Explain the last sentence in Matthew 6:34

One of the perhaps lesser-known works of Thomas Aquinas is his Catena Aurea, the Golden Chain. This is a commentary on the Four Gospels, one verse at a time; Aquinas gives the verse, and after (nearly) every verse intersperses commentary on it—notably from Augustine, Jerome, and John Chrysostom; though other theologians, Church Fathers, and Doctors of the Church are included if they have anything to say on a particular verse.

Aquinas himself comments on Matt. 6:34:

  Having forbid anxiety for the things of the day, He now forbids anxiety for future things, such a fruitless care as proceeds from the fault of men, in these words, Be not you anxious about the morrow.

In addition to Aquinas' own gloss, he quotes a similar idea of Jerome:

  Sufficient for us is the thought of time present; let us leave to God the future which is uncertain. And this is that He says, The morrow shall be anxious for itself; that is, it shall bring its own anxiety with it. For sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. By evil He means here not that which is contrary to virtue, but toil, and affliction, and the hardships of life.

In other words, Jerome says that Christ means something like, "The future is going to have enough problems; worry about them as they arise, not now."

John Chrysostom says something similar:

  Has not every day a burden enough of its own, in its own cares? why then do you add to them by laying on those that belong to another day?

Aquinas also quotes Augustine of Hippo, Hilary of Poitiers, and an author known as Pseudo-Chrysostom. This unknown 5th-century author wrote a commentary called Opus Imperfectum In Matthaeum (Unfinished Work On [The Gospel Of] Matthew). These three apply a more metaphorical approach to the verse.

Augustine, for example, comments

  Tomorrow is said only of time where future succeeds to past. When then we work any good work, we think not of earthly but of heavenly things. The morrow shall be anxious for itself, that is, Take food and the like, when you ought to take it, that is when necessity begins to call for it. For sufficient for the day is its own evil, that is, it is enough that necessity shall compel to take these things.

In other words, he says, Jesus is warning us not to focus on the things of this world, the things we'll need from day to day. Instead we should focus on the things of Heaven. We should do what is necessary to survive in this world, but not allow it a greater place in our lives than that.

Pseudo-Chrysostom makes a similar comment:

  Why then should you be anxious about those things, time property of which you must part with? Sufficient for the day is its own evil, as much as to say, The toil you undergo for necessaries is enough, do not toil for things superfluous.

Finally, Hilary applies this comment to the necessity of repentance and the possibility of salvation:

  This is further comprehended under the full meaning of the Divine words. We are commanded not to be careful about the future, because sufficient for our life is the evil of the days wherein we live, that is to say, the sins, that all our thought and pains be occupied in cleansing this away. And if our care be slack, yet will the future be careful for itself, in that there is held out to us a harvest of eternal love to be provided by God.

"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof", in this conception, means something like "You have enough to do each day in focusing on repenting for and avoiding the sins of the day."

That appears to be a reasonably complete survey of major views of Matthew 6:34.


Do Catholics have an "Apocrypha" or just a "Bible"?

Neither of your options is correct. Catholics typically refer to what Protestants call the Apocrypha (1-2 Macabees, Sirach, etc.) as deuterocanonical books, and they do include them in the Bible as inspired, God-given writings.

They were in use in the church from before the NT times, and IIRC, it was Jerome that gave them the name "apocrypha" and the Council of Trent that established them as deuterocanonical. See Development of the Old Testament Canon and Apocrypha in the Wikipedia.


According to Catholic theology, why does God have an only Son?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains a section on the line of the Apostles' Creed reading (in translation) "and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord". Each phrase is discussed separately; but unfortunately the five paragraphs discussing the phrase "His only Son" focus more on "Son" than on "only".

St. Thomas Aquinas, however, touches on the issue in the Summa Theologica. The First Part of this work contains a large number of "questions" (the Latin might be better translated "discussions" or "investigations" regarding the Trinity. In particular, Question 27, Article 5 (and again the Latin might be better translated "point" or "section") asks "Whether there are more than two processions in God?"

Aquinas explains the relationship of the Father to the Son by offering the analogy of a person who has in mind something they want to say. In one sense, the word they want to say is distinct from them; they are not identical to what they say. In another sense, though, the word (especially before it is spoken) is a part of them: it is a thought in their mind. Thus, Aquinas says, the Son is to the Father, proceeding from Him as one's word proceeds from one's mind and yet part of Him as one's words and thoughts are part of who one is. (In a similar way, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as a person's love proceeds from them and from their words.)

Aquinas derives from this analogy an objection to God's having only one Son: "In us there is not only one procession of the word, but there are many: for in us from one word proceeds another. ... Therefore in God there are more than two processions." (Question 27, Article 5, Objection 3) That is, he objects that since we can have multiple words proceeding from us, surely God could have multiple Words (that is, multiple Sons of God) proceeding from Him?

His response is to say that God is not really like us in this sense. Words, in us, proceed from our understanding of a situation; and our need to use multiple words arises from the fact that our understanding comes in parts and stages. We don't automatically understand everything perfectly all at once, nor can we (therefore) communicate everything perfectly all at once. But God can. He has therefore, Aquinas says, only one Word by which he understands everything, and communicates everything: "God understands all things by one simple act. ... Hence there cannot exist in Him a procession of Word from Word ... for there is in Him only one perfect Word." (Reply to Objection 3)

This unique Word of God we call the Son of God (as Aquinas discusses in Question 27 Article 2); and thus there can be only one Son of God.


What is an overview of the differences between Old Testament and New Testament?

The Old Testament consists of books written by the Jews during the centuries before Jesus was born. It is believed to contain the entire history of the Jews all the way back to the creation of the world. The Old Testament is important to Christians because it is thought to include prophecies of Jesus.

The New Testament consists of additional books written by Christian authors, but not accepted by Jews as scripture. Four of these books, known as gospels, contain an account of the life of Jesus and another book, known as Acts of the Apostles, is believed to be a history of the early Church. Other books are letters, or epistles, believed to have been written by Christian apostles.

The Bible consists of both the Old Testament and the New Testament, following in that order.  When discussing Judaism, Christians sometimes refer to the Old Testament as the Hebrew Bible, but Jews would call it the Tanakh.


Does Jesus call himself divine in the synoptic gospels?

In the Synoptics, Jesus showed his divinity by his words and actions.

Jesus equating himself with God:

  Luke 8:39 (NASB)

  "Return to your house and describe what great things God has done for
  you." So he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city what
  great things Jesus had done for him.

  Mark 5:19 (NASB)

  And He did not let him, but He said to him, "Go home to your people
  and report to them what great things the Lord has done for you, and
  how He had mercy on you."

Jesus spoke of his divine name and spoke of himself as the divine Son of Man in Daniel 7:

  Mark 14:62 (NIV)

  "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the
  right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

  Matthew 26:64 (NIV)

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

Jesus equating himself with the other two persons in the Trinity:

  Matthew 28:19 ( NIV)

  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,

Luke equated Jesus ( the Sunrise from on high) with the God of Israel:

  Luke 1:78 (NASB)

  Because of the tender mercy of our God, With which the Sunrise from
  on high will visit us,

  Luke 1:68 (NASB)

  "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, For He has visited us and
  accomplished redemption for His people,

  Luke 7:16 (NASB)

  Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, "A great
  prophet has arisen among us!" and, "God has visited His people!"

Mark equates Christ with Yahweh in terms of ability:

  Mark 4:41 (NASB)

  41 They became very much afraid and said to one another, “Who then
  is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?”

  Psalm 107:29 (NASB)

  He caused the storm to be still, So that the waves of the sea were hushed.


What is the Biblical basis for a resistable enabling (prevenient) grace?

The doctrine of Prevenient Grace is seen by those who adhere to it as a natural outcome of sound Biblical exegesis.

In one respect it's akin to the doctrine of the Trinity in that it resolves apparent discrepancies.  With the Trinity, we have clear teachings in Scripture that there is only one God, other clear teachings that Jesus is God, and others supporting that the Holy Spirit is fully God.

To answer this fully is going to take a bit of time, so I'm going to break this down into three sections:  Principles that are used when looking at these Scriptures, the supporting Scriptures, and the application of the principles that lead to the conclusion of Prevenient Grace.

Principles

The doctrine of Scripture as the inspired inerrant, infallible Word of God.
Rules for resolving apparent Biblical discrepancies.

To understand how Prevenient Grace is drawn out of the texts, you need to start by bearing in mind that to these groups, there can be no question that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and infallible.  In other words, it was written by God Himself, using the authors as instruments, and therefore not only does not contain errors, it cannot contain errors. This means that it cannot have contradictions.  Something cannot be logically true and false at the same time.  Two polar opposite views that contradict each other cannot be true.

