Are there any documented cases of paranormal activity preceding or during an exorcism?
Generally speaking such questions are more interesting for those who are somewhat curious in such matters than more so on an academic level. At least this is my own take on it.
That said, it is not in the interest of those who have suffered directly from the hands of the Demon through what we call a demonic possession. Victims of such events have the right to live normal lives. Some information about their past is truly no one’s business.
Only in very rare cases does the Catholic Church reveal information about what has transpired just before or during an official exorcism.
A few of the cases that may be permitted are historically known as such:

Exorcists are allowed explain the details to the bishop of the local diocese.
Exorcists may divulge what has happened during exorcisms during the process of beatification or canonization of a particular individual.
Exorcists May be required by law to give testimony in civil court during legal proceedings.
Other cases may exist.

The local Ordinary (bishop) is the only person that may accord permission to a priest of his diocese to perform an exorcism. As such an exorcist is answerable to the bishop of that diocese and no one else.

Can. 1172 §1. No one can perform exorcisms legitimately upon the possessed unless he has obtained special and express permission from the local ordinary.
§2. The local ordinary is to give this permission only to a presbyter who has piety, knowledge, prudence, and integrity of life.

However it does happen that Exorcists Priests are required to shed light on such proceedings in court, as in the case of Anneliese Michel. Sadly not all exorcisms are successful as this one points out.

Anna Elisabeth "Anneliese" Michel (21 September 1952 – 1 July 1976) was a German woman who underwent 67 Catholic exorcism rites during the year before her death. She died of malnutrition, for which her parents and priest were convicted of negligent homicide. She was diagnosed with epileptic psychosis (temporal lobe epilepsy) and had a history of psychiatric treatment, which was overall not effective.
When Michel was 16, she experienced a seizure and was diagnosed with psychosis caused by temporal lobe epilepsy. Shortly thereafter, she was diagnosed with depression and was treated by a psychiatric hospital. By the time she was 20, she had become intolerant of various religious objects and began to hear voices. Her condition worsened despite medication, and she became suicidal, also displaying other symptoms, for which she took medication as well. After taking psychiatric medications for five years failed to improve her symptoms, Michel and her family became convinced she was possessed by a demon. As a result, her family appealed to the Catholic Church for an exorcism. While rejected at first, after much hesitation, two priests got permission from the local bishop in 1975.3 The priests began conducting exorcism sessions and the parents stopped consulting doctors. Anneliese Michel stopped eating food and died due to malnourishment and dehydration after 67 exorcism sessions. Michel's parents and the two Roman Catholic priests were found guilty of negligent homicide and were sentenced to six months in jail (reduced to three years of probation), as well as a fine.
Several films are based on her story, among them the 2005 film The Exorcism of Emily Rose and the award-winning 2006 film Requiem, as well as the 2011 film Anneliese: The Exorcist Tapes.
Exorcism
The priest Ernst Alt, whom they met, on seeing her declared that "she didn't look like an epileptic" and that he did not see her having seizures.[12] Alt believed she was suffering from demonic possession and urged the local bishop to allow an exorcism. In a letter to Alt in 1975, Michel wrote, "I am nothing; everything about me is vanity. What should I do? I have to improve. You pray for me" and also once told him, "I want to suffer for other people...but this is so cruel". In September of the same year, Bishop Josef Stangl granted the priest Arnold Renz permission to exorcise according to the Rituale Romanum of 1614, but ordered total secrecy. Renz performed the first session on 24 September. Michel began talking increasingly about "dying to atone for the wayward youth of the day and the apostate priests of the modern church", and she refused to eat towards the end. At this point, her parents stopped consulting doctors on her request and relied solely on the exorcism rites. 67 exorcism sessions; one or two each week, lasting up to four hours, were performed over about ten months in 1975–1976.
Prosecution
After an investigation, the state prosecutor maintained that Michel's death could have been prevented even one week before she died.
In 1976, the state charged Michel's parents and priests Ernst Alt and Arnold Renz with negligent homicide. The parents were defended by Erich Schmidt-Leichner; their lawyers were sponsored by the Church. The state recommended that no involved parties be jailed; instead, the recommended sentence for the priests was a fine, while the prosecution concluded that the parents should be exempt from punishment as they had "suffered enough", which is a criterion in German penal law, cf. § 60 StGB.
Trial
The trial started on 30 March 1978 in the district court and drew intense interest. Before the court, doctors testified that Michel was not possessed, stating that this was a psychological effect because of her strict religious upbringing and her epilepsy, but the doctor Richard Roth, who was asked for medical help by Alt, allegedly told her during the exorcism, that "there is no injection against the devil, Anneliese". Schmidt-Leichner said that the exorcism was legal and that the German constitution protected citizens in the unrestricted exercise of their religious beliefs. The defense played tapes recorded at the exorcism sessions, sometimes featuring what was claimed to be "demons arguing", to assert their claim that Michel was possessed. Both priests said the demons identified themselves as Lucifer, Cain, Judas Iscariot, Belial, Legion, Hitler and Nero among others; they further said that she was finally freed because of the exorcism just before her death.
The bishop said that he was not aware of her alarming health condition when he approved of the exorcism and did not testify. The accused were found guilty of manslaughter resulting from negligence and were sentenced to six months in jail (which was later suspended) and three years of probation.[18] It was a far lighter sentence than anticipated,7 but it was more than requested by the defense, who had asked that the priests only be fined and that the parents be found guilty but not punished. The Church approving such an old fashioned exorcism rite drew public and media attention. According to John M. Duffey, the case was a misidentification of mental illness.

Anneliese Michel
If one desires document cases of paranormal activity, allow my to suggest three sources. One is of demonic activity, one is in the case of an exorcism and one is about thee most famous exorcist known. All three are saints.
Pope Gregory the Great (540-March 12, 604) reveals an interest story in his Dialogues about demonic manifestations. The Dialogues are a collection of four books of miracles, signs, wonders, and healings done by the holy men, mostly monastic, of sixth-century Italy, with the second book entirely devoted to a popular life of Saint Benedict.
Strictly speaking this example is not of an exorcism, but given as an historical note.

Chapter Seven: of Andrew, Bishop of Funda.
But as I am thus busied in telling the acts of holy men, there cometh to my mind what God of his great mercy did for Andrew, Bishop of the city of Funda: which notable story I wish all so to read, that they which have dedicated themselves to continency, presume not in any wise to dwell amongst women: lest in time of temptation their soul perish the sooner, by having that at hand which is unlawfully desired. |114 Neither is the story which I report either doubtful or uncertain: for so many witnesses to justify the truth thereof may be produced, as there be almost inhabitants in that city. When, therefore, this venerable man Andrew lived virtuously, and with diligent care, answerable to his priestly function, led a continent and chaste life: he kept in his house a certain Nun, which also had remained with him before he was preferred to that dignity; for assuring himself of his own continency, and nothing doubting of hers, content he was to let her remain still in his house: which thing the devil took as an occasion to assault him with temptation: and so he began to present before the eyes of his mind the form of that woman, that by such allurements he might have his heart wholly possessed with ungodly thoughts. In the meantime it so fell out, that a Jew was travelling from Campania to Rome, who drawing nigh to the city of Funda, was so overtaken with night, that he knew not where to lodge, and therefore, not finding any better commodity, he retired himself into a temple of the god Apollo, which was not far off, meaning there to repose himself: but much afraid he was, to lie in so wicked and sacrilegious a place: for which cause, though he believed not what we teach of the cross, yet he thought good to arm himself with that sign. About midnight, as he lay waking for very fear of that forlorn and desert temple, and looked suddenly about him, he espied a troop of wicked spirits walking before another of greater authority: who coming in took up his place, and sat down in the body of the temple: where he began diligently to inquire of those his servants, how they had bestowed their time, and what villany they had done in the world. And when each one told what he had done against God's servants, out stepped a companion, and made solemn relation, with a notable temptation of carnality he had put into the mind of |115 Bishop Andrew, concerning that Nun which he kept in his palace: whereunto whiles the master devil gave attentive ear, considering with himself what a notable gain it would be, to undo the soul of so holy a man; the former devil went on with his tale, and said that the very evening before he assaulted him so mightily, that he drew him so far forth, that he did merrily strike the said Nun upon the back. The wicked serpent and old enemy of mankind hearing this joyful news, exhorted his agent with very fair words, diligently to labour about the effecting of that thing which he had already so well begun, that for so notable a piece of service, as the contriving the spiritual ruin of that virtuous Prelate, he might have a singular reward above all his fellows. The Jew who all this while lay waking, and heard all that which they said, was wonderfully afraid: at length the master devil sent some of his followers to see who he was, and how he durst presume to lodge in their temple. When they were come, and had narrowly viewed him, they found that he was marked with the mystical sign of the cross: whereat they marvelled and said: "Alas, alas, here is an empty vessel, but yet it is signed": which news the rest of those hell-hounds hearing, suddenly vanished away. The Jew, who had seen all that which then passed among them, presently rose up, and in all haste sped himself to the Bishop, whom he found in the church: and taking him aside, he demanded with what temptation he was troubled: but shame so prevailed, that by no means he would confess the truth. Then the Jew replied and told him, that he had cast his eyes wickedly upon such a one of God's servants; but the Bishop would not acknowledge that there was any such thing. "Why do you deny it," quoth the Jew, "for is it not so true that yesternight you were brought so far by sinful temptation, that you did strike her on the back?" When the Bishop, by these particulars, |116 perceived that the matter was broken forth, he humbly confessed what before he obstinately denied. Then the Jew, moved with compassion to his soul, and tendering his credit, told him by what means he came to the knowledge thereof, and what he heard of him in that assembly of wicked spirits. The Bishop, hearing this, fell prostrate upon the earth, and betook himself to his prayers: and straight after he discharged out of his house, not only that Nun, but all other women that attended upon her. And not long after, he converted the temple of Apollo into an oratory of the blessed Apostle, St. Andrew: and never after was he troubled with that carnal temptation: and the Jew, by whose means he was so mercifully preserved, he brought to everlasting salvation: for he baptized him, and made him a member of holy Church, And thus, by God's providence, the Jew having care of the spiritual health of another, attained also himself the singular benefit of the same: and almighty God by the same means brought one to embrace piety and virtue, by which he preserved another in an holy and godly life.

