Difference between spirit and soul and consciousness

I assume you want the Biblical meanings, which can differ from modern usage.  Nephesh and psyche often are translated life. When Jesus said greater love has no one than to give his life for his friend (John 15:13), the word translated life in the Greek New Testament is psyche (soul).  Animals as well as humans have this kind of life.  In the Old Testament nephesh (soul) is also used for animals.
The modern term psyche in psychology means something different and is closely related to consciousness.
Spirit (ruha and pneuma) of a human is the ability to relate to God.  God is Spirit.

But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.  God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
(John 4:23–24, ESV)

The Bible doesn't talk about consciousness, but does use conscience.  The Greek term like the English term, from Latin, is a compound word to know with/together.  Paul used this term in Romans 2:15 for the laws written in the human heart.
Thus, from the standpoint of consciousness, the ability to relate to God (spirit) gives us consciousness of God.  With our individual life (soul), we learn to be conscious of self.  The baby first learns that he/she has arms and legs that can move eventually in a controlled manner.
Since you tagged heaven and referred to a tripartite/trichotomy view of man, the Judeo-Christian view of the soul differs from the Greek philosophers with respect  to the bodily resurrection (the body with the soul).  The Greeks thought the soul was freed from the body at death.  1 Corinthians 15 deals with this conflict.

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?  But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.  And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
(1 Cor. 15:12–14, ESV)


Did any early church fathers, other than Augustine, condemn or write about numerology?

I don't think there is any hot opposition to numerology directly made by the early church. The opposition is more about the so called 'mathematics' that you found Augustine complaining about. Even earlier, around AD 383, there is an interesting Canon against 'mathematics' that Bishops who assembled at Constantinople defined.

  CANON XXXVI
  They who are of the priesthood, or of the clergy, shall not be magicians, enchanters, mathematicians, or astrologers; nor shall they make what are called amulets, which are chains for their own souls. And those who wear such, we command to be cast out of the Church. (NICENE AND
  POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, P170, PHILIP SCHAFF)

To interpret the remaining of that Canon in the twelfth century Balsamin makes an interesting comment:

  “Magicians” are those who for any purpose call Satan to their aid. “Enchantors” are those who sing charms or incantations, and through them draw demons to obey them. “Mathematicians” are they who hold the opinion that the celestial bodies rule the universe, and that all earthly things are ruled by their influence. “Astrologers” are they who divine by the stars through the agency of demons, and place their faith in them.(NICENE AND
  POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, P170, PHILIP SCHAFF)

I think this is pretty reliable and shows that the church was not opposing mathematics as we know it, or even numerology specifically (although any deeply superstitious element of numerology that assumed an influence of pagan gods would naturally be condemned) but rather the Greek and Roman quasi religious pagan beliefs in fate and destiny as a result of the planets being gods and supernatural powers. These were the mathematical religious philosophical groups that the church seems to oppose.

Actually the Catholic church at a early period starting using a lot of mystical interpretation techniques that borders on numerology depending on how we define it. Jewish groups before and after Christ also engaged in various numerology to explain scripture in mystical and sometimes plainly outrageous ways. Basically numerical mysticism was only opposed if it had a pagan sub framework but numerology derived from scripture even if to predict the future from a prophecy was okay. Predicting the future from a pagan mathematical system would have been considered an occultist divination, naturally condemned. The idea of a pure non-religious belief in numbers as having a hidden meaning probably did not exist at the time but would probably not have been opposed very much as numbers came from God who made the week to have seven days, etc. So your only numerology option in the church was a biblical based one that condemned all pagan based alternatives.

What your question does make me wonder about is how do the three wise men fit into all this as they seemed to be mathematicians and astrologers somehow finding Christ. Of course I don't support those subjects either but it does make the gospel account seem interesting that Christ could even use such methods to draw pagans to him.


Jesus' public ministry most likely lasted about three years (see "How long was Jesus's ministry?"). He called his twelve closest disciples, including Judas, toward the beginning of that three year period (see Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16), and Judas betrayed him at the end of it. It's possible that Jesus knew Judas for an extended time before he called him as one of his twelve disciples, but we have no real information about that.

So based on what we know from the Bible text, the answer to your question is: Jesus most likely knew Judas at least three years (and possibly longer) before Judas betrayed him.


Can Christians be guilty of "robbing" God like it says in Malachi 3?

The New Testament is silent on the topic of Tithing. This left us with our own interpretation of the Old Testament laws regarding Tithe. Most of the Pentecostal and Evangelical denominations make it an obligation to Tithe while the Catholic church doesn't collect Tithes.

If we study the life of the first century Christians, they did not pay Tithes but instead, they sold everything they had and put it at the feet of the Apostles. They did not give 10%, they gave 100%.

  All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any
  of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they
  had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the
  resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at
  work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from
  time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the
  money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was
  distributed to anyone who had need. (Act 4:32-35, NIV)

The NT simply say that you should give to God whatever you are willing and give it with a cheerful heart. But do not try to lie about the money to the church as Ananias and Sapphira did.

To answer the question, it actually depends on how you interpret the OT laws. Some take this verse from Malachi literally and pronounce blessings and curses. But the NT is silent on this. Remember that many laws from OT are now obsolete but it is not clear whether Tithing is obsolete or not. Nevertheless, the NT gives emphasis on giving to God and His servants.

  Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word should
  share all good things with their instructor. (Galatians 6:6, NIV)

So, give as much as you can. For the more you give, the more you will get. The less you give, the less you get. Don't just give 10%. Give 20%,30% or even 100% and God will bless you as He promised in Malachi. But I don't know about the curses.

  Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and
  whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each of you
  should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not
  reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
  And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all
  times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.
  (2 Corinthians 9:6-8, NIV)


For Christians that are creationists, and that accept the doctrine of the Trinity, yes.

From CARM.org, which believes and advocates both doctrines.  The idea that Jesus is Creator is one of the arguments to support that Jesus is God.

* CARM is not alone in this belief, but I decided to link to only one reference.

To anyone who rejects the idea of Creationism altogether, or to anyone or any group that doesn't believe that Jesus is God, the answer would be "no".


Given that the woman had already been baptized in the Catholic Church, there was no need for her to "bless" her baptism in any sense. Deliberately participating in the rites of another ecclesial community likely constitutes what canon 1365 of the Code of Canon Law calls "prohibited participation in sacred rites". According to the canon, this is to be punished with "a just penalty".
What constitutes a just penalty, then, and how is it imposed, and who has the authority to impose it? First of all, a "just penalty" is one that matches the severity of the crime—so it would have to be determined by the judge (i.e. the one imposing the penalty) that it is a reasonable response to the crime; neither too harsh nor too lax. Forbidding someone from receiving communion is rather harsh, but has been imposed by some bishops (for example, on politicians who vote in favor of bills supporting freer availability of abortion).
This brings us to the last question: Who has the authority to impose such a penalty? It is, in fact, only the ordinary who has authority to do this. It is certainly possible that the ordinary has issued a letter to each parish stating that exclusion from Communion is the standard response for deliberately participating in the sacred rites of another ecclesial community. Absent such a general rule, though, the priest has no authority to do this on his own.
If the bishop did not impose such a general penalty for the diocese, then (given that the priest had no authority to impose it in her case specifically) is the woman excluded from Communion? ABSOLUTELY AND CERTAINLY NOT. Canon law is very clear about this. If the woman is not under any sort of censure or penalty, she must be allowed Communion at a reasonable time.

Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.
Canon 843, Section 1

As far as telling her this in front of the whole congregation: There's nothing in Church law prohibiting the priest from doing this, but it certainly seems out of keeping with his pastoral responsibilities. Even the ordinary, apparently, is obliged to warn the person before imposing a penalty (Canon 1347 section 1).
Thus:

It is not clear whether the bishop had created a general penalty of this sort. This can be discovered by inquiring at the chancery (the administrative office of the diocese).
If he had not, the priest had no authority to forbid the woman to receive Communion, and she is not in fact forbidden. One ought to report the priest's action to the bishop or his representative.
The priest was tactless in his treatment of the woman, regardless; if there is a concern over this it should be taken to the pastor of the parish (if the priest is not the pastor) or to the bishop.
She did, however, commit wrongdoing, and should go to confession. Whether this is with the priest involved or not makes no difference.


Did Casting Crowns ever say why they chose their name?