Next, you need to understand that if the Bible contains apparent contradictions, then either the bible is not inerrant, or there's a way to resolve the apparent discrepancy.

Supporting Scriptures

The supporting Scriptures here are, interestingly enough, the ones that show the apparent discrepancy:

The verses that support the Calvinistic view that man plays no part in his salvation, or choice are already documented in many questions on this site:

What is the Biblical basis for Total Depravity?
What is the Biblical Basis for Irresistible Grace?
What is the Biblical basis for Limited Atonement?
What is the Biblical basis for Unconditional Election?

If you take the time to go through the above questions and the answers, the support for the idea that man has no choice in his salvation, and that God chooses who will be saved is overwhelming.

However, on the other side, there is also overwhelming Scriptural support for the idea that we must choose to accept God's free gift of salvation - in other words, man does play a part.  (Emphasis mine in the following verses)

Matthew 16:24 - Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
John 3:16 -  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 11:40 - Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?
John 7:37 - In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
Romans 4:24 - But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Matthew 11:28-30 - Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
John 6:40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
Revelation 22:17 - And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

I'm going to stop there.  A comprehensive list is far too long for an answer here, and that's enough to make the point:  There is Scriptural support for the idea that man does have to choose to follow Christ, and that the choice does exist.  It is real.

Taking one more tiny (well, maybe not so tiny since it's the central point of all Christianity) piece of evidence into account... Since man cannot save himself, God provided the payment for our sins.

In other words, when man is incapable. God provides a way...

Application of the Principles to the Scriptures to draw out the Biblical Concept

Thus far, we've established the following two opposing facts:

Scriptures clearly teach that man is fully depraved and utterly incapable of choosing to follow God.
Scriptures clearly teach that we must choose to follow God, that the choice is ours to make.

Therein lies the conflict.  Do we have a choice or don't we?  Are we capable of choosing or aren't we?

There is one other conflict that ties in here, for which I haven't provided the Scriptural arguments, but which bears on this topic:  Does God want only certain people to be saved, or does God desire that all would come to Him?.

Assuming that God's Word is true and that he desires that all come unto repentance...

Scriptural facts:

God wants us all to be saved
we are totally depraved.
We cannot choose to follow God unless He calls us
We cannot be saved unless we choose to follow God.
God always provides a way

Can be rephrased as...

  God desires that all be saved, and he teaches that it's our choice to do so.  He doesn't force us.  But because we are totally depraved,
  we cannot choose to follow God.  we are utterly incapable.  Since we
  cannot choose to follow Him on our own, but He expects us to choose,
  He provides a way that allows us to choose to follow God.  He calls us
  first and gives us the previnent grace to choose to obey His perfect
  will.

...with no conflicts and no leaps of logic.


What is some relevent scripture regarding having something stolen?

As far as the verse you are looking for, it's sure to be this:

  Luke 6:29-30 (ESV)
  To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.

Remember this is advice to YOU, not to the thief. We also know from Scripture that theft is wrong and there would be nothing intrinsically wrong with the thief being brought to justice. This verse is advice to you to guard your attitude. Worldly possessions will pass away anyway, they are not worth carrying a grudge over.

As far as your situation goes, I would recommend simply remembering that God takes care of his people. Though we may be sorely tried in this life, we know that God cares for us as a Father and not a hair falls from our head but that he knows it.


According to Protestants, why was Mary troubled at the greeting of Gabriel?

Part II - Mary, and the uniqueness of greeting.
1) Mary, Herself

Mary's place in scripture is very clearly that of a woman greatly blessed by being chosen to perform a quite unique service, but not to be promoted into a unique office. Gabriel's greeting underlines this, 'Highly favoured, among women'. She remains among women, as one of them, and is highly favoured.
Jesus never addresses Mary as mother. He calls her, 'Woman,' when she speaks to him in Cana at the wedding and he calls her, 'Woman,' from the cross when making provision for her with John. When Mary slips in her words and speaks of, 'Thy father and I,' she receives a mild rebuke from the twelve year old boy, 'Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business '

2) The Uniqueness of Circumstance

(Seven Appearances)
The LORD appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, Genesis 18:1, and he looked and Lo, three men. 'My Lord,' he said. And the unnamed men rose up from thence. But the LORD continued to speak to Abraham. A messenger, malak, spoke to Moses out of a burning bush. The LORD saw and God called, Genesis 3:4. An unnamed angel spoke to the unnamed wife of Manoah, Judges 13, and later ascended up in the flame of the altar.
A man strove with Jacob till the breaking of the day and would not tell him his name, but he called Jacob 'Isra-el' for Jacob had power with God and had prevailed. Daniel saw the appearance of a man and he heard a man's voice say, 'Gabriel, make this one to understand. Later, Gabriel appears and says, 'O Daniel . . . .' One appeared to Daniel and told him, Daniel 10:13, that he was helped by Michael, the archangel.
And the greatest king upon earth, at the time, Nebuchadnezzar, saw four men in a furnace of flame, Daniel 3:25, and said, 'The form of the fourth is like unto the Son of God.' These seven occurrences are singular visitations of huge importance in the unfolding  revelation of the purposes of God upon earth. They rise like seven pinnacles over the rest of the comparatively trivial events recorded by humanity of its own history.
And then, after Daniel and Malachi, comes silence. Not a word, for four hundred years. But there are a few faithful, such as Simeon and Anna, Zacharias and Elizabeth - and Joseph and Mary.
Then comes not just an angel but an archangel. And not unnamed - this is Gabriel who announces to Zacharias, 'I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God - -  and behold thou shalt be dumb !' He has the power to strike a man dumb if his herald is not believed.
Michael is also called, apostolically by Jude, an archangel, Jude 9. John's visions indicate that Michael fights with the Lord's hosts, Revelation 12:7. But Gabriel stands in God's very presence.
There are three that appear significantly - two with personal names, Gabriel and Michael, and one who is only ever represented in ten descriptive terms, as Serpent, Satan, Diabolos, Antidikos, Poneros, Abbadon, Kategoros, Beelzebul, Apollyon, Lucifer, Animos and Drakon. This one is defeated by Michael, once it is righteously proper to do so.

3) The Uniqueness of Greeting

Only to Mary is it said that 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee,' and only - ever - of that within Mary was it, or could it be, said that, 'Therefore, also, shall that generated holy be called Son of God.' [Literal Translation of TR.]
These words, and the circumstances of them, stand out even against the background of the seven previous singularities recorded in scripture. This event is breathtakingly momentous.
My wording - “generated holy ” - reflects the exactitude of the wording used, gennwmenon agion, of this momentous event . The English translation is unsatisfactory, even in the AV which I, otherwise, greatly respect. The wording comparison in Matthew and Luke is just stunning, utterly stunning, and deserves to be further highlighted.
[Edited after Post in order to keep closer to the text and to the answer required.]


What happens to unborn, unbaptized babies who die?

I cannot provide a better answer then the answer provided by the LCMS (The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod). This is taken from the LCMS FAQ: Doctrinal Issues - Baptism.
On the role of infant baptism:

Q: How does faith play a role in infant Baptism? Is faith later taken care of when the child is confirmed?
A: Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Baptism, we believe, is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God's written and spoken Word) through which God creates the gift of faith in a person's heart. Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about Baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet it is real and present all the same (see, e.g., 1 Pet 3:21; Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5-6; Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim.3:15; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13).

Summary: Lutherans believe that through infant baptism God creates faith in the heart of the infant, this faith is present though it cannot be shown outwardly.
What about unbaptized babies?

"There is some basis for the hope that God has a method, not revealed to us, by which He works faith in the children of Christians dying without Baptism (Mark 10:13-16). For children of unbelievers we do not venture to hold out such hope. We are here entering the field of the unsearchable judgments of God" (Romans 11:33).
What is the basis of such hope? It is this, that God is not Himself bound by the means to the use of which He has bound us. That is to say that while Christ has commanded us to baptize all nations, God can save sinners without Baptism. He did so throughout the entire Old Testament. During the first 2,000 years we know of no special means of grace for little children. At the time of Abraham He instituted circumcision, but He did not thereby provide for little girls. It is for God to determine under what conditions He will receive children into His kingdom.
A most encouraging instance for the Holy Spirit's power to influence even unborn infants in a spiritual way is found in Luke 1:15, 41, 44, where it is stated that the unborn John the Baptist leaped for joy within his mother's womb when the unborn Jesus was brought into his presence by His mother Mary. Behind all this is the all-encompassing Gospel pronouncement that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world [including the little children] unto Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19).
As to the second point we might say: Whether individual Lutheran pastors have ever baptized stillborn children immediately upon their arrival, we do not know, and to our knowledge such practice has never been sanctioned by our church. Nor should it be sanctioned. The means of grace, including Baptism, are for the living only (Heb. 9:27).
Usage: We urge you to contact an LCMS pastor in your area for more in-depth discussion. Published by: LCMS Church Information Center

Summary: Lutherans believe that Baptism is for the living only, however, God may have created a means to save those who were not baptized or not able to be baptized (stillborn, or died quickly and unexpectedly shortly after childbirth). This hope is based on the fact that God has shown himself capable of saving without baptism and may still continue to do so.