PETER. This history which I have heard worketh in me fear, and yet withal giveth me cause of hope.

GREGORY. That is not amiss, Peter, for necessary it is that we should both trust upon the mercy of God, and yet, considering our own frailty, be afraid: for we have now heard how one of the cedars of Paradise was shaken, and yet not blown down, to the end that, knowing our own infirmity, we should both tremble at his shaking, and yet conceive hope, in that he was not overthrown, but kept his standing still.

The next example, is  I will bring up is about St. Mary of Jesus Crucified. This saint was canonized on May 17, 2017 and was actually possessed by the demon on two separate occasions. The last one was for forty days.
Amongst the phenomenon that that exorcists (2) noted down in her process of canonization was that the day she was freed from the Demon was the the body of the saint seemed to be all burnt up and smelled like burned sulphur. She eventually came out of the successful exorcisms with no injuries whatsoever.
This can be read in the French edition on the life of Mary of Jesus Crucified (Vie de Soeur Marie de Jesus Crucifie (1846-1878) by P. Estrange). Of interest is chapter VII (pages 105-123). Not sure a full edition exists in English. An abridged edition will lack the details of the original works.
In conversion between the exorcist(s) and the Demons, the Devils refused to use the names of Jesus or Mary. The referenced the pope an and bishops as the ”White Robe” and “Purple Robes”. Jesus was often referred to as ”The Chief”. Mary was referred to as ”The Blue Robe”. (These are the polite phrases employed by the Grappin!
Because of the sanctity of this saint, Our Lord did not allow the Demons to use the body of St. Mary of Jesus to make sexually suggestive acts because she had never sinned in this domain.
The final example concerns the Cure d’Ars also known as St. John Vianney. St. John Vianney is thee most famous Catholic Exorcist that the Church has ever seen.
Monsignor François Trochu, the postulated of the cause of beatification and canonization of Jean Vianney dedicates a whole chaper (XI) to The Curé of Ars and the Devil (pages 222- 243) mentions numerous things the Demons’ paranormal activity.
They include that following:

Excrement smeared on religious paintings.
Noises of various forms and types.
Sensations of mice or rats running over one’s body.
Satan’s  manifesto to the saint: ”Magister Caput” (The Master or The Chief)
Devil refuses to call Jesus by his name or use the name of Mary or acknowledge the authority of a bishop. Thus stated, the Evil One employs phrases like The Boss for Jesus; The Blue Robe for Mary, the Mother of Jesus; The Purple Robe for the bishop! St. John Vianney referred to the Devil as the  Grappin! The Devil not wanting to be made fun of, called the Cure d’Ars the *Potato Eater because of his continuous fasting and eating only a potato only, every 3 or 4 days.

The Cure d’Ars was so well known in this subject of expertise that he was allowed for life to perform exorcisms at Ars, with the bishops permission at his own discretion.

At one point the Devil burned John Vianney’s bed. The Story of the Cure of Ars How the Devil hates the conversion of sinners and the Cure of Ars knew this.


What is the biblical basis for the claim that abortion is immoral?

One of the most important passages regarding this is found in the Mosaic Law which God gave to Israel to be used in governance:

  "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her
  children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall
  surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he
  shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you
  shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,
  foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
  Exodus 21:22-25 ESV

So, if the child (and this is what it is called) is born but is unharmed, then the man is guilty of assault, which did not carry the death penalty.  However, if the child IS harmed, then the man's punishment should be the same as that which was suffered by the child while still in the womb.

From a biblical perspective, then, the taking of the life of an unborn child was considered murder and would receive capital punishment, accordingly.

In addition to this, John the Baptist responded the presence of God Incarnate when Mary visited his mother Elizabeth while both of them were still in the womb:

  In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to
  a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted
  Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby
  leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,
  and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and
  blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that
  the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of
  your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. And
  blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what
  was spoken to her from the Lord."  Luke 1:39-45 ESV

Before this, the angel told Zechariah the his son John (the Baptist) would be filled with the Holy Spirit even while in the womb of Elizabeth.

  for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or
  strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from
  his mother’s womb.  Luke 1:15 ESV

Psalm 139 also speaks of life in the womb:

  For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. Psalm 139:13 ESV

Not only does life exist in the womb, but God is active in the creation of that life.

Summary

So, God gave Israel instructions to punish anyone who killed or harmed an unborn child, and the Bible strongly supports the position that life begins at conception and is in the image of God at that point, with a body, soul, and spirit.


How could the person in Luke 9:49 cast out demons without Jesus' mandate?

DEV--Don's Edited Version

The answer to your question comes from Jesus, and also from the words of John in the verse you quoted.

John's words: John assumed that because the unnamed exorcist was not in the inner circle of the Twelve that his exorcism could not therefore be on the "up and up."
Jesus' words:  In essence, Jesus told John (and all the other disciples who were present during the "Who is the greatest?" incident),

  "Hey [he didn't say 'Hey'], if that person you speak of exorcised demons in my name successfully, then he must be one of us, even though he is not a member of this particular group of twelve disciples."

I think many Christians (and I count myself among that number) assume that the only disciples who performed miracles in Jesus' name were those whom Jesus sent out (or commissioned, as in Mark 6:7, Luke 9:2 and 10:1) to precede him and pave the way for him by preaching the kingdom and by performing miracles such as exorcisms and perhaps other works of healing. This assumption may not be warranted, particularly in light of Jesus' words; namely,

  "'Do not hinder him [i.e., the man who cast out demons], for he who is not against you is for you'" (Luke 9:50)

In other words, Jesus could very well have commissioned this man on a one-to-one basis. Perhaps for whatever reason this man could not "follow along with"--as John put it--the Twelve or some other recognizable group of Jesus-followers (e.g., "the 70" in Luke 10:1), so Jesus permitted him to heal people in Jesus' name.

I think it unwise to assume, for example, that this man was a nonbeliever (similar to Simon Magus in Acts 8:9 ff.) and a "Lone Ranger" who was performing miracles without Jesus' sanction. Jesus could very well have sanctioned him to perform these miracles. Moreover, as I've suggested above, Jesus seems to have assumed that since the man performed miracles "in Jesus' name," that he was indeed "one of us"--meaning the Twelve and all his other disciples, even if John did not recognize him as such.

In conclusion, there is no reason of which I am aware why this "lone wolf exorcist" was any more in need of the sending authority of the Holy Spirit than were the Twelve. After all, the Holy Spirit did not commission the Twelve (and others); Jesus did. On the authority of Jesus, the Twelve and this unnamed disciple were given the ability to heal. The power to do so undoubtedly came from the Holy Spirit, but the disciples were not even aware at this point that there was such a person called the "Holy Spirit." That awareness came later (e.g., in John 15).

Additional Thought/Addendum

Jesus had a way of surprising--shocking even--his closest followers and disciples. Example par excellence: Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well of Sychar, in John 4:4-45. This woman had a number of strikes against her, at least from the disciples' perspective:

  She was a she. In other words, she was a second- or third-class citizen, as were most women in those days (with a few exceptions, to be sure).
  She was a member of a despised people group, the Samaritans, whom the Jews considered to be a bunch of religious half-breeds--which was partly true, since after the divided kingdom and the subsequent exile of Israeli Jews, Samaria was "seeded" with the importation of foreign colonists who brought their own syncretistic views of religion to Palestine. Consider Wayne Brindle's comments:

  "The development of Samaritanism and its alienation from Judaism was a process that began with the division of the kingdom of Israel, and continued through successive incidents which promoted antagonism, including the importation of foreign colonists into Samaria by Assyria, the rejection of the new Samaritan community by the Jews, the building of a rival temple on Mt. Gerizim, the political and religious opportunism of the Samaritans, and the destruction of both the Samaritan temple and their capital of Shechem by John Hyrcanus during the second century B:C. The Samaritan religion at
  the time of Jesus had become Mosaic and quasi-Sadducean, but strongly anti-Jewish. Jesus recognized their heathen origins and the falsity of their religious claims."

