Should a Protestant read the apocryphal books of the Bible?

You don't need to (as in should), but you can if you want to. Don't allow them any special authority if they're not in your Bible; use common sense. Apocryphal books and other writings of the time might be interesting in many ways, e.g. historically.

There's an important distinction to be made between 1&2 Maccabees and the Gospel of Thomas. This distinction also tells you a lot about how useful a certain book would probably be to read.

Old Testament apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books

1&2 Maccabees aren't included in the Protestant Old Testament, but Roman Catholics and most Orthodox Christians consider them canonical. They weren't in the Hebrew Bible, thus they're called deuterocanonical as opposed to protocanonical. As Raphink points out in his answer, these books were written later than the protocanonical books and thus couldn't be included in the Hebrew Bible.

Protestants consider deuterocanonical books Old Testament apocrypha, i.e. books that don't have divine authority but are relevant with regard to pre-New Testament history. Martin Luther said about them:

  Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.

Useful and good to read -- but not divinely inspired, according to Protestants.

New Testament apocrypha

There's a very broad consensus between Christians of different denominations on what books are included in New Testament. In fact, there's practically no disagreement here. Luther was probably the most vocal questioner of the authority of James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, but even he didn't exclude them from canon. Neither does any major denomination nowadays consider any extra books to be part of New Testament.

The Gospel of Thomas is one of the better known writings belonging to New Testament apocrypha. It might also be one of the more interesting ones. However, keep in mind that no one notable considers it part of the Bible. Neither is there any church-father, reformer, founder of a major denomination or such saying that it's "useful and good to read".

There are many other books considered New Testament apocrypha. I'll say from personal experience that not all of them are worth reading.

Summary

Old Testament apocrypha are considered part of the Bible by some and "useful and good to read" by some.

New Testament apocrypha are considered neither.


What symbols have represented Christianity through the years?

An anchor was used by the early christians as a symbol of faith. "as an anchor of the soul, sure and firm" (Hebrews 6:19-20). There are several variations some of them can be seen in jesuswalk.com

Another very famous symbol is the chi and rho. Which was used by emperor Constantine as a heavenly divine symbol (coeleste signum dei) on the shields of his soldiers defeating Maxentius in the Battle of Milvian Bridge. For a depiction look at this brief article of Rochester University. The chi and rho are also believed to be reference to the first letters of the word Christ.

Another beatiful symbol is the lamb of god, which makes reference to the imagery of the book of revelation. The meaning of this symbol is explained by John the Baptist himself. "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" in John 1:29. I think the most beautiful of this depictions can be seen in the wikipedia

This list does not pretend to be exhaustive.


It's from The Screwtape Letters, letter XVIII.

  The truth is that wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured.

In context, Screwtape is telling Wormwood that the "one flesh" analogy in the Bible refers not to some romantic notion of "being in love," but rather to copulation itself. Of course, Screwtape, being a demon, is admonishing Wormwood that he can help people "forget" such things in order to give in to their desires of the flesh.


What is the difference between Lust and Love in the heart?

To answer this from a doctrinal perspective requires a doctrinal perspective on love.  So we ought to turn to 1 Corinthians, chapter 13, Paul's famous homily on Charity (Christian love):

  4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity
  vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

  5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily
  provoked, thinketh no evil;

  6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

  7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things,
  endureth all things.

By contrast, the word lust has a wider meaning than simply "unwholesome sexual desire."  For example, from Mark 19, where Jesus explains the Parable of the Sower:

  18 And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the
  word,

  19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and
  the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh
  unfruitful.

We see "lusts" (plural) used here in the company of "the cares of this world" and being deceived (led astray) by seeking after riches.  It speaks not of unwholesome sexual desire, but of unwholesome desires in general, not too different from gluttony or covetousness.  The essence of lust is greed.

Contrast this greed with the attributes of Charity as described by Paul.  Longsuffering, kindness, an absence of envy, ostentation and flashiness.  "Not easily provoked," bearing and enduring all things with faith and hope.  Distill all of these virtues down to their essence, and you get selflessness, the very antithesis of greed.

Greed is a hunger. It consumes in order to enlarge itself.  But charity, pure Christian love, is selfless.  It builds up those around it.

So how can this be applied to matters of the heart?  What is the difference between real love, and lust?

Lust is greed.  Lust says "this person is desirable, and I desire to have them, to further my own interests through interaction with them.  I want to take pleasure from them, because it will make me feel good."

Love, on the other hand, is constructive.  It says, "there is good in this person, and I want to work with them, to build something together with them that is greater and more beautiful than what either of us could accomplish alone, and I would wish to put forth the effort required to see it through, even if it requires some personal sacrifice on my part."  Lust would never dream of that last bit!


Are there any American Christian denominations that refer to the days of the week by alternate names?

Historically, the Religious Society of Friends—commonly known as Quakers—objected to the common names of week days and of months, for exactly the reason you bring up. The website of the Iowa Yearly Meeting has a discussion of this, but in practice the names are quite simple. The week-day names are "First Day" through "Seventh Day" for Sunday through Saturday respectively. Similarly the months are "First Month" through "Twelfth Month" for January through December.

As the web page indicates, many Friends have come to the decision to use the more common names of the days and months, reasoning that the pagan overtones of the names have vanished in modern usage.


Is belief in the suspension or replacement of any of the previous covenants necessary for salvation today?

No, what people believe about the Old Testament Covenants is not essential to salvation, although a proper understanding of why God introduced those Covenants is critical to appreciating the significance of the New Covenant.  All of the Old Testament Covenants point forward to the coming of Christ Jesus who introduced the New Covenant the night he was betrayed.  That Covenant is not limited to Jews, but is open to any and all who acknowledge they are sinners in need of a saviour, and who repent and turn to God.
Before Jesus came to earth the basis for salvation was faith in God and in God’s promises.  Hebrews chapter 11 lists many Old Testament characters who, because of their faith in God, were assured of being the recipients of God’s promises:

”All these people were still living by faith when they died.  They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance.  And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth... Instead, they were longing for a better country – a heavenly one.  Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them” (Hebrews 11:13-16).

Today, faith is still essential to salvation.  Here are a few relevant Bible verses:

”But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:4–10).

The means God has chosen to bestow His grace upon us is through faith. “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1). Salvation is obtained by faith in God’s Son, Jesus Christ, in what He has done—specifically, His death on the cross and His resurrection. But even faith is not something we generate on our own. Faith, as well as grace, is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8). He bestows saving faith and saving grace upon us in order to redeem us from sin and deliver us from its consequences. So God saves us by His grace through the faith He gives us. Both grace and faith are gifts.
The book of Romans describes God’s plan of salvation.  It shows how we must first acknowledge that we are sinners and place our trust in what Jesus Christ has done to atone for our sin.  Salvation, the forgiveness of sins, is available to anyone who will trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

“...if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9).
"...for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Romans 10:13).

Salvation depends on coming to saving faith in Jesus Christ and accepting that only through his death and resurrection can we receive forgiveness for our sins and be adopted into God’s family.  As far as I know, all Christians understand this basic principle of salvation – faith in God and in what God has done, in Jesus Christ, to atone for our sins so that we may receive eternal life.
I found an article that explains how people were saved prior to the coming of Jesus and the introduction of the New Covenant.  It shows how the Old Testament saints were aware of the promised Redeemer, and they were saved by faith in that Saviour, the same way people are saved today. There is no other way. Jesus is “‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.’ Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:11-12, quoting Psalm 118:22).
https://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-salvation.html


According to Catholicism, is it permitted for a priest to employ the Benedictio Deprecatoris prayer to stop the spread of the coronavirus?

