This is a really interesting concept in Christian theology, known as typology. Essentially, it is a method of interpreting the Old Testament as a long series of "types" that prefigure aspects of the revelation in Jesus Christ, which are known as "antitypes".

This is mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  The Church, as early as apostolic times, and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God's works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son. (CCC 128)

For instance, we might look at the story of Jonah, which is commonly read in  Christianity (especially in mediaeval Catholic and Orthodox theology) as a prefiguring of Christ's death, three days in the tomb, and resurrection. Similarly, the serpent lifted up on a pole by Moses in the wilderness in order that those who look upon it might be saved (Numbers 21) is read as a type of Christ's being lifted up on the Cross.

However, the example you mention in your question is possibly the canonical example of typology. The Temple, the dwelling-place of God, is understood as a prefiguring "type" of Christ, in whom God dwells on earth. The sacrifices of the Old Covenant are considered types of the one great sacrifice of the New Covenant, that of Jesus Christ on the Cross. The priesthood of the Old Covenant is considered a type of Christ's eternal high priesthood. If you read the Epistle to the Hebrews, you will see this language used extensively.

So the Temple and the Tabernacle are not a case of God changing his mind, but giving a way off understanding the greater event that is to come in Christ. Their role is to explain what happens in Jesus Christ. But when Christ's death happens, the Old Covenant is fulfilled, so aspects such as the Temple can pass away.


Does St. Gertrude's prayer have any (semi-)official standing in the Catholic Church?

Prayers that are supposed to automatically release souls from purgatory are "declared to be apocryphal" (i.e. false) and are prohibited, according to the Acts of the Holy See 32 p.243, as promulgated by Pope Leo XIII.

  Reiicienda sunt folia, et libelli, in quibus promittitur fidelibus unam alteramve precem recitantibus liberatio unius vel plurium animarum a Purgatorio : et Indulgentiae quae dictae promissioni adiici solent ut apocryphae habendae sunt.

Translation

  The leaflets and booklets which promise the faithful that they will free one or more souls from Purgatory by the recitation of some prayer or another are to be rejected : and the Indulgences which are wont to be attached to the said promise are to be held as apocryphal.


Female Sunday School teachers for 17, 18 year old male students?

Since you asked "How have nominations (or other church movements) that have held scripture forbids female pastors responded to the general blanket proscription which seems to be found in this verse?" I'll answer that only, with the disclaimer that I'm neither saying that women should or should not preach.  I have my belief on the subject, but my belief is irrelevant to the question.

Baptists are one example of a denomination that has historically held that women should not be preachers.  These days, there's division on that, but historically, this is a good group to use as an example.

A short version of how it's handled in the Baptist Churches I've dealt with, women are allowed to teach Sunday School classes to children and to other women.

Children are generally divided by age group, with either male of female teachers.
Teens are generally taught by a (male) Youth Pastor.
Adult Sunday school is either led by the (male) Pastor for all 18 year-olds.
On some subjects, adult men and women are split up into two groups.  For example, every so often, Sunday School focuses on "how to be a Godly husband/wife".  During this type of session, men are taught by a man, women are taught by a woman.

Of course, my experience in Baptist Churches is very limited.  I've attended probably less than 10 baptist Churches in my life, and have only been a regular member at two of those.  However, having friends in Baptists Churches all over the place, this is pretty typical.

There's an article at Baptisthistory.org  that covers the view that see/hear in baptist circles:  Perspectives on Women in Baptist Life

Some Excerpts:

  Perspectives on Women in Baptist Life by Leon McBeth

  I would like to make three disclaimers at the beginning of this
  article. First, my perspective obviously is that of a man. I feel
  totally inadequate to write on the roles of women. When I say "we" in
  this paper, I mean generally men. When I say "you," I mean women. If
  any readers detect areas of ignorance, prejudice, misunderstanding,
  and lingering chauvinism, I can only ask that you bear with me with
  whatever degree of patience the Lord will give you.

  Second, my perspective is that of a historian. My academic preparation
  has been in history, and most of my waking hours are devoted to a
  study of our Baptist heritage. If I draw my insights and examples
  primarily from Baptist history, you will not be unduly surprised.

  Third, my perspective is that of a participant. I cannot discuss the
  role of women in Baptist life in the same way that I can, say, the
  formation of the Southern Baptist Convention or the rise of the
  Separate Baptists in the eighteenth century. The changing roles of
  Baptist women, while a question with deep historical roots, is going
  on today. It affects my church today; it affects my students; it
  affects my denomination here and now; and it affects me. Almost daily
  I counsel with seminary students who feel called to ministry, many of
  whom are women. In my church I receive the Lord’s Supper from the
  hands of a woman deacon. Sometimes when our pastor is absent, we hear
  a sermon from our associate pastor, a capable, well-prepared, and
  articulate ordained minister who wears a dress. This is no theoretical
  ivory tower topic, but one in which all of us are daily involved. Yet,
  one who writes as a participant must guard against loss of
  objectivity.

  With that introduction, let us examine some perspectives on women in
  Baptist life.

  From the Angle of Service, We Depend on You

  I tell you nothing new in saying that from day one in Baptist history,
  women have served faithfully in Baptist life. You have nurtured,
  sustained, encouraged, and preserved our churches. Without your loyal
  and effective service through the generations, our churches and our
  denomination would be far different, if they would be at all.

  ...

  From the Angle of Missions, We Follow You

  No fact of Baptist history is clearer than the fact that women have
  set the pace for Baptist involvement in missions. While it is true
  that William Carey had little support from his wife Dorothy, on this
  side of the water two women helped set the stage for our present
  Baptist work among the nations. They were Ann Judson in the North and
  Lottie Moon in the South.

  ...

  From the Angle of Scripture, We Puzzle Over You

  "What does the Bible say?" That question is and has always been
  vitally important for Southern Baptists. For us the teachings of the
  Bible have been determinative, and still are. For the overwhelming
  majority of Southern Baptists, a clear word of Scripture settles any
  question of faith or practice among us.

  However, not all words from the Bible are equally clear. We read that
  women are to keep silent in the church, but we are not sure whether it
  means in that social setting or for all time to come. We have
  competent and dedicated Southern Baptist Bible scholars who genuinely
  believe that the New Testament forbids women to exercise a teaching or
  ministerial role in the church. We have other equally competent and
  dedicated Bible scholars who believe that the New Testament, properly
  interpreted, does not disqualify women from being called of God and of
  fulfilling that call in positions of ministry in the church. So it is
  not a question of whether one believes the Bible, but of how we
  understand the Bible.


Is the "sinner's prayer" important for salvation and why?

The sinners prayer has no place in Christ's Gospel
Why did Christ die? Have you thought about that? If Christ was somebody that everybody loved, why was the entire town chanting that He be killed? Have you thought about that?

John 15:25 NKJV
But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in
their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’

WAIT A MINUTE! I thought that everybody loved Christ??  Read further.... you must always read further...

John 7:7 NKJV
The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it
that its works are evil.

No, the world HATED Jesus Christ, because Christ came and told them that they were sinners and then He told them that they had to repent or they would go to Hell. We learned more about Hell from our Lord Christ than we did from all of the other prophets put together.
Jesus Commanded!

Mark 1:14-15 NKJV
14 Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee,
preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 and saying, “The time
is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe
in the gospel.”

Isn't it funny that you never hear Jesus taking people aside and having them repeat a prayer..? Ever thought about that? Don't you think that somebody would have been smart enough to ask Jesus how to be saved? What do you think He said to them? "Say this prayer?" haha! Never!

Luke 10:25-28 NKJV
And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying,
“Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 He said to
him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”  27 So
he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all
your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all
your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 And He said to
him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”

Jesus answered that we needed to obey the commandments....  But I thought that was work? Let's keep reading..

Romans 13:8 NKJV
Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves
another has fulfilled the law.
Romans 13:10
Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of
the law.
Galatians 5:14
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall
love your neighbor as yourself.”
Matthew 22:38-40 (NKJV)
38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like
it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two
commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
Mark 12:31
And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as
yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

LOVE LOVE LOVE!
It's all about loving people. Not by just telling people that you love them though! It's about actually going out and DOING. Going out and taking care of the widows and the orphans, not cursing people on the road, turning the other cheek and showing your enemy that you forgive them even after they spit in your face.

John 15:17
These things I command you, that you love one another.
John 15:12
This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
John 15:10
If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have
kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.
John 14:21
He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And
he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and
manifest Myself to him.”
John 14:15
“If you love Me, keep My commandments.
1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And
His commandments are not burdensome.

Are you beginning to see?
The sinner's prayer wraps all of the mentions of salvation into a thirty second "repeat after me" that is all about yourself! The sinners prayer has nothing to do with this command to love it completely throws it out the window.
Paul Washer IS your man on this one. Here's a clip from one of his sermons: Declaring War on The Sinner's Prayer
THIS IS THE GOSPEL
Understand that people DO NOT want to love one another. This is why they keep throwing the idea out! Go listen to your pastor next weekend and I guarantee that his message will be about "a better life now" or some other BS.
The Bible is here to tell us how much we HATE one another and how much we HATE GOD. It's no wonder that God has been transformed into Santa Claus.
Go to God now and fall on your face and ask for forgiveness, because of your wickedness!
What about faith?