  She was a woman of questionable morals. (Today, a bigot would probably label her a slut!)
  She was alone with Jesus and conversed with him in a give-and-take discussion, which could have lasted an hour or more. Pious Jewish men simply did not talk with women in public, let alone have a religious confabulation. Unthinkable!
  She gave Jesus a drink of water from her own bucket, which to the Jews of Jesus' day would be unthinkable (just think of the ritual uncleanness of it all!).

Nevertheless, Jesus, John tells us, "had to pass through Samaria" (4:4). Why? Because a Samaritan woman had a divine appointment with her soon-to-be Savior and Lord! Jesus could have bypassed Samaria as he travelled from northern Israel to southern Israel, as did his fellow Jews, but he was never one to depart from the path his Father had chosen for him. Furthermore, his Father and he shared a love for outcasts, outsiders, the foreigner, the stranger, and the alien. Why else would the Law of Moses contain so many instructions regarding the humane treatment of non-Hebrews with whom the Israelis interacted.

My point is this: John--and perhaps the other disciples--did not realize at the time he registered his opinion about the "interloper" who was casting out demons in Jesus' name
that Jesus' compassionate heart had room for outsiders and interlopers, such as the Samaritan woman at the well, and also the Syro-Phoenician woman whose daughter was plagued by a demon:

  "Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold , a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying , 'Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.' But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying , 'Send her away; for she crieth after us.' But he answered and said, 'I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' Then came she and worshipped him, saying, 'Lord, help me.' But he answered and said, 'It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.' And she said, 'Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.' Then Jesus answered and said unto her, 'O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt.' And her daughter was made whole from that very hour'" (Matthew 15:21-28 KJV).

In conclusion, the people to whom Jesus reached out may not have fit the mold of "disciple material" which was in John's (and others') mind, but then Jesus was not big on molds. Jesus was more interested in people's hearts, and he was an equal opportunity Savior, Healer, and Lord, and not just to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel."


Does the New Testament override the Old Testament?

You can find your answer a few verses earlier in the same chapter:

  Matthew 5:17-18

  17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

  18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The Law of Moses was given to point people's minds forward to Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah-to-come.  Once he did come, the Law's purpose was fulfilled, and it became obsolete.  It was not destroyed, but superseded by a higher law, the law of the Gospel.


Why can't God persuade all mankind, in their free-will, to believe in him?

I think the verses you quote are actually the answer:

  What may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:19,20).

In other words, God already made it obvious in nature that He exists, so why would He waste His time jumping through hoops to prove it to people who simply despise the idea of His existence because they want to live without moral law and are simply recalcitrant in their "unbelief"?   Francis Bacon says concerning the idea contained in these verses (The two books of Francis Bacon: of the proficiency and advancement of learning, Divine and Human, Page 86):

  And as concerning divine philosophy or natural theology, it is that knowledge or rudiment knowledge concerning God, which may be obtained by the contemplation of His creatures; which knowledge may be truly termed divine in respect of the object, and natural in respect of the light. The bounds of this knowledge are, that it sufficeth to convince atheism [of God's existence], but not to inform religion: and therefore there was never miracle wrought by God to convert an atheist, because the light of nature might have led him to confess a God: but miracles have been wrought to convert idolaters and the superstitious, because no light of nature extendeth to declare the will and true worship of God.

Furthermore, as we consider further the quoted verses, we find that they already know that God exists, for "God is manifest in them."  There is no such thing as an atheist, only an anti-theist.  Verse 21 shows it even more:

  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:21 KJV)

So they knew God, but they rejected Him.  Further, it says in verse 25 "They exchanged the truth about God for a lie" (NIV) and one cannot exchange what one never had.

And again, in verse 28 "Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind," (NIV) so it becomes clear, again, that there are no atheists, only anti-theists.  They had the knowledge of God's existence, but did not consider it worthwhile to retain, and so they threw it away.  Should God now jump through whatever hoops they demand in order to convince them that the knowledge they already have is worthwhile to retain?


The person who appears to Daniel in chapter 10 is an unnamed angel - a messenger not Jesus.   Michael the Archangel,(Good name there!) is mentioned as assisting him, and while angels attended to Jesus, they would not have been needed to tip the scales in a fight. Jesus would have only needed to speak a word, and the demons would be bound.

Daniel is aware that he must be in prayer and fasting, but the connection to Michael is unknown.

What we do know, from verses 12 - 14 is this:

  Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come.

Since we know that the Devil is "the prince of the power of the air," and that there "powers and principalities" in the demonic realm.  Many have suggested that each ethne (a people group or nation-state) has their corresponding demonic prince.  If that is the case, then what delays Michael is this demonic ruler of the Persian peoples, preventing the prophet from receiving the message.

We know this can't be a human detaining the angel, because either an angel or a demon could easily overpower a human - clearly there is some demonic force preventing the angelos from delivering his message.

So, was it needed for Daniel to be fasting the whole time?  In so far as Daniel's praying and fasting was a perquisite for the dream, we can safely say No, because:

a. There is no evidence that human prayer affects angels in any way (Angels are merely messengers of God)
b. There is no evidence that God requires prayers to work some magic - to assume otherwise is to make God contingent upon us. While it may get God's attention, it does not compel him to act or in any way affect his ability to effect what he desired. Having gotten his attention, God dispatches Michael to clear the impasse
c. There is evidence that demons are subdued in the power of Jesus's name, but not that we are responsible. (In Acts 19:15, the demons admit they know Jesus, and know of Paul - but they are completely baffled by some people who think they can control the demons speaking.)

Why then was Daniel was it important for Daniel to attend to prayer and fasting then?

The simple answer is, it was preparing Daniel for the message, even as Michael is being detained.


What is the basis for the belief among some LDS/Mormons that children in their pre-mortal existence choose who their parents will be?

There is no official LDS doctrine on the subject, and the idea that everyone gets to choose where they want to end up makes no sense anyway.  Obviously, some people get born into better circumstances than others, and with people being more likely to want to choose better circumstances than worse ones, clearly there are not enough "good births" to go around, to give everyone what they would ask for.

The idea, insofar as it exists in LDS culture, can probably be traced back to Saturday's Warrior, a musical from the 1970s that became very well-known and popular among Mormons due to its positive message and extremely catchy soundtrack.  Unfortunately, the story told in the show depicts several points related to LDS doctrine--in particular, regarding the pre-existence--that could most charitably be described as "questionable," including showing a family together in the pre-existence as the same family they would be on earth, and showing two other characters together as each other's "one and only" who were destined to be married to each other.

These ideas have no solid foundation in LDS theology, and at least once I've heard a General Authority in General Conference specifically deny the idea of a predestined "one and only" which, in his words, had unfortunately found its way into LDS culture through the influence of "a well-intentioned stage play."  As the answer to the linked question points out, there are some cases in which certain significant people were foreordained to be born to a certain lineage, but there is no doctrine declaring that such is the case for everyone, or even for a significant fraction of everyone.


What is the Catholic definition of meat for Lenten Fridays?

"Meat" in this sense means, and has historically meant, what used to be called "flesh meat", which St. Thomas Aquinas described as "the flesh of animals that take their rest on the earth" [including birds, who rest in trees on the earth] (Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 147, Article 8).

Exceptions to the rule of "no meat on Fridays" (and some other days) have historically been made for fish, and occasionally for other types of flesh—not that they were not considered meat (in the broad sense of "animal flesh" generally speaking), but that Catholics (either generally, or in particular places and circumstances) were allowed to eat them despite the fact that they were meat.

One famous example of such an exception is beaver. In the late 17th century, Francois de Laval, the first bishop of Quebec, was confronted by the fact that the First Nations peoples of Quebec, some of whom were Catholic, used beaver meat as a staple food. If beaver meat were considered "not flesh meat", some might argue that these Catholics were not keeping their fast days as required; but if it were considered "flesh meat" and thus prohibited, these people might starve, or fall gravely ill, for lack of other protein.

De Laval therefore submitted to his former theological colleagues at the Sorbonne the question of whether, in this case only, it would be in accord with Church teaching to make an exception for beaver meat. Based on the discussion from the Summa Theologica quoted above, the faculty responded that it would.
Note: The theologians did not answer (as some have told the story) that beaver was, or could be considered, not "flesh meat" (as if they had said that beaver was a kind of fish), but rather that it could be eaten by those in Bishop de Laval's diocese who relied on it without violating the rules of fasting and abstinence.

Similarly, in 2010, the archbishop of New Orleans, Louisiana, ruled that those in his diocese (and only those) could eat alligator meat without violating those rules.

Traditionally, the requirement to abstain from meat has sometimes also extended to animal products: dairy, eggs, and even soups and gravies made from meat. Aquinas seems to indicate that in his day this prohibition did not universally extend to all fasting days:

  The eating of flesh meat is forbidden in every fast, while the Lenten fast lays a general prohibition even on eggs and milk foods. As to the use of the latter things in other fasts the custom varies among different people, and each person is bound to conform to that custom which is in vogue with those among whom he is dwelling.

(Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 147, Article 8, ad 3)

Since the Second Vatican Council, even this requirement for Lent fasting and abstinence has been relaxed (as indicated in another answer). These products, of course, are not themselves considered meat themselves, but are forbidden because of their connection to animals.


What is the new understanding that emerged about the death penalty that recently entered the Catechism?

The strange thing about death penalty is that there is no uniformity across the nations on the crimes to which it is applicable, level of the court which is competent to award it, different authorities to whom appeal can be made, and the manner by which the convict is put to death in execution  of the  penalty. India, for instance, is a secular nation where death penalty is in vogue, but is to be awarded in  rarest of the rare ' cases. The convict is given a fair trail, and is mandated to appeal to the Apex Court and then to seek mercy from the President . It takes years together to complete the legal process and to execute the convict, so that nothing is left to speculation that he/she had not been given a fair chance to prove innocence, or to seek a lesser penalty. Unfortunately, that is not the case with all nations across the world.  A visit to the website of Amnesty International is enough to convince one that death penalty which once executed is irreversible, that many innocent people have gone to the gallows for lack of fair trial, and that a number of  nations prescribe death penalty for  crimes such as smuggling of drugs for which other penalties could be given. Now, one cannot expect the draft-makers of Catechism to have  a quintessential summary of all the arguments for and against imposition of death penalty . Naturally, they may have chosen to limit the arguments to a few words viz. ``new understanding."


How do Theistic Evolutionists reconcile that Eve was called the "the mother of all living?"

To TEs who don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Eve being the mother of living is metaphor, just as Eve existing is metaphor.


YES, it is possible to visit Heaven. Some people have visited Heaven before they died.

  I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the
  third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not
  know--God knows. (2 Corinthians 12:2, NIV)


Was the 1914 prophecy (derived from the book of Daniel) ever mentioned in any newspapers before World War I?

I have some newspaper articles although only a couple of the ones I have are the type that they are written by the newspaper's journalists.

One I have is a letter to the editor (in defense of Charles Russell) and other one is one of those "Pastor Russell Sermons" that some newspapers carried.

The "Pastor Russell Sermon" titled, "Overturned Until He Come" was published in the Twin Falls News on August 31st, 1911.

In this article he refers to the 2520 years ending on October 1914. The paragraph under the subtitle "The Time of the Gentiles" in the second column states:

  When God removed the typical kingdom of Israel and His typical throne
  in the world, He gave over the earthly dominion to the Gentiles; and
  this lease of power, as represented in Daniel's prophecy, was to
  continue for "seven times" - 2,520 years. In other words, during the
  same period that Israel would be having "seven times" of tribulation
  and subjection, the Gentiles would be having "seven times" of
  prosperity; and both will terminate at the same time - in 2,520 years
  from G.C. 606 - October, A.D. 1914.

This sermon is shown in the image below.

Another article is from The Lima Daily News, dated March 28th 1914. This article was written to address what some minister was saying in Canada that the world will end (as in "the earth will get destroyed") in 1914. This article also appeared in The Newark Daily Advocate on March 23rd, 1914.

I have copied some of the text below to provide a gist of what he wrote about world's end and 1914:

First column, second paragraph onward:

  I was prompted in the selection of my text for today by reading an
  extract from the sermon of a Canadian minister delivered recently. In
  it he declared that 1914 would witness the Second Coming of Christ,
  etc. His statement allowed for the inference that he holds the view
  common to nearly all the creeds; namely, that the earth is to be
  burned up and the human race blotted out; and that, incidentally,
  Christ will come a second time, to see that none of the Church are
  included in the destruction.

  Mistakes of Dark Ages Being Corrected.

  To my understanding, all such expectations are wholly unscriptural,
  untrue, misleading, and hindrances in the right understanding of the
  Bible.

Fourth column, end of first paragraph onward:

  If we have the correct date and chronology, Gentile Times will end
  this year - 1914.

  What of it? We do not surely know. Our expectation is that the active
  rule of Messiah will begin about the time of the ending of the of
  power to the Gentiles. Our expectation, true or false, is that there
  will be wonderful manifestations of Divine judgments against all
  unrighteousness, and that this will mean the breaking up of many
  institutions of the present time, if not all.

This article is shown below.

I also had two that were written by the newspapers after the war had already started (Wikipedia gives 28 July 1914 as the start date).

One of these, titled "End of all Kingdoms" was published in The World Magazine on August 30th, 1914. The other one, shown below, was in The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette on October 4th 1914 (a thumbnail of this page can also be seen here).

As a side note, the interesting part of this article was the below statement (in the fifth column, second paragraph) but only because it seems that overall people did not expect a war to start that year, let alone one that turned to be a World War.

  And in 1914 came war, the war which everybody dreaded, but which
  everybody thought could not really happen.


Do Catholic priests have to report child abuse confessed in secret?

Within the Confessional
Canon Law specifically and absolutely forbids the priest from divulging anything sacramentally confessed (Can 983).
That said, and notwithstanding Canon 980, it would be possible for a priest to withhold absolution from a penitent until she has reported any crime to the authorities herself. The priest may legitimately have doubts about the penitent's penitence until she accepts the consequences of her actions.
I have been told that if a priest has plans to travel on a particular plane, and someone sacramentally confesses that that flight is to be hijacked and brought down, the priest must not alter his own behaviour and travel on a different plane. He must act as if he had heard nothing.
There is scope for conflict with civil law. In the United Kingdom, it is not normally an offence not to report criminal activity, but terrorism, money-laundering, treason and the failure to lawfully dispose of a body must be reported. A priest who hears such a confession is bound by civil law to report the crime and by canon law not to do so. Other countries may expand that list of applicable crimes.
Outside the Confessional
The requirement to maintain the secrecy of the sacramental confession does not bind anything confessed outside the sacrament of Reconciliation.
In the United Kingdom, it is not a criminal offence not to report or make an allegation of child abuse. Even if such a report is made, a priest could not give evidence such as "X told me that she had," because that's hearsay. Additional primary evidence would be required.
In England and Wales, the Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service says

An adult who provides information should be encouraged to share that information with the statutory agencies, where appropriate.
They should be offered support by the Local Safeguarding Representative to do so.
If the adult or child providing information about another child request anonymity when the Safeguarding Officer makes the referral to Children's Social Care Services or the Police, those agencies will respect their wishes as far as possible. However, where investigations proceed to Court this may not be possible to maintain at all times.
An adult in an official or lay position of trust within the Church cannot expect to remain anonymous when a referral is made.

In the case of an offender confessing outside the Confessional, there is a duty to report, and to encourage the offender to tell the authorities herself.


Does the Dome of the Rock have any importance to Christianity?

From Wikipedia:

  The Dome of the Rock is located at the visual center of a platform
  known as the Temple Mount. It was constructed on the site of the
  Second Jewish Temple, which was destroyed during the Roman Siege of
  Jerusalem in 70 CE. In 637 CE, Jerusalem surrendered to the Rashidun
  Caliphate army during the Muslim conquest of Syria.

Christianity,of course, has its roots in Judaism, and as the site of the original Jewish Temple, it would have historical significance, as well as being recognized as a Holy site, reserved for Israel, God's chosen people.

Also, according to some of the end-time scenarios, the Antichrist will make some deal that will allow the temple to be rebuilt, and this will mark the beginning of the Great Tribulation.

The Dome on the Rock itself is not significant to Christianity or Judaism, other than that it's a shrine to another god, from another religion, that exists on the property where the temple should be.


Is there Biblical support for the concept that 'Whenever a man lies with a woman...a transcendental relation is set up between them'?

There's a very common teaching on what's called "soul ties".

The idea is that there are various things that can tie two human souls together.  One of those is sex.  The Biblical support for this is 1 Corinthians 6:16

  6 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one
  with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”

How this equates to a "soul tie" is unclear to me, but to the adherents, it seems to implicitly make sense.

A sample of the teaching can be found here.

Excerpt:

  Brief Biblical look at soul ties

  1 Corinthians 6:16, "What? know ye not that he which is joined to an
  harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh."

  Obviously the two didn't get married, but something spiritual
  "happened" when they were joined physically in the act of sex. They
  were "joined"; their souls were "tied." Often there are men who have
  an adultery with a prostitute (one night stand), and afterwards, even
  years later, are still thinking about that girl! That is because a
  soul tie has been created.

There's another article here describing the same thing, going deeper into it and attempting to show that there are ties to body, soul, and spirit.

Again, I don't see these as a natural link, personally, and whether this is strong enough of a "Biblical basis" for any given individual is a personal opinion, but for those that teach and believe in the "soul ties" phenomenon, this is the basis given.


Which angels and fallen angels are named in the Bible?

Angels

There are only two angels mentioned by name in Scripture:

Michael, the archangel, mentioned in Daniel 10 (and also in Jude). He is described as fighting the prince of Persia.
Gabriel, who announced the birth of Jesus to Mary in Luke 1.  Here Gabriel is being an angelos quite literally - a messenger.

Other Angels appear in the OT (One to Manoah in Judges to announce the birth of Samson, three to Abraham in Genesis), but they are unnamed.