Summa question on his quotation of scripture

The older Latin Vulgate Bible, whose 1592 edition became the official Bible of the Church was already by the time of Aquinas the unofficial standard, and it appears this was the translation he used.

As a note on the numbering, Psalm 10 is an acrostic - the verses begin with consecutive letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The Vulgate counted this as one psalm from first to last letter of the alphabet; other translations from the Hebrew, including the New Vulgate, broke it into two before the verse beginning with lamedh and numbered the second half as Psalm 11,making the psalm in question Psalm 12.

The passage in the older Vulgate, which would have been that available to Aquinas, runs

  Salvum me fac, Domine, quoniam defecit sanctus,
  quoniam diminutæ sunt veritates a filiis hominum.

My translation might be

  Make me safe [i.e. "Save me"], Lord, for there is no holy one; for truths have been worn down from [perhaps "from among"] the children of men

which is very nearly the quote referenced from the Douay-Rheims Bible and excerpted in your question. The Nova Vulgata, which is the current official Latin version retranslated from Hebrew and Greek, words the passage almost identically, substituting fideles  "faithful/the faithful ones" for veritates "truths".

Looking at the Hebrew original, it appears that Jerome translated the Hebrew word אֱ֝מוּנִ֗ים, an adjective, as a noun. Thus instead of "the faithful/loyal/true ones", he gets "the truths".

It appears then that Aquinas' quote doesn't mean exactly what he thinks it does - though his conclusion is still reasonable.


Why is dividing 'event' versus 'process' driven views of justification important to separate Catholic and Protestant theology?

Why Protestants see themselves as being able to break out of the cycle of sin through their personal affirmation that Jesus is their Personal Savior is more or less a mystery to Catholics.

Why Catholics think the mere act of eating what appears to be a piece of Bread can renew their life within them and give them a share in Sanctifying Grace is a more or less a mystery to Protestants.

It's probably decisive because Catholics are pretty convinced they're right and here's why.

As God's chosen people we (All Christians) are not a whole heck of a lot different today than they (The tribes of Israel) were 3000 years ago.  King David for instance, went through all the trouble of being a very good, wise and courageous youth, only to give in to temptation and then repent of it and die a good and saintly man.

The cycle is too alliterative to be of God, but this is what it looks like

Sin

The act that draws you away from God
Servitude to sin

The time you spend getting further and further away from God
Supplication

The cry for help that brings you back to God
Salvation

God's response to your cry
Silence

The period of time in which you get to decide whether or not to sin again.

Chances are pretty good you're going to go back up to step 1.  But there's no going from Step 5 to Step 4 (because those who are not sick don't need a physician) and there's no point going from Step 5 to Step 3.  God's grace will keep you from going from Step 5 to Step 2.  But your free will and passions may move you from step 5 to step 1.

As we grow in holiness we can extend our time inside of Step 5 land.  Mother Theresa spent most of her life there!

It's a process, because our earthly lives are finite, but it's more like a big ball of yarn all rolled up.  We're not Buddhists; our spiritual development isn't circular, because it isn't infinite.  But it is more or less round and messy and it's not instantaneous.

Protestants seem to on the other hand, cling to a translation of John 3:7

  Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’

which says "again" instead of "from above".  And regardless of the translation, this signifies some sort of a birth event that takes place after which you're saved once and for all.

Last week I heard of Go Ask Your Father.  The good Reverend Know-It-All expound on this.  He Pentecostal cited a friend of his who said neither Catholics nor Protestants understand what it means to be "born" in this context.  That what we talk about as "born" is really "conceived".  Because being born is a painful excruciating event (I've never done it myself, but I've been rather intimately involved in each of my children's births and he's right.  It's tiring, it happens unexpectedly, it is an event, but it's not a life changing event because the life has been in existence, hidden for 9 months already.

So, maybe what Jesus was saying was that you're going to have to go through life and have struggles and problems and carry your cross to unite your birth (through baptism) to his death.  Which, incidentally, is exactly what St. Paul says happens when we're baptized, regardless of if we're baptized as adults or wee infants.


According to Biblical Unitarians, Did Jesus know that he would succeed?

The scriptures are very clear - Jesus was a man tempted like us, made like us in every way.

Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect... Heb 2:17

But the OP says Jesus is 'only a man'. No, not like any other man (which is what is implied), but a man without any sin. Yet he is still a man.
There is no room here for a God/man. A God/man is NOT like us in every respect.
We are given no rubbery descriptions of a man who 'gave up his Godliness' so that he could be tempted and die as a man, but who could not fail as God.
If Jesus could not sin, why the charade of being tempted his whole life? - not just in the garden or after his baptism - all his earthly days
What kind of game is God playing at, and the devil playing along too, (as he could never tempt God to sin) why would he bother humouring God with this temptation nonsense? He was up against a second Adam who would defeat him - not by being God, but by relying on God for success - hence the 40 days and 40 nights of fasting before this momentous temptation!
Lucifer wanted to avoid depending on God for his glory - he wanted to have it on his own terms - hence the rebellion. Jesus chose the humble and obedient route and the glory that could never be taken away. Not a glory taken by pride, but given in love and honour by the only true Glory Giver.

During the days of Jesus’ earthly life, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the One who could--- save him from death---, and he was heard because of His reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered. 9 And having been made perfect... Heb 5:7-9

Who is he praying to as God and why?
Can God die? No, nor can He be tempted by evil.
This is not about the cross - it references his whole life - at the very least after his baptism until the uttered words, 'it is finished'.

The son of God is plainly a man and a man plainly - except he began without sin.
Jesus says, without telling fibs,

you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.

What games are we playing with the text to somehow read, 'God heard from God', or that saying he is a man means that he is also God?
He cannot be God for some purposes and not God for others. Pick one and let the text determine if it be true or not. This concept of Jesus being God renders only confusion and forces denial of basic scripture.
Simply being the fleshly mortal man that sprung from God's logos does not make him God. A simple word study of 'logos' will reveal that consistent reality throughout the NT. It does make him holy and without blemish - perfectly suited to be the one sacrifice for sin to redeem the mess begun with Adam. Yet he was still not qualified to be that sacrifice FOR sin.
He had to be made perfect or completed through suffering and the learned obedience that resulted. Does God need to learn obedience? Does God need to be made complete? No, but Jesus did. Because he had to suppress his will and submit to the Father - just as we do.
As God's logos, Jesus was God's word sent out to accomplish a task - a monumental task that only a man could do, and ONLY if he relied on God for all his needs.

So will My word be which goes out of My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the purpose for which I sent it. Isaiah 55:11

