Why is God said to have married a couple?

The Essentials

Marriage is a Sacrament.

The Church has nothing to do with a divorce. (That's a civil matter).
The passages in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 are pretty clear about Moses permitting divorce because the peoples' hearts had hardened, while the original law is that "two shall become one flesh" which Jesus pointedly reminds his audience.  (You're Doing It Wrong!).

If the Sacrament of Marriage is entered into, then God is by definition involved and the Church by its own rules CANNOT be the instrument of its dissolution.  The Church neither supports nor condones divorce in such a case.  In that case the Church will not issue a Decree of Nullity.

If the Sacrament of Marriage was not entered into (via a defect of some kind, details in the Code of Canon Law1) then God wasn't in the marriage from the beginning, and the Church can issue a decree of Nullity.  It takes a Tribunal to determine this (a non-trivial process) and the two are then free to marry.

In case(4) a civil divorce decree and the Decree of Nullity will match up. In case (3) they won't, and the two are not free to marry (validly, in the church).

The above is consistent with the verses you cite, there is no contradiction.

Discussion
There is a point cited in Genesis, and in Mark 10 / Matthew 19:5 about  how "a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh."  The intent divined from Scripture is that marriage does something profound and permanent.

Matthew 10: 6-9
3 He said to them in reply, "What did Moses command you?"
4 They replied, "Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her."
5 But Jesus told them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment.
6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.
7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife)
8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

The Catechism expands upon that in addressing the Sacrament of Marriage:

The marriage bond
1639 The consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one
another is sealed by God himself.  From their covenant arises "an
institution, confirmed by the divine law, . . . even in the eyes of
society." The covenant between the spouses is integrated into God's
covenant with man: "Authentic married love is caught up into divine
love."
1640 Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in
such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized
persons can never be dissolved.  This bond, which results from the
free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage,
is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant
guaranteed by God's fidelity. the Church does not have the power to
contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.

The church holds that the two remain married unless as a result of the investigation and ruling of a Tribunal, a defect is uncovered that demonstrates that the sacrament was not in fact entered into/conferred upon the couple.
If the sacrament was conferred, the church will NOT issue a decree of nullity.  Divorce is a secular proceeding that won't change the Church's position that the two remain husband and wife.
If the sacrament is found to not have been conferred, due to a defect, then a Decree of Nullity may be issued and the two are free to marry.  (The sub text here is that "you weren't validly married if the sacrament was not present").
The core concept is that a marriage is until death do us part.  (Or as now said, "as long as we both shall live").  The marriage is viewed as far more than a contract or a ceremony, it is a sacrament, which is generally defined as a visible sign of invisible Grace.  In the case of marriage, that Grace is the unification of two people into one.  This requires profound selflessness and commitment.
To put it in coarser terms, if you aren't serious about this whole unity thing, you are not entering the marriage honestly.  (Dishonest entry into marriage is one of the defects that can be found by a Tribunal considering Nullity decrees).  By design, as the Church teaches it, marriage is meant to be a calling of service to each other and to the community.  It is one of three Vocation (the two others being priesthood and the vocation of the single life) so the Church encourages those considering marriage to take it seriously.  This points to the marriage being a Good Thing(TM) well beyond its goodness for the two getting married.  It's good for the whole community.  An older teaching presents marriage from a slightly different angle.
"GAUDIUM ET SPES (article 48)"

The intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by the Creator and qualified by His laws, and is rooted in the jugal covenant of irrevocable personal consent.  Hence by that human act whereby spouses mutually bestow and accept each other a relationship arises which by divine will and in the eyes of society too is a lasting one.  For the good of the spouses and their
off-springs as well as of society, the existence of the sacred bond no longer depends on human decisions alone.  For, God Himself is the author of matrimony, endowed as it is with various benefits and purposes. (St. Augustine, De Bene coniugali PL 40, 375-376 and 394, St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Quaest. 49, art. 3 ad 1, Decretum pro Armenis: Denz.-Schoen. 1327; Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930, pp. 547-548; Denz.-Schoen. 3703-3714.)  All of these have a very decisive bearing on the continuation of the human race, on the personal development and eternal destiny of the individual members of a family, and on the dignity, stability, peace and prosperity of the family itself and of human society as a whole.  By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown. Thus a man and a woman, who by their compact of conjugal love "are no longer two, but one flesh" (Matt. 19:ff), render mutual help and service to each other through an intimate union of their persons and of their actions.  Through this union they experience the meaning of their oneness and attain to it
with growing perfection day by day. As a mutual gift of two persons, this intimate union and the good of the children impose total fidelity on the spouses and argue for an unbreakable oneness between them. (Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930), pp. 546-547; Denz.-Schoen. 3706)

1 Code of Canon Law 1083 to 1094 lists impediments, (I only include some examples):
SPECIFIC DIRIMENT IMPEDIMENTS
Can.  1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage. §2. The conference of bishops is free to establish a higher age for the licit celebration of marriage.
Can.  1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.
Can.  1087 Those in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage.
Can.  1088 Those bound by a public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute invalidly attempt marriage.
Can.  1089 No marriage can exist between a man and a woman who has been abducted or at least detained with a view of contracting marriage with her unless the woman chooses marriage of her own accord after she has been separated from the captor and established in a safe and free place.
Can.  1090 §1. Anyone who with a view to entering marriage with a certain person has brought about the death of that person’s spouse or of one’s own spouse invalidly attempts this marriage.  §2. Those who have brought about the death of a spouse by mutual physical or moral cooperation also invalidly attempt a marriage together.
Can.  1091 §1. In the direct line of consanguinity marriage is invalid between all ancestors and descendants, both legitimate and natural. §2. In the collateral line marriage is invalid up to and including the fourth degree.
§3. The impediment of consanguinity is not multiplied.  §4. A marriage is never permitted if doubt exists whether the partners are related by consanguinity in any degree of the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line.
Can.  1092 Affinity in the direct line in any degree invalidates a marriage.
Can.  1094 Those who are related in the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line by a legal relationship arising from adoption cannot contract marriage together validly.


What is the earliest explicit mention of infant baptism?
It seems that St. Irenaeus (202 AD) is the earliest to reference to the practice of infant baptism. In 185 AD, he wrote the following:

Irenaeus, c. A.D. 185:

He came to save all through means of Himself—all … who through Him are born again* to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission … (Against Heresies II:22:4)

*Note here that the term "born again" was synonymous with baptism to early Christians. That really didn't change until the time of the pietists in the 17th century. - Infant Baptism

There is no argument against infant baptism in the Early Church although Tertullian himself favored believer's baptism.

One argument in support of the baptism of infants comes from the fact that controversy over the practice is conspicuously absent from the history of the early church. There is no question that Origen was baptized as an infant in 180 A.D., just 80 years after the death of the last Apostle, John the Evangelist. There are other possible references to infant baptism at earlier dates, but these references are somewhat unclear in their meaning. Born in the mid fourth century (358 A.D.), Augustine wrote, "This doctrine is held by the whole church, not instituted by councils, but always retained." Tertullian (ca. 155-230) did argue in favor of believer's baptism, but this was in reaction to the un-biblical practice that was being taught in some areas that Christians should wait to be baptized until just before death, and not in reaction to infant baptism. Francis Schaeffer argued, "Those who would teach that the practice of the early Church was not infant baptism should be able to show in Church History when it started. There is no such break recorded." - Infant baptism

For more on infant baptism and the Church Fathers one can read this:

Irenaeus
“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
Hippolytus
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Origen
“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]). - The Church Fathers: Infant Baptism

For those interested the following question may be helpful: Has the term “born again” always been synonymous with baptism with the Christians of the Early Church?
Use the "Comment" button if you can find a reliable, accurate reference to an original pre-17th century document that separates the term "born again" from baptism. I'd be happy to see it.


Into how many languages has the Bible been translated?

This is a moving target as more translations are being completed all the time (a friend of mine went to the dedication of the Inuktitut Bible only a few weeks ago). The Bible is also usually translated in stages, so the number of languages with some of the Bible translated is higher than those with all of it translated.

The United Bible Socities in October 2011 said that there were 469 languages with a complete Bible, and 2527 with at least some portion of scripture translated. The Catholic Biblical Federation in October 2008 said there were 438 complete translations and 2454 partials - close enough to be considered agreement. According to UBS ten languages acquired a complete Bible last year. 135 have the deuterocanonical books.

The latter reference claims that there are 4500 languages left to go. However it is very difficult to make predictions based on those numbers. Many of those languages have very few speakers, and the language may die out before a translation is done.