A little Googling turned up a list of 15 questions that fans asked the band. Within, there is this exchange:

4. MyGodIsEnough asks: What does the name "Casting Crowns" mean, and why did you decide to use it as the band name?
Mark: The Scripture is Revelation 4 where it talks about the 24 elders around the throne, putting their crowns before Him. For me, as a believer, if you’re not careful, little things will rise up in your life and become important. And it will create distance between you and God; and these little kingdoms don’t have to be bad things, sometimes they can be good things. They just take our focus away, and we have to let these kingdoms fall and fall before Him and make sure that we are setting apart Christ as Lord in our lives.

Indeed, the inspiration was Revelation 4:10-11, as suspected.


What measures do Catholic dioceses take at Mass during viral outbreaks?

First of all it will depend on the severity of a particular outbreak in a particular geographical location or diocese.

For the most part, a particular national conferences of bishops would make up some general guidelines for a particular ecclesiastical region. Nevertheless a local ordinary is always free to impose further measures (within reason) for his own subjects in his own (arch)diocese during certain circumstances.

At the moment there seems to be no official statement of particular measures from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops itself, for the coronavirus outbreak.

For example, I live in the archdiocese of Vancouver and a few years ago, His Grace asked that the ”sign of peace” should be suppressed during a rather nasty flu outbreak that had hit Vancouver and adjoining areas.

Up here, pastors generally announce any changes of the Mass itself (at least for the first time) at a convenient moment at Mass, since most parishioners do not read the weekly bulletins prior to Mass. Most bulletins will have fuller information for the faithful to peruse in their own time at home. This is how we do things here.

As a token of what guidelines are being implemented I am going to refer to what the US dioceses are doing in light of the Covid-19/Coronovirus outbreak. Canada will follow similar protocols.

  Dioceses nationwide are taking precautions to guard against the spread of the coronavirus and reminding parishioners to take commonsense steps related to hygiene in their personal lives.

  Among the most common preventative measures being taken are urging reception of holy Communion in the hand, suspension of distribution of the Communion cup and exchanging the sign of peace without physical contact.

  Diocesan leaders also asked people who are ill to refrain from attending Mass.

  “If you are sick, stay home until you are feeling better,” Bishop David A. Zubik of Pittsburgh said in a March 2 announcement to parishioners.

  In a Feb. 28 letter, Charlotte Bishop Peter J. Jugis urged clergy to remind parishioners to cover coughs and sneezes and throw away used tissues, clean all “high-touch” surfaces daily, avoid shaking hands, wash hands often and not share personal items such as cups and eating utensils.

  Like diocesan officials across the U.S., Jugis encouraged priests not to extend the sign of peace, distribute Communion from the cup or invite people to shake hands in greeting at Mass or other gatherings. Those who distribute holy Communion should wash their hands before Mass and clean their hands again before and after distributing Communion, he said.

  Similar precautions were being implemented in the Archdioceses of Washington and the dioceses of Jackson, Mississippi, and Little Rock, Arkansas.

  Beyond those steps, the Archdiocese of Miami suggested that parishes empty the holy water fonts at church entrances, and it also is allowing extraordinary ministers of holy Communion who feel uncomfortable in carrying out their ministry to temporarily step down.

  Guidelines from the Ohio Department of Health for dealing with contagious illnesses were reviewed in a statement shared with parishes and posted on the Diocese of Cleveland’s website March 2.

  The diocese’s Office for Worship also reminded priests, deacons and extraordinary ministers of holy Communion to continue practicing good hygiene including frequent hand washing.

  Archbishop John C. Wester of Santa Fe, New Mexico, updated liturgical practices introduced in January because of the severity of the flu season in Utah. In a March 3 statement, he mandated that holy Communion be received in the hand.

  “What is important is that we receive our Blessed Lord in holy Communion,” he said. “How we receive, while very personal to the individual communicant, is not crucial. … Receiving Communion in the hand is every bit as respectful as receiving on the tongue.”

  At the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Msgr. J. Brian Bransfield, general secretary, March 3 requested in an email to staff that they “refrain, until further notice, from planning any new international travel.” - U.S. dioceses adopt wide-ranging plans to limit spread of coronavirus

Other countries have taken further measures for Mass and while at Catholic liturgies and customs, as seen by the following:

  Italy has become the center of Europe’s coronavirus outbreak and Catholic bishops there have responded by cancelling Mass and encouraging the faithful to watch services from home. The Vatican has temporarily closed the Italian catacombs.

  The changes to Catholic worship practices are overlapping with the observance of Lent, a 40-day period of reflection and renewal before Easter. Near the end of Lent, many Roman Catholics mark Jesus’ death on Good Friday by kneeling and kissing the cross.

  In the Philippines, bishops have advised parishioners to instead genuflect and bow to the cross on Good Friday. It remains to be seen if U.S. bishops will follow suit. - Catholic Churches Are Emptying Holy Water Fonts Over Coronavirus Concerns


How did the Willow Creek church come to allow and encourage women in leadership?

Willow Creek has held an egalitarian stance about women in leadership since their inception. Yesterday Lynne Hybels reposted the chapter in the book mentioned above on her blog. The link is below. I attended Willow for two years in the 1990s and benefitted greatly from the women on the teaching team and the stellar leadership of the mixed-gender elder board. It was a defining time in my personal and spiritual growth.

I would like to point out that while it is true that some churches do not hold this perspective, I believe that is mostly Southern Baptists, fundamentalists, and of course the Catholic church.

There are MANY denominations with a long legacy of fully including women in church leadership: Free Methodist, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, Foursquare, Nazarene, Society of Friends, and of course many mainline churches. Christian organizations like Compassion, World Vision, Intervarsity, as well.

A founding elder at Willow, Dr. Gilbert Bilezekian, wrote the classic book on this subject: Beyond Sex Roles: What the Bible Says about a Woman's Place in Church and Family. I highly recommend it as a good introductory text on egalitarianism. Hope that is helpful.

http://lynnehybels.blogspot.com/2013/11/evangelicals-and-gender-equality.html


My response if focused from the Catholic perspective.
Are there any church calendars that include Advent as Christmas, or is Christmas always supposed to follow December 25th?
The Day
From the Catholic Church, Christmas Day ("The Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord") starts on Christmas Eve, December 24th as sundown.
The Season
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

In different Churches, the Christmas Season might end on Jan. 6 (the traditional date of the Feast of the Epiphany), or might last until the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord (usually the Sunday after Epiphany), or might even last all the way to Feb. 2 (the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord, 40 days after Dec. 25).

I think it it interesting that the song, "Twelve Days of Christmas" is referring to the twelve days from Christmas to Epiphany.
Historically, did the church celebrate Christmas before or after December 25th?
The Day
From the Catholic Encyclopedia (section titled "Early Celebration"):

The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt. About A.D. 200, Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I.21) says that certain Egyptian theologians "over curiously" assign, not the year alone, but the day of Christ's birth, placing it on 25 Pachon (20 May) in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus.
It goes on from there to list many different dates that Christmas (the day as the Birth of Christ) was celebrated on.

The Season

Codex Theod., II, 8, 27 (cf. XV, 5,5) forbids, in 425, circus games on 25 December; though not till Codex Just., III, 12, 6 (529) is cessation of work imposed. The Second Council of Tours (can. xi, xvii) proclaims, in 566 or 567, the sanctity of the "twelve days" from Christmas to Epiphany, and the duty of Advent fast; that of Agde (506), in canons 63-64, orders a universal communion, and that of Braga (563) forbids fasting on Christmas Day. Popular merry-making, however, so increased that the "Laws of King Cnut", fabricated c. 1110, order a fast from Christmas to Epiphany.

Why has the emphasis on Christmas switched to Advent (the time of preparation)?
I think it is important to note that Advent is not just the time of preparation for Christmas but for the second coming.
According to the USCCB:

Beginning the Church's liturgical year, Advent (from, "ad-venire" in Latin or "to come to") is the season encompassing the four Sundays (and weekdays) leading up to the celebration of Christmas.
The Advent season is a time of preparation that directs our hearts and minds to Christ’s second coming at the end of time and also to the anniversary of the Lord’s birth on Christmas. The final days of Advent, from December 17 to December 24, focus particularly on our preparation for the celebrations of the Nativity of our Lord (Christmas).

