, and a Zealot, who under other circumstances would target such a tax collector as a "collaborator".  Consider the teachings of Jesus, and imagine how much of a life change that this Simon had undergone.  Things like "Love your enemy", and "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's". It doesn't say that Simon was a Sicarii, but there were probably some shared core beliefs.

I am not a Bible scholar, but I think Zealot means more then just being zealous for Jesus.  It is capitalized in the passage you shared.


What is the source of the phrase "in your chamber bewail your sins"?

The Rev. William Benham's translation (available at Project Gutenberg) references this as Psalm 4:4. That translation renders the sentence thus:

  If thou wilt feel compunction within thy heart, enter into thy chamber and shut out the tumults of the world, as it is written, Commune with your own heart in your own chamber and be still.

The ESV translates Psalm 4:4 thus:

  Be angry, and do not sin;
      ponder in your own hearts on your beds, and be silent.

The Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition might be closer to the Vulgate used by Thomas' community since the Septuagint on which it is based might vary a bit from the Hebrew texts preferred by the ESV translators. It translates the verse (4:5, because the annotation text is treated as verse 1):

  Be angry, and sin not: the things you say in your hearts, be sorry for them upon your beds.

"be sorry for them upon your beds" is reasonably close to "in your chamber bewail your sins".


If we carefully consider the doublets of Chapter 25, we see that the immediate context (vv. 1-20) contains themes of judgment, court, and arbitration, all under the authority of a king.

1) It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

The final doublet of the chapter should stick out because it directly refers to two doublets that occur earlier in the chapter. This makes it unique among the chapter and directs attention back to these. They are:

  Proverbs 26:2-3 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. As the heavens are high and the earth is deep, so the hearts of kings are unsearchable.

  Proverbs26:16-17 If you find honey, eat just enough— too much of it, and you will vomit. Seldom set foot in your neighbor’s house— too much of you, and they will hate you.

The final doublet is:

  It is not good to eat too much honey, nor is it honorable to search out matters that are too deep. Like a city whose walls are broken through is a person who lacks self-control.

Because of the context, it should be clear that the verse in question is not in reference to science, which simply didn't exist at the time. The "wise men" of that day were not scientists, but alchemists. They investigated matter and spirit in a significantly different manner than science, though it was from their methods that science developed. Indeed, some philosophers of science find little difference between the two yet.

The verse discusses not scientific matters but matters under arbitration by a king.  That's why it is the glory of the king to search them out. When arbitrating, it brings the king honor if he searches out the matter to discover what actually happened so that he can judge rightly. Recall the famous story of Solomon's judgment at court.

  1 Kings 3:16 And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had rendered; and they feared the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to administer justice.

The verse in question contrasts the glory of God and that of kings. Kings seek matters out, and God conceals them... for a time. Recall the story of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel 2. When God reveals the dream and its meaning to Daniel, he gives thanks to God not as a concealer, but a revealer:

  Daniel 2:19-23 During the night the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision. Then Daniel praised the God of heaven and said:

  “Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever;
      wisdom and power are his.
  He changes times and seasons;
      he deposes kings and raises up others.
  He gives wisdom to the wise
      and knowledge to the discerning.
  He reveals deep and hidden things;
      he knows what lies in darkness,
      and light dwells with him.
  I thank and praise you, God of my ancestors:
      You have given me wisdom and power,
  you have made known to me what we asked of you,
      you have made known to us the dream of the king.”

So God indeed conceals the matter from the king but reveals it to his servant. That is, it is the glory of God to conceal some matters from some and reveal them to others in order to demonstrate his power. Indeed, by concealing the matter from Nebuchadnezzar and revealing it to Daniel, the King of the world fell prostrate before a servant and exclaimed:

  Daniel 2:47 47 The king said to Daniel, “Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery.”

And so, it is the Glory of God to conceal a thing, and the glory of Kings to search them out.

2) As the heavens are high and the earth is deep, so the hearts of kings are unsearchable.

Proverbs 26:2 sets the ways of kings against the ways of God, the one searching out and the other concealing. This contrast in context demonstrates the greatness of God, who is able to conceal a thing from a king as he did from Nebuchadnezzar. Despite the king's ultimatum, none of the wise men could reveal the vision that God had put in the heart of the king. It begs the question: If the heart of a king is unsearchable, how much more unsearchable is that of God?

  Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!

  Isaiah 40:28 Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.

It is not good to eat too much honey, nor is it honorable to search out matters that are too deep. The heart of God is unsearchable, and so should we not search it out? It is not honorable to seek out a thing that is too deep, and it is not honorable to search out the heart of God. That is, the one who works to seek it out is (has been) dishonored. This is the failure of the wise men of Israel.

  Psalm 118:20-23 This is the gate of the Lord
      through which the righteous may enter.
  I will give you thanks, for you answered me;
      you have become my salvation.
  The stone the builders rejected
      has become the cornerstone;
  the Lord has done this,
      and it is marvelous in our eyes.

Like the wise men in Nebuchadnezzar's court, they were dishonored when God revealed the truth of the matter.

  Jeremiah 2:26-27 "As the thief is shamed when he is discovered, So the house of Israel is shamed; They, their kings, their princes And their priests and their prophets, Who say to a tree, 'You are my father,' And to a stone, 'You gave me birth.' For they have turned their back to Me, And not their face;

  Colossians 2:15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

  1 Corinthians 2:22-24 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

In the context of judgment and arbitration by a king, extending the analogy as before implies that the manner by which God judges is unsearchable. We can not search out the heart of God for ourselves. But we can know it, in Messiah. Knowledge of the heart of God does not come by our effort (or deduction), but only comes by the Spirit of God.

  We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.  No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written:

  “What no eye has seen,
      what no ear has heard,
  and what no human mind has conceived”—
      the things God has prepared for those who love him—
  these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

  The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, for,

  “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?”

  But we have the mind of Christ.


According to Catholic doctrine, would a cloned human being have a soul?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that every human body is human because it has a soul imparted by God.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of "the image of God": it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.233

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God — it is not "produced" by the parents — and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

Do read the answer on the status of in-vitro fertilisation, which is the creation of life by artificial (though naturally-based) means. Even though the Church cannot condone the method, it is life. The Holy See has recognised that reproductive cloning produces life, too:

In "reproductive" cloning, one at least gives the newly produced human being, innocent of his/her origin, a chance to develop and be born.

Where God allows human life to be created, it's human life because it has a soul (CCC364). The same would surely apply to a human clone: where God allows such an artificially-created organism to live, it has a soul by the very virtue of that life.
232 Cf. I Cor 6:19-20; 15:44-45.
233 Gaudium et Spes 14 § 1; cf. Dan 3:57-80.
234 Cf. Council of Vienne (1312): DS 902.
235 Cf. Pius XII, Humani generis: DS 3896; Paul VI, Credo of the People of God § 8; Lateran Council V (1513): DS 1440.


What is the purpose of other planets and solar system according to the bible?

The Bible does recognise the existence of heavenly bodies of some sort, and the fact that they move and come and go during the year:

  Gen 1 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.

However it calls them lights, which is how they appear from the earth. There is no reference to planets or other such worlds.

There was astronomy in late Biblical times: the Wise Men followed "a star" at the time of Jesus' birth. However the difference between astronomy and what we now call astrology was not clearly defined, and technology had not developed to the extent that Jupiter (the largest and most clearly-featured planet) could be seen to have coloured bands or moons. It was Galileo who first observed its moons, and he got into serious trouble for documenting it and supporting Copernicus.

We may say the Bible is incomplete in describing the heavenly bodies as lights rather than being more specific; but it was written by the writers of the time — they could not be expected to write down what they could not have understood.


What did Jesus mean when He said “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me”

Surely it means simply when I am lifted up on the cross of crucifixion.

In the same Gospel of John he is quoted as saying two things about being "lifted up":

  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. (John 3:14)

and

  When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he..  (John 8:28)

Here he was speaking to the Pharisees (John 8:13) later in the conversation they are called "the Jews" (John 8:22).  The "lifting up", then, is something that his enemies will do to him, so it cannot be referring to either his  resurrection or his ascension.

