What does Pentecostalism consider Prophetic Fine Art to be?

I wouldn't say there's any example of prophetical art specifically but there is a Biblical basis for people being led by God to create art for example the Tabernacle and Temple in the OT (e.g. Exodus 31:1-5). In my mind, if someone is open to the Holy Spirit leading them to do things than it's not hard to imagine that they might create some art that has special significance because God led them to do it.

In terms of prophecy, I don't know of any example where a prophet in the Bible drew a picture though there are examples of prophets acting things, writing on walls, etc. all which are "artistic." To me the question of whether art can be prophetic isn't a big issue because in a sense anything can be prophetic.

Now whether that makes an artist a prophet - assuming you are referring to modern day and that you hold to a Pentecostal view that prophecy still "exists" - then generally the idea is this:

Anyone could create prophetic one time as led by the Spirit but not be a prophet. For someone to be a prophet they would have to regularly create prophetic art and generally people don't claim to be a prophet it's a designation given to them by their local church.


What are some examples of Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church?
Before giving such example, it is important to understand the meaning and nuances of the expression of Sacred Tradition:

To begin, it is important to note that Sacred Tradition is not the same as what we commonly understand by the word "tradition." We need to distinguish between the terms "tradition" spelled with a lower case "t" and Tradition" spelled with a capital "T." When we spell the word tradition with a lower case letter, we are referring to those things that are more often referred to as "traditions" and have a meaning closer to the word "practices” which are not part of Divine Revelation itself, but are pious customs that have arisen later in the history of the Church (CCC 2651). Examples of traditions include praying the Rosary or the Divine Mercy Chaplet, devotions to favorite saints, making the sign of the cross and the like.
When Tradition is capitalized in this context, it refers to Sacred Tradition. The word tradition comes from the Latin word tradere which means "to hand on." Sacred Tradition is the Scripture as it is lived out in the Church. It is nevertheless the Word of God. Specifically, it is the Word of God that the prophets and the Apostles received through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This message which they received was "handed on" to the Christian world by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. - What is Sacred Tradition

Let us remember that not everything is written in the Sacred Scriptures. This is evident by the writings of both St. Paul and St. John:

15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
16 May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15-17
29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.
30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name. John 20: 29-31
23 This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but, So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?
24 This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. John 21: 23-25

The New Testament, while being the primary source for all that God revealed in Christ, is itself a product of Tradition. Tradition is a living and active process which the Church experiences from one age to the next while meditating on the Word of God and the events of salvation history. The Holy Spirit guides the Church in this process and guarantees that Tradition will be an authentic expression of God’s Word for each generation. After the writing of the New Testament, subsequent generations could reflect not only on Jesus’ teaching but also on that privi- leged experience of first generation Christians who knew Jesus when he walked the earth.
The Church in each generation, through prayer, study, and contemplation, reflects on God’s Word in Scripture and gives new interpretation to it while never altering the Revelation it contains. In every generation, she expresses anew the Word of God against an ever changing landscape of human society and culture. The diversity of devotions and styles of worship is beautiful and expresses the Church’s catholicity or universality. But these various local traditions are not what we mean when we speak of Tradition. As times change and in light of Tradition, these religious customs and practices may be changed or discarded. Sacred Tradition does not change. It is expressed differently from one age to the next but is always consistent with the truth of
God’s Revelation.
Examples of some Sacred Traditions are as follows:

Peter is the Head of the Church.
Mary retained her virginity before, during and after the birth of her Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Mary was born without Original Sin.
Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul.
Terms such as “Trinity” are not in Scripture but come from Sacred Tradition. Even Protestants use this term in their theology.

A question often asked has to do with the relationship between Sacred Tradition and Scripture.
The New Testament itself sheds light on this relationship in the Second Letter to the Thessalonians where the author writes: "This passage makes it clear that there were important traditions passed on by word and not only by letter. As the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council noted, "It is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore, both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and reverenced with the same sense of devotion. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, which is committed to the Church." So we see that we need both Scripture and Sacred Tradition to understand God's life among us properly.
Most of the beliefs and practices found in Sacred Tradition have their basis in Scripture, but some do not. Catholics' belief that Mary was assumed into heaven is an example of a Sacred Tradition that has no reference in Scripture. The Assumption of Mary was nonetheless an important belief in the early Church and that is why it has been passed on through the generations as part of Sacred Tradition.
A few examples of beliefs and practices which do have their basis in Scripture would include the following:

The Apostles' Creed, an early summary of important Christian beliefs.

The role of bishops, priests, and the Pope in Christian ministry.

The authority of the Pope--the belief that the Pope cannot teach falsely when he speaks officially as head of the Church on matters of faith and morals.

Our understanding of the Sacraments and their place in Christian life.

Although Scripture touches on these matters, it is through Sacred Tradition that we fully understand their meaning and significance to the Church.
Finally, we must note that there are many traditions in the Catholic Church which do not belong to Sacred Tradition. These traditions, with a small "t" if you will, include such things as special prayers and devotions and stories concerning certain Saints. These traditions may help people grow closer to God, but they are not as important as Sacred Tradition, with a capital "T". Sacred Tradition, together with Scripture, includes those beliefs and practices that are most important to the Church because they have been revealed by God and because they have been affirmed by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. That is why Sacred Tradition can help us to live a better Christian life.For a detailed study please refer to "Catechism of the Catholic Church" pages 74-84. - What is sacred tradition, and why is it important?


Were the sins of the Israelites forgiven with the animal sacrifices or simply held in abeyance until Jesus death on the cross?

The sacrificial system was a mere shadow of the true sacrifice, Jesus Christ. This is why the animals used must have no blemish or spot, because they represented Christ. As John the Baptist said,

  The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The
  Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"

  John 1:29

Jesus takes away the sin of the world. The sins of those that were before Jesus were forgiven in credit, and they were to look forward towards the Messiah who would come and truly pay for their sins. Many forgot this and simply made it a routine.

We look back at the one who paid our sins and look to sin no more as we know what it cost.

Those who have trusted Jesus to take their sins, and have walked as He walked, will be raised in the last day, to everlasting life. This is why many of the texts you provided speak about the last day and why Jesus and Martha have this conversation:

  Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.

  Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the
  resurrection at the last day.

  Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that
  believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

  And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.
  Believest thou this?

  She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the
  Son of God, which should come into the world.

  John 11:23-27

Mary, Martha, and Lazarus were very close friends of Jesus. He visited them often. He taught them many things, and it was obvious that this is one of the things He taught them. This is also what He taught others.

  “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with
  Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will
  be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as
  a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep
  on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say
  to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit
  the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world...'"

  Matthew 25:31-34

Whether they lived before Jesus, or after Jesus, those who believe on Him, repent of their sins, and then walk according to the will of the Father, when they die, they sleep until the coming of Jesus where they will be resurrected unto everlasting life.

EDIT: After reading the comments, I realize i should be more precise. According to the Bible, only a very few number of people are alive in heaven right now. These are Elijah (2 Kings 2) and Enoch (Genesis 5:24) who did not die, but were taken by God; Moses (Jude 1:9), who died but was resurrected by God and taken to heaven; and probably the people who resurrected with Jesus (Matthew 27:52-23) as witnesses.

Everyone else, like David, is "sleeping" awaiting the Second Coming.

  "Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
  David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us
  unto this day... For David is NOT ascended into the heavens: but he
  saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right
  hand..."

  Acts 2:29,34


The article you linked to is about magic and the occult, and speaks of magical concepts from many cultures, including Norse mythology. It mentions Loki only once, at the end of that section.  In the very next paragraph, it says that "magic as a practice finds no place in Christianity."

From this, it seems pretty clear that Loki (and all the rest of the mythological figures mentioned in the article) are being used here as illustrative examples only, and don't hold any doctrinal significance in Catholicism.


In Luke 1:67, was Zechariah filled with the Holy Ghost as the Apostles were in the book of Acts?

This answer is from a Pentecostal perspective.

We can see that the Holy Spirit was actually in operation in terms of empowering people for serving God in the Old Testament. The earliest explicit reference to this is in Exodus in regard to the artisan Bezalel:

  Then the Lord said to Moses, 2 “See, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, 3 and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills— 4 to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, 5 to cut and set stones, to work in wood, and to engage in all kinds of crafts. - Exodus 31:1-5 NIV (emphasis added)

It is a common refrain in the book of Judges that "the Spirit of the Lord came upon X" (Othniel, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson) prior to God using them to deliver the Israelites from their enemies, but it is also used elsewhere regarding David and many of the prophets (cf. Judges 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 14:6; 1 Samuel 16:13; 2 Chronicles 20:14; 24:20; Ezekiel 11:5).

In the New Testament, as well as Zachariah, both John the Baptist and Jesus himself are described as being full of the Holy Spirit prior to the advent of Pentecost. (cf. Luke 1:15; 4:1)

So what was so special about Pentecost? Why did the disciples have to wait for that particular moment to be empowered when God had previously empowered others for his service on many different occasions?

The Apostle Peter clarifies the distinction by describing Pentecost as the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy:

  14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

  17
  “‘In the last days, God says,
      I will pour out my Spirit on all people.

  Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
      your young men will see visions,
      your old men will dream dreams.

  18
  Even on my servants, both men and women,
      I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
      and they will prophesy. - Acts 2:14-18

Prior to this event, God had poured out his Spirit on particular people at particular times for particular tasks. Pentecost marks the start of "the last days" where the Spirit is being poured out "on all people" - ie every 'ordinary' believer in Christ can be full of the Holy Spirit:

  37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

  38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” - Acts 2:37-39 (emphasis added)

Elsewhere in scripture, we are taught of the operation of the Holy Spirit within us - to convict of sin, righteousness and judgment; to comfort/edify; to teach/lead us in to all truth; to help us claim Jesus as Lord; to regenerate our hearts; to provide the seal of our adoption into the family of God etc. Some of these operations are actions of the indwelling Holy Spirit and are what is new in the operation of the Holy Spirit under the New Covenant.

The day of Pentecost on the other hand, was particularly about the Holy Spirit coming upon the Church to empower them  as witnesses for Christ - the operation of the Holy Spirit in this resepect it was quite similar to the operation of the Holy Spirit under the Old Covenant, the principal difference being not so much in the mode of operation, but in its degree.


Will the faithful eat and drink after resurrection?

There are two different things going in those passages in Luke

Those two narratives aren't necessarily pointing toward what happens in Heaven, as there are varying interpretations to what is meant by the arrival of the Kingdom of God.  Since you asked for a Catholic viewpoint, and this topic comes up a lot during the RCIA ministry, here's an explanation that tries to put those two different chapters in Luke into context.

TL;DR: per St Thomas Aquinas, those who reach Heaven won't need to eat

The Fourth Cup

The best answer I've heard on why Jesus didn't drink the fourth cup at the Last Supper was presented by Scott Hahn in The Fourth Cup.  (The link is to a transcript of his 40 minute long talk on the Eucharist; I'd recommend the audio disc/tape if you can get your hands on it).
In summary:  Jesus established the New Covenant and important signs thereof and linked it directly to the Old Covenant celebration (Passover).  Part of the significance of Him not drinking the 4th cup is that we (the faithful) now drink the 4th cup each time we receive communion and drink the precious blood.  That is a departure from the Jewish tradition that led up to that final supper.  Before the faithful receive the precious blood, who drinks from the cup?  The celebrant of the Mass.  The celebrant, be he priest or bishop acts "in persona Christi1" according to the Catholic teaching.  This gets into the Catholic doctrine and practice of the Mass re-presenting (making it present again) key  events in the Gospel, but one of the points that Hahn makes is that in this Sacrament the church also honors and fulfills the old covenant during the Mass.

  Now what's the problem? The problem is that gospel account says
  something like this: after the third cup is drunk Jesus says, "I shall
  not drink again of the fruit of the vine until I am entering into the
  kingdom of God." And it says, "Then they sang the psalms."
  Every Jew who knows the liturgy would expect: and then they went ahead and said the grace and the blessing and had the fourth cup which climaxed and consummated the Passover.
  But no, the gospel accounts say they sang the psalms and went out into
  the night. {snip}  Why did he skip the fourth cup? After all, he was raised a Jew, he'd been celebrating the Passover every year of his life since he was a little boy according to the strictest laws of Moses.

Rather than seeing this as Jesus prefiguring a meal in Heaven, he is prefiguring how the Body of Christ (The Church) will complete the Passover meal.  The extended explanation, by Hahn, ties together a lot of scripture in the Old and New Testaments.

Raised from the dead in His glorified body, not a spirit walking around

In Luke 24, you have two different experiences of the disciples after the Crucifixion.  The first is the two walking to Emmaus who spoke with him and didn't realize it was Him until he broke the bread, and then vanished.

The second was a larger group of the disciples who saw Him in his glorified body.  As you noted in that passage, He ate food.  He was raised from the dead, and was not simply a spirit people were seeing.  (Recall also "doubting Thomas" sticking his finger into Jesus wounded side and seeing the holes in his hands).

The importance of what he was doing has been covered by St Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (Part III, Q 54) regarding Jesus in his Glorified Body.

Of the seven properties of the glorified body identified by St. Thomas Aquinas, the first three are relevant for the purposes of this answer:
(Summarized for brevity from here)

Identity: The glorified body will possess its original identity in
that it will be united to your soul. Your body will really be your
body, but that does not mean it will look the same as it did during
your life on this earth. When Jesus appeared to His disciples after
His Resurrection, He often had to make Himself known in some way,
even to those who were His closest disciples.
Integrity: The glorified body will be integral (complete), regardless
of how it was during its earthly life, or at the moment of its death,
or after it has decomposed in the grave. ...All glorified bodies will
be entirely integral.
Quality: This is the property of the glorified body by which everyone
in his glorified body will be as if in the prime of life.

Whether or not those in Heaven who leave their bodies behind eat and drink seems to be a different matter than what happens in our glorified bodies.  If we are in our glorified bodies, then we can eat and drink.  If we are purely in spirit in Heaven, before "the last day," we don't need to.

Saint Thomas Aquinas concludes that we will not eat in Heaven.

(Summa Theologica, Question 81)

  Consequently those natural operations which are directed to cause or
  preserve the primary perfection of human nature will not be in the
  resurrection: such are the actions of the animal life in man, the
  action of the elements on one another, and the movement of the
  heavens; wherefore all these will cease at the resurrection. And since
  to eat, drink, sleep, beget, pertain to the animal life, being
  directed to the primary perfection of nature, it follows that they
  will not be in the resurrection.

1 In the person of Christ the Head

  . . . CCC 1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present
  to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest
  of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church
  means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy
  Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:23


What is the Catholic definition of divinity?
Catholic Culture puts it in a nutshell!

Divinity
Definition
The attribute of being divine. In an absolute sense only the infinite God is divine. but the term is sometimes loosely applied to others than God, either mistakenly or because of some relationship they have to God. (Etym. Latin divinus, belonging to God.)

Knowing me that is just too short, so I will expound this a little more.

Divine Attributes
Our natural knowledge of God is acquired by discursive reasoning upon the data of sense by introspection, "For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; His eternal power also, and Divinity" (St. Paul, Romans 1:20). Created things, by the properties and activities of their natures, manifest, as in a glass, darkly, the powers and perfections of the creator. But these refracted images of Him in finite things cannot furnish grounds for any adequate idea of the Infinite Being. Hence, in constructing a synthetic idea of God, before one can apply to the Divinity any concept or term expressing a perfection found in created being, it must be subjected to rigorous correction. The profound disparity between the Divine perfection and the intimations of it presented in the world-copy may be broadly laid down under two heads:

Number: The perfections of creatures are innumerable, the Divine Perfection is one.

Diversity: Created perfections differ endlessly in kind and degree; the Divine perfection is uniform, simple. It is not a totality of various perfections; absolutely simple, the Divine perfection answers to every idea of actual or conceivable perfection, without being determined to the particular mode of any. Hence, when any attribute expressing modes characteristic of the world of being that falls within the range of our experience is applied to God its signification ceases to be identical with that which it has in every other case. Yet it retains a real meaning in virtue of the ratio which exists between the finite being and its Infinite analogue. In philosophical phrase, the use of terms is called analogical predication, in contra-distinction to univocal, in which a word is predicated of two or more subjects in precisely the same sense.

Essence and attributes
Transcendentally one, absolutely free from composition, the Divine Being is not, and may not be conceived as, a fundamental substrate in which qualities or any other modal indeterminations inhere. The reality to the various attributes are ascribed is one and indivisible.
"Quae justitia," says St. Augustine, "ipsa bonitas; quae bonitas, ipsa beatitudo."
In this respect, the relation of the attributes to the Divine nature might be illustrated by the various reflections of one and the same object from a concave, a convex, and a plane mirror. Nevertheless, to systematize the idea of God, and to draw out the rich content of the knowledge resulting from the proofs of God's existence, some primary attribute may be chosen as representing one aspect of the Divine perfection from which the others may be rigorously deduced. Then arises a logical scheme in which the derivative attributes, or perfections stand towards one another in a relation somewhat similar to that of the essence and the various properties and qualities in a material substance. In this arrangement the primary perfection is termed the metaphysical essence, the others are called attributes. The essence, too, may be regarded as that characteristic which, above all others, distinguishes the Deity from everything else. Upon the question, which attribute is to be considered primary, opinions differ. Many eminent theologians favour the conception of pure actuality (Actus Purus), from which simplicity and infinity are directly deduced. Most modern authors fix on aseity (Aseitas; a = "from" se = "himself"), or self-existence; for the reason that, while all other existences are derived from, and depend on, God, He possesses in Himself, absolutely and independently, the entire reason of His uncaused infinite Being. In this, the most profound and comprehensive distinction between the Divinity and everything else, all other distinctions are implicitly expressed. Whether, and in what way, the distinctions between the attributes and the metaphysical essence, and among the attributes themselves have an ontological basis in the Divine nature itself was subject which divided Nominalists and Realists, Thomists and Scotists, in the age of Scholasticism (cf. Vacant, Dict. de théol. cathol., I, 2230-34).
Division of attributes
Taking as the basis of classification the ways by which the attributes are developed, they are divided into positive and negative. Among the negative attributes are simplicity, infinity, immutability. The chief positive attributes are unity, truth, goodness, beauty, omnipotence omnipresence, intellect and will, personality. Some authors divide them into incommunicable and communicable. The former class comprises those which belong to God alone (e.g., all-wise, self-existent, omnipotent) to the latter belong those which are predicable, analogically, of God and creatures as good, just, intelligent. Again, the divine nature considered either as static or as the source activity; hence another division into quiescent and active. Finally, some perfections involve a relation to things distinct from God, while others do not; and from this standpoint theologians divide the attributes into absolute and relative. The various classifications adopted by modern Protestant theologians are due partly to the results of philosophical speculation and partly to new conceptions of the nature of religion. Schleiermacher, e.g., derives the attributes of God from our threefold consciousness of absolute dependence, of sin, and of grace. Others, with Lipsius, distinguish the metaphysical attributes from the psychological and the ethical. A simpler division groups omnipotence, omnipresence, eternity, omniscience, and unity as the metaphysical predicates, justice and goodness as the moral attributes. The fundamental attribute is, according to Ritschl, love; according to Professor Royce, omniscience. The main difficulty with these writers centres about the idea of God as a personal being. - Divine Attributes