Jesus is the living word of God. He is not a predetermined outcome of a (silent) verbal decree from God. He has his own will that must be brought into submission. Not a static string of words, but a dynamic mortal life to accomplish what God had never done before.
When God sends His Holy Spirit into another vessel and 'fills that vessel', there is an increase in desire for God's will and purposes. God does not control that vessel, the vessel still has a will and can object, they still have to resist temptation to serve self. Paul, Peter, John tB, still had human nature that was ever-present. They are not perfect and still need saving. Satan doesn't go on holidays when God is around unless specifically ordered.  Jesus began without sin so didn't require salvation, but still had a human nature that could be influenced by the devil's tricks and subtle deceptions. While Jesus was well aware of these, he still had to resist and choose the Godly way. Clearly, sometimes this was more than difficult.
When Jesus asked for an alternative to 'the cup'(Matt 26:39) this was not God's doing, but Jesus fighting with the devils ploys to undo what had been a perfect run towards the cross.
Jesus knew he would succeed IF he relied on God, HIS God and Father.
This is the summation of what it is to be a Christian - what it is to be the Christ. God will succeed, He will have victory over evil, he will have His beloved creation redeemed!!!
But it will not be by force, decree or fiat, but by love and obedience. Humans think love and obedience are at odds - that is nonsense. That is the deception of what Satan has caused us to think about God and His son. Jesus showed us that it is true. He loved His Father and God and this led to obedience against ALL trial and suffering. Jesus' way would not work out, but God's way would. Jesus' will wasn't the way, God's will was.
We know little of Jesus life pre baptism. We know a lot about it after. If Jesus is God, is he somehow not God at moments of our random choosing? Is he God when he received the Holy Spirit? What was he before this, why is God being given the Holy Spirit?
All these and many more silly questions to force fit Jesus into a trinity dogma that the bible is eerily silent about. (sure there are some 'proof-texts" that taken out of context or reliant on dodgy translations can lead to this kind of thinking, but they are readily understood as intended when the initial constraint of a threeology is removed)
Do Biblical Unitarians agree that Jesus must have known ahead of time that he would live a sinless life?
(I have not commented on the 'Jesus must have known ahead of time' phrase as I'm not sure what this means - what time?, what ahead? As Jesus did not literally pre-exist his conception/birth, any time before that is irrelevant regarding what he would 'know')
We see the OP quotes informing of a successful outcome. God's prophecies always come to fruition - in the way that He intended, at the time He intended, and through whom He intended.
We also know that Jesus prayed to be saved from death during his fleshly life because he could have sinned and fallen short of the perfection required. He tells us he had to surrender his will to the Father - if he had a differing will that needed surrendering, it was then capable of being at odds with God - therefore sin.
How did he manage this testing? Through prayer alone and total dependence of God- just like us. His example was of constant prayer, he exhorted  the disciples to have this attitude and practise Luke 18:1 and many others.
We are called Christians b/c we follow Christ. We are called to live as he lived, we are to behave as he did, to value the things he did. We cannot live as God lives on our own as God does. But we can follow His human son in his example of total dependence on God.  This idea is disingenuous at best - that God sends a son who cannot be beaten and expect us to fall in behind such a charade.
His prayers and his sweat like blood, were they a charade too? If he is God, it would be, as he could not fail and the whole son of God thing, with the sacrifice and the death and the resurrection was a huge farce.
In what sense can it be said that Jesus "could have" sinned?
Simply because he was a man and not God as the scriptures tell us via the NT and OT writers. There is no prophecy of God coming as a man. The seed of Abraham, the seed of the woman, the descendant of David.
God does not have a God, God does not need to be exalted to the place he already had or become heir to what he allegedly already made. Heb 1:2
Conclusion:
Jesus knew he could not sin to be the Lamb, he also knew he could if he let his guard down and thought his way was better, less painful, more expedient, than God's. The scriptures show this humble and fully reliant man on his Father and God as an example for all men to follow and become the brethren, of which he was the firstborn, to the new age of eternal life with God. Col 2:15, Rom 8:29

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. John 17:3

Finally, God does not triumph over evil by trickery or deceit. He does not by force or supremacy over all, even the devil. He could have!
But no, He does so by love - the love He has for all and the love that He places within us by His spirit - just as He did with His son Jesus. Jesus loved back by the presence of God's spirit and nature.
There is no deception, He says what is, and we must read what is written - without making stuff up or reading what we want it to say. If we are told Jesus is a man, then a man he is - how then can he be God too? Why should we try to make him so against the scriptures?
This answer is gleaned from https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/


What are the meanings of the mote and beam in the parable?

Jesus' message is a pretty simple one, although we can glean a deeper lesson from it by paying attention to every word in his message. In modern parlance, Jesus' message could be paraphrased, loosely, as follows:

Get your own act together before criticizing someone else.

A mote is a speck of dust. A beam is a log or a piece of lumber used in constructing ceilings and roofs. The former is almost infinitesimally small, whereas the latter is gargantuan. The humor in Jesus' comparison becomes readily apparent in the contrast between the two.
Put differently, Jesus is saying,

"After addressing and dealing with your own hang-ups and besetting sins you'll be in a better, humbler position to confront a brother about his hang-ups and sins."

One of the often overlooked terms in Jesus' teaching in this passage is the word hypocrite (see v.5). A hypocrite is a person who pretends to be something he isn't. Put differently, a hypocrite is someone who does not practice what he preaches. For such a person to confront and criticize someone else before taking stock of his own failures and sins is analogous to "casting the first stone" (see John 8:7).
After making a "searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves," we are less likely to be so judgmental of others. Why? Because after conducting that inventory of ourselves we can see more clearly that

We are just as guilty and condemned before God as they are, whether they or we have committed one sin or a million sins. "All have sinned and fallen short . . ." (Romans 3:23). Sin entangles all of us, without exception (see Hebrews 12:1), and James reminds us that "we all stumble in many ways" (3:1, my emphasis). To forget this is the height of hypocrisy.

Our quickness to point the finger of blame at someone else can belie the presence of the very same (or similar) sin we are accusing our brother of. Again, this is hypocrisy.

Our tendency to detect a fault in a brother violates an important principle in Scripture; namely, "love covers a multitude of sins" (1 Peter 4:8; Proverbs 10:12 and 17:9). To cover a sin is not the same as to cover up a sin and pretend it never happened. No, God is our example in this. He does not cover up our sins, but he does cover our sins through the blood of the sacrifice of his Son, our Lord Jesus, who died for our sins (1 Peter 3:18).

There is a better way to confront someone caught in a sin. Paul summed it up in  Galatians chapter 6:
"Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ" (vv.1,2).

In conclusion, there is a need within every local assembly of Christians to confront known sin. As Paul points out, however, only one who is spiritual is to do the confronting. Even then, spiritual people need to proceed with caution, because they are just as susceptible to stumble as the person they are confronting.
Rather than leading with a holier-than-thou attitude, they are to lead with caution and an I'm-just-a-sinner-too attitude. Sin breaks the heart of God, and sin should break our hearts, too, whether it is in us or in someone else.


Matthew 24:15-20, If we can't go back and get our clothes, where are we to go?

The Protestant view is that there was a literal application when the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem, then withdrew unexpectedly.  That was the moment to escape and flee to the mountains because when they returned in A.D. 70, the Temple and everyone in Jerusalem were utterly destroyed.

The warning not to stop and pack up possessions was meant to imply urgency.  It meant to get on with it and get out while the going was good!  The reality was that there would have been time to grab warm clothes or pack food for the journey.

To have traveled during winter, when the River Jordan would have been flooded, would have been very difficult.  Likewise, to travel on the Jewish Sabbath (from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday) would almost certainly have meant breaking the law. Again, given the time gap between the first siege and the second siege, there would have been time to get out without breaking the law.
As you point out, Christians are not under the Jewish Sabbath Law.

The future application of this prophecy applies to the tribulation period when the Antichrist and the False Prophet are identified.  Before Christ Jesus returns the elect will be gathered and taken up.  If, as I suspect, Jesus' warning not to delay applies to the rapture, then it simply means we must be alert and flee when the moment arises.  We are not to dally, looking to secure our property or pack a suitcase!  Whenever the call comes, we must be prepared to drop everything and go where we are bidden.

The Bible does not give us specific details, and frankly, we don't need to know the details.  We just need to be on the side of Christ and know that we belong to Him.


What was the literal meaning of the term 'stone rejected by builders'?

While this is not a biblical source, according to an article on the Freemason website yorkriteofcalifornia.org,

Foundation Stones, Cornerstone Ceremonies and other Masonic Stones

Submitted by Jerrold A. Wohlfarth
Grand High Priest 2007/2008
Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of California

the following is said of a cornerstone in ancient times:

"We know that the cornerstone, or foundation stone, of an edifice in ancient times was a perfectly squared stone from which the remainder of the building could be plumbed, squared and leveled. It provided the builder a point of departure, or reference, which insured that the structure would be properly built. If the first stone, the foundation stone, or cornerstone was not plumb, square, and level, the error would become more and more exaggerated the further the builder went from that corner stone. We know that examination of still standing structures built in ancient times disclose the perfection and exactness required of the stonemasons who constructed the buildings of the time. The stones had to be perfect."

While this does not say anything about the composition of the stone it does address it's attributes and Masons would certainly be a good source of information.


Are Christians allowed to practice Eastern martial arts?

In general, yes, it is allowed.  However, I want to point out this verse:

1 Corinthians 10:23 (NIV)
“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive.

This verse comes right before a passage talking about eating meat sacrificed to idols.  In general, this is allowed for us.  However we have to be careful to make sure that what we are doing does not take us away from God, but brings us closer.

1 Corinthians 10:31
So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

If we follow God and do everything for his Glory, we're doing things the right way.
Summary
If you're feeling like God is calling you to not participate in any activity, you should avoid that activity in order to glorify God.  Otherwise, feel free to participate in that activity so long as you do it for God's glory.