Jesus keep me near the cross:

There a precious fountain,

Free to all, a healing stream,

Flows from Calvary's mountain.

.

In the cross, in the cross,

Be my glory ever,

Till my raptured soul shall find

Rest beyond the river.


What do Protestants who deny transubstantiation do with the remainders of wine and bread after the Eucharist?

You are correct that most Protestants do not see the bread and wine as anything more than symbols.  There is no blessing that is ever attempted to transform the elements into the literal body and blood of Christ.  Consequently, the bread and wine (or juice) that could be stored for long periods of time prior to the observance of the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper) can be stored for long periods of time afterwards.  Additionally, if the bread or wine goes bad or if there is anything left over after an observance, they can be just thrown away.

So, some would ask if the disposing of these elements is irreverent.  To answer that, it should be understood that the elements only serve as symbols during the observance of the Eucharist/Last Supper.  Before and after, they are just regular, ordinary, "garden variety" bread and wine.

It should be noted, though, that there are some Protestant denominations that do hold the bread and wine in high regard.  Some may even subscribe to transubstantiation.  For those denominations, the practice would likely be similar to that of Catholics and Orthodox.


Are there Christian churches that believe in isolated living?

The short answer is yes

First of all, there are the Amish. They more or less live separated from the world.

  A central concept behind much of the Amish lifestyle and practice is the idea of separation from the world. Of course, the Amish would agree that this means to be separate from overtly wicked worldly practices like murder, adultery, fornication, deceit, fraud, idolatry, and a host of other things obviously condemned as sinful in the scripture. To most Amish, however, the idea of separation from the world extends far beyond this. To the Amish, conformity to the seemingly benign cultural norms of fashion, hairstyle, and certain comforts of modern secular life reflect a desire to conform to the world around you and open oneself up to worldly influence. Communication and transportation technologies encourage people to live further and further apart from one another, destroy community, and promote an emphasis on individuality that flows from selfishness and pride. An electrically powered home and all the amenities that come with it give one a sense of self-sufficiency that destroys one's reliance on family, neighbors, and the local church. This also promotes pride and self-interest. In short, the Amish believe that separation from the world does not only mean separation from the explicitly immoral aspects of the unbelieving world but separating oneself, as much as is possible, from the world's whole way of life and living utterly distinctly from them. There is a certain logic to this, but it, in fact, falls into a trap the scriptures warn us against. Ironically, the Apostle Paul points out that such teaching is itself worldly.

    "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence," (Colossians 2:21).

  Interestingly, the biblical logic is actually that if you have died to the world, the result should be that you do NOT create extra-biblical commands regarding frivolous, material things. The ways of the world do not consist of what they eat, what they wear, or the devices they use. The ways of the world do include, however, the religious impulse to wrap our righteousness up in such things. While the believer can sin in the area of food through gluttony, no specific kinds of food are rejected by the New Testament. Similarly, though the Christian can sin in the area of clothing through immodesty and indecency, no particular style of dress is mandated. A Christian can certainly use technology to separate themselves from God's people, to distract them from God's word, or to access immorality like pornography, but the sin is not in the technology, it is in these particular uses of it.

  This is not to say that we shouldn't take the biblical texts about separation from the world seriously. We absolutely must! But to do so, we have to understand what the Bible considers to be worldly. That is what we need to separate ourselves from. As we have seen, inventing new commands to forbid mundane aspects of material culture is worldly. The mundane aspects of material culture themselves are not innately worldly.

  Come out from among them

    2 Corinthians 6:14-18, "Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you. “And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty."

  This is unquestionably a call for Christians to be a distinct and separate people from the world, and this is a passage that Christian churches and individuals need to take very seriously. The call, however, is not to dress differently from unbelievers or to cook over a different heating source or ride a different kind of vehicle. The call is to be holy. Paul spells this out himself in the very next verse:

    2 Corinthians 7:1, "Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." - The Amish and separation from the world

The Catholic Church permits her faithful to live separated from the world. They are generally known as monks and nuns. However, instead of living this life in view of the soon return of Jesus and the increasing wickedness; they live this way of life in order to be able to be dedicated to a life of prayer.

  Some form of cloister is present in all types of religious life, even the convents of sisters who engage in active apostolates. In such communities, one area of the convent is "cloistered," reserved for the sisters alone. This type of cloister is called common cloister.

  In the contemplative life, the concept of a cloister, a place reserved for the nuns alone, is expanded and deepened. Often the entire monastery is cloistered, and may even be surrounded by a cloister wall. The choir where the nuns sit in the chapel is sometimes hidden from the public who come to pray. And, depending on what form of cloister each monastery professes, the nuns may practice enclosure, which means they vow never to pass beyond the bounds of the cloister. There are three different types of cloister recognized by the Church: papal cloister, constitutional cloister, and monastic cloister, which are explained below.

  Papal Cloister

  Papal cloister is the strictest form of enclosure, in which a nun does not leave the boundaries of the monastery except for serious reasons. The norms defining papal enclosure are given by Rome. The most recent instruction on papal cloister is the 2018 document Cor Orans, which implements what Pope Francis outlined in his 2016 Apostolic Constitution Vultum Dei Quaerere. Cor Orans states: "The law of papal cloister extends to the dwelling and to all the interior and exterior spaces of the monastery reserved exclusively for the nuns in which the presence of strangers can be admitted only in case of necessity. It must be a space of silence and recollection, facilitated by the absence of external works, where the permanent search for the face of God can develop more easily, according to the Institute's charism."

  Some of the orders which traditionally practice papal cloister are: Carmelite Nuns, Poor Clares, Dominican Nuns, Visitandines, Holy Spirit Adoration Sisters, and Handmaids of the Precious Blood.

  Constitutional Cloister

  Constitutional cloister is a form of cloister defined by the norms in the Rule and Constitutions of the individual order. It is generally less strict than papal cloister. This type of cloister is practiced if the community's charism joins to their life of contemplation some kind of apostolic or charitable work. They are still cloistered nuns, but they may have an apostolate attached to the monastery--such as a retreat house--which would be impossible to carry out if they practiced papal enclosure. Cor Orans says of constitutional cloister: "It must be a space of silence and recollection, where the permanent search for the face of God can develop, according to the charism of the Institute, in consideration of the works of apostolate or charity exercised by the nuns" (n. 205).

  Some of the religious orders which traditionally practice constitutional enclosure are: Passionist Nuns, Sisters Adorers of the Precious Blood, and Norbertine Canonesses.

  Monastic Cloister

  Monastic Cloister is "a special expression of the constitutional cloister" (Cor Orans n. 211), one of the most ancient forms of contemplative life. Monastic cloister refers to forms of contemplative life which have always had a charism of hospitality, such as those stemming from the Benedictine tradition. This means guests may be invited to stay at the monastery, and the nuns interact with them much more freely than nuns who practice papal cloister. "For monasteries of contemplative nuns, the monastic cloister, while retaining the character of a more rigorous discipline than the common one, makes it possible to associate the primary function of divine worship with wider forms of reception and hospitality" (Cor Orans n. 210).

  Some of the religious orders who traditionally profess monastic cloister are: Benedictine Nuns, Cistercian/Trappistine Nuns, Sisters of Mary Morning Star. - What is a Cloistered Nun?

Notwithstanding these two example of Christians living separated from the world for whatever reasons they have, history shows us that at least one Christian cult (group) lived separated from the world preparing for the Second Coming. They were the Branch Davidians.

  The Branch Davidians are a religious cult founded in 1959 by Ben Roden as an offshoot of the Davidian Seventh-Day Adventist Church, which had been established by Victor Houteff in the 1930s. Houteff was a Bulgarian emigrant to the United States and Seventh-day Adventist who wrote a set of tracts entitled "Shepherd’s Rod" calling for the reform of the Seventh-day Adventist church. His ideas were rejected by Adventist leaders, and in 1935, Houteff and his followers settled near Waco and began preparing for the Second Coming. Houteff's group eventually moved to a farm near Waco, Texas, but by 1962 Roden and his followers had taken possession of the settlement, which was known as Mt. Carmel.