An angel has only one job, as implied by the name - they deliver messages.

When they are not doing this job, they are usually in the presence of the Lord, praising him and announcing his glory (Isaiah 6, Revelation)

Fallen Angels

Debatedly, the only fallen angel is Lucifier in Isaiah 14 - the "Star of Morning" who is the Devil.

One could also describe "Legion" as a demon in Luke 5 (at Genesseret), but that isn't a proper name, rather a collection of Demons.


How do Bible scholars view the accuracy and reliability of the Aleppo Codex?

The Aleppo Codex is a bound manuscript of the Hebrew Bible, written by scribes called Masoretes in Tiberias, Israel, around 930 C.E.  They surfaced in Aleppo, Syria, sometime in the second half of the 15th century; preserved nearly intact in a synagogue for centuries, until the 20th century.

The Aleppo Codex belongs to a large “family” of Masoretic manuscripts (MS), which contain vocalization, cantillation marks, and Masoretic annotations.  One of the best known manuscripts closely related to the Aleppo Codex is MS Leningrad.  Some editions of the Bible are based on MS Leningrad, the best known being the latest editions of Biblia Hebraica.

The Aleppo Codex is considered to be the most authoritative copy of the Hebrew Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls—which are a thousand years older than the Aleppo Codex and which contain all of Isaiah and some of the Psalms from the Hebrew Bible –  lack vowels.  The Aleppo Codex features both vowel markings and marginal notations.

Three important editions of the Bible based on the Aleppo Codex, are: 1) The Breuer edition.  2) The edition of the Hebrew University Bible Project.  3) The Keter edition of Miqraot Gedolot, published by Bar-Ilan University Press.
Significantly, both the New International Version and the New Living Translation of the Bible base their Old Testament translations on the Masoretic Text of the Biblia Hebraica.

I assume that since the Masoretic Text and the Biblia Hebraica are of significance to modern English translations of the Bible, and since the Aleppo Codex is considered by many to be the most authoritative copy of the Hebrew Bible, being part of the family of Masoretic MS, then the Aleppo Codex is viewed as important and trustworthy.

Some controversy surrounds the history of the Aleppo Codex and some parts of the Hebrew text are still missing, but the pedigree of the Aleppo Codex seems to be accepted by reputable Bible scholars.  I hasten to add, however, that this is only what I have culled from the articles in the links below. Please study them for yourself and form your own conclusions.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/the-aleppo-codex/

http://www.aleppocodex.org/links/7.html


Why did God make the "Forbidden Fruit" available in Eden?

A Heart Conducive to Understanding

Before addressing the question, it seems appropriate to address the proper spirit in which such answers should be sought.  There is a very important principle in Scripture which we need to remember;

  You will say to me then, “Why does [God] still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?  -Romans 9:19-20

It is inappropriate to critique God, or to accuse Him of injustice or trickery.  Furthermore, it will not lead to understanding, as the following  verse explains:

  A scoffer seeks wisdom and finds none, But knowledge is easy to one who has understanding.  -Proverbs 14:6

To learn the answers to such difficult questions, we need to seek the Lord.

  Evil men do not understand justice, But those who seek the LORD understand all things.  -Proverbs 28:5

What We Know About God

When we seek answers about the tough subjects of Scripture, it is important to start with what we know.

The first thing to recognize up front is that God is good.  Everything good was created by God, and everything created by God is good.  To say it another way, God did not (and cannot) "create evil."  (I'll answer the obvious questions in a moment.)

Secondly, it is clear from Scripture that God would do anything for His people.  He made salvation available to everyone, and He desires that everyone would be saved.  So it would be severely inappropriate to think that God would put a stumbling block before Adam, tempting him to fail - all for the purpose of personal benefit.  That doctrine is severely inconsistent with Scripture.

Defining Evil

At this point, many wonder, "If God didn't create evil, then why does evil exist?"  I think we need to be careful with semantics here.  Evil is not a substance to be created or destroyed - it is a way which is contrary to God's ways.  For instance, if I become conceited, that would be evil (sin) because that is contrary to God's good ways (love, humility, etc.)  But it wouldn't really make sense to ask "Why did God decide to create my conceitedness?" because it obviously isn't a substance to be created, and if it were, He obviously wouldn't have created it.  Evil only sounds like a substance due to clever wordplay.

What God did is speak a perfect, good creation into existence, complete with beings who have the capacity to love and receive love.  Obviously love involves choice, so men were created with a capacity to willingly love Him.

Why The Tree?

God created man with the capacity to choose to love God and walk in His good ways.  That would be absolutely pointless if man was never presented with an opportunity to make a choice of any kind!

Enter "the tree."  When we're talking about the forbidden fruit, we really need to take a moment and reflect on the situation prior to Genesis 3.  God has just created an entire "very good" universe and essentially handed it all over to man.  He made celestial objects for signs and seasons, filled an entire planet with creatures and plants, and prepared a paradise garden to walk with them in.  There was one thing they weren't allowed to do.  One rule.  One little ol' tree in the middle of the whole big creation which they were told not to eat from.  We're not talking about the Levitical Law here... this was a pretty reasonable boundary!  Let us keep this in mind as we continue.

As I mentioned, the tree provided them with an opportunity to choose.  With this one tree being off-limits, they now had an awareness of "right and wrong."  Make no mistake - they knew it was wrong to eat the fruit - God made that very clear.  That is not to say that they "knew" (had a personal experiential understanding of) evil; just that they "knew" (had the knowledge of) right and wrong.

Q & A

"If the fruit was 'forbidden', why did God put it in front of man?"  Answer: "Forbidden" means it was a boundary which God set.  He could have chosen any boundary He wanted - He could have said "don't stand over there."  He chose the fruit, hence "forbidden" fruit.  (Why did He choose the fruit?  That's another question!)

"If God wanted Adam in Eden, why did he keep the fruit there?"  Answer: The tree represented the choice which made willing love possible.  The proximity allowed them a continual choice, which made continual love possible.  It's not that God planted "temptation" and "wickedness" before man's eyes, but rather, that He planted "a choice" in their midst.

"Why was it necessary to present Adam with a test which he was bound to fail?"  Answer: This question is based on a misunderstanding.  Adam had a choice, and chose to sin.  The idea that he was "bound to fail the test" is false.  (Consider the angels - some fell, some did not.)

"Who knew better than God that Adam would fail the test?"  Answer: This line of reasoning assumes that foreknowledge necessitates fatalism, and eliminates accountability.  Both assumptions are false.  Yes, God knew what Adam would choose - but it was Adam who chose.

"If God wanted Adam to fall, why was it necessary to trick him first?"  Answer: The premise of this question is a false assumption.  God didn't want Adam to fall.  Also, God didn't trick him.

Hope that helps!


Other than Augustine, which Church Fathers have directly influenced John Calvin's teaching of "double-predestination?"

From Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 2, Section 4

  Moreover although the Greek Fathers, above others, and especially Chrysostom, have exceeded due bounds in extolling the powers of the human will, yet all ancient theologians, with the exception of Augustine, are so confused, vacillating, and contradictory on this subject, that no certainty can be obtained from their writings.

Clearly Calvin felt that only Augustine understood predestination correctly. But, in the same section of the Institutes he invokes at least 3 other Church fathers:

Cyprian

  What, then, is meant by Cyprian in the passage so often lauded by Augustine, “Let us glory in nothing, because nothing is ours,” unless it be, that man being utterly destitute, considered in himself, should entirely depend on God?
  Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 2, Section 9
  Here Calvin is referring to Chapter 36 of A Treatise on the Gift of Perserverance by Augustine. Augustine is in turn quoting Cyprian's Testimonies Book III Section 4

Eucherius of Lyon
In the next sentence Calvin invokes Augustine and Eucherius:

  What is meant by Augustine and Eucherius, when they expound that Christ is the tree of life, and that whoso puts forth his hand to it shall live; that the choice of the will is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and that he who, forsaking the grace of God, tastes of it shall die?

John Chrysostom
And in the following sentence he quotes John Chrysostom

  What is meant by Chrysostom, when he says, “That every man is not only naturally a sinner, but is wholly sin?” If there is nothing good in us; if man, from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, is wholly sin; if it is not even lawful to try how far the power of the will extends,—how can it be lawful to share the merit of a good work between God and man?

It's hard to say whether these other fathers directly influenced the doctrine of double predestination since so few of them, by Calvin's research, taught predestination at all. The closest would be Cyprian especially since I was able to find Cyprian's own books. The reference to John Chrysostom is interesting since Calvin condemns him and then quotes him to support his doctrine.


Where did the belief that Saul fell from a horse come from?

