What version of the Bible should a beginner read?

Short answer: Because people can't agree on what the "true" version of the Bible is due to issues of translation, authority, and the existing copies of original texts that we have access to today, your best bet is to use the one your church or other religious authority recommends.
Long answer: By "beginner", I assume that you mean a person who is new to the Christian faith, rather than a beginning reader (there are a number of Bibles that use simpler language suitable for those just learning to read English).
By "true Bible story", I assume you mean the original, without alteration. You're not alone in wanting this. This article from The Washington Post says that

The proliferation of Bibles underscores the anxieties people have about whether or not they are reading the right Bible. Concerns over accuracy and interpretation are especially true among religious traditions that distrust secular scholarship on the Bible.

Additionally, I'm sure that you want a version that is understandable. The article says that

The robust market does not alleviate anxieties about the Bible’s accessibility, though. There are persistent concerns that despite being so widely available, people struggle to understand the Bible.

Unfortunately, people can't agree on what the "true Bible story" is. The reasoning is a bit complicated and comes down to how we go about translating Bibles. To help answer that, I'd like to go through a few questions you alluded to in your post.
Why are some books removed?
I assume that you are talking about the Apocrypha, which are books of the Old Testament that some groups, like Catholics, accept but others, like Protestants, do not. In that case, some would ask "why are some books added"?
There are lots of different reasons for this, but two common reasons are:

These books should be included because they were accepted by some of the earliest Christians, such as St. Jerome in his Latin Bible in 405 AD (this argument is one of several used by Catholics)
These books should not be included because they are not accepted by the vast majority of Jewish people, past or present (this argument is one of several used by Protestants)

Which one is "true"? Did these books come from God or from people? We don't know, and lacking God directly telling us, we can't know (consequently, there's the question of if somebody says that God told them, should we trust them?)
Why are some verses different?
To talk about this, let's talk about what a book says. Virtually all Christians would say that the gospel of Matthew is "true", meaning that Matthew wrote it with some level of inspiration from God. Unfortunately, the original pages that Matthew hand-wrote (or dictated, or whatever) have been lost, so all we have are copies that people have made throughout the centuries. The trouble is that sometimes these copies have differences, either through mistakes or potentially from deliberate changes.
Two of the earliest copies of the book of Matthew that we have access to today say different things in Matthew 1:21:

τεξεται δε σοι υιον αυτος γαρ σωσει τον κοσμον (Then she will bring forth to you a son for he will save the world)
τεξεται δε υιον αυτος γαρ σωσει τον λαον αυτου (Then she will bring forth a son for he will save his people)

Unfortunately, we have no idea which is "correct". We could guess that the older one is more correct, but what if the older one was done by a subpar copyist? Or maybe we don't know which one is older.
Some Bible translations would use the first and some would use the second. Without further scholarship, we don't know which is "true".
Why are some verses removed?
Again, some people would instead ask "why were some verses added?"
As we said above, different copies of the Bible say different things. Some copies have certain verses, but others don't. One big example of this is the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). The trouble is, some of the earliest versions of the book of John don't include this passage, suggesting that it was added by someone later. Does that mean we should remove it from the Bible?
But if those verses should be removed, why do they have verse numbers at all? Bible chapter and verse numbers were not present in the early Greek and Hebrew versions and are a relatively new invention. The version we use today is from Robert Estienne, where he assigned verse numbers that were first printed for the New Testament in 1551 and 1571 for the Old Testament. Naturally, he did this for the version he had at the time, which included passages like what he called John 7:53-8:11.
Bibles that "remove" verses do so because they are looking at earlier copies of the Bible that lacked these verses. However, some people argue that the verses were what God intended to be there in the first place and should be kept.
So which version of the Bible should I read?
I know that it's difficult and not fun to have so many different Bibles to choose from. But in most cases, the differences between versions are minor. It is my opinion that beginners shouldn't worry too much about the differences, and that they should instead just read whichever one your church or other spiritual community uses or recommends.
For instance, most Catholic churches use the Revised Standard Edition, Catholic Edition.
Many Protestant Churches use the New International Version, the second-most read English translation of the Bible in the United States.
The most read translation is the King James Version, which was completed in 1611. There are some churches that use that, but many modern readers find the language too archaic to understand, or prefer translations that use earlier versions of the original text that the translators of the King James Version didn't have access to.
When you are more familiar, you may try to read other versions of the Bible, that way you can get a different perspective.


Could there have been a pragmatic purpose for the OT legal dietary restrictions?

Your title and question are very different, so I will respond based on the title.

You may find this article very interesting:

http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d040402.htm

Basically, there is no hygienic reason for these dietary rules, as, if a clean animal died on its own and you ate it, then you must wash your clothing and be unclean until evening. (Leviticus 11:40)

So, would it make sense that you had some disease, but once the sun set you were now healthy?

There is nothing to imply that this was for health reason, but for ritual reasons, and perhaps to help the Jews to understand that they were not like other groups, and by following a different diet they could set themselves apart.

There is also Leviticus 11:35, where the rule is that if an unclean food was ever used on that oven or stove is now unclean and must be destroyed, as it will always be unclean.

If this was for health reasons, it could be scoured, disinfected with bleach, but if you are following these restrictions then you must take apart the oven or stove, regardless.

http://bible.cc/leviticus/11-35.htm

  Everything, moreover, on which part of their carcass may fall becomes
  unclean; an oven or a stove shall be smashed; they are unclean and
  shall continue as unclean to you

If you feel you must follow these dietary restrictions, then you must follow all of them, including never use a used stove/oven, for example, as is found in James 2:10 (http://bible.cc/james/2-10.htm)

  For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is
  guilty of breaking all of it.


Are Matthew, Mark and Luke the same book in different version?

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, aka the Synoptic Gospels, share common elements and parallels and were written by different people for different audiences. Your question has been (and still is) debated among Biblical scholars. My answer is, at best, a brief summary with some pointers to references that may be helpful and some encouragement for you.

Mark is believed by most scholars to be the earliest written account. There is evidence to suggest that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark. There is also evidence for a lost book of Jesus' sayings, known as Q, that influenced Matthew and Luke.

To say that they are different versions of the same original book does not address the historical origins of ancient manuscripts, oral traditions, the historical contexts for which they were written, and the editorial practices that created the manuscripts from which our modern translations were (and are) derived.

What you were told--that there was one original book--may be an attempt to support Biblical literalism and inerrancy and to say that there once was one original and perfect manuscript. This view is more commonly held within American evangelicalism.

Each Gospel stands on its own and has profound lessons for Christians. The study of scripture can be a rich and fulfilling activity.

A useful reference in studying the Synoptic Gospels, specifically the parallels among them, is "Gospel Parallels: a Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels" by Burton H. Throckmorton.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0840774842/

Another book that covers the doctrines of Christian scripture is "Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture" by Paul Achtemeier.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801045428/

For deeper study, the "New Interpreter's Bible Commentary" in 10 volumes is an excellent resource.
https://www.amazon.com//dp/1426739125/


What is the Catholic interpretation of Sirach 42:14?

The Douay Challoner version renders Ecclesiasticus 42:14 as:

  For better is the iniquity of a man, than a woman doing a good turn, and a woman bringing shame and reproach.

The Catholic Haydock Commentary says regarding this verse:

  Better, &c. That is, there is, commonly speaking, less danger to be apprehended to the soul from the churlishness, or injuries we receive from men, than from the flattering favours and familiarity of women. (Challoner) --- Josephus (contra Apion ii.) attributes this sentence to Moses, and prefers the worst man to the best woman, as Euripides does in Clement. (Strom. iv.) (Calmet) --- But this is ridiculous. --- Reproach. This explains what sort of good the woman aforesaid has done; she had fostered the passions of men, and brought them to shame, which all the malevolence of an enemy could not have done. (Haydock) --- The company of women is therefore more dangerous, chap. ix. (Worthington)


What percentage of Christendom takes early Genesis in a literal sense?

Here is some fairly recent data by those not friendly to creationism.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publid.htm

It looks like those who believe in creationism are 36%. While those who do not believe in evolution are 29%.

It is interesting to note that while falling, the percent change over the generations is not as steep as one might suspect.

There is also a graph where different denominations are polled about their belief in evolution. From Catholic = 58% to Evangelical = 23%

This might give some idea of the distribution.


Why does St. Paul say that a husband is "divided" between his wife and God?

The Navarre Bible New Testament Compact Edition's Note on 1 Cor 7:25-38

The excellence of virginity and celibacy has to do with the love of
God: the unmarried person can dedicate himself or herself to God more
fully than a married person can. "Both the sacrament of Matrimony and
virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the LORD himself. It is he
who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is
indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will" (CCC,
1620).
[...]

It is plain but explaining ...
For the individual what is best for that person is the vocation to which one has been called to. So if God calls one to be married, that's the best for that person. If God calls another to virginity or celibacy, one achieves their sanctity by responding to that call and living truthfully their vocation in life.
The Church has always held and upheld the excellence of virginity and celibacy over marriage1 for the simple reason that those who have received it please God directly without the mediation of an earthly and noble love. They live here and now Jesus' own calling[cf. Mt 19:12] and what will be our state in the age to come.

