Do Jehovah's Witnesses worship Two Gods?  Absolutely not!  They worship only Jehovah God and they pray only to Jehovah God (in the name of Jesus Christ).  That is because they see the pre-mortal Jesus as a created being who is lower than Jehovah God, his Father.  Also, they say before Jesus came to earth to be born of a woman he was known as Michael the Archangel and since his spirit returned to heaven, is still known as Michael the Archangel (What Doe the Bible Really Teach, Appendix page 218).

Obviously, it would be utterly wrong for anybody to worship a created angel (Revelation 19:10).  Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jehovah is God (the only God to be worshipped) and Jesus is “a god” (who must not be worshipped).

  “Reverent adoration should be expressed only to God. To render worship to anyone or anything else would be a form of idolatry, which is condemned in both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Accordingly, true Christians do well to direct their worship only to Jehovah God, the Almighty."  (8 April 2000 Awake pp 26-27)

The conclusion drawn is that when anyone worships Jesus, it is idolatry.  This would be consistent with what the 1 November 1964 Watchtower (page 671) said:

  “Jehovah's Witnesses say that it is unscriptural for worshipers of the living and true God to render worship to the Son of God, Jesus Christ."

However, it was not until 1 January 1954 that this view was first adopted (on page 31 of that Watchtower issue).  The inconsistency is that from 1914 up until 1954, it had never been defined that worship of Jesus was idolatry.  Here is one example:

  “Jehovah God commands all to worship Christ Jesus because Christ Jesus is the express image of his Father, Jehovah, and because he is the Executive Officer of Jehovah always carrying out Jehovah's purpose (Heb.:3-6)." 15 November 1939 Watchtower (p 339)

The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was first published in 1950 (if follows the text of Westcot & Hort). The complete NWT was published in 1961 then revised in 1970 and 1984.  Since then, another revision has been published, but I don’t have access to it.  One thing is clear – at some point after 1954 the NWT replaced “worship” with “obeisance” every time it applies to Jesus, but every time the word applies to Jehovah God, they render it as worship.  That is because they refuse to worship Jesus Christ.


Were Adam and Eve meant to live forever; had they not disobeyed God?

Yes.
As @Brasshat cites in his answer, Genesis 3:22 shows that to take from the Tree of Life allows one to live forever, and Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden specifically so that they could not eat from the Tree of Life and live eternally.
Messiah reveals in John 17 that to live forever means to know the Father and the Son, in the sense of familiarity.
It follows that had Adam and Eve not sinned, they would have had access to the Tree of Life and would have been able to eat continuously of the tree, and therefore have eternal life. The specificity of the reference to the Tree of Life in Genesis 3:22 suggests that it was God's intention for them to remain in the garden and continue to have access to the Tree of Life unless they sinned. Because they sinned, they were cut off from eternal life, and had no access to the source of life, which is the Tree of Life, and separation from the Source of Life is the death of which God warned them when he told them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
So, because they would have remained in communion with the Source of Life if they had not sinned, they would have had life indefinitely.
According to Christian tradition, Messiah is the Source of Life. He says:

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the Grower. Every branch in me that is not bearing fruit he takes, and every one bearing fruit he prunes, so that it bears more fruit"
"I am the vine, and you are the branches. The one who dwells in me bears many fruit, but apart from me you can do nothing."
"I am the bread of life. The one who comes to me will not be hungry, and the one who believes in me will not ever thirst."
"I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate who knows what in the wilderness, and died. This bread, the one that descends from Heaven, whoever eats of it will not die. If anyone eats this bread, he will live into the ages."


Is it appropriate (as a Catholic) to make the sign of the cross when passing an Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Church of the East church?

Is it appropriate for a Catholic to make the sign of the cross when passing an Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Church of the East church?

Of course it is!

It is also a tradition for some Catholics to make the sign of the cross when passing in front of cemeteries, whether a Catholic one or otherwise. Of course there would be some of the faithful departed in many of these cemeteries I imagine.

Seeing that the Orthodox Church does have valid sacraments which includes the  Eucharist, it would be appropriate for a Catholic to make the sign of the cross when passing in front of a Orthodox church in order to show an external sign of respect of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the consecrated host.

Yes, the Orthodox Churches do have tabernacles in their churches (No. 8) as this image from Wikipedia shows:


Did the invention of the printing press change Christianity?

Yes! Before the printing press the Roman Catholic Church did everything it could to limit the translation of the text into native languages and mass production of the text in Latin. The amount of power and control in doing so helped keep them as the #1 power on Earth for a millienia. Also the Protestant Reformation might not have occured without the printing press. Luther mass produced his 95 Thesis to spread around the churches faster than the church could remove them. It is my great hope that technology can once again allow the new awakening of knowledge through the internet.


As Christians we are already saved, so why must we keep repenting of sin?

The general belief, that I think applies to most Christians, is that Jesus' death and resurrection opens the gates of heaven, saving us from sin in general, but that we must still choose to actually enter through the gate -- to repent of our individual sins and desire to sin no more.

To put it another way, Jesus' death makes repentance and forgiveness effective. Without His death and resurrection, repentance and forgiveness accomplish nothing.

Though each major tradition may have a slightly different basis for coming to this conclusion, it's easily validated by the oft-quoted John 3:16, particularly if taken with a little more of its context.

  16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so
  that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have
  eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the
  world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through
  him. 18 Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but
  whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has
  not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:16-18)

Emphasis is mine. And really, the whole thing could be emphasized, because the general point is that Christ's salvation, though universal, is only effective for those seeking and trusting in it.


Why does Catholicism believe in purgatory?

Not only the Hebrews quote, but it is defined dogma in the Catholic Church that "immediately (mox) after death and, in the case of those in need of purification, after the purification" in purgatory, one faces his Particular Judgment (Benedict XII's Benedictus Deus).

However, venial sins or temporal punishment for already-forgiven sins might still remain. Once one has suffered and been purified of these, he enters heaven.


In the book of Job, it suggests that angels sin. Do they?

Here is a Christian perspective based on the New Testament.

Yes, angels can and did sin.

In 2 Peter 2:4 (A.V.), it is written,

  For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Hopefully that settles the matter.


What does it mean that Jesus was the "second Adam"?

1 Cor. 15:22, 45

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. . . .
45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

The specific reference is to obedience; The first Adam was the father of all men through the Flesh and disobeyed, and through him all of his progeny learned disobedience and inherited death, whereas the 'second' or 'last' Adam becomes the father of all men through the Spirit, and was perfect in obedience. Through him, all his progeny learn to be obedient to the will of God and inherit life.
See also, related:
Romans 5:12-21 NIV

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the One to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I believe 'The Second Adam' is an interpolation, i.e, a term that is not explicitly in the scripture like 'Trinity' but enjoys common usage because of its descriptive faculty.


What denominations believe that Jesus Christ has a current physical body?

CAVEAT: I am not familiar with whatever differences might exist between the Chalcedonian
Creed's perspective on Christ's humanity and the CJCLDS's perspective on the same. I'll let my answer stand, however, if only to provide a traditional Protestant (and perhaps Roman Catholic?) perspective in the matter. If I have failed the questioner by not comparing and contrasting the two perspectives (assuming contrasts do exist), perhaps another contributor would care to weigh in and do what I have failed to do.

ORIGINAL POST: I'm confident in saying that most Protestant denominations believe Jesus, the eternal Word of God, became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14).  In fact, one of the most important creedal documents within Protestantism is the Chalcedonian Creed, which says, in part:

  "We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."

In one of His post-resurrection appearances, however, Jesus referred to His body as "flesh and bone," not flesh and blood.

  "'See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have'" (Luke 24:39 NIV).

That Jesus did not say "flesh and blood" is significant. Evidently the resurrected Christ had what Paul referred to as a "spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44). Moreover, after His resurrection Jesus had the ability to "beam himself" (thanks, Star Trek) wherever and whenever He wanted, suggesting that His post-resurrection body, though still human, was no longer limited in the same way it was prior to His resurrection.

Interestingly (though not in answer to your question!), the truth of Messiah's coming into the world as a flesh-and-blood human being is found throughout the Old Testament, and not just in the sacrificial animals of the cultus (i.e., the Tabernacle and later the temple). In Exodus 21, there is a touching ceremony pictured for us, and it involved a slave who out of love for his master would allow his ear to be pierced with an awl in the sight of God, his master, and a priest, thus signifying he was his master's for life (vv.5-7).

Psalm 40 picks up on the meaning of this ceremony when King David, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said, in effect, that the offering of oneself to God is dearer to the heart of God than a million animal sacrifices. With this ceremony in mind, David said,

  "My ears you have opened [or pierced or dug]" (v.6) . . . I come . . . I delight to do Your will, O my God" (vv.7,8).