St. John The Evangelist, who is styled in the gospel, “The beloved disciple of Christ," and is called by the Greeks "The Divine.” This accolade and that of The Theologian have been given to St. John because of his lofty teachings concerning the Son of God, God the Word. In reality St. John is not Divine, but wrote about things Divine!
It was customary in the Middle Ages to designate the more celebrated among the saints by certain epithets or surnames which were supposed to express their characteristic excellence or dignity. This was especially the case with the doctors in law and theology.


How is one expected to ask for a dispensation to miss Sunday mass due to work obligations?

If a person has to work on Sundays, and cannot attend Mass on Sunday morning, Sunday evening or Saturday evening, which are all canonically valid as fulfilling Sunday obligation, then they should speak to their pastor in person and explain the situation, so that he may evaluate the situation and offer some sort of compromise.

Now, regarding this obligation, unless the region has a great lack of priests, there should be a good amount of choice in Masses so that someone who works Sundays is able to attend at least one. If not, then perhaps the person could talk to their boss at the restaurant to see whether they can spread their shifts more during the week so they have some time on Sunday to attend Mass.


What is the role of the Holy Spirit in the Roman Catholic church?

The theology of the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost - the two terms mean the same thing) is a huge subject. This article gives a systematic explanation from the Catholic point of view.

Catholic theology of the Holy Spirit is very little different from general Protestant or Orthodox theology of the Holy Spirit, with a few notable exceptions, which I will attempt to list:

It is generally accepted that one of the roles of the Holy Spirit is to guide the interpretation of the Scriptures. There is variation in how the Spirit is believed to do this. Protestants believe the Spirit does this either through Christians in general, or through the community of the church. Catholics believe that the Spirit does this through the church and its structures - specifically the Catholic church.
Catholics would fall in with mainstream Protestants (but not Pentecostals) in believing that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit (tongues, healings etc.) are not given to all Christians, and are relatively rare.
One important but obscure belief specific to Catholics is the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the God the Father and the Son. This beliefs is notable only because it is the nominal cause of the split between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

There may be others that I am unaware of.


Who is Mammon whom Jesus warned of in Sermon of the Mount?

From Wikipedia

  Scholars do not agree about its etymology, but it is theorized that Mammon derives from Late Latin mammon, from Greek "μαμμωνάς", Syriac mámóna ("riches"), Aramaic mamon ("riches, money"), a loanword from Mishnaic Hebrew 'ממון (mmôn) meaning money, wealth, or possessions;[8] although it may also have meant "that in which one trusts".

And Gregory of Nyssa calls Mammon the evil one:

  My Brethren, what is the force of these words? It seems to me that the Lord names the evil one in many varying and differing ways according to his evil operations [lit. energies]. Thus, He calls him the "devil" (diabolos-false accuser), "Beelzebub," Mammon," "prince of this world," "man killer," "evil one," "father of lies," and other similar names. Perhaps, then, another name for him is also "temptation" (Gr. peirasmos).


Among modern critics who believe in the attributed authorship of the Gospels, what are their arguments?

This is part two of a two part answer.  See my previous post for general arguments.
Specific books
Matthew
External - On Matthew Papias writes, "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language,  and each interpreted them as best he could.".  This is probably the most debated phrase in all of the patristic writings - the words translated as "oracles", "Hebrew language", and "interpreted" are all ambiguous.  One possible, natural reading is that Matthew wrote a Gospel in Aramaic and other people then translated from that.  Critiques use this interpretation of Papias' statement against his accuracy because we "know" our Matthew was written in Greek and doesn't show signs of being translated.4
However, there are several other possible translations - some critical scholars see the statement as a reference to the hypothetical Q document that lies behind portions of Luke and Matthew, which does show signs of Aramaic-isms.  Others have suggested Papias actually meant something like "written in the Hebrew style".4
Whatever Papias meant exactly, we can be pretty sure he knew of a Greek Gospel of Matthew.  (Papias himself wrote in and spoke Greek and quotes from Matthew are known from works predating Papias.)  We also know that there was an Aramaic Gospel closely associated with the Gospel of Matthew (by contemporaries) that survived for several hundred years and was used by the church in Palestine.  Since this document has not survived to the present day, scholars can't judge what it was exactly.  Still, that means there are several possible ways Papias could be accurate within our knowledge - Matthew could have written a Gospel in Aramaic and also a version in Greek from scratch (i.e. he was bilingual so didn't need to translate); Matthew could have written a Q-like document in Aramaic that was translated and then expanded; Matthew could have written in Greek, but in the "Hebrew style" (i.e. that he Gospel was aimed towards Jews); and so on.  As such, dismissing Papais as inaccurate is unwarranted.
In any case, writing not long after Papias, Irenaeus also attests Matthean authorship and appears to be drawing upon an independent tradition to do so.  (He states when the gospel was authored, a subject Papias did not touch upon as far as we know.) Irenaeus knew Polycarp, who is thought to be a disciple of John the Apostle, so he likely had access to good information.  Matthean authorship is then continually attested to by church fathers for the next several hundred years.  Summing up the external evidence, Donald Guthrie writes:8

there is no conclusive reason for rejecting the strong external testimony regarding the authorship of Matthew

Internal -  The strongest internal evidence of authorship comes from Matthew 9:9-13.  This passage in the Gospel of Matthew has a couple differences when compared to the parallel passages of Mark 2:13-17 and Luke 5:27-32.  Most notably, Matthew calls the tax collector "Matthew" while the other Gospels call him "Levi".  Yet all three Gospels list Matthew, not Levi, as a disciple of Jesus in their lists of the 12 (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-18; Luke 6:13-16).  Matthew's list, however, does have a difference - he adds the words "the tax collector" after Matthew's name.  D. A. Hagner argues that the most natural explanation is that Matthew is adding a self-deprecating identification to 10:3 and substituting his new (apostolic) name in 9:9-13, just as Peter (originally Simon) and Paul (originally Saul) do in their own works.9
In support of this conclusion is Matthew 9:10, where the author says "the house" instead of "his house" as the other Gospels.  This is the kind of subtle difference one would expect if Matthew was the author of the Gospel that bears his name.  The strength of this argument is underscored by the fact that some who reject Matthean authorship suggest this passage was the cause of the "anonymous" work becoming associated with Matthew.  However, Daniel B. Wallace argues that an admirer of Matthew would be unlikely to adopt the subtle deprecation of the apostle, and that only Matthean authorship adequately explains the data.10
Briefly on additional evidence, Donald Senior sees the literary style of Matthew as compatible with Matthean authorship.11  Wallace, Gundry, and others notes Matthew's frequent use of precise monetary terms and his use of unique parables with monetary themes as evidence that someone familiar with money wrote the Gospel.8, 10  C. F. D. Moule suggests several subtle self-references and E. J. Goodspeed suggests Matthew would have have been uniquely equipped among the disciples to take shorthand notes during Jesus' ministry.12, 13
Objections - The most common objection to Matthean authorship is that Matthew appears to rely on Mark for a significant portion of his Gospel.  A true disciple of Jesus would surely not rely on a non-disciple the argument goes.  In response, it first should be noted that while the most popular solution to the Synoptic problem, Markean priority is far from certain.
More crucially, it is simply an assumption, not a fact, that a disciple wouldn't use a non-disciple as a source.  Our knowledge of contemporary writing suggests the practice of reusing another's work was quite common.  Additionally, Paul quotes Greek philosophers in a couple of places, but no one suggests that means he viewed them as authoritative.  Finally, if Matthew knew (or at least thought) that the Gospel of Mark is based on the teaching of Peter (see the next section), there is not even a hint of a conflict.4
Mark
External - Mark has arguably the best external witness of any Gospel, starting with Papias who writes:

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered... he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter... [Mark] took special care, not to omit anything he had heard [from Peter], and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.6