  The Branch Davidians are most associated with the Waco siege of 1993, a 51-day standoff between Branch Davidians and federal agents that ended when the group's compound near Waco, Texas, was destroyed in a fire. Nearly 80 people were killed.

  The doctrinal beliefs of the Branch Davidians differ on teachings such as the Holy Spirit and his nature, and the feast days and their requirements. Both groups have disputed the relevance of the other's spiritual authority based on the proceedings following Victor Houteff's death. From its inception in 1930, the Davidians/Shepherd's Rod group believed themselves to be living in a time when Biblical prophecies of a Last Judgment were coming to pass as a prelude to Christ's Second Coming.

  In the late 1980s, Koresh and his followers abandoned many Branch Davidian teachings. Koresh became the group's self-proclaimed final prophet. "Koreshians" were the majority resulting from the schism among the Branch Davidians, but some of the Branch Davidians did not join Koresh's group and instead gathered around George Roden or became independent. Following a series of violent shootouts between Roden's and Koresh's group, the Mount Carmel compound was eventually taken over by the "Koreshians". In 1993, the ATF and Texas Army National Guard raided one of the properties belonging to a new religious movement centered around David Koresh that evolved from the Branch Davidians for suspected weapons violations. It is unknown who shot first, but the ATF surrounded and tried to invade the home of the Branch Davidians. This raid resulted in a two-hour firefight in which four ATF agents were killed; this was followed by a standoff with government agents that lasted for 51 days. The siege ended in a fire that engulfed the Mount Carmel compound which led to the deaths of 76 Branch Davidians inside. - Branch Davidians

Who knows, perhaps others may arise in the near future!


Prefacing with quotes from the article [which is critical of Mr. Aslan] referenced in the question:

Like every other scholar with the chutzpah to try to divide the
historical Jesus accurately from the Christ of Christian faith, Aslan
does a lot of cherry-picking. [...]
And what about the obvious problems with the argument that Jesus was
not just a political revolutionary — as biblical scholar John Dominic
Crossan and others have argued — but a violent one? What are we to
make of Jesus’s apparent lack of interest in doing anything practical
whatsoever to prepare for holy war? If he has come to fight for “a
real kingdom, with an actual king,” where are his soldiers and their
weapons? And why no battle plan?
In the end, “Zealot” offers readers not the historical Jesus but a
Jesus for our place and time — an American Jesus for the 21st century,
and more specifically for a post-Sept. 11 society struggling to make
sense of Christianity’s ongoing rivalry with Islam.

Answering Mr. Aslan [through the question posed]: "This is our position/accusation, now support/prove it for us" is not how it is done.
In programs that appear on secular TV around the Christmas and Easter seasons, e.g. After Jesus | CNN, the narrative given for  Jesus' crucifixion is that he was a rabble-rouser [exact wording - I had to look it up] and the local Roman officials had to deal with him, and in a way that issued a warning to others, or else the matter, unresolved, would landed them in hot water with Rome.
Similarly, St. John's account of Jesus' crucifixion is explained away as a 'Johnny-come-lately' [no pun intended] narrative that progressively pins Jesus' crucifixion on 'the Jews' [one wonders why a Jew would want to do that to fellow Jews].
My take was that this is one of the fallouts from Antisemitism.
These were the politico-religious sects/factions at the time of Jesus: the Pharisees, the Zealots, and the Herodians. There is no historical or scriptual basis that Jesus belonged to any of these.
A cursory look at Jesus' Apostles and Disciples might indicate an apparent indirect link to the Zealots via St. Simon the Apostle, surnamed Zelotes [cf. Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13], except the New Advent link from his name explains his name does not signify that he belonged to the party of Zealots, but that he had zeal for the Jewish law, which he practised before his call.
It is likely that Mr. Reza Aslan is jumping on the bandwagon of the current popular narrative [what people want to hear, aligned with the current political opinion, and what sells], and if not, he has the burden of proof to his assertions in the absence of historical and scriptural [the Gospels are also historical] evidence.
Was Jesus a political revolutionary? A violent one?
Another approach is to look at Jesus' 'Movement' after his Death and Resurrection. If he were, as the question asks, it is surprising that of his followers [14 out of 16 Apostles] all but one were martyred for him like lambs led to the slaughter. Their legacy a 2000-year [now the] oldest institution in the world; absent in it a violent political revolutionary idealogy.


What evidence is there that the Apostle Paul had been a member of the Sanhedrin?

Stephen was stoned by the Sanhedrin and Paul (then named Saul) was present. The full story is told from Acts 6:8 to 7:60 but the relevant verses are:

Acts 6:12b:

  They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin.

(6:15 also shows they were in the Sanhedrin.)

And Paul's presence is shown in 7:58b:

  Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

Final note: in Acts 23:6 Paul himself appears before the Sanhderin and calls himself a "Pharisee".


In 1611, in the KJV, what did the words "ghost" and "spirit" mean?

They seem to have been used interchangeably, with some overlapping definitions and figurative usage in the English language before and leading up to the 17th Century translation of the KJV. The meaning of each is, at least in the Greek, dictated by context. Thus, each of these words for the translators in English also had multiple meanings and connotations that were rooted in the context in which they appeared in the text.

In regards to "Spirit,” “Ghost” (and “Breath”) in the New Testament Greek

It seems that the KJV translators viewed one definition of "spirit" as synonymous with "ghost," and that "breath" is sometimes used figuratively as a synonym of "spirit," much as the Latin word for breath, spiritus, was used figuratively to refer to the soul or spirit of a human being.

  English Word Origins:

  Spirit. Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French, from Latin spiritus ‘breath, spirit,’ from spirare (‘breathe.’)

  Ghost. Old English gāst (in the sense ‘spirit, soul’), of Germanic origin; related to Dutch geest and German geist. The gh- spelling occurs first in Caxton (c. 1422 – c. 1491), probably influenced by Flemish gheest. (Oxford Dictionaries)

In Luke 24:37, when Jesus appears to the disciples, they are afraid because they think He's a ghost in the sense that we use the word today - a nebulous apparition of a dead person:

  37 But they were terrified, and afrighted, and supposed that they had seene a spirit. (1611 KJV).

In this instance, the Greek word used is pneuma, which the translators rendered as "spirit." The context of the situation makes it clear what Luke meant by pneuma. Thus, we can take one of the definitions of "spirit" in the 1611 King James to be a synonym of our current English definition or meaning for "ghost."

As Jesus dies on the cross in Luke 23:46, we see pneuma again, and once again rendered by the 1611 KJV as "spirit" in English, but in the sense that we define "soul" today (the spiritual part of a person that gives life to the body):

  46  And when Iesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: And hauing said thus, he gaue vp the ghost.

Again, the context of the usage makes it clear what Luke means by pneuma here. It's also interesting to note that "gave up the ghost" is the translators' rendering of exepneusen, or "he breathed his last." So we see "ghost" used as part of an idiomatic rendering of what appears to be an idiom in the Greek.

So, Why The Different Renderings?

As for why the KJV translators chose to vary the rendering with synonyms, we can look to the instructions and guidelines they were given by King James I. Whenever we discuss the King James, we must recognize the tradition of prior English Bibles and the influence they had on the language used in the KJV. As the translators of the KJV carried out their work, they were working under 15 “rules for revision” from the court of James I himself, most notably (in this case):

  The Bishops' Bible (1602 revision) to be followed "and as little altered as the original will permit.”
  Words of varying interpretations to be rendered in accordance with patristic tradition and the analogy of faith.
  “These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: namely, Tindal's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, the Geneva.” (Pope, Hugh. English Versions of the Bible (Westport, Ct.: Greenwood Press, Publishers), pp. 309-325).

Therefore, we have to recognize that some words may have been maintained (especially where multiple interpretations are possible) according to the tradition established by English Bibles prior to the publishing of the KJV. In fact, the KJV’s wording lines up to be quite similar to The Bishops’ Bible on many counts. Returning to the example of Luke 24:37 from above:

  37 But they were abaffled and afrayde, & supposed that they had seene a spirite. (1568 Bishops’ Bible)

It’s likely that words with multiple synonyms were kept the same as they were rendered in the Bishops’ Bible when the KJV translators were deciding on the final word choice for the King James. This wasn’t  seen as something that would “muddy the waters,” but that would maintain the language tradition that had been established in prior English translations.