How many distinct Biblical canons are there?

There are two major variations in the Bible which has caused rifts over time:  translation and canon.
Translation
It's important to not underestimate the value of translation.  The New World Translation, for example, is a translation used exclusively by the Jehovah's Witnesses.  This "Bible" can be considered the Jehovah's Witness Bible.
Other denominations have exclusive translations as well, such as the Inspired Version, which is a partial translation exclusive to Mormonism (although, being a partial translation, is not their primary Bible).
Canonization
There are also many, many canons of the Bible.  See here for a list.  Some of these were for doctrinal purposes, such as Luther's attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelations from the canon.  Others were from political reasons, such as the Ethiopian Christians accepting a different canon from the Roman Catholics.  Then there's the authentic reasons for excluding particular books.
Regardless how you come at it, these different canons have resulted in differences in Bibles.  The Bible as used by Roman Catholics, for example, contains the Deuterocanonical books, which are not part of the Protestant Bible.  The varying Orthodox canons include text that are not found in the Roman Catholic canon.
Summary
Unfortunately, there are many different "Bibles"--a separation caused by both the translation and canonization processes.
Historical translations and canons also broaden the spectrum to an extreme (such as Luther's canon).
If you're looking for a raw list, start with a list of canons and a list of English translations.


What are the Christian doctrines denied by the Igreja Maná (Mana Church), if any?

Based on the Portuguese Wikipedia page they look like a fairly typical pentecostal/charistmatic church. Whether that's a denial of Christian doctrine depends on you.

Personally I do think that teaching that we can all expect great prosperity in this life is a false gospel, and that to expect all Christians to speak in tongues is a denial of 1 Corinthians 12:4-31, but I'm not certain this church actually teaches those things, they could teach softer more acceptable versions.

As to calling their founder an Apostle, that's not uncommon in Pentecostalism, or Christianity more broadly. That webpage you found, CARM, is the work on one individual and of course lots of people would disagree with that criteria for Apostlehood. As apostle means "one who is sent" I think there's a very good case for calling Christian missionaries "apostles". Either way, it's not very noteworthy.

All in all, it looks like a pretty typical Pentecostal church. I can't see any major warning signs.


Which denominations follow "queer theology"?

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America went through a deliberation process on whether to change its restrictions against non-celibate homosexual pastors, culminating in a vote in 2009.  Some of the documents prepared by the ELCA to argue for this change sound very similar to what you have typed.  Here is one such document, "Journeying Faithfully Together". Here is their summary page on "Historical Resources" on the topic.  Individual congregations went further, some signing on to a Reconciled in Christ program, which raises similar themes.

Another reference is the book, Sexual Fulfillment: For Single and Married, Straight and Gay, Young and Old, written by a former bishop, Herbert Chilstrom.  The Amazon.com summary includes Chilstrom's comment that for people of all orientations,

  ... sex is a gift from God, intended, in spite of our broken world, for our enjoyment and fulfillment.


Why does the Salvation Army not administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper?

It appears that the simple answer is that because the Salvation Army does not view baptism or communion as requirements of salvation, they are not practiced at all.  This stance, however does not constitute disapproval of sacraments:

  The Salvation Army has never said it is wrong to use sacraments, nor does it deny that other Christians receive grace from God through using them. Rather, the Army believes that it is possible to live a holy life and receive the grace of God without the use of physical sacraments and that they should not be regarded as an essential part of becoming a Christian.

This was not a doctrinal position as much as it was a gradual change in operation based on the following points:

  The Army's Founders felt that many Christians had come to rely on the outward signs of spiritual grace rather than on grace itself. William and Catherine Booth believed, with the Apostle Paul, that salvation came solely from the grace of God personally received by faith. They felt that much of what passed for Christianity in their day was primarily an observance of outward ritual.
  Some Bible scholars had pointed out that there was no scriptural basis for regarding the sacraments as essential to salvation or Christian living. Many Christians assumed that Jesus commanded the use of baptism and holy communion. But there are very few New Testament references to these practices and it was argued that none of them showed any intention by Jesus that they (or any other practice) should have become fixed ceremonies.
  The sacraments had been a divisive influence in the Church throughout Christian history and at times the cause of bitter controversy and abuse.
  Some churches would not allow women to administer the sacraments. The Army, however, believed that women may take an equal part in its ministry, and did not want to compromise this stance.
  The Society of Friends (the Quakers) had managed to live holy lives without the use of sacraments.
  Many early-day converts to the Army had previously been alcoholics. It was considered unwise to tempt them with the wine used in holy communion.

As such, the Salvation Army does not appear to be opposed to sacraments, but avoids them for practical reasons, based on their view of them as not requisite to salvation.

  it should be stressed that Salvationists have never been in opposition to the sacraments. Indeed, when they take part in gatherings with Christians from other churches, Salvationists will often share in using the symbols of the Lord's Supper as a sign of fellowship. Furthermore, Salvationists are not prevented from being baptised in other churches should they so desire.

Source: http://www.waterbeachsalvationarmy.org.uk/what-to-know-more/why-does-the-salvation-army-not-baptise-or-hold-communion/


How is the "spirituality of the church" consistent with theonomy?

Theonomy recognizes that the revealed word of God is the rule in every area of life, not merely the spiritual matters. Theonomists interpret the Bible to prescribe civil laws, especially from the Israelite theocracy that are supposed to govern all civil governments that are in line with God's will. They recognize both the civil magistrate and the Church as legitimate institutions who owe their allegiance to the word of God but they are not the same institution. In their view, it would be inappropriate for either institution to interfere with the matters that concern the other. Church courts are never to exercise civil penalties over their judgments nor are civil courts to usurp the ministry of the keys or the sacraments from the Church.

This view is not unique to James Thornwell, but it is clearly evident in his thinking.

  [T]he separation of Church and State is a very different thing from
  the separation of religion and the State. Here is where our fathers
  erred. In their anxiety to guard against the evils of a religious
  establishment, and to preserve the provinces of Church and State
  separate and distinct, they virtually expelled Jehovah from the
  government of the country, and left the State an irresponsible
  corporation, or responsible only to the immediate corporators. They
  made it a moral person, and yet not accountable to the Source of all
  law. It is this anomaly which we desire to see removed; and the
  removal of it by no means implies a single element of what is involved
  in a national Church.

James H. Thornwell's Critique of the Confederate Constitution


What is the Catholic view of what it meant for Jesus to be "called" Immanuel?

Since this a purely exegetical question (i.e., it doesn’t really affect a fundamental teaching about Jesus), the Church does not have an “official” position on how to interpret Matthew 1:23.

In this passage, Matthew is simply applying the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus:

  Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

In context, Isaiah is prophesying the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz. (Hezekiah is portrayed in the Old Testament as a holy and prudent king, unlike his father.) However, Matthew sees that the prophesy has a deeper meaning in Jesus Christ, who is, after all “God-with-us” in a much more perfect way than Hezekiah ever was.

It seems that neither Jesus nor any of his disciples ever used Immanuel as an actual title. Hence Matthew is merely applying the prophecy to Jesus, since it describes Jesus’ condition (as God-made-man) very well.

(As a source for these reflections, I used the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament, the notes for Matthew 1:23.)


How do some Franciscans brothers become priests?

While spending some time at St. Bernard's discerning my vocation (before I met my lovely wife) I picked up on a few things:

Monastic orders are structured in a way so that daily spiritual life is lived out as a very intimate family.

Monasteries can perhaps be compared to villages. Everyone (especially the Abbott) has a good sense of what must be provided for the survival of the surrounding community.

The Abbott is the final authority within the monastery. As a "brother" is gradually received into the community his talents and/or prior education/qualifications are taken into consideration, and are then consequently deployed to serve the community.

Some guys are Notre Dame alum-lawyers...others have "special needs"...others are just average Joes (like me).

The Abbott is just like a general of the Army. He sends soldiers where they should be sent...no questions asked

At St. Bernard's, there is a private school that has to be kept in motion year round. There is also a large Catholic community in Cullman. The more priests the better.

At the end of the day...Monks simply pray and work.

BTW, I know you specifically asked about the "Friars Minor," but all monasteries are like little diocese and therefore essentially have the same hierarchical structure.

The EWTN Franciscans are somewhat unique, in that they have been specifically commission by Rome to produce television and radio for the world. I'm sure that there are unique strategics involved across the board.

  Through their familial association with the Eternal Word Television
  Network, the friars use as energetically as possible all forms of mass
  communication in the apostolate, especially television, radio,
  Internet, the printed word. Urged on by the love of Christ, with the
  assistance of Our Lady of the Annunciation and zeal for the salvation
  of others, the friars as modern day missionaries share in the Church’s
  mission of evangelization, a work of God’s mercy.