Corroborating statistics from Wycliffe as of 2013 (portions would combine some projects in progress with those with the New Testament and complete Bible)

Number of Languages in the World                           6918
Languages w/o translation (and needing one):               2000+

Number of languages with Bible portions:                   1010
Number of languages with New Testament:                    1294
Number of languages with entire Bible:                     513

Total World Population:                                    7 billion
Number of people who speak languages with no translation:  ~350 million


Was it and is it a common Christian belief to say that the 5 books of the Torah were written by Moses?
The short answer is yes.
It is and has been traditionally believed that Moses wrote the 5 Books of the Torah!
The first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah (a Hebrew word meaning “Law” and “to instruct.”) and also known as the Pentateuch (from Greek meaning five scrolls), are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  Moses is acknowledged by most conservative Bible scholars as being the principal author of these five books.  Many passages in the Bible attribute those books to Moses or as being his words:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven” (Exodus 17:14).

And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord (Exodus 24:4).

These are the stages of the people of Israel, when they went out of the land of Egypt by their companies under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. 2 Moses wrote down their starting places, stage by stage, by command of the Lord (Numbers 33:1-2).

Then Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel (Deuteronomy 31:9).

In Joshua 1:7 those first five book of the Bible are said to be the “law (Torah) which Moses My servant commanded you” and “the law of Moses” in 1 Kings 2:3.  Perhaps the clearest evidences for Moses being the author of the Pentateuch is that Jesus Himself refers this section of the Old Testament as the “Law of Moses” (Luke 24:44).
Some verses in the Pentateuch appear to have been added by someone later than Moses, for example, Deuteronomy 34:5–8, which describes the death and burial of Moses. But most scholars attribute the majority of these books to Moses. Even if Joshua or someone else actually wrote the original manuscripts, the teaching and revelation can be traced from God through Moses.
Was it mainstream belief before the documentary hypothesis, and is it still mainstream belief now?
Yes, of course it was!
The Jewish Scribes and Pharisees and their religious leaders have always attributed authorship of the Torah to be Moses.  Jesus himself referred to those first five books as “the Law of Moses”.
As a matter of interest, the 1917 English version of the Jewish Bible divides the Old Testament into its traditional Hebrew sections. The four sections include the Chumash (The Five Books of Moses), the Neviim (The Prophets), the Treisar (The Minor Prophets) and the Ketuvim (The Writings). The order of the five books of Moses, including their Hebrew names, is as follows:
Chumash / Torah / The Five Books of Moses
Bereshit / Genesis
Shemot / Exodus
VaYikra / Leviticus
BaMidbar / Numbers
Devarim / Deuteronomy
I would be utterly amazed if there was any difference of opinion between Protestants or Catholics on this question.
P.S. It is also interesting to note that Psalm 90 is attributed as being “a prayer of Moses the man of God”.
Addendum: I found this question (Did Moses write Deuteronomy 33:4?) which I found quite relevant.


What is Jehovah's Witnesses view of Revelation 20:10 since they do not believe in hell?

To find out what the "lake of fire" is, continue reading down to verses 13 and 14 (KJV):

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

These verses explain what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. The "lake of fire" means "the second death," which is the condition of eternal destruction. (2 Thessalonians 1:9) As you may notice, it's not the same as hell, because hell is thrown into the lake of fire. Death and hell are destroyed forever.
For more information, see:

What Is Hell? Is It a Place of Eternal Torment?
What Is the Lake of Fire? Is It the Same as Hell or Gehenna?


In Jerusalem around 600BC, who was Laban?

Dr. Hugh Nibley, an LDS scholar who did extensive research on the Book of Mormon, discussed this issue in chapter 4 of his book "Lehi In The Desert", describing how Laban fits a quite well-defined role in the culture of his time and place: that of the local military governor.

  But what were the records doing at Laban's house, and who was Laban anyway?

  ...

  For ages the cities of Palestine and Syria had been more or less under the rule of military governors, of native blood but, in theory at least, answerable to Egypt. "These commandants (called rabis in the Amarna letters) were subordinate to the city-princes (chazan), who commonly address them as 'Brother' or 'Father.' " They were by and large a sordid lot of careerists whose authority depended on constant deception and intrigue, though they regarded their offices as hereditary and sometimes styled themselves kings.
  ... The Lachish letters show that such men were still the lords of creation in Lehi's day—the commanders of the towns around Jerusalem were still acting in closest cooperation with Egypt in military matters, depending on the prestige of Egypt to bolster their corrupt power, and still behaving as groveling and unscrupulous timeservers.

  ...

  One of the main functions of any governor in the East has always been to hear petitions, and the established practice has ever been to rob the petitioners (or anyone else) wherever possible. The Eloquent Peasant story of fifteen centuries before Lehi and the innumerable Tales of the Qadis of fifteen centuries after him are all part of the same picture, and Laban fits into that picture as if it were drawn to set off his portrait.

  ...

  A few deft and telling touches resurrect the pompous Laban with photographic perfection. We learn in passing that he commanded a garrison of fifty, that he met in full ceremonial armor with "the elders of the Jews" (1 Nephi 4:22) for secret consultations by night, that he had control of a treasury, that he was of the old aristocracy, being a distant relative to Lehi himself, that he probably held his job because of his ancestors, since he hardly received it by merit, that his house was the storing place of very old records, that he was a large man, short-tempered, crafty, and dangerous, and to the bargain cruel, greedy, unscrupulous, weak, and given to drink. All of which makes him a Rabu to the life, the very model of an Oriental pasha.

  ...

  As to the garrison of fifty, it seems pitifully small for a great city. It would have been just as easy for the author of 1 Nephi to have said "fifty thousand," and made it really impressive. Yet even the older brothers, though they wish to emphasize Laban's great power, mention only fifty (1 Nephi 3:31), and it is Nephi in answering them who says that the Lord is "mightier than Laban and his fifty," and adds, "or even than his tens of thousands" (1 Nephi 4:1). As a high military commander Laban would have his tens of thousands in the field, but such an array is of no concern to Laman and Lemuel: it is the "fifty" they must look out for, the regular, permanent garrison of Jerusalem. The number fifty suits perfectly with the Amarna picture where the military forces are always so surprisingly small and a garrison of thirty to eighty men is thought adequate even for big cities. It is strikingly vindicated in a letter of Nebuchadnezzar, Lehi's contemporary, wherein the great king orders: "As to the fifties who were under your orders, those gone to the rear, or fugitives return them to the ranks." Commenting on this, Offord says, "In these days it is interesting to note the indication here, that in the Babylonian army a platoon contained fifty men;" also, we might add, that it was called a "fifty,"—hence, "Laban and his fifty" (1 Nephi 4:1).

  ...

  Returning by night in a third attempt to get the records, Nephi stumbled upon the prostrate form of Laban, lying dead drunk in the deserted street (1 Nephi 4:7). The commander had been (so his servant later told Nephi) in conference with "the elders of the Jews . . . out by night among them" (1 Nephi 4:22), and was wearing his full dress armor. What a world of inference in this! We sense the gravity of the situation in Jerusalem which "the elders" are still trying to conceal; we hear the suppressed excitement of Zoram's urgent talk as he and Nephi hasten through the streets to the city gates (1 Nephi 4:27), and from Zoram's willingness to change sides and leave the city we can be sure that he, as Laban's secretary, knew how badly things were going. From the Lachish letters it is clear that informed parties in Jerusalem were quite aware of the critical state of things at Jerusalem, even while the sarim, "the elders," were working with all their might to suppress every sign of criticism and disaffection. How could they take counsel to provide for the defense of the city and their own interests without exciting alarm or giving rise to general rumors and misgivings? By holding their meetings in secret, of course, such midnight sessions of civil and military leaders as Laban had just been attending.

There's more (quite a bit more) and the chapter is well worth reading in its entirety if you're interested in the cultural details that Nephi's account left out, but these are the most relevant points.


What is/are the Hebrew/Aramaic word(s) for "devil" in The Passion of the Christ movie?

The words are spoken at approximately 31:30 as the Sanhedrin hears the testimony from witnesses.
One word is Hebrew, שֵׁדִים (shedim), which is translated as “demons” in most English translations. (This is spoken by the second witness, who also speaks the Aramaic cognate.)
Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius wrote,1

The other word is its Aramaic cognate, שֵׁדַיָּא (shedayya), likewise meaning “demons.” (This is spoken once by each of the first two witnesses.)
Marcus Jastrow wrote,2

Both are declined in the plural number.

References
Gesenius, Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm. Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Trans. Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. London: Bagster, 1860.
Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Vol. 2. London: Luzac; New York: Putnam, 1903.
Footnotes
1  p. 805
2  p. 1523


Is it possible to be both a humanist and a Christian?