Is there any biblical basis to support demonic paranormal activity?
Does the Bible record examples of demonic paranormal activity? Do the Scriptures support the ability of demons to manipulate objects and intervene in the physical world?
The short answer is maybe at best. And then only perhaps indirectly!
There is no direct biblical support to suggest that demons are capable of making footstep noises, scratching on walls, moving drawers in and out, opening closets and then closing them,  making things things fly off the shelves or walls, beds shaking, chairs moving, objects falling down, light bulbs exploding, stuff levitating, the temperature in the room suddenly dropping, making horrible demonic "smell", creating audible evil growls or other paranormal activity.
The Devil and his minions are in a way comparable to a virus (Covid-19, if you wish) or electricity. All three are seemingly invisible, yet could be potentially dangerous to mankind, if circumstances are right.
There is an invisible realm in our world. Let us always recall the words of St. Paul:

12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. - Ephesians 6:12

St. Paul admits that the forces of evil rule the air in which we live live, thus the possibility of evil manipulating the physical sphere in which we live does not at all seem an outright impossibility.
Again St. Paul teaches thus (Admittedly, both interpretation and translation of the Sacred Texts plays a big part here):

2 And you, when you were dead in your offences, and sins,
2 Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief. - Ephesians 2:1-2

We can see the work of Satan and his hatred for the holiness of true saints in the person of Job. Satan created a storm that killed Job’s family, yet Job did not sin by blaming God.

9 Satan replied, “Would Job worship you if he got nothing out of it? 10 You have always protected him and his family and everything he owns. You bless everything he does, and you have given him enough cattle to fill the whole country. 11 But now suppose you take away everything he has—he will curse you to your face!”
12 “All right,” the Lord said to Satan, “everything he has is in your power, but you must not hurt Job himself.” So Satan left.
13 One day when Job's children were having a feast at the home of their oldest brother, 14 a messenger came running to Job. “We were plowing the fields with the oxen,” he said, “and the donkeys were in a nearby pasture. 15 Suddenly the Sabeans attacked and stole them all. They killed every one of your servants except me. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”
16 Before he had finished speaking, another servant came and said, “Lightning struck the sheep and the shepherds and killed them all. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”
17 Before he had finished speaking, another servant came and said, “Three bands of Chaldean raiders attacked us, took away the camels, and killed all your servants except me. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”
18 Before he had finished speaking, another servant came and said, “Your children were having a feast at the home of your oldest son, 19 when a storm swept in from the desert. It blew the house down and killed them all. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”
20 Then Job got up and tore his clothes in grief. He shaved his head and threw himself face downward on the ground. 21 He said, “I was born with nothing, and I will die with nothing. The Lord gave, and now he has taken away. May his name be praised!”
22 In spite of everything that had happened, Job did not sin by blaming God. - Job 1: 9-22

It is obvious, that the demons can to some degree manipulate the physical world we live in and they do not need the intermediary of a human person to communicate to us. There are countless references of the good Angels speaking to people in both the New and Old Testament.  The Annunciation is just one example:

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favour with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob's descendants forever; his kingdom will never end." - Luke 1:26–38

We thus see that the Angel Gabriel is trying to keep the Virgin Mary calm during the angelic visitation.
Now for Satan or anyone of the demons, they do not care about mankind one iota. They simply want us all to go to hell and join them forever.
The soul that is truly arduous in holiness and genuinely seeks the conversion of sinners is not going to get such a warm welcome from the Devil and his Legions. If you steal his prey, it makes logical sense he would try to scare the hell out of you. There is no real difficultly for me to imagine to Devil making all sorts of noises to make someone think they are going crazy and being drawn into despair.

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. - 1 Corinthians 13:1

Satan will do all it takes and make as much noise to interfere in his plans to ruin mankind. The Devil loves not, thus he is the clanging cymbal par excellence.
What exactly were the manifestations of paranormal activities of the demons is not listed in Sacred Scriptures, but we must deduce that some truly existed. The story of the seven sons of one Sceva in Acts 19: 13-17 fits in well here:

13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.
14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.
15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
17 And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. - Acts19:13-17

What all transpired during this exorcism, we just do not know. St. Luke only recounts a rough outline, in order to keep our imagination healthy. There is no need to dwell on the morbid. Obvious light bulbs did not explode as they were not invented yet. Were there other manifestation of paranormal activity? Certainly, but Scripture remains silent on this issue.
Another time Jesus Restores a Demon-Possessed Man who lived amongst the tombs and “night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.”

5 They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.[a] 2 When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an impure spirit came from the tombs to meet him. 3 This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain. 4 For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.
6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. 7 He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!” 8 For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you impure spirit!” - Mark 5:1-20

Once again, allow me to use Scripture to relate the possibility of the good Angels helping us to hold that the opposite may also be true in our lives.
Let us recall the story in St. John’s Gospel how the Angel of God stirred the water in the Pool of Bethesda! Now if the Angel of God could do good this way, what stops Evil from intervening in our lives to create havoc and fear.

For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had. - John 5:4

If the Angel of God can stir the waters to heal, can not the Devil shake beds, etc. to scare the wits out of us...

Nightly Monsieur Vianney’s rectory was the site of a terrifying cacophony: scurrying and gnawing rats, the sound of pounding nails, and howling wind.  When the noises failed to trouble the holy Curé, the Devil turned over furniture, smeared excrement on the doorway, and set the priest’s bed on fire. To this last effort, Vianney responded, “The wretched fiend.  He has not been able to catch the bird, so he has burnt the cage.”  - The Devil’s Most Effective Foe

Saint John Vianney's Bed, burnt by the devil.


Testimonies of the existence of Mary and Joseph

Though Joseph and Mary are not mentioned directly, Josephus writes about 93 CE an account of James, brother of Jesus.

  Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:
  https://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.ii.xxi.ix.html

In addition, Clement of Alexandria circa 200 CE wrote about Joseph and Mary, though this reference is only found in Eusebius.

  Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, “was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,” as the account of the holy Gospels shows.
  https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vii.ii.html


Does the Gospel imply that the victim in the Good Samaritan parable was a thief himself?

By your own comparison of versions, you've shown it's not a good translation.

You are right at least that the victim has been viewed as a very bad man. Many commentators have viewed the parable as having two meanings. One, a law message that you are to care for the needs of those who are your enemies. Two, it is a Gospel message where Jesus is the Good Samaritan and comes to rescue the man ruined by his sins. Here is a quote from Martin Luther's Sermon for the Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity; Luke 10:23-37

  The man who here lies half dead, wounded and stripped of his clothing' is Adam and all mankind. The murderers are the devils who robbed and wounded us, and left us lying prostrate half dead. We still struggle a little for life; but there lies horse and man, we cannot help ourselves to our feet, and if we were left thus lying we would have to die by reason of our great anguish and lack of nourishment; maggots would grow in our wounds, followed by great misery and distress.
  The parable stands in bold relief, and pictures us perfectly, what we are and can do with our boasted reason and free will. If the poor wounded man had desired to help himself, it would only have been worse for him, he would only have done harm to himself and irritated his wounds, and only prepared more misery and distress for himself.


Scriptural reference to explain what the word "gospel" means?

The definition of the Greek word euangelizō is "good news." (Koiné Greek is the original language of the New Testament.) A familiar verse with euangelizō in it is Luke 2:10, which reads,

  But the angel said [to the shepherds], "Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news [i.e., euangelizō] of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (including v.11).

Interestingly, an evangelist, a person who is empowered by the Holy Spirit of God and then given to the church, is one who is gifted to spread the glad tidings that Jesus is both Savior and Lord (see Ephesians 4:11-12).

Evangelists are like obstetricians (so-called "baby doctors") who are gifted by God to help bring spiritual newborns into the kingdom of Jesus Christ and his universal church. When evangelists preach the good news, people get saved by believing on and receiving Jesus into their lives as their rescuer and boss.