As an aside...

The biggest thing that jumped out at me while hanging out at St. Bernard's was that the most important thing for newcomers is permanent humility. Sometimes men come in to the community automatically assuming that they have all the right stuff to be a priest. Ironically, at least at St. Bernard's, the average Joes became priests before the former millionaire investors.


What is the difference between Irresistible Grace and the Immaculate Conception?

If your interpretation of Selective Election is correct1, the answer is fairly clear per the scriptural passage where Mary says yes (Luke 1:38 -- be it done to me according to thy will) ).  Mary had the option to say no, but didn't.  The other premise seems to preclude choice so that the option of "yes" or "no" never arises.  The Catechism describes the call to faith as an invitation by God.  An invitation can be accepted, or declined.

For what it's worth, Mary's "yes" gets a lot of emphasis in our
parish and in our diocese.  It's the topic of various homilies and
other pastoral encouragement to the laity to align our will with
that of God's.  As our pastor has put it "you are presented with
opportunities every day to 'say yes.'"
The yes or no choice for Catholics is related to repentance, which
represents a turning toward God, or a return to God depending on
how you refine the sense of that term -- repentance-- as it comes to
us from the original Hebrew and Greek terms.

The Catechism opens with the call to a relationship with God, through Christ, by God's invitation rather than His fiat.

  I. The life of man - to know and love God

  1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer
  goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life.
  For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to
  man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his
  strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin,
  into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the
  fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour.
  In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy
  Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

  2 So that this call should resound throughout the world, Christ sent
  forth the apostles he had chosen, commissioning them to proclaim the
  gospel: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
  them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am
  with you always, to the close of the age."4 Strengthened by this
  mission, the apostles "went forth and preached everywhere, while the
  Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that
  attended it."5

  3 Those who with God's help have welcomed Christ's call and freely
  responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good
  News everywhere in the world. This treasure, received from the
  apostles, has been faithfully guarded by their successors. All
  Christ's faithful are called to hand it on from generation to
  generation, by professing the faith, by living it in fraternal
  sharing, and by celebrating it in liturgy and prayer.6

Father James Martin's commentary (he's a Jesuit scholar) is an example of this common theme, Mary's "yes" ...

  But the decision is always up to us. We are free to say yes or no to
  God.

  With her yes, Mary partners herself with the Almighty and is empowered
  to bring Christ into the world. This world-changing yes is what St.
  Bernard speaks of in one of his sermons on Mary:

  Answer with a word, receive the Word of God. Speak your own word, conceive the divine Word. Breathe a passing word, embrace the eternal Word.

  With our own yes to God's voice in our lives we are also asked to
  nurture the word of God within us and bring Christ into the
  world—certainly not in the same way that Mary was, but in our own
  situations, and in our own ways. Using our own talents and graces we
  are called to bring Christ into the lives of others.

1 Based on this summary by Rev Bryn MacPhpail, I think that "limited atonement" may be what you mean by Selective Election

  The only interpretation of "limited atonement" that is faithful to
  Calvin's beliefs is that God does not will everyone to be saved. This
  is not to say, however, that the means to salvation (Christ's expiation
  of sin resulting in propitiation) is not accessible to all. The
  command to proclaim the gospel to every person would be cruel and
  hypocritical if Christ did not die for all sinners. Against those who
  make a travesty of Calvin's doctrine, he writes that "there is ready
  pardon for all sinners, provided they turn back to seek it" (Inst. III,
  24, 16). The problem is that "no one seeks God", therefore Christ's
  sacrifice for all only becomes effectual in those God has elected from
  all eternity.  {snip} Since "no one seeks God" Calvin asserts that "only those whom He has illumed do this"(Inst. III, 24, 17), and that God "does not indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what he denies to others"(Inst. III, 21, 1).


Did Jesus own a home as an adult or was He a nomad?

There are two places in scripture where people are surprised to discover that Jesus is in a house, probably his or his family's.  The first place is where Mary and Joseph are living when the wise men follow the star to them.  Jesus is not an infant at this point, but a 'young child' (2 years approx., according to Herod's death warrant) and the wise men follow the star to the house 'where they find the young child and Mary and Joseph.'

  Mathew 2:9-12 "9 When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceedingly great joy. 11 And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh."  NKJV

The second place is where we find Jesus as an adult man.

  Mark 2.15: καὶ γίνεται κατακεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ πολλοὶ τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ ἠκολούθουν αὐτῷ

  And it happened that he was reclining in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who were following him . . .KJV

Mark 2:15 seems to suggest that Jesus may have had his own home.

Commentators and scholars have frequently interpreted this text to mean Levi's house, instead of Jesus' own home. To support this statement, it appears in many Bible translations themselves, as "Levi's house", in Mark 2:15.

Contrary to the above, we find Jesus saying,

  Matt. 8.20 // Luke 9.58, "Foxes have their holes and the birds of the air have their nests ....but the son of man has nowhere to lay His head."KJV

This above statement may refer to a later time in Jesus' ministry, perhaps after looking after the room and board of his disciples and the families they left at home, for the three years they were itinerate, that they followed him; Jesus may have sold his house to provide for them all, while he was training them, as they moved about from town to town; but considering that he paid their taxes with a gold coin from the mouth of a fish, he probably didn't sell the house for support, since they did have a bag of money later, for paying things, that Judas was in charge of.

  Mark 2:1 And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.
  2 And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.
  3 And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.
  4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.
  5......thy sins be forgiven thee.
  6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts...KJV

If Mark 2.1-12 also depicts Jesus at his (own) house (2.1, ἐν οἴκῳ, "at home"), perhaps that is why Jesus says, "Your sins are forgiven," as the man's friends destroy  the roof of the house, piece by piece...(this is my attempt at a joke, ie. Jesus says 'your sins are forgiven' because if they just destroyed Jesus' roof to let the stretcher through, Jesus might be thinking about 'that too', as he is ministering. (Jesus was also human, subject to things that bother us. He would have had to fix all the damage they did to his roof later,  probably not by miraculous means)

  Mark 2:1 And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.KJV

Capernaum was central to Jesus' ministry and may have been the place he was living when some of the first disciples asked to 'see where Jesus was staying', and he replied to 'come and see'. Mary his mother may have lived with him there. He may have operated a carpentry shop there before beginning his ministry. After his ministry began, it is possible that the disciples may have moved in with Jesus or Jesus and his mother. We don't read anything of Joseph in Jesus' adult life, but we know his mother Mary was at the wedding where Jesus did his first miracle, as were the disciples.

It is possible that Jesus may have had provision left from the royal gifts that were given to him at his birth by the wise men who travelled to find him. Scripture does not tell us how much gold or spices were given to him at that time; traditional Christmas pageants may cloud our understanding that there may have been donkey or camel trains of many animal loads of the gifts given to him, considering the wise men saw the star and set out to find him and offered expensive gifts fit for an earthly king. If this were the case, Jesus' home may have housed the twelve men in addition to himself and perhaps his mother and father, or just his mother, and perhaps his physical brothers or cousins, called brethren in the texts. Spices were often used as money by kings, Jesus received both gold and spices at his birth, gifts given by men who were either royals themselves or high up in the courts of other royals, as is understood by the term, - wise men.

  John 1:38-39
  They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? 39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour. KJV

  John Chapter 2:1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

  John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.  12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.  KJV

Where did they 'continue'- not many days? In an inn? In the one home of a friend who could house them all? Perhaps they continued at the house of Jesus and Mary, his mother.

In addition to all of the above, we find the following;

  Mark 9:28 When He came into the house, His disciples began questioning Him privately, "Why could we not drive it out?"

  Matthew 4:13
  Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali--

  "And again he entered into Capernaum.—See Notes on Matthew 9:1-8. Mark alone names Capernaum, Matthew describing it as “His own city.” The house may have been Peter’s, as before in Mark 1:29, or it may not have been."
  Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
  II.

"Mark 2:15: The Home of Jesus or Levi?," in the journal New Testament Studies, vol. 39, 1993, D. May


Was there any case of a homosexual priest in the early Church and how did the Church handle that?

St. Basil and Pope St. Siricius (4th cen.) condemned sodomy among those in the religious life.*

*cf. pp. 41-42 (PDF p. 68-69) of Randy Engel's Rite of Sodomy (vol. 1).