The exorcism prayer begins (Roman Ritual vol. 3 p. 164, PDF p. 1272):

  Exorcízo vos pestíferos (-as) mures (vel locustas, vel bruehos, vel vermes, vel alia animalia), per Deum ✠ Patrem omnipoténtem…I exorcize you pestiferous mice (or locusts, or grasshoppers, or worms, or any other animal), through God ✠ the Father Almighty…

The English (bottom of page here) translates this (sans the parenthetical remarks): "I cast out you noxious vermin, by God ✠ the Father almighty…"

Thus, I suppose it would be a question of whether a virus is an animal, as to whether this prayer is applicable to viruses.

The prayers from the Votive Mass for the Deliverance from Death in Time of Pestilence (a.k.a., "Mass on Occasions of Public Plague" or Missa pro vitanda mortalitate, vel tempore pestilentiæ) have been permitted to be said during the COVID-19 plague.


To the Lutherans ELCA, how is the Bible the word of God?

The Evangeical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) teaches that the Bible contains the word of God, but not necessarily that it is inerrant. They represent the overwhelming majority of Lutherans in the United States. This would fall under option B as presented in your question. Here is an excerpt from their Statement of Faith in their Constitution:

2.02. This church confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and the Gospel as the power of God for the salvation of all who believe.
a. Jesus Christ is the Word of God incarnate, through whom everything was made and through whose life, death, and resurrection God fashions a new creation.
b. The proclamation of God’s message to us as both Law and Gospel is the Word of God, revealing judgment and mercy through word and deed, beginning with the Word in creation, continuing in the history of Israel, and centering in all its fullness in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
c. The canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the written Word of God. Inspired by God’s Spirit speaking through their authors, they record and announce God’s revelation centering in Jesus Christ. Through them God’s Spirit speaks to us to create and sustain Christian faith and fellowship for service in the world.
2.03. This church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life.

Source: http://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/Constitutions_Bylaws_and_Continuing_Resolutions_of_the_ELCA.pdf?_ga=2.229267033.455568450.1507004619-1273167286.1507004619


Why did God enter humanity so silently on Christmas day?

Part of the reason seems to have been wanting to minimize the drive to direct the Messiah toward worldly goals.  Many people wanted a worldly king, e.g., John 6:15 (NIV):

  Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again into the hills by himself.

and there was a desire for "bread and circuses" (well full stomachs and miracles), e.g., John 6:26 (NIV):

  Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill."

(Note that Jesus' desire for them to follow because of the "miraculous signs" was, I perceive, that this evidence would encourage belief not a desire for them to want to continually see miracles.)

(Herod's desire to see a miracle, expressed in Luke 23:8, seems to be a typical human desire.)

Jesus was trying to draw out true worshipers (John 4:23):

  Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

Similar mysterious secrecy is expressed, e.g., in Matthew 8:4:

  The Jesus said to him, "See that you don't tell anyone.  But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."

One parallel passage, Luke 5:14, gives a hint of an additional motive for limited fanfare in later life (which might apply in a different way for childhood): inescapable crowds would make solitary prayer extremely difficult.


Clarifications on "Temporal Predestination"

Bullet Points

The "elect" in this view is the same as Arminianism - God knows all who will freely choose Him ("those He foreknew... he also glorified") and He elects to save all who believe in Jesus Christ.
Ken Grider (one of the translators for the NIV Bible) is the only major/well-known theologian I know of that holds this view. I would bet many in Arminian churches hold this view without realizing it (assuming there is a real difference between the two; Arminianism allows but does not require libertarian free will).

Temporal Predestination

Temporal predestination attempts to reconcile the facts of both God's foreknowledge and His eternal plan with our free will (limited in this view) - while He predestines our actions in time and what happens in the world, He allows each of us full freedom in choosing whether to follow or reject Him. For example, God determined that Judas would hand Jesus over to the chief priests (Luke 22:22), but Judas freely chose to reject Christ.

Proponents of temporal predestination sometimes claim that in every place that the Greek word proorizo ("to predestinate") is found in the New Testament (as well as other terms signifying His knowledge, actions, and decrees), not one of them refers to God predetermining our eternal destiny1; a better term for this view might be temporal-only predestination, as I have seen people use "temporal predestination" when they specifically want to refer to the predestination of events, regardless of whether or not our destinies are predestinated.

J. Kenneth Grider explains the concept via commentary on Scripture:

  Take the Romans 8:29, 30 instances of proorisen. There we read, "For those God
  foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son, that he might be
  the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; and those he
  called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." Here, "predestined," is
  probably not used with reference to eternal destiny-although perhaps a better possible
  case could be made for such reference in v. 30, than can be made for such a reference in
  any of the other predestination passages. This passage states that "those God foreknew,"
  meaning surely those He foreknew would believe, "he also predestined to be conformed
  to the likeness of his Son." That is, He pre-determined that the ones who would believe
  would be conformed to Christ's likeness... The point here, however, is that eternal destiny does not enter into the picture at all.

The obvious problem with his reasoning is that Paul draws a clear link from God's predestination to our glorification. He answers this objection by claiming the glorification of the predestined is almost a side-effect rather than the intended result (that is, Paul is explaining a chain of causality rather than the process by which God works):

  It is also to be noted that in the next verse the same kind of non-destiny meaning
  probably obtains. There, "those he predestined" (based on His foreknowledge according
  to the previous verse), he "called," and the ones He called He "justified," and the ones He
  justified He "glorified." Here, unlike what obtains in the previous verse, the writer does
  get around, finally, to a word that has to do with destiny: glorification. So it could
  conceivably be interpreted that the predestination has to do with destiny-and it does,
  finally. But the passage states that, having predestined or predetermined for believers,
  through His foreknowledge (v. 29), that they would freely believe, He called them and
  justified them-and, perhaps because of His foreknowledge of their continuing as
  believers, He "glorified them." As mentioned, destiny does get referred to in this
  passage; but the reference is so much disjoined from what is itself said to be
  predestinated that this glorification destiny can hardly be said to be what is itself
  predestinated.

Temporal predestination is probably closest to an Arminian (conditional predestination) view than to other major views (sublapsarian, supralapsarian, etc). In fact, the only people I have seen who distinguish between them are those who hold to temporal-only predestination2.

Footnotes

1: I find this unconvincing. This claim concerning some passages is dependent upon the interpretation of the text, which is the very point in question.

2: My personal opinion is that temporal-only predestination is merely a subpar method of explaining an Arminian view that denies full libertarian free will.

*: Concerning temporal predestination being the traditional Jewish view, see Tomáš Frydrych, Living Under the Sun: Examination of Proverbs and Qoheleth, Volume 90 of Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, in which he argues that the author of Ecclesiastes did not hold such a view because of the statement "why should you die before your time?"


In what way was Isaac's blessing on Jacob manifested?

It's important to keep in mind that the stories about the patriarchs are both stories about individuals and "national origin" stories giving an identity to the whole nation of Israel.

So in the case of Jacob (also known as Israel), the promises get borne out (a) in his great success as a herdsman for his uncle Laban, accumulating a huge amount of personal wealth, (b) in his victorious return to Canaan with numerous wives, sons (who become the twelve tribes of Israel), and servants, (c) in Laban being forced to begrudgingly accept the loss of his most successful servant and his daughters/grandchildren (his attempts to curse/foil Jacob only come back to bite him), (d) in the lives of his children, particularly Joseph, who has a very similar prophecy about brothers bowing down made about him (Genesis 37), and who becomes the vice-ruler of Egypt, resulting in nations bowing down to him as well, and (e) in the nation of Israel itself, especially in its relatively short lived hey-day of regional power over some of its smaller neighbors (David and Solomon's kingdom) before the kingdom divided and eventually went into exile.


How did Gideon win his battle against the Midianites?

God's plan had very little to do with the tactics employed.  Indeed, God's purpose in downsizing Gideon's army was specifically to de-emphasize the role of man in the conflict.  To wit, Judges 7:2 states:

  The Lord said to Gideon, “The people with you are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel boast over me, saying, ‘My own hand has saved me.’