I encourage you to use a concordance to look up the word news, which appears numerous times in the New Testament (at least 43 times in the New International Version of the Bible) in order to get a well-rounded view of what the gospel of Jesus Christ is.


How does Human Nature relate to Angelic Nature, specifically regarding sin and free-will?

Paul is quite specific as to how sin entered our own sphere of existence :

  ... by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: [Romans 5:12, KJV.]

In this particular place he attributes the entrance of sin, into our own realm, to one man. The text you quote in I Timothy enlarges on that and conveys the role played by woman.

The writer to the Hebrews conveys three things about the nature of angels :

  And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. [Hebrews 1:7, KJV.]

Firstly, as to their being, they are spirit-beings, that is to say, they have no personal material or substantive form as we humans do. It is clear from many scriptures that they may, as messengers (which is what both the Hebrew malak and the Greek aggelos mean) take, temporarily, either a manifestation of humanity or they may appear in a dream in a form which expresses their messenger role.

Secondly, the nature of their life, the way in which their life functions (which will be different from humans whose 'life' is in their 'blood', that is to say breathed in atmosphere flowing through the bloodstream to every part of the body energises human nature). The mode of the life-function of angels is likened (so that we may understand it) to fire - a burning, non-solid, energy.

Thirdly, their existence is (as should also be the case for humans) a continual service towards God, as Gabriel made clear to Zachariah when he said :

  I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings. [Luke 1:19, KJV.]

The writer to the Hebrews also makes clear what the remedy is for sin, with regard to humans :

  And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. [Hebrews 2:15 and 16, KJV.]

Speaking of Jesus Christ, the writer makes it clear that Jesus Christ 'took on' the nature of humanity in order that humans might be redeemed from sin. By partaking of their nature and suffering on their behalf, he redeemed them from the transgression of humanity.

I can find nothing in scripture that expresses anything similar to this in regard to angels except the expression 'elect angels' :

  I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things ... [I Timothy 5:21, KJV.]


What are the different names of God in the Bible and what do they mean?

Elohim
Genesis 1:1 (ESV)

1
In the beginning, God [Elohim] created the heavens and the earth.

Pslam 19:1 (ESV)

1 The heavens declare the glory of God, [Elohim]
   and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

The name "Elohim" means "God" and is a reference to God's power and might.
Adonai
Malachi  1:6 (ESV)

… And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts [Adonai] to you, O priests…

Adonai means "Lord" and refers to the Lordship of God.
Jehovah/Yahweh
Genesis 2:4 (ESV)

4  These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created,in the day that the LORD God [Jehovah-Yahweh] made the earth and the heavens.

Translated as I am, I am who am, or I am who I am, and indicates God's personal, eternal, non-contingent nature. It is given to Moses by God when prompted for His name.
Jehovah-Maccaddeshem
Exodus 31:13

13"You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, 'Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, [Jehovah-Maccaddeshem] sanctify you.'"

Means "The Lord thy sanctifier"
Jehovah-Rohi
Psalm 23:1 (ESV)

1The LORD [Jehovah-Rohi] is my shepherd; I shall not want.

Jehovah-Shammah
Ezekiel 48:35 (ESV)

35The circumference of the city shall be 18,000 cubits. And the name of the city from that time on shall be, The LORD Is There. [Jehovah-Shammah]"

Means "The Lord who is present"
Jehovah-Rapha
Exodus 15:26 (ESV)

"…I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, your healer. [Jehovah-Rapha]"

Means "The Lord our healer"
Jehovah-Tsidkenu
Jeremiah 23:6 (ESV)

6In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: 'The LORD is our righteousness.'

Means "The Lord our righteousness"
Jehovah-Jireh
Genesis 22:14 (ESV)

14So Abraham called the name of that place, "The LORD will provide"; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided."

Means "The Lord will provide"
Jehovah-Nissi
Exodus 17:15 (ESV)

15And Moses built an altar and called the name of it, The LORD Is My Banner,

Means the "The Lord is my banner"
Jehovah-Shalom
Judges 6:24 (ESV)

24Then Gideon built an altar there to the LORD [Jehovah-Shalom] and called it, The LORD Is Peace. To this day it still stands at Ophrah, which belongs to the Abiezrites.

Means "The Lord is peace"
Jehovah-Sabbaoth
Isaiah 6:1-3 (ESV)

3And one called to another and said:

       "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!"

Means the "Lord of hosts"
Jehovah-Gmolah
Jeremiah 51:6 (ESV)

6
…Be not cut off in her punishment,
              for this is the time of the LORD’s [Jehovah-Gmolah] vengeance,
               the repayment he is rendering her.

Means "The God of Recompense"
El-Elyon
Genesis 14:17-20 (ESV)

19And he blessed him and said,

       "Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
       Possessor[a] of heaven and earth;
20and blessed be God Most High,
      who has delivered your enemies into your hand!"

Isaiah 14:14 (ESV)

14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
    I will make myself like the Most High.'

Means "The most high God"
El-Roi
Genesis 16:13 (ESV)

13 So she called the name of the LORD [El-Roi] who spoke to her, "You are a God of seeing," for she said, "Truly here I have seen him who looks after me."

Means "The strong one who sees"
El-Shaddai
Genesis 17:1 (ESV)

1
When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty [El Shaddai]; walk before me, and be blameless,

Psalm 91:1

1 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High [El-Shaddai]
   will abide in the shadow of the Almighty.

Means "The God of the mountains" or "God Almighty"
El-Olam
Isaiah 40:31 (ESV)

31but they who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength;
     they shall mount up with wings like eagles;
they shall run and not be weary;
     they shall walk and not faint.

Means "The everlasting God"
I am not sure if this is what you are looking for, but here are some other names of God:
•   ABBA.............................Romans 8:15
•   ADVOCATE.........................I John 2:1 (kjv)
•   ALMIGHTY.........................Genesis 17:1
•   ALPHA............................Revelation 22:13
•   AMEN.............................Revelation 3:14
•   ANCIENT OF DAYS..................Daniel 7:9
•   ANOINTED ONE.....................Psalm 2:2
•   APOSTLE..........................Hebrews 3:1
•   ARM OF THE LORD..................Isaiah 53:1
•   AUTHOR OF LIFE...................Acts 3:15
•   AUTHOR OF OUR FAITH..............Hebrews 12:2

•   BEGINNING.........................Revelation 21:6
•   BLESSED & HOLY RULER..............1 Timothy 6:15
•   BRANCH............................Jeremiah 33:15
•   BREAD OF GOD......................John 6:33
•   BREAD OF LIFE.....................John 6:35
•   BRIDEGROOM........................Isaiah 62:56
•   BRIGHT MORNING STAR...............Revelation 22:16

•   CHIEF SHEPHERD.....................1 Peter 5:4
•   CHOSEN ONE.........................Isaiah 42:1
•   CHRIST.............................Matthew 22:42
•   CHRIST OF GOD......................Luke 9:20
•   CHRIST THE LORD....................Luke 2:11
•   CHRIST, SON OF LIVING GOD..........Matthew 16:16
•   COMFORTER..........................John 14:26(kjv)
•   COMMANDER..........................Isaiah 55:4
•   CONSOLATION OF ISRAEL...............Luke 2:25
•   CONSUMING FIRE......................Deut. 4:24, Heb. 12:29
•   CORNERSTONE.........................Isaiah 28:16
•   COUNSELOR...........................Isaiah 9:6
•   CREATOR.............................1 Peter 4:19

•   DELIVERER..............................Romans 11:26
•   DESIRED OF ALL NATIONS.................Haggai 2:7
•   DOOR...................................John 10:7(kjv)

•   END....................................Revelation 21:6
•   ETERNAL GOD............................Deut. 33:27
•   EVERLASTING FATHER.....................Isaiah 9:6

•   FAITHFUL & TRUE........................Revelation 19:11
•   FAITHFUL WITNESS.......................Revelation 1:5
•   FATHER.................................Matthew 6:9
•   FIRSTBORN (3)........................................Rom.8:29,Rev.1:5,Col.1:15
•   FIRSTFRUITS............................1 Cor.15:20-23
•   FOUNDATION.............................1 Cor. 3:11
•   FRIEND OF TAX COLLECTORS & SINNERS.....Matthew 11:19