In the times of St. Peter Damian (11th cen.), too, the Church has had to deal with the sin of sodomy, which is closely related to the sin of usury, a fact Dante (14th cen.) noted when he put sodomites and usurers in the same circle of hell in his Divine Comedy*, as there is a close connection between sexual and financial sins.**

*Seventh Circle (Violence), ring 3 "sins against nature"**They both involve sterile transactions; cf. Catholic historian E. Michael Jones's Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict between Labor and Usury or "Bankers & Wankers".

St. Peter Damian aided Pope St. Leo IX, who valiantly worked toward combating this issue, by writing the Book of Gomorrah, which contains chapters titled, e.g.:

VII. On rectors of the Church who are soiled with their spiritual children
IX. Just as is the case with those who violate nuns, a prostitutor of monks must be deposed in accordance with the law
X. That both he who falls with his carnal or spiritual daughter, and he who is soiled with his penitential son, should be accountable for the same offense
XVI. Of clerics or monks who persecute males

The following (or similar) law was observed in the Church even before its codification in 1917:

  Canon 2359§ 2. If they [clerics] engage in a delict against the sixth precept of the Decalogue ["Thou shalt not commit adultery", which forbids all sexual sins] with a minor below the age of sixteen, or engage in adultery, debauchery, bestiality, sodomy, pandering, incest with blood-relatives or affines in the first degree, they are suspended, declared infamous, and are deprived of any office, benefice, dignity, responsibility, if they have such, whatsoever, and in more serious cases, they are to be deposed.


Claims by Jehovah's witnesses from doctrine?

Jehova created dinosaurs for the purpose of clearing forests for humans to
plant crops and removed them when that task was done.

I can find no evidence this is has ever been official teaching of the Watchtower Society. It teaches a naive Young Earth philosophy, but does not claim that God created dinosaurs for the purpose of clearing forests for humans to plant crops.
The "abomination that maketh desolate" (KJV) or "disgusting thing that is
causing desolation" (NW) mentioned in Dan 11:31 is a prophecy identified with
the United Nations in New York, with particular condemnation of the display
in the UN of the "swords into plowshares" quotation from Isaiah 2:4.

The Watchtower Society is ambivalent in regard to the United Nations. On the one hand, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the United Nations will soon destroy all other religions, and then turn against Jehovah's Witnesses. On the other, the Society secretly joined the United Nations as a non-government organisation (NGO). Wikipedia states:

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the United Nations is the "image of the wild beast" referred to in Revelation 13:1-18 and the fulfillment of the "disgusting thing that causes desolation" from Matthew 24:15.[6][7] Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jehovah will use the United Nations to destroy "false religion" as an institution, wherein all institutionalized religions except Jehovah's Witnesses will be destroyed. It is expected that the United Nations will then turn against Jehovah's Witnesses to destroy them, but Jehovah will intervene and destroy all political elements. They believe this act of divine intervention will be Armageddon, the final part of the Great Tribulation.[8][9]
In practice, Jehovah's Witnesses "view the United Nations organization as they do other governmental bodies of the world," as "superior authorities" that "exist by God's permission," based on their interpretation of Romans 13:1, 2. They believe "this Scriptural position does not condone any form of disrespect toward governments or their officials," to which they are to "render due respect," and they "obey them as long as such obedience does not require that they sin against God.

The Jwfacts site says the Watchtower became an Associate NGO with the United Nations in 1992 and provides copies of what are purported to be official UN documents. Tami Dickerson, a Jehovah's Witness at the time, says in Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations, page 7, that as soon as she heard that the Watchtower had joined the United Nations, she began to investigate and eventually concluded that the report was true.
So, the second statement in the question is at least partly true, but the Watchtower Society seems to be backing away from its former total opposition to the United Nations.
The "breath of life" that Jehovah put into the nostrils of Adam in Gen 2:7
is what we call oxygen.

The Watchtower Society teaches that humans do not have a soul in the traditional Christian sense. Therefore, according to Witnesses, the "breath of life" can not be ensoulment. This Wikipedia reference page shows that some Witnesses do teach that the  "breath of life" that Jehovah put into the nostrils of Adam in Gen 2:7 is what we call oxygen, whether or not this is official doctrine:

The Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine expounded to me by a national overseer is that oxygen is pneu the breath of God which was imparted to living things at their creation.


How many died because of immorality in the wilderness?

1) It is possible, that those that died that very day amounted to 23000 and those that died in the following day(s) added 1000 more.

2) It could have been Paul not remembering the exact number.

Because of my belief in the inspiration and inerrancy, I believe the 1st.


Does the RCC permit Catholic laity to answer exegetical questions (i.e., interpret scripture) on a forum or website?

First, I strongly recommend you read this article, which addresses this common concern among young Catholics.

Addressing your specific question:

Of course we can answer these questions!

Any time anyone is in need of help we are, in fact, called to provide that assistance if we are capable.  This is a fundamental part of Christian charity.  Furthermore, answering these kinds of questions when they are asked by Christians has a special place for us as Catholics, as it is one of the primary means by which we are to evangelize.  Please do not think that by Christians I here refer exclusively to the heretical protestant sects.  Evangelization is not something we do external to the Church but rather something we do within it, incorporating others more fully into the body of Christ, whether they currently profess our faith or not.  Pope Paul VI writes about this with much more detail and accuracy in his encyclical On Evangelization in the Modern World.  This continual evangelization of each other and the unbaptized requires engagement with others in whatever way they now know God, from which one progresses to the truer ways of the Church.  Protestants, by and large, put great stock both in private interpretation (the bad/self contradictory kind) and literalist interpretation of the Bible.  In order to help those unfortunately born into a Protestant environment reach the fullness of the Christian faith it is necessary that a certain level of Bible-centered discourse be engaged in.  In my personal evangelization of Protestants I have found it important to be willing to talk about the Bible with them and to give Biblical support for the errors in their beliefs, in order to be able to move onto more important topics.  You are right to treat such engagement seriously, however, and a set of additional things I have found useful and important responding to Biblical inquiries (almost exclusively fielded by Protestants, so if your mission field is different these may be of less use to you) based on my experience as a catechist and evangelist within the Catholic church follows:

Always remember that you are not officially the final authority, and can only share your expert opinion on such topics.  Make sure the people you are communicating with understand that you are not a priest, perhaps opening your post with a little bit about yourself so people know what the basis for your authority is.
Always remember that you are for all intents and purposes the final authority as God has chosen you to receive this specific opportunity and it is quite possible the person with whom you speak will receive no further information on the subject, albeit through their own fault.  Consider not only the veracity but also the relative impact of everything you say.
Matt 7:4-5
Neh 8:13-17
Tit 2:7-8
Jam 3:1-12
1 Pet 4:10-11
Saint Patrick's Breastplate
Be sure to discuss your teaching frequently with God in prayer.
The intercession of the Saints is of great assistance to all Catholics in all walks of life.  Discuss your teaching with your patron saint as well.  St. Isadore of Seville is the patron saint of the internet, btw.
If you start to make a ministry of it, be sure to talk with your priest.  If you know a good priest it's probably a good idea to talk these kinds of things over with him in most any circumstance.
Seek ye not to destroy or offend without cause, but rather to reform, create, raise, restore, bless, edify, love, give, trust, and shape-- and these too not just for their own sake but for the greater glory of God.
When engaging in Bible-centered discourse, supplement your statements with non-Bible-centered support when possible and appropriate.

Again, these are things I have found useful in forming myself to be ready to engage in Bible-centered discourse with Protestants both online and elsewhere, not specifically things the Church says you have to know/do.

The most important things to take from this are 1) Laypeople are in no way to be discouraged from reading and interpreting the Bible, nor in discussing the Bible or interpretations thereof with each other and/or outsiders, nor even in teaching on or explaining the meaning of Biblical passages. 2) Teaching always confers great responsibility.  Teaching theology confers even more responsibility.  Responding to these sorts of questions should not be done lightly.


How does fasting affect violent situations not under my control?

Our own wickedness is the cause of the wickedness around the world. Personal fasting is a sign of personal repentance that, it is hoped, will lead God to mitigate similar evils in the world.

Pope Francis said this:

“We will gather in prayer and in a spirit of penance, invoking God’s great gift of peace upon the beloved nation of Syria and upon each situation of conflict and violence around the world. Humanity needs to see these gestures of peace and to hear words of hope and peace.”