As to the method employed, Judges 7:22 answers this - God used the confusion in the ranks of the Midianite army to set the Midians against themselves.  It is written:

  22 When they blew the 300 trumpets, the Lord set every man's sword against his comrade and against all the army. And the army fled as far as Beth-shittah toward Zererah,[a] as far as the border of Abel-meholah, by Tabbath.

2 Chronicles reports a similar thing when the Ammonites and the Moabites rose up against Israel under King Jehosophat. Jerusalem itself was besieged, and there was famine so great that women resorted to cannibalism.  When the Lord hear the Israelites' cry, however, he chose to rescue them.  The text states:

  20:22 As soon as they began singing, the Lord confused the enemy camp, 23 so that the Ammonite and Moabite troops attacked and completely destroyed those from Edom. Then they turned against each other and fought until the entire camp was wiped out! 24 When Judah’s army reached the tower that overlooked the desert, they saw that every soldier in the enemy’s army was lying dead on the ground.

For a disciplined army to turn on itself, the confusion must have been great indeed. The point in each of these narratives is simple - it wasn't the Israelites who conquered their enemies. It was their God who fought on their behalf.

And, finally in 2 Kings 19, the Assyrian Sennacharib brought an army of 185,000 to lay seige to Hezekiah's Jerusalem.  The prophet Isaiah was moved by the spirit to tell Hezekiah that the Lord would deliver, and sure enough:

  35 That night the angel of the Lord went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies! 36 So Sennacherib king of Assyria broke camp and withdrew. He returned to Nineveh and stayed there


List of papal teachings considered infallible

There is no canonical list of infallible statements made by the Pontiffs: while there are only a few instances where a Pontiff spoke infallibly ex cathedra (an extraordinary action), there are many times where he is speaking about things known to be infallible of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
To the extraordinary sense—when a Pontiff speaks infallibly ex cathedra—there two officially recognized cases.
First about the Immaculate Conception by Pius IX:

...by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."
Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church...

And second about the Assumption of Mary by Pius XII:

... by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:

that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

But there may be other instances before Pius IX's pronouncement in 1854 about the Immaculate Conception, not officially mentioned as infallible ex cathedra pronouncements, that count: Wikipedia has one possible list. As Wikipedia notes, because of the scrutiny an ex cathedra statement would get, the Vatican has taken to clarifying when a statement made by the Holy Father is, in fact, is an infallible statement done ex cathedra, and it hasn't happened since Pius XII's pronouncement about the Assumption of Mary.
In the ordinary sense—when a Pontiff speaks about things that are known to be infallible by the ordinary and universal Magisterium—it gets a little tricky. Then Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (now Pope Benedict XVI) mentions in his Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei about the case of euthanasia:

A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively,32 since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.33 As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.
The doctrine on the illicitness of euthanasia, taught in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, can also be recalled. Confirming that euthanasia is "a grave violation of the law of God," the Pope declares that "this doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium".34 It could seem that there is only a logical element in the doctrine on euthanasia, since Scripture does not seem to be aware of the concept. In this case, however, the interrelationship between the orders of faith and reason becomes apparent: Scripture, in fact, clearly excludes every form of the kind of self-determination of human existence that is presupposed in the theory and practice of euthanasia.

In a nutshell, the ordinary and universal Magisterium teaches us certain things are evil, and while there may be no mention of a new issue (because it hasn't come up before), the ordinary teachings of the Magisterium can still guide infallible teachings about the new issue without speaking infallibly ex cathedra.
And this happens pretty often: one of the main roles of the clergy, including the Holy Father, is to help guide and instruct based on the ordinary teachings of the Magisterium.


In pre-Christian thought, Plato and his Theory of Forms is the most obvious antecedent of C.S. Lewis's theory of Transposition. This likely made its way into Christianity especially through the influence of the Neoplatonists. However, I will leave it to someone with more specific knowledge of Plato and Neoplatonism to trace that influence on Christianity in general, and on C.S. Lewis in particular.
A more recent precedent, within Christian thought, is Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) and his Doctrine of Correspondence.
Platonism, Neoplatonism, and Swedenborg
Swedenborg himself undoubtedly drew on Plato's theory of forms in conceiving and formulating his doctrine of correspondence. Some contemporary scholars consider Swedenborg to be a Neoplatonist, based in part upon the clear kinship between Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondence and Plato's theory of forms. See, for example, "Jung and Swedenborg: modern Neoplatonists," by Mats Winther.
Swedenborg is also known to have read at least one Neoplatonic work: Pseudo-Aristotle, On the More Secret Part of Divine Wisdom according to the Egyptians. The last regular entry in Swedenborg's notebook of quotes from and commentary on various classical and contemporary thinkers, published as A Philosopher's Notebook (Philadelphia, PA: Swedenborg Scientific Association, 1931, p. 508-511) is a laudatory notice of this particular Neoplatonic work.
Swedenborg's Doctrine of Correspondence
However, as pointed out in the above paper by Mats Winther, and in my discussion about it with the author on Reddit here, Swedenborg developed the concept of a "correspondence" between spiritual and material things into a much more complex and sophisticated doctrine than the more general one that existed in Plato's philosophy and among the Neoplatonists.
In Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondence, every material object, and even every material force and action, down to its tiniest detail, is a precise expression on the physical level of some corresponding spiritual object, force, or action. While it may lack what we might call the "resolution" of its spiritual correspondent, at the lower level of "resolution" possible on the material level of reality, it is a completely faithful representation of the spiritual entity that is its correspondent and cause.
Here is one of Swedenborg's own definitions of "correspondence" as he uses the term:

First, I need to state what correspondence is. The whole natural world is responsive to the spiritual world—the natural world not just in general, but in detail. So whatever arises in the natural world out of the spiritual one is called "something that corresponds." It needs to be realized that the natural world arises from and is sustained in being by the spiritual world, exactly the way an effect relates to its efficient cause. (Heaven and Hell #89)

This concept—that everything in the natural, or material world reflects, not just generally, but in detail higher, spiritual realities—is so fundamental to and pervasive in Swedenborg's theology that he uses it not only to explain how God forms both the spiritual and material universes as finite expressions of the infinite nature of God, but also to interpret the Bible as a book in which God has expressed higher, spiritual realities in material world stories, events, and metaphors. Correspondence is also the key to Swedenborg's solution for the classic "mind-body problem," or how the human mind relates to and expresses itself in the body.
C.S. Lewis and Swedenborg
It is unknown (to me, anyway) just how much of Swedenborg's works, and thought, C.S. Lewis read, and was aware of. However, Lewis mentions Swedenborg several times in his writings, so we know at minimum that Lewis had some knowledge of Swedenborg. Further, Swedenborg is considered one of the primary sources of Lewis's book The Great Divorce (see the "Sources" section on its Wikipedia page).
Given how central the doctrine of correspondence is to Swedenborg's system, it is highly unlikely that Lewis did not have some familiarity with it. It very likely that even though Swedenborg did not use the word "transposition," Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondence was one of the sources for Lewis's idea of transposition.
In fact, in his sermon or essay "Transposition" (available online in a Gutenberg text version here), Lewis several times uses Swedenborg's term, "correspondence," in describing the relationship between higher and lower order realities that he calls "transposition."
It should be said, however, that despite fairly clear lines of influence of Swedenborg on C.S. Lewis, Lewis did not consider Swedenborg's claimed spiritual-world experiences to be genuine, and remained skeptical and dismissive of Swedenborg's overall theological system.
"Correspondence" in Lewis's essay on Transposition
In fact, reading Lewis's "Transposition" essay from the perspective of a Swedenborg scholar, I suspect that Lewis was specifically attempting to distinguish his "transposition" idea from Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondence in precisely the locations where he uses Swedenborg's term. For example, Lewis writes:

Where we tend to go wrong is in assuming that if there is to be a correspondence between two systems it must be a one for one correspondence—that A in the one system must be represented by a in the other, and so on. But the correspondence between emotion and sensation turns out not to be of that sort. And there never could be correspondence of that sort where the one system was really richer than the other. If the richer system is to be represented in the poorer at all, this can only be by giving each element in the poorer system more than one meaning. The transposition of the richer into the poorer must, so to speak, be algebraical, not arithmetical. If you are to translate from a language which has a large vocabulary into a language that has a small vocabulary, then you must be allowed to use several words in more than one sense. If you are to write a language with twenty-two vowel sounds in an alphabet with only five vowel characters then you must be allowed to give each of those five characters more than one value. If you are making a piano version of a piece originally scored for an orchestra, then the same piano notes which represent flutes in one passage must also represent violins in another. (emphasis added)

And a little later in the essay, along similar lines:

I am not going to maintain that what I call Transposition is the only possible mode whereby a poorer medium can respond to a richer: but I claim that it is very hard to imagine any other. It is therefore, at the very least, not improbable that Transposition occurs whenever the higher reproduces itself in the lower. Thus, to digress for a moment, it seems to me very likely that the real relation between mind and body is one of Transposition. We are certain that, in this life at any rate, thought is intimately connected with the brain. The theory that thought therefore is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words "true" or "false". We are driven then to some kind of correspondence. But if we assume a one-for-one correspondence this means that we have to attribute an almost unbelievable complexity and variety of events to the brain. But I submit that a one-for-one relation is probably quite unnecessary. All our examples suggest that the brain can respond—in a sense, adequately and exquisitely correspond—to the seemingly infinite variety of consciousness without providing one single physical modification for each single modification of consciousness. (emphasis added)

Lewis must here be critiquing some other line of thinking about this "transposition" or "correspondence." And given his liberal use of Swedenborg's term in these specific locations (he uses it in only one other place in the entire essay), and his likely knowledge of Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondence as a very precise relationship between spiritual and material things, Swedenborg's doctrine—and the Swedenborgians who hold to it—are Lewis's most likely whipping boy in his criticisms here of a "one-for-one correspondence."
It would go beyond the purview of the question to mount a full defense of Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondence from Lewis's apparent attack upon it here. Suffice it to say that Swedenborg was well aware that spiritual things can never be fully expressed on the material level for the simple reason that material reality is cruder, or in today's terminology, has a "lower resolution," than spiritual reality.
The relevant point for the purposes of the question is that Lewis seems here to be responding to Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondence. This suggests that Swedenborg's doctrine on that subject was indeed one of the precedents in Lewis's mind as he formulated his idea of transposition, and composed his essay on that subject.
Conclusion
Certainly Plato and the Neoplatonists were a major precedent of and influence on C.S. Lewis's theory of Transposition. This line of influence will have to remain for another person to trace in more detail.
In more recent Christian history, Emanuel Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondence is a clear precedent. Swedenborg did not use the term "transposition" to describe his doctrine. However, the parallelism with Lewis's concept of transposition is clear and compelling. And there is every reason to believe that Lewis was quite cognizant of Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondence as he formulated his thinking and penned his essay on "Transposition."


Will we theoretically be able to sin in Heaven?

No. Here's the dime tour version.

We don't know exactly what it will be like, but we do know, as you pointed out, that there will be no sin in heaven but that we won't be robotic beings. The difference is that we will have a different nature. Something about having fallen and then being restored to glory is going to be different than the state Adam was in having never known evil and yet excersising his free will.

Exactly what defenses will make this possible we know not, but we know that one way or another the work of Christ to sanctify his people will be brought to completion and that they will never more fall away from him.

Your speculation is based on an incorrect understanding of the nature of man and sin in the first place:

  My only idea is that since the Devil will be chained for eternity, there will be nothing to tempt us [...].

Christianity's understanding of sin is not based on outside forces tempting us, but on an imperfect nature that cannot help but sin. Adam could not have helped but eventually sinning, snake or no snake. Free will is not so free as many people believe: we are bound to act according to our nature. We are not "free" to act according to a nature that we don't have. We aren't "free" to teleport just because we would will it. We are not "free" to not sin because it is part of our nature to do so.

The difference in heaven is that our natures will be regenerated into something completely different than they are now and we will be free -- but only to act according to our regenerated natures. Which won't be dragging sin into the presence of God.


Why we do we "know" that Joseph wasn't Hyksos?

Boy is that wikipedia article riddle with citation needed around the part mentioning Joseph.

The thing that points to Joseph being of the Hyksos, looks to be what I thought was the best evidence against it. If you didn't think of this yourself, permit me to state the obvious, The evidence is in where the bones went. Joseph wanted his bones buried where they came from, so unless they, and everyone else, forgot where they came from, they buried him in the wrong place.  But if they came from Canaan and went back to Canaan then that's rather appropriate.

However, and with the help of the only reference to Hyksos on Vatican.va translated into English, the key is in the revulsion that the Egyptians felt towards Joseph and his brothers.

  Genesis 43:32 (DRA)
   32 And when it was set on, for Joseph apart, and for his brethren apart, for the Egyptians also that ate with him, apart, (for it is unlawful for the Egyptians to eat with the Hebrews, and they think such a feast profane:)

If there is evidence of revulsion (or evidence of future subjugation) then yeah, that could be the historical Joseph story.  But if there's no evidence for this, then they're separate folks.

Which may be the reason some are hesitant to jump on the Joseph as Hyskos bandwagon.


Has the Roman Catholic Church ever officially condemned the Croatian Ustashi?

All official statements of the Vatican from 1909 to the present are recorded in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS). Performing the following Google search on the PDFs of the AAS volumes:

Ustaše OR Ustashe OR Ustashas OR Ustashi OR Ustaša inurl:http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/

reveals that the AAS volumes have not mentioned the Ustaše.

See also my previous answer.


Has Madonna been excommunicated by the Catholic Church?

There are a few actions which, by canon law, cause a lay person to be excommunicated in and of themselves:

public declaration (usually repeatedly and by a prominent figure) that one rejects the Church. Technically this is known as apostasy. (Canon 1364)
public rejection of the authority of the pope over the Church, known as schism. (Canon 1364)
public rejection of some teaching which the Church requires to be believed, after being corrected by one's pastor or bishop, or by the pope. This is called heresy. (Canon 1364)
assaulting the pope or another bishop (canon 1370)
trying to consecrate the Eucharist (canon 1378)
falsely accusing a priest of trying to absolve someone he's had an affair with (canon 1390)
procuring (that is, arranging for, or possibly conducting) an abortion (canon 1398)

None of these appear to have applied to Madonna (although perhaps one of the first three might).
There are a number of other possible actions for which canon law prescribes that the offender is to be "punished with a just penalty". This just penalty can include excommunication. Of all of these possible actions, the only one I can think of that might apply is

A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults [against] or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.
Canon 1369

It is possible that an official of the Catholic Church felt that some of Madonna's statements about the Church fit into this category. Wikipedia, for example, states "The ... music video [for Madonna's song "Like a Prayer"] featured many Catholic symbols such as stigmata and cross burning, and a dream of making love to a saint, leading the Vatican to condemn the video."
Typically an excommunication comes from one's ordinary: the head of the diocese in which Madonna lives. I'm not precisely sure of the timeline of Madonna's moves, but this would probably have been Terence Cardinal Cooke, archbishop of New York 1968–1983; Joseph Cardinal O'Connor, archbishop of New York 1984–2000; Roger Cardinal Mahony, archbishop of Los Angeles 1985–2011; or possibly Manuel José Macário do Nascimento Clemente, archbishop of the Latin Patriarchate of Lisbon since 2013. It would be very rare indeed for the Vatican to excommunicate someone.
I can't find any reference to Madonna's excommunications that doesn't come from her, and there are a few statements of canon law that indicate it is probably not the case.
Once a person is excommunicated, a further excommunication is of no effect unless the person has repented, confessed, and had the excommunication listed. (An excommunication is more or less a temporary ban on receiving the sacraments (canon 1331)—it makes no sense to try and "multiply it".) Thus, if Madonna has indeed been excommunicated three times, she's had the excommunicated lifted at least twice. One would think that if this were the case, she would have mentioned it in the discussion. Furthermore, one cannot be excommunicated, per canon 1323, if one isn't aware that one is committing an act punishable by excommunication.
All things considered, then, in the absence of positive evidence that this is so, it probably isn't. Why then is she claiming it is so? It might be that she is trying to stir up animus against the Church; it could be that she is seeking notoriety; perhaps she is confused about what constitutes an excommunication and how it is handed down. Without more information (from her) it's impossible to tell.