1. cf. Virginity or Celibacy for the Sake of the Kingdom | General Audience 10 March 1982 | Pope St. John Paul II [the Great].


By what authority does the old Catholic Encyclopedia call itself Catholic?

Generally, the Bishops are not in the business of writing and publishing scholarly works. What happens is that Catholic authors write a work, then seek official permission to publish (imprimatur), and an endorsement that the contents are not contrary to the faith (nihil obstat). The original Catholic Encyclopedia obtained both (which are visible at the bottom of every article at the New Advent website, such as the one on Aachen:

  Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.


How does Catholicism deal with the apparent paradox/conflict between "love thy neighbour" and "you will be rewarded"

Theologically speaking, through the Holy Spirit we receive the theological virtue of Charity (more commonly called Love), "by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, point 1822).

Point 733 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

  "God is Love" and love is his first gift, containing all others. "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us."

Thus, those who are greatly infused with this virtue will by its sole merits express such love through internal and external acts (minding the issue of sin, temptation, selfishness and other obstacles on the way). Again, God is Love, so receiving God through the Holy Spirit (recall the issue of the Trinity) by definition predisposes our will and soul to love! The reward is a non-issue.

Yet it is true that charity is essential for salvation. Point 837 of the Catechism states:

  ... Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'

Saint Paul reminds us (1 Cor 13:1-3):

  If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, I gain nothing.

Thus, it would have been a bit unfair for Jesus not to let us know that indeed love lead us to heaven. Thus, Jesus is in this sense acknowledging a reality - the means of salvation. He is not suggesting we should love because we would otherwise go to hell. The sole fact that we are made for love is sufficient reason for us to seek the source of this love and make it the aim of our lives.


How does a person become a godparent in the Roman Catholic Church?

According to the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law - Canon 874 §1. states that in order for someone to be permitted to take on the function of sponsor (godparent) a person must:

  1/ be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the
  person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or
  minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this
  function;

  2/ have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan
  bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has
  granted an exception for a just cause;

  3/ be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the
  most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in
  keeping with the function to be taken on;

  4/ not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or
  declared;

  5/ not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.

  §2. A baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial
  community is not to participate except together with a Catholic
  sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism.

In conclusion - to address your question more specifically, it must be clearly noted that:

(A) The godparent must definitely be confirmed in the faith, both sacramentally as well as proactively.

(B) The godparent must be over the age of 16 unless given a special dispensation by the local bishop.

If this question actually pertains to you or someone you know, my advice would be to contact your local priest...he should have all the answers to questions pertaining to sacraments.


Blood of the New Covenant offered to whom?

The 11th century Byzantine commentator, Theophylact of Ohrid, who wrote a comprehensive commentary on the Gospels compiled from the writings of earlier Church Fathers, wrote:

  When the Lord says, which is given for you and which is shed for
  you, He does not mean that His Body was given and His Blood was shed
  only for the Apostles, but for human nature itself.  Therefore,
  whenever He says, Given for you, understand it to mean, "Given for
  the human nature which belongs to you all." (An Explanation of the
  Gospel According to St. Luke)

I think that one could say that this interpretation is also reflected in Matthew's and Mark's accounts, where they recall Jesus saying which is shed for many:

  Matthew 26:28

    For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for
    many for the remission of sins

  Mark 14:24

    And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which
    is shed for many


What is the source of the story about the melted gold in the destroyed temple in 70 AD?

The Mystery of the Temple's 'Molten Metals'

Two recent apologists told the story, apparently independently, of molten gold seeping between the temple`s foundation stones during the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE.  Both implied the source was Josephus, but neither provided references.  Unfortunately, both had theological motivations for adding these details to their stories despite the lack of support.

On investigation, while much of their accounts of the destruction of the temple came from Josephus’ history – Jewish Wars 6.5.2, 6.6.1, 7.1.1, and 7.5.2 being particularly relevant – it seems the melted gold story did not.  It’s possible, however, the Christian apologists were duped by a medieval forgery into thinking it did.

Pastor Ray Stedman

The earliest example of the story I can find is Ray Stedman’s 1970 sermon on Mt.24:1-3, later published in a book.  Following on Jesus’ apparent prediction about the temple, that “there will not be left here one stone upon another,” Stedman told the story of the First Jewish-Roman War, suggesting his account was based on Josephus, including this:

  “There were great quantities of gold and silver which had been placed
  in the Temple for safekeeping. This melted and ran down between the
  rocks and into the cracks of the stones that formed the Temple and the
  wall around it. When the Roman soldiers finally took the city, in
  their greed to obtain this gold and silver they took long bars and
  pried apart these massive stones. Thus, quite literally, not one stone
  was left standing upon another.”

For Stedman, “this remarkable fulfillment, confirmed so strongly by secular history, is convincing proof” of the authenticity of Jesus’ prophetic message, “fully and literally.”  Though the story is unsubstantiated, Stedman’s telling of it is often quoted (and plagiarized).

Dr. Ernest Martin

Archeological enthusiast Ernest Martin told similar stories in his 1994 book, The Temples That Jerusalem Forgot, and in posts to his ASK website, including, ‘New Evidence for the Site of the Temple in Jerusalem.’  Martin’s controversial hypothesis was that Jerusalem’s temples were not on the Temple Mount platform (which he thought was the former Roman fortress) but on a now-destroyed foundation to the south.  His argument also emphasized Jesus’ phrase, ‘not one stone left upon another’, as well as genuine (and misquoted) passages from Josephus about the “utter ruin and thorough destruction of Jerusalem.”  In ‘New Evidence’ he wrote:

  “Josephus explained the reason why every stone was overturned in the
  city (including those that made up the very foundations). The Jews
  were accustomed to hide their gold and other valuables in the walls of
  their homes. The Temple itself was also the treasury of the Jewish
  nation. [JW 6.5.2] When the fires consumed the whole of the Temple and
  City, the gold melted and descended into the cracks and crevices of
  the stone foundations. In order to recover this melted gold, the Tenth
  Legion had the Jewish captives uproot every stone of the Temple and
  the whole of the City. So much gold was discovered in this fashion
  that the price of the metal in the Roman Empire went down half of its
  pre-war value. [JW 6.6.1] This action of looking for gold by
  overturning the stones (including all foundation stones) left
  Jerusalem as a vast quarry of dislodged and uprooted stones in a state
  of unrecognized shambles.”

While the two footnoted sentences (and other bits) do comport with Josephus, the story about melted gold does not. His theory siting the temple on Ophel Mound rather than Temple Mount has not been embraced by scholars, but one can see why he’d need to emphasize the scope and greedy enthusiasm of the Roman destruction to explain the complete disappearance of the temple AND its entire foundation platform, as he imagined it.

Josippon?

An excited supporter of Martin’s theory has posted several quotes from his book online, and one offers a lead on the origin of the melted gold story (or not).  Martin is quoted as writing, “In regard to the total destruction of the temple and all its outer buildings, a Hebrew version of Josephus (known as Josippon) states ...”  And a few lines later: “And recall, Jewish authorities during the Middle Ages accepted this narrative of Josippon as that of Josephus, an eyewitness.”   The quote continues with another version of the melted gold story.

The Jewish ‘history’ attributed to Josippon (aka Joseph ben Gorion, Yosippon, and Pseudo-Josephus) is regarded by modern scholars as a 10th century forgery (or pseudopigrapha).  Though it may have preserved some early Jewish folklore, the portion in question is actually believed to be the work of Pseudo-Hegesippus, the 4th century forger.   As history it’s quite unreliable.

Regardless, given Martin’s penchant for weaving together sourced and non-sourced material in the same paragraph, it’s unclear (from the available quotations) whether he intended to credit the melted gold story to the dubious Josippon.  Martin's later essays retell the story without mentioning him.  Perhaps Josippon said noting at all about melted gold.

So in the end we're left with a story that's either creative speculation, forged folklore, or unsubstantiated history – none of which counts as biblical scholarship.  Perhaps someone with access to Martin’s book or Josippon’s ‘history’ can provide more insights in the comments.


Are the Bible and God the same... thing/being?

I hope it's obvious that the Bible (a book) and God (a divine being) are not the same thing. It has never been part of Christian theology that the Bible should be worshipped, or that believing the Bible is synonymous with Christianity. The Bible as we know it today did not exist at all for many decades after Jesus' death, and in its present form for hundreds of years, yet Christians certainly existed during that time. Almost all Christians take the Bible as a true and infallible word from God. But views on other communication from God differ. One area of difference is in Jesus statements about what is to happen after his death. He never states that his followers are to use the scriptures only, but "I will be with you" and "My spirit I give to you". Interpretations of that differ.

One view is that the scriptures are foundational, but the Spirit gives additional revelation to Christians. In the Catholic view, the Spirit does this through the Church, specifically the church leadership. In other traditions this can happen through the church in community: in still others, to individual people. In either case revelations though the Spirit cannot contradict the Scriptures, but they can add to them. Some denominations believe in the office of "a prophet", who can convey commands from God for a specific time and place. Except for in some small denominations, and some specific cases in Catholicism, post-biblical revelations are not given the same 'infallibility' status that the Bible has.