I think the incompatibility between the two philosophies is obvious from their names:

Human-ism
Christ-ianity

Each tells us right in its name the value it considers most central and important.
However, looking at the list, I think there is enough common ground for someone to be a Christian Humanist (just as some claim to be Christian Pacifists or Christian Hedonists).  A Christian would insist that Christ is central and of ultimate importance, but still hold the Humanist values with minor modifications:

As a Christian humanist I try:

To be rational, looking to science in an attempt to understand the universe
To be ethical, acting in a way that puts human welfare second only to loving God
To recognise the dignity of every individual and treat them with respect
To find meaning and fulfilment in this one life and help others to do the same

As a Christian, I'd certainly want to expand and clarify these points, but only the second (on ethics) requires a change to shift the center from humanity to God.  As a practical matter, Jesus calls us to love him by loving each other:

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’—Matthew 25:34-40 (ESV)

Wikipedia suggests:

Christian humanism may have begun as early as the 2nd century, with the writings of St. Justin Martyr, an early theologian-apologist of the early Christian Church. While far from radical, Justin suggested a value in the achievements of Classical culture in his Apology.  Influential letters by Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa confirmed the commitment to using pre-Christian knowledge, particularly as it touched the material world. Already the formal aspects of Greek philosophy, namely syllogistic reasoning, arose in both the Byzantine Empire and Western European circles in the eleventh century to inform the process of theology. However, the Byzantine hierarchy during the reign of Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118) convicted several thinkers of applying "human" logic to "divine" matters. Peter Abelard's work encountered similar ecclesiastical resistance in the West in the same period. Petrarch (1304–1374) is also considered a father of humanism. The traditional teaching that humans are made in the image of God, or in Latin the Imago Dei, also supports individual worth and personal dignity.

So there is some reason to say that the two views are not entirely incompatible, but not in a state of peace either.  Christian thinkers have long struggled with the integration of their faith with the society at large.


Was Jesus an adherent to 'Sola Scriptura'?

The answer is simply: No.
One way to prove it, is to take the verse where Jesus says:

"Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (Luke 10:16)

That means, that whatever the apostles say, is Jesus' teaching. Then we can take Paul's words to the Thessalonians in chapter 2 verse 15:

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (NIV)

This is saying to hold to the scriptures and oral teaching. One link that might prove helpful is here, asking: "Sola Scriptura vs. the Magisterium: What did Jesus Teach?". One that deals with just Sola Scriptura can be found here.

One link that might have an answer, says:

Did not Jesus say, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. . . ." [Matthew 28:19] Of course this admonishes them to teach; it says nothing about writing. And the Bible itself says nothing about it being the sole source of God’s revelation.

Anyways, that is just my opinion and it may be a little biased. One thing to think about, is that for the first couple hundred years, there was no "New Testament". The last of the gospels by John, was written by A.D 85 or later.

I agree with you that:

If a person teaches something contrary to Scripture, they are wrong.

But sometimes things may seem contrary and actually be true to each-other. Here is a link that explains some things that seem to contradict each-other in the bible, but just need a little explanation (I know that that is both sources from the bible, but it is basically the same).

And just to let you know, I'm not Roman Catholic.


What is the biblical basis for the belief in generational curses?

I’m not prepared to defend the beliefs detailed in that link, nor do I think that the biblical statements of God in Exodus 20:4-6 apply to the idea you ask about. God depicts idol worshippers, and those who worship sun, moon, or stars, as having God’s curse brought down, up to the third and fourth generation “of them that hate me”. In contrast, God says he will show mercy to “thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” The Old Testament testifies to the truth of God’s warning with regard to later generations of his own people who turned to idolatry.
However, the Church Jesus establishes, which “the gates of Hades will not overcome” (Matthew 16:18) are commanded, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols.” (1 John 5:21)  Further, all legal rights pertaining to the Church Jesus causes to grow belong to the risen Christ, who purchased her with his own blood (Acts 20:28). This means that where there are Spirit-born members of the congregation of Christ, keeping themselves free from idolatry (in all its forms), nobody and nothing can lay “a generational curse” upon them.
Yet there remains a real problem with many who associate with the Christian congregation who may have a family history of idolatry. This is where different biblical principles apply. For a start, there is the one of sowing and reaping. “Whatever a man sows, that he will also reap” (Galatians 6:7). Many times, children suffer the bad results from what their parents have ‘sown’. But the matter you ask about goes deeper and can be illustrated by the experiences of two Christian friends of mine who spend several months each year in India, one of the most idolatrous nations on earth.
They maintain that the principles in Hebrews 12:14-15 & Ephesians 4:31, which warn Christians against allowing bitter roots to develop, is what can bring judgement (even to the third or fourth generation). Here is a true account from one of their letters to me (therefore, no link). They spoke with a young Hindu woman who was interested in learning about Christianity, and now I quote:

"Her father had died from drowning in an alcohol-related incident when
he was only 28 and now her husband is drinking alcohol heavily (to the
point of collapse) every day. We started talking about how sins
sometimes ‘run’ in families and that in the exact way that someone
dishonours their parent(s), things do not go well with them. We then
asked her if she had ever judged her father in any way. It turned out
that she had hated him in her heart, thought he was a bad person
because of his drinking and beating of her mother, and she vowed that
she would never marry anyone like that’.
"We explained to her the teaching we had received from Elijah House on
'bitter-root judgments'. She was willing to repent of dishonouring her
father, for judging him and also for judging her husband in the same
way; then she forgave them both.
"As she prayed she saw a picture of a wooden cross in front of her;
she was filled with joy and knew in her heart that she was forgiven.
"We were able to pray with the woman's mother and found that she too
had judged her father and subsequently her husband to be bad because
of their alcoholism and violence. Her father had also taken a second
'wife'... Like her daughter, she had reaped what she had sown.
"The woman's aunt had also judged her father as a bad man, partly for
his drinking and beatings but also for taking a second 'wife'. Her
mother, aunts and uncles had suffered terribly because their father
had two wives, two homes and two sets of children. And as we prayed
the aunt also saw that she had reaped what she had sown. With eyes
fully open and having experienced a difficult life from childhood, she
then went on to become the second 'wife' of a man who became violent
and alcoholic! She too repented and forgave. The marvellous good news
is that Jesus specialises in transforming messed-up lives.
"The following day we were all amazed when the husband of the young
woman asked us to pray with him! No-one was more surprised than he
was! He prayed a prayer of repentance for his drinking and said he
felt happy afterwards... since that day he has not taken alcohol (even
over New Year). His wife's bitter-root judgements that were defiling
him had been broken and he was no longer feeling the compulsion to
drink.”

Now, that is the experience of my Christian friends. I know personally that when I once allowed bitterness and resentment against my good husband to develop over several years – despite the Lord warning me through scripture and the testimonies of other ladies – I ended up suffering the Lord’s chastisement.  That brought me to repentance, and healing (spiritual, physical and marital) resulted. But I do believe that had I not eventually obeyed God and dug out that bitter root, our children would have gone on to suffer, perhaps their children too. It doesn’t bear thinking about. That is why I flag up this principle of “bitter roots judgment” as a main one that applies to Christians. But I stoutly deny that any “dark forces” can gain a legal foothold into the lives and families of the children of God, born again of the Spirit.


How do Catholics reconcile Christ's intercessory prayer with the doctrine of the Trinity?

The fundamental thing you have to remember about the Trinity is that God is both One and Three. It's really easy to find quotes that support Jesus and the Father as separate, and the response of the Christian is "yes, they are". It's also really easy to find verses that completely support the idea that God is One, and that Jesus is God. And the response of the Christian is "yes, they are". It is precisely the combination of those that gave rise to the doctrine of the Trinity.

A good reference for this is the Athenasian Creed:

  The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible.


In Mark 10:17-31, what did the rich man lack?

The one thing he lacked was actually the most important thing - saving faith in God.  That he lacked this is evidenced firstly by his failure to put his trust wholly in Christ to follow Him no matter what, but also by his failure to obey the first (and greatest) commandment evidenced by him prioritising his wealth over the will of God.

  No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money. - Matthew 6:24 ESV


Why did Pope Francis tell atheists "just be good"?

The answer to this question has already been answered by an online Catholic news article, discussing this subject with the exact phrase, "just be good", in it. Upon close examination of the news article, the newswriter/blogger/journalist suggests:

  The Holy Father is full of surprises, born of true and faithful
  humility. On Wednesday he declared that all people, not just
  Catholics, are redeemed through Jesus, even atheists.

  However, he did emphasize there was a catch. Those people must still
  do good. In fact, it is in doing good that they are led to the One who
  is the Source of all that is good. In essence he simply restated the
  hope of the Church that all come to know God, through His Son Jesus
  Christ.