Galatians 5:6 (NKJV)
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails
anything, but faith working through love.
James 2:24  (NKJV)
24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith
only.
1 Corinthians 13:13
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of
these is love.

This is not an option
Let's get one thing clear. This is not an option. You MUST turn from your wickedness and if you do not then you will be sent to Hell.

2 Timothy 2:19 (NKJV)
19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal:
“The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the
name of Christ depart from iniquity.”
Matthew 7:22-23 (NKJV)
22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many
wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never
knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Luke 6:46
“But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I
say?

In the last days this is exactly how you will be judged

Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books
were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life.
And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which
were written in the books.
Revelation 20:13
The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered
up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according
to his works.

Conclusion
You will never find in the gospel of Christ that you need to repeat a prayer in order to be saved. Know that the only place in the Bible that mentions "faith alone" was in James 2 when James said that it is not by faith alone.
Throw out that prayer and call out to God to be saved! When God grants you repentance He will take you under His authority and HE will teach you Himself, about Himself. Your eyes will be opened and you will WANT to obey Him.


How do Anglicans, who recognize apostolic succession, trace theirs?

The same way that the Catholics do.

Anglicans consider themselves catholic and reformed. The Anglican church was the Catholic Church in England until the reformation when they stopped recognizing the authority of the Pope.

  "The roots of the Church of England go back to the time of the Roman
  Empire when Christianity entered the Roman province of Britain.
  Through the influences of St Alban, St Illtud, St Ninian, St Patrick
  and, later, St Augustine, St Aidan and St Cuthbert, the Church of
  England developed, acknowledging the authority of the Pope until the
  Reformation in the 16th century." (An Ancient Church, Catholic and Reformed - www.churchofengland.org)

They trace their apostolic succession through the bishops who were members of the historical episcopate that remained in England after the schism.


Was the feast of unleavened bread celebrated for 8 days (opposed to 7) as it is outside Israel today in Jesus' time?

There is no 'contradiction' between the the evangelists once all factors are properly taken into consideration.

The following synchronisation of all four gospel accounts in relation to the sabbath and the passover (at the time of crucifixion) is given by an extensive document available from Academia, written by James Bejon, who occasionally submits articles to SE-Bible Hermeneutics :

A Chronology of Jesus Ministry

  Matt. 27.62, Mark 15.42, Luke 23.54, John 19.31, 19.42. ‘The day of Preparation’ (paraskeu¯e) is the
  day when people prepare for the Sabbath (Fri.n/Sat.d), as is clear from paraskeu¯e’s employment in extra-
  Biblical sources (Ant. 16.6.2, Did. 8.1, etc.) as well as eqvt. expressions in Aram. (Torrey 1931:234-237).

  In fact, the word paraskeu¯e still designates a Friday in modern Greek today. Some scholars (after Zeitlin
  1932:263) take the ‘day of preparation’ to denote ‘the day when people prepared for the Passover meal’,
  i.e., 14th Nis., which allows them to assign the crucifixion to a day other than a Friday. But, while
  such claims are linguistically possible (cf. BDAG paraskeu¯e), they are doubtful given how standardly the
  term ho paraskeu¯e is employed to denote a Thu.n/Fri.d in ancient literature (Bacchiocchi 2001:23-24).

  Besides, they do not fit the context of the passion narratives.

  Consider, for instance, John’s explanation
  of why Jesus’ legs would have been broken: “because it was the day of Preparation” and “[because] the
  Jewish leaders did not want [Jesus’ body] left on the cross on the Sabbath, since that Sabbath was a high
  day (lit. ‘the day of that Sabbath was great’)” (John 19.31). John’s point is as follows: Jesus’ body was
  taken down because the Sabbath (Fri.n/Sat.d) after Jesus’ death coincided with the start of the feast of
  Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23.6-7), which made that Sabbath a day of rest for two reasons, and hence an
  especially significant one (cf. John 7.37, where the last day of the feast of Tabernacles [Lev. 23.34-36]
  is likewise referred to as a ‘great [day]’). No other interpretation of John 19.31 really adds up.

  Some
  commentators think John refers to the day after Jesus’ death as a Sabbath because it was the 1st day
  of Unleavened Bread. But, aside from Yom Kippur, no ‘rest day’ other than a Fri.n/Sat.d is referred to
  as a ‘Sabbath’ (Gr. sabbaton) in Scripture. (In general, the OT refers to a high day as a šabb¯atôn [LXX
  anapausis], while it refers to the 1st day of Unleavened Bread in particular as a miqr¯a c q¯odeš [LXX kl¯etos
  hagios].) And, even if the 1st day of Unleavened Bread could be referred to as a Sabbath, it would still not
  explain John’s statement; indeed, it would reduce it to a mere tautology (‘the feast day happened to be
  a feast day’), akin to a statement like ‘Christmas day happened to coincide with a festive holiday’.

  (John
  need merely have said, ‘Since it was the day of Preparation, and since the bodies should not remain on
  the cross on a high day...’.) The order of events set out in the synoptic Gospels underlines the point.
  Jesus dies on the “preparation day”, which is explicitly stated to be “the day before the Sabbath” (Mark
  15.42, etc.), and, once “the Sabbath [is] over” (a reference, one would assume, to the same Sabbath
  mentioned six verses beforehand), the women come to anoint Jesus’ body with spices on “the 1st day of
  the week” (16.1-2 cf. Luke 24.1, etc.). That the Synoptics would refer (without a word of explanation)
  to the 1st day of Unleavened Bread simply as “the Sabbath” is hard (though not impossible) to imagine.

  Besides, the Gospels only mention the passage of a single ‘Sabbath day’ between the crucifixion and the
  1st day of the week. The sequence of events is clear: Jesus dies on the preparation day; the next day is
  the Sabbath; and the day after it is the 1st day of the week as well as “the 3rd day” since the crucifixion
  (Matt. 16.21, Luke 9.22, 24.21, 24.46, Acts 10.40, 27.19, 1 Cor. 15.4, Bacchiocchi 2001:22-28).


When Did Catholics Cease to Fast as the Orthodox Do?

There are three general phases on how, when and why the Catholic Church changed her way of fasting. it seems all three stages must be seen in the same light in order to understand how this phenomena came about.

The Catholic Church over some extended time in the 20th century slowly relaxed the laws on Eucharistic fasting.
Pope Paul VI overhauled the Church's  disciple on fasting in his Apostolic Letter Paenitemini.
The introduction of the Pope Paul's Mass and it's new liturgical calendar.

Before going  on, I would like to mention that the fasting in the Catholic Church was never identical to that of the Orthodox fasting. The Orthodox and many Eastern Rite Catholics have historical fasts that simply did not exist in the West. Also there some variations in fasting between the diverse Orthodox Churches.

First Item: The Eucharistic Fast.

On December 20, 1905 Pope St. Pius X, in his Sacra Tridentina of December 20, 1905 changed old traditional age of being allowed to receive Holy Communion and encouraged frequent Communion and not just only once a year as was the norm in his day.

Pope St. Pius X did not change the Eucharistic Fast at the time of his decree on the reception of Holy Communion: Sacra Tridentina. That came with Pope Pius XII.

In the 1950s some parishes started having evening Masses. These evening Masses gradually led to the changes that all parishes currently have with vigil (Sunday) Masses being permitted on Saturday evenings. This was intended to help Catholics with legitimate commitments such as hospital workers to fulfill their “Sunday obligation.” This is one reason I do not attend Saturday evening Masses unless I have an obligation of some sort which takes place at the same time of my Sunday mass.

Now taking into consideration that Pope Pius X allowed the reception of Holy Communion more frequently and lowered the age of receiving the Eucharist and that Pope Pius XII permitted evening Masses, the next step would be to shorten the Eucharistic Fast.

In 1953 Pope Pius XII changed the Eucharistic fast from midnight to 3 hours and in 1957 from 3 hours to 1 hour.

  He was the first to permit Masses to be celebrated during the evening hours and also made significant changes in the Eucharistic fast (which for centuries prior to 1953 meant that Catholics were to refrain from food and drink – except water – from midnight until receiving Holy Communion at morning Mass). In 1953 the fast was changed to 3 hours from solid foods and 1 hour from liquids. In 1957 the conditions of the fast were more relaxed in an effort to support changing working conditions of the people and to accommodate the faithful desiring to attend afternoon or evening Masses.

  As evening Masses became the rule rather than the exception, the 1 hour fast prior to receiving Holy Communion was officially promulgated by Pope Paul VI as a universal accommodation. This took place at the end of the third council session in 1964. Almost 10 years later a Vatican Instruction published on January 29, 1973 by the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments called Immensae caritatis affirmed the 1 hour fast and gave additional accommodation to the sick. This eventually took the form of church law (canon 919) in the new 1983 Code of Canon Law. - Liturgical reforms began before Second Vatican Council convened

Second Item: Pope Paul's Apostolic Letter Paenitemini

Pope Paul' s apostolic Letter Paenitemini modernized the Catholic perception on the rules for fasting.