In another view the presence of the Spirit to guide the followers of Jesus like this only lasted for the Apostolic Age, and was replaced by the Bible. This is the view of much non-Charismatic Protestantism. For those people the question "what does God say" and "what does the Bible say" are essentially synonymous.

However even the most ardent believer in a solely biblical authority will usually allow for the idea of personal guidance - i.e. that a person can pray to God and ask what to do in their specific circumstances, and receive an answer. In this case that is "what God says" to them. However what God says to one person doesn't necessarily apply to another.


Does the Catholic canon law say anything about women being priests?

Can.  1024 A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.

The Code of Canon Law makes it clear that only a male can be ordained validly. This is teaching of the Church going back centuries and most recently outlined by Pope John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

The priesthood being only for men doesn't mean women have no role. Not all men are eligible to be priests and not every man desires to either. There are many roles for both men and women, some are exclusive to one or the other and some are for either.

Men can be priests (and bishops or cardinals or popes), but also monks, friars, altar servers, teachers, professors, hermits, fathers, etc.

Women can be nuns, religious sisters, teachers, professors, mothers, hermits, consecrated virgins, etc.


When was it established that there were 14,000 innocents martyred?

I think I can begin to offer an answer to this, though it's still bit's and pieces. Basically, my guess is sometime in the 4thC, (as far as it is possible to tell, given the fragmentary nature of the sources) though it is clear that some number or other seems to be assigned to the death toll relatively early on.

My reason for thinking this:

R. Brown's The Birth of the Messiah, 1999 (p. 205) talks about the "Byzantine Liturgy" first setting the number to 14, 000. Now, unfortunately I don't have full access to these books, so I can't work out the context in which "Byzantine Liturgy" is used. From some basic searches, it seems the Byzantine liturgy is sometimes mixed up with the conceptual apparatus of the Byzantine rites, and the Byzantine Divine Liturgys originate from writers like John Chrysostom, active in the latter half of the 4C. I would therefore suggest that the figure of 14,000, if it did become generally established in the West, would have probably become established shortly after the fall of Constantinople (15th C), as holy texts were sent west to keep them out of Muslim hands, but of course it's possible that it was established much earlier.

The purpose of such a number seems to be the obvious one, I'm afraid - a way of exacerbating the sense of Herod's selfishness and evil. It seems strange to modern ears, as 14,000 infants implies a pretty massive population for a provincial 1st century town like Bethlehem, and a systematic campaign of slaughter that would be materially, economically and organizationally difficult for this sort of society. Other numbers raise it above 100,000 though, so maybe the Byzantines weren't peculiar in setting a large figure.

Greek numerals seem to be decimal, so I don't seem any reason for rounding to 14,000. It seem either a relatively arbitrary choice of the author or, more likely in my view, a record of some oral tradition of the time.


Is it permissible for a Catholic to believe in Miaphysitism?

The short answer is that, correctly understood, Miaphysitism can be compatible with the Catholic Faith.
In order to see how this is so, it is important to understand carefully what Catholics understand by “Miaphysistism.”
This position refers to a formula attributed to St. Cyril of Alexandria, intended to defend the so-called “communion of properties” in Christ:

μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη
one nature (physis) of the Word of God made flesh (sesarkomene)

(Briefly, the doctrine of the communion of properties, or communicatio idiomatum, means that the properties or actions of Jesus that proceed from his Divine Nature may rightly be ascribed to him as man, and vice versa. For example, we may rightly say both that God died on the Cross, and that Jesus the man created the universe. This communion arises because of the hypostatic union, since all actions are ultimately ascribed to the hypostasis, not the nature. See also Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 466.)
It should be noted that St. Cyril (c. 376–444) made this formula before the Council of Chalcedon (451), and before the terminology carefully distinguishing “nature” (physis) and “Person” (hypostasis) had stabilized.*
Hence, if the term physis here corresponds roughly to the Chalcedonian concept of hypostasis, then this formula can certainly be interpreted in an orthodox manner.
The Magisterium, in fact, has solemnly affirmed that Cyril’s formula may still be used. In the Second Council of Constantinople, the following canon is found:

If someone confesses that a union of natures, divine and human, has taken place, or speaks of one incarnate human nature of the Word of God (μίαν πύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένην), but does not understand these formulations as in the teachings of the Holy Fathers, … let him be anathema” (Denzinger-Hünermann no. 429, my translation).

In referring to the “Holy Fathers,” the Council clearly means St. Cyril of Alexandria, who did not at all espouse a Eutychian or Apollinarian Monophysitism (both of which effectively deny the full humanity of Jesus).
If Miaphysitism is understood according to this precise formulation, then it is perfectly orthodox and sanctioned by the Magisterium (so long as we understand that the Council of Chalcedon used physis in a different manner).
Hence, one could say that the key difference between Miaphysitism (correctly understood) and Monophysitism is that, whereas the latter denies some aspect of Christ’s humanity, the former respects his full and perfect humanity.

* The terms physis and hypostasis come ultimately from Aristotle—although the Alexandrian fathers were highly influenced by Platonism—and, in philosophical terms, have roughly the same meaning. Therefore, exactly how these terms are employed in theology is conventional. Cyril was writing before physis came to signify that which answers the question “What is it?” and hypostasis came to signify the personal subject that answers the question “Who is it?”


Which denomination allows homosexuality and why?

As mentioned by @ChrisSunami above, the Episcopal Church is the largest. There is also the Evangelical Lutherans, the United Churches of Christ, and the Metropolitan Community Churches. Then there are individual congregations that affirm LGBTs within the United Methodist Church, the Brethren, the Quakers, the American Baptists, and the Presbyterians. Then there are plenty of non-denominational and independent churches that are LGBT affirming (gaychurch.org has a list).

The Biblical defense of their position is usually that we either misinterpret the 6 passages that seem to condemn homosexuality (there is only 6 that seem to condemn it, whereas every other sin seems to be condemned hundreds of times), or the verses or mistranslations.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) is about gang rape, not about monogamous same sex relationships. The 2 verses in Leviticus (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) seem to be in the context of Molech worship, which would indicate that what is being condemned is ritual same-sex sex, again not monogamous same sex relationships. The Romans passage (Romans 1:26-27) is describing idolatry leading to same-sex sexual rituals, not homosexuality in general (read the entire chapter, not just verses 26-27). Then we have the problem of translating the terms arsenkoitai and malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. No one really knows what arsenkoitai means because Paul coined the term. Many LGBT-affirming Christians believe this is harking back to the Leviticus passages and thus refers to those participating in the same-sex sexual rituals.

If you accept these interpretations, monogamous same-sex relationships are never condemned in Scripture.


Is the Church both the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ?

I think the big 3 (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism) generally teach that both the images of the Church as the bride and body of Christ are both valid and instructive. Here is a statement from a Greek Orthodox church (The Church: Procedures for Becoming a Member of the Orthodox Christian Church):

  The close association between Christ and His Church is reflected in
  the images from the Scriptures which declare that Christ is the Head
  and the Church is His Body, and that Christ is the Bridegroom and the
  Church is His bride. These images express the reality that the Church
  does not exist independently from Christ.

The image of the Church as the body of Christ is fulfilled as the Church does the will of Christ in the world. The Church carries out the instructions of Our Lord as the members of a body do what the head commands (at least this is what is supposed to happen).

The reality of the Church as the bride of Christ is fulfilled in the Eucharist as the members assemble and partake of the body and blood of the Lord.


Fallen Angels worshiped in ancient civilizations?

In 1 Corinthians 10:19-20 (NIV), Paul writes:

  Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.

This indicates that all idol worship is actually worship of demons (fallen angels).

2 Kings 3:26-27 (ESV) describes a human sacrifice which seems to be effective:

  When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him 700 swordsmen to break through, opposite the king of Edom, but they could not. Then he took his oldest son who was to reign in his place and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath against Israel. And they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.

The fact that this sacrifice had such a dramatic effect seems to imply that the being to whom the sacrifice was directed existed and had power to influence a battle. Typical Christian theology identifies such gods as demons (fallen angels).


What is the source of this quote from Augustine about thanking heretics?

I found out that it is not an exact quote, but like a summary of an article published in:
"St. Augustine: Sermons for Christmas and Epiphany"
Publisher: Longmans, Green And Co., 1952, P. 35
Article: The good that comes of heretics. The good that came through the traitor Judas.


For what purpose were the "Chosen People" chosen?

From Scripture, they are chosen to do a number of things, for several reasons, all of which serve God's purpose.

They were chosen to produce the Messiah.
They were chosen to demonstrate God's power, as demonstrated in his dealings with Egypt, and throughout Scripture.
They were chosen to record Scripture
They were chosen to be the example, to teach us about God's nature.  We learn almost everything we know about God through His dealings with His chosen people

His attributes and nature
His attitude toward sin
We learn that he blesses those who love and obey Him, and judges those who rebel, and grants forgiveness when His people repent,  as seen throughout the history books. (Kings, judges

I'm sure the list could go on and on.


How sound are the arguments that Melchizedek invoked a Canaanite deity when he met Abraham?