•   GENTLE WHISPER.........................1 Kings 19:12
•   GIFT OF GOD............................John 4:10
•   GLORY OF THE LORD......................Isaiah 40:5
•   GOD....................................Genesis 1:1
•   GOD ALMIGHTY...........................Genesis 17:1
•   GOD OVER ALL...........................Romans 9:5
•   GOD WHO SEES ME........................Genesis 16:13
•   GOOD SHEPHERD..........................John 10:11
•   GREAT HIGH PRIEST......................Hebrews 4:14
•   GREAT SHEPHERD.........................Hebrews 13:20
•   GUIDE..................................Psalm 48:14

•   HEAD OF THE BODY.......................Colossians 1:18
•   HEAD OF THE CHURCH.....................Ephesians 5:23
•   HEIR OF ALL THINGS.....................Hebrews 1:2
•   HIGH PRIEST............................Hebrews 3:1
•   HIGH PRIEST FOREVER....................Hebrews 6:20
•   HOLY ONE...............................Acts 2:27
•   HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL.....................Isaiah 49:7
•   HOLY SPIRIT............................John 15:26
•   HOPE...................................Titus 2:13
•   HORN OF SALVATION......................Luke 1:69

•   I AM....................................Exodus 3:14, John 8:58
•   IMAGE OF GOD............................2 Cor. 4:4
•   IMAGE OF HIS PERSON.....................Hebrews 1:3 (kjv)
•   IMMANUEL................................Isaiah 7:14

•   JEALOUS..............................Exodus 34:14 (kjv)
•   JEHOVAH..............................Psalm 83:18 (kjv)
•   JESUS................................Matthew 1:21
•   JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD................Romans 6:23
•   JUDGE................................Isaiah 33:22, Acts 10:42

•   KING.................................Zechariah 9:9
•   KING ETERNAL.........................1 Timothy 1:17
•   KING OF KINGS........................1 Timothy 6:15
•   KING OF THE AGES.....................Revelation 15:3

•   LAMB OF GOD...........................John 1:29
•   LAST ADAM.............................1 Cor. 15:45
•   LAWGIVER..............................Isaiah 33:22
•   LEADER................................Isaiah 55:4
•   LIFE..................................John 14:6
•   LIGHT OF THE WORLD....................John 8:12
•   LIKE AN EAGLE.........................Deut. 32:11
•   LILY OF THE VALLEYS...................Song 2:1
•   LION OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH............Revelation 5:5
•   LIVING STONE..........................1 Peter 2:4
•   LIVING WATER..........................John 4:10
•   LORD..................................John 13:13
•   LORD GOD ALMIGHTY.....................Revelation 15:3
•   LORD JESUS CHRIST.....................1 Cor. 15:57
•   LORD OF ALL...........................Acts 10:36
•   LORD OF GLORY ........................1 Cor. 2:8
•   LORD OF HOSTS.........................Haggai 1:5
•   LORD OF LORDS.........................1 Tim. 6:15
•   LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS..............Jeremiah 23:6
•   LOVE.................................1 John 4:8

•   MAN OF SORROWS.........................Isaiah 53:3
•   MASTER..................................Luke 5:5
•   MEDIATOR................................1 Timothy 2:5
•   MERCIFUL GOD............................Jeremiah 3:12
•   MESSENGER OF THE COVENANT................Malachi 3:1
•   MESSIAH................................. John 4:25
•   MIGHTY GOD...............................Isaiah 9:6
•   MIGHTY ONE...............................Isaiah 60:16

•   NAZARENE.................................Matthew 2:23

•   OFFSPRING OF DAVID.......................Revelation 22:16
•   OMEGA....................................Revelation 22:13
•   ONLY BEGOTTEN SON........................John 1:18(kjv)
•   OUR PASSOVER LAMB........................1 Cor. 5:7
•   OUR PEACE................................Ephesians 2:14

•   POTTER...................................Isaiah 64:8
•   POWER OF GOD.............................1 Cor. 1:24
•   PRINCE OF PEACE..........................Isaiah 9:6
•   PROPHET..................................Acts 3:22
•   PURIFIER.................................Malachi 3:3

•   RABBONI (TEACHER)........................John 20:16
•   RADIANCE OF GOD'S GLORY..................Heb.1:3
•   REDEEMER.................................Job 19:25
•   REFINER'S FIRE...........................Malachi 3:2
•   RESURRECTION.............................John 11:25
•   RIGHTEOUS ONE............................1 John 2:1
•   ROCK.....................................1 Cor.10:4
•   ROOT OF DAVID............................Rev. 22:16
•   ROSE OF SHARON...........................Song 2:1
•   RULER OF GOD'S CREATION..................Rev. 3:14
•   RULER OVER KINGS OF EARTH................Rev 1:5
•   RULER OVER ISRAEL........................Micah 5:2

•   SAVIOR...................................Luke 2:11
•   SCEPTER OUT OF ISRAEL....................Numbers 24:17
•   SEED.....................................Genesis 3:15
•   SERVANT..................................Isaiah 42:1
•   SHEPHERD OF OUR SOULS....................1Peter 2:25
•   SHIELD...................................Genesis 15:1
•   SON OF DAVID.............................Matthew 1:1
•   SON OF GOD...............................Matthew 27:54
•   SON OF MAN...............................Matthew 8:20
•   SON OF THE MOST HIGH.....................Luke 1:32
•   SOURCE...................................Hebrews 5:9
•   SPIRIT OF GOD............................Genesis 1:2
•   STAR OUT OF JACOB........................Numbers 24:17
•   STONE....................................1 Peter 2:8
•   SUN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.....................Malachi 4:2

•   TEACHER...................................John 13:13
•   TRUE LIGHT................................John 1:9
•   TRUE WITNESS..............................Revelation 3:14
•   TRUTH.....................................John 14:6

•   VINE......................................John 15:5

•   WAY........................................John 14:6
•   WISDOM OF GOD..............................1 Cor. 1:24
•   WITNESS....................................Isaiah 55:4
•   WONDERFUL..................................Isaiah 9:6
•   WORD.......................................John 1:1
•   WORD OF GOD................................Revelation 19:13


Imposition of Ashes - where in Catholicism is it commonly practiced?

I believe that the imposition of ashes is universal within the Roman Catholic Church.  The practice was "made official" in a 1091 decree of the Council of Benevento, which states:

  "on Ash Wednesday everyone, clergy and laity, men and women, will receive ashes"1

Before that, the practice was done in private, dating back many centuries, and probably in some church services since at least the 8th century.

What is not universal is how the ashes are applied. A 1988 circular letter simply states:

  On the Wednesday before the first Sunday of Lent, the faithful receive the ashes, thus entering into the time established for the purification of their souls...  The blessing and imposition of ashes should take place either in the Mass or outside of the Mass. In the latter case, it is to be part of a liturgy of the word and conclude with the prayer of the faithful.2

Thus individual churches may administer the ashes in different ways.  Traditionally, men received ashes sprinkled on the crown of head, while women received them in the form of a sign of the cross on the forehead.  In English-speaking countries today, it is common to mix the ashes with water (to make them stick better) and make a sign of the cross, while in other places a cross is made without any water.  In Rome, the traditional sprinkling practice is still used.  Apparently some churches now use a "stamp" to impose the ashes. (See also this article which states: "There are no set rules regarding this, and it largely depends on local custom.")

Turning to the specific example cited, the Portugese Wikipedia may have failed to mention the practice when the question was originally asked, but it now says:

  Missas são realizadas tradicionalmente nesse dia nas quais os participantes são abençoados com cinzas pelo padre que preside à cerimónia. O padre marca a testa de cada celebrante com cinzas, deixando uma marca que o cristão normalmente deixa em sua testa até ao pôr do sol, antes de lavá-la. ("Masses are traditionally held on that day [Ash Wednesday] in which participants are blessed with ashes by the priest who presides over the ceremony. The priest marks the forehead of each celebrant with ashes, leaving a mark that the Christian usually leaves on his forehead to the sunset, before washing it.")