The full text of his September 1st Angelus Address can be found here.
In making this proclamataion, he joins thousands of others in explicitly seeing the fallen condition of the world not merely a result of some generic sin, but our sin.  In calling us to fast, he is calling us to repent of our part in making this world a fallen place.
During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln called us to a similar fast.  He asked the nation to "fast and humble" itself as an outward manifestation of our repentance.  The full text can be seen here.  Within that, he wrote a justification as follows:

And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment, inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!
It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

In a nutshell - God is punishing us by bringing these events to come to pass.  Maybe if we show our contrition for what we have done, God will relent.
The idea is both simple and has a long basis in history.
Indeed, Paul, in Romans acknowledges the link, in Romans 1:

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.

The people of Nineveh, when confronted by Jonah (in Chapter 3), made almost the exact same leap:

6 When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. 7 This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh:
“By the decree of the king and his nobles:
Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. 8 But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”
10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.

The logic is simple:

Violence is a result of our wickedness
We are sorry for this
Perhaps if God sees our sorrow, he will relent, and change the situation.


Is the sermon on the mount intended for unbelievers?

If you set up that kind of a false dichotomy -- that the disciples left Jesus at the end, and thus they were not believers here -- then none of the teachings of Jesus were given to believers. In the mind of Jesus, the disciples were believers in training. These were those which he had personally selected and through whom he was going to build and establish his church. In 5:13, Jesus says, "You are the salt of the earth." In 14, he says, "You are the light of the world." Verse 16, "Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father in heaven."

Verse 11 goes in here also, "Blessed are you when they revile you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for so persecuted they the prophets who were before you." Here Jesus forms a dichotomy between the disciples and "they." The same "they" are those who persecuted the prophets. This "they" -- we know from Matthew 23 -- would include the unbelieving Jews who persecuted the prophets; and contextually, it specifically included the Pharisees, who are said to be the murderers of the prophets, as Jesus charges that all of the blood of all of the prophets would be charged against that unbelieving generation.

But in Jesus' statement of verse 11, he is also linking the disciples up with the prophets. The disciples would enjoy the same persecution which had previously come to the prophets. The prophets were the messengers of God who existed before you; Jesus is saying the you are the messengers of God in the now.

Jesus is, in the Sermon on the Mount, laying the foundation for the new morality of the kingdom of God, with an internal righteousness which will exceed the external righteousness of the Pharisees (5:20). It will be the reconciled kingdom who desires to be reconciled to their brothers (5:23-24). It will be the kingdom the eschews lust (27-30), and that upholds the covenant of marriage (31-32). It will be the kingdom that lives by its word, that does not return evil for evil, that loves and gives to even those who are abusive, and who does good to those who hate them, and prays for those who despitefully use them.

In this way, I believe, we become perfect even as our Father in heaven in perfect. We become a people that reflects the righteousness of God. We have Christ's image contained in vessels of clay (2 Corinthians 4:7ff) and we reflect and we image the very glory of God. And, by the way, the Sermon on the Mount does not end here, but it continues on through chapter 6, and does not end until 7:27. In these chapters we find many instructions given to believers, such as how to pray, how to give discreetly, how to fast, how to lay up treasures in heaven, etc. There is the constant dichotomy here again between us and the hypocrites -- and there is constant reference to the fact that God is our Father in heaven. So, no, I have to disagree: the Sermon is written to Christians; and its standards are not unreachable, but are the reflect the life of the called out, redeemed and sanctified communion.


What's the origin of this approach of trying to obtain meaning from the individual letters of Hebrew words?

Psalm 119 may have been an influence, the presentation of each Hebrew letter heading the twenty two sections of the Psalm. I have always taken this as a demonstration of reverence for the word of God, the singling out of each letter as being important in the whole structure of scripture.

But perhaps meaning has been seen in each section of the Psalm that has been attached to the individual letters. It would be interesting to examine the psalm in detail to see if the meanings imposed, as in the OP, are taken from the Psalm.

צ (Tzaddi) the eighteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, heads the eighteenth section of Psalm 119 and is also the letter which is at the beginning of the Hebrew word for righteous, saddiq צַדִּ֣יק which is the first word of that section of the psalm.

So perhaps - in scripture - the letter tzaddi stands for righteousness.

There is much more to Hebrew scripture than the English translation displays. Lamentations, for example, is highly structured poetically. The first four of five poems are written as acrostics – chapters 1, 2, and 4 each have 22 verses, corresponding to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, the first lines beginning with the first letter of the alphabet, the second with the second letter, and so on see Wikipedia - Lamentations.

Even in his grief at the state of Jerusalem, Jeremiah poems his lament in a highly structured, artistic and intelligent expression of reverence towards God.


Christ and the Believer Icon (Companion Icon) origin?

Icon of Friendship as it is commonly called goes by a few similar titles.
This is a 6 century Coptic icon from Bawit, Egypt of Christ and Saint Mina. Its’ author is unknown and is one of the oldest known icons in existence. It can be viewed at the Louvre, where it is now on display.


What is the origin of the story that James had knees as hard as a camel's, because of his praying?

The first recorded instance of the tradition comes from Hegesippus, a second century Christian writer.  Unfortunately, his works have been lost, except for a small portion of his writings quoted by later authors.
In his Church History (c. 325), Eusibius writes:

But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. He writes as follows:
... [James] alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people.

In his book, James the Brother of Jesus, Robert H. Eisenman states that this image is "so original that it is difficult to imagine that Hegesippus simply made it up."  In other words, the story likely either has some basis in actual history or at least developed from a tradition earlier than Hegesippus' time.  Thus, the origin of the story can likely be pushed back to at least the early second century.


What is "Manuscript Evidence" and how is it useful?

"Manuscript Evidence", as the question implies, serves to provide evidence that the Bible has been transmitted accurately throughout time.  It does not prove that the Bible is God's word.

The usefulness of knowing what manuscript evidence means, and what it tells us about the accurate transmission of Scripture through time is to address the statement that "The Bible has been changed many times over the years" - a common charge leveled by atheists and non-Christians.

The manuscript evidence argument stems from a branch of literary criticism, which seeks to identify and eliminate copying errors that occur over time.  Regardless of how careful people may be when copying texts, it is all but inevitable that errors will be made along the way.  The more often a piece of work is copied, the more likely an error will occur.

In layman's terms, the process of identifying and removing errors is done by comparing various copies of ancient works, and using a rigorous approach to determining what the original document actually contained.  All discrepancies are examined, and the original intent is deduced.

How well this works depends heavily on two factors, which are included in the chart in the question:

The number of copies is useful because it gives a wider amount of copies to examine.  The more copies there are, the more likely there will be discrepancies.

This is good, because it helps to weed out the obvious errors - there will be fewer instances of errors because it's not as likely that various transcribers will make the same mistake.
Similarly, additions to the text, intentional alterations can be detected if they are present only in a limited number of texts.

The date between the original writing of the text and the earliest known manuscript is also critical.  Put simply, there is no way to compare copies of the text for manuscripts that do not exist, so if early mistakes occurred, resulting in discrepancies in later copies, it's impossible to ascertain which is more likely to be correct.

If the earliest known manuscript of a recorded event is within the lifetime of those who experienced the event, the argument is stronger, as there would be people alive at the time of the writing to correct or dispute inaccuracies.

A good example of how comparing discrepancies to ascertain original meaning can be found at Reasoning from the Scripture Ministries:

  Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document
  that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies are different.
  Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the
  original must have said. Here are the five copies:

  Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.
  Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.
  Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.
  Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.
  Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.

  Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the
  original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are
  correct? Of course you could.

When it comes to applying textual criticism to Scripture, the New Testament in particular has overwhelming manuscript evidence.  For the Old Testament, the evidence is not nearly as overwhelming, and the argument for trusting that they have been transmitted accurately through time rests more on the extraordinary care that was taken by the scribes.

Of course, the Bible (or more accurately, translations of the Bible) has been changed over the years, due to mistakes (such as the one that resulted in "The Wicked Bible").  Such mistakes resulted in revisions to Scripture, and it is possible that more revisions will come.  However, overwhelmingly, we can place a high level of confidence that the Bible that we have today is very close to the original manuscripts, and that it has been transferred accurately through time.

So when it comes to answering the atheist's charge that the Bible has been changed over the years, the argument that we can't trust the Bible is based on a distorted definition of "has changed".  What they are trying to imply is that we can't trust the Bible because it's changed so much, but the fact is that we have such overwhelming manuscript evidence that we can be very confident in the fact that the meaning of the original manuscript wasn't lost. Spelling and copyist errors, there are truly very few verses that appear to have been "added" or that the common-sense reading is disputed.

The above is meant to be a Layman's answer. and is in no way a complete, or in-depth explanation of the concept, or all of the principles applied to textual criticism.  If you're interested, there are plenty of resources on the web discussing this topic.  For further reading, and a deeper understanding of Textual Criticism, the Wikipeda article is as good a place as any to start.