Additionally, it is said in the article that fact that atheists are led to Jesus Christ - the source of all good - is recited during Good Friday in the form of a prayer. So, Pope Francis may not really be adding anything new.

  The disciples, Pope Francis explained, "were a little intolerant,"
  closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that "those
  who do not have the truth, cannot do good." "This was wrong... Jesus
  broadens the horizon." Pope Francis said, "The root of this
  possibility of doing good - that we all have - is in creation."

  The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that "Since it rejects
  or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of
  religion but the imputability of the offense can be significantly
  diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances"
  (CCC#2125).

So, although the atheist by that definition has sinned against God by denying or rejecting God, he or she may still perform good deeds in the world, and those good deeds will eventually lead him to Jesus Christ, time not specified. I think it's trying to say that good works and good faith come hand in hand. So, if an atheist expresses good works but claims not to have faith in Jesus Christ or God, then somehow the good works will lead him to faith. Therefore, to answer your question, Pope Francis presumably told atheists to "just be good" as a way to evangelize them and call them to Christ.


In Catholicism, what is the difference between Natural Law and Divine Law?

The overly simple answer is:  Natural Law is a human person's participation in the Eternal Law (the knowable part of which is called Divine Law).

While Peter Turner's answer covered all of the essential points, St. Thomas Aquinas' coverage of the topic is the benchmark among the Doctors of the Catholic Church and one summary of it (among many, I am sure) can be found here: Aquinas On Law.

The important parts:

Eternal Law is the mind of God as understood by God Himself.
Divine law is derived from Eternal Law as it appears historically to humans (revelation).

Natural Law, is tough to summarize succinctly. One decent summary is:

  The Natural Law, as applied to the case of human beings, requires
  greater precision because of the fact that we have reason and free
  will. It is the our nature humans to act freely (i.e. to be provident
  for ourselves and others) by being inclined toward our proper acts and
  end. That is, we human beings must exercise our natural reason to
  discover what is best for us in order to acheive the end to which
  their nature inclines. Furhtermore, we must exercise our freedom, by
  choosing what reason determines to naturally suited to us, i.e. what
  is best for our nature. The natural inclination of humans to acheive
  their proper end through reason and free will is the natural law.
  Formally defined, the Natural Law is humans' participation in the
  Eternal Law, through reason and will. Humans actively participate in
  the eternal law of God (the governance of the world) by using reason
  in conformity with the Natural Law to discern what is good and evil.

While not relevant to the original question, the final point is Human Law which builds on Natural Law. Saint Thomas says:

  it is from the precepts of the natural law, as from general and
  indemonstrable principles, that the human reason needs to proceed to
  certain particular determinations of the laws. These particular
  determinations, devised by human reason, are called human laws.
  (Summa Theologica q91, a3, p. 21)


Interpreting the Bible as a cultural piece of literature?

Let me preface this by saying that I'm making the implicit assumption that the reader has some typical form of Christian belief (so I don't have to keep saying it).

The Bible, as a piece of literature, was written for people in a specific time and culture.

In that sense, it behooves those who try to understand the Bible to also understand the culture as much as we can, because there is a longstanding (millennia) tradition of reading the text as a vessel of timeless truth—describing God, humanity, and reality—that has eternally important value to the rest of the world (those outside the time/culture of the original audience).

What you say about understanding the culture is important to understanding the message as it was meant to be understood by the original audience. Just because it is imbued with cultural references does not mean that it strictly applies only to that culture, though. Passages that describe God, while cached in the language of some culture, are not truths that change. All truth claims (historical and spiritual) are also timeless and unchanging. Even if the Christian doesn't correctly understand them, that does not negate the true meaning nor does it limit what is intended for the reader to understand.

This understanding of culture is supposed to aid the reader in understanding what God intends for him to know.

Cultural references do not limit the scope of a command.

It seems like the safest assumption on the part of the reader to believe that God means what he says and does not have trouble expressing himself. When God wants to limit the scope of a command, he does so.

  Genesis 17:7 (NASB)
  "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you..."

  Hosea 1:2 (NASB)
  the LORD said to Hosea, "Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry..."

God is addressing commands to a certain group of people. It's conceivable that a command could be limited without saying so, but generally, if you look around at the context, it is very clear who such commands are for. To assume that a command is limited unless God says it applies to everyone seems like a risky way to interpret his words.

Examples

To briefly address your (hypothetical) examples, for the most important commands, it is usually pretty easy to see the concept addressed from multiple angles and thus arrive at a very reasonable understanding of what is intended.

In the case of premarital sex (or any sort of fornication), here are some different places that provide insight into what is meant by such a prohibition.

Genesis 39:9 (NASB) How then could I do this great evil and sin against God?
Joseph is rejecting the advances of a married woman.
Exodus 22:16 and Leviticus 18
prohibitions of sex
Genesis 2:24 (NASB)
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife ; and they shall become one flesh.
the only universal description of what marriage is and its (implied) boundaries

If you look at the command from multiple angles, you get a fairly good idea of what is meant by the prohibition: marriage is meant for a man and a woman married to each other.

Without attempting to address all possible issues, I offer this as a reliable method for understanding what is written so that unstated cultural knowledge doesn't need to be a hindrance (or a worry) to the reader.

What kind of interpretation of the bible lends itself to the Bible being cultural and not intended to be timeless?

Does the Bible mean what I think it means, or does it have a meaning of its own and I need to understand that meaning? For the text not to be timeless, it seems one would have to assume something like the former. To assume that much of the Bible isn't meant to be sufficiently understood as to be useful or that we cannot know what it means is to invalidate it as a reliable source of information. It seems that such an approach would go against any definition of orthodox Christianity and Biblical interpretation.

To answer your other question, I would say that this is a risky exegetical method that a numerical majority of Christians do not employ because it is primarily used by people who don't wish to believe/obey the parts of the text that they do not like.


What is the dominant theory of atonement in Catholic theology?

There is no single theory of atonement in Catholicism, but rather the doctrine has developed over time due to speculation from various theologians. Though out of the four you've provided, satisfaction theory is the only one I think you will find an orthodox catholic espousing. The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on atonement is helpful.

it may be noted that in this instance the development is chiefly due to Catholic speculation on the mystery, and not, as in the case of other doctrines, to controversy with heretics. At first we have the central fact made known in the Apostolic preaching, that mankind was fallen and was raised up and redeemed from sin by the blood of Christ. But it remained for the pious speculation of Fathers and theologians to enter into the meaning of this great truth, to inquire into the state of fallen man, and to ask how Christ accomplished His work of Redemption (emphasis mine). By whatever names or figures it may be described, that work is the reversal of the Fall, the blotting out of sin, the deliverance from bondage, the reconciliation of mankind with God. And it is brought to pass by the Incarnation, by the life, the sufferings, and the death of the Divine Redeemer. All this may be summed up in the word Atonement. This, is so to say, the starting point. And herein all are indeed at one. But, when it was attempted to give a more precise account of the nature of the Redemption and the manner of its accomplishment, theological speculation took different courses, some of which were suggested by the various names and figures under which this ineffable mystery is adumbrated in Holy Scripture. Without pretending to give a full history of the discussions, we may briefly indicate some of the main lines on which the doctrine was developed, and touch on the more important theories put forward in explanation of the Atonement.

The page explains that substitutionary theories of atonement (and here I include as well penal substitution) are a product of post-reformation protestantism. So we don't follow those theories because our theologians never put them forward.

And in their explanation of the merit of Christ's sufferings and death we may see the influence of St. Thomas and the other great Schoolmen. But, as might be expected from the isolation of the doctrine and the loss of other portions of Catholic teaching, the truth thus preserved was sometimes insensibly obscured or distorted. It will be enough to note here the presence of two mistaken tendencies.

The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God's merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.

The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment (emphasis mine). This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.

Any sort of ransom theory also seems unreasonable and has been met with unanswerable arguments from Anselm and others:

But however useful and illuminating in their proper place, figures of this kind are perilous in the hands of those who press them too far, and forget that they are figures. This is what happened here. When a captive is ransomed the price is naturally paid to the conqueror by whom he is held in bondage. Hence, if this figure were taken and interpreted literally in all its details, it would seem that the price of man's ransom must be paid to Satan. The notion is certainly startling, if not revolting. Even if brave reasons pointed in this direction, we might well shrink from drawing the conclusion. And this is in fact so far from being the case that it seems hard to find any rational explanation of such a payment, or any right on which it could be founded... This curious notion, apparently first mooted by St. Irenæus, was taken up by Origen in the next century, and for about a thousand years it played a conspicuous part in the history of theology... A protest was raised by St. Gregory of Nazianzus in the fourth century, as might be expected from that most accurate of the patristic theologians. But it was not till St. Anselm and Abelard had met it with unanswerable arguments that its power was finally broken. It makes a belated appearance in the pages of Peter Lombard.