Pope Paul VI changed the tradition Lenten obligation of fasting the entire 40 days of Lent to two days (Ash Wednesday and Good Friday). Abstinence was reduced to Ash Wednesday and all Fridays only. some diocese permit that the Friday abstinence outside of Lent may be substituted for some Act of Charity or Pious Work.

  II. 1. The time of Lent preserves its penitential character. The days of penitence to be observed under obligation throughout the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday, that is to say the first days of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent), according to the diversity of the rites. Their substantial observance binds gravely.

  Apart from the faculties referred to in VI and VIII regarding the manner of fulfilling the precept of penitence on such days, abstinence is to be observed on every Friday which does not fall on a day of obligation, while abstinence and fast is to be observed on Ash Wednesday or, according to the various practices of the rites, on the first day of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent) and on Good Friday.

  III. 1. The law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat.

  The law of fasting allows only one full meal a day, but does not prohibit taking some food in the morning and evening, observing—as far as quantity and quality are concerned—approved local custom.

  IV. To the law of abstinence those are bound who have completed their 14th year of age. To the law of fast those of the faithful are bound who have completed their 21st year and up until the beginning of their 60th year.

Third Item: The New Mass and the Liturgical Calendar of 1970

It was and is still tradition in some Catholic communities to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays, especially in Advent. But this fast, although traditional was never prescribed as an obligation by Rome.

Catholics and I presume Orthodox chose these two days out of the week to fast because according to tradition Our Lord Jesus Christ was betrayed on a Wednesday (Spy Wednesday) and Our Lord was crucified on a Friday (Good Friday).

When Pope Paul's New Mass was promulgated (Missale Romanum) on April 3, 1969 it was drastically different in form than the Mass of Pope Pius V and the new Liturgical Calendar of 1970 found some tradition feasts and/or fasts either suppressed or seriously reduced in liturgical rank. The new calendar all but did away with the whole idea of Ember Days. Although not completely suppressed, I do not know of a single diocese that practices the ancient Catholic tradition of Ember Days safe a few religious communities here and there.

As I already mentioned that Catholics never truly fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays in the sense as being obliged by Rome. Many Catholic nevertheless did so. However, The Church, prior to 1970 did fast on Ember Days. A Catholic tradition that was not practiced in the Orthodox Churches. Thus our fasts were never identical, yet were somewhat similar.

  Ember days (corruption from Lat. Quatuor Tempora, four times) are the days at the beginning of the seasons ordered by the Church as days of fast and abstinence. They were definitely arranged and prescribed for the entire Church by Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) for the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday after 13 December (S. Lucia), after Ash Wednesday, after Whitsunday, and after 14 September (Exaltation of the Cross). The purpose of their introduction, besides the general one intended by all prayer and fasting, was to thank God for the gifts of nature, to teach men to make use of them in moderation, and to assist the needy. The immediate occasion was the practice of the heathens of Rome. The Romans were originally given to agriculture, and their native gods belonged to the same class. At the beginning of the time for seeding and harvesting religious ceremonies were performed to implore the help of their deities: in June for a bountiful harvest, in September for a rich vintage, and in December for the seeding; hence their feriae sementivae, feriae messis, and feri vindimiales. The Church, when converting heathen nations, has always tried to sanctify any practices which could be utilized for a good purpose. At first the Church in Rome had fasts in June, September, and December; the exact days were not fixed but were announced by the priests. The "Liber Pontificalis" ascribes to Pope Callistus (217-222) a law ordering the fast, but probably it is older. Leo the Great (440-461) considers it an Apostolic institution. When the fourth season was added cannot be ascertained, but Gelasius (492-496) speaks of all four. This pope also permitted the conferring of priesthood and deaconship on the Saturdays of ember week--these were formerly given only at Easter. Before Gelasius the ember days were known only in Rome, but after his time their observance spread. They were brought into England by St. Augustine; into Gaul and Germany by the Carlovingians. Spain adopted them with the Roman Liturgy in the eleventh century. They were introduced by St. Charles Borromeo into Milan. The Eastern Church does not know them. The present Roman Missal [of Pope St. Pius V], in the formulary for the Ember days, retains in part the old practice of lessons from Scripture in addition to the ordinary two: for the Wednesdays three, for the Saturdays six, and seven for the Saturday in December. Some of these lessons contain promises of a bountiful harvest for those that serve God. Ember Days (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Unfortunately, in keeping up to the modern world (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 7,1965), the Catholic Church has lost so much our Her former treasures. More could be said, but I believe that this response should be of some use to someone, somewhere.

As a side note: For those Catholics and others who wish to try fasting on the Ember Days, here is a medieval recipe on how to make an Ember Day Tart in order to enhance your experience. Whether we fast on these Ember Days or not, the Ember Day Tart can still be enjoyable as a way to remind ourselves of the traditions that are have almost gone the way of the Dodo bird. Here is a tempora recipe for embertides.

Ember Day Tart


What guidelines or rules should be used when interpreting the Bible?

An important rule is "be humble."  Recognize that your interpretation is likely to be wrong and certain to be incomplete. Be open to letting Holy Scripture change you.

A related rule is to study and interpret Holy Scripture in the company of others. You can gather in the flesh, and you can study in the company of scholars by reading their books.

Be as aware as you can of your own prejudices and spiritual blind spots as you engage with scripture.

Avoid using short "proof texts" and single translations.  The more important the conclusion you draw from Holy Scripture, the broader the textual support you should enlist for your conclusion.  Sometimes the one word that's most important to you doesn't mean precisely what you hope it means.

Let scripture fill you with joy.


Does Catholicism have a stance on horoscopes?

The current Catechism has a "more modern take on the matter" which actually uses the word horoscope.

2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future.⁴⁸ Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honour, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.
⁴⁸ Cf Deut 18:10, Jer 29:8

This paragraph appears in the section on the Commandments headed "You shall have no other gods before me". Constructing and consulting horoscopes indicates a belief that it's possible to divine the mind of God and predict his plans, which puts Man on a par with God.
I don't believe that astrology works and any belief that we can divine the mind of God is forlorn. However, disobeying God in "making ourselves gods" is what caused the Fall. God is God and it's not for Man to be.


How does the Catholic Church explain the omission of identity of the young man referred to in Mk 14:51?
Yes there are several interpretations as to who this young man may have been. The Church offers no definitive answer to this equation.
Being a Catholic all my life and having been in a Catholic seminary for four years, I can confirm that the majority of Catholic theologians consider the young man to be St. Mark himself.

When one of Jesus’ followers (“a certain young man”) is captured at the same time Jesus is being arrested (in Mark 14:51-52), but then leaves his garment behind as he escapes naked, Pakaluk is able to make sense of the strange detail.
“It seems that this young man is Mark himself,” he writes. “It is a detail too small to include otherwise, and it seems unlikely that anyone else would have noticed it in the darkness and confusion. The telling of the incident has a humorous tone of self-congratulation, which is difficult to account for if it is someone other than Mark.”
Can you imagine if you had been the follower of Jesus who was apprehended at the same time as him, but then slipped away from your captors by wriggling free of your clothes? No doubt you would be wryly retelling that unique story for the rest of your life.
Pakaluk notes how the episode is only self-congratulatory for Mark in the same way that Peter ironically notes his own shortcomings: “The detail is humorous, and if written by Mark, self-depreciating.”  - St. Peter’s memoirs: a vivid take on a familiar Gospel (The BC Catholic)

The Betrayal of Christ, with a soldier in pursuit of Mark the Evangelist


Is there an online or downloadable "copyable" bible?

A number of Bible programs have a "copy verses" function with enough flexibility to do what you ask. I agree with Cindy's answer, that E-sword can most likely do it. My own preference is TheWord, available from www.theword.net.

I ran a test with two lines between verses, and headers only at the beginning of each chapter. I didn't try to space the chapter header properly, but I think you will see that you can adjust it to your liking if you try the program. To be sure it was adequate, I verified that it would copy the whole Bible, provided I used a public domain version. I used the American King James Version, abbreviated AKJV in this example:

... snip from Gen 1:1 ...

And they shall bring the glory and honor of the nations into it.

And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defiles, neither whatever works abomination, or makes a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Rev22AKJV

And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

In the middle of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there

... snip rest of Rev 22 ...

TheWord is a Windows program, but is usable on Mac and Linux as well.


According to Catholics, was faith in the assertions made in the Creed of St. Athanasius required of those in the first 3 centuries?

It seems you're asking about the difference between a material (definable) and formal (defined) dogma.

material (definable) dogma: a truth revealed by God that the Church has not yet proposed one has to believe under pain of mortal sin against faith and excommunication
formal (defined) dogma: "A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God"*

Before the 4th century, the Athanasian Creed was a material dogma; no Christian is bound, under pain of mortal sin and excommunication, to assent to a material dogma, to a creed that did not yet exist.