This testimony, according to Papias, comes from the "elder John," which probably is meant to refer to the apostle John.  According to Wallace, the most notable thing here is despite a strong desire to tie scripture to apostles, Papias (and later church fathers) do not attribute the Gospel of Mark to Peter.  If one was simply ascribing a name to an anonymous work, there would be no reason to choose a follower of Peter instead of Peter himself.  Indeed, if "according to X" merely meant "according to the teaching of X", as some critics argue, then this Gospel would be called the "Gospel according to Peter".  The fact that the fathers resisted the temptation to attribute the Gospel to Peter enhances their credibility not just here, but also on other authorship testimony.14
After Papias, Mark's authorship is directly attested to by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Irenaeus, and The Anti-Marcionite prologue within the next hundred years.  Tertullian and Justin Martyr also indirectly support the testimony (i.e. in off-hand remarks in Biblical commentary).  Some of these accounts are, no doubt, dependent on each other.  However, there is also much independent testimony in these varied accounts.  John A.T. Robinson, who does not necessarily believe the accuracy of the tradition in regards to other Gospel writers, says that one should "take seriously the tradition" in regards to Mark and that Markean authorship for, at minimum, the first draft of Mark is probable.15  Guthrie considers that the external evidence is conclusive, writing there is no need to "do little more than mention [it]".8
Internal - Since we don't know a great deal about Mark the person, internal evidence will naturally not be super strong.  However, Hengel argues that the simple Greek of Mark is completely compatible with a Christian raised in Jerusalem.16  A.B. Bruce suggests that the description of the young man in Mark 14:51-52 reads like an autobiographical insert, which agrees with the early church tradition that the Last Supper took place at Mark's parents house.17
More compelling, there is good evidence that the Gospel was written by someone close to Peter.  Scholars such as Michael F. Bird and Richard Bauckham have argued that Mark used a technique called inclusio, which is thought to have been used by secular historians of the period, to bracket eyewitness testimony.  Since Peter regularly appears at the start and end of such passages, Mark is thus implying that Peter is the eyewitness behind those particular accounts.18
Detailed word studies, such as the work of C. H. Turner, have shown that there is a pattern in the use of third person plurals in passages involving Peter that read as if an original first person plural has been substituted. This is a literary technique known as the "plural-to-singular device."  Writing on this phenomenon, F.F. Bruce states "the reader can receive from such passages 'a vivid impression of the testimony [of Peter] that lies behind the Gospel'".19
Objections - The most common objection to Markean authorship seems to be that Mark (allegedly) commits geographical errors, betraying that he is not a native of Palestine.  First, this seems like an incredibly weak reason to reject all the other evidence, in my opinion.  Surely a person can have less-than-perfect knowledge of the geography of their home region.  More importantly, such claims of inaccuracy do not stand up to scrutiny.4  One example will be sufficient to illustrate the point.  Mark 7:31 states:

Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.

Some critics have interpreted this to mean that Jesus went through Sidon in order to get to the Sea of Galilee, which would be the wrong direction.  However, it need not mean more than that He went to Sidon and then to the Sea of Galilee.  Even ignoring that simple solution, Douglas Edwards notes:20

even the Jesus movement's travel from Tyre to Sidon to the Decapolis depicted in Mark... is, in fact, quite plausible. Josephus notes that ... a dispute regarding boundaries arose between Sidon and Damascus, a city of the Decapolis. It is therefore conceivable that the movement headed east toward Damascus and then south through the region of the Decapolis, following major roads linking Damascus with either Caesarea Philippi or Hippos.

Luke
External - Among the Gospels, Luke's is the one where the attribution is most likely to be original (i.e., that is was on the autograph).   M. Dibelius argues that a work addressed to an individual (Theophilus) would normally also contain the name of the person it came from (on an external tag).  Furthermore, it seems clear that the author of Luke intended his work to be widely distributed, which would normally require a title or name attached to the work.21
Lukan authorship is attested to by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Fragment, Origen, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue, and Tertullian by the end of second century.  Perhaps most notably, the heretic Marcion accepted Lukan authorship while rejecting the other three Gospels as "too Jewish".  Despite this, the Church continued to accept the Gospel and continued to attribute it to a relatively unknown figure.  There are no dissenting voices among the church fathers, despite numerous possible Pauline figures to pick from (i.e. even if we assume the Church knew that the Gospel of Luke was associated with Paul, there is no compelling reason why Luke was unanimously chosen.)  Summing up this evidence, Darrell L. Bock concludes:22

Such unanimity, when numerous Pauline companion candidates exist, argues for the veracity of this identification.

Internal - A discussion about the internal authorship of Luke will naturally start with Acts, where the evidence is strong.  (Nearly all scholars believe Acts and Luke were written by the same person, regardless of their opinion of the author's identity.)  Even a casual reading of Acts will reveal two things - after the first few chapters, Paul receives most of the writer's attention and many of the later passages use the first person plural (collectively called the "we passages").
The most natural reason for the increasingly heavy emphasis on Paul as Acts progresses is that the author was a follower of Paul and thus had more detailed information about Paul than other early church leaders.  The most natural explanation for the use of "we", especially since it does not occur throughout Acts, but instead only in places, is that the author is among the group of people referred to in such passages.  Examining all the known companions/part-time companions of Paul, Guthrie finds that the only other person who seems likely to have been present on all occasions is Luke.8  Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles Quarles have additional cited reasons, apart from the "we passages", why each of these people is an unlikely author of (Luke-)Acts.23
To reduce the force of this conclusion, some critics have suggested that the author had access to the travel diary of a companion of Paul.  However, the "we passages" are written in the same style as the rest of the work, meaning that the author would have had to rewrite these passages in his own style while choosing not to change the pronoun.  As Carson and Moo correctly conclude, "this is highly improbable".4
Objections - The chief objections to Lukan authorship are a couple of apparent discrepancies between the person of Paul in his own writings and in Acts and supposed differences between the theology of Paul and Luke.
On the apparent historical discrepancies Wallace notes that, even if they are true discrepancies, this doesn't really argue against Lukan authorship - a companion could mis-remember a detail just as easily as an outsider could be misinformed.24  Indeed, if the author was only pretending to be a follower of Paul, one would think he would make sure to match the details to that which was known from the letters of Paul (those that think Luke was not the author almost universally date the work late, by which time Paul's letters were surely circulating.)  Furthermore, Carson and Moo as well as Guthrie have examined the alleged discrepancies and found no differences that cannot easily be explained by different writers (neither of which was intending to write a comprehensive history) choosing to emphasize different details of the same events.4, 8
In regards to theology, the differences, to my mind, have been greatly exaggerated - casual readers usually don't detect any difference.  Furthermore, differences really only tell us that Paul himself did not write Luke-Acts.  That a student could have a slightly different theology than his teacher is hardly surprising.  That said, it will be worthwhile to examine one such difference: the use of the OT Law.  In Acts, Paul follows the Law by, for example, having Timothy circumcised (16:3) and participating in temple  purification rites (21:17-26).  In his own letters, Paul recommends against circumcision (Galatians 5:2-4) and ritual restrictions (1 Corintians 8-10).  This appears to be a serious contradiction, but only via a caricature of Paul.  In reality, Paul's view of the Law is much more nuanced.  He says he is willing to follow the Law when it is beneficial to do so (1 Corinthians 9:19-22) and says circumcision or uncircumcision is a meaningless difference (Galatians 6:15).  For these reasons,  Richard N. Longenecker concludes that there are no material difference between the theology of Luke and Paul.25
John
Finally, we turn to John, the only book where there would be a clear motive for the attributed authorship - John was one of the most important apostles.  Naturally, this does not itself argue against the authorship, but, perhaps, means we should demand strong evidence to uphold it.  That, in my opinion, is exactly what we find.
External - The strongest testimony in favor of Johannine authorship for the Gospel of John comes from Irenaeus.  In a letter to Florinus, Irenaeus vividly recalls learning from Polycarp in his youth.  He states that Polycarp (c. 70-156) was a follower of John and otherwise received testimony from eyewitnesses.4  Thus, Irenaeus' testimony on things related to John comes from a very good authority.  On the Gospel of John, he writes:26

John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

On this evidence, Guthrie remarks:8

There can be no doubt, therefore, that Irenaeus accepted John the apostle as author of the Gospel ... on the basis of Polycarp’s testimony.