Perhaps, some may agree with this (theophany). However, another way of looking at this passage in Hebrews is that the author is discussing an order or priestly appointment (precedent) without lineal descent. Just as Melchizedek had no known lineage (some Jewish commentators have written about traditions that Shem, Noah's son is Melchizedek, though this is disputed), so is Christ, who is eternal and without lineage [spiritual origin rather than earthly parentage]. The purpose of using Melchizedek is obvious in the text:

"He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever." (Heb. 7:3, ESV)

It's obvious that the author of Hebrews is trying to establish a priest who lasts forever (the reference to neither beginning or end and a priest forever and without father or mother or genealogy) as compared to the Levitical priests who were unable to continue in their office due to death (Heb.7:23). It could be argued that the author of Hebrews is using Melchizedek as a type of Christ rather than strictly demonstrating a theophany.

  As I understand it in Hebrews 7, he makes the argument
  that because because Abraham tithed to Melchizedek, it
  demonstrates that Abraham was blessed in some legitimate
  priestly fashion by Melchizedek, and that the one who
  blesses is superior to the one who receives the blessing,
  therefore Melchizedek is even superior to Abraham, which
  makes it quite fitting that Jesus would be after this
  priestly order, not the priestly order with descendants
  of Aaron who are limited by their own death. One might
  venture to guess from this theological interpretation
  that Melchizedek might have even been a type of theophany
  of Jesus, or if not, that his priesthood was special,
  unparalleled, and arcane.

However, to discuss the question about El-Elyon, otherwise translated as "the Most High God" one should ask whether El-Elyon was the name of a 'God', who was identified as the Most High, or whether it was a common 'word' for the Most High God. In terms of the Old Testament Scriptures, it's clear that the term El-Elyon is referring to God.

You can see many Scriptures in the Old Testament that equate both, but in the Pentateuch (Torah), you'll find them here. Very early in the Pentateuch, YHWH is clearly the same deity as El-Elyon or the Most High God.

Balaam, the oracle of God equates them in this passage:

"the oracle of him who hears the words of God,
and knows the knowledge of the Most High,
who sees the vision of the Almighty" (Num. 24:26, ESV)

Those who misunderstood the nature of God, could make an idol, and name that deity after "El-Elyon". This doesn't necessarily mean that that deity that has been shaped or made is a true representation of God.

Therefore, it's unlikely that Melchizedek would have invoked a Canaanite deity.


I'm going to make an assertion here (and I would be very happy to be shown wrong, in which case I'll readily delete this): there is no Biblical support at all for the concept of soul selling (or indeed of any other kind of explicit pact). The entire notion is a non-scriptural invention, along with such things (now generally denounced) as limbo for non-baptised children.

Without any scriptural support, all that is left is human invention, exaggeration and fancifulness (bites tongue hard to avoid obvious additional comment). In the absence of any scriptural basis to an answer, one would have to assume

  there is no basis to believe that anyone can sell their soul, or that any being is interested in purchasing it

(for the Christian meaning of "soul"). Any other answer would be pure speculation, or building upon traditions that are themselves based on pure speculation.


Does any church believe in Sola Scriptura, but without allowing private interpretation?

The approach to scriptural interpretation taken by the Anabaptist denominations is that of "community hermeneutic".

Community Hermeneutic means that the community of Christians (the church) is responsible and authorized to interpret the scriptures. This doesn't mean the hierarchy of the church, but all members of the church acting together, and attempting to reach consensus.

In practice this means something like:

The pastor of a congregation preaches a sermon, which embodies his understanding of scripture
The congregation hears the sermon. Because of the pastor's training, they respect his opinions.
The congregation would also meet together in study groups, and each group might come to a slightly different interpretation from the pastor.
The pastor would listen to the interpretations from the groups, and might modify his own understanding as a result. Each group would also hear and respect the interpretations of others.
Representatives of the congregation might also go to a meeting of churches within the denomination, where they presents their church's views, and also allow other churches to inform theirs. They might be called on to form a consensus interpretation for the whole denomination.

No single person, or group of persons, is responsible for forming the interpretation, and no person is excluded from making a contribution to the interpretation. Rather it is the community as a whole that is responsible.

References:

The Anabaptist Network
Graceworks
Mennonite Brethren Herald


Was there a special Sabbath in addition to Passover when Jesus was crucified?

We in the western world have been raised in a culture dominated by a post-Constantinian Christian worldview of time, rather than one that is biblically Hebrew.

Our days begin and end at midnight, rather than the biblical
breaking point of sunset.
Our days are named after celestial bodies and Norse gods revered in
pagan worship and our work week begins on Monday and ends with a day
of rest on Sunday (the first day of the week), rather than
continuing the biblical pattern that Jesus and His disciples adhered
to of keeping Sabbath on the seventh day.
Our Gregorian calendar years are numbered from the birth of Christ,
rather than from the traditional Hebrew reckoning of the beginning
of creation.
We have replaced the biblically instituted feasts of Pesach
(Passover), Shavuot, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkot
celebrated by the people of Israel with a variety of newly-minted
Christian seasons like Advent and Lent and holy days like Christmas
and Easter, as well as secular and neo-pagan holidays (holy days?)
like New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day,
Halloween, and Thanksgiving.

Rediscovering the worldview and timeframe of Christianity's Hebrew heritage allows us to more fully appreciate the activities of Jesus of Nazareth at the time of His earthly ministry, crucifixion, death, and resurrection.

The first month of the Hebrew calendar is the month of Nisan, which starts at the dawn of spring. On Nisan 10 every year, our spiritual forefathers were mandated in Scripture to select a Passover lamb without blemish, observe the lamb for three days for signs of unworthiness, and sacrifice it on the fourth day as a ceremonial beginning to the celebration of the Lord’s Passover and the Exodus of God’s people from slavery in Egypt. Passover has been celebrated for millennia by the house of Israel in a traditional order or Seder on the evening of Nisan 15. In the year He was crucified, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey on Nisan 10, taught publicly in the Temple for three days before being sacrificed on the cross on Nisan 14, and was placed in the tomb just as the Passover feast was about to begin.

How long did Jesus stay in the “heart of the earth” before He was raised from the dead? Jesus answered our question Himself in Matthew 12.38-40.

How does His prophetic answer match up with the rest of Scripture and our gentile Good Friday, Easter Sunday tradition?
 How did Jesus’ calendar match up with ours?
One attempt to solve this Passover puzzle can be found in the chart linked here “Jesus Fulfills the Promise of Passover,” which places the Last Supper Seder on the Tuesday evening of Preparation Day followed by His crucifixion and burial on Wednesday afternoon just prior to the start of the annual Passover Sabbath celebration that evening.

He then spent three days and nights in the tomb as He promised and rose from the grave after sundown on Saturday evening in time for the tomb to be found empty Sunday morning. What is your solution? Read the Gospel accounts of Jesus final days (Matthew chapters 21-28; Mark 11-16; Luke 19-24; John 12-20) and map out your own timeline.


Where in the Bible does it say that God is creating a new earth?

John, I am providing a fairly 'long answer' as you seem genuinely interested. You have tapped into a long historical theme in the Bible with your question. The first occurrence of the actual words ‘new earth’ occurs here at around 700 BC:

  "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. (Isaiah 65:17).

This prophecy was made by Isaiah to Judah who would be fallen into captivity by the Babylonian Kingdom (roughly around 500 BC) but would again be saved, just as Moses had delivered them from Egypt. So by what might appear on face-value as a hyperbole, this was a promise to Judah that after they became captive they would also again return to Jerusalem. This return would be like a ‘new world’. At least it would be better than the life in Babylon.

However, the language goes far beyond what one might expect from such deliverance and seems ‘heavenly’ so within old Rabbinic interpretation before Christ these verses were taken to apply to the times of the future Messiah who would restore Israel.  For example this does not seem like something normal on earth:

  he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed. (Isaiah 65:20).

Here is an example of an Old Rabbi’s view from an ancient Midrash before Christ:

  But a still more strange application of the verse occurs in the same Midrash (Par. 95, ed. Warsh. p. 170 a), where the opening clauses of it are quoted with this remark: Come and see all that the Holy One, blessed be His Name, has smitten in this world, He will heal in the latter days. Upon which a curious disquisition follows, to prove that every man would appear after death exactly as he had been in life, whether blind, dumb, or halting, nay, even in the same dress, as in the case of Samuel when Saul saw him - but that afterward
  God would heal the diseased. (Life and Times of Jesus, Alfred Edresheim, Appendix X, P1255).

So this Messianic expectation surrounding a ‘new world’ was that the Messiah would bring all Israelites back to Jerusalem and heal everybody in a sort of utopian society.  This is how they would interpret the next verse:

  25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox (Isaiah 65:25).

You can feel the heavenly impression of this peaceful image. This added to a Messianic expectation of a truly ‘new world’. Besides the life after their return from Babylon was not really so exalted, they did not even have their own independent King, but were vassals of other Kings. Therefore this only increased the Messianic expectation leading up to the time of Jesus from Bethlehem.  The Jews were subject to the Romans at that time.