The Athanasian Creed's "way of speaking" ("style") is not what makes it formal dogma; that only makes it definable. What makes it "A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God"* is that "it was accepted by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, so as to be considered as a rule of faith" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 1 a. 10 ad 3).

*On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J. (Rome, 1951)

Your question seems to be about how Christian doctrine develops yet remains always the same. The development of doctrine is analogous to the development of a living organism, which grows yet always remains the same. See the related question "Whether the articles of faith have increased in course of time?" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 1 a. 7) co.:

  The articles of faith stand in the same relation to the doctrine of faith, as self-evident principles to a teaching based on natural reason. Among these principles there is a certain order, so that some are contained implicitly in others; thus all principles are reduced, as to their first principle, to this one: "The same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time," as the Philosopher states (Metaph. iv, text. 9). In like manner all the articles are contained implicitly in certain primary matters of faith, such as God's existence, and His providence over the salvation of man, according to Heb. 11: "He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him." For the existence of God includes all that we believe to exist in God eternally, and in these our happiness consists; while belief in His providence includes all those things which God dispenses in time, for man's salvation, and which are the way to that happiness: and in this way, again, some of those articles which follow from these are contained in others: thus faith in the Redemption of mankind includes belief in the Incarnation of Christ, His Passion and so forth.

  Accordingly we must conclude that, as regards the substance of the articles of faith, they have not received any increase as time went on: since whatever those who lived later have believed, was contained, albeit implicitly, in the faith of those Fathers who preceded them. But there was an increase in the number of articles believed explicitly, since to those who lived in later times some were known explicitly which were not known explicitly by those who lived before them. Hence the Lord said to Moses (Ex. 6:2,3): "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob [*Vulg.: 'I am the Lord that appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob'] . . . and My name Adonai I did not show them": David also said (Ps. 118:100): "I have had understanding above ancients": and the Apostle says (Eph. 3:5) that the mystery of Christ, "in other generations was not known, as it is now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets."


Do Evangelical leaders (televangelists, megachurch pastors, etc...) not consider themselves Protestants?

It seems in your question your assumption is that Protestantism is something akin to Contra-Catholicism. This is not the case. What distinguishes protestants from Catholics and what identifies different denominations both as protestant is the doctrine of Justification by Faith.

If you take that as the working definition of what is to be protestant then it is no stretch of the imagination to think that all of the major evangelical leaders would classify themselves as protestants.

As a member of an extremely large non denominational evangelical church I can say with some authority that we believe and promote the doctrines 'priesthood of all believers' and 'Sola Scriptura' both of which are distinguishing beliefs of Protestantism. I would be shocked if I learned other similar churches did not believe the same.

Have evangelicals (and thereby many protestants) and Catholics moved closer theologically since the reformation? Perhaps; although here is a recent article that discusses remaining tensions between the two (specifically reformed theology).


What does the The Episcopal Church mean when it says it allows everyone to participate in Holy Communion?

Canon 1, section 17 of the Canon law of the Episcopal Church states,

  No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Church.

This restricts reception of Holy Communion to Christians only. Actual practices differ some between Episcopal parishes, with respect to further restrictions on who can receive. I know of parishes where the custom is to allow any baptized Christian to receive, and others which restrict reception to those delay Communion until a later time, for example, until after a course of instruction, which means that some baptized Christians might be excluded, for example those younger than a particular age. Every parishes at which I have attended communion make it public either by posting the information in a prominent place, or by means of an announcement just prior to the Communion part of the Service the particular custom of the parish as far as who can receive communion.

The canons, and the US Book of Common Prayer further restrict who can receive communion. According to the US Book Of Common Prayer, (P. 409) Baptized persons who are living a "notoriously evil life", "those who have done wrong to their neighbors and are a scandal to other members of the congregation", when "there is hatred between members of the congregation", and where there has been hatred, and one side is sincerely repentant, but "those on the other side refuse to forgive"are to be informed privately that they may not "come to the Holy Table until he (or she) has given clear proof of repentance and amendment of life",

In those parishes of which I have personal knowledge, the general custom is that a visitor is welcome to present himself or herself for Holy Communion if that person is eligible to present himself or herself for Holy Communion the parish he or she customarily attends.

Persons who are not eligible to receive Holy Communion, are in some parishes, still welcome to present themselves at the communion rail, in order to receive a Pastoral Blessing.


What denominations apply the doctrine Nuda Scriptura?

Historical background of Solo/Nuda Scriptura
Keith Mathison wrote a paper Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes published in the journal Modern Reformation Vol 16 Issue 2 (March/April 2007) to contrast Solo vs. Sola Scriptura.  He also wrote the 2001 well-cited book The Shape of Sola Scriptura whose table of contents can be found here. His description of "Solo Scriptura" origin and motivation seem to match your definition of Nuda Scriptura.
Quote from Keith's paper:

In contrast with the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, the revisionist doctrine of “solo” Scriptura is marked by radical individualism and a rejection of the authority of the church and the ecumenical creeds. If we compare the statements made by advocates of “solo” Scriptura with the statements of Reformational Christians above, the difference is immediately evident. It is also important to observe the source of this doctrine in early America. As Nathan O. Hatch notes, the first Americans to push the right of private judgment over against the church and the creeds were unorthodox ministers.
The liberal minister SimeonHoward (1733-1804), for example, advised pastors to “lay aside all attachment to human systems, all partiality to names, councils and churches, and honestly inquire, what saith the Scriptures?” In his own effort to overturn orthodox Christianity,Charles Beecher (1815-1900) denounced “creed power” and argued for “the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.” The universalist minister A. B. Grosh (d. 1884) declared in a similar way, “In religious faith we have but one Father and one Master, and the Bible, the Bible, is our only acknowledged creed book.”
The radical American version of “solo” Scriptura reached its fullest expression in the
writings of the Restorationists as they applied the principles of Democratic populism to
Enlightenment Christianity. In 1809, the Restorationist Elias Smith (1769-1846) proclaimed, “Venture to be as independent in things of religion, as those which respect the government in which you live.” Barton Stone (1772-1844) declared that the past should be “consigned to the rubbish heap upon which Christ was crucified.” Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) made his individualistic view of Scripture very clear, declaring, “I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them to-day, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever.” As the Reformed Princetontheologian Samuel Miller (1769-1850) rightly observed,“themost zealous opposers [of creeds] have generally been latitudinarians and heretics.”

Another resource that talks about the kind of Christians holding Solo/Nuda Scriptura can be found in this short the blog article Sola Scriptura or Nuda Scriptura?.  Quote:

... proponents of NS are themselves confessional Christians of a sort; they just don’t realize it. If you were to ask one to summarize in a sentence or two who Jesus is and why he came to earth, they would, by necessity, need to produce a condensed statement of the relevant points of doctrine in order to answer the question, i.e., produce a confession. The difference between this confession and a standard historic confession is that one was deliberated on, debated, and prayerfully considered by many intelligent, God-fearing men, and the other was not. One such confession has stood the test of time and the scrutiny of generations of believers from all walks of life, the other has not. The fact of the matter is, proponents of NS already have a confession. The question then becomes, is their confession the product of an individual or a very narrow sect, or is it the product of hundreds of years of diligent study, discussion, prayer, and reflection?

Solo/Nuda Scriptura compared with Biblicism
A related issue with Bible Interpretation is Biblicism which also rejects historic creed / confession, but may differ from Solo/Nuda Scriptura in its tendency to reject general revelation and "narrows the scope of its application to only that which the Bible explicitly states and not to that which it implies as well." (quote from chapter 2 of The Case for Traditional Protestantism).
Michael Bird, a well-published Australian evangelical theologian, offered his definition of Biblicism in a Aug 2020 blog article What is Biblicism? then proceeded to contrast it with proper understanding of Sola Scriptura:

Let me say that biblicism is definitely not the Protestant view!
When the Reformers and their progeny articulated Sola Scripture, it did not mean the naked Scripture, mere Scripture, but more like the primacy of Scripture alongside tradition, experience, and nature, etc.
When Protestants articulated the clarity of Scripture, they did not mean all of Scripture was equally clear, but that Scripture was clear when it came to the gospel and salvation, beyond that, one might need a Philip to run beside one’s chariot and to help you explain this or that in your Bible.
When Protestants articulated the sufficiency of Scripture, it was not sufficient to deal with things beyond the Bible’s own subject of discourse, like open-heart surgery, treating bipolar disorder, or macro-economics. The Bible might have values, principles, and affirmations that contribute to these things, but they are not sufficient to deal with them in their entirety.
When Protestants spoke of the authority of Scripture, they meant the authority of the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture, the same Spirit who was part of the triune economy, who illuminates believers into the truth, who raises up pastors and teachers for the church, and who animates its creedal and liturgical heritage.