[emphasis added]

"Advent, this powerful liturgical season that we are beginning, invites us to pause in silence to understand a presence. It is an invitation to understand that the individual events of the day are hints that God is giving us, signs of the attention he has for each one of us."
---Pope Benedict VXI, Homily at First Vespers of Advent, November 28, 2009

In the weeks before or during the Christmas season, many people set up a "manger scene" which has its origins from the nativity scene erected by St. Francis of Assisi. This could be taken as either a celebration of Christmas or an Advent celebration (many people will put the figures in the manger only at the appropriate times -Jesus on the 25th of Dec, the magi on Jan 6/7th).


Is LDS baptism considered valid by the Roman Catholic Church?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a very very brief document on the subject in 2001. The entire text of the English translation is:

Question: Whether the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid.
Response: Negative.
The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Response, decided in the Sessione Ordinaria of this Congregation, and ordered it published.
From the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5 June 2001.

Joseph Cardinal RATZINGER
Prefect

Tarcisio BERTONE, S.D.B.
Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary

The Congregation did also issue a brief commentary on the decision, written by Father Luis Ladaria. In it, Father Ladaria explained that the issue was largely not because of the wording of the baptismal formula, but because of the theology behind it. In his words,

The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: "Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. ...  God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us (cf. EM, Vol. 2, p. 961). Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity.
As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning.

Father Ladaria admits that "doctrinal errors usually do not invalidate baptism ... because whoever is baptized in the name of Christ, wherever that has taken place, has received the grace of Christ"; but a valid baptism, in the Church's eyes, requires "the intention to do what the Church wants, what Christ wants". Since by "Christ" the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints means something quite different than what the Catholic Church means:

The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13)

it follows that the baptism conferred by this community is not a valid baptism.


Consider the following passages:

  Psalm 37:4 "Delight yourself in YHWH, and he will give you the desires of your heart.

  Deuteronomy 4:29 "But from there [among the world] you will seek YHWH your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your life."

  Jeremiah 29:11-14 "For I know the plans I have for you,” declares YHWH, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you,” declares the YHWH, “and bring you out of bondage."

  Proverbs 9:10-11 "The fear of YHWH is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. For through me your days will be many, and years will be added to your life."

  Psalm 63:1,5 "You, God, are my God, I earnestly I seek you; I thirst for you, my whole being longs for you,
  in a dry and parched land where there is no water. I will be fully satisfied as with the richest of foods; with singing lips my mouth will praise you."

  Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."

YHWH gives wisdom to those who seek him. Those who earnestly seek him find him, because he reveals himself to them by his Spirit.

  2 Corinthians 2:6-7,10 "We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. These are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.


How does the relationship compare between earthly children and spiritual children in LDS theology?

All people on Earth are spiritual sons and daughters of God, who is called Heavenly Father for this reason.  So, all those on this Earth who "attain godhood" will be reunited with Him in one giant happy eternal family.  This includes a couple and their earthly children.

At this point, it becomes more speculation on my part.  There may be references for what I am about to say, but I couldn't tell you them.

As I understand it, any spiritual children that a celestial couple has will go through the whole plan of salvation that we are currently going through on another "world".  As they attain godhood, they will be added into the big happy eternal family that will include their earthly parents, their spiritual parents, and our Heavenly Father and Mother.  As far as whether they will have "equal status" I would say yes in the sense that all people are equal in God's eye, but I would say no in the sense that the earthly children would have much much more time to progress, and therefore will be at a higher level similar to how God is at a higher level than us.


Why aren't the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches in communion with each other?

Nestorianism was condemned at the third and fourth ecumenical councils (Ephesus I & Chalcedon I), so calling Oriental Christians 'Orthodox' is incorrect from a mainstream Eastern Orthodox point of view—but this is the title they use for themselves so it is what it is. While some Eastern Orthodox Christians do lump Nestorians and Oriental Orthodox Christians together as monophysite churches, Oriental Orthodox Christians reject this label and distinguish themselves from Nestorians as miaphysite churches.

Concerning Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians, the difference is that the latter accept only the first three ecumenical councils (Nicaea I, Constantinople I, & Ephesus I), while the former accept seven ecumenical councils. There are some Eastern Orthodox Christians who consider the controversy between Oriental Orthodox and themselves to be primarily semantic (and some dialogue has been made in the 20th century to reunite the churches, but full communion has not yet been restored), but officially they are not considered to be 'Orthodox' (despite their use of the title) as they were condemned as heretical for rejecting the fourth ecumenical council (Chalcedon).

In summary, officially Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that they are the only Church that can rightly be called 'Orthodox,' and thus Nestorians and Oriental Orthodox Christians are actually heterodox. Their refusal to accept these Church councils keeps them separated.


Catholics: how can the book of Wisdom be inspired if the author pretended to be Solomon?

The question has several underlying premises.

The Catholic Church considers the Book of Wisdom to be canonical, i.e. it belongs to the Scripture.

For Catholicism, infallibility of Scripture means "every part of Scripture is literally true".

In Wisdom 9:8 (or else) the author claims to be Solomon.

Premise 1 is of course true. Yet, notice that premises 2. and 3. imply that Catholicism must consider Solomon to be the author of the book. However, this clearly contradicts the "scholarly consensus" that Solomon did not authored the book (consensus which is actually the case, see below). Hence, one of the three above premises must be wrong. The OP seems to hold the idea (by the tone of the answer) that premise 1 the problem, i.e. that the Book of Wisdom should not be considered canonical, as many protestant denominations do.
The problem however is with premise 2. The Catholic Church does not ascribe to fundamentalism. The Catholic Church has never declared the Bible to be inerrant (a la Protestantism). In fact, this position is openly criticised. For instance, this 1993 document by the Pontifical Biblical Commission states:

The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.
Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.

In effect, the Catholic Church does not adhere and has never adhere to such "literalness" interpretation. In fact, another very important implied assumption of the question is that the Catholic Church does assert Solomon to be the author of the Book of Wisdom. This is also false.
Regarding the "scholarly consensus", in effect, the Book of Wisdom is considered to be written between in late 1st century B.C., and definitely not in the time of Solomon. This is for instance, expounded in this 2011's book (see section 2.3). The Catholic Church does not oppose this position. E.g. already in 1912 the Catholic Encyclopedia stated:

Of course the fact that the entire Book of Wisdom was composed in Greek rules out its Solomonic authorship. It is indeed true that ecclesiastical writers of the first centuries commonly assumed this authorship on the basis of the title of the book, apparently confirmed by those passages (ix, 7, 8, 12; cf. vii, 1, 5; viii, 13, 14, etc.) where the one speaking is clearly King Solomon. But this view of the matter never was unanimous in the Early Christian Church, and in the course of time a middle position between its total affirmation and its total rejection was suggested. The Book of Wisdom, it was said, is Solomon's inasmuch as it is based on Solomonic works which are now lost, but which were known to and utilized by a hellenistic Jew centuries after Solomon's death. This middle view is but a weak attempt at saving something of the full Solomonic authorship affirmed in earlier ages. "It is a supposition which has no positive arguments in its favour, and which, in itself, is improbable, since it assumes the existence of Solomonic writings of which there is no trace, and which would have been known only to the writer of the Book of Wisdom" (Cornely-Hagen, "Introd. in Libros Sacros, Compendium," Paris, 1909, p. 361). At the present day, it is freely admitted that Solomon is not the writer of the Book of Wisdom, "which has been ascribed to him because its author, through a literary fiction, speaks as if he were the Son of David" (Vigouroux, "Manuel Biblique", II, n. 868. See also the notice prefixed to the Book of Wisdom in the current editions of the Douai Version). [...] All these variations as to authorship prove that the author's name is really unknown (cf. the notice prefixed to Wisdom in the Douay Version).

The "freely admitted" can be understood, in the dogmatic sense, as being permitted within the boundaries of the Magisterium (i.e. not being a heresy).


At what level does the orthodox church recognize the individual rather than the collective?