There are art references that cause many to think Paul fell from his horse.  One of the most famous of these is Caravaggio’s famous painting titled “Conversion on the Way to Damascus”.(1)  Wikipedia (2) suggests the Golden Legend (3) may have framed the event for Caravaggio.
In doing some online research on this question, I discovered some interesting information related to this question.
Dr. Taylor Marshall points out "Pharisees prayed regularly throughout the day in obedience to Psalm 55:16-17, “But I call upon God, and the LORD will save me. Evening and morning and at noon.”"(4)
Mr. Hector Molina, refers to the significance of this happening in daylight, "It was midday ... Some commentators point out that this was to show that there was no delusion from nightly appearances." He also refers to Dr. Marshall's statement about midday being a prayer time for the Pharisees. (5)
There is no mention of Paul riding any animal to Damascus, but this fact in no way can be used to assert he was not. That would be an argument from silence which is an error in reason.  Further, it cannot be successfully argued that because it is not explicitly stated it did not happen. One example should suffice: Scripture rarely refers to Joseph, Mary & Jesus eating, but that does not mean they fasted their entire lives. The Catholic Church does not accept the belief that unless something is explicitly stated in Scripture it cannot have happened. The Church accepts and teaches the four senses of Scripture (CCC 115-119), among other information such as "In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words" (CCC 101).
Since Damascus was about 135 miles from Jerusalem, it seems reasonable that Paul was riding on an animal, perhaps a horse or a camel, particularly since he was sent on the very important mission of weeding out all those in "the way".  He could have also been walking with his companions, it just seems like a long journey on foot when he was so impassioned about this mission.  The prayer time referenced by Dr. Marshall in no way would indicate Paul couldn't have been riding an animal and dismounted to pray. I would expect this of the "Pharisee of Pharisees" as he referred to himself (Phil 3:5).

(1) http://allart.biz/up/photos/album/B-C/Caravaggio/michelangelo_caravaggio_18_conversion_on_the_way_to_damascus_1601l.jpg,
accessed 5/2/2015.
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_on_the_Way_to_Damascus,
accessed 5/5/2015.
(3) https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/JACOBUS.HTM,
accessed 5/5/2015.
(4) http://taylormarshall.com/2012/01/was-paul-knocked-off-his-high-horse-on.html,
accessed 5/1/2015.
(5) http://www.catholic.com/blog/hector-molina/did-saul-actually-fall-off-his-horse-on-the-road-to-damascus, accessed 5/1/2015.


Were plenary indulgences issued during the crusades, as indicated by Dan Brown?

In the history of indulgences, the "Crusade Indulgence" is known as the first official plenary indulgence. Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code certainly stated several untruths about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

It is only true to admit that some Crusaders did in fact commit some horrendous crimes, but indulgences were instituted by the Church to aid souls to live holy lives. In order to gain an indulgence one has to be in the state of grace. Serious sins must be confessed to a priest in order that one may be able to be restored to a state of grace and be able to receive a plenary indulgence.

  The earliest record of a plenary indulgence was Pope Urban II's declaration at the Council of Clermont (1095) that he remitted all penance incurred by crusaders who had confessed their sins in the Sacrament of Penance, considering participation in the crusade equivalent to a complete penance.

Indulgences are not feats of magic and in order to gain any indulgence certain rules must be met. It has been the constant teaching of the Church that mortal sins must be confessed in the Sacrament of Penance. Indulgences have never nor could not ever substitute this fact.

  A plenary indulgence means that by the merits of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the full remission of the temporal punishment due to sacramentally forgiven sins is obtained. The person becomes as if just baptized and would fly immediately to heaven if he died in that instant. A partial indulgence means that a portion of the temporal punishment due to forgiven sin is remitted. Partial indulgences are received either by doing some act to which a partial indulgence is attached (e.g. praying a partially indulgenced prayer), or by the incomplete fulfillment of the conditions attached to a plenary indulgence. - What is an Indulgence?


Looking for references from the early Church Fathers on Galatians 3:13

Clement of Rome and Polycarp are the earliest church fathers and are known as the Apostolic Fathers.  After them came Irenaeus, Ignatius and Justin Martyr, the Ante-Nicene Fathers (pre 325 A.D.)  Clement’s first letter to the Corinthians (circa 96 A.D.) makes reference to several canonical books including Genesis, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 Corinthians and Philippians.
Although I could not find a specific reference to Galatians 3:13, in 1 Clement 32:4 there is possibly one of the earliest patristic references to the biblical doctrine of justification through faith alone:

1 Clem 32:4: And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.  Source: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

I hope this may be of some use to you.


You ask: What did Jesus do regarding the Jews believing that some diseases were sometimes due to sin?

There's one passage in particular where explicitly corrects the disciples regarding a man born blind in John 9:

  As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him."

Admittedly, Jesus may not go as far as addressing the scientific causes of this "disease" (I'm not aware of any teaching of Jesus along those lines), and the inference to the "disease" being a result of the Fall is weak at best.  Nonetheless, he does clearly teach that a) the disease was under God's sovereignty and b) the disease was not due to the man's sin.


Generational Curses vs Personal Resposibility

Each passage was written for its times and its own purpose.

The threats of intergenerational accountability (Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9) were written to make the Jews really think about the consequences of worshipping other gods - they might not have been worried about their own fate, but what about their children and grandchildren?

Ezekiel wrote at a time when Babylon was swallowing up Judah and he was aware of the despair and fatalistic loss of hope felt by his compatriots. As long as they believed that they were being punished for the sins of their forebears, the Jews had no reason for hope or (importantly for Ezekiel) for following him in the worship of Yahweh. Daniel I. Block (The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24) says [(b) The Answer (18:19-20)] his rejection of any deterministic notion of intergenerational accountability was a response to this. By declaring that a person’s righteousness and wickedness will be credited to that person’s account only, Ezekiel slams the door on the old fatalistic illusion.

Deuteronomy 24:16 is subtly different. This does not talk about whether God will punish children for the sins of their fathers, but is a commandment to the Jews, that they should not do so:

  Deuteronomy 24:16: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.


From the Gospel of John, we learn that He wore sandals:

  "...He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”

John 1:27

He also wore a single piece undergarment, and apparently four other items of clothing:

  When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.

John 19:23


Why did the KKK "light" aka burn crosses?

The Knight's Party website appears to be the official voice for the KKK today. Their FAQ contains the following question and answer:

  Q. Why do you burn the cross?

  A. Many have been led to believe the Klan burns the cross as an act of
  desecrating a Christian symbol. Nothing could be further from the
  truth. The lighted cross is an old symbol used on the hillsides of
  Scotland. Many churches today use the lighted cross as a symbol. The
  Methodist church uses the cross with flames at its base sweeping up
  and around the cross. The Lutheran church uses the symbolism. When the
  Klan was founded there was not electricity. They could not light up a
  cross the way we light up a Christmas tree. Fire was used. The fire
  was used to symbolize the fiery light of Christ – a metaphor often
  used in the Bible. The Cross obviously is a symbol of Christianity.
  The Cross lighting ceremony gives honor to Jesus Christ.

and

  It is no more a desecration of the cross than it is for the American Legion to respectfully lay to peace an American flag by setting it on fire – which is the correct procedure.

Other references echo the sentiment that, instead of destroying, they feel that they are honoring the cross. The reasoning appears to be primarily based on tradition rather than a particular scripture passage.


Does the divine name YHWH (יַהְוֶה) apply equally to all Persons of the Trinity? (Catholic/Nicene perspective)

For the Catholic Church and other Nicene churches (the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Armenian Orthodox, the Assyrians; as well as the majority of Protestants), the divine name YHWH (which is closely linked to the expression “I am” or “I Am Who I Am” (see Ex. 3:14), applies to God in His divine nature—hence to all three Persons of the Trinity.

The attribution of YHWH begins with Jesus himself, who multiple times attributes to himself the divine name “I am.” The most straightforward example is John 8:58:

  Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

(His hearers certainly understood the reference to the divine name, because they attempted to stone him immediately afterwards.) Other examples include John 8:24 and 13:9.

Hence, Jesus, the Son, attributes the divine name YHWH to himself. It is less immediately clear from the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit can also be called YHWH, but it follows from our knowledge of Trinitiarian theology.

Each of the Persons of the Trinity is perfectly identical with the Divine Nature or Essence—in orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, the Persons are not “parts” or “manifestations” of the Trinity, but strictly relations of opposition. (See for instance, St. Augustine, De trinitate I, 6, and V, 5.) In the words of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Son and Spirit are both consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father. (The Creed does not explicitly say so with respect to the Holy Spirit, but that is the fully intentional implication of saying that the Holy Spirit is “worshiped and glorified” together with the Father and Son.)

The name YHWH, however, refers to the very essence of God: clearly, it pertains to all three Persons to “be” in the absolute sense. Hence, YHWH can be applied equally well to all three Persons, although it is frequently attributed to the Father, because He is the ultimate origin or monarch of the whole Trinity.

(The Creed actually implies this: in liturgical celebrations the divine name YHWH is traditionally not used—a holdover from the ancient Jewish reluctance to utter that name. That is why in most translations of the Old Testament, the name YHWH is generally translated as “the LORD”—translating the Hebrew “Adonai.” The Creed, however, calls the Holy Spirit the “Lord and giver of life,” hence the liturgical substitute for the divine name YHWH is used for the Holy Spirit, just as it is for the Son and the Father.)