Proper practice of Sola Scriptura as Primacy of Scripture
In a blog article Sola Scriptura Then And Now adapted from a paper he delivered earlier at "The Global Impact of the Reformation" conference in Oct 2017, Don Carson shared eight reflections on sola Scriptura, "reflections that are variously historical, theological, and pastoral."  Quote from Reflection #4 (on how Reformed tradition respects the authority of the creeds but places them under Scripture):

4. Sola, Not Solo or Nuda
One cannot too strongly insist that sola scriptura is not to be confused with solo scriptura or nuda scriptura. The doctrine does not open itself to biblicist proof-texting that is devoid of awareness of how Scripture has been read and applied in past generations and in other cultures. As John Peckham astutely comments, “All that is necessary to undergird the ‘sola’ of this principle is for Scripture to present itself as uniquely authoritative over all other factors. Notably, each of the three categories that encompass other possible sources of theology—reason, experience, and tradition—are not excluded but are explicitly subordinated to the unique authority of Scripture.”
...
When we speak of other authorities, such as creeds and confessions (for example, Augsburg, Heidelberg, Westminster), their authority does not subtract from the authority of Scripture, as if by acknowledging their authority, the authority of Scripture is correspondingly reduced. We are not playing a zero-sum game. The authority of the creeds is always a subordinate and derived authority. The authority of a creed invariably leaves the sola of sola scriptura unscathed, because Scripture alone has the authority of the norma normans.[2]
Much more evidence could be adduced to justify a place for creeds, formulas, catechisms, and more. But Christians in the Reformed tradition are not living up to the best insights of the Reformation when confessional documents are given such status that they effectively stand over Scripture, instead of under it.

Summary
The ones who adhere to Nuda Scriptura are those who interpret the Bible with radical individualism and who reject the authority of the church and the ecumenical creeds.  They in effect write their own confessional statements from scratch.
They are to be contrasted with Protestant denominations which base their teachings on the 16th century Reformers whose view were in turn Sola Scriptura properly understood.
Another contrast is with non-denominational churches which respect a historic creed (such as the 381 Nicene Creed) and/or a historic confessional statements (such as the 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith) while maintaining Sola Scriptura (see Don Carson's paper quoted above on how they do this).


Gender Segregation in Small Groups and Prayer

Why a particular church chooses a particular practice is ultimately a question for that church's leadership, but some Christians refer to Paul's words to Titus when discussing gender groups:

  Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women  to love their husbands and children... Titus 2:3-4(NIV®)

and

  Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness... Titus 2:6-7 (NIV®)

One interpretation of these verses is that Paul is encouraging Christians of the same gender to spend time with one another. The older women are to "teach" and "urge" the younger women, and the older women are the "encourage" and "set an example" to the younger men.

Many denominations and movements would also hold to the idea that the Apostles' words are directly from God, and therefore go beyond changes in culture. A church like this may come to conclusion that they need to create opportunities for Christians of different ages to spend time together in same-gender groups.

Different churches will come up with different 'solutions' for encouraging this to happen, and one (albeit quite brute-force) approach is to have some part of a weekly Bible Study in same-gender groups. Other churches may choose different approaches, such as informal same-gender activities, or simply allowing it to happen 'naturally' through friendships.

It's also likely that a church's decision to run same-gender groups is based on a number of factors, only one of which is a Biblical argument. For example, it may simply be the personal preferences and experience of members and leaders, some kind of 'social' argument about what people are most comfortable with (which may or may not be correct, of course), or simply a long-standing practice that no-one has really thought about. The exact details and arguments will be different for each church, and possibly even each member of an individual church (I've been at churches with same-gender studies which some members disagreed with, but not so much as to choose to leave).

Because every church will have slightly different practices, it may be difficult to do a systematic study of the effects of this gender separation that is anything more than a collection of personal opinions. I haven't been able to find anything on the subject outside of a few blog posts discussing it, and the few academic-like texts I've found tend to discuss gender separation during services.


What are the differences between Mormonism and Islam, and how do Mormons react to comparisons with it?

From an LDS perspective, Islam actually looks much more like traditional Christianity than Mormonism, because, despite the similarities mentioned above, it lacks what Latter-Day Saints consider one of the most important features of their faith: continuing revelation.

The simple fact of the matter is that Islamic doctrine ends with its "conveniently placed prophet," whereas Mormonism begins there.  Islam, much like conventional Christianity, has a closed canon and a belief that, after a certain arbitrary point in the distant past, no more prophets or scriptural revelation are given, or have been needed.

By contrast, the modern successors to Joseph Smith and the Apostles who presided over the church in his time are considered to have the same authority and divine responsibility today as their mid-19th century counterparts.  In fact, Wilford Woodruff, the fourth President of the Church, proclaimed that this is an essential feature of Mormonism:

  It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all.

  -- Addendum to the first Official Declaration, emphasis added.

The importance of continuing revelation and the continuity of the authority of the church is also underscored in four of the thirteen Articles of Faith, which Joseph Smith wrote as a brief synopsis of the fundamental principles of LDS doctrine:

  5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

  6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

  7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

  ...

  9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

While many superficial similarities exist between Mormonism and Islam (or, to be honest, between just about any two religions you could name,) the idea of continuing revelation, that the heavens are not sealed, that prophecies and divine leadership and guidance from the Lord have not ceased, is quite a unique thing, particularly among the Abrahamic religions.


Is there a list of popes by autonomous particular church?

The following article contains information on autonomous particular churches, including the dates on which they restored communion with Rome. This is apart from the Maronite Church which, it is said, never left communion with Rome.

https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

As there has never been a Maronite Pope, and the earliest date for full communion for the others  was 1595 (Ukranian), and all Popes since then have been Latin rite,  there has never been a Pope drawn from what is now called an autonomous particular church, other than from the Latin autonomous particular church.

During the first millennium there were numerous Greek and Syrian popes. These were drawn from the Greek and Syrian churches (starting with St Peter of course), but to regard these as autonomous particular churches, long before the concept arose, would be  retrospective.  Wikipedia has an article called Popes by nationality and this is perhaps the nearest thing.

The Latin Bishop of Rome is ex officio the Pope. This was the traditional view. Arguably, in modern practice it is the other way round. Conclaves choose a Pope, who then becomes ex officio the Bishop of Rome. Between 1523 and 1978 all Popes were Italian. In choosing a Bishop for Rome, and a Primate for Italy, being Italian seems a significant factor. However there is nothing to stop a future conclave choosing someone from a different autonomous particular church as Pope.

Cardinal Agagianian of the Armenian Catholic church was rumoured to have been at one stage potentially elected at the conclave of 1963 but refused to accept. Opinion is divided as to whether he would, or someone in a similar position would, be required to adopt the Latin rite.


What is meant by "order" in reference to ministries within the Church, and how did its usage come about?

"Order" comes from the Latin word "ordo", which can mean "rank", "class", "grade"—things of that sort. The Catechism, in its discussion of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, says:

The word order [sic, sc. ordo] in Roman antiquity designated an established civil body, especially a governing body. Ordinatio means incorporation into an ordo. In the Church there are established bodies which Tradition, not without a basis in Sacred Scripture, has since ancient times called taxeis (Greek) or ordines. And so the liturgy speaks of the ordo episcoporum, the ordo presbyterorum, the ordo diaconorum [respectively the "order of bishops", "order of priests", "order of deacons"]. Other groups also receive this name of ordo: catechumens, virgins, spouses, widows,....
Integration into one of these bodies in the Church was accomplished by a rite called ordinatio, a religious and liturgical act which was a consecration, a blessing or a sacrament. Today the word "ordination" is reserved for the sacramental act which integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons, and goes beyond a simple election, designation, delegation, or institution by the community, for it confers a gift of the Holy Spirit that permits the exercise of a "sacred power" (sacra potestas) which can come only from Christ himself through his Church. Ordination is also called consecratio, for it is a setting apart and an investiture by Christ himself for his Church. The laying on of hands by the bishop, with the consecratory prayer, constitutes the visible sign of this ordination.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1537–38)
So an "order" generally speaking is simply one of the groups the Church recognizes as having a particular purpose or charism; and "order" in respect of the clerical hierarchy means one of the three groups set apart for the ministerial priesthood: bishops, priests, deacons.


Generally this verse is understood as a poetic way of telling us what our priorities should be.  If we're focused on our temporary earthly life, we'll throw away our eternal life, but f we love the things of God and are willing to focus, instead, on things of eternal import, we will gain eternal life.

  Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

  He that loveth his life shall lose it,.... The sense is, that whoever
  is so in love with this present temporal life, as to be anxiously
  careful of it, and takes all precautions to secure it; and rather than
  to expose it to any danger, chooses to deny the faith of Christ, and
  desert his cause and interest; as such an one shall not long enjoy
  this life, so he shall come short of an eternal one:

  and he that hateth his life in this world: on the other hand, whoever
  seems careless about it, and not to consult the safety of it, but is
  unconcerned about it; yea, as if he was throwing it away, as of no
  great moment and significancy, rather than do anything to preserve it,
  which would be scandalous to himself, and be dishonourable to his Lord
  and master; he

  shall keep it unto life eternal: he shall be preserved in his temporal
  life, in a remarkable manner, until he has done the will and work of
  God, notwithstanding all attempts upon it; and he shall appear to have
  that spiritual life, which is the beginning and pledge of, and which
  springs up unto, and issues in eternal life; and that he shall enjoy
  in the world to come. This Christ said to let his disciples and
  followers know, that they must suffer and die, as well as he, though
  not on the same account, and for the self-same reasons; and that their
  sufferings and death in his cause, and for his Gospel, would turn to
  their advantage.