What is a faithful translation for "the son of perdition" in John 17:12?

Interesting question!

The Greek words used here are huois tes apoleias
"houis"
The Strongs number for this is G5207.  Looking at the Vines entry, this definitely means "son".  This can mean both "male offspring" or, more generically, "descendant".
"tes"
Strong G3588.  This word means "of the".  It's just a very simple word.
"apoleias"
Strong G684.  This means "destruction", "perishing" or "ruin".
Translation
The literal translation of this phrase would be "son of destruction" or "son of ruin".  The choice of using the word "perdition" is acceptable in the old form of the word ("utter destruction"), however it has taken on the connotation of "eternal damnation" and so it's no longer an appropriate translation, in my opinion.
In Context
If we look at what Jesus is saying here, he's saying that he saved and protected all of his disciples except for Judas.  He refers to Judas as the "son of perdition" saying that he was the only one who he did not protect.
If we look at this in light of Luke, we find this verse:

Luke 22:3 (NIV)
Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve.

Here, we see that Satan entered Judas.  After that point (in John 17), Jesus calls Judas the "son of destruction".  What he's referring to here is clearly that Judas was of Satan and not of God.
Was Judas innocent?
The problem with looking at things too closely is that we often lose sight of the bigger picture.  The question being asked was, essentially, was Judas a product of circunstances or did he play an active role in betraying Jesus.  If we read further in Luke we see this passage:

Luke 22:4-6 (NIV) Emphasis added
4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.

Clearly, there was plotting involved, a conscious effort to betray Jesus, and a choice that Judas made.  While, yes, he was a "son of destruction" this was due to his actions and his choices.
Jesus was protecting the twelve apostles, except for Judas.  But what was he protecting them from?  He was protecting them from Satan!  Once he stopped protecting Judas, the temptations and desires of Satan entered into him and he was overtaken by the overwhelming temptations, to which he succumbed.
Jesus allowed Judas to be tempted--he withdrew his protection from Judas so that Satan could enter into his heart--and Judas chose to turn away from God and from Jesus.
Summary
Jesus was protecting the apostles from being tempted by Satan.  With Judas, he withdrew that protection so that Satan could enter into his heart and tempt him.  With that temptation, Judas was allowed to choose to betray Jesus--which he did.
Judas intentionally plotted against Jesus and consented to the betrayal.  Therefore was fully guilty of the betrayal.


What is the scriptural basis for the idea that salvation can still be obtained after death?

The only passage I am aware of is 1 Peter 3:18-20a:

  For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

It should be noted that this is rather a "standalone" passage, in that there is nothing similar in Scripture, so it is unwise to base a doctrine on it. However, you could read into this:

Jesus is here preaching to dead people in hell (implied by "he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed") and
He would not preach unless there was hope of their salvation.

Note though that this is speculation and not a central belief of any mainstream Christian denomination (that I know of - but see @brillant's comments, below).


In which writing(s) does Hugo Grotius set forth the "Governmental Theory of the Atonement"?

Hugo Grotius develops this in Defensio Fidei Catholicae de Satisfactione Christi  ("Defense of the Catholic Faith on the Satisfaction of Christ").  An 1889 translation, by Frank Hugh Foster, is available on yoel.info.

On Google Books the work has no preview, so there we are limited to excerpts published in books on the topic.  For example, in Atonement Theories by Ben Pugh, Grotius is quoted:

  The end of the matter which is being discussed, as to the intention of God and of Christ, is twofold: the display of the Divine justice; and, so far as we are concerned, the remission of sins, that is, our release from punishment.  For if you take the exaction of penalty impersonally, its end is the display of the Divine justice; but if personally, that is, why Christ is punished, its end is that we may gain release form punishment.

More extensive quotes are available in Introducing Christian Theologies by Victor I. Ezigbo, pages 92–93.


Why did Pope Clement V leave Rome and relocate to Avignon, France?

From the Wikipedia entry on the 'Avignon Papcy,' aka the Babylonian Captivity:

  Following the strife between Boniface VIII and Philip IV of France, and the death of his successor Benedict XI after only eight months in office, a deadlocked conclave finally elected Clement V, a Frenchman, as Pope in 1305. Clement declined to move to Rome, remaining in France, and in 1309 moved his court to the papal enclave at Avignon, where it remained for the next 67 years. This absence from Rome is sometimes referred to as the "Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy".[2][3] A total of seven popes reigned at Avignon; all were French,[4][5] and they increasingly fell under the influence of the French Crown. Finally, on September 13, 1376, Gregory XI abandoned Avignon and moved his court to Rome (arriving on January 17, 1377), officially ending the Avignon Papacy.

In summary:

Clement V stayed put - probably out of fear for his saftey
France saw fit to keep it that way


When did the word "Catholic" become a proper noun?

I've been watching this question for a few days now and decided that today I would hazard a Wikipedia-fueled attempt at finding a plausible answer. Here goes...

The word "Catholic" in reference to a specific organization seemed to be originally used to distinguish the Church of God from the churches of heretics. The earliest form of this use I found was from the Catechetical Lectures of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, which he delivered around 350 A.D. He says:

  But since the word Ecclesia is applied to different things (as also it is written of the multitude in the theatre of the Ephesians, And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the Assembly Acts 19:14), and since one might properly and truly say that there is a Church of evil doers, I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest, for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to you now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church; that you may avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which you were regenerated.

Now, the use of the word "catholic" here can still technically be translated as "universal" given that the churches he referenced followed heretical teachings and are suggested in this passage to not have been regarded as true organizations with the mission of following Christ. However, the word is still making a clear distinction between two groups here.

Another instance of the word "Catholic" being used in a distinguishing fashion is in the Edict of Thessalonica, published during the reign of Emperor Theodosius I:

  We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches.

Here is probably the most blatant use of "Catholic" as a proper noun per se, as the word "title" is specifically used to define a "Catholic Christian."

In conclusion, it seems that the word "Catholic" was originally used as a proper noun to distinguish the original Church from heretical sects. Technically, I as a Protestant am a heretic in the Catholic understanding, so such a usage is still accurate in that sense and conveys similar meaning.

Catechetical Lecture from New Advent

Edict of Thessalonica translation


Did the original reformers believe in a Magisterium?

tldr; No - the Reformers disavowed the concept of the Magisterium.