The writer to the Hebrews picks up on this theme and adds a thought to it:

  "Therefore, when He [viz., Jesus] comes into the world, He says:  'SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME. . . . BEHOLD, I HAVE COME (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME) TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD'" (VV.5-7, excerpts, uppercase letters are in the NIV text).

All to say, the flesh-and-blood humanity was required for Jesus to become the Lamb of God who bears away the sin of the world (John 1:29 & 36). More importantly, however, Jesus' self-emptying (Greek, kenosis, as in Philippians 2:7) included His willingness to remain a man forever.

Thus you can see in the imagery of Exodus 21, with a slave's willingness to serve his master for a lifetime, the humiliation, the condescension, and the self-emptying of Messiah Jesus, which He gladly submitted to out of love for His Father and love for his family, which comprises all those who, in a similar fashion, submit their lives to God in an ongoing service of worship (see Romans 12:1).


What did Augustine mean by "The OT is the NT concealed. The NT is the OT revealed."?

The Old Testament points forward to the coming of the promised Redeemer, the Serpent-crusher of Genesis, the Prophet like Moses, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, the Son of David, the Messiah of Daniel, and the Humble King of Zechariah.

Four hundred years after God spoke to the prophet Malachi, God spoke again. The message was that the prophecy of Malachi 3:1 was soon to be fulfilled, that a prophet was to prepare the way for the Lord. The Messiah was on His way. That prophet was John the Baptist.

The New Testament Gospels reveal the promised Messiah, the Christ, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The Old Testament lays the foundation for the teachings and events found in the New Testament. The New Testament is only completely understood in the light of the events, characters, laws, sacrificial system, covenants, and promises of the Old Testament. In this way the promises contained in the Old Testament are revealed in the New Testament.


How does the Protestant OT canon differ from the Jewish scriptures?

The Protestant books of the Old Testament are exactly the same as the Jewish books in the Tanakh. There is absolutely no difference.


According to the Jehovah's Witnesses, why was Jesus likely not born in December because of Levite temple service schedule?

You have a good memory, and so did that Witness. I had never heard of this argument before, but with some research I found an article in a 1985 Watchtower which explains this line of reasoning.

[Box on page 28]
How does First Chronicles help to prove that Jesus was not born on December 25?

According to First Chronicles, King David organized the priests into 24 “courses,” or groups, each group being assigned to serve for a week at the temple. Thus, a member of each course would get to serve at the temple twice each year, at approximately six-month intervals.

The first course began serving immediately after the end of the Festival of Booths, around late September/early October. The eighth group, named after Abijah, served a week in late November/early December, and then another week in late June/early July. Why is the division of Abijah significant? Because, according to Luke’s account, John the Baptizer’s father, Zechariah, belonged to “the division of Abijah,” and he was actually serving in the temple when the angel appeared to him and announced the coming birth of John.—Luke 1:5, 8, 9.

As Luke’s record shows, John was conceived very soon after this. Hence, he was born nine months later, either early September or early April. Luke’s record also shows that Jesus was six months younger than John. (Luke 1:26) Thus this detail from the book of Chronicles shows that, rather than being born at the end of December, Jesus was born either early March, or early October. Other scriptures show that the latter is the correct time.—For more details, see The Watchtower, June 15, 1954, page 382.

— w85 9/1 p. 28 "Read and Learn From the Two Books of Chronicles"

Nowadays, Jehovah's Witnesses commonly use the explanation that the shepherds would not have been out of doors at night (Luke 2:8) during the winter months, since winter in Bethlehem is especially cold and rainy.


What is the biblical basis for the eternal existence of the lost in hell?

There are indeed many verses that speak of Hell as being eternal although there aren't so many that make the clear that the punishment is also eternal. Here are a couple:

Matthew 25:46 (NIV)
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 (NIV)
8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might

(Emphasis mine.)
A look at Matthew 25:46 on Blue Letter Bible shows that the same word is used for both usages of "eternal" (and for "everlasting").  This word is also used in all the instances of "eternal life", of which there are about 40. Hence, one can safely infer that the two verses I referenced above make it clear that Hell is not a temporary suffering, but that anyone who is sent to Hell will burn forever.


Is the Eastern Orthodox Church independent from regional governments?

The commingling of states with Orthodoxy is a recent (19th century) historical phenomenon known as phyletism, and has to do with the rise of nationalism. This is why you see Macedonian, Greek, Russian, etc. Orthodox churches. Patrick J. Deneen explains how nationalism became a prominent ideology in western culture:

  “[There is] an impulse that can be dated back to the beginnings of the
  modern era and the rise of the state. Before the latter’s ascent,
  memberships in various social settings were overlapping and varied,
  ranging from families, neighborhoods, townships, boroughs, regions,
  guilds, Church (parish and Catholic), nation, even empire.

  The state undermined competing allegiances by demanding primary
  allegiance to itself alone, and only secondarily and ‘voluntarily’ to
  these preexisting institutions. Such memberships became less and less
  ‘constitutive.’ Rather, such associations and memberships came to be
  viewed as secondary to our primary allegiance to a State that reserves
  the right to control, oversee, and define any other institution….

  The only liberty that could be recognized was the liberty of
  individuals to ‘pursue his or her own ends.’ The ancient rights,
  privileges, immunities and liberties of institutions—the Church,
  universities, guilds, localities—were redescribed as forms of
  oppression. The increased power, even intrusiveness, of the state, was
  justified not as a form of oppression, but rather in the name of
  liberation of the individual….

  During the bloody twentieth century, the Church stood against the
  totalitarian ambitions of Fascism and Communism. A third ideology is
  clearly flexing its muscles today—threatening to make those victories
  of the last century merely Pyrrhic. The totalitarian impulse today is
  embedded in the very logic of liberalism, which seeks to expand its
  dominion into every aspect of life and against every competitor to its
  demand for the exclusive allegiance of individuals. We need to keep
  firmly in mind the picture that adorns the Leviathan, and resist our
  absorption as individuals into the body of the state by retaining
  deep, abiding, and even primary allegiance to family, locality, and
  Church.”

Phyletism is a confusion between church and nation, and was officially condemned by the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1872 (yet the practice still remains and is one of Orthodoxy's main problems).

Despite differing national affiliations, Eastern Orthodox Christians are members of one Church and share the Orthodox faith. These affiliations indicate what language and ecclesiastic jurisdiction the church falls under, but they are still considered to be members of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The respective governments of these nations are not necessarily in charge of these churches, rather they fall under a bishop in that country. Another question on C.SE explains further that Orthodox Christians of different ethnic affiliations share the same faith.


Many Church Fathers have written about the Queenship of Mary either directly or indirectly.

To start with, let us answer the question as to who are the Church Fathers according Catholicism?

  The Fathers of the Church are so called because of their leadership in the early Church, especially in defending, expounding, and developing Catholic doctrines. For the first two centuries, most of these men were bishops, although in later years certain priests and deacons were also recognized as Fathers.

  The list includes such notables as: Clement of Rome (d. A.D. 97), Ignatius (d. 110), Polycarp (d. 155), Justin Martyr (the Church’s first major lay apologist; d. 165), Irenaeus (d. 202), Cyprian (d. 258), Athanasius (d. 373), Basil (d. 379), Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), Ambrose (d. 397), John Chrysostom (d. 407), Jerome (d. 420), Augustine (d. 430), Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), Pope Leo the Great (d. 461), and Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604).

  The Church demands four major characteristics to be exhibited in the life and works of an early Church leader if he is to be considered a Father of the Church. These are antiquity, meaning that he lived before the eighth century (the death of St. John Damascene [cir. A.D. 750] is generally regarded as the close of the age of the Fathers); doctrinal orthodoxy; personal sanctity; and approval by the Church. - Who were the Church Fathers?

Which Church Fathers thought of Mary as a Queen (prior to the year 500 AD)?

  The Fathers of the Church unanimously called the Blessed Virgin Mary their Queen. Here is a sample of a few of the Fathers in their own words:

  St. Jerome tells us "We should realize that Mary means Lady in the Syrian language."

  St. Peter Chrysologus says "The Hebrew name ‘Mary’ means ‘Domina’ [Lady] in Latin. The Angel therefore calls her Lady so that the Mother of the Lord, whom the authority of her Son made and caused to be born and to be called the Lady, might be without servile fear."

  St. Ephrem has Mary saying:
  "Let Heaven sustain me in its embrace, because I am honored above it. For heaven was not Thy mother, but Thou hast made it Thy throne. How much more honorable and venerable than the throne of a king is his mother."