Further second century testimony to Johannine authorship is found in Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen ,Theophilus of Antioch, the Muratorian Canon, and the Anti-Marcionite Prologue.  The last of which is especially interesting because it references Papias as its source.  (The relevant portion of Papias' work hasn't survived [very little of his work has], but there is no particular reason to doubt that he wrote that John was the author of the Gospel of John.)  Since Papias himself was a follower of John, Carson and Moo argue that his testimony on the authorship is especially strong evidence.4
In addition to the usual Patristic testimony, there is strong evidence for the attribution of the Gospel of John in manuscript evidence.  Wallace points out that there are two manuscripts of John - P66 and P75 - which date to the end of the second century and attest to Johannine authorship.  Textual analysis shows the two manuscripts are not closely related and that their common ancestor must precede them by at least three generations.  Furthermore, another early manuscript, B, shows signs of being more primitive than P75.  The earliest known New Testament manuscript, P52, also comes from John.  It doesn't contain the start of the Gospel, so can't itself attest authorship, but does definitely prove the Gospel was written before the year 100.  Together, the documentary evidence suggests that the Gospel of John was quickly accepted by the church and widely distributed, and that the attribution was (at minimum) very early.27
Internal - The internal evidence for Johannine authorship is also very strong.  Indeed, some critics argue it is "too strong" to be trusted.  The most famous argument for Johannine authorship is B. F. Westcott's "concentric proofs", expanded by Leon Morris:28

The author was a Jew
The author was a Jew in Palestine
The author was an eyewitness
The author was an apostle
The author was the apostle John

The first two points were once disputed, but the discovery of the Qumran literature (Dead Sea Scrolls), showing John's themes were well within the norm for contemporary Judaism have convinced nearly all scholars of the accuracy of the first point.  The second point is no longer disputed either, as archaeological finds have demonstrated the author of John had an intimate knowledge of Palestine.4, 19
On the third point, there are numerous passages that suggest an eyewitness report.  For example, 1:14 says "we have seen his glory".  Careful analysis of this passage reveals not only the first person plural, but also a verb (θεάομαι) that normally signifies a physical examination.27  On the forth point, the author seems to have intimate knowledge of what happened in Jesus' inner circle. For example, 4:27 ("Just then his disciples came back", ESV) and 6:19 ("When they had rowed about three or four miles").  In favor of the fifth point is the author's use of "John" to describe John the Baptist.  This suggests that the author was either completely unaware of the apostle John, an unlikely possibility, or expected his readers to naturally distinguish between the two Johns.  The most natural explanation for this is that the writer is John and that his audience would know that he uses "the disciple who Jesus loved" when he talks about himself.28
Objections - The chief objections to Johannine authorship are the use of "beloved disciple" moniker and the high theology of John's Gospel.  On the first point, the idea is that while an admirer of John may give him such a title, no Christian author, especially not a humble apostle, would give themselves such a title.  On this objection, Carson and Moo state point blank that it "should be abandoned" as it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  When a New Testament writer says God/Jesus loves them "it is never to suggest that other believers are not loved or are somehow loved less."  (See, for example, Galatians 2:20 and Ephesians 3:14-21.)  For them, the moniker is not a mark of arrogance, but rather a mark of "brokenness".  That is, John sees himself as needing Jesus' love.4
"Theological development" is notoriously subjective - who is to say how long it "must" have taken for a high Christology to develop?  To claim such a framework can be developed a priori and then the New Testament fit into that framework, and that this then proves a late date for a given work, is nothing more than begging the question.  When the idea was first developed in the early 1800s, the proponents of the technique were convinced the Gospel of John must have been written late in the second or early in the third century because of connections to ideas popular at that time.  The manuscript discoveries since then (cited above) have proven this date utterly impossible, yet some scholars still hold to such subjective methodologies - the time frame is collapsed to fit the external realities, but the idea that John reflects "development" of theology remains.
Even if we allow such considerations, it is not a problem for Johannine authorship.  According to the church fathers, John lived into the last decade of the first century.  One might doubt their testimony, but certainly it would be foolish to say it is impossible that John lived that long, and the Gospel could hardly have been written any later than the 90s based on the hard documentary evidence.  Furthermore, Robinson turns the high theology argument completely on its head.  He asks, is it really plausible the writer of what many throughout church history have described as one of the greatest pieces of theology ever written would be completely forgotten?  He says to make such a conclusion shows "an indifference to evidence (or rather to the lack of it)", for there is, in fact, no concrete evidence for any author other than John.  Remarking on the unexplained oddities that various different hypothetical authors create, he concludes:29

I find it much easier to believe ... that this disciple himself 'wrote these things', and that this certificate, given in his presence, is true [a reference to John 21:24]... It is these self-created aporiai, or perplexities, in Johannine studies which seem to me so much more baffling that the breaks and discontinuities at which critics balk...  In fact ironically it is the lack of final reduction to which the evidence most powerfully points.

Conclusion
The most obvious conclusion is that I failed in my goal to keep this answer to a reasonable length. :) In truth, though, I've only covered a fraction of the evidence and have barely touched on the arguments in support of the evidence...
The external authorship for the Gospels is very strong, stronger than almost any secular work of antiquity.  If what we were talking about was not religious in nature, I doubt anyone would reject the attributed authors.  It is only by deciding that the nature of the works means they would have been anonymous tracts that developed over time that the abundance of early witnesses for authorship are brushed aside.  However, this decision is entirely a priori, lacking in hard evidence to support it.  Despite an abundance of textual variations in other places, there are no extant copies of the Gospels that have different authors attached; nor is there any conflicting witness about authorship among the church fathers.
Furthermore, in the cases of Luke and Mark, there is no plausible reason why such figures would be picked as authors of anonymous works; all of the evidence suggests the early church desired apostolic authorship for its scriptures, yet two of the four Gospels bear the name of non-apostles.  If the church fathers were truly making things up, we would expect variation in their attribution and would expect them to pick "bigger" names.  How the universal church came to accept the attributed authors of widely circulated "anonymous" works, without any dispute or variation, would be quite a mystery.  Thus, lightly tossing aside the Gospel attributions is unwarranted - we must have solid internal evidence to consider the proposition.
Looking at the internal evidence, there is nothing to seriously challenge the authorial attributions.  There are a few minor oddities, sure, but nothing that is not easily explained by a careful examination of the evidence.  And in most cases, there is internal evidence that can best be explained by the traditional author.  In total, the internal evidence affirms the traditional authors much more than it argues against them, as each Gospel's characteristics are just as we'd expect if the attributions were accurate.  By its nature, such evidence can't be conclusive, but certainly provides no reason to doubt the testimony of the church fathers, and some reasons to believe them.
Combining the external and internal evidence, I and the two dozen or so authors I cited, conclude that there is sufficient reason to trust the "according to X" titles that appear on our Gospels.  In their quest for the "real story" behind the New Testament, some scholars have been too quick to dismiss what to a historian working on secular history would be quite compelling evidence.  Most likely, the Gospels were written by the people who the Church has always believed wrote them.

See part one for list of citations


Are there any denominations that reject Mary's virgin conception of Jesus?

Yes, some denominations think the Bible is a compilation of stories with moral content. They do not believe most of it is factual, including Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary. Some United Churches lean this way.

(My comment is supported by speaking with United Church adherents personally (extended family members) and hearing them tell me they believe the Bible is comprised of non-factual stories with moral content, many even thought to be fictitious) They informed me that their pastor teaches this way. This would be considered one of the very liberal United Churches.)

Here is a link to a United Church newspaper with a discussion between two lady ministers, one of them an atheist, to support the point that the Bible and its' content including the Virgin Mary and her conception of Christ without the help of a human man, is not necessarily believed, even by the clergy of this denomination. Point in fact, the minister in this article is not only not a believer in the Bible record of the Virgin Mary, but this minister herself does not even believe in God!

http://www.ucobserver.org/features/2013/10/beyond_belief/

Note: quote from article:

"Vosper: *So let other denominations do it, and let The United Church of Canada — which is the only denomination on the planet that might ever actually say in its documents that the Bible is not the authoritative word of God for all time — move forward into discourse with others*."

Inside the umbrella group of the United Church resides a variety of beliefs, from more conservative individual churches with their more conservative pastors, to liberal individual churches with their liberal pastors, and many that fall in between. All would be welcome and included under the umbrella name of United Church. This is one group that has included the ordination of practicing homosexual pastors in their rulings.

Believing in Mary as an actual virgin who conceived Christ without the help of a human male contributor, would be optional in this denomination at best, and you would find a wide variety of beliefs about Mary in the churches under the umbrella of this name.

As their article title suggests, they have gone "Beyond Belief", as a denomination, into the division of their denomination into subgroups from which only thirteen percent  believe that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary with no human male father, as the following UC article communicates.

http://www.ucobserver.org/faith/2011/07/traditionalist/

quote from above:

"To 13 percent of survey respondents, however, it is straightforwardly true that Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles, died to save humanity or individuals from sin and rose physically from the dead."

This shows that 87 percent of those UC-ers asked about Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary, did not believe that He was.


How do different denominations defend their interpretations of Daniel 2's prophecy?

The prophecy of the great image in Dan 2:31-35 is one of the few Bible prophecies about which there is broad agreement, largely because it is explicitly interpreted in Dan 2:37-45.  In outline, there are five kingdoms depicted:

The head of gold is Babylon, Dan 2:37, 38.  This is agreed by Ellicott, Barnes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Gill, Poole, Cambridge Commentary, Pulpit commentary, Geneva Bible, etc.  The Neo-Babylonian empire was founded by Nabopolassar in 626 BC, inherited by Nebuchadnezzar the Great in 605 BC but ended with the capture of Babylon by the Persians in 539 BC.
The Chest & arms of silver is Medo-Persia, Dan 2:39.  This is agreed by Ellicott, Barnes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Gill, Poole, Cambridge Commentary, Geneva Bible, etc.  The Medo-Persians conquered Babylon in 539 BC, and were themselves overthrown by Alexander the Great in about 330 BC.
The Belly of Bronze is Greece, Dan 2:39.  This is agreed by Ellicott, Barnes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Gill, Poole, Cambridge Commentary, Geneva Bible, etc.  The Greeks over-ran the great world powers at the time but finally were overtaken by Rom in the middle of the second century BC.
The legs of Iron are Rome, Dan 2:40.  This is agreed by Ellicott, Bension, Barnes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Poole, Gill, Geneva Bible, Pulpit Commentary, etc.  The Roman empire lasted, united, until the late 5th century AD, whereupon it collapsed and broke up u=into the various independent sates that now surround the Mediterranean sea, namely, Europe, North Africa and the middle east; this is depicted by the feet of ion and clay that will not mix or "cleave" to each other.
The Great Rock cut out without hands is the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ, Dan 2:44, 45.  Thus all commentaries agree again.

