If God had created Christianity first, people would not have known their need for a Saviour. "What do we need to be saved from?
So God first sets up a do-it-yourself religion; by which I mean that if the Jews followed all the laws they could save themselves earning their right to heaven.
That didn't work. Worse, some people became more interested in the laws than the purpose of the laws:

Matthew 23:23-24
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

See also: a brief summary of how salvation works.
But now people could at least compare their standards to God's and realise the gap between themselves and God:

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

If you want to read more about this, the book of Hebrews explains more about how Judaism (and particularly the law) was a shadow of the forthcoming revelation. For example, the animal sacrifices in Judaism teach us that a sacrifice is required for the forgiveness of sins. This is how we can understand passages like this:

Hebrews 9:23-28
It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence.
Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.


What were the common exonyms of the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches leading up to and after the Great Schism (1054)?

I think it is correct to say that prior to the great schism there really weren't only two sides in exactly the sense you suggest.

Dating to at least the time of the 1st Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325), those Churches which subscribed to the seven Ecumenical Councils were divided administratively into five (5) "Sees":  Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.  This can be seen, if not in the various ancient Church histories available, at least in the Canons of the earlier Ecumenical Councils.

Canon VI of the 1st Ecumenical Council, for example, lays out the foundations of the ancient Patriarchates of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch (though the term "Patriarch" did not come into use, I think, until the time of Justinian I in the 6th century):

  Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that
  the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the
  like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and
  the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And
  this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop
  without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared
  that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three
  bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common
  suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the
  ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.1

The phrase "Let the ancient customs prevail" indicates that the organization indicated had existed for quite some time up to that point.

Canon VII of the same Council delineated the authority of the Bishop of Jerusalem:

  Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of
  Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due
  dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.2

The place of the last of the five was firmly established at the 2nd Ecumenical Council at Constantinople (381), in Canon III:

  The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of
  honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.3

That is not to say, however, that the eastern Sees did not see themselves as somehow distinct from the See of Rome, which encompassed geographically an enormous area of non-Christian pagans at the time of the earlier Councils.  (I have heard it said that at the time of the 1st Ecumenical Council there were about 1,800 bishops in the eastern Sees and only 1,000 bishops within the See of Rome.)  Canon V of the 2nd Ecumenical Council refers, for example, to the "Westerns", meaning "Western bishops":

  In regard to the tome of the Western [Bishops], we receive those in
  Antioch [i.e. the Synod of 378] also who confess the unity of the
  Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.4

So perhaps the best direct answer to the question, What terms did the Roman and Greek sides of the church use of each other, would be "Easterns" and "Westerns", or perhaps "Eastern Church" and "Western Church".

Although the schism of 1054 is best known, it should be noted perhaps that there were many "mini Schisms" among the five Sees during the first millennium in which one or more sided with Rome against Constantinople.  One good example might be the Monothelite controversy of the 7th century, during which both Rome and Jerusalem objected to an innovation led within the See of Constantinople regarding the relationship of the divine and human wills of Christ.  Pope Martin, who anathematized those following the doctrine, was eventually arrested by the eastern Emperor, brought to Constantinople, tortured (along with the Byzantine martyr Maximus the Confessor), and eventually exiled to the Crimea, where he was starved to death by barbarians. (The Patriarch of Jerusalem escaped persecution due to the dubious fortune of being under siege by Muslims).  It might be interesting to note that in the Synaxarion of the Eastern Orthodox monastery of Simonas Petra on Mt. Athos, the "Catholic" Pope Martin is referred to as a "pillar of Orthodoxy".