  St. Gregory Nazianzen calls her "the Mother of the King of the entire universe" as well as "Virgin Mother who brought forth the King of the entire world." - The Church Fathers On The Queenship Of Mary

The later Church Fathers are even more explicit in their wording as to Mary's Queenship as St. John Damascene calls her: "Queen, ruler, and lady".

Although not a Church Father, Catholic tradition sees Mary's Queenship in St. John's vision in the Book of Revelation 12:1-5:

  “And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.” - Biblical Basis of Mary's Royalty


How do Catholics explain 1 Corinthians 11:21 in light of Transubstantiation?

The bread and wine we offer at Mass do become, in Catholic understanding, "truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ"1, and this is what we consume in the Eucharist.

However, this does not mean—as I mentioned in this answer—that the sacrificial offerings are no longer like the originals in any way. As the term "transubstantiation" should indicate, what is changed in the process is the substance, in the older philosophical sense of "that which makes something to be what it is". The accidents, that is, "those things which happen to be properties of an object", do not change.

In particular, that means that one can measure alcoholic content (an accident of the wine) even after transubstantiation; and thus, at least in theory, it would be possible to become drunk from it. Deliberately doing so, of course, would be a gross impertinence to Our Lord. Canon law provides for an excommunication in this or a similar case:

  Canon 1367. A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose2 incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

(emphasis added)

1(Council of Trent, XIIIth session, Canon I)
2Certainly the purpose of becoming drunk off the species of wine would be "a sacrilegious purpose".


Why did John the Baptist say he wasn't a prophet?

Moses told the people to expect in the future an authoritative, law giving prophet of at least equal stature to himself. No other prophet that followed Moses was regarded as important as Moses by the Jewish people. Thus this expected prophet would stand out.

  15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from
  among your own brothers. You must listen to him. 16 This is what you
  requested from the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly
  when you said, ‘Let us not continue to hear the voice of the Lord our
  God or see this great fire any longer, so that we will not die!’ 17
  Then the Lord said to me, ‘They have spoken well. 18 I will raise up
  for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put My
  words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19
  I will hold accountable whoever does not listen to My words that he
  speaks in My name. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19)

Jesus fulfills the requirements. John the Baptist does not.


How do Old Earth Literalist handle the Biblical Earth age?

Here's one answer (emphasis added):

  In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Professor William Henry
  Green and theologian Benjamin B. Warfield noted gaps and omissions in
  the Genesis genealogies. This suggested the creation was conceivably
  older than the 6,000-year timeframe proposed by Ussher and Lightfoot.
  Today many Bible scholars believe the Genesis genealogies were written
  primarily to provide only highlights and not necessarily a complete
  record of every actual generation.

And here's another from Reasons to Believe that argues in essence that there is telescoping and theological (rather than strictly historical -- but that's not to say unhistorical) content therein.

This theological telling of history is akin to what we see in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus, for instance. See "The Adoption of Jesus" where the (conservative) author notes:

  The generations are not counted in a precisely similar fashion —
  Jeconiah is counted twice. This is not inappropriate given that [the
  genealogy] is primarily a literary device intended to highlight the
  four markers [viz., Abraham, David, the exile, and Christ].
  Moreover, Jeconiah rightly belongs in both groups: in the first group,
  he is in a line of kings; in the second group, having been deposed, he
  is merely counted as a man.


What is the Biblical basis for binitarianism?

Different traditions have more nuance in how they understand the trinity, but the most relevant and agreed upon part of that definition is: God is three 'persons', Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and each 'person' is clearly distinguishable from the other two, and all three exist simultaneously.

Binitarianism – belief that God is a 'binitarian' being – is effectively identical to trinitarianism, with one exception: the holy spirit is not considered to be a 'person'.

So where the bible speaks of the Father and/or the Son, binitarians typically agree with trinitarians on how to interpret those texts. Disagreement comes down to how to interpret parts of the bible where the holy spirit is mentioned.

I don't think it is necessary here to review every possible verse of relevance, but I will instead mention a few key texts that shape the binitarian approach to the bible:

Focus is placed on a verse such as 1 Corinthians 8.6, where Paul describes Christian faith being centered around 'one God, the Father' and 'one Lord, Jesus Christ', with no mention of the holy spirit.
First John 1.3 says 'our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ' (ESV). Again, binitarians note the lack of reference to the holy spirit as a 'person' we share fellowship with.
Revelation 3.21, 5.6, 7.17, and 22.1,3 portray Jesus (the Lamb) and God sharing a single throne, but no portrayal is made of the holy spirit also sharing this throne.
Drawing from both the ideas represented in both 2 and 3 above, further emphasis is placed on other texts that focus on God and Jesus, with no reference to the holy spirit when we would otherwise 'expect' to find such a reference (e.g. Romans 10.9, 1 Corinthians 15.20-28, Hebrews 1.1-4).
Most of the epistles begin with the author identifying himself, identifying his intended readership, and greeting where blessings are invoked. All of the greetings invoke blessing from God the Father, or from God and Jesus. E.g., Paul often greets his readers with, 'Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ'. Binitarians take the lack of mention of the holy spirit as an indication that the spirit is not a distinct 'person' the way we understand God and Jesus to be.
Additional points made are that, within the new testament, we find examples of prayer, worship, and praise directed toward God and Jesus, but no prayer, worship, or praise directed toward the holy spirit.

Binitarianism ultimately sees theology, soteriology, eschatology, etc., of the new testament taking shape around two distinct persons, God and Jesus. The holy spirit is understood as the singular spirit of God and Jesus (e.g. Romans 8.9) but not a distinct person, analogous to how a human's spirit is not a distinct person.

However, depending on some contexts, the term 'holy spirit' is not understood by binitarians to have a systematic definition. In some contexts the term is understood as referring to God's spirit (e.g. the parallelism between Matthew 10.20 and Luke 12.12), but in other contexts it may be understood as something more general (e.g. Psalm 51.11 as a poetic parallel to God's 'presence', or Luke 1.35 as a parallel to 'the power of the Most High').


First of all, the assertion that "With God, all things are possible" is valid and scriptural.

Matthew 19:26 (NIV)
26  Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

However, it would be a mistake to assume that God's omnipotence means he can act against his nature.  Hebrews tells us:

Hebrews 6:18 (NIV)
18  God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie,  we who have fled to take hold of the hope  set before us may be greatly encouraged.

This is not a contradiction.  When Jesus says that "with God all things are possible", he does not intend to suggest that God can act outside of His nature - and His nature is righteousness.  Similarly I, as a physical creature, am by nature bound to operate within the confines of a physical universe (i.e., I am bound by physical laws).
As to the other part of your question, no - God cannot make a rock so big that he can't lift it.  That doesn't contradict His omnipotence.  The question itself is silly and irrational.  Another thing God can't do is make a circle with four corners.  If he did, then it would no longer be a circle would it?  By definition, it would be a square.  C.S. Lewis addresses this eloquently:

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power.
If you choose to say, 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words, 'God can.'


Is there any theological tradition holding that soon after being born, baby Jesus was full of wisdom because this baby is God?

An extremely comprehensive treatment of the historical position and evolution of this issue from the Catholic Church perspective is here. It is impossible to summarise it in this space without copying from there in extenso. Some remarks:
Christology argues that Jesus has two natures, namely divine and human. Therefore, theologians have differentiated between Jesus' divine knowledge and human knowledge. While the former is assumed to be infinite, the latter does not need to be so. Several NT texts shows a Jesus either ignorant of certain things, e.g. date and hour of End of Times, Mark 13:32:

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

or learning through life, e.g. Luke 2:52, in the context of Jesus as a boy aged 12:

And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

The conclusion from the article is that the view of Jesus's human knowledge and its relation to his divine knowledge has varied over times. In fact, in the Catholic Church, there is no explicit dogma about it (as far as I know).
The current version of the Catechism expresses the official position of the Catholic Church in the matter (not very explicit, as you can see), in numbers 472-4:

472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, "increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and man", and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking "the form of a slave".
473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God's Son expressed the divine life of his person. "The human nature of God's Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God." Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father. The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.
474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.

(see associated footnotes in catechism page)
I finish with the conclusion from the aforementioned article:

The picture that emerges from these data points is of a shift away from the medieval consensus and a return to streams of thought found among the Church Fathers.
Our own age is like theirs in that orthodox theologians are split. Some, such as von Balthasar and Ratzinger, have held Christ’s human knowledge was more restricted than the previous consensus did. Others, such as the late Father William Most, defend the more expansive understanding of Christ’s human knowledge.
The latter is still a possibility, for the Magisterium has not condemned that view. At the same time, there has been a marked shift in the way the Magisterium treats the subject, as illustrated in the Catechism, the audiences of John Paul II, and the approval of the PBC and ITC documents we’ve reviewed.
If advocates of the traditional position are still free to propose their view, they cannot count on the support of the Magisterium in the same way or advance their arguments as if nothing has changed.