With this Messianic expectation that a ‘new’ world would be created, the New Testament picks up on the theme in fulfillment and in prediction of another future fulfillment. First, in the current fulfillment a ‘new’ world was already created by Christ’s death, resurrection and ‘coming in power’ by his sending the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. This was a ‘creation of a new world’, or His ‘kingdom’ and so we call it the new covenant. Those who believe in God are called members of this kingdom and are born again into it, having a ‘new life’ in this ‘new world’. This was like God ‘shaking the whole heavens and earth’, so that a new heaven and new earth would result from what ‘could not be shaken’ (See Haggai 2:6).

Second the New Testament also indicates that this ‘shaking’ is not yet fully accomplished:

  10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. 11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. c That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. (2 Peter 3:10-13)

So your answer your questions: Jesus has made a new world and is still building it, all are welcome to join by placing their faith in Him. Also there will come a time when the whole world will be destroyed by fire at the second coming of Christ to ‘judge the living and the dead’.

Regarding why God regretted that he made man after the world had become so filled with sin, it is a anthropomorphism, or personification, of God as though he was a man, in order that we can understand what would otherwise be incomprehensible. In other words God has his own reasons for making man, even knowing they would sin and fall, but as we cannot fully comprehend them, He just wanted us to understand that sinful man is far beyond what his purpose was. Yet no worries, now God has shown us how He planned to kill sin, and kill, death, it was in Christ so that:

  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

This is both, how God made a new world, and how we can enter into it today.


Is "Rapture" or "Caught up alive" in contradiction to God's words "Dust to dust"?

The following statement is directed specifically to Adam as only Adam technically came from dust!  We of course as the offspring of Adam are affected relationally.  However, this statement would not be substantial enough to impose death or the "returning to dust" upon every member of humanity.

By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return. (Genesis 3:19, NIV)

Paul uses the word koimaō (Strongs G2837) in both of the following verses.  Notice that the word is translated as “dead” in 7:39 and could not be appropriately translated as sleep.  Conversely 15:51 could easily have used the word died in place of sleep.

1 Corinthians 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, G2837 she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, G2837 but we shall all be changed,

Hebrews 9 is not about how many times a man dies, but about the one time sacrifice of Christ.  “Appointed once to die” is in accordance that Christ does not have to continue to be crucified for our sins in the way the Temple sacrifices had to continue to die.  Essentially it is saying that it is natural for a man to die once.

Hebrews 9:24-28 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

In Hebrews 9:27 the Greek word "hapax" is translated as "once", it could just as well be translated as "conclude", certainly not a strong enough statement to make a claim of contradiction.
It is also generally accepted form scripture that Elijah (Kings II Chapter 2, Verse 11) and Enoch (Genesis 5:22-24) did not die.
Therefore, While it is generally true that each man dies once, it does not mean that all men must die once.  Therefor, these verses are not in conflict with "Rapture" theology.


Does Catholicism confound the role of "elder" and "priest"?

The Catholic understanding is that the word πρεσβύτερος means priest subordinate to a hierarch, one ordained to offer sacrifice under the direction of a chief priest. It does not mean layman governor of the church, like a Protestant elder. This is consistent with NT usage, where "chief priests and elders=πρεσβύτερος" (Matt 21:23 KJV) refers to two levels of ordained hierarchy in the Jewish religion, both of whom are involved in the sacrificial temple worship. It is Protestantism, not Catholicism that has become confused by eliminating sacrifice from their religious practice, thus reducing their πρεσβύτερος to mere advisors and teachers.

NT and modern usage are correctly explained in the wikipedia article for Presbyter. I disagree with the quote from the ISV website at the bottom of the article saying that the zaqen were not priests. That appears to be an assumption on their part. Several usages in the synoptic gospels pairs presbyters with chief priests, which appears to put them in the priestly class. In one instance in each gospel (Matt 26:59, Mark 15:1, and Luke 22:66) it is clear that they are talking about members of the Sanhedrin that are not the chief priests.

The Catholic Church derived its terminology in the Greek language from the Septuagint and koine usage in NT times, not modern Protestant usage, and not pure etymology. We need to look not just at the etymology of the terms, but also how they were actually used in NT times. In this case, it's clear that the Jewish "presbyters" were members of the Sanhedrin and thus quite high in the Jewish hierarchy. It's also clear that the term was applied by the primitive Christian church to those men who were chosen by the bishops (overseers) to assist them by administering the sacraments to congregations where they could not be physically present each week. Thus, this is strong evidence that by NT times, presbyter had a sacerdotal connotation. The primary work of the primitive Christian church at this time was not judging the people (resolving disputes or administering law) but rather conducting sacramental rites.

There is also one relevant OT citation:

  Exodus 18:21-22 (KJV): 21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the
  people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness;
  and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of
  hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:

  22 And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that
  every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter
  they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall
  bear the burden with thee.

Note that this passage says "out of all the people able men", indicating that Levites were not excluded.

So why, I can hear you asking, doesn't the NT use ἱερεὺς instead of πρεσβύτερος? It does use it (in the plural form ἱεράτευμα), but it uses it for the priesthood of all believers in 1 Peter 2:5 and 1 Peter 2:9. Clearly the NT is making a distinction between the priesthood of all believers and the presiders at the sacraments.


Why did Swedenborg accept any New Testament books?

Swedenborg was a Christian
First and foremost, at the most basic level Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) was a Christian.
As the son of an influential and iconoclastic Swedish Lutheran clergyman, Jesper Swedberg, Swedenborg grew up in an intensely Christian atmosphere. There is even some evidence in his personal journals that Swedenborg believed his father expected him, as the eldest surviving son, to follow in his father's footsteps and become a clergyman himself.
Swedenborg did have a very direct and personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This relationship became even more intense through a personal encounter with Jesus that he describes in the dream journal that he briefly kept in the years 1743 and 1744. These were pivotal years in his transition from being a scientist and philosopher to being a theologian. Many Swedenborg scholars believe that this encounter with Christ was the pivotal moment in that transition, completely changing the course of Swedenborg's life.
Based on his strongly Christian background and beliefs, and on his personal relationship with Jesus Christ, it would be unthinkable for Swedenborg not to view the Gospels, in which the life and teachings of Jesus Christ are recounted, as part of the Word of God—if not as the very heart of the Word of God.
And if there is any other book in the New Testament in which Jesus Christ appears most fully in person, it is the book of Revelation, with its opening vision of the risen and glorified Christ, and its (symbolic) account of Christ's battle against and ultimate victory over Satan.
By contrast, the Acts of the Apostles, as its traditional title suggests, focuses less on Jesus Christ himself and more on the activities of his immediate followers after his death.
And though the various Epistles, traditionally written by several of Christ's original Apostles plus the Apostle Paul, do teach many things about Jesus Christ, and amplify Christian doctrine in many ways, they don't have the immediacy of telling Christ's own story, and providing Jesus Christ's teachings in his own words.
On the heart level, then, Swedenborg held closely to the Gospels and the book of Revelation as the Word of God because these are the books in which his Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ is personally present, and speaks in his own words. This had a powerful meaning for Swedenborg, who had himself encountered Jesus Christ and heard Jesus' living voice speaking to him.
The books of the Word are those that have an internal sense
The more theological reason Swedenborg accepted the four Gospels and the book of Revelation as the Word of God he expressed in the quotation from Arcana Coelestia ("Secrets of Heaven") reproduced more fully my answer to the linked question:

The books of the Word are all those that have the internal sense; books that do not have it are not the Word. (Arcana Coelestia #10325)

Swedenborg lived in an era well before today's rampant biblical literalism had gotten a firm grip on much of the Christian Church. For him, it was a very basic part of Christian belief to think that the Bible, as the Word of God, had deeper meanings relating entirely to God and to our spiritual life.
In the years immediately following his call from Jesus Christ—which, based on Swedenborg's later references to it, occurred some time during the years 1743–1745—to set aside his previous scientific and philosophical labors and focus on the Bible and Christian theology instead, Swedenborg read and re-read the Bible in its original Hebrew and Greek languages, studying it intensively, indexing it thoroughly, and gaining an intimate, detailed knowledge of the book that had been held up to him as the Word of God from the time of his childhood.
In doing so, enlightened from within, he said, by the Lord himself, he began to see that not all of the books of the Protestant Bible had the same level of depth and inspiration.
More specifically, in the traditional Christian New Testament, he came to the conclusion that although the writers of and figures in the Acts and the Epistles did have a certain level of inspiration from the Holy Spirit, these books were written more from a historical and doctrinal perspective, and did not have the continuous, connected inner meaning that speaks at the deepest level entirely about the Lord's Incarnation and his process of glorification here on earth, and at a less deep level about our human rebirth or regeneration process from being self-centered sinners to being righteous people re-created by the Spirit of the Lord.
Another way of saying this is that the Acts and the Epistles explain the meaning of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ to their audience (Christians and potential Christians), whereas the Gospels and the book of Revelation tell the story of Jesus Christ.
Here is Swedenborg's own explanation of this difference in a letter that he wrote to one of his early followers:

As regards the writings of the Apostles and Paul, I have not quoted them in the Arcana Coelestia for the reason that they are doctrinal writings, and therefore are not written in the style of the Word as are the Prophets, David [the Psalms], the Gospels, and the Apocalypse [the book of Revelation]. The style of the Word consists wholly of correspondences, and therefore these books bring about direct communication with heaven.
In doctrinal writings there is a different style, which does indeed have communication with heaven, but indirectly. The reason these books were written in this way by the Apostles was so that through them the new Christian Church could have its beginning. To accomplish this purpose, doctrinal matters could not be written in the style of the Word, but rather had to be written in a way that could be understood more clearly and intimately.
The Apostles' writings are nevertheless good books for the church, maintaining the doctrine of charity and its faith just as strongly as does the Lord himself in the Gospels and the Apocalypse, as can be clearly seen and discovered if one has his mind on these matters when reading them. (Swedenborg's Letter to Beyer, April 15, 1766; translation edited into somewhat more contemporary English for readability)

By "correspondences" Swedenborg means the spiritual symbolism that he saw as existing throughout the inspired books of Scripture. The books of the inspired Word of God, Swedenborg said, are written in a style that contains this spiritual symbolism—or more accurately, this living relationship with spiritual and divine things—from beginning to end.
The Acts and the Epistles in the New Testament, by contrast, he saw as having a more historical and doctrinal style that, although it did contain some spiritual symbolism, was not fully "correspondential" or symbolic (what today is often called "metaphorical") specifically so that it could explain Christian doctrine more clearly and directly to the members of the nascent Christian Church.
And so, as stated in my linked answer, Swedenborg did not reject the Acts and the Epistles. Indeed, he believed that they had a critical role in the founding and building up of the Christian Church. He simply didn't see them as providing, at a deeper level, a continuous and coherent narrative, from beginning to end, of Jesus Christ's spiritual and divine work during his lifetime on earth, and of our own spiritual rebirth process.
For a full list of the books that Swedenborg saw as the inspired Word of God in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, see my answer to the linked question.


Was it possible for Catholics to express their faith openly in England during the time of persecution?

They sang "The Twelve Days of Christmas" as an expression of faith and quite openly!

In 1870, the song of The Twelve Days of Christmas was first published in England, shortly after the time when it was a criminal act to practice the Catholic faith. According to the Tridentine Mass of Pope Pius V (1570), the Christmas season lasted from the Solemnity of the Birth of Our Lord until the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord, on February 2 (40 days). However, the Liturgical Year counted Sundays as being in the time of the Epiphany, instead of ordinary time as we do now, thus making the “Twelve Days Of Christmas” to be taken as being from the Solemnity of the Birth of Our Lord until the Vigil of the Epiphany (January 5). The Twelve Day of Christmas carol had a totally different historical meaning for the faithful living in Britain during the persecutions against Catholics from April 29, 1559 to April 13, 1829 (Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829), when it was a criminal offence to practice the Catholic religion. Catholicism remained illegal for some 232 years. The singing of this carol was a way for persecuted Catholics to express their faith openly in England as laid out in the twelve points in the Apostles’ Creed.

Being a time of persecution, the faithful would naturally not have any written works on its' real interpretation in order to avoid linking them to the Catholic Church.

None of the numerated parts of the song could be used to distinguish Catholics from Anglicans (or Protestant for that matter), and could thus be sung quite openly as an expression by the faithful of the Catholic Church.

Other interpretations do exist for numerated parts of this carol as to the symbolism they meant to Catholics living in England during the persecutions for their faith. None other than the Apostle’s Creed interpretation makes this a uniquely Catholic carol sung at Christmastide. Here is the most popular interpretation of “The Twelve Days of Christmas.”

The partridge in a pear tree is Jesus.
The two turtledoves are the Old and New Testaments.
Three French hens stand for faith, hope and love.
The four calling birds are the four Gospels.
The five gold rings recall the Hebrew Torah (Law), or the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament.
The six geese a-laying stand for the six days of creation.
The seven swans a-swimming represent the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.
The eight maids a-milking are the eight Beatitudes.
Nine ladies dancing are the nine fruits of the Holy Spirit.
The ten lords a-leaping are the Ten Commandments.
Eleven pipers piping represent the eleven faithful Apostles.
Twelve drummers drumming symbolize the twelve points of doctrine in the Apostles Creed.

Here is “The Twelve Days of Christmas” sung on YouTube: “The Twelve Days of Christmas” - Hayley Westenra, Russell Watson, Aled Jones (Songs of Praise).

  In 1982, Fr. Stockert put this online in 1982. Since then there has been controversy on whether or not the story of the origin is correct. Much of the story makes sense, because there are other "Catechism songs" that have similar hidden meanings, such as "Green Grow the Rushes". Could some people be disputing the origin because they refuse to acknowledge the persecution of Catholic in England during 1558 to 1829? Perhaps the objection is just to the fact that there is no paper trail to this explanation. Regardless if the origin is accurate or not, as Catholics we can use this song as a catechism, to apply religious meanings to a secular song. - Origin of the Twelve Days of Christmas


Does it matter which day I celebrate Sabbath / Lord's day on?

In Genesis 2:2-3 (NIV) it says,

  2  By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3  Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

It would seem to indicate only the existence of 'a day of rest', but there is no reference to a certain day of the week being more deserving of said title. I only see evidence that we should observe 'a day of rest'; though whatever day of the week that might happen to be is of little to no consequence really.


In Catholic teaching, to what scripture is each of the seven sacraments referenced?

Summarized from http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/Sacraments.htm as pointed out by Reluctant_Linux_User:

Baptism -  Mathew 28:19 - "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit"
Confirmation - Acts 8:17; 19:6 - "Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit."
Eucharist - Luke 22:14-20 - The Last Supper
Penance1 - James 5:16 - "Therefore, confess your sins to one another"
Anointing of the Sick - James 5:14 - "Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint [him] with oil in the name of the Lord"
Holy Orders -  Acts 6:6 - "They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them."
Matrimony - Genesis 2:24 - "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body."

I suggest reading the article linked about for more scriptural support and more information about how and why they are performed.

1. cf. Penny Catechism Q.283. When did our Lord institute the Sacrament of Penance? A. Our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Penance when he breathed on his Apostles and gave them power to forgive sins, saying: 'Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven.' John 20:23


How do Roman Catholics interpret Luke 4:13, regarding the devil leaving Jesus "until an opportune time"?

The last paragraph of the note to Lk 4:1-13 in the Navarre Bible New Testament Compact Edition has:

  [...]
  Jesus defeats the devil here, as he will also do at "an opprtune
  time" (v.13), that is, in his passion and death (cf. the note on
  22:1-6): his filial acceptance of the father's plans will liberate men
  from the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil (cf. Heb
  2:14). Jesus' victory over the tempter serves to encourage his
  disciples: if they trust in God, they will be able to defeat all
  temptation.


Why is Elijah missing from Tozer's "The Saint Must Walk Alone"?

Tozer does include Elijah he just does not list each name of the prophets.

  The prophets of pre-Christian times differed widely from each other, but one mark they bore in common was their enforced loneliness. They loved their people and gloried in the religion of the fathers, but their loyalty to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and their zeal for the welfare of the nation of Israel drove them away from the crowd and into long periods of heaviness. "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children," cried one and unwittingly spoke for all the rest. (A. W. Tozer, The Saint Must Walk Alone)

This is the typical insightful Tozer and an excellent sermon.


What is the Biblical basis for it being wrong for couples to live together “chastely” before marriage?

From your comments you are asking strictly about members of the opposite sex who live in the same house, without any kind of sexual relations.

There is, as far as I know, no absolute prohibition on this. In fact I have known several Christians who have shared houses with members of the opposite sex and nobody has objected in any way. However I do understand your claim that Christians do sometimes object to this. Here are some reasons:

They don't believe it. The church doing the objecting probably thinks the pair are having sex, they are just not being open about it. If the people sharing the house are in a romantic relationship, this skepticism is pretty understandable.
It's laying yourself open to temptation Having someone of the opposite sex 'available' and in a situation where nobody would know if you slept together is heightening the possibility that you might 'slip up'. If you are attracted to the other person that counts double, and if you are in a romantic relationship with them, even more so.
It's damaging your reputation and hence Jesus'. Even if you are living completely chastely, and fellow-Christians believe that, it's extremely unlikely that the rest of the world will believe it. Therefore they will see it as a case of Christians being hypocritical.

Different churches would have different takes on this. I certainly know some that would have have no problem with it, and some that would have a big problem.


What is the difference between Systematics and Dogmatics?

The two terms are basically synonyms, but there are some differences.

First, it's not merely a matter of "age."  Karl Barth wrote Church Dogmatics  in 1932, while Charles Hodge wrote Systematic Theology in 1872.

On the other hand, there seems to be a geographical bias.  Barth, Berkouwer, Heppe, Pieper, and Ott all wrote originally in German or Dutch, and their works are translated into English with a variation of the word "dogmatic."  Heppe is a good example: his Reformierte Dogmatik became Reformed Dogmatics.

There are exceptions: English writers Edward A. Litton (Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, 1882) and William Shedd (Dogmatic Theology, 1889) eschewed "systematic," even though their peers Boyce, Dabney, Miley, and Hodge preferred it.

Some attempt to draw a strong distinction in the meaning of the terms, arguing that "Dogmatic" implies a closer relation with the teachings of schools and denominations, and less of an emphasis on the Bible, than is implied by "Systematic."  For example, the Grace Institute for Biblical Leadership puts it simply:

  Systematic theology [...] uses the Bible as its primary source. [...] Dogmatic theology uses as its primary sources the creeds or statements of faith.