If you read the Wikipedia article on the Magisterial Reformation it is plain to see that the usual usage of the term "Magisterial Reformers" isn't actually related to the concept of a teaching Magisterium:

The Magisterial Reformation is a phrase that "draws attention to the manner in which the Lutheran and Calvinist reformers related to secular authorities, such as princes, magistrates, or city councils", i.e. "the magistracy"...the Magisterial Reformation argued for the interdependence of the church and secular authorities, i.e. "The magistrate had a right to authority within the church, just as the church could rely on the authority of the magistrate to enforce discipline, suppress heresy, or maintain order." [Emphases added]

this is contrasted with the Radical Reformation which:

...rejected any secular authority over the Church

So it's actually about the relationship between Church and State, not about the teaching authority within the Church.
When you further consider some of the relevant views expressed, you can see within them explicit disavowals of the concept of the Magisterium:
Luther

…A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it.… [N]either the Church nor the pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture. For the sake of Scripture we should reject pope and councils...I am bound, not only to assert, but to defend the truth with my blood and death. I want to believe freely and be a slave to the authority of no one, whether council, university, or pope. I will confidently confess what appears to me to be true, whether it has been asserted by a Catholic or a heretic, whether it has been approved or reproved by a council. - from the 1519 Leipzig disputation with Johanc Eck, source

Calvin

...Calvin binds the authority of the church to the teachings of scripture. Its structures can claim the power of the Spirit only in that the laws they legislate, the doctrines they teach, and the discipline they enact are consistent with scripture. The church's authority is derivative.
Second, the church's authority is fallible. Though God uses human words and agencies to come near to humanity, these means of grace remain finite and sinful. God accomodates to human capacity; God does not eradicate it. The treasure of the gospel is preserved in an earthen vessel. A distinction is maintianed between the church and God. No claim to infallibility can be made on behalf of any office or person in the church's life.
Third, the authority of the church is dispersed. Since Christ alone is the sole head of the church, Calvin is reticent to place exclusive authority in any single agency or office. He rejects the Roman Catholic argument that the papacy serves as a unifying centre of church life, locating authority in the single head of the church universal. Calvin counters on the basis of Ephesians 4, in which church unity is portrayed as residing in Christ alone. As he puts it, "Do you see how he assigns to each member a certain measure, and a definite and limited function, in order that perfection of grace as well as the supreme power of governing may reside with Christ alone?" As the editors of the Institutes point out, there is a consitent tendency towards "plural authorities" in Calvin's discussions of ecclesiastical and political forms of government. Authority and power are best dispersed throughout the church in order to protect the prerogatives that belong to God alone. - A Teachable Spirit: Recovering the Teaching Office in the Church, Richard Robert Osmer ,pp113-114

Given this, I think you'd have to come up with quite a bit more evidence to justify your claims that "he was the only person in Geneva who was permitted to actually study the bible and come to theological conclusions" and "Calvin regarded himself as an alternate, authoritative Magisterium of the church."
Although he came much later, Wesley sums up the Reformers' views in this area rather succinctly:

The Church is to be judged by the Scriptures, not the Scriptures by the Church. - Popery Calmly Considered (1779): The works of the Rev. John Wesley,  via wikiquote, [emphasis added]


What are some of the benefits of going to church?

Benefits of going to church regularly:

During Holy Mass, receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord regularly, brings us into continuous reminder that God is with us and in us. If we believe that, then it has a huge affect on our behavior and mind set.
Being with a community of believers is extremely encouraging. When I see fellow believers humble themselves by kneeling or going to receive the Eucharist or giving each other the sign of peace, I feel immense joy and peace. And experiencing this on a regular basis must surely be good for your soul.
Hearing the Word of God on a regular basis helps us to obtain the mind of Christ and a healthy Christian worldview.
Regular attendance (especially when you don't feel like it) is like spiritual exercise, training to submit your will to Christ.
Consistent attendance makes you more comfortable with the local community of believers and makes it easier for you to fellowship with them.
It is a benefit to others because they might find joy in seeing you there.
The grace of God trains us to "live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives".
It brings peace and guidance.
Regular church, means regular worship, and regular communal prayer.

I think there is much more to say here. Can't wait to hear what others have to say.


Through what procedure is canon law amended?

A pope is supreme legislator (albeit subject to the Supreme Legislator) in the Church; he, as Vatican I declared, "has primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God".
The word "jurisdiction" etymologically has the sense of "[the right] to declare law" (ius law + dictio < dicere declare).
A pope promulgates Canon Law binding on the whole Church.

Can. 7 A law is established when it is promulgated.
Can. 8 §1. Universal ecclesiastical laws are promulgated by publication in the official commentary, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless another manner of promulgation has been prescribed in particular cases. They take force only after three months have elapsed from the date of that issue of the Acta unless they bind immediately from the very nature of the matter, or the law itself has specifically and expressly established a shorter or longer suspensive period (vacatio).

cf. canonist Dom Augustine on 1917 can. 8 ff.


Where did the idea of the Trinity come from?

The revelation of scripture which describes God as existing as one being, with three distinct persons, does not hinge on any particular verse, but is gradually revealed from Genesis to Revelation.  If 1 John was removed from the Bible it would have no impact on the concept of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as three distinct persons of the only God. The word Trinity is just a catch word to say Father, Son and Spirit, assuming that only the Father, Son and Spirit are eternal and without any boundaries, being infinite in all their qualities and essence. The Son had no beginning, the Spirit had no beginning, the Father had no beginning and they are the one and only God. All other things that exists, we're the creation of the triune God.  These many Biblical truths are stuffed into the word 'Trinity' as a container for what the Bible clearly teaches.
In the creation of all things, the Trinity manifests that each person of the Trinity has a distinct operation in their relation to the other persons. When the Bible refers to ‘God’ in general, then no particular person of the trinity is being identified, so we just can know it means all three.  However, when any special impression is made of the special works or properties, more specific to one of the persons of the Trinity; then the Bible is drawing attention to that work as assigned peculiarly to that person.   For example, in the creation (creation = all that is not God) the 'original will' behind the creation, is an expression of the Father.  Gods powerful 'word' in the creation, is an expression of the Son. The 'perfecting and finishing' works of creation is an expression of the Spirit.
One quick proof of the Trinity might therefore go like this:
Originally in the shadows of the obscure revelation under the Old Testament there was only God.  God is, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but not yet known in that full developed sense as we know today. Only known in a weak dark shadowy sense, under the natural and gradual progression of revelation.
We actually see all three persons at work in the creation, but only obscurely:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. (NIV Genesis 1:1-3)

Yes, we do see the Father 'speaking' his original will, we see his 'word' powerfully creating, and we see the Spirit, perfecting and completing the work as it hovers, but this may easily be viewed as just God, who hovered over the waters, not the trinity.  We know it is clearly the trinity looking backwards with our light that we now have, but it can't be said to be so clear at first.
So how did we get our clear view? Well first there was the Promise of a 'Messiah', then a Temple for the 'Spirit' in the Jewish nation.  The promise for a Messiah is a theme that developed over a long period with certain immersing concepts until he finally came.  One of these central themes regarding Messiah is that he would be a Son. He would've a Son of David, but also a Son born of a virgin, 'God with us'. This is getting clearer for sure, but still not fully clear.  Once the Son arrived then it was clear. jesus clearly distinguished between His 'Father' and the 'Spirit'.  This is how the trinity became clear, Christ taught it and was the clear manifestation of one of its persons.
First he was manifested as the Son at the inauguration of his ministry:

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” (NIV Matthew 3:16-17)

Then besides proving his divinity from his power over disease, devil and nature he directly made known his divine per-existent state through argumentation:

Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (NIV John 8:54-58)

Of course I AM was the name God (Father, Son and Spirit) gave himself to Moses which means 'always existed'.
Now we have the foundation of The Father and The Son, all we need is the Spirit to complete the revelation.
Jesus made it clear the Spirit was not the Father:

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (NIV John 14:26)

But we already saw in Genesis, the Spirit was involved in creation and in the Temple the Spirit dwelled, so as the Spirit is the pre-existent God and 'not the Father', then all three, Father, Son and Spirit are God.  These three are therefore put on the same level, so that when we are made to join in the gospel and in Christ, we are being joined into God, which means all three:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (NIV Matthew 28:19)

Therefore, now that we have the full knowledge of Christ, we can look back and realize things they never saw clearly before.