The "Great Schism" was primarily a schism between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople, who mutually anathematized each other.  Subsequent to the Schism, however, the remaining three Sees elected to remain in communion with Constantinople rather than Rome.  Much of this may have been due to the divergence between the Latin west and Greek east that developed subsequent to the ascension of Charlemagne.  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware gives a concise overview of how this occurred in his book, The Orthodox Church:

  [In the century following the Apostles], the unity of the
  Mediterranean world gradually disappeared.  The political unity was
  the first to go.  From the end of the third century the Empire, while
  still theoretically one, was usually divided into two parts, an
  eastern and a western, each under its own Emperor.  Constantine
  furthered the process of separation by founding a second imperial
  capital in the east, alongside Old Rome in Italy.  Then came the
  barbarian invasions at the start of the fifth century: apart from
  Italy, much of which remained within the Empire for some time longer,
  the west was carved up among barbarian chiefs.  The Byzantines never
  forgot the ideals of Rome under Augustus and Trajan, and still
  regarded the Empire as in theory universal; but Justinian [I] was the
  last Emperor who seriously attempted to bridge the gulf between theory
  and fact, and his conquests in the west were soon abandoned.  The
  political unity of the Greek east and west was destroyed by the
  barbarian invasions, and never permanently restored.5

Metropolitan Kallistos goes on to describe other historical factors leading up to the schism, including:

Slav and Avar invasions of the Balkan peninsula in the late 6th and 7th centuries, creating a geographical barrier between Constantinople and Rome
The passage of the Mediterranean into largely Muslim control
The interim schism between Rome and Constantinople during the Iconoclast controversy in the 8th century, during which Rome took the "Orthodox" position in the matter and which led in part to Rome turning to the Franks for political and military support
The installation of Charlemagne as Emperor in the west, which was not recognized by the Byzantines.

Regarding the use of the terms "Orthodox" and "Catholic", the terms were used by both western and eastern Church Fathers to refer to the entirety of the Church - east and west.  The writings of Popes Leo the Great and Gregory the Great frequently make use of the term "orthodox" (e.g. "He has marked certain places as heretical which are catholicly expressed and entirely orthodox" - Gregory the Great, Epistle XIV6).  As an eastern example, Athanasius the Great, of Alexandria, refers to the "Catholic Church" in describing the deposition of Arius:

  Although you have already subscribed to the letter I addressed to
  Arius and his fellows, exhorting them to renounce his impiety, and to
  submit themselves to the sound Catholic Faith, and have shewn your
  right-mindedness and agreement in the doctrines of the Catholic Church7

I am not aware of a single instance nor could I find - at least in those writings preserved in the Nicene Fathers series -  any case prior to the Schism where Rome exclusively was referred to as "Catholic" and the eastern Sees (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) as "Orthodox".

1. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 14
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. p.44-45
6. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 12
7. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 4


Which Prison Epistles are considered to have been written from Rome?

Information taken from the New International Version Study Bible 2000 Edition Introductory Notes:

  Ephesians: Paul may have written it about the same time as Colossians, c. A.D. 60, while he was in prison in Rome.

  Philippians: It is evident that Paul wrote the letter from prison...  The best evidence, however favours Rome as the place of origin, and the date as c. 61.  This fits well with the account of Paul’s house arrest in Acts 28:14-31.  When he wrote Philippians, he was not in the Mamertine dungeon as he was when he wrote 2 Timothy.  He was in his own rented house, where for two years he was free to impart the gospel to all who came to him.

  Colossians: Instead, it is to be dated during Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome, where he spent at least two years under house arrest (see Acts 28:16-31).  Some have argued that Paul wrote Colossians from Ephesus or Caesarea, but most of the evidence favours Rome as the place where Paul penned all the Prison Letters (Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians and Philemon).  Colossians should be dated c. A.D. 60, in the same year as Ephesians and Philemon.

  Philemon: Paul wrote this short letter probably at the same time as Colossians (c. A.D. 60).

  2 Timothy: After Paul’s release from prison in Rome in A.D. 62/63 (Acts 28)and after his fourth missionary journey, during which he wrote 1 Timothy and Titus, Paul was again imprisoned under Emperor Nero c. 66-67. It was during this time that he wrote 2 Timothy.  In contrast to his first imprisonment, when he lived in a rented house (Acts 28:30), he now languished in a cold dungeon (2 Timothy 4:13), chained like a common criminal (2 Timothy 1:16; 2:9).  His friends even had a hard time finding out where he was being kept (2 Timothy 1:17).  Paul knew that his work was done and his life was nearly at an end (2 Timothy 4:6-8).


When is the end of the Christmas season for Latin Rite Catholics?