The place at which most commentators diverge is the point where the Kingdom of Christ is established.  There are two schools of thought:

The Kingdom of Christ was established by Jesus Christ during His first advent (as the Christian church) and will continue and be subsumed by Jesus at His second advent
The Kingdom of Christ will be established by Jesus at His second advent (Rev 11:15) and will last eternally.

Both views have their ardent supporters and both can be defended.  I personally have trouble selecting either as I believe both are correct, but that is a topic for another question.


Will there be sex in Heaven (the new Earth)?

There is very little Biblical evidence to suggest that there will be no sex on the new Earth nor in Heaven after Christ's second coming.

The idea spawns from an inferred interpretation of Mark 12:25

  When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

The background story is that the Pharisees are attempting to trap Jesus and pose the question of who a woman would be married to after the resurrection if she has been widowed seven times. Jesus replies that she will be married to none of them.

What Jesus did not say is that there will be no sex or no procreation.

This idea is very old and comes from a time when it was unthinkable sin to copulate outside of marriage. Sex and marriage were so intertwined at times in some Christian cultures (Puritan) that they were equated. Some thought, and I am sure that some actually still do, that because there is no marriage then there surely is no sex either.

Without this verse, the Bible is silent on this issue.

Today, I do not know of a single denomination that teaches that there will be no sex after the Resurrection, though I would not be surprise if there are a few small groups, and I reserve the right to be corrected.

Another inference about this scripture is that there will be no gender in Heaven. That is clearly related, but takes the idea to the next level. I discuss this in the answer to a different question.


How is 2 Thessalonians 2:3 understood by those who believe in the imminence of Christ's return?

Another option could be that those who believe in the imminent return of Christ do not believe that the man of lawlessness has been revealed but that one event could happen directly after the other.


Welcome to Christianity.SE !  Since you're a veteran of the SE networks you will soon realize that you will need to do some work to make the question acceptable to this forum.
It looks like you are new to Christianity and are sincere in trying to understand it more.
So as a Christian who has been around (i.e. know the framework, not saying I'm better morally than you) I try to provide a general preliminary answer which for now I hope can help guide you to edit your question.
First, "grace" is a highly technical theological term that different denominations define differently (just see wikipedia), so you'll have to tighten your question accordingly (see the tour).  But for the sake of this answer, I'll just define it as the undeserved gift from God to us so we can overcome the effect of the Fall to attain the goodness of life that God intended us to have.
Secondly, theologians will distinguish different types of grace for different kind of gifts.  Understandably different denomination will categorize them differently.  To specifically tailor this answer to your questions, I'll divide it into 2 kinds:

Common Grace: Grace for Christians and non-Christians alike, such as:

God's providential care in creation
God's providential restraint of sin through civil authorities
God putting conscience in a person
Natural abilities implanted in human beings to produce cultural advancements

Special Grace: Grace for Christians only, which we will need to accept Jesus in faith as well as to persevere through the sanctification process (a joint effort between Holy Spirit and us) until we become truly holy and "fit for heaven"

Armed with the above working definitions, here are the answers to your questions:

I heard that it is through the gift of God's grace that we have the impulse to do good and that it is always with us - but the source that I heard it from was questionable.

Most denominations will say that the impulse to do good, let's call it "goodwill", is an inherent part of human nature, which in turn is created by God to do good.  Therefore, it's part of the original design, and thus can arguably fall under "Common Grace" for denominations who define grace that way.  If that's the case, the impulse (although marred by sin) will always be with us because God will preserve creation until the Day of Judgment.
But denominations differ on whether the acts resulting from that goodwill can be properly called "good" without the existence of "Special grace" and without the person being "born again".  For example, in the Catholic schema, a good act is "meritorious" only under certain condition.
Thirdly, most denominations will say that "Special grace" is needed for salvation, so no one can save him/herself with "Common grace" alone.  Also, most denominations will say that "free will" (an aspect of "Common grace") will always be with us to make us responsible to accept / deny Christ despite the free will itself has been heavily compromised due to sin.

So this is a question of applicability.

In Christian theology is it possible to be without God's grace?

Since life itself is due to Common Grace, it is not possible.  For Special Grace, I think all denominations will also say that we will not survive in our sanctification journey without grace.  In addition, in Catholicism you can lose your "state of grace" due to mortal sin; so if you die in that state you don't go to heaven.

Are there places where it is withheld?

In denominations that believe in predestination, Special Grace is given only to the elect.

People for whom it has been withdrawn?

Depends on the denomination.  But most will blame it on us, not on God's initiative (for example, see here).  Basically, if one decides to continue further and further into sin, this is what St. Paul say God will do: Romans 1:18-32.

Do animals have the same grace?

Special Grace is only for human beings.  Animals enjoy God's goodness of creation, but we do not even categorize it under Common Grace.  In general the term "grace" doesn't apply to animals.  God may have a "redemption plan" for animals, but it's not revealed to us, so we don't know.  Humans are supposed to care for them, though (per mandate in Genesis 1:26-28), so we need to treat them well while using them for our benefit.  So if they DO receive "grace", it's through their "official caretaker": humans.

Do the various graces always apply albeit in different ways and intensities?

In Special Grace, different denominations will define the dynamics differently, mostly in response of the Christian's engagement with God and the Christian's spiritual life.  In Catholicism for example, there is a well-defined subdivisions of "special grace", sacraments to confer them, spiritual states of a person affected by different types of sin, etc.  This is where denominations will give wildly different answers.
I hope the above helps.  I will edit the answer once the question is more specific.


How do Protestants reconcile their confession of the Athanasian Creed with sola scriptura?

To start with, you're not understanding what Sola Scriptura actually means. It does not mean that only explicit propositions found in the scriptures are accepted. It does not mean that Protestants reject or ignore tradition, historical theology, creeds, or reason. Sola Scriptura means that Protestants think that the scriptures are the only infallible source of knowledge on this side of resurrection (on the other side we will be able to speak directly to God of course.) Sola Scriptura means that when there are questions and debates, the highest authority we can appeal to is the scriptures. But it doesn't mean the scriptures contain everything we want to know, nor that all of the scriptures are easy to understand. We interpret the scriptures under the power of the Holy Spirit, guided by generations of past Christians, using the fullness of the intellects God has granted to us.

So there's nothing to reconcile. Like the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, and Chalcedonian Definition, the Athanasian Creed is believed by most Protestants to be an accurate summary of the theology taught by the Bible. Protestants can recite it and join the other Christians around the world who share its truths. And some Protestant denominations would endorse it as an authoritative summary of their beliefs. This does not make it part of the canon, nor does it ever sit in a higher place than the scriptures. Any Protestant church which truly believes in Sola Scriptura would allow in principle for the possibility that a deeper understanding of scripture may convince them that some aspect of the Athanasian Creed needs revising, although after all this time they'd consider that unlikely to happen.

(There is some small disagreement over some lines already, in particular the first and last. Many Protestants would disagree that doubt precludes salvation. And of course "descended into hell" is disputed by many as it is in the other creeds, but that is more an issue of translation.)


Was Joseph Smith interested in and familiar with Kabbalah?

In short:

  Do we know if he had access to and was familiar with Kabbalah writings?

There is no documentation of him having access to the Kabbalah writings.

  Did he study them in the original Hebrew?

Again there is no record of Joseph Smith having access to them.

There is a longer article entitled "Everything is Everything": Was Joseph Smith Influenced by the Kabbalah that goes more in depth, but basically says the same thing.

  How familiar would the average American Christian leader at that time be with Kabbalah?

There doesn't seem to be any documentation of American Christian leaders being any more/less familiar with it then current average church leader.

  Is Joseph Smith exceptional in this regard?

If he had knowledge of the Kabbalah then yes he would be more exception than the average American Christian church leader in this regard.

In regards to:

  Joseph Smith taught himself Hebrew (as to how well, I'm not sure)

Joseph Smith started a Hebrew School in Kirtland Ohio and started teaching himself and others Hebrew as best he could. Later he hired a teacher for seven weeks for 320$ (JSHC 2:356) taught by Professor Seixas who did say that the students were 'we were the most forward of any class he ever instructed for the same length of time.' (JSHC 2:396) Joseph Smith later learned more Hebrew (JSP) and German (JSHC 6:426) from his friend Alexander Neibaur. The longer article from above mentions that Alexander did cite the Kabbalah in Times and Seasons in the article 'The Jews' (TS 4:220-22 and TS 5:233-34), but goes on to say he could've cited it from a second source....we don't know.