A major difference between the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Baptists (since you mention them in particular) is the view of the church. Dr B. H. Carroll, the first president of Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote a paper on "Distinctive Baptist Principles", which describes the (Christian) church as

a particular congregation and not an organized denomination. ... the Baptists hold that the New Testament church is a particular congregation and not an organized denomination. According to the New Testament: “In Christ, each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord.” Each congregation is a complete temple in itself, and has final jurisdiction over all its affairs.
(emphasis in original)

Baptist churches have a very individualist view of humanity as related to God as well, according to Dr Carroll:

This New Testament law of Christianity segregates the individual from his own family, from society with all its customs and requirements,... then isolates him from every external influence, strips him of every artificial distinction arising from wealth or poverty or social status, and then shuts him up in an exclusive circle alone with God.  ... May I not seek the guidance of my priest and put on him the
responsibility of interpreting this book? Nay, verily. Do thou interpret. It is God’s letter to thy soul. Thy right of private judgment is the crown jewel of thy humanity.

Finally, as far as the importance of Scripture to the church:

All the New Testament is the Law of Christianity. The New Testament is all the Law of Christianity. The New Testament will always be all the Law of Christianity.... Baptists [are] distinguished from many Protestants in rejecting the equal authority of tradition as held by the Romanists. But when Baptists say that the New Testament is the only law for Christian institutions they part company, if not theoretically at least practically, with most of the Protestant world, as well as from the Greeks [i.e. the Orthodox Church] and Romanists.

For the Orthodox Church, on the other hand, the Church is

a unique entity comprising the Revealed Truths of the Christian religion....  the whole strength of faithful and pious Christians. These people constitute the "royal priesthood" by their sanctification and dedication.
("The Fundamental Teachings of the Greek Orthodox Church", website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America)

The Church, then, is a single body, whose members are the entire population of the faithful. Orthodoxy, like Catholicism, speaks of "the People of God" in a way that Baptists would not. And this "People" have a continuous way of life, a continuous following-out of Christ's teaching, which the Church calls "Holy Tradition". This Tradition includes the Scriptures, but it goes beyond them.

Among the elements which make up the Holy Tradition of the Church, the Bible holds the first place. Next comes the Church’s liturgical life and its prayer, then its dogmatic decisions and the acts of its approved churchly councils, the writings of the church fathers, the lives of the saints, the canon laws, and finally the iconographic tradition together with the other inspired forms of creative artistic expression such as music and architecture. All of the elements of Holy Tradition are organically linked together in real life. None of them stands alone. None may be separated or isolated from the other or from the wholeness of the life of the Church.
(The Orthodox Faith, Volume I: Doctrine and Scripture, reprinted on the website of The Orthodox Church in America; emphasis added)

This last is very important. It is not simply that a statement is "checked against the Scriptures" but that it is tested by its coherence with the whole body of Holy Tradition, including the Scriptures. Because this Tradition is properly the Church's, it doesn't belong to any individual to interpret it themselves:

Jesus Christ remains forever in His Church by the Holy Spirit to open men’s minds to understand the Bible (Jn 14.26, 16.13). Only within Christ’s Church, in the community of faith, of grace, and of truth, can men filled with the Holy Spirit understand the meaning and purpose of the Bible’s holy words.
("Fundamental Teachings")

For the Orthodox Church, then, the Scriptures are not (in your words) "the sole authoritative source for knowledge about God and the practice of the faith". Rather, they are part of (the central part, but only part of) what the Church knows. And the emphasis in the Orthodox Church is not on "the individual [who] responds to the call of God and accepts the gift of salvation along with the responsibilities to the body of believers". Instead it focuses on the individual as a member of this community of faith, grace, and truth.


Was Christianity intended to have denominations?

The 12 tribes of Israel were separate but still part of God's one people, and part of the family of God. I would consider them more analogous to different traditions in a church (different cultural practices under the same theology), but not denominations (which remain separate because of theological differences, primarily).

Jesus prayed that we may be one (John 17:20-23). The analogy of the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12) and being one, as well as the analogy of the vine and the branches (John 15:5) also indicate that we are to be together, and not separated.

Denominations have split off because of human sin in general (with culpability on all sides), and not because it was Biblically appropriate. There was one church in the first centuries. It is because of human sin that people broke away. That is why we pray for unity and encourage interdenominational dialogue and reconciliation.


Did John Wycliffe accept extreme unction?

To answer your question about 'extreme unction' Gillets summarizes it best under the phrase 'qualified sense'

  The seven sacraments of the church were all admitted, though in a qualified sense, by Wickliffe. It is evident that his exposition of their significance would strip them of all that peculiar importance which was attributed to them by the prevalent superstitions of the age. (the LIFE AND TIMES of JOHN HUSS; or, the Bohemian Reformation of THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY by E. H. GILLETT, p64)

it seems clear that he opposed the idea 'in the way it was administered' but not in the overall entitlement of being called a sacrament. In a book where speakers had a talk about these subjects called "De conversation ecclesiasticorum" he directly addresses the matter:

  The names of these speakers are Alithia, Pseudis, and Phronesis—or Truth, Falsehood, and Wisdom. The opinions and reasonings of Alithia, accordingly, are to be regarded as those of Truth; those of Pseudis as being the contrary of truth; while in the person of Phronesis, Wycliffe himself speaks.

  XVIII
  OF EXTREME UNCTION
  Alithia. You have said quite enough on this subject, brother Phronesis; but inform me, I pray you, somewhat concerning the last sacrament, which is called extreme unction. It has its foundation in the passage, James 5, “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders 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, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.”

  Phronesis. This foundation for that sacrament does not appear to be adequate. For the faithful might urge with sufficient reason, that this holy apostle does not specify the last sickness, but merely says that consolation should be administered by the presbyter when any one is sick; and as it is in the nature of oil, in those parts of the world, to promote the health of the body, so he mentions this anointing; not that the oil affects the soul, but the prayer of a devout priest poured forth, hath a healing effect, so that God helps the sickness of the soul. If that bodily anointing had been a sacrament in the sense in which it is now represented, Christ and his apostles would not have been silent respecting its promulgation and due administration. Nevertheless, I grant you that this corporal anointing is to some a sacrament, other things being equal; but it is then necessary that the presbyters should heal the sick with their own devout prayers. Still, beware, lest through too light a temper, you understand the words of the apostle imperfectly.

  You may possibly err so far as to believe, that the mere fact that a priest has prayed for a sick man will be sufficient to remit any guilt that may attach to the latter. But many have been sick, and been anointed, who have, nevertheless, been doomed to everlasting condemnation. For it is not to be believed, that, insomuch as a priest so doth, his prayer of faith will save the sick, for then it would be a part of the faith of the church to believe, that whoever in his last moments should receive the sacrament, would be saved by faith in Christ, and this sacrament would then be the most necessary of all, for the recipient of the others may be finally impenitent, and be lost,—but so, without a doubt, may he be who receives this sacrament.

  Thus in the sacrament of baptism, in that of confirmation, and in all the rest, hath Antichrist invented unauthorised ceremonies; and to the burden of the church, without warrant from Scripture, hath heaped them on subjected believers. But other necessary sacraments he has overlooked, as is seen in respect to the seven works of spiritual mercy, which ought to be a sacrament in the esteem of believers, and especially of priests. But this sacrament, though very necessary, inasmuch as it has no temporal gain going along with it, and is irksome to those in high places, is faithlessly neglected.

  Whence it appears to me, that those who institute such private orders, and send forth such general rules, to cause sacraments of this nature to be universally received by those who are subject to them, blaspheme God, especially when God is pleased to save many without their receiving this sacrament. How like Antichrist is this presumption, for a prelate to assert, and without foundation maintain, that no one will be saved without partaking of a sacrament of this sort!

  But whether a rich man, thus anointed, is permitted subsequently to recover, and whether the priest ought to have a certain knowledge, that the man so anointed will not survive, and whether this sacrament of extreme unction ean be repeated, is a matter of doubt with many. But I leave it to the weak, uselessly to protract difficult questions of this nature. I merely state one thing as probable,—that a man thus sick, and thus anointed, and afterwards convalescent, cannot again receive the sacrament of extreme unction. (TRACTS AND TREATISES of
  JOHN DE WYCLIFFE, D.D.,THE REV. ROBERT VAUGHAN, D.D., P182)

So I think you can judge for yourself. He seems to oppose extreme unction zealously, in the way it was used.

From what I can tell the focus that Wycliffe held was in opposition to the authority of the Pope, more than say 'justification by faith' which was Luther's focus. However Wycliffe holds Augustinian ideas that seem to indicate that he felt real grace and predestination is what saved a man. However, it was not as focused and or nearly developed as in the case of Luther. His opposition to the Pope and corruptions of many of his representatives is very lively though. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be as much clear record of his writings either, compared to the large volumes available for Luther.