Similarly, from Grace in Focus

  Love and Hate Are Figures of Speech Concerning Priorities

  The person who “loves his life [psyche]” is one who is living for the
  now. He is contradicting Jesus’ command, “Don’t lay up treasure on
  earth” (Matt 6:19). He is failing to serve Jesus (“If anyone serves
  Me, him My Father will honor,” (John 12:26).

  The person who “hates his life [psyche]” is one who is living for the
  life to come. He is obeying Jesus’ command, “Lay up treasure in
  heaven” (Matt 6:20). He is following Jesus and serving Him and will
  one day be honored by God (John 12:26).


What kind of ecclesiastical structure did Ignatius of Antioch discuss in his epistles?

Francis A. Sullivan S.J devotes some 23 pages (pages 103-125) in From Apostles to Bishops to the letters of Ignatius.  Five of the seven letter credited to Ignatius were written to churches in the Roman province of Asia, and each of these communities had a bishop. On page 105, Sullivan says that the Letter to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, was the only letter that Ignatius actually addressed to a bishop. This is clear evidence that by the time of Ignatius (ca. 115 CE), bishops were being appointed in at least some cities in the eastern Mediterranean. There is a clear hierarchy in these letters, with deacons subject to presbyters and to the bishop, presbyters subject to the bishop, and the bishop receiving his authority from the Father, the "Bishop of all" (page 109).

Francis A. Sullivan S.J says, in page 107, that in Ephesians 3.2, Ignatius refers to "bishops appointed throughout the world," but says that most scholars now doubt whether in the time of Ignatius, bishops like him had been appointed "throughout the world."

Ignatius makes no mention of a bishop or presbyters in his Letter to the Romans, with his appeal directed to the whole community. On page 111, Sullivan says we can draw no conclusions from the absence of any mention of a bishop of Rome in this letter, although Sullivan elsewhere discusses the broader evidence that bishops had not yet been appointed in Rome. Ignatius was himself a bishop, as he refers to himself as the "bishop of Syria" in the Letter to the Romans. It is unclear from this whether other cities in Syria had yet begun to appoint their own bishops.

To provide context for the church hierarchy of which Ignatius was writing, Sullivan says (page 14) that a bishop is a residential pastor who presides in a stable manner over the church in a city and its environs. He says there is no evidence, nor is it at all likely, that any one of the apostles ever took up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop. Sullivan goes on to say (page 15) the letters of Ignatius are the first Christian documents that witness to the presence of a bishop who is clearly distinct from the presbyterate, but this evidence is certain only for Antioch and several churches of western Asia Minor.

In the salutation of the Letter to the Romans, Ignatius refers to the Roman church "presides in the place of the district of the Romans ... and presiding over love." Sullivan says older Catholic scholars have seen here a recognition of the primacy of the church of Rome over the church throughout the Roman world, but says the word translated
"district" (chorion) means a limited area such as a city or town.


What are the moral, religious, and promissory obligations of canon lawyers?

According to the aims of one [perhaps of only three] canon law schools in North America, Saint Paul University in Ottawa, Canada, the aim of the Faculty of Canon Law is:

  Following the wishes of John Paul II in the Apostolic Constitution
  Sapientia Christiana of April 15, 1979, the Faculty of Canon Law cultivates and promotes the juridical disciplines in the light of
  the law of the Gospel. Instructs its students in these disciplines, so
  as to form researchers, university and seminary teachers, and others
  who will be trained to hold special ecclesiastical offices, such as
  chancery and tribunal positions, and
  to serve as advisers to bishops and religious communities.

Therefore those who obtain the Licentiate in Canon Law (JCL) degree, an ecclesiastical program governed by the Apostolic Constitution Sapientiae christiana and subsequent legislation and norms of the Holy See, may become researchers, university and seminary teachers, and others who will be trained to hold special ecclesiastical offices, such as chancery [the administrative office of a diocese or a department of the Curia Romana now having the responsibility for issuing bulls to establish new dioceses, benefices, etc.] and tribunal positions, and to serve as advisers to bishops and religious communities. And they are to practise their profession in the light of the law of the Gospel.


Does God encourage hurting or killing others in his name in the Bible?

Short answer
There is not a single passage in the New Testment that even encourages phisical violence against others.
Long answer
Yes, at the Old Testment you have some instructions that involves death penalty, for example, for murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19), adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), and so forward.
But now, you have to understand that all this penalties were restricted to the context of the nation of Israel, at the time of the Law, and this all was a glimpse of God's moral standards. But when Christ comes at the plenty of time, when it comes to the New Testment, like says the Author of the book of Hebrews, "when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also". You now notice that all violence now is figuratively turn to the self, no more to the other.
You are told not to persecute, but to love the ones that persecute you.
If you suffer for the Name of the Lord, you don't repay, you rejoice.
You don't have to strike others, but to stike yourself (figurativelly, of course).
If someone do you harm, the Lord will give repay (not you in the name of the lord).
If someone blaspheme, you just hand them to Satan, not by killing them, but by simply removing them from communion.
The thing here is: you have no mention in the NT to, personally, do phisical harm to another. This idea is even contrary to the whole premise of the NT teaching. Instead, you have lot of instruction to suffer the harm for love of the other.
External resource
And, finally, here is a great article with a comparision of Violence found in Bible x Violence found in Quran (This article is great dealing even with the Old Testment violence). There, i think, you'll find a solid base to answer your real question.


Are there any accounts of the wise men story outside of scripture?

Briefly, no. But I think you're making a number of assumptions here, which are not necessarily warranted.
We have very little information about the wise men. All we hear (from Matthew) is:

Magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, "Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star at its rising and have come to do him homage."
They were overjoyed at seeing the star, and on entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother. They prostrated themselves and did him homage. Then they opened their treasures and offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed for their country by another way.
(Matthew 2:1–2, 10–12)

We don't know where they came from, what they knew, how important they regarded Jesus to be in "the grand scheme of things", or anything else.
You assume that the wise men would have recorded their experience in detail, and shared the story with everyone they met on the way back home. I don't feel so certain of this. Mary, for example, "kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart" (Luke 2:19). Certainly the shepherds didn't, but we can't necessarily say whether the wise men were more like the shepherds or more like the Mother. Similarly, we shouldn't assume that they would have spread their story (they certainly wouldn't have wanted it to get back to Herod's Judea), or that others would have believed them or thought their story of any importance. We just don't have sufficient information about them or their positions to draw a conclusion like that.
All we can say for certain is that there don't appear to be any surviving eastern (e.g. Persian) accounts of the birth of a king of the Jews at that time.


What is the significance of the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden?

Here's the verse in question:

  Genesis 2:16-17 NIV

  16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any
  tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the
  knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will
  certainly die.”

The opportunity to live forever

What I find most interesting is that God didn't command Adam to keep away from the tree of good and evil life. When Adam did finally eat from the tree he was commanded not to eat from, here's what Jesus had to say to His Father:

  Genesis 3:22 NIV

  And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing
  good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take
  also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

This verse sheds some light on what's happening. Adam certainly had been allowed to eat from the tree of life and live forever prior to this sin event. But because God is a just and Righteous God, He could not allow Adam to go unpunished, therefore taking away the opportunity for Adam to live forever in eternal damnation.

The fruit of righteousness

If we continue reading we find that there is another way to experience the fruit from this tree of life.

  Proverbs 11:30 NIV

  The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and the one who is wise
  saves lives.

  Proverbs 15:4 NIV

  The soothing tongue is a tree of life, but a perverse tongue crushes
  the spirit.

The paradise of God

  Revelation 2:7

  Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
  To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the
  tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

Wow, I absolutely love this last verse and I don't know why. We will actually once again have the opportunity to eat from this tree of life. Lastly this tree of life is displayed along the main street in the kingdom of God that leads from the entrance to the throne room. Signifying that everybody can freely eat of the tree of life and have it abundantly.

  Revelation 22:2

  down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the
  river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding
  its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing
  of the nations.

The significance

I believe that God, being a fair and Righteous God, had not deprived man of the opportunity to be righteous from day one. However, man chose his own path, to sin. I don't have any doubts that God knew man would do this, but I also know that God would have been subjected to accusations from creation if he had locked the mouse in the cage with cheese and told the mouse not to eat of it.

As it is, no man can hold accusations against God, because God had given a fair opportunity to man.


What is "Christ Consciousness", and which branches teach it?