How do Lutherans or Reformed Christians interpret Acts 8:16?

To start out with: I agree with Nigel J that in my life-long experience as a protestant, water-baptism has not generally been made out to be a necessary act to receive the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, most messages I have heard specifically on baptism tend to emphasize that baptism is not necessary for salvation, although it is both beneficial and commanded by Jesus. This is typically to emphasize:

(1) Salvation is by God's grace alone through faith alone (i.e. there is no action you can perform which contributes to your salvation).

(2) Baptism is an outward, and public, sign of the inner reality of regeneration which the Holy Spirit has already begun in a believer's life. In fact regeneration by the Holy Spirit must precede baptism, otherwise the faith which a person puts on display by seeking and receiving baptism is impossible. The effects of total depravity to prevent surrender to God and trap a person in sin, can only be overcome through the unilateral and prior work of the Spirit in a believer's life.

That said, within Lutheran theology there seem to be two ways to look at this question, depending on who is being baptized. According to the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church:

  Baptism is one of the miraculous means of grace...through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith in a person’s heart

The key here is in the and/or which is dependent on whether the baptism is of an infant or of an adult.

(1) If an infant is baptized, this baptism is regenerating and actually "creates...new birth" even though it "cannot...be verbally expressed or articulated by the child". This faith "needs to be fed and nurtured by God’s Word" as the child grows up.

(2) In line with the view I expressed at the start of this answer, in an adult, Baptism should "soon follow conversion" [emphasis added]. This is because as cited above, Baptism is only "one of" the means God uses to produce grace. For adults, faith "can also be created in a person's heart by the power of the Holy Spirit working through God's (written or spoken) Word." In other words through the Spirit's conviction and regeneration of a person hearing (or reading) the Word of God in the message of the gospel preached. Therefore, for the adult, Baptism is performed "for the purpose of confirming and strengthening faith" not for creating faith s it does in the infant.

This means that when it comes to adult baptism, the coming of the Holy Spirit to regenerate a sinful person and convert them into a believer is typically seen as an action  distinct from the act of baptism itself. This, although for infants, baptism is believed to actually produce faith and bring the Holy Spirit.

It seems at this point one could then say that for the Samaritans in Acts 8, the order of events occurred in reverse. However, this would be misleading, since while the regeneration of the Holy Spirit and water-baptism are distinct in both act and therefore potentially within time, they nevertheless necessarily occur in that order. Therefore, the Lutheran is still left with explaining why Philip has baptized Samaritans who evidently expressed saving faith (only possible through the prior regenerating work of the Holy Spirit) when their 'receiving' the Holy Spirit comes some time later.

Two other methods could used to explain this apparent contradiction in the Lutheran ordo salutis. The Reformed perspective also seems to fit best with the first.

(1) Verse 16 makes clear that something was different about their baptism, as opposed to the type of baptism commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28:19-20. Instead of the Trinitarian formula being used, in the NIV "they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

This is almost an unparalleled occurrence, and for Reformed theologians, this anomaly by itself seems sufficient to explain why the Spirit comes in an anomalous manner. For them, the book of Acts is "the transition in redemptive history" in which the Gospel is transformed from a Jewish to a global religion. For them, the geographical regions singled out in Acts 1:8 mark barriers that the Spirit must anomalously cross.

  ...the Spirit baptisms Luke records in Acts conform to this geographic
  spread of the gospel...

Lutherans too, seem to see this passage as an anomaly which is intended to emphasize the barrier crossing act which was occurring. That is why a writer from "Luther Seminary" says:

  ...Acts 8:14-17 is probably an invitation to cross-cultural discipleship models. Considering the long history of hostility between Jews and Samaritans, the delay of the Holy Spirit is indeed a literary device meant to summon believers to recognize the role of the Spirit in opening worship doors to all people...

If the reader remembers the words of John the Baptist, the difference between the Baptism's he performed and those Jesus would usher in was the presence of the Holy Spirit and Fire. Therefore, this point would explain Acts 8 as being literar-illy and/or redmto-historically anomalous meant to highlight the Holy Spirit's consent to boundary crossing of the the Gospel from Jewish message to global proclamation.

(2) However, another perspective of this passage, and similar passages, is possible from the Lutheran perspective. This also happens to be a perspective more amenable to the Pentecostal interpretation, since it essentially distinguishes between the (a) regenerating work of the Spirit which produces faith and enables water-baptism, and (b) being 'filled with the Spirit' in the form of power for service. This is not exactly the view espoused by some Lutherans, but in an address to the Reformation Lutheran Church one Pastor wrote in reference to several passages in Acts that there seem to be "special outpourings of the Spirit" where specific persons are "given a special measure of the Holy Spirit in order to bring about their service to the Lord."

This still considers such 'filling' to be unique to Acts, and so would explain incidents like those occurring in Acts 8 as being reserved to the Apostolic age (a period during which the original 12 apostles still lived and ministered). Furthermore, the author doesn't seem to apply this generally, but instead to specific persons with specific tasks within the Church, but it opens up the possibility of explaining Acts 8:16 as being a referencing to a sort of 'filling' (Reformed churches are cessationist and Lutherans seem to be de facto cessationist) of the Spirit, distinct from the regenerating work which must precede the baptism of adults.

So, in answer to your question, there are potentially two ways of understanding Acts 8:16 from a Lutheran/Reformed perspective, although the first - that it is a literary and part of a redemptive-historical anomaly - seems to be more canon. As a non-cessationist closer to the holiness side of Protestantism than the magisterial (Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed), I personally prefer to second.


What is that passage in the Bible where Peter hopes that all will be saved?

2 Peter 3:9 ... maybe?

  The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.


Has Protestantism relegated the scripture to be the 'Subordinate Standard'?

There is a particular problem with using the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) to either defend, or attack, doctrinal positions. It is that the Westminster Assembly (in the mid 1600s), and I quote:

  “…was rather reluctant to include texts and only added them after the
  catechism had been completed. In other words, the original catechism
  was not prepared from a narrow, improper proof-texting of Scripture
  but from an overall consideration of Scripture. In written work based
  on the catechism it will be a worthwhile exercise to write out the
  texts and underline those parts which specially relate to the
  catechism answer.”  Learning the Christian Faith – The Shorter
  Catechism for Today, Rowland S Ward, p4 (New Melbourne Press, 2009)

This means that catechisms based on the WCF provide lots of scripture references to be examined, so that you would find the scriptural points in support of the beliefs stated there, in abundance, while the WCF might appear to be rather short on scriptural verses. Is it possible that the quote you were given, that “Adam was created righteous,” never came from the WCF but from expanded notes in a catechism? I have searched for it from I to VII in the WCF. If, however, that phrase does occur in the WCF, the reference would be helpful. The doctrine of righteousness is certainly crucial to a correct understanding and appreciation of the gospel, yet some people would equate Adam being ‘righteous’ with his being created ‘perfect’ – without sin at the outset. To debate that is legitimate, yet to accuse someone of heresy for showing from the Bible why they disagree with the claim that Adam was created righteous is unreasonable.

For any Creed or Confession to be elevated to the ultimate authority for Christians, is heresy! More likely, some Christians just find the format easier to direct others to than picking up a Bible for themselves and going through relevant passages with another person. Perhaps they hope that by citing a Creed or a Confession, they will stop further debate. Unfortunately, that does give the unfortunate impression of basing one’s beliefs upon a Creed or a Confession, rather than by personal conviction from the scriptures.
Here is the stance that these supporters of the WCF take on scripture, creeds, and ‘subordination’.