Historically, Mark is seen as one of Peter's disciples.  The historian Papias in the 2nd Century refers to him as such.  Likewise, the evidence in the narrative, for example, indicates that Peter was a significant source for most of the material, and most theologians accept Mark as "Peter's" Gospel.  Also, its seeming indication that the Temple is still standing marks it as an early Gospel.

Luke was Paul's travelling companion.  From very early on, this is what the church has taught. Luke and Acts were clearly written by the same individual (See Acts 1), and Luke is the traditional author.


What is joy? How is it different from happiness (or is it)?

"Joy" is not an ideal translation of the original Greek here because it doesn't quite cover the original meaning.

A better translation would be "rejoice" or "rejoicefullness" (if that were a word).

Let's take a look...

Greek

The Greek word used in these passages is chara (also transliterated khara).

If we look at Vines Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, we see that this word means "gladness".  While Strong's Concordance shows that this word is often translated (in the KJV) as "joy".

However, if we look at the root word, we see word chairō (or khiro).  Vines has this word meaning "rejoice, be glad".  Also, Strong's Concordance shows that (in the KJV) the word is usually translated as "rejoice".

English

The translation of this word as "joy" is not a poor choice, by any means.  However, the English definition falls short:

  joy
  1.
      a. Intense and especially ecstatic or exultant happiness.
      b. The expression or manifestation of such feeling.
  2. A source or an object of pleasure or satisfaction: their child was their pride and joy

This definition falls short of the original meaning of "rejoice, be glad".  A more accurate translation of this would be "gladness".

  glad
   1. a.  Experiencing or exhibiting joy and pleasure.
      b.  Appreciative

We can see that there is definitely a component of happiness here, but there's also a sense of appreciation.

If we compare this to the Greek root "rejoice", we can clearly see that a better translation would not be "joy" as in happiness, but "joy" as in appreciation, thanksgiving, and rejoicing (or more accurately, a combination of those words).  "Rejoicefullness", if that were a word, would be the best translation.

In context

We also see this word being used here:

  Matthew 5:11-12 (NIV)emphases added
  11 “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

In verse 12 there, we see the word translated as "Rejoice".

This very clearly shows that while we may not be happy, we can still rejoice.  The "joy" that God will give us is not entirely based on happiness, but it is based on rejoicing.

Summary

The original Greek word used here does not always mean that we will be happy.  Rather, it means that we will find appreciation and rejoicing.  "Rejoicefullness" would be a better, more accurate translation, if that were even a word.

Essentially, it means that the fruit of the spirit will be a spirit of rejoicing.


Multiple ways, though not all of them are obvious in the English translation.
Jesus refers to himself with 'I AM' in a manner as to make a direct connection to Yahweh from the Old Testament.

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” John 8:58
God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites ‘I am has sent me to you.’”      Exodus 3:14

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/YHVH/yhvh.html
EDIT
Somebody wanted more specificity, so if you read the whole passage Jesus says clearly to the Jews...

Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself,(BN) my glory means nothing. My Father, whom  you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.    John 8:54

Doesn't get much clearer than that. The God of the Jews is Yaweh. Jesus says that the God they claim is his Father.


Did the authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith ever explain why they thought God could not be the author of sin?

The Free Prebyterian online copy of the Westminster Confession quotes three verses in support of the statement :

neither is God the author of sin,b

Free Presbyterian Church Documents
The first two are from James :

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
James 1:13
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
James 1:17

The third is from John :

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
I John 1:5

I was not certain but @curiousdanni notes below that these texts are original to the Westminster Confession and are not added by the Free Presbyterian website.


1 Pet 5:8, KJV:

  Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour

Eph 6:12, KJV:

  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

1 Thess 5:17, KJV:

  Pray without ceasing.

Throughout the NT believers are encouraged to always remember that we are fighting a battle against the forces of evil. The term "Spiritual Warfare" is generally used by those who acknowledge and undertake to accept this calling, "enduring hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ".

Regarding comparisons to "black magic", I would lovingly wish to draw your attention to Jesus' response to similar accusations He faced in Matt 12:22-32. In light of these words from Jesus such terms should not be bandied about since the implications are so very severe.


What is the/any Arminian/Catholic interpretation of Hebrews 10:14?

In paragraph 480 of St. Thomas Aquinas' Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, he explains that the way sacrifice was done in the past was to wipe out past sins. The people sinned, and then a priest offered an animal sacrifice in reparation for those sins. This verse states that by Christ's one sacrifice, past and future sins are being accounted for, thus encompassing 'all those being sanctified.' This may seem in contradiction to Catholicism, because we offer the sacrifice of the mass every day. However, Aquinas contests that this sacrifice is no different than the very one that Christ offered, re-presented in a non-bloody form.

So in summary, Christ dying on the cross was enough to perfect all those seeking sanctification, but we have to choose to participate in that sacrifice, it is not just handed out to those who turn their back on God.


What is the Meaning of Hebrews 2:11 - he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one

It means Jesus and Christians are on the same team.  It might make a little more sense in the NIV:

  Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.

The rest of that section of Hebrews is talking about how Jesus is like us, in His humanity, which allows us to be part of the same "family."


Why do literalist Protestants reject transubstantiation?

To understand this answer, we will look at just two aspects.

One, Christ speaks literally about many things many times, yet no one believes He turned into a literal door or into a nebulous ghost of a concept like truth.

Two, Protestants disagree with transubstantiation not because they don't believe the bible, but because they believe that Christ's sacrifice was done once for all time.

Literalism

When Christ said, I am the way, life, truth, what did those three things look like?  What ghost can one conjour to represent truth?  Rather, they looked stedfastly at Christ who was clearly standing there in front of them.

  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
  cometh unto the Father, but by me.
  John 14:6

When Jesus said, I am the door or you are a sheep, do you take this literally?  Is He wood, rock, blanket, or what as that literal door?

  Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
  John 10:7

So likewise when Jesus said this, did He disappear and become a loaf of bread?

  And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

So, it is clear enough that Christ speaks specifically at all times, but that is not to say literally at all times.

Sacrificial

With lovely irony, when the bible does literally say Christ sat down as an offering priest because of His own one sacrifice, Protestants believe this, while Roman Catholics do not.

  But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
  Heb 10:12

There is no priest presuming to be Christ on earth who offers the "same" sacrifice that Christ did some 2,000 years ago.

Though time wouldn't permit, it is interesting enough to view this contrast between the two views of a literal piece of bread and a literal ongoing sacrifice done daily versus a metaphor and one sacrifice of Christ's body done once for all time.

So for Protestants, the plain words of Christ about this is My body and what it represents are clear enough.


Is there any tradition that argues for prophetical succession under the Old Testament just like some argue for Apostolic succession?

The only 3 Traditions that teach apostolic succession are Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism. These Traditions do not argue for prophetic succession, simply because the biblical role of prophet is inherently different from the biblical role of apostle,  making it impossible to conceptually assign succession to both.

First, let’s compare the words apostle and prophet to see how they match up.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  The word "Apostle", from the Greek apostello "to send forth", "to
  dispatch", has etymologically a very general sense. Apostolos
  (Apostle) means one who is sent forth, dispatched--in other words, who
  is entrusted with a mission, rather, a foreign mission. It has,
  however, a stronger sense than the word messenger, and means as much
  as a delegate. In the classical writers the word is not frequent. In
  the Greek version of the Old Testament it occurs once, in 1 Kings 14:6
  (cf. 1 Kings 12:24). In the New Testament, on the contrary. it occurs,
  according to Bruder's Concordance, about eighty times, and denotes
  often not all the disciples of the Lord, but some of them specially
  called. It is obvious that our Lord, who spoke an Aramaic dialect,
  gave to some of his disciples an Aramaic title, the Greek equivalent
  of which was "Apostle". It seems to us that there is no reasonable
  doubt about the Aramaic word being seliah, by which also the later
  Jews, and probably already the Jews before Christ, denoted "those who
  were dispatched from the mother city by the rulers of the race on any
  foreign mission, especially such as were charged with collecting the
  tribute paid to the temple service" (Lightfoot, "Galatians", London,
  1896, p. 93). The word apostle would be an exact rendering of the root
  of the word seliah,= apostello.