The Portuguese people in Czech service described in the question were presumably confused either by the method by which the ashes were applied or by the fact it was being done on a Sunday (as suggested by a commenter).  I was not able to find any evidence of Roman Catholic Churches that don't physically administer ashed in Portugal or anywhere else.


Why did Katarina von Bora need to hide in a barrel to escape from her convent?

Martin Luther and Katarina von Bora (Frau Luther as she became) belonged to different orders. He was an Augustinian canon, and as such, although resident with other priests, in a monastery, worked in the community. In his case he was Professor of Theology at the Wittenberg University, and also preached in the town Church. In his younger days, he had been sent to Rome on business for his order.

Luther did not renounce his monastic vows until shortly before his wedding in 1525, and he continued to live in what had been the monastery, along with students from the university for the rest of his life.

Katarina, on the other hand, belonged to a Cistercian nunnery which meant she had much less freedom. Cistercians affirmed a strict application of the Rule of St Benedict, and focussed on self-sufficiency, physical work, devotion, prayer and austerity. However, Cistercian houses varied. Katarina's convent, at Nimbschen, near Grimma, had several estates and Katerina would have worked in the grain fields and gained experience of farming and brewing beer.

More importantly,  her nunnery was in the territory ruled by Duke George, who was unsympathetic to the Reformation, and had already executed  one Heinrich Kener for aiding a nun to escape. She was not closely confined, or guarded like a prisoner, but if she had simply left she would have been in dangerous territory for an escaped nun.  Luther, some fifty miles away  in Wittenberg, was in the territory of Frederick the Wise, and so the escaped nuns were safe there.

Herr and Frau Luther were married a little over two years after the escape, and Frau Luther, "die Lutherin",  became a role model for vicars wives everywhere.

Ref: Martin Luther by Mensch and Peters page 154


What is the basis for the Swedenborgian view that the most common concept of God in Christianity (the Trinity) is a belief in three gods?

Though Swedenborgians generally don't put much focus on charging mainstream, trinitarian Christians with tritheism, a rejection of the Trinity of Persons is key to Swedenborgian doctrine. A key part of that rejection is that the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is viewed as being a belief in three gods rather than in one God, and therefore as being polytheistic rather than monotheistic. Strict monotheism is central to Swedenborgian faith and worship. Anything that conflicts with or endangers full, strict monotheism is therefore rejected.
The basis for the Swedenborgian view that the traditional Trinity of Persons is a belief in three gods rather than in one God is as follows:
Here is a quote from the Athanasian Creed, which is accepted as authoritative by the vast bulk of Christians and Christian denominations, showing that the situation is more complex than simply saying that the Trinity is one God:

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. (Source: Athanasian Creed, from Wikipedia)

This statement perfectly encapsulates the fundamental contradiction in the doctrine of the Trinity, and the reason why every Christian theologian who expounds on it admits that it is a mystery that cannot be understood by the human mind, but that must nevertheless be believed.
The practical reality is that in thinking of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each as distinct "persons" of God, the mind of the believer inevitably thinks of them as three different beings. This is tantamount to thinking of three gods, no matter how vigorously the believer says "one God" with the lips. Each person of God is given a distinct role, and they are conceptualized as interacting with one another as distinct personalities.
To illustrate this picture of three gods in the minds of those who believe in the Trinity, in Christian artwork the Trinity is commonly pictured as three distinct beings. In Western Christianity, most commonly the Father is pictured as an old bearded man, the Son as a young bearded man (often on the cross or associated with the cross), and the Holy Spirit as a dove. For example:

Holy Trinity, fresco by Luca Rossetti da Orta
In Eastern Christianity, artwork depicting the Trinity often simply has three human figures. For example:

Trinity (Andrei Rublev)
Clearly, though the lips are saying "one," the mind is thinking "three." But as the Athanasian Creed says, the church forbids the faithful from saying, "There are three Gods." Therefore faithful Christian trinitarians will always say, "There is one God."
Here is how Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), whose theology is accepted in the various Swedenborgian denominations, articulates this contradiction between what the mind is thinking and what the lips are saying, based on the Athanasian Creed. This is from Swedenborg's True Christianity, #172:

At a conceptual level, the idea of a trinity of divine persons from eternity (meaning before the world was created) is a trinity of gods. This idea is impossible to wipe out just by orally confessing one God. The following words in the Athanasian Creed make it very obvious that a trinity of divine persons from eternity is a trinity of gods:

The Father is one person, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another. The Father is God and Lord, the Son is God and Lord, and the Holy Spirit is God and Lord. Nevertheless there are not three gods and lords; there is one God and Lord. Just as Christian truth compels us to confess each person individually as God and Lord, so the catholic religion forbids us to say three gods or three lords.

This creed has been accepted by the entire Christian church as ecumenical or universal. Today everything known and acknowledged about God comes from it. Those who took part in the Council of Nicaea that gave birth to this posthumous child called the Athanasian Creed had no other concept of the Trinity except a trinity of gods, as any can see who merely keep their eyes open as they read it. Since then they have not been the only people thinking in terms of a trinity of gods; the Christian world thinks in terms of no other Trinity because its whole concept of God comes from that creed and everyone now lives in a faith based on those words.
I submit it as a challenge to everyone—both laity and clergy, laureled professors and doctors as well as consecrated bishops and archbishops, even cardinals robed in scarlet and in fact the Roman pope himself—that the Christian world nowadays thinks of no other Trinity except a trinity of gods. You should all examine yourselves and then speak on the basis of the images in your mind.
The words of this creed—the universally accepted teaching about God—make it as clear and obvious as water in a crystal bowl. For example, the creed says that there are three persons, each of whom is God and Lord. It also says that because of Christian truth, people ought to confess or acknowledge that each person is individually God and Lord, but that the catholic or Christian religion or faith forbids us to say three gods or lords. This would mean that truth and religion, or truth and faith, are not the same thing; they are at odds with each other.
The writers of the creed added the point that there is one God and Lord, not three gods and lords, so that they would not be exposed to ridicule before the whole world. Who would not laugh at three gods? On the other hand, though, anyone can see the contradiction in the phrase they added.

Certainly, due to the insistence of the Bible and the church that there is one God, Christians who believe in the Trinity will always and emphatically say that there is one God.
However, the Swedenborgian view is that no matter how many times this is said, the concept in the minds of those who believe in the Trinity is of three divine beings. This amounts to thinking of God as three gods, regardless of any abstract metaphysical statements about their being "one in essence," and regardless of the continually repeated statement that the three are one God.


How do those who support the perpetual virginity of Mary doctrine harmonize the Protevangelium of James with the Gospel of Matthew?

The harmonization would be that the Gospel of Matthew is divinely inspired Sacred Scripture, while the Protoevangelium of James is merely pious tradition. In case of nonconformity between the two, Matthew takes precedence.


Tree of Life in the Book of Mormon a common Near Eastern motif?