According to Catholicism, is are there any teachings or traditions about who was the host of the house where Jesus celebrated his Last Supper?

Although not strictly a Catholic Church point of view, a good argument can be made that the Upper Room in which the Last Supper (Passover) was held belonged to Joseph of Arimathea.
He was a disciple of Jesus'.

When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
Mat 27:57

He was rich.

see above quote

Jesus instructed His disciples to find a man carrying water.

He replied, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters,
Luke 22:10

The man carrying water, however, was not the master of the house.  The master of the house was someone different.  The disciples don't ask the servant, but the master where they might prepare.

and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’
Luke 22:11

Joseph of Arimathea evidently partook of that Passover because he has no subsequent problem with touching a dead body.  This would have made him unclean and prevented his partaking of the Passover.

And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
John 19:38

But he also knows Jesus was arrested, tried, and crucified.  He then lays Jesus in his own tomb.

And laid it in his [Joseph of Arimathea] own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
Mat 27:60

It is interesting that Joseph of Arimathea may have provided the sites for the beginning and ending of Christ's passion from sufferings to burial.
So, a rich man with male servants who was a disciple of Jesus keeping the Last Supper secret from the authorities, but who has the authority to claim the body.  All of these things point to Joseph of Arimathea.


What is the oldest recorded filmed Catholic mass?
The first televised Catholic Mass was on Christmas Eve 1948.

Letter of his Holiness Pope John Paul II to Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger for the 50th Anniversary of the First Broadcast of Midnight Mass Celebrated in the Cathedral of Norte-Dame de Paris
To Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger
Archbishop of Paris
On Christmas Eve in 1948, Fr Raymond Pichard, O.P., in agreement with the Société française de Télévision, had the good idea of the first-ever world-wide broadcast of the Midnight Mass celebrated in the Cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris. On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of this event, which marked an important turning point in the proclamation of the Gospel, I willingly join in prayer all who contribute to the broadcast Le Jour du Seigneur, the pastors and faithful who are once again gathered in Notre-Dame de Paris on this occasion and all those who are following Christmas Mass on radio and television.
Through the media, the French public transmission offers Catholics and people of goodwill the opportunity to see or hear religious broadcasts: this also permits members of the faithful who are unable to go for serious reasons to participate in the Eucharistic celebration, especially on the days and times which, for the Christian community, are dedicated to Sunday and feast-day gatherings. This Christian presence over the air is part of the tradition of dialogue and openness which do France honour.
I ask Christ, whose birth among men we celebrate on this most holy night, to be close to all who are taking part in this liturgy or joining in it thanks to the media. May the Saviour, who came to bring peace to the world, give comfort and hope to all people of goodwill, so that together they can build a society of justice and love! On the occasion of this 50th anniversary of the televised broadcast of Mass, I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to all who contribute to this broadcast and its transmission, as well as to the celebrants, preachers, Christian communities and faithful who join in the liturgy by means of radio and television.
From the Vatican, 2 December 1998.
Ioannes Paulus PP. II

Where can I view the oldest filmed recording of a mass?
The first Catholic Mass was aired by the French broadcasting company Le Jour du Seigneur in 1949.

The oldest French television series that is still running. Since 1949, it has aired every Sunday morning for an hour and a half. The program airs Catholic religious ceremonies, interviews and testimonials.

Le Jour du Seigneur est issu du travail précurseur du père dominicain Raymond Pichard. Le 24 décembre 1948, il obtient la retransmission de la messe de minuit depuis la cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris sur RDF Télévision française . C'est une première mondiale. - Le Jour du Seigneur (émission de télévision)

Noël historique: La première messe télévisée en direct de Notre-Dame de Paris IMBd
Until I can find a complete source, please accept a partial viewing of this mass from a French YouTube video: Messe de Noël 1948 (INA)
Hopefully I will be able to find the complete Mass for you shortly.


What are liturgical honours and privileges for the Patrons of categories of people?

What are liturgical honours and privileges for patron saints?

The liturgical honours of each particular saint is that they each have a fixed day in which they may be particularly honoured at Mass or with a Mass in their honour in their feast days. Some saints have the special privilege of having a special blessing for something attached to them in the Rituale Roamanum, but not many. For example on the Feast of St. John the Evangelist there is a Blessing for Wine. This particular blessing is reserved and can only be used on St. John's Day (December 27). Not every saint has special liturgical honours!

More such examples are as follows:

A patron saint of a particular group or locality may have his or her name mentioned at Mass in the (Eucharistic Prayer III) on the feast day of that particular saint or at the occasion when one employs a Votive Mass of their patron saint. Please remember that we are dealing with honours and privileges that touch the liturgy.
Churches that are under the patronage of a particular saint have the liturgical privilege of celebrating his feast day as a solemnity, even if it falls on a Sunday.
Principle Patronal saints of countries enjoy this same privilege. (St. joseph's Day (March 19) in Canada for example).
Principle Patron Saints of a particular diocese enjoy also this same privilege within it's jurisdiction.
His name will be inscribed into the Roman Martyrology and a date will be accorded for his commemoration in the Catholic Church.

Here follows a few particular examples of some historical individual honours reserved to some saints by tradition:

St. Maurus’ Blessing of the Sick (January 15). The ancient formula may be found here on page 452.
On the Eve of St. Anthony the Great (January 16) many European countries, notably Spain and Italy large bonfires are lite in St. Anthony's honour.  Priests may use the Blessing of Fire (Benedictio Ignis from the Rituale Romamanum)
Blessing of farm animals on the feast of St. Anthony (January 17). Vatican City still honours St. Anthony with the blessing of animals  on his feast day.
There is a reserved blessing for throats on Feast of St. Blaise (February 3). The custom of blessing candles and/or throats on this saint’s feast day comes from the story of St. Blaise healing a young boy who had a fishbone stuck in his throat. The blessing of candles commemorates the actions of this young boy's mother, who used to bring St. Blaise candles while he was in prison.
There is a Blessing of a bonfire reserved for the Vigil of St. John the Baptist (June 23). Since the Vigil of St. John the Baptist was not an obligatory fast day, many places, especially in Europe, celebrated the feast of St. John the Baptist with huge bonfires, which could be lit anytime after the first vespers of the feast (on June 23). The vigil often coincides in proximity with the summer solstice and the Midsummer celebrations, thus making St. John's Eve one of the most celebrated nights in all of Europe.  Big bonfires are lit in Hungary, Croatia, Italy, France, Canada (especially in Québec), and in Spain, just to mention a few. St. John's bonfires are hugely popular in Spain. The Benedicti  Roji of the older formula can be found here on page 316.

Saint John's Fire with festivities in front of a Christian calvary shrine in Brittany, 1893

Blessing of Herbs is a prayer reserved for the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary August 15).
Blessing of Seeds is a reserved prayer for the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (September 8).
Some dioceses have the privilege of certain blessings for particular saints of their region. The Blessing of Water, Salt and Bread in honour of St. Hubert is to be found in the Rituale Romanum (page 466) of Pope St. Pius V and is reserved to the  Archdiocese of Cologne for St. Hubert' Day (November 3).
At one time, the Dominicans had the privilege of blessing water with a relic of St. Peter the Martyr on his feast day (April 6). The blessing can be found here on page 453.
The ancient formula of blessing wine in honour of St. John the Evangelist (December27) may be viewed here (Rituale Romanum of Pope Pius V) on page 312.

As for St. Thomas More the following may be of interest. St. Thomas More has the privilege of being the patron saint of all statement, politicians, lawyers and people in public life. Not many saints are personally proclaimed patron saints by the pope in a Motu Proprio. The vast majority are not. St Thomas is thus in the category of special few. Deo Gratias.

There is nothing stopping the Catholic faithful from saying a novena in honour of St. Thomas More or Catholic lawyers and judges from asking a
priestly blessing on St. Thomas More Day (especially if a priest is in possession of a relic of St. Thomas).

St. Thomas Moore was an English lawyer, humanist, scholar, father of four children, and martyr. He was also Lord Chancellor from December 31, 1525 to November 3, 1532. He was beheaded on July 6, 1535, for refusing to take the Oath of Succession. He is jointly commemorated on June 22 with St. John Fisher. He is the patron saint of statesmen and politicians and thus of lawyer also.

Churches that are under the patronage of St. Thomas More have the liturgical privilege of celebrating his feast day as a solemnity, even if it falls on a Sunday.

The Red Mass may be celebrated on the feast of St. Thomas More who the patron saint of lawyers. The votive Red Mass has no fixed day in which it may be celebrated, although most countries place it around the commencement of their judicial year.