See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm

The biblical usage of the word apostle denotes one who is commissioned by Jesus and is sent forth with divine authority.

  And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been
  given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of
  all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son
  and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded
  you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matt.
  28:18-20

Jesus commanded them to baptize and teach all nations.  It is obvious that this couldn’t be accomplished by only those hearing Jesus speak.  Logically, there had to be some kind of succession to perpetuate the teaching and baptizing that Jesus commanded.  He also comforts those in which he is commissioning by telling them that he will be with them, “even to the end of the age.”

The New Testament writers commandeered the word apostle to specifically distinguish the new teaching office (magisterium) commissioned with Divine authority.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes:

  [W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be
  found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had
  committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from
  generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of
  the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted
  by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who
  followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look
  for it.  For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition
  with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession
  of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . .
  . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the
  message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the
  Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who
  have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth. (Early Christian
  Doctrines, 37).

The biblical context in which the word apostle is used by the New Testament writers differs significantly from the word prophet, not only in scope, but in meaning as well.  Again, we read in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  Judging from a comparative examination of the cognate words in Hebrew
  and the other Semitic tongues, it is at least equally probable that
  the original meaning of prophet was merely: to speak, to utter words (cf. Laur,
  "Die Prophet ennamen des A.T.", Fribourg, 1903, 14-38). The historic
  meaning of nabî' established bybiblical usage is "interpreter and
  mouthpiece of God". This is forcibly illustrated by the passage, where
  Moses, excusing himself from speaking to Pharao on account of his
  embarrassment of speech, was answered by Yahweh: "Behold I have
  appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy
  prophet. Thou shalt speak to him all that I command thee; and he shall
  speak to Pharao, that he let the children of Israel go out of his
  land" (Exodus 7:1-2). Moses plays towards the King of Egypt the role
  of God, inspiring what is to be uttered, and Aaron is the prophet, his
  mouthpiece, transmitting the inspired message he shall receive. The
  Greek prophetes (from pro-phanai, to speak for, or in the name of
  someone) translates the Hebrew accurately.

See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12477a.htm

As noted above, the biblical use of prophet seems to be generalized as someone who is called up by God to speak as His “mouthpiece.” The prophets of the Old Testament were not called by God to perpetuate a successive office, but were called up from among God’s people for a specific time, place, and purpose.

A well-known example of someone who God called to deliver a specific message is the prophet Jeremiah’s.  His sole purpose was to reveal the sins of the people and explain the reason for the impending disaster (destruction by the Babylonian army and captivity):

  And when your people say, “Why has the Lord our God done all these
  things to us?” you shall say to them, “As you have forsaken me and
  served foreign gods in your land, so you shall serve foreigners in a
  land that is not yours.” Jeremiah 5:19

The intrinsic differences between the meanings of these 2 words seem to imply that successive offices are not relative to the Old Testament prophets. Both the Old Testament Prophets and the Apostles have the common function of delivering a message.  However, the Apostles were given authoritatively teaching offices that were (and are) to be handed down to “all nations” and “even to the end of the age.”

Although succession of prophecy isn’t explicitly displayed in the Old Testament, succession of authority, is very evident in the Old Testament.  The succession of official authority in the Old Testament foreshadows not only apostolic succession, but also apostolic authority as well.

There are 2 parallel phrases in both the Old and New Testament that explicitly display God’s design for  apostolic authority and succession; “Keys to the Kingdom,” and “bind and loose.”

There is a passage in the Old Testament where Isaiah is prophesying that there will be a dramatic change in the Kingdom of David.  Here we find an example of a prophet prophesying that a change will take place in the successive office of the king’s royal steward, or vizier.

  This is what the Lord, the LORD Almighty, says: “Go, say to this
  steward, to Shebna the palace administrator:  What are you doing here
  and who gave you permission to cut out a grave for yourself here,
  hewing your grave on the height and chiseling your resting place in
  the rock? I will depose you from your office, and you will be ousted
  from your position. “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son
  of Hilkiah.  I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash
  around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to
  those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place
  on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one
  can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.  I will drive him like a
  peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of
  his father. All the glory of his family will hang on him: its
  offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all
  the jars.  (Is. 22:15-16, 19-24)

Speaking for God, Isaiah proclaims, “And I will place on his (Eliakim’s) shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” King Hezekiah ascended to the throne of David in 715 b.c. and ruled the land of Judah.  The key of David was on the shoulder of Shebna, the royal steward.  Isaiah prophesies that Shebna will be removed from his office and the key of David will be given to Eliakim, his successor.  The key of David, the key of God’s kingdom, belongs to Jesus.  He has come to restore the throne of David.  God binds himself with his people with covenants.  God made a covenant with David that his throne would be forever.

  When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise
  up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will
  establish his kingdom.  He is the one who will build a house for my
  Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. (2 Sam.
  7:12)

The kings of the Davidic covenant were the proud possessors of the “key of David,” signifying unquestioned royal authority.  Jesus possesses these keys as the heir to David’s throne, and he established a new covenant, and eternal covenant.  This covenant was for all men, and was not limited to the Jews of the Nation of Israel.

The keys of a kingdom have always been the sign of authority, and they belong exclusively to the king.  Kings, however, would delegate the keys to the stewards or viziers of their kingdom.  Jesus ascended to the throne of David and then, through his death and resurrection, extended the covenant to all men, not just to the Jews.  God gave him all authority in heaven and earth; he was now king of the eternal kingdom of God.  He was the proud possessor of the royal keys of God’s kingdom.

Roughly 750 years after Isaiah delivered God's message of this shift in authority, Jesus resurrects this message in order to signify that the time has come for the true King to ascend the throne of David.  We read in the Gospel of Matthew that Jesus recites the passage in Isaiah 22 practically verbatim.

  Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living
  God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this
  was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in
  heaven.  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will
  build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will
  give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth
  will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be
  loosed in heaven.” Matt. 16:17-19

We first see from this passage that Peter delivers a prophecy that could only come from God the Father.  Jesus responds to Peter’s prophetic message, “..for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.” Jesus continues by prophetically echoing the words that Isaiah had spoken 7 centuries earlier be saying,  “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Both passages are identical  in 2 key ways.  Both involve the key of the house of David, and both involve the juridical authority to bind and loose in the name of the King. Later, in Matthew 18, Jesus also authorizes this power to bind and loose for the rest of the Apostles.

Just as the Old Testament clearly testifies to an office of succession within the kingdom of God, the New Testament also indicates that Jesus established offices of succession.

There are other examples that imply succession in the Old Testament, but they do not directly pertain to any of the prophets.

In Exodus 18:25-26, Moses appoints various heads over the people of God. We see a hierarchy, a transfer of authority and succession.

  And choosing able men out of all Israel, he appointed them rulers of
  the people, rulers over thousands, and over hundreds, and over
  fifties, and over tens.  And they judged the people at all times: and
  whatsoever was of greater difficulty they referred to him, and they
  judged the easier cases only.

Numbers 3:3 shows us that the sons of Aaron were formally "anointed" priests in "ordination" to minister in the priests' "office."

  These the names of the sons of Aaron the priests that were anointed,
  and whose hands were filled and consecrated, to do the functions of
  priesthood.

Numbers 16:40 displays God's intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.

  That the children of Israel might have for the time to come
  wherewith they should be admonished, that no stranger or any one that
  is not of seed of Aaron should come near to offer incense to the Lord,
  lest he should suffer as Core suffered, and all his congregation,
  according as the Lord spoke to Moses.

The passage in Numbers 27:18-20 shows God's intention that, through the "laying on of hands," one is commissioned and has authority.

  And the Lord said to him: Take Josue the son of Nun, a man in whom is
  the Spirit, and put thy hand upon him. And he shall stand before
  Eleazar the priest and all the multitude: And thou shalt give him
  precepts in the sight of all, and part of thy glory, that all the
  congregation of the children of Israel may hear him.

We see that in Deuteronomy 34:9 that Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as successor, full of the spirit of wisdom.

Summation:

The question, “..is there is any tradition that puts the 'succession' concept upon their view of the Prophets also?” is obviously directed toward Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism.  These are the only 3 “traditions” that teach apostolic succession.  As demonstrated above, the biblical role of prophet is inherently different from the biblical role of apostle, therefore making it impossible to conceptually assign succession to both. This is why none of these 3 "traditions" argue for Old Testament prophetical succession.