John Miley does not paint so stark a picture, describing the difference and similarities as follows:

  Dogmatic theology has its proper distinction from both biblical and systematic, though often used in the same sense as the latter.  It is not limited to the Scriptures, like the biblical, nor has it by any requirement the comprehensiveness of the systematic.  [....] Mostly, dogmatic theology devotes itself to the creed of a particular school. [...] [It] may be just as free from dogmatism in any philosophic sense of the term, and just as scientific in its principles and method, as systematic theology. (Systematic Theology, vol. 1, Introduction)

One author particularly involved in the discussion is Louis Berkhof, as his treatise was first published as Reformed Dogmatics in 1932, and then republished several years later as Systematic Theology (1938).  The preface of a modern publication of that work states:

  [Berkhof] yielded to the suggestion, perhaps from his publisher, that Reformed Dogmatics was not a term and title as clear to the American readership as Systematic Theology -- although he continued to view the original title as more fully descriptive of his purpose.

Berkhof makes his case for the term Dogmatics in an early chapter:

  Reformed scholars in Germany and in the Netherlands show a decided preference for the title Dogmatics, with or without a modifier.  In our own country, however, the term Systematic Theology seems to have a more popular appeal.  From an ideal point of view the former certainly deserves preference, (1) because it is the more specific of the two, and designates the real object of study with greater precision; and (2) because the modifier 'systematic' in 'Systematic Theology' is apt to create the impression that the study under consideration is the only theological study which treats its subject matter in a logical order.

But he does not consider this a crucial distinction:

  For practical reasons, however, it seems more desirable, especially in our country and in our day, to use the title Systematic Theology.  This does not require the sacrifice of any principle.

In fact, Berkhof notes that Benjamin B. Warfield (Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 7-26 (1896)) prefers Systematic.  Warfield disputes Berkhof's second point, writing:

  What is meant by calling this discipline "Systematic Theology" is not that it deals with its material in a systematic or methodical way, and the other disciplines do not; but that it presents its material in the form of a system.

In Berkhof's definition of Dogmatic Theology from a reformed perspective, he like Miley points out its tie to a particular system of doctrine but emphasizes the importance of scriptural backing:

  It seeks to give a systematic presentation of all the doctrinal truths of the Christian religion. [...] The dogmatician must demonstrate the truth of the system which he presents as his own.  He must show that every part of it strikes its roots deep down into the subsoil of Scripture.

It thus seems safe to say that in general, the terms can be viewed as near synonyms, with minor, technical distinctions, and that their usage depends more on geography, language, and personal preference than a universally accepted difference in meaning.


Where does the LDS section heading for 1 Corinthians 7 come from?

The short answer: revelation to Joseph Smith.
The long answer:
The LDS edition of the King James Version (KJV plus references) was authored in 1979 under the direction of the Apostles:

In 1979 and 1981, following a historic effort led by Elders Thomas S. Monson, Boyd K. Packer, and Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published its own edition of the King James Version of the Bible.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/about-the-scriptures/history

This edition includes footnotes with excepts from the Joseph Smith Translation (selected Biblical translations by Joseph Smith circa 1830).

But I speak unto you who are called unto the ministry. For this I say, brethren, the time that remaineth is but short, that ye shall be sent forth unto the ministry. Even they who have wives, shall be as though they had none; for ye are called and chosen to do the Lord’s work.
JST, 1 Corinthians 7:29

For comparison, the plain KJV:

But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
KJV, 1 Corinthians 7:29

Note the JST was an inspired rather than conventional translation; there's no claim that extant Greek texts have this content.

The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the King James Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written. These restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural understanding.
Because the Lord revealed to Joseph certain truths that the original authors had once recorded...the word translation is used in a broader and different way than usual, for Joseph’s translation was more revelation than literal translation from one language into another.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/jst/introduction

This interpretation is doctrinally consistent with the otherwise pro-marriage instructions throughout the scriptures. (Genesis 1, Matthew 19, even Paul himself in 1 Timothy 4:3.)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints follows Paul's instruction, in that the vast majority of its full-time missionaries are required to be single. As Paul said, those responsibilities are incompatible with marriage. (But following that full-time service they would marry and raise children.)


Why do Premillennialists teach the 1,000 year reign of Christ will take place on Earth?

There is no mention of Millennial Reign taking place on earth.

Not true.
When Christ returns, the tribulation will end and he will become King of Kings, here on Earth:

Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth. — Matthew 5:5

And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth.” — Revelation 5:10

The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever! — Revelation 11:15

The Old Testament contains many prophecies about the world to come, and it clearly takes place here on Earth.
At first many nations will refuse Christ's rule, but soon they will all come to accept it and cooperate with each other during the Millennium:

And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, on them there will be no rain.
— Zechariah 14:16–17

He shall judge between the nations,
And rebuke many people;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore.
— Isaiah 2:4

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
— Isaiah 11:6

In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian will come into Egypt and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians will serve with the Assyrians.
— Isaiah 19:23

Would there be any need for plowing and pruning, or highways and rain, in Heaven?
Will there be wolves and leopards and lions? and children?

Where would the Millennial Reign be on earth if the Holy City has not landed on earth until Revelation 21.

The Millennial Reign will be over the entire earth (it's not clear why you would think otherwise).


Did the Church Fathers advocate celibacy?

The general consensus, following Paul's teaching, seems to be that marriage is good but celibacy is better.

Tertullian may have been the first to write about it:

  In short, there is no place at all where we read that nuptials are prohibited; of course on the ground that they are “a good thing.”  What, however, is better than this “good,” we learn from the apostle, who permits marrying indeed, but prefers abstinence; the former on account of the insidiousnesses of temptations, the latter on account of the straits of the times.

Chrysostom, in his homily on 1 Timothy 3, explains the biblical rules for bishops:

  “A Bishop then,” he says, “must be blameless, the husband of one wife.” This he does not lay down as a rule, as if he must not be without one, but as prohibiting his having more than one.

He later elaborates:

  If then “he who is married cares for the things of the world”, and a Bishop ought not to care for the things of the world, why does he say the husband of one wife? Some indeed think that he says this with reference to one who remains free from a wife. But if otherwise, he that hath a wife may be as though he had none. For that liberty was then properly granted, as suited to the nature of the circumstances then existing. And it is very possible, if a man will, so to regulate his conduct. For as riches make it difficult to enter into the kingdom of Heaven, yet rich men have often entered in, so it is with marriage.

He adds:

  “They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh”; and Christ again says, “Whosoever forsaketh not all that he hath, he is not worthy of Me.” Why are not these things required by Paul? Plainly because few could be found of such a character, and there was need of many Bishops, that one might preside in every city.

So Chrysostom agrees that celibacy is better, but regards monogamous marriage as a practical alternative.

Evidently in Augustine's time, a monk named Jovinian wrote that celibacy was no better than marriage. Augustine responded with a treatise, On Holy Virginity, then, fearing he might be misunderstood, wrote another, On the Good of Marriage. [secondary source, can't find link to originals.]


When did Christmas (the birth of Christ) first begin as a Christian celebration?

St. Nicholas of Myra predates the Great Schism by over 600 years. His feast day traditionally was December 6th, but has been taken off the Catholic calendar recently. Orthodox celebrate the feast of the nativity on the same day Catholics do, but their celebration with gifts, etc... is 12 days after (like it is in Spain and parts of Louisiana) on 3 kings day (feast of epiphany (catholic) or Theophany (orthodox)). That's January 6th, which remembers when the 3 kings came, quite a bit later than Jesus' birth (unlike in popular depiction).

St. Nicholas's feast day, like St. Stephen's who the song "Good King Wenceslas" takes place on, is conflated with Christmas for a few good reasons. Namely charity. On St. Nicholas's feast day there is a tradition of children leaving their shoes out for him to come and fill.

The older feast is the feast of the annunciation which apparently goes back to when the Anno Domini system was established. It was and is March 25th, and that was the greater of the two feasts in those days. Like the annunciation of Mary and John the Baptist, Jesus' annunciation feast day is 9 months previous to His birth. So, even in 731 there is a tradition of having Christ's birth be celebrated on December 25th.

However, there's nothing particularly special about the times and seasons of liturgical feasts. They arise through tradition and not through scripture. But the indisputable fact is, it is old.


Who was the first person ordered executed by a Roman Catholic pope?

The first person formally condemned to death by the papacy was Arnold of Brescia (c. 1090 – June 1155), an Italian canon regular from Lombardy. He called on the Church to renounce property ownership and participated in the failed Commune of Rome.