  The St. Thomas More Society of Los Angeles is an association of Catholic legal professionals. The society celebrates its namesake who has inspired lawyers of all faiths for generations and has selected St. Thomas More as patron of the Red Mass. - Red Mass

The Red Mass is simply a votive Mass in honour of the Holy Spirit for the intention of asking guidance from the Holy Spirit for all those involved in the justice system (judges, lawyers, advocates, doctors of law, law school professors, students and government officials). The phrase the Red Mass is two fold. Firstly, the liturgical colour of any Mass in Honour of the Holy Spirit is red and secondly the colour of the robe for judges of the High Courts (in many Countries) is also red. Doctors of the law also wore red robes.

  The Red Mass has a rich history. Beginning in England during the Middle Ages and continuing even through World War II, the entire bench and bar attended the Mass at the opening of the Court’s term.

  Liturgically, the Red Mass is celebrated as the Solemn Mass of the Holy Spirit. Its name derives from the traditional red color of the vestments worn by clergy during the Mass, representing the tongues of fire symbolizing the presence of the Holy Spirit. The Judges of the High Court, who were all doctors of the law, also wore red robes or academic hoods. With so many participants in red, the celebrations became irrevocably known as the Red Mass. The Red Mass historically marked the official opening of the judicial year of the Sacred Roman Rota, the Tribunal of the Holy See.

  In the United States, the Red Mass tradition was inaugurated on October 6, 1928, at old St. Andrew’s Church in New York City. Since then, the Red Mass has been celebrated throughout the United States each fall before the U.S. Supreme Court’s term begins. - The Red Mass

The first recorded Red Mass was held in Paris in 1245. In modern times each country has its own date in which to host the Red Mass if they choose to do so. Nevertheless each diocese or parish may hold its own Red Mass Day on any particular date that is liturgically free to do so. This is especially true if the parish church dedicated to St. Thomas More, patron saint of lawyers.

One of the better-known Red Masses in the USA is celebrated at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington D.C. Since the Supreme Court convenes on the first Monday of October, the Red Mass is celebrated on the Sunday before the first Monday of October. It is normally presided over by a cardinal.

In Ireland, the Red Mass is celebrated on the first Monday of October, which is the opening day of the Michaelmas Law Term.

  In Canada, the Red Mass was first celebrated in Québec City in 1896, in Toronto in 1924 and in Montréal in 1944. Its sponsorship was assumed by the Guild of Our Lady of Good Counsel in 1931 and by The Thomas More Lawyers' Guild of Toronto since 1968. It was re-instituted in Sydney, Australia in 1931. - Red Mass (Wikipedia)

More sources can be viewed as following:

St. Thomas More Society Red Mass

Welcome to the St. Thomas More Society of Los Angeles

History of red mass

Holy Spirit, guide us in all our ways.

St. Thomas More, pray for us.

A Man for All Seasons is great classic movie (1966) entertainment for the entire family today!


By "non-denominational", I take it you mean a civil marriage conducted by the State.

Canon 1055 has

  §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

  §2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

It is the marriage contract which is the sacrament, and that can be effected anywhere. Naturally it's better that it is supervised by the Church (and Canon 1108 requires a Church presence for canonical validity), but the Church recognises civil marriages. It is for this reason that dissolution of a civil marriage is an impediment to re-marriage.

Canon 1108 has

  §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116, and 1127, §§1-2.

A civil marriage without an assisting clergy presence [which is actually forbidden in the UK — a civil marriage can contain nothing religious whatsoever] is invalid. It can be validated.

Validation is covered by Chapter X of the Canons on Marriage:

  Canon 1160

  A marriage which is null because of defect of form must be contracted anew in canonical form in order to become valid, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1127, §2.

  Canon 1163 §1. A marriage which is invalid because of an impediment or a defect of legitimate form can be sanated provided that the consent of each party perseveres.

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

  §2. Convalidation occurs at the moment of the granting of the favor. Retroactivity, however, is understood to extend to the moment of the celebration of the marriage unless other provision is expressly made.

  §3. A radical sanation is not to be granted unless it is probable that the parties wish to persevere in conjugal life.

"Radical sanation" means "cleansing to the root" and validates the marriage from the time it was originally contracted (that is, in the civil ceremony). However, it's not something to be undertaken lightly, as it needs to be referred at least to the bishop and usually to Rome:

  Canon 1165 §1. The Apostolic See can grant a radical sanation.

  §2. The diocesan bishop can grant a radical sanation in individual cases [...]

Thus a civil marriage can be re-celebrated in church which will validate that marriage from that point, or with permission that re-celebration can validate the entire marriage from when it was originally contracted.

Anecdote: When I and others were received into the Catholic Church, there were two couples whose marriages were deemed to be slightly suspect because of a defect of form or other impediment, and that was a barrier to their participation in the sacramental life of the Church. A service was held at which they (and another couple, whose marriage was entirely OK but who wanted to express solidarity) effectively renewed their vows according to the canonical form approved by the Church. This was done privately, in the presence of a few close friends, but presumably it could have happened in a far more lavish way.

As Peter says in his answer, there is always an answer to the requirements of Canon Law: the Canons are intended to be compassionately just, and justly compassionate.

Necessary caveat and disclaimer: Nothing in this answer should be treated as a definitive answer on Canon Law or any individual case, for which the diocesan Tribunal should be consulted (the route to which starts with the parish priest).


Are there any followers of Catharism today?

Full followers of Catharism were known as 'Perfects'. They would commit to a specific ascetic lifestyle, and would on their death ascend to heaven. Other lesser followers of Catharism would be reincarnated to get another chance.

Unfortunately to be a Perfect, you need to be inducted by another Perfect. Since there are no more Perfects, no-one can become one. The last leader of the Cathar movement fully admitted that he was not a full Perfect, because no Perfects remained to induct him. Therefore Catharism has effectively died out.

The Perfect Heresy by Stephan O'Shea is a good book for those wanting to know more.


Why are Catholics singled out from "Christians"?

There are a couple main reasons, some of them I believe subconscious, for why Catholics are singled out.

They believe themselves to be exclusively the Church that Christ established, and other Christian sects (with a few exceptions) as adhering to heresies which bar them from ecclesiastical unity with them. This is an example of the Catholic Church drawing a distinction between themselves and other Christian sects.
The "Protestants" are called Protestants because they formed out of "protest" against perceived corruption in the policies, praxis, and theology of the Roman Catholic Church. This is an example of the Protestant sects drawing a distinction between themselves and the Catholics, although most still would graciously assert that, as Catholics believe Jesus is God, Catholics are saved despite their theology and praxis.

Another point:

Every main branch of Christianity is in some sense "singled out". It may simply seem that the Catholics are "singled out" because their branch of Christianity is united as a single sect under the Pope, while the Protestants are 40,000+ (or something) fragmented sects of Christianity existing in large numbers in most of the countries where Catholicism has a big presence, but are united only in in the confession that Jesus is God (a union through the least common denominator, choosing to name all other doctrines as secondary in importance when it comes to unity and, in most cases, also salvation).

There are also, however, other branches of Christianity which are also separate, or "singled out".

For instance, the Eastern Orthodox (Calcedonian) Communion, the Oriental Orthodox (non-Calcedonian ) Communion, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the modern-day Arians (Jehova's witnesses, Unitarians, Mormons, etc.).

It's just what happens when there is a major departure in theological understanding in a religion - those who believe one way need some way of differentiating themselves from those that believe another way that is deemed improper or incorrect by some adherents of the same religious umbrella (in this case, Christianity).

At the end of the day, the Catholics single themselves out as the only true Christians because they believe any non - Catholic sects to be in heresy, and therefore, not a 100% true expression of Christianity.


Who were the Celebrants of the Eucharist in the Early Church?

One early description of the administration of the Eucharist [the Thanksgiving] is given by Justin the Martyr.  He confirms the OP's understanding.  He specifically states that the "presider" of the Eucharist is of the "laity".  This of course won't support the later tradition of a sacerdotal priest the OP mentions.

  There is then brought to the president of the brethren 1909 bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Administration of the sacraments.

  NOTE 1909    τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν. This expression may quite legitimately be translated, “to that one of the brethren who was presiding.”

Basically, the idea is, as Peter and John tell us, all believers are priests (1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:6).  If believers come to my house, I preside, given I am an elder.  If we go to the house of another believer, he presides, given that he is an elder.

PS.  Some incorrectly believe that the meaning of "president" refers specifically to a "priest", rather than "elder".  The Greek word translated "president" is akin to "elder" being πρεσβύτερος.  Martyr, however, knows the difference between two words and offices.  Had Martyr wanted to tell his readers that priests only officiated at the Eucharist [Thanksgiving], he could have said so plainly.