From Wikipedia:

The Christmas season immediately follows Advent. The traditional Twelve Days of Christmas begin with Christmas Eve on the evening of December 24 and continue until the feast of Epiphany. The actual Christmas season continues until the Feast of the Baptism of Christ, which in the present form of the Roman Rite is celebrated on the Sunday after 6 January.
In the pre-1970 form, this feast is celebrated on 13 January, unless 13 January is a Sunday, in which case the feast of the Holy Family is celebrated instead. Until the suppression of the Octave of the Epiphany in the 1960 reforms, 13 January was the Octave day of the Epiphany, providing the date for the end of the season.

The period following Christmas is called Ordinary Time or Time after Epiphany.


What has the Bible said about appropriate Sabbath-day worship?

I think some of the more telling things about our understanding of the Sabbath should be what Jesus said about the subject, and more importantly what Jesus did on the Sabbath.
Jesus healed on the Sabbath several times Matt 12:9-14 (NIV)

9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”
11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

Earlier in this same passage Jesus' disciples had helped themselves to some grain in a field, also unlawful according to Jewish law. These things indicate a new understanding of Sabbath was underway.
Mark 2 (NIV) addresses this same event and has a different quotation here

27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

In fact all of the gospels depict Jesus doing at least one if not more healing miracles on the Sabbath. All of these gospels record the Pharisees challenging Jesus for doing what they considered work on the Sabbath.
This study would seem to indicate that the rules for the Sabbath have changed. It is a day to minister to those around us, to benefit our communities. It is still for sure a day of rest, however "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" should resonate with us, it's not a day that we should feel restricted by what we cannot do, it's a day for freedom and rest.
The same freedom from the restriction of the law that is preached in the rest of the New Testament is present here as well. There is no set regulation for what we can do on the Sabbath or how it should be spent. We are free. It should be spent resting or doing things in our community, but what rests me is not what rests you.


What is an overview of "mysteries" in the Catholic Church?

From this summary of current teaching, the most commonly presented mysteries include:

The Paschal Mystery
The Mystery of the Trinity
The Mystery of the Father (The Mystery of God)
The Mystery of the Incarnate Word
The Mystery of the human person
The Mystery of Original Sin
The Mystery of Incarnation
The Mystery of the Resurrection
The Mystery of Salvation
The Mystery of the Church itself.

  The Church is a mystery in as much as in her visible reality there is
  present and active a divine spiritual reality which can only be seen
  with the eyes of faith.

The Church doesn't leave it at that, as each is explored in some depth in both the Catechism and a variety of other documents, but each is classified as a mystery for reasons best left to each topic's details.


According to the Orthodox church, what is the purpose of the Bible?

The Bible's Purpose
Archimandrite Justin Popovich lays out the reasons for reading the Bible in "How to Read the Bible and Why":

All that is necessary for this world and the people in it--the Lord has stated in the Bible. In it He has given the answers to all questions. There is no question which can torment the human soul, and not find its answer, either directly or indirectly in the Bible.
...
In the Bible God make known:

what the world is; where came from; why it exists; what it is heading for; how it will end;

what man is; where he comes from; where he is going; what he is made of; what his purpose is; how he will end;

what animals and plants are; what their purpose is; what they are used for;

what good is; where it comes from; what it leads to; what its purpose is; how it is attained;

what evil is; where it comes from; how it came to exist; why it exists -how it will come to an end;

what the righteous are and what sinners are; how a sinner becomes righteous and how an arrogant righteous man becomes a sinner; how a man serves God and how he serves satan; the whole path from good to evil, from God to satan;

everything - from the beginning to the end; man is entire path from the body to God, from his conception in the womb to his resurrection from the dead;

what the history of the world is, the history of heaven and earth, the history of mankind; what their path, purpose, and end are.

Rev. Dr. Eugen J. Pentiuc expresses similar thoughts in "The Untamed Textbook and Its House-Trained Handouts":

Scripture is an open textbook, an endless reservoir of wisdom in the making. But above all, Scripture is a living and ever-refreshing means of communication with God, its primus auctor. ... Scripture is not, nor does it claim to be, a complete "recording" of God's mind. Rather, it is a means through which God re-creates us each time when we approach the Scripture, as he did on the sixth day when he breathed his breathing of life on the dust and the dust became a "living breath" of God (Gen 2:7). The Lord re-creates each reader of Scripture as a partner in dialogue with him, the source of life.