Hah!  She sounds like a wily one.  I'm no expert in Feng-Shui (or your Aunt), but here are some relevant Biblical principles:

Wisdom In Silence If a person is not truly interested in seeking/knowing the truth (e.g. a person who just wants to push their views on you), there is Biblical precedence for keeping silent.  (Proverbs 23:9, Matthew 27:12-14)

  "He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself,
  And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself."  (Proverbs 9:7, NASB)

Test The Spirits God is the source of true knowledge.  (Proverbs 2:6)  There are many strange doctrines and spiritual "truths" out there, but we are instructed to test the spirits to see if they are from God.  (1 Timothy 4:1, 1 John 4:1)  If the founders of a particular doctrine are not men of God with good fruit in their lives, the doctrine becomes highly suspect.  (Luke 6:43-45, Galatians 5:22-23)

  "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart."  (Luke 6:45, NASB)

Wisdom In Counsel Proverbs states that everyone thinks what they do is right, but that it is wise to seek counsel.  (Proverbs 21:2, 12:15, 14:12, 11:14, also Matthew 18:16)  Furthermore, God gave Pastors (a.k.a. Shepherds) to the church for a reason; a shepherd cares for and guides the sheep. (Ephesians 4:11, John 21:15-17)  Based on these passages, it seems wise to consult a Pastor (and other trustworthy believers) when making difficult decisions.
"Very Similar" The argument "x is very similar to y, and x is good, so y is good" is very flawed, Biblically speaking.  (Matthew 24:24)

  "No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light."  (2 Corinthians 11:14, NASB)

The "Appearance Of Wisdom" There are doctrines bases on the "elementary principles of the world", which have "the appearance of wisdom", but are of no value.  (Colossians 2:20-23, James 3:13-17)

  "But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women."  (from 1 Timothy 4:7, NASB)

Casting Lots  Using Acts 1:26 as a precedence for casting lots is not a sound argument, and is certainly not a common interpretation.  As El'endia mentioned above, this was prior to the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and many Old Testament practices were merely a shadow of what was to come.  (Acts 2:1-4, Colossians 2:17)
"Exercise = Unfaithful"  She is misquoting the passage.  The passage (below) is teaching us that godliness is more profitable than bodily discipline.  The focus is on priorities, not on exercise being sinful.  (1 Corinthians 9:27)

  "for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come."  (1 Timothy 4:8, NASB)


What is the Biblical basis for withholding communion from believers who are unbaptized?

It seems that regulations and opinions on this are varied.  It depends (very strongly) on the denomination and what they believe.
Key Verse:
I'll put this here for later reference:
1 Corinthians 11:27-28 (NIV)

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood
of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat
of the bread and drink from the cup.

Protestantism
One belief is that the communion should be something solely for people who are saved, committed Christians.
As The Rev. Gerald Schrankler said in this thread:

If we invite non-baptized, non-Christians, to communion we degrade it from a celebration of our redemption by Christ's death and resurrection to a fellowship snack.

The background idea behind this is that Christians who are not baptized are not saved.  Since they're not saved, they should not be able to partake of the communion and are in violation of 1 Corinthians 11:27.
Another Protestant View
John Wesley, however, believed that communion was a "means of grace" (source).  Therefore, it shouldn't be withheld from anyone--believers or non-believers.
The idea here is that if someone wants to come to communion, we should not prevent them.  It may very well be the means that leads to their salvation!  Clearly that's not something we would want to withhold.
In Catholicism
Catholics actually allow others to take part in the Holy Communion, with tight restrictions.

Guidelines for the Reception of Communion
For Catholics
...A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession except for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession....
For Other Christians
...Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches.
For Non-Christians
...While we cannot admit them to Holy Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family.

Link to article
Summary
Ultimately, it seems that there are very widely dispersed opinions on this matter.  The biblical basis as you asked, is 1 Corinthians 11:27-28.  However, the interpretation of that verse has lead to varied regulations.


What is the Biblical basis for born-again virginity?

TL;DR

“Born-again virginity” or “second virginity” is not a concept that is
expounded by any of the Biblical authors. It is not formal doctrine,
nor is there any requirement in the Scriptures to become a virgin again.

Idolatry = Adultery; Holiness = Virginity

Among the most prominent analogies of man's relationship to God in the
Old Testament prophets is that of marriage. The relationship that a
woman has to her husband is likened to the relationship that Israel was
to have with God. Israel was not to "prostitute" herself with other gods. (E.g. Jer 2:20, Ezek 23, Hos 2:1-13)

It is in this sense that virginity is primarily spoken about in the
Bible. Many times, a “virgin” is used synonymously with “unmarried
woman” because one was expected to be the other, but where virginity
(or the lack thereof) is discussed at any length, it largely has to do
with the relationship of a husband and wife or metaphorically with
Israel’s relationship with God (or the church’s relationship with
Jesus).

Second Virginity

Second virginity is not likely to be a part of any group’s formal
doctrine, because it is not an idea that originates in the Bible.

I have only heard the concept addressed in the context of sexuality
regarding people who recognize that they’ve made mistakes sexually,
but want to return to the (spiritual and emotional, primarily, but
perhaps to a much lesser extent, physical) pristine and clean state of
innocence/virginity so that if/when they marry in the future, their
relationship with thier spouse will not be further hindered by the
sins of their past. Though it is impossible for someone to actually
regain their innocence, the idea is a call to return to appropriate
and healthy behavior (abstinence until marriage). In part, the idea is
probably meant to give some measure of hope in recovery for people who
have forsaken their sexual innocence but long to return to it for the
sake of their own integrity and as a “gift” to their future spouse.

I think this is an application of Christian concepts. I don’t know if
one could make a case for it being a need or requirement. I have
only heard it spoken of as if it were desirable for the sake of
having a healthy marriage in the future.


German Bible translation like NKJV, ESV, NASB.. etc

If its for trying to learn German, you should probably buy a parallel.  And probably the easiest to get your hands on would be the ESV-Luther 1984 Parallel from Crossway.

If you want a German Bible by itself, you can get the 1912 revision of Luther's translation from the Trinitarian Bible Society. That would be more archaic German, and its sold by TBS because they consider it to be the closest to the KJV.

Without actually knowing German it would probably be pretty hard to find any others. Although once you figure out you should search "Die Bibel" rather than "German Bible" it makes it easier.


What is the origin of the Christian tradition of praying before eating?

It appears to be a custom that predates establishment of the Christian religion, but you can find a scriptural example in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25(KJV)

  That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took
  bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take,
  eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance
  of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had
  supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye,
  as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

A more modern rendering: (NAB)

  23 * For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that
  the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
   24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
  25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
  26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

In current Catholic practice, for example, the Grace said before a meal is a form of being thankful (albeit in somewhat stilted language):

  Bless us oh Lord, and these thy gifts, which we are about to receive,
  through thy bounty

There is a deeper tradition involved in the Greek and Roman churches where the meal (the Eucharistic meal, the Lord's Supper) is by its name a communal prayer, and a communal act of thanksgiving.  Prayers of thanksgiving well predate Christian practice, in the Psalms.  As instructed in the current Catholic teaching ...

  2588 The Psalter's many forms of prayer take shape both in the liturgy
  of the Temple and in the human heart. Whether hymns or prayers of
  lamentation or thanksgiving, whether individual or communal, whether
  royal chants, songs of pilgrimage or wisdom meditations, the Psalms
  are a mirror of God's marvelous deeds in the history of his people, as
  well as reflections of the human experiences of the Psalmist.

There is also the admonition from the Apostle Paul:  Pray constantly.

1 Thessalonians 5: 16-18.

  16 Rejoice always.   17 Pray without ceasing.   18 In all
  circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in
  Christ Jesus.

An allusion to giving thanks before a meal also comes from Romans 14:6

  Whoever observes the day, observes it for the Lord. Also whoever eats,
  eats for the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while whoever
  abstains, abstains for the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Matthew 15:34-36 is another example Jesus demonstrating the giving of thanks before eating

  34 Jesus said to them, “How many loaves do you have?” “Seven,” they
  replied, “and a few fish.”   35 He ordered the crowd to sit down on
  the ground.   36 Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, gave
  thanks, broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, who in turn
  gave them to the crowds*.

While that doesn't confirm the origin of this custom, @toothbrush points to a Jewish thanksgiving custom/prayer thought to be the thanksgiving that Jesus used:

  (@Toothbrush)These passages reference the Jewish blessing (There are
  also other blessings pronounced for other foods.)

  for bread (ברוך אתה יהוה>אלוהינו מלך העולם המוציא לחם מן הארץ; Blessed are You, LORD our God, King of the universe, Who brings forth bread from the earth)
  for wine (ברוך אתה יהוה אלוהינו מלך העולם בורא פרי הגפן — Blessed are    You, LORD our God, King of the universe, Who creates the fruit
  of the vine).


What biblical passage(s) reveal(s) what God says was the fallen angels' sin?

God's message to King Saul through prophet Samuel, after Saul disobeys God, is:

  1 Samuel 15:22-23
  (RSVCE)
  22 And Samuel said,   “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt
  offerings and sacrifices,
      as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
      and to hearken than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of divination,
      and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
      he has also rejected you from being king.”[a]

Footnotes:
a. 15.22-23 Samuel does not condemn sacrifices but says obedience is better.