  [Re scapegoat] the first, in which the elders of your people, and the priests, having laid hands on Him and put Him to death, sent Him away as the scape [goat].

He thus returns to the Mosaic laws, and uses it to show that the things which pertain to Christ are changed from the Old to the New.  The apostles taught that all believers are priests, but some are also elders.  The elder from the brethren presides.  It is not the "ordained in some way" priest who leads the Eucharist, but the elder of the priesthood of which all believers are part.  So again, when you come to my house, I preside.  When we go to your house, you preside.


How prominent was "prosperity theology" in the early church?

Your question is interesting and it is something that I have talked about a lot Since I was part of that movement in the early 90s and left it only to eventually begin studying Early Church history and theology later.    It is very difficult (possibly impossible) to find anything like the Faith and Prosperity Movement in the Early Church.    While the Early Church did believe in miracles and the supernatural, they had a much different attitude when it came to the lifestyle and compensation of ministers.    Here are a few examples and points to support my thesis.

1A) In 1 Corinthians 9: 1-14, saint Paul argues for the right of apostles and other preachers of the Gospel to make a basic living off of preaching the Gospel (They should have their basic needs met, they should be able to support a spouse to travel with them).    1 Cor 9: 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk?

1B) Prosperity Preachers take a stronger stance.  They tend to cite the fact that there are wealthy believers in the Bible, people like Abraham and point to the notion that “God wants to bless you” and that “It is possible to be spiritual and wealthy”.

Frederick K.C. Price
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law, that the blessing of Abraham might come upon us. . . .How did God bless Abraham? With cattle, gold, manservants, maidservants, camels, and asses. Abraham was blessed materially.”13

2A) The Early Church believed in the positive role of suffering.

2 Corinthians 12:7-10 New King James Version (NKJV)

7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. 8 Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Colossians 1:24 ►
 Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

2B) Word of Faith and Prosperity teachers frequently preach on God’s willingness to bless, heal and take us away from the trials and suffering inflicted by Satan and his minions.

3)  The Didache also provides concrete evidence that Early church position regarding ministerial compensation was at odds with the Faith and Prosperity movement.   Besides that it also provides evidence against using revelatory “Words” to motivate offerings (as is often done by such preachers).

Didache, Chapter 11
“…Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet.”
“….And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for others' sake who are in need, let no one judge him.”


Is St. Paul celebrating the Holy Eucharist different from the Holy Mass of the Catholic Church?

  20 When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord's supper.
  21 For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk.
  22 What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not. - 1 Corinthians 11:20-22 Douay-Rheims 1899

First of all, let us eliminate a misconception. St. Paul is not speaking of the Mass in this passage of Scripture. He is speaking of an agape meal and not the Mass. He admits as much in saying ”it is not now to eat the Lord's supper.” Thus it is not the remembrance of the the Lord’s Last Supper!

St. Paul in reality is describing the meal known as Agape.

  The celebration of funeral feasts in honour of the dead dates back almost to the beginnings of the worship of the departed - that is, to the very earliest times. The dead, in the region beyond the tomb, were thought to derive both pleasure and advantage from these offerings. The same conviction explains the existence of funeral furniture for the use of the dead. Arms, vessels, and clothes, as things not subject to decay, did not need to be renewed, but food did; hence feasts at stated seasons. But the body of the departed gained no relief from offerings made to his shade unless these were accompanied by the obligatory rites. Yet the funeral feast was not merely a commemoration; it was a true communion, and the food brought by the guests was really meant for the use of the departed. The milk and wine were poured out on the earth around the tomb, while the solid food has passed in to the corpse through a hole in the tomb.

  The use of the funeral feast was almost universal in the Græco-Roman world. Many ancient authors may be cited as witnesses to the practice in classical lands. Among the Jews, averse by taste and reason to all foreign customs, we find what amounts to a funeral banquet, if not the rite itself; the Jewish colonies of the Dispersion, less impervious to surrounding influences, adopted the practice of fraternal banquets. If we study the texts relative to the Supper, the last solemn meal taken by Our Lord with His disciples, we shall find that it was the Passover Supper, with the changes wrought by time on the primitive ritual, since it took place in the evening, and the guests reclined at the table. As the liturgical meal draws to a close, the Host introduces a new rite, and bids those present repeat it when He shall have ceased to be with them. This done, they sing the customary hymn and withdraw. Such is the meal that Our Lord would have renewed, but it is plain that He did not command the repetition of the Passover Supper during the year, since it could have no meaning except on the Feast itself. Now the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles state that the repast of the Breaking of Bread took place very often, perhaps daily. That which was repeated was, therefore, not the liturgical feast of the Jewish ritual, but the event introduced by Our Lord into this feast when, after the drinking of the fourth cup, He instituted the Breaking of Bread, the Eucharist. To what degree this new rite, repeated by the faithful, departed from the rite and formulæ of the Passover Supper, we have no means, at the present time, of determining. It is probable, however, that, in repeating the Eucharist, it was deemed fit to preserve certain portions of the Passover Supper, as much out of respect for what had taken place in the Cœnaculum as from the impossibility of breaking roughly with the Jewish Passover rite, so intimately linked by the circumstances with the Eucharistic one.

  This, at its origin, is clearly marked as funerary in its intention, a fact attested by the most ancient testimonies that have come down to us. Our Lord, in instituting the Eucharist, used these words: "As often as you shall eat this Bread and drink this chalice, you shall show forth the Lord's Death". Nothing could be clearer. Our Lord chose the means generally used in His time, namely: the funeral banquet, to bind together those who remained faithful to the memory of Him who had gone. We must, however, be on our guard against associating the thought of sadness with the Eucharistic Supper, regarded in this light. If the memory of the Master's Passion made the commemoration of these last hours in any measure sad, the glorious thought of the Resurrection gave this meeting of the brethren its joyous aspect. The Christian assembly was held in the evening, and was continued far into the night. The supper, preaching, common prayer, the breaking of the bread, took up several hours; the meeting began on Saturday and ended on Sunday, thus passing from the commemoration of the sad hours to that of the triumphant moment of the Resurrection and the Eucharistic feast in very truth "showed forth the Lord's Death", as it will until He come". Our Lord's command was understood and obeyed.

  Certain texts refer to the meetings of the faithful in early times. Two, from the Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11:18, 20-22, 33, 34), allow us to draw the following conclusions: The brethren were at liberty to eat before going to the meeting; all present must be in a fit condition to celebrate the Supper of the Lord, though they must not eat of the funeral supper until all were present. We know, from two texts of the first century, that these meetings did not long remain within becoming bounds. The agape, as we shall see, was destined, during the few centuries that it lasted, to fall, from time to time, into abuses. The faithful, united in bodies, guilds, corporations or "collegia", admitted coarse, intemperate men among them, who degraded the character of the assemblies. These Christian "collegia" seem to have differed but little from those of the pagans, in respect, at all events, of the obligations imposed by the rules of incorporation. There is no evidence available to show that the collegia from the first undertook the burial of deceased members; but it seems probable that they did so at an early period. The establishment of such colleges gave the Christians an opportunity of meeting in much the same way as the pagans did - subject always to the many obstacles which the law imposed. Little feasts were held, to which each of the guests contributed his share, and the supper with which the meeting ended might very well be allowed by the authorities as a funerary one. In reality, however, for all faithful worthy of the name, it was a liturgical assembly. The texts, which it would take too long to quote, do not allow us to assert that all these meetings ended with a celebration of the Eucharist. In such matters sweeping generalizations should be avoided. At the outset it must be stated that no text affirms that the funeral supper of the Christian colleges must always and everywhere be identified with the agape, nor does any text tell us that the agape was always and everywhere connected with the celebration of the Eucharist. But subject to these reservations, we may gather that under certain circumstances the agape and the Eucharist appear to form parts of a single liturgical function. The meal, as understood by the Christians, was a real supper, which followed the Communion; and an important monument, a fresco of the second century preserved in the cemetery of St. Priscilla, at Rome, shows us a company of the faithful supping and communicating. The guests recline on a couch which serves as a seat, but, if they are in the attitude of those who are at supper, the meal appears as finished. They have reached the moment of the Eucharistic communion, symbolized in the fresco by the mystical fish and the chalice.

  Tertullian has described at length (Apolog., vii-ix) these Christian suppers, the mystery of which puzzled the Pagans, and has given a detailed account of the agape, which had been the subject of so much calumny; an account which affords us an insight into the ritual of the agape in Africa in the second century. - Agape (Catholic Encyclopaedia)


What symbols are unique to the various denominations?