The first thing to understand about “Christ Consciousness” is that it is not Christian and does not form any part of Protestant or Baptist theology that I am aware of.  Below are partial quotes from the official Christ Consciousness Organisation:

Christ Consciousness is the growing human recognition and blending of the human evolutionary (or ego) mind with the Divine Mind and the Divine Personality that is the source of human happiness and fulfillment. This awareness accrues over time within the consciousness of human thinking when intention, attention, and openness is focused on knowing who and what is that “Christed” state of being—the higher mindedness of enlightenment.
Is Christ Consciousness Christian?  This path is open to anyone regardless of their religious tradition if and when he or she is open to become a living vessel of LOVE, TRUTH, BEAUTY and GOODNESS on the planet and actively strives to attain it... This is not a term used exclusively in the Christian religion, nor does it mean that you must adhere to a Christian belief system to attain this state. All of the world’s religious traditions offer a path to achieving this “Christed” status, and people are free to find their way in the context of their religious choice.  Sources: https://www.institutechristconsciousness.org/
https://www.ctrforchristcon.org/living-christ-consciousness.html

In other words, it doesn't matter if you are a Christian or not, or if you follow another religion, or if you have no religious beliefs, because "Christ Consciousness" is not about believing in and following the teaching of Jesus or of obeying Him. It's about finding your own path - whatever makes you feel good.
This is what one non-denominational Protestant Christian website has this to say about “Christ Consciousness” and whether or not it is Christian:

So-called “Christ consciousness” has been known by various names in history, such as Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and most Eastern mystical religions. More recently, Deepak Chopra has popularized the “christianized” version of this same pseudo-spirituality. The danger in this latest version of mysticism is the use of Bible verses and Christian terms, which can easily lead astray those who don’t check the Scriptures for themselves.
The basic premise of mysticism is that man can, within himself, transcend physical existence and experience his own goodness as being “one” with the universe, being a god, or existing on whatever higher plane he chooses to believe in. The name of Jesus is merely used as a prop in this latest version of the same idea. Jesus is seen as the “leader” in showing us how to exalt our own inner goodness and, in doing so, make ourselves right with whatever deity we choose to acknowledge. Christ consciousness groups claim that Jesus earned the title “Christ” by perfectly channeling the divine consciousness we can all attain, and they attempt to attribute this philosophy to the Lord Jesus. Those championing this ideology are merely using the name of Jesus as a means of worshiping themselves. They desire to find absolution without repentance, confession of sin, or acknowledging Jesus’ substitutionary death and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3–4).
The only “Christ consciousness” the Bible teaches is found in Philippians 2:5–7, “Have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” First Corinthians 2:16 says that, as believers, we “have the mind of Christ.” But this is stated in the context of the spiritual man versus the natural man, who is unable to understand the things of the Spirit (verses 14–15). When we are born again (John 3:3), we receive the Holy Spirit as a gift (Luke 24:49; Acts 2:38). He enables us to comprehend spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2:14), serve Jesus from a heart of love (Mark 7:6; 1 Peter 4:11), and live righteously despite temptations (1 Corinthians 10:13; 1 John 3:8–10).  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Christ-consciousness.html

Protestant Christianity teaches that we are all sinners and incapable of saving ourselves from the consequences of sin, and that salvation is a free and undeserved gift from God to those who recognise their need, repent and come to saving faith in Christ Jesus.  The Bible declares that the ONLY way to God the Father is through Christ Jesus.  Any person who rejects the sacrificial death and resurrection of Christ Jesus and thinks they can attain some sort of higher consciousness by virtue of their own efforts is not following Christianity.

...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God (John 3:16-18).
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God (John 1:12).
...if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10:9).

Religion, whether it is “institutional” or not, saves nobody.  Christianity is all about believing in and following Christ Jesus, not some man-made philosophy that embraces some Christian terminology but rejects what God, in Jesus, did to rescue us from our sinful state.


Does Christianity provide the right elements for democracy?

I tend to agree with Marc Gravell's answer on this, but I would like to add that I don't think that any religious influence or moral framework could make a true democracy work.  True democracy, history has shown, always degenerates into what Lord Acton described as "the tyranny of the majority" in which the rights of the minority get trampled by the opinion of the majority.

I'd also like to point out that the quote that you used was not intended by the founding fathers of the United States to support a democracy.  It was used to state that they felt that the government of Britain had trampled certain rights.

The idea of unalienable rights was an important part of providing the form of government that was eventually established here - not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic with some democratic elements: A form of government in which the Constitution is the rule of law, and the protection of freedoms established in the Constitution were designed, specifically, to limit what the government is able to do, and thereby protect the country from the pitfalls of a true Democracy.

As Marc pointed out, The U.S. is now fractured and divided among many lines, which is, in my opinion, a result of the fact that we've lost sight of the fact that we're not a democracy.

People on all sides seem to have forgotten the fact that we're not a democracy, that might (whether in strength, or in numbers) doesn't make right, and that there's a reason we are supposed to have a limited government.  The fact that we've forgotten the idea of unalienable rights is allowing us to slip into the "tyranny of the Majority" and it's only the fact that both sides have approximately equal support that we're not there already.

Also agreeing with other's sentiments, Christianity itself is split among too many lines.  This site is a small representation of Christianity as a whole, but even among the Christians here we're split.  Even on this site, there is a concern about the tyranny of the majority, and I think it's a valid concern.

So, in summary, I believe the answer is "no".  Christianity might be able to provide some good moral foundations, and certain teachings that coincide with what's best in us, but no religion can form as the basis of a government.  I personally believe that the idea of unalienable rights, endowed by our Creator is a very good starting point, but that's something that could have come from other sources than Christianity.


There are two ways to look at this, and there are arguments to both, so there isn't a correct answer that can be proven as it depends on how you want to interpret Scripture, since we are trying to understand God's motivation for creation, which is similar to an ant trying to understand our motivation for doing something.

You may want to read through this article, as I think this author did a fantastic job of explaining some of the relatively early church fathers thoughts on this, with references.

http://www.anselm.edu/Documents/Institute%20for%20Saint%20Anselm%20Studies/Abstracts/4.5.3.2j_11Rogers.pdf

Since this paper does such a fantastic job, I will show three sections that may help to at least show the two sides, but start with the fact that God is necessary, and perfect, so he doesn't have to create in order to be perfect.

Augustine had one side, which was that God could not fail to create, but Thomas Aquinas took the other side that God had the freedom to create or not create, so the freedom of indifference.

  God himself is a necessary being.  In his perfect being and
  simplicity, he just is an act, and that act is necessarily perfectly
  and infinitely good.   The question is not, “Does creation involve any
  necessity?”  Obviously it does.  The question is whether or not the
  necessarily perfect divine action inevitably produces one best
  creation, our world, which is the position I have attributed to
  Anselm, or might it have ended in some entirely different creation, or
  no creation at all, as Thomas holds.

  Augustine repeats the standard Neoplatonic line that the absolute
  Good cannot fail to create. In De Genesi ad litteram IV, 16, 27 he
  discusses the seventh day of creation, and holds that we are told of
  God’s rest so that we may understand that God has no need of creation.
  As perfect already He is not made happier or more complete by
  creation.  Nonetheless, it would be inconsistent with His goodness to
  fail to create

  Thomas holds that, having once chosen to create a given world, God’s
  goodness requires that he see to it that that world is perfectly
  ordered internally.  So God does not have the freedom to produce an
  inherently badly ordered creation.  But with regard to creation
  itself, God has freedom of indifference.  He is perfect in himself and
  does not need any creation, so it is indifferent whether his perfect
  act should terminate in our world, some other world, or not end in any
  creation at all.

If God chose not to create, would that make him any less that He is?

If God is perfect, why does He need our worship/love/adoration (whatever He gets from us)?

Regardless of God's reason for creating us, the end result is that we exist because of God's Love and Greatness.

But, I do enjoy the simplicity that was in this blog:
http://michellewui.blog.co.uk/2011/03/23/the-reason-that-god-created-man-10877315/

In Ezekial 18:4 we have:

  Behold, all souls are Mine . . . The soul who sins shall die.

God created us so we can have an eternal relationship with him, though, as seen in Genesis, with the Trinity already existing, God was not alone, so He didn't do it because He was lonely, but the idea that we were created to be able to know Him and by knowing Him deeply we can spend all of eternity with him is a fantastic idea.

Her simplicity is very nice, and since the OT asked about Bible verses I thought this would at least meet that requirement.


Who decides if a verse is literal and what parts of the Bible metaphorical?

I'm going to answer your stated question: "Who decides wat is literal and what is metaphorical?"  That's a legitimate question.  The old "what laws are still in effect" has been answered many times.  Hence my VTC.  What is metaphor and what is literal, however, is a good question.