  The Jerusalem Bible | Popular Edition has for v. 23: "Rebellion is a sin of sorcery,  presumption a crime of the teraphim."[b]

Footnotes:
b. 15.23 'False gods': teraphim - people kept these things in their houses?! Scarey! - were household idols.

It is assumed that the readers of this answer know the connection between divination, idolatry, sorcery, idols, and demons/fallen angels.

Another revealing is the passage is John 8:39-47 (RSVCE): Jesus and Abraham in which Jesus contrasts children of the devil with children of Abraham. Thus Abraham did the opposite of what the devil did. Abraham listened to God, obeyed, trusted, and had faith in God.

Recalling Jesus saying, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments." [John 14:15 (RSVCE)] and our first parents fell by failing to keep the one commandment God enjoined on them, and Abraham passing the obedience test, and the passage quoted in 1 Samuel above, loving God means keeping his commandments and obeying him especially when he directly commands.

Combining this with the passages from 1 Samuel 15 and John 8 above, the sin of the fallen angels was that of disobedience.


1Jn 1:9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Mat 18:21  Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Mat 18:22  Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
Jer 3:12  Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.
Php 2:13  For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

From a purely Biblical perspective, based on the Scripture quoted above and the teachings of a Word of Faith church.
Yes the Lord will forgive and take anyone back as long as they repent. 70x7 was the equivalent of infinity during days of Jesus on the earth. When God required an infinite amount of daily forgiveness from His people He naturally requires such of Himself also. Any normal sin or mistake can be corrected with repentance. The Lord is understanding and merciful to faults and backslides and will help anyone do and want to do the things which please Him. All one must do is start with repentance make Jesus the personal King and Friend of their life, then read the Bible and go to church.


Can the laity use exorcised salt? If so, what are the rules for the proper use, handling, and storage of exorcised salt?

The traditional (pre-Vatican II) blessing for holy water in the Rituale Romanum (Roman Ritual) includes exorcisms of salt and water:

1. On Sundays, or whenever this blessing takes place, salt and fresh water are prepared in the church or in the sacristy. The priest, vested in surplice and purple stole, says:
P: Our help is in the name of the Lord.
All: Who made heaven and earth.
2. The exorcism of salt follows:
God's creature, salt, I cast out the demon from you by the living ✠ God, by the true ✠ God, by the holy ✠ God, by God who ordered you to be thrown into the water- spring by Eliseus to heal it of its barrenness. May you be a purified salt, a means of health for those who believe, a medicine for body and soul for all who make use of you. May all evil fancies of the foul fiend, his malice and cunning, be driven afar from the place where you are sprinkled. And let every unclean spirit be repulsed by Him who is coming to judge both the living and the dead and the world by fire.
All: Amen.
Let us pray.
Almighty everlasting God, we humbly appeal to your mercy and goodness to graciously bless ✠ this creature, salt, which you have given for mankind's use. May all who use it find in it a remedy for body and mind. And may everything that it touches or sprinkles be freed from uncleanness and any influence of the evil spirit; through Christ our Lord.
All: Amen.
Exorcism of the water:
God's creature, water, I cast out the demon from you in the name of God ✠ the Father almighty, in the name of Jesus ✠ Christ, His Son, our Lord, and in the power of the Holy ✠ Spirit. May you be a purified water, empowered to drive afar all power of the enemy, in fact, to root out and banish the enemy himself, along with his fallen angels. We ask this through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is coming to judge both the living and the dead and the world by fire.
All: Amen.
Let us pray.
O God, who for man's welfare established the most wonderful mysteries in the substance of water, hearken to our prayer, and pour forth your blessing ✠ on this element now being prepared with various purifying rites. May this creature of yours, when used in your mysteries and endowed with your grace, serve to cast out demons and to banish disease. May everything that this water sprinkles in the homes and gatherings of the faithful be delivered from all that is unclean and hurtful; let no breath of contagion hover there, no taint of corruption; let all the wiles of the lurking enemy come to nothing. By the sprinkling of this water may everything opposed to the safety and peace of the occupants of these homes be banished, so that in calling on your holy name they may know the well-being they desire, and be protected from every peril; through Christ our Lord.
All: Amen.
3. Now the priest pours the salt into the water in the form of a cross, saying:
May this salt and water be mixed together; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, ✠ and of the Holy Spirit.
All: Amen.
P: The Lord be with you.
All: May He also be with you.
Let us pray.
God, source of irresistible might and king of an invincible realm, the ever-glorious conqueror; who restrain the force of the adversary, silencing the uproar of his rage, and valiantly subduing his wickedness; in awe and humility we beg you, Lord, to regard with favor this creature thing of salt and water, to let the light of your kindness shine upon it, and to hallow it with the dew of your mercy; so that wherever it is sprinkled and your holy name is invoked, every assault of the unclean spirit may be baffled, and all dread of the serpent's venom be cast out. To us who entreat your mercy grant that the Holy Spirit may be with us wherever we may be; through Christ our Lord.
All: Amen.

This rubric answers your question:

Christ's faithful are permitted to take holy water home with them to sprinkle the sick, their homes, fields, vineyards, and the like. It is recommended too that they put it in fonts in the various rooms, so that they may use it to bless themselves daily and frequently.

Since holy water contains exorcised blessed salt, the faithful are permitted to do the same with blessed salt.
However, salt blessed for the purpose of baptism (baptismal salt) is not to be given to the faithful, according to this rubric from the baptism ritual:

… Salt thus blessed [for the exclusive use in a baptism rite] should not be given to anybody, nor even returned to anybody who may have brought it for the blessing, but it should be saved exclusively for baptism or thrown into the sacrarium.


What was the early-Christendom position on attributing pagan names to Christian concepts (mainly god)? Was there opposition to doing this?

Even as early as apostolic times, there was use of the Greek word "theos" to speak about God, with no recorded opposition:

Paul stood up at the Areopagus and said:
"You Athenians, I see that in every respect you are very religious. For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, 'To an Unknown God.'
What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and all that is in it, the Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands ...
(Acts 17:22–24, NABRE)

That being the case it would be surprising to discover that subsequent Christians had any objections to the practice.


According to Baptist theology why doesn't Satan surrender?

First, "Baptist theology" is too general a term for a specific question which itself  is a rather peripheral issue  that is unlikely to see a uniform answer even from within one denomination. Therefore I do not think it can be answered except as regards general principals of theology.

Baptist typically hold to either Arminian or Calvinistic theology.   If dealing with the latter, the answer would be that the devil was foreordained to damnation, thus he cannot repent/surrender, and does not want to.  The  Baptist Confession of 1689,  subscribed to by  English Baptist Ministers in the year 1689,  states that "By the decree of God...some men and Angels are predestinated, or fore-ordained to..being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation..."

Contemporary Baptist theologian Wayne Grudem  states that,

Such are held to be reprobate: "Reprobation refers to God’s eternal decree to refrain from providing saving grace to particular fallen individuals and to harden these in their willful sins..."  (https://www.monergism.com/election-and-reprobation)

Arminians  believe that the   devil and his angels had the freedom and ability to obey God, but chose to disobey, and they  believe, as the Arminian Confession of 1621" teaches,  that those who "are guilty of prolonged defiance and rebellion" are liable to God "blinding, hardening, or delivering them to the efficacy of error, to their own corrupt desires and to a reprobate mind," and that the devil will be cast  into everlasting fire. (http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-arminian-confession-of-1621)

The Bible warns about becoming "reprobate," a condition resulting from rejecting  the light and grace one had, and hardening one's heart against it.  Heb. 6:5-9 speaks most clearly about such:

  And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to
  come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance;
  seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him
  to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh
  oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is
  dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns
  and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be
  burned. (Hebrews 6:5-8 KJV)

Also (2 Corinthians 13:5 KJV)

  Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.
  Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except
  ye be reprobates?

(Titus 1:16 KJV)

  They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being
  abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

In contrast (Hebrews 6:9 KJV)

  But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that
  accompany salvation, though we thus speak.

The devil is surely one who has  "tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come," having know a level of light and blessing unknown to us, but who selfishly exalted himself as one worthy to sit as God, whose power and glory he lusted after. (Isaiah 14)  This was the first "Occupy Movement" if you will, climbing up some other way to honor than by grace and  the merit of obedience.

Thus, being cast down due to his unholy presumption, he worked to seduce Eve with the victim-entitlement message, that she was entitled to the one thing forbidden her amid myriad blessings, which one thing (as the devil construed it) God was selfishly keeping from her least she be as God - rather than "sharing the wealth"  - and thus she should just take what she wanted, and that instead of the (unjust) punishment for such presumption, she would be as God.

But like souls in Hell, she found out the hard way that the devil deceived her, to her own hurt, while the devil gloried in his gain.  Which he yet seeks via proxy servants in  false  religion and politics.

(John 10:10 KJV)

  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into
  the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and
  a robber.

(John 10:1 KJV)

  The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I
  am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more
  abundantly.