The Bible's Authority
In an episode of the Ancient Faith Today podcast called "The Eastern Orthodox Approach to the Bible," Presbytera Jeannie Constantinou says this about the nature of the Bible's authority:

First of all, the Church does not rely on the Bible for its doctrine. We don't rely on the Bible, because the Church came first. ... The Church knew what it believed about Christ before the books of the New Testament were written.
...
There is no question that the Bible is authority, so if I gave the impression that the Bible is not authority in the Church, that's certainly not true. It is authority, but it's not over the Church, it's not under the Church, it's part of the Church. It does stand as part of the Tradition, part of apostolic Tradition. It's just the written form of apostolic Tradition. To that extent, it's not exclusive authority.
...
For us we have this consistency through the centuries, because we read the early Church Fathers who comment on these, who use these verses, because we have them in our hymns and in our prayers, we understood what is meant by them, so they are less susceptible to being distorted by the individual opinions of people. We have a consensus of meaning within the Church, and we do not exceed that boundary. We don't substitute our own personal opinion.

The Bible and the "Word"
Constantinou elsewhere in the episode explains the relationship between Jesus, the Bible, and the term "Word of God":

The Bible is the Word of God because the message is from God, but the ultimate Word of God is Jesus Christ, because he is the ultimate revelation of God. As we said, human language has its limitations to describe or explain God, but Christ was unlimited. The apostles experienced God in the Person of Jesus. What they experienced went beyond human language.


To whom do the Eastern Orthodox Church's believe the "Keys to the Kingdom" were given by Jesus?

The issue here is not Peter. Peter received the keys to the kingdom. Peter was the first leader of the entire church. The issue is with his successors. The Roman Catholic church decided that Peter's successor was not only head of the church in Rome but of the entire church. Eastern bishops took issue with this because they believed that the keys weren't ONLY given to Peter. (I'm deliberately glossing over the secular politics involved here.) Therefore, Linus had no authority over the entire church. And sadly, the absolute refusal of anyone on either side to give any ground on the issue means that there may never be any reconciliation.


What does the Bible say about giving worship to a created being?

The source you are quoting is "The Life of Adam and Eve", which is a Jewish Apocryphal writing. This means that it is not accepted as authoritative by either Christians or Jews. There is widespread agreement that it was composed in the first century after Christ, and thus not in any way contemporary with Biblical creation accounts.

In actual biblical writings, and even in non-biblical widely-accepted writings, there is no indication that God commanded angels to worship Adam. Doing so would go against the will of God expressed in many places in the Bible that God himself is the only being worthy of worship. You quote some of the key passages in the question, but there are plenty of others, such as Luke 4:8.

The Christian response to this dilemma is simple - the account in The Life of Adam and Eve is incorrect. No Christian group that I am aware of treats it as anything other than a man-made fictional story.


Basis for belief that a person can be "possessed by" a demon?

I think part of the issue may be the differing meanings of the word "possess".  We typically use the word today to mean "to own" or "to have"; but this is not the original meaning. Etymonline.com records the original meaning of the word (when it entered English at the end of the 1300s) as being "'to hold, occupy, reside in' (without regard to ownership)". The word is often used in a military sense; one can "possess" the territory of an enemy simply by occupying it and militarily controlling it.

In this sense, one could speak of a person as possessing a demon (one might "have a demon" in the same sense as one "has a cold"); but also one could speak of the demon as possessing (invading, residing in, and taking control of) a person.


How do Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians evangelize?

The Catholic Church does evangelise directly ...

15(e) Having been sent and evangelized, the Church herself sends out evangelizers. She puts on their lips the saving Word, she explains to them the message of which she herself is the depositary, she gives them the mandate which she herself has received and she sends them out to preach. To preach not their own selves or their personal ideas43, but a Gospel of which neither she nor they are the absolute masters and owners, to dispose of it as they wish, but a Gospel of which they are the ministers, in order to pass it on with complete fidelity.
[Evangelii Nuntiandi]
43. Cf. 2 Cor 4:5; Saint Augustine Sermo XLVI, De Pastoribus: ccl XLI, pp. 529-530.