Yes, the Tree of Life is actually a common motif for seemingly many cultures -- not just the Near East. Its symbol and presence in mythology transcends geographical boundaries. Just conducting a basic google search, Wikipedia  cites all the many cultures that have portrayed a "Tree of Life" in their mythical/philosophical traditions: Tree of life (Wikipedia). As you can see, the cultures range from Ancient Iran to China to Europe to Mesoamerica. The existence of trees all around the world and their ability to grow, blossom, and provide fruit likely make the "Tree of Life" a pan-human archetype, especially in regards to concepts concerning "eternal life" since trees play a prominent role in the circle of life.
In regards to specifically Near Eastern motifs, I would like to provide another resounding "yes." In fact, I'm not sure if you're aware, but it is also present in Judeo-Christian traditions. Everyone remembers the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" but many forget the other tree in the Garden of Eden -- "The Tree of Life." Genesis 2:9 and 3:22-24 mention the "Tree of Life" in the Garden of Eden story, which most certainly concerns the creation/purpose of mankind and can easily be linked to concepts of "eternal life." Many biblical scholars also propose that the chapter 22 of the Book of Revelation makes reference to it again since it addresses the new garden of paradise and only the righteous will be able to partake in such blessings.
Additionally, Proverbs 11:30 & 13:12 directly reference the Tree of Life, but in Proverbs it generally symbolizes wisdom. In the non-canonical Book of Enoch, the names of the righteous will be allowed to receive and taste the fruits of the "Tree of Life." Though non-canonical, it shows that the idea was alive and kicking in antiquity. Saint Isaac the Syrian (from Nineveh) circa 613 – 700 expands upon this matter and elucidates: "Paradise is the love of God, in which the bliss of all the beatitudes is contained," and that "the tree of life is the love of God." (Homily 72). This seems to correspond to the LDS interpretation that you have listed above.
But assuming you're interested in "Tree of Life" stories that would predate or concurrent with the lives of the LDS prophet Lehi (600 BCE), I would take a special look at The Epic of Gilgamesh. It doesn't cite a "Tree of Life" directly, but it focuses on Gilgamesh's quest for eternal life, and the elixir is a plant (which is unfortunately consumed by a snake). Not a direct relation, but the commonality of a plant providing immortality and a snake disrupting such plans seems pretty interesting.
Ancient Egyptian texts also center around the Acacia Nilotica, which is known as the "Tree of Life." The fruit of this tree would provide the partaker not only with eternal life, but with a plan, i.e. map, on how to get that point: The Tree of Life. This may be of peculiar interest to you since the Book of Mormon mentions that Lehi was learned in the language of the Egyptians.
There are also a series of panels in Nimrod (ancient Assyria), which depict a "Tree of Life" motif, but scholars have not reached a consensus on what it represents exactly, but you can find images of it here.
Your question did not ask about "Tree of Life" motifs in the New World, but since you are broaching a Mormon question, I figured you would have an interest in this region as well. Take a first look at the Wikipedia article I linked to see just how many pre-columbian cultures had Trees of Life in their iconography. But I would also recommend taking a gander at this source: Miller, Mary; Karl Taube (1993). The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya. London: Thames and Hudson. The trees connect the realms of the living with the realms of the heavens -- an axis mundi, if you will.
Clearly, there are many representations of it.


According to the Church of God (Cleveland), are children sin-free?

The Church of God by Faith (not sure if there is a distinction like there is between Churches of Christ) does officially hold to original sin. However, many individual members of all denominations have *'s on that doctrine, if not outright reject it. One of the *'s being  an age of accountability that you mentioned, before which salvation is given without formal repentance, baptism, and so on depending on denomination. For example, many hold that an aborted baby would go to heaven irrespective of the guilt they believe comes by way of original sin.

(As an addition, the doctrine of original sin doesn't come from passages about or addressing the theology of the actual original sin of Adam and Eve. Rather it comes from passages that are poetic in form and are in the context of repenting in extremely serious circumstances. I.E. Psalm 51, where David has been convicted of adultery and murder and is about to face strong consequences. As such, the doctrine of guilt at birth is justifiably debated among believers).


What Biblical support is there for a non-Churched Christianity?

None. Every time the Bible presents the belivers it presents them in a context of a group. The biblical christian (believer in the Bible) always get together in houses, underground. Here are a few passages tackling this subject:

Romans 12.3-8
1 Corianthians 12.12-31
1 Peter 2.4-5
Heb 10.25

The argument advanced by the non-church goer is all over the place, but not in the Bible.

They say that Jesus never built a Church or been to one (But Jesus was in the synagogue).
The church was to protect and help the member in hostile time like the beginning.
There are hypocrites in the church.
The church does not serve me ...


Was there any christian church that kept the Passover before the 1900?

As far as I know no Christian Churches except Jewish ones kept the Passover, as it is a Jewish holiday. You probably refer to the timing of Easter.

The Council of Nicaea ruled that Easter should be celebrated on the first Sunday on/after the first full moon on/after the vernal equinox. Sometimes it matched the Jewish Passover sunday and sometimes it did not, because the Christian system mixed both solar and lunar calendars to determine the date. For more info, see

http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/determining-easter-date.html


Why did Jesus compare the Kingdom of Heaven to leaven?

There are a couple of reasons Christ used leaven in a positive sense regarding the Kingdom of Heaven.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches

CCC-2832 As leaven in the dough [bread in the Lord's Prayer], the newness of the kingdom should make the earth "rise" by the Spirit of Christ.
CCC-2660 Prayer in the events of each day and each moment is one of the secrets of the kingdom revealed to "little children," to the servants of Christ, to the poor of the Beatitudes. It is right and good to pray so that the coming of the kingdom of justice and peace may influence the march of history, but it is just as important to bring the help of prayer into humble, everyday situations; all forms of prayer can be the leaven to which the Lord compares the kingdom.

The idea behind associating leaven and Spirit and Kingdom was the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost.  Pentecost, unlike Passover where no leaven was present, called specifically for leavened bread.

Ex. 12:8 [at Passover] And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
Lev. 23 17 [on Pentecost] Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD.

With leaven, with the Spirit, the Gospel of the Kingdom would spread from Jerusalem, to Judea, to the ends of the earth.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

So, depending on the context and application, leaven may be see both negatively and positively.


What is to be understood by Mary being the "mother of the church"?

Catechism of the Catholic Church 963 referencing Lumen Gentium 53 says, "She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ' . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."

  Lumen Gentium 53 The Virgin Mary, who at the message of the
  angel received the Word of God in her heart and in her body and gave
  Life to the world, is acknowledged and honored as being truly the
  Mother of God and Mother of the Redeemer. Redeemed by reason of the
  merits of her Son and united to Him by a close and indissoluble tie,
  she is endowed with the high office and dignity of being the Mother of
  the Son of God, by which account she is also the beloved daughter of
  the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit. Because of this gift of
  sublime grace she far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on
  earth. At the same time, however, because she belongs to the offspring
  of Adam she is one with all those who are to be saved. She is "the
  mother of the members of Christ . . . having cooperated by charity
  that faithful might be born in the Church, who are members of that
  Head."1 Wherefore she is hailed as a pre-eminent and
  singular member of the Church, and as its type and excellent exemplar
  in faith and charity. The Catholic Church, taught by the Holy Spirit,
  honors her with filial affection and piety as a most beloved mother.

  1. cf. Rom 8:29.

cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 963-970.


Well, the word "manna" itself means "What is it?" so I'm not sure you're going to find a perfectly satisfactory answer to your question. :-)

In addition, it was created supernaturally by God, and He didn't share the recipe. :-)

Since it was a single miracle, and not something that people still eat today, no one really knows personally what it tastes like. However, the KJV states in Exodus 16:31, "It was like coriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey."

I would not say that it was necessarily bread as we think of it, since Exodus 16:21 states that when the sun beat down in the afternoon, the manna melted.


In what way did the ante-nicene church read Sapiental passages like Proverbs 8:22 christologically?

Early (pre-Nicaea) church fathers interpreted this verse christologically in the sense that Christ is eternally begotten of the Father.

Ellicott writes that this was the view held by early fathers like Justin Martyr and Tertullian:

  When in Christian times it was observed how well the description of Wisdom in Job and Proverbs harmonised with that of God the Son in the New Testament, such passages as this were universally applied to Him, and the present one was rightly interpreted as describing His eternal generation from the Father. Such was the view, for instance, of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.

Justin Martyr uses Proverbs 8:22 in his argument about the nature of Christ, and concludes:

  Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit. (Dialogue with Trypho, 129)

In reference to Proverbs 8:22, Tertullian writes:

  Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from Himself He became His first-begotten Son, because begotten before all things. (Against Praxeas, 7)

Others, like Athenagoras (A Plea for the Christians, 10) hold the same view, and some argue that Origen represented "patristic exegesis" in interpreting the passage as referring to Christ's "continual coming into existence" (Waltke, Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15, p127).

It's important to note that later writers, like Augustine and Athanasius, developed different views of how this passage applies to Christ.  They did this as a response to the Arian controversy.  The earliest fathers, however, when interpreting the passage christologically, understood it to refer to the eternally begotten nature of Christ.