Ultimately, who "decides" is a verse is literal or metaphorical is the person reading for himself.  Any given text can be interpreted figuratively or literally - indeed Gregory of Nyssa (Life of Moses) could pull allegorical meaning out of the feathers on the quail that piled up in front of the children of Israel, and John Dominic Crossan can dismiss the Resurrection itself as mere metaphor.  Indeed, even the existence of David, the King of Israel, was long considered only myth, until archeological evidence proved otherwise.
This is true in any reading endeavour - when reading a news story, for example, most people assuming that news stories represent a literal meaning, except when you are a {liberal | conservative} talking about {Fox News | MSNBC}.  And then, of course, there is The Onion :)
John Searle's work on "speech-act theory" is often considered in the midst of apprehending meaning from a text, and is one of many starting places in hermeneutics. In basically suggests that every apprehension of meaning is ultimately an act of the mind to ascertain the genre.
Denominationally, two primary approaches to reading Scripture prevail:

Dogmatic Interpretation
The Catholic Church in particular stresses the dogmatic concept of Scripture. As the institution charged with guarding Scripture, they have developed traditions about what is literal and what is metaphorical. As the repository of the keys of heaven, the church is particularly suited to settling matters of interpretation, ensuring a regula fide that does not change over time. It understands that there is a multitude of meaning in Scripture (see the Catchechism ), and stresses the importance of reading Scripture in the traditional context to avoid "novelty". It does not necessarily see this as an either/or question.

Priesthood of All Believers
Protestants tend to favor provate interpretation ("What does this mean to you?"), although especially amongst the earliest reformers, the tendency was to require that "private interpertation" be run through your fellow believers so as to avoid twisting Scripture into meaning things it didn't. To avoid mis-reading, one should submit one's own interpretation to the whole body of believers, so as not to distort the meaning of the text.

Those are the primary approaches - but ultimately, even the camp you decide to fall into, is a matter of personal choice.
Beyond that, however, "editing" the Bible just isn't a possibility.  While there are differing positions on the "inerrancy" of Scripture, preservation of Scripture (the idea that God has given us the Scripture we need) is not nearly as controversial.  What has been handed down is that the 'canon' of Scripture is merely a list of those books which Christians over the centuries have found most profitable.  It is nothing more than the NY Times Best-Seller List. (See this for more). There is no process for changing that list, because it is simply so set in stone.  Over time, certain emphases are more important to different generations, but as a matter of doctrine, the idea of preservation says that we have all of what we need - even if some of it is more fashionable than others.


What is the Catholic point of view towards animals?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has useful information on how we should treat the animals.

  [2416] Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his
  providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him
  glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness
  with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri
  treated animals.

  [2417] God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created
  in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food
  and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and
  leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a
  morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and
  contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

  [2418] It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die
  needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should
  as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals;
  one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

We can also find some verses  from the Bible which seem to indicate that we should show kindness to animals.

  The godly care for their animals, but the wicked are always cruel.
  (Proverbs 12:10, NLT)

  Do not slaughter a cow or a sheep and its young on the same day.
  (Leviticus 22:28, NIV)

  The angel of the Lord asked him, “Why have you beaten your donkey
  these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is
  a reckless one before me. (Numbers 22:32, NIV)

  Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain. (Deuteronomy
  25:4, NIV)

  Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk. (Deuteronomy 14:21,
  NIV)


Is there historical evidence for an atheist argument about the New Testament?

Consider the testimony of Scripture itself.  1Corinthians 15:3-19

  1 Corinthians 15:3–19 (NASB95) — 3 For I delivered to you as of first
  importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins
  according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was
  raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He
  appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to
  more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until
  now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to
  all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He
  appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit
  to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10
  But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did
  not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I,
  but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we
  preach and so you believed. 12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has
  been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no
  resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the
  dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been
  raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15
  Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we
  testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if
  in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised,
  not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised,
  your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those
  also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have
  hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be
  pitied.

The testimony of Scripture to this age-old question is centered around the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  The entire Christian faith relies upon the reality and truthfulness of Jesus Christ, who is God, lived a sinless life (Heb 4:15; 1Peter 2:22; 2Corinthians 5:21; 1John 3:5), died and was buried, and rose on the third day according to the Scriptures (Hosea 6:2; Luke 24:46).

Why did Christianity "take off"?  That question has been answered many different ways throughout history.  Probably the most helpful and memorable is the one offered by C.S. Lewis who said:

  I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing
  that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great
  moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one
  thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of
  things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either
  be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or
  else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either
  this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something
  worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill
  him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God,
  but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a
  great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not
  intend to. . . . Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a
  lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying
  or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is
  God. (Mere Christianity, 55-56)

His argument has been whittled down to Jesus as one of three possiblities: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord.  But the conclusion of so many eye-witnesses was that He was indeed Lord.  For example the Centurion soldier:

  Matthew 27:54 (NASB95) — 54 Now the centurion, and those who were with
  him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the
  things that were happening, became very frightened and said, “Truly
  this was the Son of God!”

So to answer your question, Christianity has been tested since the beginning.  The Jews tried to discredit Jesus, the Pharisees and Saduccees tried to trap him, Judas tried to kill Him, the Romans tried to judge Him, but Jesus had full control of His life as he would often say, "My time has not yet come" (John 7:6).  Ultimately it was the Father who crushed the Son (Isaiah 53:10).  Jesus gave up His life of His own accord because He was God (Matthew 27:50).

The arguments for atheism are fairly recent.  Even the wicked pagans and Jews believed in God.  At least they were not as foolish as the people of today who believe there is no God (Psalm 53:1).  The attacks on Christianity was to discredit Jesus, to expose Him as a fraud, to retain power over the region of Judea, to preserve the social structure of the Jews.  Yet the answer for all is the same.  Jesus Christ who lived, died, was raised on the third-day, seated on the right-hand of the Father remains the same answer yesterday, today, and forever.


How do Unitarians understand these verses which seem to say that all created things were created by Jesus?

John 1:1-3

The Word is further described in verses 9-18. There, note verse 18b: "the only-begotten god who is at the Father's side is the one who has explained Him".  Only-begotten, means had a beginning.

What about this one in Psalm 82:1, saying "God stands in the divine convention, pronounces judgment in the midst of gods."

Colossians 1:16

I had thought this explains the matter: all things created through [or "by means of"] him and for him.

Something similar is said of a personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-29, in existence before the physical creation as we know it.  Then it continues in v30,31: "Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time; I rejoiced over his habitable earth, and I was especially fond of the sons of men."

Would such a comparison be misplaced in a context where Wisdom represents Jesus?  Colossians 2:3 says "Carefully concealed in him [the Christ] are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge".  That notion brings the idea much closer to the ground, if I may say so.

On the master worker idea, if you build a house, you may do all the work yourself: design, obtaining materials, construction etc.  You may also choose to, say, let a contractor do all the actual construction works.  Although the contractor did all that work, who is said to have built the house?  Sometimes a bit of a grey area, isn't it?

Hebrews 1:8,10

These bits are much easier to understand if you take them in the context.  Just for a few highlights:

Verse 2 says that God had spoken "by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things."

If Jesus was appointed heir, it means that he neither had been forever nor that he was naturally as God's equal.  After all, appointment is done by higher authority, not?

Verse 4 adds that "he [the Son] has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs".

The Son becoming better than the angels, implies that before that, he was at least in some respects equal to angels at the very best.  Is that something that could be said of the Almighty God, the Creator, who made the angels, that are part of creation?

Jesus as Agent of Creation

I cannot speak for every Unitarian, but Jesus himself did mention his pre-human existence in a number of occasions.  For example, John 6:38: "for I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me". Or in John 8:23, his own words "You are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. You are from this world, I am not from this world". The latter must have sounded weird and unreal for anyone who had his birth (or conception) in mind as the beginning of his existence.

But the most direct expression is in John 8, where the Jews ridicule Jesus for claiming he has seen Abraham while he's not even 50 years old, and his reply in verse 58: "Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been".

Summary

So to sum it all up, Jesus may have been involved in the creation of all other things without being the Creator, just as God had spoken by means of him, in the same manner that God had spoken by means of the prophets.

I am not really familiar with Unitarian theology, but the Bible contains statements from Jesus about his existence before being human.

Context

There is a large number of passages and hints in the Bible that support the understanding that Jesus is not the Almighty God, for example the headship arrangement (1 Corinthiant 11:3), the prospect of the glorified Christ "subjecting himself to God" (1 Corinthians 15:28) and "the revelation by Jesus Christ which God gave him" [as opposed to Jesus having the knowledge naturally from the beginning] (Revelation 1:1).  Jesus also never supported that idea himself (Matthew 26:39; Mark 10:18; John 5:19-24; John 17:3; John 20:17,21; Acts 1:7).

Additionally, Unitarians question ideas like "What was the point of Jesus praying if he was speaking to himself?", or "if Jesus is God, how could he have died? How can God die? Or was he not really dead (as in not conscience of anything, Ecclesiastes 9:5.6,10), meaning that the resurrection isn't real?", or "How could Jesus have been sent as a messenger and granted things if he was of the same identity and had the same authority as the Father?", or "How could someone mediate between two parties, if this individual is a member of one of the two parties himself?" (1 Timothy 2:5,6; compare Daniel 2:44; 7:13,14).

With such a large amount of sources indicating otherwise, Unitarians do not lean towards changing their beliefs (into acknowledging Jesus as being God) just because a few verses are not entirely clear and may be difficult to explain. Besides, even unjust human judges are called gods in the Bible (Psalm 82:6). It does not seem irrational to me to say that a change in belief has to be backed up by sufficient evidence (more than a few verses that are open to different interpretations), and in harmony with the whole Bible.