  “Westminster Standards: confessional statements and catechisms
  developed and written by the Westminster Assembly in England during
  the years 1643-48. These standards include the Westminster Confession
  of Faith, the Westminster Larger Catechism, and the Westminster
  Shorter Catechism. These documents are the doctrinal standards
  (subordinate to Scripture) in Presbyterian churches throughout the
  world.” Pilgrim Theology, Michael Horton, p 473 (Zondervan, 2011)

  Re. the WCF I.9 – “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture
  is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about
  the true and full sense of any Scripture, (which is not manifold, but
  one) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more
  clearly.” “…We have already seen (I, 1-2) that Roman Catholicism and
  other false religions join in the denial that the Bible is God’s
  complete revelation. They have in common the denial of the sufficiency
  of Scripture (against which, remember II Tim. 3:15-17). These
  religions also share another characteristic, namely, the denial that
  the Bible is capable of being understood without any necessary
  reference to any outside interpreter… As Dr. Cornelius Van Til reminds
  us, ‘No human interpreter needs come between the Scriptures and those
  to whom it comes.’ This view is opposed to clericalism… Again, this
  Reformed stand does not mean that every portion is equally easy to be
  understood. What it means is ‘that with ordinary intelligence any
  person can obtain’ from the Word of God itself ‘the main point of the
  things he needs to know’ (Van Til, Intro. To Systematic Theology, p
  140). This doctrine can, of course, be abused. It is abused by those
  who cry ‘no creed but Christ!’ and then ignore the great creeds of the
  Church. In an odd way this itself is a denial of the clarity of
  Scripture, for it proceeds upon the assumption that in all history no
  one before us has been able to see the truth contained in God’s Word.
  It is precisely because we believe that the Bible is plain that we
  value the creeds. Hence, the creeds are evidence that the Bible is
  clear. The creeds represent the consensus of many, who therein
  testified that they plainly saw the same great truth revealed in the
  Bible. This does not mean that the creeds are ever on a par with the
  Bible. They must always be kept subordinate to the word of Scripture.
  They cannot be regarded as infallible. That attribute belongs to God’s
  Word alone.” pp. 18-19 of The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes by G.I. Williamson (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1964).

Any Christian professing to uphold the Bible as that infallible standard, above all others, may usefully point to some Creeds or Confessions but will do damage if they infer that that is their ultimate standard, or authority.

Sadly, today, there are many Protestant denominations that no longer claim to take the Bible as their ultimate standard and authority, but that should not be the case in any Reformed groups, especially not those that accept the WCF.


Do churches in the West ask the faithful to leave their sandals out , while attending service?

I've only heard this is the case in churches that have their patriarch in India. In Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Churches the faithful keep their shoes on. I understand the clergy in Oriental Orthodox churches wear liturgical slippers that do not contain leather.


What is the "General Magisterium" in Roman Catholicism?

I hadn't heard of (or recalled) three layers of Magisterium until seeing this question (and I was hoping someone who was more familiar would post and answer sooner), but I was able to find a page (just one) that refers to three levels. Effectively, this resource claims that the General Magisterium, i.e., the general teaching authority of the Church on faith, is the full body of Baptized and confirmed and/or ordained Catholics.

http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm

  The general Magisterium

  a. seeks the truth fallibly, includes the possibility of significant
  error, but is guided by the Holy Spirit. b. this search for truth has
  the charism of certain fruitfulness. The faithful who seek new
  insights into the Faith, in accord with the teachings of the
  Magisterium proper, cannot fail to bear fruit that will last. c. is
  exercised by all the faithful by virtue of the Sacraments of baptism,
  confirmation, or ordination. d. is expressed in speculative theology,
  in discussions among the faithful, in sermons by ordained persons, and
  in non-official writings and discussions of Popes and Bishops. e. The
  Holy Spirit guarantees that this search for new insights into the
  truths found within Tradition, Scripture, and the teachings of the
  Magisterium proper will bear fruit that will last. f. assent is not
  required, except that all the faithful are required to assent to a
  sincere search for truth within Tradition, Scripture, and the
  teachings of the Magisterium proper g. anyone may dissent from
  particular ideas expressed in speculative theology, but no one may
  entirely dissent from the sincere search for truth within the Faith

However, as the author begins to summarize this in more plain English, he uses a concept we more commonly hear of, and which can be found more directly in the Catechism and other documents.

  The difference between the proper Magisterium (the Sacred Magisterium
  and the Ordinary Magisterium) and the general Magisterium is analogous
  to the difference between the priesthood of all ordained persons and
  the priesthood of all the faithful.

The Church teaches that we're all (Catholics) called to be priests, prophets, and kings to some extent. As laity, we're much more limited in our authority and jurisdiction, of course. But, we do have a call to participate in these roles, and therefore a call to teach faith -- more accurately, to forward and/or extrapolate in a non-authoritative manner on the faith, which is taught authoritatively by the higher level(s) of the Magisterium.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church talks more about the hierarchy and the three roles of all Catholics, but doesn't phrase it in terms of levels of the Magisterium so directly. See Christ’s Faithful—Hierarchy, Laity, Consecrated Life if you're interested in that.


What is the New Testament basis for the idea the God is a God of judgment and vengeance?

Let's start with Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus talks about Judgement Day whereon He will separate the sheep from the goats, casting the goats into Hell.

In Romans 12:18-20, Paul cites the extant scriptures for why Christians should not take their own vengeance:

  If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord. "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."

In Revelation 2, Jesus dictates a letter to Pergamum wherein He says, "Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth."

Substantial portions of the rest of Revelation discuss God's impending judgement on the world.

In Acts 5, we see God issuing immediate punishment to Annanias and his wife Saphira for conspiring to lie to Him. In Acts 12, God strikes Herod for not giving Him praise, "And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died."

Jesus Himself cleanses the temple of money changers by making a whip and driving them out [John 2:15].

There is no "inconsistency" between the two "halves" of the Bible - it is truly one book, the record of God's work and plan of salvation throughout history.


Is tithing something necessary under the new covenant?

(Skip to the last two paragraphs before the caveat for the final answer.  The rest is the basis of the answer I gave.)

Tithing is mentioned only three or four times in the New Testament.

The  Pharisees were very careful about tithing (Luke 18:12),
He said that they (the Pharisees) should not leave it undone (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).
Tithing is mentioned in Hebrews  7 in he context of stating that Abraham payed a tenth to Melchizedek.

We know that salvation is by grace, through faith, and not of good works (Eph. 2:8), so tithing (or not) can neither add to nor take away from your salvation.

Tithing is little different than circumcision, which was also something demanded in Mosaic law.  Acts 15 clearly puts to death the idea that we cannot be saved without following Mosaic law by using the issue of circumcision.

  Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which
  believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to
  command them to keep the law of Moses.

  6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this
  matter.

After considering the matter, they came to this conclusion:

  Acts 15: 19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among
  the Gentiles are turned to God:

  20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of
  idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from
  blood.

  21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him,
  being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

  22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to
  send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and
  Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among
  the brethren:

  23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and
  elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the
  Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.

  24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us
  have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must
  be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Further, Jesus frees Israel from the law, and a new law is written on our hearts.    (Hebrews 8:8-10)

  8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith
  the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and
  with the house of Judah:

  9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the
  day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of
  Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them
  not, saith the Lord.

  10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
  after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind,
  and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they
  shall be to me a people:

This coincides beautifully with Hosea 6:6, which tells us, even in the Old Testament that God is more concerned with us loving Him and the condition of our hearts than in what we give.

Hosea 6:6: For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings

And finally, pulling it all together, we have 2 Corinthians 9:7, where giving is addressed in the New testament:

  Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not
  grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

Based on all of this, no we are not required to tithe under the New Testament, any more than we are required to be circumcised, sacrifice lambs, or the Mosaic law.

Don't forget what Jesus told us in Matthew 22:

  37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
  heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

  38 This is the first and great commandment.

  39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
  thyself.

  40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the
  prophets.

In the New Testament, we are under the law of Love, not the law of Moses.  The Law of love fulfills all of the requirements of the Mosaic law.  (If we love God, we will have no other gods before Him.  If we love our neighbor, we will not steal, bear false witness, covet, etc.  If we love our parents, we will honor them, and so on.)

Giving of a cheerful heart, freely and because you want to is the replacement of the original tithe, and fulfills the requirement of the tithe, just as the law of Love fulfills the original Mosaic law.  Not to mention that freely giving is a demonstration of love toward God, and a fulfillment of the New Testament law of Love.

Edit - added - Now for the caveat

We are required, in the new Testament to obey and submit to authority. (Hebrews 13:17, , Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, and many others)

Your Church may require tithing, at which point, New Testament law WOULD require tithing as obedience to the authority.  If this is the case, you're in a position where you need  to make a decision.

Stay in the Church, and obey the authority of the Pastor/Leaders of the Church (fulfilling the requirement to  submit to authority, which God has placed over us.)
Stay in the Church and do not tithe, refusing to submit to the authority as commanded.
Find a Church that does not teach that tithing is required.

I cringe to even state the last once, because these days, people will leave a Church any  time they hear something they don't like preached.  (2 Timothy 4:3)  IMHO, you should only leave a Church if doctrine is unsound, and you know this Biblically.


If Jesus was Emmanuel why was he named Yeshua?

You are confusing titles with proper names.

Yesh'ua (Heb.) is rendered "Jesus" or "Joshua" today. It is his given name. It means "Jehovah Saves."
Christos (Greek) is a title translating the Hebrew "Messiah" or "Annointed One."  It highlights his annointed and special status.
Immanuel (Heb.) is a simple Hebrew construction that says "God is with us."  It is as much sign as name. It signifies that in coming to Earth, God has chosen to dwell among us.