What works do the LDS Church recognize as Scripture?

What is considered scripture

The Standard Works

The LDS Church accepts 4 volumes as "standard works" of scripture:

The KJV Bible (minus Apocrypha)
The Book of Mormon
The Pearl of Great Price
The Doctrine and Covenants

Each book is esteemed basically equally with the others as pertaining to their scriptural value. Of course, Mormons will emphasize the Book of Mormon since that is the book which mainly sets the LDS religion apart from other Christian faiths.

See: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/standard-works

The inspired words of modern prophets

In addition to the standard works, Latter-day Saints acknowledge the inspired words of prophets and apostles since the Restoration began in about 1820 as the revealed word of God in our day.

Several Articles of Faith mention living prophets as God's spokesmen on the earth today, and their importance is reinforced with Biblical teachings by prophets like Amos, Jesus, Paul, and Moses.

Not everything prophets and apostles, seers and revelators, say might be scripture. They are human, and have candid moments as anyone would. So the LDS are careful to distinguish their opinions and other, non-authoritative statements from actual, prophetic teachings over the pulpit in, say, a General Conference.

Teachings of modern prophets are given considerable weight as they have the authority to reveal anew the will of God atop older revelations contained in ancient scriptures.

See: The current LDS Church leadership (general authorities)

Patriarchal blessings

Not all scripture is general, meaning, intended for everyone. In an abstract sense, any truly-God-inspired words are scripture. But that inspiration may have a narrow scope in some cases, applying to only an individual or a small group of people.

Patriarchal blessings are important instances in a Mormon's life, as these blessings contain their declaration of lineage and also inspired counsel from a patriarch, who can receive such revelation. These blessings become very personal and sacred scripture to individuals. They don't apply to everyone and aren't usually shared.

See: http://www.lds.org/topics/patriarchal-blessings

Official declarations (and similar)

There have been only two Official Declarations which are published in the Standard Works, but similar declarations, such as The Family and The Living Christ, are equally important. Many Mormons have one or both of these hanging on the walls of their home.

What is not necessarily considered scripture

These are likely to contain truth and may be cited reliably, but they are more like secondary sources, in that they draw upon more authoritative scripture from prophets or the standard works to lay their doctrinal foundation, or their main purpose is to edify and uplift, or inform: not necessarily declare doctrine.

These items may have truth in them, but any readings of these should be done carefully with the guidance of the Spirit to discern truth from error.

New doctrine/revelation for the church will never originate from these sources:

CES Devotionals
Speeches at BYU
Books written by general authorities (though these are often opinion)
Publications from the Maxwell Institute at BYU
Content on LDS Church websites (just because it's on lds.org, mormon.org, or mormonnewsroom.org, or others, doesn't mean it's scripture)
Things said by general authorities away from the pulpit
Talks by members of the Church in sacrament meetings
Scripture reference material
Student manuals
Scripture footnotes, chapter headings, approximate dates, etc.
The Apocrypha

It quickly becomes apparent that Mormons believe that God will reveal His truth in a very organized and specific way.

What is not at all considered scripture

Note that these also may not be affiliated with the LDS Church in any way.

The Journal of Discourses
Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR)
Wikipedia
Any secular publication or statement, esp. not by the LDS church
Videos / multimedia (scripture is written)

Have I missed anything?


Do any Protestant groups teach that Paul founded the Church and not Peter?

Protestants do not recognize the necessity of a single worldwide leader other than Christ. So it is not as if Peter is dethroned so that Paul can take his place. Both are recognized as important leaders, but not one over the other.

An example of this thinking can be found from John Calvin in the Institutes. In Book 4, Chapter 6, he writes:

  And yet, in truth, none can solve this question better than
     Scripture, if we compare all the passages in which it shows what office
     and power Peter held among the apostles, how he acted among them, how
     he was received by them (Acts 15:7). Run over all these passages, and
     the utmost you will find is, that Peter was one of twelve, their equal
     and colleague, not their master. He indeed brings the matter before the
     council when anything is to be done, and advises as to what is
     necessary, but he, at the same time, listens to the others, not only
     conceding to them an opportunity of expressing their sentiments, but
     allowing them to decide; and when they have decided, he follows and
     obeys. [...]

After a number of scriptural examples, Calvin concludes:

  All these things make it manifest, either that
     there was an equality between Paul and Peter, or, at least, that Peter
     had no more authority over the rest than they had over him. This point,
     as I have said, Paul handles professedly, in order that no one might
     give a preference over him, in respect of apostleship, to Peter or
     John, who were colleagues, not masters.


Thomism, Natural Law and our Fallen Nature

I don't agree that this statement (that committing sin is contrary to human nature) is the basis of natural law. Natural law is a consequence of the way God constructed humans and the rest of the universe. It's what makes it wrong, for example, to kill someone; and we call it natural because everyone knows it, even if God hasn't directly revealed it to them.

Still, Thomas did agree that committing sin is contrary to human nature. Did that make him a Pelagianist (that is, someone who believed that humans could overcome sin by their own efforts)?

Thomas was far from a Pelagianist; in fact, he cites Augustine in opposition to it:

  According to the Catholic Faith we are bound to hold that the first sin of the first man is transmitted to his descendants, by way of origin. For this reason children are taken to be baptized soon after their birth, to show that they have to be washed from some uncleanness. The contrary is part of the Pelagian heresy, as is clear from Augustine in many of his books.

(Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 81, Article 1)

But he could consider both humanity's fallen, sinful state and also the original, righteous state. He described original sin as

  an inordinate disposition, arising from the destruction of the harmony which was essential to original justice, even as bodily sickness is an inordinate disposition of the body, by reason of the destruction of that equilibrium which is essential to health.

(Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 82, Article 1; emphasis added)

Thomas believes that humanity was endowed with "original justice", which he describes as "man's will being subject to God" (Summa, First Part, Question 82, Article 3), but that humanity lost this through the sin of Adam and Eve:

  we must explain the matter ... by saying that all men born of Adam may be considered as one man, inasmuch as they have one common nature, which they receive from their first parents; even as in civil matters, all who are members of one community are reputed as one body, and the whole community as one man. Indeed Porphyry says (Praedic., De Specie) that "by sharing the same species, many men are one man."

That is, when Adam and Eve sinned, they changed forever the nature of humanity—they changed what a human being was, spiritually. It's for this reason that all those descended from them have this damaged spiritual state.

Thomas thus believes that "committing evil does not accord with human nature"; and he believes that in humanity's original state (before the Fall) we were able to act in accord with our nature. He believes that the Fall diminished this natural propensity to adjust one's desires in accord with God's will; and not only for the original sinner, but for all those descended from him. He does state that the ability cannot be destroyed entirely, since it is part of our nature,theoretically available to all those with a rational soul:

  the good of nature, that is diminished by sin, is the natural inclination to virtue, which is befitting to man from the very fact that he is a rational being; for it is due to this that he performs actions in accord with reason, which is to act virtuously. Now sin cannot entirely take away from man the fact that he is a rational being, for then he would no longer be capable of sin. Wherefore it is not possible for this good of nature to be destroyed entirely.

Nevertheless, this availability is only in theory (as being part of the nature of the soul); it is not regularly available to us, because this original justice with which God gifted us has been entirely taken away (cf. Summa, First Part, Question 82, Article 4). We can avoid sin sometimes, but never as a matter of course. We've lost most, but cannot lose all, of our ability to act according to our nature.

Thus, it is true that we have a nature which was designed to exhibit a natural justice and propensity to follow God; it is in this sense that "committing evil does not accord with human nature". However, when Thomas considers "Whether man can rise from sin without the help of grace" (First Part, Question 109, Article 7), he concludes:

  For since the lustre of grace springs from the shedding of Divine light, this lustre cannot be brought back, except God sheds His light anew: hence a habitual gift is necessary, and this is the light of grace. Likewise, the order of nature can only be restored, i.e. man's will can only be subject to God when God draws man's will to Himself, as stated above. So, too, the guilt of eternal punishment can be remitted by God alone, against Whom the offense was committed and Who is man's Judge. And thus in order that man rise from sin there is required the help of grace, both as regards a habitual gift, and as regards the internal motion of God.

That is, without the grace of God, humans cannot themselves overcome the propensity to sin which is the manifestation of original sin.

Please see:

What is the difference between Natural Law and Divine Law? | C.SE.
Dictionary: NATURAL LAW | Catholic Culture.


When should Water Baptism be done on a candidate?

The scriptures never tell us on which occasion the baptism should be performed.

One thing for sure is that Baptism was done immediately after the candidate accepted Jesus Christ.

Some examples:

The first believers on the Pentecost day were Baptized that day itself.

  Acts 2:41 (NIV) Those who accepted his message were baptized, and
  about three thousand were added to their number that day.

The Ethiopian eunuch took baptism shortly after accepting Jesus Christ. (Acts 8:26-40)

  36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the
  eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my
  being baptized?”

The Jailer and his household took Baptism immediately the same night he accepted Jesus. (Acts 16:16-40)

  33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their
  wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.