Exiled at least three times and eventually arrested, Arnold was hanged by the papacy, then was burned posthumously and (his ashes) thrown into the River Tiber. Though he failed as a religious reformer and a political leader, his teachings on apostolic poverty gained currency after his death among "Arnoldists" and more widely among Waldensians and the Spiritual Franciscans, though no written word of his has survived the official condemnation. Protestants rank him among the precursors of the Reformation.
After Pope Eugene's death, Pope Adrian IV swiftly took steps to regain control of Rome. He allied with Frederick Barbarossa, who took Rome by force in 1155 after a Holy Week interdict and forced Arnold again into exile. Arnold was seized by Imperial forces and tried by the Roman Curia as a rebel. Importantly, he was never accused of heresy. Faced with the stake, he refused to recant any of his positions. Convicted of rebellion, Arnold was hanged in June and his body burnt. Because he remained a hero to large sections of the Roman people and the minor clergy, his ashes were cast into the Tiber, to prevent his burial place becoming venerated as the shrine of a martyr.
In 1882, after the collapse of Papal temporal powers, the city of Brescia erected a monument to its native son. - Arnold of Brescia Wikipedia)

The first known persons directly ordered to be executed by the a pope himself seems to be the brothers Cardinal Carlo Carafa and Giovanni Carafa, Duke of Paliano, nephews of Paul IV, sentenced to strangulation in prison and beheading, respectively, by Pius IV, as his first public act (March 5, 1561).

Giovanni Carafa (died 5 March 1561), Duke of Paliano, was a papal nephew and minor Italian prince.
After the failure of the Pope's war with Spain in 1558, their notoriety became a liability, and they were banished from Rome on 27 January 1559. Paul IV died in August of that year, and Giovanni and Carlo were put on trial by the new Pope, Pius IV, in July 1560. The trial's proceedings were concluded in March 1561 when, under sealed orders of the Pope, the brothers were executed in Rome. Carlo, as a cardinal, was strangled in the Castel San Angelo, while, two days later, Giovanni was beheaded at the Tor di Nona prison along with two companions. The sentence was overturned under the next pope, Pius V, in 1567, after a petition by their surviving brother, and their prosecutor was executed for having deceived Pius IV. Giovanni Carafa, Duke of Paliano

As for the Cardinal Callo Carafa, Wikipedia reads as follows:

Carlo Carafa (29 March 1517 - 6 March 1561) of a distinguished family of Naples, vicious and talented3 was successively condottiero in the service of France and of Spain, vying for their protectorates in Italy until 1555, when he was made a cardinal,3 to 1559 the all-powerful favourite and Cardinal Nephew of Pope Paul IV Carafa, whose policies he directed and whom he served as papal legate in Paris, Venice and Brussels. According to the Jesuit, later Cardinal, Francesco Sforza Pallavicino, writing the history of the Council of Trent, his subtlety of spirit and grace of address, physical courage and instinct for glory were overridden by his insatiable thirst for power.
In June 1560, Paul's successor, Pope Pius IV arrested the leading members of the family - Carlo, his brother Duke Giovanni, and their nephew the Cardinal Archbishop of Naples, seizing their papers, and levying a range of charges relating to abuses of power during Paul's reign. Carlo was charged with murder, sodomy, and the promotion of Protestantism. After a nine-month trial, he was condemned along with his brother, and was executed by strangulation at Castel Sant' Angelo on the night of 6 March 1561. His execution was considered at the time to have been motivated primarily by political factors such as his pro-French, anti-Spanish policies.
On September 26, 1567, the sentence was declared unjust by Pope Pius V. The memory of the victims was vindicated and their estates restored. Carlo Carafa


How does Swedenborgianism understand Amos 3:2, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth"?

The five "churches," or religious eras, of humankind

According to Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), there have been five major "churches," or religious eras, in the spiritual history of humankind. In the traditional English translations of his original Latin terms, they are known as:

The Most Ancient Church (from Adam to the Flood)
The Ancient Church (from the Flood to the Egyptian captivity)
The Israelitish Church (from the Exodus to the birth of Christ)
The first Christian Church (from the birth of Christ until 1757)
The new Christian Church, or New Jerusalem Church (from 1757 onward, represented by Revelation 21-22 in the Bible)

These "churches" are not denominations, but rather key religious dispensations that, in their time, form the closest link with God among the various nations, cultures, and religions of humankind.

Swedenborg's commentary on Amos 3:2

Amos 3:2 reads:

You only have I known
  of all the families of the earth;
therefore I will punish you
  for all your iniquities. (NRSV)

Swedenborg did not write a full commentary on the book of Amos. There are scattered explanations of some of the verses in that book. However, the only direct commentary by Swedenborg on Amos 3:2 is found in his unpublished manuscript, Draft on the Inner Meaning of Prophets and Psalms. As its title indicates, this manuscript provides a very brief and sketchy running spiritual sense commentary on all of the Prophets of the Old Testament, and on the Psalms.

The commentary on Amos 3:1-2 in Prophets and Psalms (#203) reads:

  The church was instituted solely with the Israelitish nation, therefore falsities and evils must be examined there.

The meaning of Amos 3:2 based on Swedenborg's theology

As indicated in the above quote from Prophets and Psalms, from the perspective of Swedenborg's theology, Amos 3:2 is speaking poetically of the Israelite nation and religion as the key "church" or religious dispensation of its time. So when it says, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth," it is speaking of the Israelite people as the "church" or religious dispensation where God most fully revealed the divine truth to the world during that time period.

It is not saying that God had no awareness of the earlier or later religious dispensations, or of the other nations, cultures, and religions of the world. Rather, it is saying that God had a special relationship with the Israelite people among all the then-existing peoples of the earth.

This is in line with the meaning of the meaning and connotations of the Hebrew word יָדַע (yada`), "to know," which does not generally mean mere intellectual knowledge, but rather experiential knowledge, and often a direct relationship with the one known. For example, יָדַע is the word used in Genesis 4:1:

  And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived . . . (KJV, italics added)

Similarly, in Amos 3:2 the word "know" is speaking of a special, close relationship between God and the Israelite people.

This relationship, Swedenborg said, lasted from when the Israelite nation first formed at the time of the Exodus from Egypt and the giving of the Law from Mt. Sinai until the time of the coming of Christ, when Christianity superseded ancient Judaism as God's primary "church" or religious dispensation on earth.

Summary

From the perspective of Swedenborgian theology, then, the resolution of the issue posed in the question is that Amos 3:2 is speaking of "all the families of the earth" that existed during the era of the ancient Jewish or Israelite religious dispensation.

At that time, the Israelite nation was, among all the nations and religions of the earth, the one with which God had a special relationship, and through which God provided the revelation that forms the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament.


(Catholic perspective) Why was the Jesus body consumed at the Last Supper due to transsubstantiation was not mentioned to Thomas?

No, one cannot change anything about Christ's body in the Holy Eucharist.
St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the question of "Whether Christ's body is in this sacrament changeably?" in Summa Theologica III q. 76 a. 6. By "changeably" ("movably"/mobiliter) he means not only locomotively (i.e., able to change from one position or place to another), but also that none of His body's accidents (properties, e.g., his color, stature, etc.) change. He writes (ibid. c., with a few of my modifications and parenthetical additions of the Latin):

When any thing is one, as to subject, and manifold in being, there is nothing to hinder it from being changed (moveri) in one respect, and yet to remain unchanged (immobile permanere) in another, just as it is one thing for a body to be white and another thing for it to be large; hence, it can be changed as to its whiteness and yet remain unchanged as to its magnitude. But in Christ, being in Himself (esse secundum se) and being under the sacrament (esse sub sacramento) are not the same thing, because when we say that He is under this sacrament, we express a kind of relationship to this sacrament. According to this being [i.e., according to His esse sub sacramento], then, Christ is not moved locally [i.e., from one position or place to another] of Himself, but only accidentally (per accidens, i.e., "not per se"), because Christ is not in this sacrament as in a place, as stated above (a. 5). But what is not in a place is not moved of itself locally, but only according to the motion of the subject in which it is.
In the same way neither is it moved (moveri) of itself according to the being which it has in this sacrament, nor by any other change (mutatione) whatever, as for instance, that it ceases to be under this sacrament: because whatever possesses unfailing existence of itself cannot be the principle of failing; but when something else fails, then it ceases to be in it; just as God, Whose existence is unfailing and immortal, ceases to be in some corruptible creature because such corruptible creature ceases to exist. And in this way, since Christ has unfailing and incorruptible being, He ceases to be under this sacrament, not because He ceases to be, nor yet by local movement of His own, as is clear from what has been said, but only by the fact that the sacramental species cease to exist.
Hence it is clear that Christ, strictly speaking is immovably (immobiliter or "unchangeably") in this sacrament.


Why does the Roman Catholic church consider beatification of the pope?

First, Catholic teaching is not that the Pope is infallible in everything he says and does, but rather infallible only when specifically exercising the authority of his office to pronounce doctrine.

Second, a Saint in the sense meant by the Catholic church is one whose life, witness and actions have been examined in depth and at length by church leadership and has been found to be significantly exemplary of the Christian ideal.  They are recognized by the Catholic church as examples to emulate, and are made "official", so to speak, so that there is no confusion among believers as to what constitutes a great example.

Also, as Patrick pointed out in the comments, other conditions and prerequisites apply; among them is the requirement that at least two miracles be directly attributable to the individual under consideration.

Therefore, a Pope is not automatically a Saint (with a capital 'S' since all believers are saints in the general sense); in fact, historically, many of them were decidedly unchristian in their actions and some downright wicked.  Some very reputable Catholics have said that the preservation of the doctrine of the Catholic church in spite of some of her Popes is remarkable, if not nothing short of miraculous.