The Chi-Ro symbol dates back to 312 AD when Constantine had a vision, and was told to fight under that symbol at the Battle of Milvan Bridge. It is truly "catholic" in the sense that it is universal to all of Christianity. [You may have heard of a city in Egypt that the Copts named after this symbol ;) ]

IHS is also fairly common- I've seen that in Baptist churches and Anglican ones. I believe that is supposed to be the Greek form of Jesus but I don't know. (maybe someone should ask!)

The last one is just a coat of arms for The Episcopal Church, much like the emblem of the Holy See.


Praying for someone's salvation. Is there a point?

Even if we can't pray away someone else's free will or convince God to bend the rules regarding the requirements of salvation, there can still be merit in praying on behalf of others with a slightly different attitude.  Perhaps "let them have experiences that will lead them to the truth," or "let their hearts be softened, that they may give heed to the Holy Spirit and accept the truth when it is presented to them" would be more appropriate.

And, as JustinY pointed out in his comment, praying for the welfare of others can be beneficial to us.  Simply because we pray to God for something to happen doesn't mean we can't directly take part in bringing such a prayer to fruition.  If we seek to truly pray in Jesus's name and harmonize our will with his, it will lead us to be more conscious of the spiritual needs of others in our day-to-day lives, and to find effective ways to bring others to Christ.


What place does Lilith have in Christianity?

Christianity is based on the Bible.  One of the tenets of Protestantism is "sola scriptura" (Scripture alone).  Lilith is not mentioned in the Bible, and thus has no relevance to Christianity.

Some parts of Christianity also consider tradition as well as the Bible, but that doesn't sound like Christian tradition either.

Christians can view non-biblical ideas as myths, history, or whatever, as seems appropriate.


Did Churches plant a tree at their entrance in 13th century Christian Spain?

The short answer would seems that it was quite possible, but it was never a universal practice or tradition in Spain or any other European country for that matter. It is not unheard of as a way of beautifying the grounds around a church, monastery or cathedral. It was definitely not a local custom, but it probably existed here and there, as the the desire of the local clergy and religious authorities wished.

This type of landscape design exists in here and there in modern days. Westminster Abbey (Mission, BC) in an example of such an existing custom. The Abbey Church was was consecrated in 1982 by Cardinal Basil Hume.

Westminster Abbey (British Columbia)

Moving a little closer to Spain, we can see St Edward's Church, Stow-on-the-Wold, England has trees in front of the church in such a way that even JR Tolkien would be in awe.

At least this church takes us to the 13th century.

  This medieval sanctuary's tree-framed door looks like a portal to a mythical realm.

  Bound by two ancient yew trees, this door looks more like a portal to a fairy realm than a church entrance. The arched wooden opening, capped by colorful stained glass windows, beckons visitors to unleash their imaginations and fantasize about the magical worlds that may be hiding on the other side.

  Given the entry’s enchanting appearance, there’s little wonder why local lore says it inspired J.R.R. Tolkien’s Doors of Durin. Like this door, those elven entrances were flanked by two magnificent trees.

  People speculate the writer came across the door during one of his many visits to the Cotswolds. But as exciting as the legendary connection is, there’s no proof that the link between the English church and Tolkien’s creations is true, making the theory just as fantastical as the author’s stories.

  Even without a concrete Tolkien connection, St Edward’s Church is well worth visiting. The structure was built in the Middle Ages and is now a medley of fixtures from various centuries. Explore the building and you’ll find fragments dating from the 1000s through the 1600s, as well as pieces installed during Victorian-era restorations. Its tree-framed north door was constructed during the 13th century.

St Edward's Church, Stow-on-the-Wold

Now if other countries in the 13th century had trees in front of their churches, logic dictates that in the same time frame, there must have been some Catholic Churches in Spain with trees planted in front of their facades.

  The yew (tree) is traditionally and regularly found in churchyards in England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Northern France (particularly Normandy). Some examples can be found in La Haye-de-Routot or La Lande-Patry. - Taxus baccata (Wikipedia)

To finish the question off, let us that a little walk down memory lane and look at the Cathedral of Seville with its orange tree courtyard!

  Not just a pretty face, Seville’s orange trees are more than just a form of natural decor for the city centre.

  From the intoxicating smell of the azahar, or orange blossoms, in springtime, to the practical use of the fruit in marmalade fit for a queen (literally!), the orange trees of Seville form a unique part of the city’s history.

  This naranja amarga, or bitter orange, was later introduced to Europe by Genovese sailors, who brought it over from Asia. Rumored to bring happiness to whoever possessed it, the Moorish dynasty that reigned at the time decided to plant these bitter orange trees all over Spain, with a high concentration of them in Andalusia.

  By the 12th century, everyone was a firm believer of the happiness-inducing qualities of the bitter orange. They began to plant them along the streets, and by the end of the century, even went so far as to construct the Patio de los Naranjos at the Cathedral of Seville.

The serene orange tree courtyard offers a perfect spot to relax outside the cathedral.


Did God create Adam and Eve with free will and knowledge of right and wrong (good and evil)?

Genesis 3 answers this question pretty definitively:

  Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”  Genesis 3:22 NASB

Adam and Eve were not created with the knowledge of good and evil.  They were innocent--not righteous, but innocent.  After they sinned, they knew both good and evil.

God knows good and evil, but not from the same perspective, as He has never committed any sin or done anything unholy.


I believe so.

Popular thought on the subject agree that Bartholomew and Nathanael are the same person.  While there is no passage in the Bible that directly says "Bartholomew is Nathanael," circumstantial evidence points in that direction.  Arguments can be made either way; church tradition points toward them being one and the same.

Arguments for:

First, regarding the names themselves.  Bartholomew seems like a family name or last name.  In Hebrew, the name would be Bar-Tholmai, or Son of Tholmai.  Nathanael seems like a first name, meaning Gift of God.

Second, Bartholomew and Nathanael seem to be mutually exclusive.  Bartholomew makes appearances in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts.  Each reference is in a list of the 12 Disciples.  Nathanael makes appearances in the book of John, which has no formal list of the 12 Disciples.  In John chapter 21, Nathanael is included in a list of disciples (John 21:2 "There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.")  In John, Nathanael does what one of the 12 Disciples might be expected to do: he goes fishing with some of the others in the 12 Disciples.

Third, there is a relationship between Philip and Bartholomew in the lists of disciples in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts.  There is also a relationship between Philip and Nathanael in John (Nathanael is the friend Philip brings to Jesus when Philip first learns of Him).

Arguments against:

First, Bartholomew is a perfectly reasonable first name.  It has been used many times since.

Second, Nathanael is never listed in a formal list of the 12 Disciples.  Certainly, there were many disciples of Jesus who are not included in the 12 Disciples.  This was one of the requirements to be considered for Judas' replacement in the 12 Disciples after Judas betrayed Jesus.

Third, the link between Philip and Bartholomew in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts is hardly strong -- their names are simply grouped together.  Even if the link were strong, it's not as if Philip cannot have two good friends.

The truth is that the Biblical authors were not concerned over whether we, thousands of years later, would definitively be able to link Nathanael and Bartholomew together.  If they were, Matthew 10:3 would have read, "Philip, and Nathanael Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;" (bold text added).


What is the relation between the First Baptist Church and the Baptist Church?

Some baptists have the tradition of naming the first Baptist church in a city or other area "First Baptist Church".  Sometimes this numbering even continues; for example, in my area there is a "Fourth Baptist Church".  I do not think there is a denomination or association called "First Baptist", as it is merely a naming tradition.

You should also be aware that there are perhaps over a thousand Baptist denominations and associations. In the United States, two of the larger ones are the Southern Baptist Convention and the American Baptist Conference.  They have somewhat different beliefs and practices.


What is the biblical basis for Docetism?

INTRODUCTION

Docetism is the belief that Christ’s body was not human flesh.  This entails two teachings.  The first is that He only seemed to be human without real human substance (flesh).  Christ passed through Mary as water through a pipe without taking any substance from her.  They deny the nativity.  He just appears, perhaps out of her side, like a phantom might.  The second is that He may have been born and appeared with flesh of sorts, but His flesh was not real human flesh.  Instead it was made of star dust or of angel “flesh”.

Oddly to our ears perhaps it was that docetic belief against which those who believed Christ was born normally and as a human (God-man) had to overcome.  Christ was born normally in the normal fashion complete with blood, umbilical cord, and afterbirth.  In the end, the eternal virginity idea won out, but the question of how Christ was thus born in the flesh otherwise never quite got answered.

These heresies helped fashion orthodox Christologies, which also sprang out of the original question was Jesus born human in the flesh?  Was he adopted at his baptism?  Did he take flesh from Mary?  How does Son of Man and Son of God compute together?