Cornelius the centurion and every one present in his house took baptism right after Peter preached to them. (Acts 10)

  44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on
  all who heard the message.47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of
  their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit
  just as we have.”

There are more references but I believe this is sufficient.


Is it fair to say that the Anglican Church was originally intended to be a 'middle ground' between Catholics and Protestants?

There were many people involved in the formation of the Anglican church, and they had different purposes for it.

The most prominent initial issue was of course Henry VIII's desire to get a divorce. But equally significant was the authority of Rome in England: Henry passed laws prohibiting legal appeals to Rome, and removing the church's authority to make laws. He had a theological mind and even wrote a book on the sacraments, but it's hard to establish exactly what he thought a lot of the time. Still it seems that many of the stages of the reform had his input. He wanted English language Bibles to be used in churches and I think he was personally opposed to shrines to saints, relics and pilgrimages.

Thomas Cranmer was the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time of the Church of England's break with Rome and for about twenty years afterwards, and was thoroughly committed to protestant theology. While he was limited somewhat during Henry's reign, during Edward's reign he was able to enact most of the reforms he desired. He wrote the Book of Common Prayer and an early draft of what would become the 39 Articles, which together define what Anglicanism is.

After Edward died his sister Mary became queen. She was strongly Catholic, and reversed the laws which had made England independent of the Catholic Church. She also executed many protestant leaders, including Cranmer.

Mary's sister Elizabeth became queen next, and was protestant. But she was a pragmatist, and wanted a strategy to avoid the violence of her sister's reign. With her reign the via media (middle road) became that strategy. The official doctrine of the church, as shown in the 39 Articles, was thoroughly protestant, but concessions and space was made for the more Catholic people of England. Anglicanism has always kept bishops and rejected the ecclesiological reforms of many continental churches (or Scottish Presbyterianism). The liturgical desires of the puritans were rejected, with churches given the freedom to decide what style to use (what is now called high and low, or somewhere in between).

So the answer to this question depends on what you call the 'original Anglican church'. Mary's reign was only five years, so there were only five years of Catholic dominance between the two protestant eras. There were only 11 years between Henry and Elizabeth. Elizabeth's Anglicanism was not what Henry and Cranmer created, but I think it's close enough so say that the via media has been part of Anglicanism since the beginning. What is five years compared to the four and a half centuries since then?


Do Rastafarians believe in Jesus as the Way to God?

First of all, I think it's necessary to point out that Christianity is not defined by being a "lot about God and other spiritual matters". Most world religions could include this. You could just as easily be Muslim and sing a lot about a god and spiritual matters.

Even more specifically than that, a group may have a set of beliefs that draw on many common themes from Christianity without being Christian. Such is the case with the Rastafari Movement. It is a philosophy and loosely organized way of life that includes some common themes and often reuses terms and phrases found in Christianity, but at it's core is a completely separate set of beliefs.

To directly answer your question, no Rastafarians do not believe that Jesus is the way to God in the same way that the majority of Christians (of any major tradition) do. In fact they believe the Christian scriptures have been corrupted. Being a loosely organized set of beliefs it is important to note that you might run into a few people who do believe in Jesus and claim to be Rastafarian. However the normative Rastafari beliefs are quite different.

They do not hold the same beliefs about sin, the reasons for our separation from God or the only solution to that problem. They are usually willing to credit Jesus with being a good moral teacher and admire his rebel tendencies, but they completely miss the main point of who he was: God in the flesh and the only incarnate Messiah.

That last bit is important, because they typically do believe in a "christ" or "messiah", but they believe he had another name, took a body at another time, etc. See Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia, to whom Rastafarians attribute many of the things found in Christian scriptures rather than to Jesus Christ.

Confusingly, you might even hear "trinity" nomenclature being used by Rastafarians, but be aware that they mean something completely different by this than Christians:

  Rastafari doctrines concerning the Trinity include stressing the significance of the name "Haile Selassie," meaning power of the Trinity, might of the Trinity, powerful trinity in Ge'ez or also Haile Selassie I (qedamawi Haile Selassie) meaning the (first power of the Trinity) name given to Ras Tafari upon his baptism and later assumed as part of his regnal name at his November 2, 1930 coronation by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, then known as just the Ethiopian Tewahedo Church. (Wikipedia)


What is the difference between an "issue of covenant" and an "abomination to God"?

They are not different categories of laws, the answerer of your other question is referring to the exact text of the verse

  "is an abomination to the Lord your God"

and then combining it with the fact that God is

  the same yesterday today and forever (Hebrews 13:8)

so it is not a matter of covenant, which we were freed from through Jesus, but rather of Gods "preference" (so to speak) which do not change


The difference is that a cross in a church is not worshipped. As the translators' notes in the New English Translation (NET) Bible indicates, regarding Exodus 20:4, the concern of the Law with respect to pesel—the Hebrew term referring to "an image that was carved out of wood or stone"—was about statues that "would be made for the purpose of worship, an idol to be venerated, and not any ordinary statue." In John Gill's exposition of this verse he makes the same distinction, that God's commandment regarded things shaped from wood or stone, cast into a mold, or engraved by men "in order to be worshipped." There is no compelling reason to think that the Law was opposed to any and all images whatsoever; after all, God himself commanded Moses to make a snake and set it on a pole, so that all those who were bitten if they looked upon it would live (Num. 21:4-9). As Gill notes, the Jews of Christ's era had no religious aversion to coins impressed with images, although "they vehemently opposed the setting up any images of the Caesars or emperors in their temple, because they seemed to be placed there as deities, and had a show of religious worship" (emphasis mine). Nor is there any compelling reason to think images were forbidden for use in worship—such as a cross in a church?—for were there not golden cherubim set over the Mercy Seat, which God commanded be made? As noted in the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, "The mere making was no sin—it was the making with the intent to give idolatrous worship" (emphasis mine), which is surely indicated in the rest of this second commandment, particularly as seen in verse 5: "You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God." The same thing is seen in Lev. 25:1, where the same worship qualification is found: "to bow down before it."

As described in The Christian Observer (p. 41)

It is manifest also that the art of the graver, sculptor, and embroiderer, was sanctified under the old dispensation. Still there is that sweeping intolerance of the second commandment towards any image or likeness of any created thing wherever or whatever it might be. But it scarcely needs much knowledge of the Hebrew idiom to be aware that when two clauses are paired together as in that commandment, "Thou shalt not make … Thou shalt not bow down," it does not mean two precepts but one. In most other languages the meaning would be conveyed something to this effect, "Thou shalt not make … in order to bow down thereto." If thou make for other purposes, the commandment touches thee not. So Calvin with his usual acute perception comments thus: "There is no necessity to refute what some have foolishly imagined, that sculpture and painting of every kind are condemned here." Otherwise Solomon's lions and oxen and palm trees must stand condemned, and the positive command to cast the brazen serpent and to model the cherubim would be a scandal and a difficulty. It was thus [in this fashion] that John of Damascus, Gregory II, and others replied to the broad assertions of the Iconoclasts.

("Early image-worship in the church," The Christian Observer, No. 1 [London: Hatchards, 1877], 41.)

(Note: I originally had more links in here, pointing to where these things can be read online, but it seems I need a higher reputation before I can post any more than two.)


Did Pope Benedict XVI grant permission for heterosexual couples to use artificial birth control methods?

No. The Pope did not permit or condone artificial birth control.

There's a full critique of a number of statements from Light of the World, together with statements from the Vatican which provide a gloss, on the website of the Holy Family Monastery, although it appears they consider that the Pope has erred simply because his statements will be used to misrepresent his and the Church's teaching on contraception.

In Light of the World p117–119, we read this:

  Question: “In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV.  Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.”

  Answer from Benedict XVI: “The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement… In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms.  Much more needs to be done… There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.  But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.  That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”

  Question: “Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

  Answer from Benedict XVI: “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement towards a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated on 19 December 2010 (my emphasis):

  Some interpretations have presented the words of the Pope as a contradiction of the traditional moral teaching of the Church. This hypothesis has been welcomed by some as a positive change and lamented by others as a cause of concern — as if his statements represented a break with the doctrine concerning contraception and with the Church’s stance in the fight against AIDS. In reality, the words of the Pope — which specifically concern a gravely disordered type of human behaviour, namely prostitution (cf. Light of the World, pp. 117–119) — do not signify a change in Catholic moral teaching or in the pastoral practice of the Church... The idea that anyone could deduce from the words of Benedict XVI that it is somehow legitimate, in certain situations, to use condoms to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is completely arbitrary and is in no way justified either by his words or in his thought.

  [L’Osservatore Romano 22-27 December 2010, p11]

TL;DR: Condoms are not to be used to prevent pregnancy, but they can be used to prevent the spread of disease. Someone recognising that this is necessary may be a first step towards the moral and responsible stance of abstinence.


How does Catholic Church differentiate between the presence of Jesus and that of the Holy Spirit on the earth?

The sending of the Holy Spirit is one of the means by which Christ fulfills his promise to be with us always.
The Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary enumerates additional ways in which Christ remains with us:

by always dwelling in the hearts of the faithful;
by his sacramental presence in the holy Eucharist;
by his providential care, and constant protection to his holy Catholic Church.