... but ...

21  Above all the Gospel must be proclaimed by witness. Take a Christian or a handful of Christians who, in the midst of their own community, show their capacity for understanding and acceptance, their sharing of life and destiny with other people, their solidarity with the efforts of all for whatever is noble and good. Let us suppose that, in addition, they radiate in an altogether simple and unaffected way their faith in values that go beyond current values, and their hope in something that is not seen and that one would not dare to imagine. Through this wordless witness these Christians stir up irresistible questions in the hearts of those who see how they live: Why are they like this? Why do they live in this way? What or who is it that inspires them? Why are they in our midst? Such a witness is already a silent proclamation of the Good News and a very powerful and effective one. Here we have an initial act of evangelization.
[Ibid.]

The Catholic Church seeks to change people from within. She starts with their situation — either individually (eg via a soup kitchen) or through wider external influences on social justice which can only be dealt with governmentally or supra-governmentally. The Holy See has permanent observer (non-voting) status in the United Nations for this purpose.
But the Church and its members must always be ready to answer the question "What causes you to do this, to be like this?" with the Good News of the Faith, the saving work of Christ and the love of God; and the love for God which all this engenders. The Church does not proselytise: it recognises a longing, which it helps the "evangelisee" to recognise, and then satisfies it.

22 Nevertheless this [charitable witness] always remains insufficient, because even the finest witness will prove ineffective in the long run if it is not explained, justified — what Peter called always having "your answer ready for people who ask you the reason for the hope that you all have"52 — and made explicit by a clear and unequivocal proclamation of the Lord Jesus. The Good News proclaimed by the witness of life sooner or later has to be proclaimed by the word of life.
[Ibid.]
52. 1 Pt 3:15

In the nineteenth century, when the Catholic Church was still emerging from suppression, many high-church ["Anglo-Catholic"] churches were established in poor areas of urban England with precisely this objective. They satisfied the bodily needs of the population with food, healthcare and education — generally without censure or criticism; and satisfied their spiritual needs with the numinous services they offered, at which the gospel was proclaimed in the second stage of evangelisation.
Even now, when the State has taken over a lot of what the Church used to do, it's still the Church (of all denominations) who is a major supporter of enterprises like the food banks of the Trussell Trust and Street Pastors run by the Ascension Trust: witness through practical action. Churches also have a ministry to help those who are spiritually seeking.
As to why a softly-softly method is preferred, we find it works!


Is saying "Oh My God" really using God's name in vain?

According to the definition of "in vain", I'd say yes, it is in vain.

  in vain,
  a. without effect or avail; to no purpose: to apologize in
  vain.
  b. in an improper or irreverent manner: to take God's name in
  vain.

While it may not be directly insulting or condemning God in any way, I would say that "Oh my God" is not using his name in a reverent manner, specifically one that may be bringing him glory.

With regards to the habit, my wife had the same habit.  After realizing that it was taking his name in vain, she was able to quickly get over it.  While "Oh my gosh" has the same meaning (most likely in your case), it does remove the risk of trivializing God.  Maybe once you accept that it is taking God's name in vain, you'll be able to quickly get over your habit.  (I wouldn't expect anyone to get over it immediately unless you pray for God's help and he breaks it at once.)


How were the footnotes in LDS scriptures created?

Short Answer: Over the course of 7 years by a committee of Apostles, Oxford Scholars, professional editors, computer experts, and many other contributers form both inside and outside the Church.

What we have for footnotes in the standard works today is the result of many lifetimes worth of diligent scripture study, and thousands of hours work completed as part of a huge effort led by the apostles Thomas S. Monson, Boyd K. Packer, and Bruce R. McConkie, Bruce R. McConkie being a very prominent contributor, having established himself as a student of scripture. In addition to writing the chapter headings, the topical guide, and the bible dictionary, he also produced many of his own footnotes (In the OT alone he produced 600 footnotes that just reference text from the JST, and produced the "Selections from the Joseph Smith Translation" for the references that were too long for the footnotes.)