It would be akin to asking "Why is Obama referred to as POTUS when his parents called him Barak and his friends call him Barry?"  Each title, name, and construct reveals more information about the identity of this man, or in the case of Jesus, this God who became Man and dwelt among us.


How is doing 'what is right in the eyes of everyone' different from being 'politically correct'?

I think this is a translation issue (so possibly better at BH SE).

Look at the Amplified Translation of Romans 12:17:

  Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is honest and proper and noble [aiming to be above reproach] in the sight of everyone.

See also, eg, KJV and New Living versions of this verse.

The NIV calls this section (v9-21), "Love in action" which I think summarises Paul's thoughts here well. Therefore this is about acting properly toward everyone - not taking on their morality but rather upholding God's standards before everyone.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe in ghosts (or what-ever these may be)?

Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in ghosts. They believe that humans return to dust and do not continue to live beyond the grave. (Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalm 146:4) Every supernatural occurrence is the result of either angels, demons (wicked angels), or the holy spirit. The acts of demons are very easy to pick out, because they don't do anything to further God's will, don't result in the fruitages of the spirit, or they clearly contradict what's written in the Bible.

I'm glad that you've not experienced any of these events yourself, because they can be quite dangerous to both your faith and health. It's important to learn the truth about the supernatural so that you can protect yourself from the direct influence of demons. If you seek out the supernatural, you will find it.

This is the Bible's advice summarized here:

  Learn to recognize the Devil’s methods so that you are “not ignorant of his designs.” —2 Corinthians 2:11.
  Take in knowledge from the Bible, and then apply what you learn. Applying Bible principles will protect you from the Devil’s influence. —Ephesians 6:11-18.
  Get rid of anything connected with demon activity. (Acts 19:19) That includes music, books, magazines, posters, and videos that encourage spiritism.

Here's some more relevant articles on jw.org:

Spirit Creatures—How They Affect Us
What Happens When You Die?
What Hope Is There for the Dead?


Does God hate Sinners like he hates Sin?

Great question. I think where people often struggle with this is the imposition of the assumption that hate and love are mutually exclusive. This often tends to be the case with us, but it is a result of our sinful nature. God can both hate the sinner for what he does, and still love him in many ways.

Donald Carson has a great little book (free PDF) called the Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, in which he argues that God's love is not spoken of univocally throughout scripture, but instead that there are multiple perspectives that scripture gives to show us a broader lover than we can see from only one angle. I've reproduced the author's breakdown below.

The peculiar love of the Father for the Son, and of the Son for
the Father.
God’s providential love over all that he has made.
God’s salvific stance toward his fallen world.
God’s particular, effective, selecting love toward his elect.
Finally, God’s love is sometimes said to be directed toward his
own people in a provisional or conditional way—conditioned, that is,
on obedience.

Allowing for a multiperspectival approach to understanding God's Love helps us to see God as simultaneously loving and full of wrath.


What are some scholarly biblical arguments for theistic evolution?

First of all, evidence for the claims of evolution theory, theistic or not, comes from observations. Therefore, I understand the question as asking for exegetical evidence that the narrative of Genesis ch. 1 is compatible with evolution theory.

That compability comes from the distinct usage of two verbs in Gen ch. 1 for the divine activity: bara (Strong 1254), "create", and asah (Strong 6213), "make". Bara indicates the exclusively divine action of creating something which is not the result of reshaping a preexisting entity, and is used, as bārā or wayyiḇrā, in:

1:1 & 2:3 for the whole universe;
1:21 for the sea animals, the first living beings from the viewpoint of the Hebrews (for whom plants did not count as such);
1:27 (& Deut 4:32) for man.

Thus, while sea animals were "created", meaning that their being did not come from mere reshaping of preexistent inanimate matter (since for the Hebrews plants did not count as living beings), birds and land animals were "made", meaning that their being came through the reshaping of sea animals (which BTW was just the actual case according to contemporary natural science), just as the sun, the moon and the stars were "made".

Man, in turn, was also "created", meaning that his being (i.e. his spiritual soul) did not come through the reshaping of an existing animal.


According to Catholicism, if someone receives last rites, is everything forgiven?

The Catechism of the Council of Trent on Extreme Unction quotes St. James 5:14-15:

Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man. And the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Describing the effects of Extreme Unction, the Catechism says:

this Sacrament is imparted grace that remits sins, and especially lighter, or as they are commonly called, venial sins; for mortal sins are removed by the Sacrament of Penance. Extreme Unction was not instituted primarily for the remission of grave offences; only Baptism and Penance accomplish this directly.
Another advantage of the Sacred Unction is that it liberates the soul from the languor and infirmity which it contracted from sins, and from all the other remains of sin. The time most opportune for this cure is when we are afflicted with severe illness and danger to life impends, for it has been implanted in man by nature to dread no human visitation so much as death

See also the 14th session of the Council of Trent on the Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction.


How do Eastern Christians explain Jesus "sending" the Holy Spirit in John 15:26?

In reality, John 15:26 supports both the Eastern Orthodox and the (Western) Catholic positions, because (at least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned) both positions are valid and complementary.
(Note that Eastern Catholics—those who follow the same rites as the Eastern Orthodox but are in communion with the Bishop of Rome—continue to favor the Greek approach to Trinitarian theology, and, like the Orthodox, omit the expression “and the Son” when they recite the Creed in their liturgies, for the reasons that I will explain below.)
How the Greek and Latin Fathers understood “procession”
It is important to keep in mind that the Greek and Latin Fathers understand the concept of procession differently. This difference is at the root of the misunderstanding that resulted between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches since the Great Schism.
The Greek Fathers, starting with St. Basil the Great, all agree that the Holy Spirit has its ultimate origin (Greek: ekporeúetai) in the Father. The etymology of that term is important: it is a compound of ek, which means “out of;” and poreúomai, which means “to go” or “to come.” The compound means, therefore, “to come from” or “to come out of,” in such as way as to stress the original source.
The Latin Fathers, on the other hand, developed a Trinitiarian theology that focused on the communication of the Divine Essence from the Father to the Son, and through Him to the Spirit. That communication they called processio (using Tertullian’s terminology). Again, the formation of the term is important: in Latin, the preposition pro means “before” or “in front of;” and the verb cedo means “to go.” Procedo (from which processio is derived), therefore, means “to go forward.” Unlike ekporeúomai, the Latin term does not so clearly stress the original source.
Hence, we can say, when the Eastern Fathers consider of the Holy Spirit, they ask “Where does He come from originally or ultimately (ekporeúetai)?” The answer is “the Father.”
The Western Fathers, however, ask “Whom is the Holy Spirit in front of (i.e, from Whom does he proceed)?” The answer is “both Father and Son.”
The translation of John 15:26 and resulting confusion
There is no fundamental contradiction between the two approaches. What happened historically, however, is that the Latin translations (both the Vetus Latina and St. Jerome’s Vulgate) translated John 15:26 as follows:

τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται
Spiritum veritatis qui a Patre procedit
(The Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father)

Notice that the term ekporeúetai has been translated with procedit—a legitimate translation, if we take the terms in their common, everyday meanings. However, in the technical theological vocabulary of Trinitarian theology, they have very different meanings.
This translation later found its way into the Latin versions of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, a historical accident that caused a false equivalence to be established between the Greek ekpóreusis and the Latin processio, and, as the centuries progressed, increased difficulty for Greek and Latin-speaking Christians to understand one another.
As late as the seventh century, St. Maximus the Confessor was aware of this very difficulty, and attempted to “translate” between the Latin-speaking Roman Church and the Greek-speaking church of Constantinople. He writes, regarding this problem, in an his Epistle to Marianus:

I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided (Epist. ad Marinum, PG 91, 136 C).

Maximus is referring to expressions that can be traced as far back as St. Ambrose, who, in his treatise on the Holy Spirit written in 381 (the same year as the First Council of Constantinople which solemnly defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit) states

Spiritus quoque sanctus cum procedit a Patre et Filio, non separatur a Patre, non separatur a Filio.
Also, the Holy Spirit, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father, nor is He separated from the Son (De Spiritu Sancto I, 11; PL 16, 120).