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. (NIV Hebrews 1:1-3)

'Many times and in various ways' indicates the imperfection of how he spoke in the past. Before it was alike a spark, here and there, but now a radiant Sun!
Why could the Trinity not be so clearly seen before Christ? Well simply because everything in the days of the Law were faint, weak and dim.

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. (NIV Hebrews 10:1)
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. (NIV Hebrews 8:13)

Therefore although the Trinity first came from Genesis Chapter 1, it never became clear until the Son was revealed.


How will the earth be cleansed by fire? (LDS perspective)

Fire is often symbolic of the purifying power of the Holy Ghost, and I wouldn't be surprised if the "burning" is both physical and spiritual in this case. For example, missionary work may be one way that the wicked are "burned" (cleansed) and are uprooted from their ways.


Do Lutherans believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis?

For individual Lutherans, it varies.  For what the Lutheran Church teaches - the majority teach a literal interpretation.  There are likely a few more "liberal" Lutheran Churches and possibly synods that reject a literal account, but I have yet to find any.

When you ask "Do Lutherans believe", you're asking something that can't truly be answered any other way.  Some Lutherans believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, some do not.

When it comes to official doctrinal teachings, you would still need to narrow this down further.  But you can typically determine a particular Synod's interpretation by finding their website and statements of faith. Most typically reject evolution and pronounce a belief in God's word as the ultimate source of Truth, and therefore stand by a literal interpretation of Genesis.

For example, the Missouri Synod says this:

  Of Creation

  We teach that God has created heaven and earth, and that in the manner and
  in the space of time recorded in the Holy Scriptures,
  especially Gen. 1 and 2, namely, by His almighty creative word, and in
  six days. We reject every doctrine which denies or limits the work of
  creation as taught in Scripture. In our days it is denied or limited
  by those who assert, ostensibly in deference to science, that the
  world came into existence through a process of evolution; that is,
  that it has, in immense periods of time, developed more or less of
  itself. Since no man was present when it pleased God to create the
  world, we must look for a reliable account of creation to God's own
  record, found in God's own book, the Bible. We accept God's own record
  with full confidence and confess with Luther's Catechism: "I believe
  that God has made me and all creatures."

Also,
The WELS website has a section dedicated to Creation questions.  (All pro-literal interpretation) as are the articles at the Lutheran Science Institute


Was the Old Prophet (1 Kings 13.18) deceived by an 'angel'?

Oooor it could have just been the fact that this old prophet plainly lied about seeing an angel just to manipulate the man of God from Judah to disobey God and eat with him. Hospitality was a big thing in Middle Eastern times back then.

But, most importantly, it seems this was a test for the young prophet, not the old prophet, as the former was the focal point of the chapter's story.

Hope these resources help you as well:

https://ebible.com/questions/3718-why-did-the-old-prophet-lie-to-the-man-of-god-causing-his-death
https://www.gotquestions.org/man-of-God-lying-prophet.html
What should the man of God in 1 Kings 13 have done when faced with the old prophet's lie?


What is the official Roman Catholic Bible?

The Official Bible is the Vulgate, translated into Latin from (mainly) Greek by St. Jerome in the 4th Century after the canon was finally established.

The Council of Trent's Fourth Session defined the old Vulgate as authentic (source):

  Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many ages, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

If you're looking for an English translation, any Bible with an imprimatur should be good.  I wrote another answer here a while ago about whether Catholics can read the NIV that might be of use to you.  The point is, Catholics should look to the Church for official interpretation no matter what the translation is.


Jesus predicts that some will not die until he comes in his kingdom, but did this occur?

The very next story in each of those passages is the transfiguration. My interpretation: The kingdom is here! Jesus is alive and reigning through his church and in the hearts of the saints. Because the Kingdom has an already/not-yet character, it has not yet come in its fullness, but it is here. And Peter/James/John saw in the transfiguration a preview of the fullness which is to come, Christ in his power and glory.


Do we know the fates of any of the implausible relics Martin Luther described?

The answer to this question will depend on the relic!

St Michael's Feather

When I was a young altar server, the standard joke was that if you were good you would be able to find a "feather of St. Michael." We all understood this as a joke because Angels are intellectual in nature. This joke is as old as people have been able to believe in such things.

We all know that Angels are purely spiritual beings and do not possess a physical body what so ever. The Holy Angels can appear to individuals as seen in Scriptures, but in assumed bodies.

  Angela and Bodies

  Angels have no bodies. An intellectual nature (that is, a substantial essence equipped for understanding and willing) does not require a body. In man, because the body is substantially united with the spiritual soul, intellectual activities (understanding and willing) presuppose the body and its senses. But an intellect in itself, or as such, requires nothing bodily for its activity. The angels are pure spirits without a body, and their intellectual operations of understanding and willing depend in no way at all upon material substance.
  That the angels sometimes assume bodies is known from Holy Scripture. Angels appeared in bodily form to Abraham and his household; the angel Raphael came in the guise of a young man to be the companion of the younger Tobias.
  In bodies thus assumed, angels do not actually exercise the functions of true bodily life. When an angel in human form walks and talks, he exercises angelic power and uses the bodily organs as instruments. But he does not make the body live, or make it his own body.  - FROM THE TEACHINGS OF SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS

As we see, it is not possible for any relic of St. Michael to possibly exist. Nevertheless some of the faithful believe in such tales or folklore.

  You Find a Feather

  St. Michael is a very clear communicator. You will most often hear his guidance in your mind or sense it as a gut feeling. There are instances when, to get his point across clearly, Michael will send physical signs as proof of his guidance. Since Archangel Michael is a protector, his signs are designed to comfort and reassure. If you question or do not notice the signs that he sends, he will find a way to communicate his message in different ways until you are at peace.

  One of the most well-known signs that you have been visited by an angel is finding a feather. These magical blessings are something many of us keep an eye out for and treasure once we discover. Often referred to as "calling cards", feathers are left as reminders that angels are watching over us. - How To Tell When St. Michael Is Watching Over You

In conclusion to this feather idea of Martin Luther, it would seem that he was simply repeating an old wise tale.

I am sure that it may have been possible that the Bishop of Mainz could have made a claim that he possessed the flame from the burning bush of Moses.

There run many stories or rather jokes that relics of similar such things may exist. For example, we would joke around that the Sacred Congregation of Relics (Rome) possesses a relic of the 10 plagues of Egypt and hopefully it would not be rediscovered and broken open (even accidentally). Stories turn into legend and legends ...

As for the banner that Christ had in hell, I can find no source of such a relic ever existing. Perhaps Martin Luther at one time heard of this story, but it remains that.

As for the relics of Mary's Milk, it is somewhat of a more passible relic. At least in the sense that it could be a third class relic.

  The Catholic Church divides relics into three classes:

  First-Class Relics: items directly associated with the events of Christ's life (manger, cross, etc.) or the physical remains of a saint (a bone, a hair, skull, a limb, etc.). Traditionally, a martyr's relics are often more prized than the relics of other saints. Parts of the saint that were significant to that saint's life are more prized relics. For instance, King St. Stephen of Hungary's right forearm is especially important because of his status as a ruler. A famous theologian's head may be his most important relic. (The head of St. Thomas Aquinas was removed by the monks at the Cistercian abbey at Fossanova where he died.) If a saint did a lot of traveling, then the bones of his feet may be prized. Catholic teaching prohibits relics to be divided up into small, unrecognizable parts if they are to be used in liturgy (i.e., as in an altar; see the rubrics listed in Rite of Dedication of a Church and an Altar).

  Second-Class Relics: items that the saint owned or frequently used, for example, a crucifix, rosary, book, etc. Again, an item more important in the saint's life is thus a more important relic. Sometimes a second-class relic is a part of an item that the saint wore (a shirt, a glove, etc.) and is known as ex indumentis ("from the clothing").