REFERENCES

Tertullian tells us that those who believed such false things (denying Christ came in the flesh or born normally) did take their reasonings from scripture, but via alternations of words or excising of passages, if not books, of scripture.  Many are familiar with Marcion’s truncated roll of scripture (of the four gospels only Luke worked for him for example).  It was against that false compilation that the Muratorium canon appears.

  One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume, he has none the less laid violent hands on the truth only with a more cunning mind and skill than Marcion. Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own subject-matter. Valentinus, however, abstained from such excision, because he did not invent Scriptures to square with his own subject-matter, but adapted his matter to the Scriptures; and yet he took away more, and added more, by removing the proper meaning of every particular word, and adding fantastic arrangements of things which have no real existence.
  Anti-Marcion, Against Heretics, Chapter 38

Irenaeus about the same time gives us a hint about redefining words and comingling ideas.

  For [they maintain] [Valentinus, Marcion, etc] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery;
  AH, Book III, Chapter II

And Irenaeus gives us another example of their reinterpreting or excising of John.

  John, however, does himself put this matter beyond all controversy on our part, when he says, “He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own [things], and His own [people] received Him not.”  But according to Marcion, and those like him, neither was the world made by Him; nor did He come to His own things, but to those of another. And, according to certain of the Gnostics, this world was made by angels, and not by the Word of God. But according to the followers of Valentinus, the world was not made by Him, but by the Demiurge.
  AH, Book III, Chapter XI

Eusebius weighs in on the heresies, saying the same as Tertullian and Irenaeus had some 100 years earlier.

  They [Marcion, Valentinus, etc], indeed, use the Law and Prophets and Gospels, but interpret in their own way the utterances of the Sacred Scriptures. And they abuse Paul the apostle and reject his epistles, and do not accept even the Acts of the Apostles.
  Eusebius

Later circa CE 425 Theodoret picks out a few specific scriptures that the docetists change or ignore.

  For divine Scripture says that He was made man, not by mutation of the Godhead, but by assumption of human nature, of the seed of Abraham. This the divine Apostle openly says in the words “For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham, wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren.” And again “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made: he saith not and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.”
  These and similar passages have been cut out of divine Scripture by Simon, Basilides, Valentinus, Bardesanes, Marcion, and the man who is named after his maniacal heresy [Manes]. So they style the Master Christ God only, and describe Him as having nothing human about Him, but appearing in imagination and appearance as man to men.
  Letters

As to specific scriptures used by Docetists, most examples, as mentioned, revolve around His birth and of Mary and Joseph.

In this docetic interpretation of Christ being born not with human flesh from Mary, but with angel flesh, they point to various angelic appearances in support of their idea.

  Inasmuch as that which is born must undergo this nativity in order to become flesh [say the orthodox].  He [Christ] borrowed, they say [Marcion to Apelles], His flesh from the stars, and from the substances of the higher world. And they assert it for a certain principle, that a body without nativity is nothing to be astonished at, because it has been submitted to angels to appear even amongst ourselves in the flesh without the intervention of the womb.
  Tertullian, Against Marcion

Likewise, the Docetic will also reinterpret this passage of scripture about Jesus’ brothers and sisters.

  But whenever a dispute arises about the nativity, all who reject it as creating a presumption in favour of the reality of Christ’s flesh, wilfully deny that God Himself was born, on the ground that He asked, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” Let, therefore, Apelles hear what was our answer to Marcion in that little work, in which we challenged his own (favourite) gospel to the proof, even that the material circumstances of that remark (of the Lord’s) should be considered.  First of all, nobody would have told Him that His mother and brethren were standing outside, if he were not certain both that He had a mother and brethren, and that they were the very persons whom he was then announcing,—who had either been known to him before, or were then and there discovered by him; although heretics have removed this passage from the gospel, because those who were admiring His doctrine said that His supposed father, Joseph the carpenter, and His mother Mary, and His brethren, and His sisters, were very well known to them.
  -ibid-

For Tertullian, the fact that Mary and Joseph had children, that Jesus had brothers and sisters was proof of the nativity and flesh of Christ; to assert no siblings was to deny that God Himself was born and born of human flesh.

CONCLUSION

So, Docetism falls into two categories.  One denies the birth of Christ with Christ merely appearing in phantom-like actions or as a phantom and the other allows for the birth from Mary, but as using angel flesh (star dust of a sort), rather than human flesh.  Both ideas appear at the time as a backlash against the thought of God appearing in bloody afterbirth after a very normal birth travail and Mary swaddling the new-born baby.

  For One who was to be truly a man, even unto death, it was necessary that He should be clothed with that flesh to which death belongs. Now that flesh to which death belongs is preceded by birth.
  –ibid-

Tertullian, Irenaeus, and others charge the docetists (Marcion, Valentinus, Apelles, etc) of either using a knife to cut-out scripture or a pen to reinterpret scripture.  There are discernible inferences to the reinterpreted scriptures and to the excised scriptures upon which Docetism was founded.  The concluding point is Docetism is not found in scripture, but to assert otherwise is simply to deny that Christ came in the flesh (2 John 1:7).


Who is the "Seed of the Serpent" spoken of in Genesis 3?

Speaking to the Pharisees, Jesus said,

  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will
  do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
  because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh
  of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

  And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

  Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye
  not believe me?

  He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not,
  because ye are not of God.

  John 8:44-47

Those who do not do the will of God, but live in sin are the devil's seed.

  He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with
  me scattereth abroad.

  Matthew 12:30

There are only two teams. Those who are the seed of the woman, and those who are the seed of the serpent. Those who are with God and those who are against God. There is no neutrality.


Were some of Jesus' disciples more privileged than others?

Did some disciples get treated differently from others?

You've pretty much answered your own question here. Jesus had many disciples. At least seventy, probably many more. And different groups were certainly treated differently. The best-known select group were the Twelve, called the Apostles. They were given more detailed explanations of some of Jesus' parables, and other insights not given to others. Within those, Peter John and James were selected to be present with Jesus at specific intimate occasions, including the Transfiguration and the raising of a little girl from the dead. Those three would go on to be leaders of the church.

Is this favouritism?

I think that's your implied question. To see that, you really have to look at what it means to be selected. The Twelve, and within that group the Three, were intended to be leaders of the church. If you look at what Jesus means by leadership it is "to become the servant of everyone". The Twelve suffered and were all persecuted, and tradition has it that all except John were martyred. You can consider that 'privileged' if you like, but it's not a privilege many of us would jump at.


It was not until after the flood, and most likely; after the animals had begun to procreate, that there were any carnivores on the Earth.

  Genesis 9:2 and 3 NKJV  And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3  Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.

Before that time all creatures including man were Herbivorous.

  Genesis 1:29  And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30  Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so.


How do demotions work in the Catholic Church?

In this particular case the word demotion is misleading. Better word would be transfer.  It might be seen as a demotion for an outsider, but in reality it is not. He is still a Cardinal and a Bishop. You have to separate the Catholic Church's spiritual hierarchy from its functional hierarchy. Within functional hierarchy, heading the roman curia is to help the pope in his work. A cardinal has to do what the pope wants him to do. Every Cardinal vow obedience to the pope. They know that such a thing can happen.

Are they unilateral decisions from the Pope?

Theoretically it is an unilateral decisions of the Pope. But practically it is done by the pope after consulting other Cardinals and bishops.

Is there some other established methodology for determining status in the Church?

By status if you mean becoming a Priest, Bishop, Cardinal or a Pope, then yes, there is. This video gives you a rough outline of that procedure. Remember Holy Orders leaves an indelible mark on the soul, Hence once a priest always a priest (Even in Hell).


Did the Emperor Constantine ever present explanations for putting off his baptism?

I do not think anyone knows as there is huge speculation on the subject.

Basically some see it as his cowardice to confess his faith, others see it as a prudent measure to keep his influence of power until the risk of his own execution for becoming a Christian had passed. He himself does not seem to say. I do not even believe we can prove He was a Christian. Maybe he was? God only knows.

It does seem though the God used Him to end so much Christian persecution, and it does seem that in some ways, at least initially, Christ overthrew the Gentile world by turning his heart in favor of His people. Quite soon after his death, Christ's kingdom grew like a mustard seed.


What misconceptions about the LDS church are a product of Mark Hofmann's forgeries?

The only thing that occasionally pops up is references to the Salamander Letter but most any light search reveals its origins.

Mark Hofmann is usually used by critics of the Church as an example of the failure of the leadership.  Their criticism usually goes like this: "Since the Prophet is supposed to be inspired, why didn't he know that the letters were forged?"  The assumption is that, since God is certainly omniscient, He would obviously have told His earthly prophet not to be fooled by Hofmann's forgeries.

Mormons make no such assumptions.  God is omniscient but He decides what and when to communicate to the Prophet and does so according to His will and pleasure, not ours.