This affirmation was not controvertial in Ambrose’ day, because Ambrose’s counterparts in Constantinople understood that he was using processio in the Latin sense. Indeed not affirming this would result in a heresy of subordinationism (since the Father would have something that the Son does not).
On the other hand, none of the Greek Fathers would ever have claimed that the Holy Spirit ekporeúetai from the Son—since that would imply that the Son has an origin independent from the Father.
What does it mean for Jesus to “send” the Holy Spirit?
Both the Greek and the Latin Fathers would agree that the Son has the power to communicate His Essence to the Spirit. When Jesus in John 15:26 says that he will send the other Comfortor or Paracelete (i.e., the Holy Spirit), he is referring principally to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit (the effects that the Holy Spirit in time and history: e.g., when He sanctifies or “divinizes” the faithful and gives them His grace).
However, Jesus would not have the authrity to send the Holy Spirit into the world if the Holy Spirit did not proceed ontologically through Him. This fact no one disputes, neither Eastern nor Western.
The question is what to call the relationship between Son and Holy Spirit. The Eastern Fathers give it a special name, distinct from ekpóreusis: namely proienai. This relationship could not be called ekpóreusis, because such would imply that the Son is the ultimate origin of the Spirit—clearly a heresy.
The Western Fathers, since their notion of processio was generic enough to support it, applied it to the procession of the Holy Spirit both from the Father and from the Son. In so doing they were not claiming that the Son has an origin independent from the Father, because that idea is not contained in the notion of processio.
Conclusion
Both the Greek and Latin approaches to the processon of the Holy Spirit are valid and complementary.
John 15:26 in the original Greek most directly supports the Greek approach, but it does not contradict the Latin approach. The Latin translation of John 15:26, which somewhat inaccurately translated ekporeúetai with procedit, was naturally interpreted in the West in the light of the Latin concept of processio. The translation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed into Latin eventually led Greek and Latin-speaking Christians to misunderstand one another and—when the political situation between the Eastern and Western Churchers grew more tense—even to accuse each other of heresy.
However (at least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned), neither side is guilty of heresy. It is just that they mean slightly different things by “procession.”
(Source for these reflections: The Greek and Latin Traditions regarding the Procesison of the Holy Spirit; see also a version with the full text in electronic form.)


Can you explain this Free Will / Predestination illustration?

The point of the illustration is to reconcile God's sovereignty in salvation with man's free will to choose salvation.  I believe it originated from H.A. Ironside:

  It has been pictured in this way. Here is a vast host of people hurrying down the broad road with their
  minds fixed upon their sins, and one stands calling attention to yonder door, the entrance into the
  narrow way that leads to life eternal. On it is plainly depicted the text, "Whosoever will, let him
  come." Every man is invited, no one need hesitate. Some may say, "Well, I may not be of the elect,
  and so it would be useless for me to endeavor to come, for the door will not open for me." But God's
  invitation is absolutely sincere; it is addressed to every man, "Whosoever will, let him take of the
  water of life freely" (Rev. 22: 17). If men refuse to come, if they pursue their own godless way down
  to the pit, whom can they blame but themselves for their eternal judgment? The messenger
  addressed himself to all, the call came to all, the door could be entered by all, but many refused to
  come and perished in their sins. Such men can never blame God for their eternal destruction. The
  door was open, the invitation was given, they refused, and He says to them sorrowfully, "Ye will not
  come unto Me, that ye might have life." ... [But some will say], "I am going inside: I will accept the invitation;
  I will enter that door," and he presses his way in and it shuts behind him. As he turns about he finds written on the inside of the door the words, "Chosen in Christ before the foundation of the
  world.

  H.A. Ironside, In the Heavenlies (Ephesians), pages 27-28

The illustration distinguishes the cause of salvation into two perspectives: the perspective of man, and the perspective of God.  The idea is that from our perspective, we use our "free will" to choose to be saved.  And from God's perspective, God uses his sovereignty to choose who will choose salvation.

The point of the illustration is to defend against the the objection to Calvanism that if predestination is true, then not everyone who wants to be saved can be saved.  This illustration counters this by arguing that everyone who wants to be saved can - because everyone who wants to be saved was predestined to be saved.  It attempts to reconcile the notion that anyone who wills to be saved can be saved, with the notion that God chooses who will be saved.


From a Jehovah's Witness perspective, why don't we have the option to choose whether or not to come to this world?

Jehovah’s Witnesses, like most Christians, teach that we come into existence some time around conception. (I’m not sure that they ever pin it down exactly, and while they oppose abortion, I don’t think I’ve heard them complain about methods which prevent implantation. Let’s just say that, by Witness teaching, you become a human some time between conception and birth.)

Given that, by Witness teaching, you didn’t exist before your conception, you weren’t around to be asked. Once you did exist, it was too late to ask you: you’re already here. As such, the question does not arise.

The Witnesses do not teach ensoulment, the belief that the soul is “infused” into the body at some point during pregnancy. In fact, for most purposes, they make no distinction between soul, body, and spirit.* You are your soul. And that soul is mortal. It exists here because it does exist here: you weren’t brought into this world, as if you’d come from elsewhere — you came into existence right here: you are of this world.

* They do, actually, distinguish these terms, but none of the distinctions seem relevant for this answer; they would be very relevant if you’d asked for a Catholic perspective.


How would it be Just to have Jesus blaspheme against his own Law?

Firstly, if Jesus is God, it is of course impossible for Him to blaspheme against His own law.
Secondly, Jesus did not overtly claim to be God directly and consequently inevitably stumble the lost sheep of Israel that He was sent to.  He answered the question:

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” - Matthew 26:63 NIV

with:

“You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” - Matthew 26:64 NIV

Which was not a direct claim to be God, so the response:

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.” - Matthew 26:65 NIV

Was an error in law and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
In that conext, there is a sense that you're right (just not the way you mean it), it is definitely not 'Just' that Jesus died in this way, it's actually the very epitome of Grace.
Grace is God acting in a way that transcends the principles of justice and Christianity just doesn't make sense without understanding that.

6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. - Romans 5:6-8 NIV

EDIT in response to OP EDIT:
Why this is not 'trickery', is that it was prophesied before-hand and for those who earnestly desired to look into these things, they could search the scriptures and find them out. Nicodemus as a member of the ruling council would have been challenged by the things Jesus said, but ultimately, he was not offended - instead he placed his faith in Jesus as the Christ and refused to vote in condemnation with the other council members. Although Jesus was a stumbling-block to the Jews (no Christian denies this!) - the choice between being broken on him (and receiving salvation through repentence and faith) or being crushed by him (judged and excluded from the house of God because of a rejection of the Son - whoever rejects the Son, rejects the Father also) is a real one.
The suffering Messiah is typified throughout scripture from the death of righteous Abel to the death of Zechariah the son of Berakiah - all the Prophets and the Law speak to it.
In the same way that God used the (real) injustice of Jesus' death to work the salvation of all mankind; he also used the (imagined) injustice of the Jews stumbling over Jesus as the Christ to further His purposes also - the rejection by (most of) the Jews opened the way for the gospel to be preached to the Gentiles (as was prophesied also).
To characterise God's plan in these respects as 'Unjust' is a category error - it is only possible to view God as unjust from man's perspective, but justice is not applied from man to God, but from God to man. Men might feel that God acts unfairly towards them, but they are wrong if they assert that those feelings are an accurate reflection of reality.


What is the biblical basis for those in heaven being able to pray for the living?

You already mentioned that you had seen support for this in the Apocrypha (otherwise known as the Deuterocannonical text).  As such, it became a Tradition to ask the Saints for intercessory prayers, because of the belief that they can in fact pray for us.
And on top of that...

my question is if there is biblical authority to support the
proposition that when we are in heaven, in the presence of God, we can
pray for the living.

In Luke 16 we read of the exchange between two men who had passed away:

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.  And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.  And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. [31] And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
(Luke 16:19–31)

This is used as evidence of the ability to be aware of things going on elsewhere, and to communicate with people elsewhere (which would include doing so with God through prayer), even after going to "the place where the departed saints go".


What makes the spirit and body inseparable after the resurrection?

I suppose this is not what you want to hear, but:

The separation of spirit and body is death. That means immortality implies that spirit and body will not be separated again. Resurrection makes us immortal.

This is the logic I would follow: Resurrection -> body immortal -> spirit & body inseparable
Instead of what seems to be your logic: Resurrection -> spirit & body inseparable -> body immortal

As to what makes us immortal: no clue


How much time did Jesus spend in Gethsemane?

The narratives at Luke 22:47-62 describing the arrest of Jesus and the denial by Peter before the cock crowed, give ample evidence that Jesus prayed at Gethsemane till early hours of Friday, counting from 0000 hours as per modern time-keeping system. (NB: The Ifugao of the Philippines state that cocks crow four times during the night with the third cockcrow at around four o’clock in the morning. Courtesy: Scientific American Blog Network)

Luke 22:39 also states that Jesus had gone to Mount of Olives 'as was His custom' indicting that He used to pray for a long time.