  Third-Class Relics: any object that is touched to a first- or second-class relic.[38] Most third-class relics are small pieces of cloth, though in the first millennium oil was popular; the Monza ampullae contained oil collected from lamps burning before the major sites of Christ's life, and some reliquaries had holes for oil to be poured in and out again. Many people call the cloth touched to the bones of saints "ex brandea". But ex brandea strictly refers to pieces of clothing that were touched to the body or tombs of the apostles. It is a term that is used only for such; it is not a synonym for a third-class relic. - Relic (Wikipedia)

According to an ancient tradition, some of the milk that Mary produced while nursing the Infant Jesus fell on the floor of the cave at Bethlehem. Later on the faithful would come and collect some of the chalk-like stone as a third class relic.

  A short distance south of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is a shrine called the Milk Grotto, on a street of the same name.

  An irregular grotto hollowed out of soft white rock, the site is sacred to Christian and Muslim pilgrims alike. It is especially frequented by new mothers and women who are trying to conceive.

  According to tradition, while Mary and Joseph were fleeing Herod’s soldiers on their way to Egypt, they stopped in this cave while Mary nursed the baby Jesus. A drop of Mary’s milk fell upon the stone and it turned white.

  The grotto has been a site of veneration since the 4th century, the first structure being built over it around AD 385.

  By mixing the soft white chalk with their food, and praying to Our Lady of the Milk, they believe it will increase the quantity of their milk or enable them to become pregnant.

  Rows of framed letters and baby pictures sent from around the world to the Milk Grotto testify to the effectiveness of the “milk powder” and prayer. (The powder is available only at the shrine; it may not be ordered from overseas.) - Milk Grotto

Inside the Milk Grotto church

As for the relics of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church believes that they do exist and that she is in possession of such relics:

Crown of thorns
The Nails


Does the Catholic Church consider abortion to be murder?

Yes, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Pontifical Council for the Family abortion has been likened to murder.

The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor!
Pontifical Council for the Family - Children, Springtime of the Family and Society, October 14-15, 2000

And the notion goes even deeper and predates Christian ethics, as tied to the Hippocratic Oath.

the evident synthesis of Hippocratic ethics and Christian morality cannot be contested -both Hippocratic ethics and Christian morality regard all forms of direct abortion or direct (whether active or passive) euthanasia as illegitimate because one is dealing with an act which destroys a prenatal life and with an act of murder which nobody can justify.
The Charter for Health Care Workers: A Synthesis of Hippocratic Ethics and Christian Morality

So, I think in the eyes of the Church, abortion is a form of murder. In fact it is the worst possible kind of murder because it destroys the life of a completely innocent human being.


What is the meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:22?

Regarding "appearance", Strong's Concordance has this defined as:

  that which is seen, form

So, we need to keep away from every [blank] of evil. I think both appearance and form are appropriate here. But I think that we need to take "form" as not just "type" (as in "every type of evil") but also as "formation" ("every formation seen of evil").

Even the English definition of "form" seems to back this up a bit:

From Dictionary.com

  1.
  external appearance of a clearly defined area, as distinguished from color or material; configuration: a triangular form.

  2.
  the shape of a thing or person.

There's a sense of a physical formation, something seen.

However, taking this in context we can see that "appearance" is a good word choice as well. If we change "appearance" or "form" to "sighting" (strongly indicating the physical aspect of sight), then it still makes sense to use other translations:

"Flee from every sighting of evil."

I think this would be just as valid translation. It's not just that you want to avoid the appearance within yourself, but also the appearance anywhere in the world.

I suspect that's why other (more modern) translations have avoided "appearance of" in favor of "type" or "form", since the idea is that we want to avoid the external evil that we find, not that we want to avoid "appearing" evil to others.

Ultimately, this verse is about what we see, not what others see.  It's a command to us to avoid things that we see that are evil -- avoid things that in our sight are evil.

  Edit

  My initial answer was answering the question, "Is this a good translation".  However, I see that the title is "What does this mean"?  Those are two very distinct questions.  So, here I'll answer the other question, "What does this mean?"

It can often be difficult to understand verses that are not in context so that if you take them out of context, they tend to lose their original intention.  I think it's important to look at the entire verse, in context, to get a full picture of what it's trying to say here:

1 Thess 5:19-22 (NIV)

  19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil.

Furthermore, I encourage you to read the entire chapter of 1 Thessalonias 5 to get even a better picture.

What Paul is trying to say in this letter is to hold fast to good and reject evil--don't be like those around us.

1 Thess 5:6 (NIV)

  So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be awake and sober.

The idea that permeates 1 Thessalonians is to stay strong in the Lord, to not turn aside towards evil ways.

In the context of this book, we can see more clearly that 1 Thess 5:22 is saying we should avoid evil in all its forms.  Just before that it says we should cling to that which is good.

That's the meaning of this verse: turn away from evil; cling to what is good.


Why would the baptismal state of a spouse be relevant to whether someone can be confirmed in the Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church is asking for proof that your husband is a baptised Christian, baptism being the "gateway to the sacraments."

  Can.  849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for
  salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly
  conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of
  words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as
  children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character,
  are incorporated into the Church. (1)

Without proof, your husband is considered by The Catholic Church not baptised, which is a diriment impediment. Thus, your marriage is considered invalid.

  Can.  1086 §1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been
  baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not
  defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not
  baptized, is invalid.

  §2. A person is not to be dispensed from this impediment unless the
  conditions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 1125 and ⇒ 1126 have been fulfilled.

  §3. If at the time the marriage was contracted one party was commonly
  held to have been baptized or the baptism was doubtful, the validity
  of the marriage must be presumed according to the norm of ⇒ can. 1060
  until it is proven with certainty that one party was baptized but the
  other was not. (2)

Your marriage can be rendered valid by simple convalidation...

  Can.  1156 §1. To convalidate a marriage which is invalid because of a
  diriment impediment, it is required that the impediment ceases or is
  dispensed and that at least the party conscious of the impediment
  renews consent. (3)

...or by radical sanation.

  Can.  1161 §1. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its
  convalidation without the renewal of consent, which is granted by
  competent authority and entails the dispensation from an impediment,
  if there is one, and from canonical form, if it was not observed, and
  the retroactivity of canonical effects. (4)

Unless your marriage is validated by The Catholic Church, you cannot be confirmed.

  Catholics seeking the sacrament of Confirmation must be married by the
  Church, either by a deacon or priest before receiving the sacrament of
  Confirmation (5, emphases added)

Your priest should have explained all of this to you. Here is a little more information.

Best wishes.


What is the significance of Noah, after the flood, getting drunk and cursing his son who saw him Naked?

I certainly think the clarify of the passage is a bit lacking.

As I understand verse 22, Ham "saw" the nakedness of his father...perhaps not just as in accidentally, but more of a deeper "examination" of his fathers nakedness? There is no mention of what Ham's thinking was...perverse or spiteful...disrespectful...but I think the difference between Ham's attitude and his brothers attitude in relation to their father's state is clearer given the rest of verse 22, and verse 23: Ham told his brothers...jokingly, mockingly, making fun of his father?...and his brothers in turn respectfully covered their father without looking at him at all.

There is probably some facet of culture not included in biblical text here, but it does seem clear the difference between Ham's "seeing" and his brothers "backing in, faces turned away, and covering their father" that gave Noah reason to curse Ham's offspring, and bless Japheth and Shem. While it may not usually end up with a curse, I believe the same kind of behavior from a mans son's today would result in some kind of punishment for a son that showed a lack of respect to a father, regardless of whether that father's own choices resulted in a disappointing state. Children respecting their fathers is a fundamental teaching of the bible.