How do Christians tell whether they lack or have the "power" promised in Acts 1:8?

In John 15 Jesus declares that He is the true vine and that the Father is the vine dresser.  Professing believers are the branches in the vine and they are there to produce fruit abundantly. The vine dresser (God) works to keep the vine healthy and increase fruit production by variously removing fruitless branches and pruning those that have some production so that it will increase.

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit." - John 15:1-2

Jesus then makes clear that the branch is helpless to produce fruit without maintaining vital connection to the vine, hence those who are cut off and burned have been without vital connection.

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. - John 15:4-6

God the Father (vine dresser) is glorified when the branches bear much fruit and the bearing of much fruit by the branches demonstrates that they are disciples of Jesus.

By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. - John 15:8

Jesus has linked fruit bearing with abiding and now he links abiding with obedience to His commands, specifically the command to love one another as He has loved us.

If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. - John 15:10

“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.
These things I command you, so that you will love one another. -John 15:12-17

He then contrasts the hatred of the world with the love of God (vs. 18-25) and culminates the chapter with a promise that he would send them, from the Father, the Helper, the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father.  This Spirit proceeds from the Father (vine dresser), bears witness about Jesus (vine), and enables disciples (fruit bearing branches) to bear witness about Jesus also.

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. - John 15:26-27

So the Spirit proceeding from God (vine dresser) is given to the branches (disciples) through the vine (Jesus) so that much fruit (love) will be produced and remain.  If the word picture may be pushed this far then the Holy Spirit is the sap that produces the love of God in the disciple through Jesus.
John further cements this in his first epistle, particularly in 1 John 4:7-21:

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

The witness that Christians must give to the world by the power of the Holy Spirit is love for one another.  Not love as the world loves (love for friends but not enemies) but love as God in Christ has loved us:  While we were yet sinners Christ died for us.
The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Galatians 5:22-23).  This singular fruit, described in it's many aspects, is not the power of the Holy Spirit itself but it is what the power of the Holy Spirit produces in the life of someone to whom that Spirit has been given.  Just as a branch cannot produce fruit unless it is connected to the vine (it has no power within itself), so also no human person, no matter how pious, determined or well-meaning they may be, can produce these qualities within themselves apart from the Spirit...the power does not lie within them.  This is the meaning of "Apart from me you can do nothing."
Power simply means "strength, ability".  In 1 Corinthians 2 Paul says that his preaching was not with eloquent words, etc. (in other words not his power or ability) but the ability of the Spirit.  "When I am weak, then I am strong."  Paul did not possess within his great learning and eloquence the power to proclaim the gospel to the saving of souls.  The Gospel IS the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16) and he announced it as such.
So when Jesus tells the disciples that they would receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon them He is telling them that they will receive the ability to do what they possess no ability within themselves to do.  The criteria then, for the believer to discern whether they have received the power of the Spirit is:

Confession (abiding over time) that Jesus is the Son of God
Love for others that is not self-generated and temporary but imparted and abiding

Practices to increase this power are an ever deepening abiding in Christ and yielding to the pruning activities of the Father.  We must examine ourselves daily to see whether we are in the faith.  Apart from Jesus Christ, the Son of God, we can do nothing.


I don't believe we know (yet).

As soon as possible?

President Nelson says:

  And some said it couldn’t be done, so why even try?

  ...

  It was the Savior Himself who said, “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

So that's it: The Lord decreed that His Church will be called by that name in the last days, so it will happen, but the revelation from last conference does not seem to indicate a timeline. We will have to wait and see (and do our part as members).

It's likely not just mormon.org that will have to change, but probably Mormon Newsroom, lds.org, and several other significant Church-owned assets.


Is Sung Matins a form of mass?
No, but Matins does form part of the Divine Office
Matins is the first official set of prayers that all religious and all ordained members (priests and deacons) of the Church must recite each day. Matins is followed by Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers and Compline. Some communities prefer to recite or sing (Chant) their Matins in the evening. In this case it is called Vigils instead of Matins. Many priests today are exempt from praying the smaller hours or Terce, Sext and None. Prime in our modern times has almost vanished all together.

The custom of reciting prayers at certain hours of the day or night goes back to the Jews, from whom Christians have borrowed it. In the Psalms we find expressions like: "I will meditate on thee in the morning"; "I rose at midnight to give praise to thee"; "Evening and morning, and at noon I will speak and declare: and he shall hear my voice"; "Seven times a day I have given praise to thee"; etc. (Cf. "Jewish Encyclopedia", X, 164-171, s.v. "Prayer"). The Apostles observed the Jewish custom of praying at midnight, terce, sext, none (Acts 10:3, 9; 16:25; etc.). The Christian prayer of that time consisted of almost the same elements as the Jewish: recital or chanting of psalms, reading of the Old Testament, to which was soon added reading of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, and at times canticles composed or improvised by the assistants. "Gloria in excelsis" and the "Te decet laus" are apparently vestiges of these primitive inspirations. At present the elements composing the Divine Office seem more numerous, but they are derived, by gradual changes, from the primitive elements. As appears from the texts of Acts cited above, the first Christians preserved the custom of going to the Temple at the hour of prayer. But they had also their reunions or synaxes in private houses for the celebration of the Eucharist and for sermons and exhortations. But the Eucharistic synaxis soon entailed other prayers; the custom of going to the Temple disappeared; and the abuses of the Judaizing party forced the Christians to separate more distinctly from the Jews and their practices and worship. Thenceforth the Christian liturgy rarely borrowed from Judaism.
The development of the Divine Office was probably in the following manner: The celebration of the Eucharist was preceded by the recital of the psalms and the reading of the Old and New Testaments. This was called the Mass of the Catechumens, which has been preserved almost in its original form. Probably this part of the Mass was the first form of the Divine Office, and, in the beginning, the vigils and the Eucharistic Synaxis were one. When the Eucharistic service was not celebrated, the prayer was limited to the recital or chanting of the psalms and the reading of the Scriptures. The vigils thus separated from the Mass became an independent office. During the first period the only office celebrated in public was the Eucharistic Synaxis with vigils preceding it, but forming with it one whole. In this hypothesis the Mass of the Catechumens would be the original kernel of the whole Divine Office. The Eucharistic Synaxis beginning at eventide did not terminate till dawn. The vigils, independently of the Eucharistic service, were divided naturally into three parts; the beginning of the vigils, or the evening Office; the vigils properly so called; and the end of the vigils or the matutinal Office. For when the vigils were as yet the only Office and were celebrated but rarely, they were continued during the greater part of the night. Thus the Office which we have called the Office of evening or Vespers, that of midnight, and that of the morning, called Matins first and then Lauds, were originally but one Office. If this hypothesis be rejected, it must be admitted that at first there was only one public office, Vigils. The service of eventide, Vespers, and that of the morning, Matins or Lauds, were gradually separated from it. During the day, Terce, Sext, and None, customary hours of private prayers both with the Jews and the early Christians, became later ecclesiastical Hours, just like Vespers or Lauds. Compline appears as a repetition of Vespers, first in the fourth century (see Compline). Prime is the only hour the precise origin and date of which are known--at the end of the fourth century (see Prime).
At all events, during the course of the fifth century, the Office was composed, as today, of a nocturnal Office, viz. Vigils - afterwards Matins - and the seven Offices of the day, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline. In the "Apostolic Constitutions" we read: "Precationes facite mane, hora tertia, sexta, nona, et vespere atque galli cantu" (VIII, iv). Such were the hours as they then existed. There are omitted only Prime and Complin, which originated not earlier than the end of the fourth century, and the use of which spread only gradually. The elements of which these hours are composed were at first few in number, identical with those of the Mass of the Catechumens, psalms recited or chanted uninterruptedly (tract) or by two choirs (antiphons) or by a cantor alternating with the choir (responses and versicles); lessons (readings from the Old and New Testaments, the origin of the capitula), and prayers (see Breviary). - Divine Office


In 1 Corinthians 8:5, what do the "many gods and many lords" refer to?

There are actually two similar ways that this passage is interpreted:

That the "gods" and "lords" are the completely imaginary gods of the heathen
That the "gods" and "lords" are supernatural beings that do exist, but are not divine

Many commentators don't attempt to draw a distinction between these two, like George Leo Haydock (a Roman Catholic), who writes that these "gods" and "lords" are simply "reputed for such among the heathens."

Adam Clarke, a Methodist, prefers the first view.  He writes:

  There are many images that are supposed to be representations of divinities: but these divinities are nothing, the figments of mere fancy; and these images have no corresponding realities.

On the other hand, Charles Hodge, a Reformed Protestant, prefers the second view, in light of passages like 1 Corinthians 10:20:

  I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. (ESV)

Either way, however, we can say with Hodge that Paul's purpose here is to say that

the heathen gods, as the heathen understand them, do not exist, and
the supernatural beings (angels and demons) that do exist and are called "gods" are not divine at all: they are creatures, created by the one true God.


Is the ASV Bible version Public Domain in Canada? Any other Bibles Public domain in Canada?

In Canada, the copyright for a work usually expires 50 years after the death of the creator, at the end of the relevant calendar year.
https://copyright.ubc.ca/public-domain/#:~:text=In%20Canada%2C%20the%20copyright%20for,Domain%20on%201%20January%202052.
The ASV was originally published in 1901 and had its copyright renewed in 1929, giving it copyright end of life as 1979.  So looks like it is in Public Domain now.


What is the source of this quote from St. Augustine?

The problem with references to church fathers is that they get paraphrased from time to time. Sometimes you will just have to look in Augustine for similar terminology and see if you can find the concept alluded to.

That being said this seems the closest citation I've encountered to how you worded it, in Augustine's Marriage and Virginity from the Works of Saint Augustine (Vol. 9 Part 1):

  You will not be going to the one who did not dare to raise his eyes to heaven because of the burden of his sinfulness, but to the one who came down from heaven under the weight of his love

Or an alternate rendering:

  Thou shall not go unto him, who dared not by reason of the burden of unrighteousness to lift up his eyes to heaven, but unto Him, Who by the weight of charity came down from heaven

You may see the text here.

In general it seems that Augustine in several of his writings associates love with weight:

  For the specific gravity of bodies is, as it were, their love, whether
  they are carried downwards by their weight, or upwards by their
  levity. For the body is borne by its gravity, as the spirit by love,
  wherever it is borne.
  (City of God 11.28)

There is also a prolonged quote in his book Confessions book 13 chapter 9 where at one point he talks about being carried upward to God by such a weight:

  My weight is my love. By it I am carried wherever I am carried. By thy gift, we are enkindled and are carried upward. We burn inwardly and move forward. We ascend thy ladder which is in our heart, and we sing a canticle of degrees...

An attempt to explain this Augustinian concept of weight in simple terms may be found here. For a scholarly source perhaps see "‘Pondus meum amor meus’: The Weight-Metaphor in St. Augustine’s Early Philosophy" which I saw cited in footnotes in a few scholarly works that turned up from searches.

I hope this is what you were looking for.


What's the source of "I can only give what I have"?

I don't know the original source, but if it is based on Scripture (which certainly seems plausible), here are some passages which may relate:

  When [the beggar] saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he began asking to receive alms. ...But Peter said, “I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene—walk!” - Acts 3:3-6

Peter and John had a command from Jesus to give to anyone who asked of them - but they couldn't give the beggar alms because they didn't have any money.  (NOTE: Not having it and thinking you can't afford it are two different things.)

  And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, ...various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? ...All do not speak with tongues, do they? - 1 Corinthians 12:28-30

We are only capable of moving in the "Spiritual Gifts" which we have been given.

  You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. - Matthew 12:34-35

We are only capable of verbalizing that which we already have in our heart.

  For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so - Romans 8:6-7

The mind set on the Spirit has peace.  The fruit of walking by the Spirit is peace.  The result is making peace through peaceful means.  Alternatively, if you set your mind on the flesh, you will experience death instead of peace, and the result will be the opposite of peace.  In other words, if you have peace you can impart peace, but if you don't have peace, you can't impart peace.


Does intercession of the saints presuppose that saints are omniscient?

See St. Thomas Aquinas answer to the question "Whether separated souls know that takes place on earth?" (Summa Theologica I q. 89 a. 8), who writes that St. Gregory the Great's opinion "seems to be the more probable one", namely

  that the souls of the blessed who see God do know all that passes here [on earth]. For they are equal to the angels, of whom Augustine says that they know what happens among those living on earth.

Viz., since the angels know what happens on earth, and the souls who behold the beatific vision are like angels, then it seems that those souls also know what happens on earth, which would include intercessory prayers.


According to Jehovah's Witnesses, how many of the 144 000 have already been identified?

Anointing of the 144,000 began at Pentecost, 33c.e., and continues down through our day.

The scriptures show the angels are holding back the final judgement against wicked humankind until 144,000 individuals from earth are sealed. (Rev 7:1-4).

Being Anointed is not the same as being sealed.

Anointing is the invitation.

Sealing is the stamp of approval from God that the individual proved faithful to his calling.

Those who have been anointed through history have had God bear witness that they are invited to join Jesus to rule as kings & priests over the earth.  God does the final sealing if someone anointed proves faithful to their calling. Since only God knows who has been faithful it is impossible to determine what percentage has been filled.

(That being said, Jehovah's witnesses are convinced we are living deep in the last days. It would only make sense the number is very close to being filled)

Regarding your question about records kept, every year at the Memorial observance of Christs death (Nisan 14), Jehovah's witnesses in every country around the world gather together to reflect on Jesus sacrifice and obey his command to "keep doing this in remembrance of me".  Bread and wine is passed, But only those anointed actually partake. Attendants globally record the number of those who partake, and those numbers are published annually in the yearbook of Jehovah's witnesses.

(FYI, in 2016, 20,085,142 attendented the Memorial observance globally, while only 18,013 partook).

For further information on this subject please follow the links below:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2016045#h=13:171-13:663

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/2013844/0/0


This is all about sex, of course -- in particular, the question of purpose: what it's for.

I will preface my answer by saying that contraception is not directly addressed in the Bible, so my answer is going to be primarily theological rather than biblical.

Catholicism says that sexual acts, to be moral, must have two purposes: that of expressing and confirming the love between the couple and that of procreation -- conceiving children.  Contraception prevents the procreative purpose, so the sexual act exists solely for the former purpose.  According to the Catholic understanding of the purpose of sex, therefore, it is immoral.  Similar arguments can be made about homosexuality, masturbation, oral sex, etc etc.  Note that before the publication of Humanae Vitae (the encyclical that effectively bans artificial contraception) the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control actually had a majority report in favour of revoking the ban.

As for Protestants, the case is (inevitably) rather complicated.  Some Protestants do indeed see contraception as inherently sinful.  They say that planning families is for God to do, so contraception is obstructing God's purpose, and often also echo the Catholic position about the purpose of sex.

Many Protestants, however, believe it possible to separate the two purposes of sex (love and reproduction) -- so it is possible to have a non-sinful sexual relationship without the prospect of children.  For instance, the 1662 Anglican Book of Common Prayer has specific provision for couples who are beyond child-bearing age.  If a sexual relationship can exist without the possibility of reproduction, and if you believe that God's will can be exercised through the working of human free will, it's not hard to believe that contraception can be non-sinful.


Do Jehovah's witnesses believe that Jesus appeared in the Old Testament?

Beyond the general belief related to the Archangel Michael, Jehovah's Witnesses do believe that Jesus makes an appearance in the Old Testament.

Under the article "The Word" in the JW reference work Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II page 1203 it says this: "In a similar way God’s firstborn Son doubtless served as the Mouth, or Spokesman, for his Father, the great King of Eternity. He was God’s Word of communication for conveying information and instructions to the Creator’s other spirit and human sons. It is reasonable to think that prior to Jesus’ coming to earth, on many of the occasions when God communicated with humans he used the Word as his angelic mouthpiece."

Citing a number of scriptural citations, the article assumes that Jesus was the angel that: stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaac; spoke to Moses through the burning bush; may have been the angel that was charged with leading the nation of Israel through the wilderness. In all except the latter case, the scriptures referenced specifically mention "Jehovah's angel."

So the Jehovah's Witnesses belief that Jesus appears in the OT is primarily based on Jesus identity as "The Word" as well as the OT wording "Jehovah's angel."