The work began in 1972 with the creation of the Bible Aids committee, presided by then Elder Thomas S. Monson. The presidency of the Church wanted to publish an LDS version of the KJV Bible, previously the church had used the Oxford
edition of the bible in combination with LDS lesson manuals.

The work they completed is daunting, much came from study, but a significant number of footnotes were the result of custom written programs by Stephen Howes of BYU.

  Those of us who witnessed the progress of the project often commented
  how individuals in and out of the Church with needed skills and
  abilities were available at our time of need. For example, as the work
  progressed and it became necessary to process the manuscripts, a
  qualified editor, Eleanor Knowles, was available at Deseret Book.
  Furthermore, the project could not have been accomplished without the
  benefit of modern computer technology; and here again, both in the
  people available and in the development of technology, our needs were
  met. In anticipation of another project, Eldin Ricks at BYU had placed
  every verse of all four standard works into a computer data base. When
  it became desirable to have such a data base for the scriptures
  project, Brother Ricks willingly let the Church use his material,
  saving us thousands of hours.  – Wm. James Mortimer

My former Mission President, Joseph Cook–who was actually mentioned in a talk at the most recent General Conference by his brother Quentin–wrote footnotes into is journals, and would reference them while answering any questions we, his missionaries, may have during personal interviews, it was amazing. I only wish I could see Bruce R. McConkie's personal study journals, but I have a feeling that the vast majority of the fruits of his labours are currently published in the standard works as the study helps, everything else is likely contained in his book, "Mormon Doctrine".

As Brother Mortimer witnesses in the quote above, the work was nowhere short of a miracle when it came to meeting the needs of the project.

History of LDS ScripturesHarold B. Lee Library. Bible: LDS Publication of the Bible
The Coming Forth of the LDS Editions of Scripture


To what are the scriptures referring when they speak of the books of the "chronicles of the kings"?

The following books are referenced in the King James Version of the bible but are not found in that text.(source)

book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14);
book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18);
book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41);
book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29);
book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29);
book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29);
prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29);
visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22);
book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15);
book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34);
sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19);
an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1
Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9);
possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3);
an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16);
and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14).

(Though you can of course look up each scripture to verify for yourself as a link has been provided for each.)

The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah is believed to be a record kept by the kings of Israel but it is not considered to be the books we know as 1 and 2 Chronicles.

Interestingly enough, this is pretty conclusive that our bible today isn't quite what it used to be, and that there are prophets (like Nathan and Shemaiah) that recorded the word of God, but that word has since been lost to us.


No, it's drinking to excess that is wrong - Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:17-19).

Then, one needs to define "excess".  Which is likely to more personal and will vary from believer to believer; one might draw the line at the legal limit for driving as a useful guideline.  It's widely recognized that a glass of red wine a day is healthful and beneficial.

Then there's the case of the wedding feast an Cana where Jesus made 120-180 gallons (455-680 liters) of wine - and not just any wine, but wine of superlative quality. I find the argument that Jesus created non-alcoholic wine to be tortuous, at best. Then, too, there's the comment about the normal practice of serving the best wine first and the worst last - because after drinking the better wine people are too inebriated to notice the poorer quality of the latter wine; that's a clear indication the that what they were referring to as the "best wine" contained alcohol.

There was wine at the Last Supper, and every Passover Jesus celebrated in his life.

And Paul instructs Timothy to "Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses" (1 Timothy 5:22-24), probably because the alcohol in wine and the process of fermentation kills germs, where clean drinking water was harder to obtain.


Are there multiple levels to Heaven, for different levels of reward?

This answer is the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the "Mormon" Church).

There are more than two places people ultimately end up after judgement.  There are three Degrees of Glory (and there is Outer Darkness, see next section).  The three degrees of glory (in descending order of glory) are the Celestial kingdom (compared to the sun), the Terrestrial kingdom (compared to the moon), and the Telestial kingdom (compared to the stars).

Life in each of the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms is better than this life, but neither is as good as life in the Celestial kingdom.  In the Celestial kingdom, people can live with God and their family (meaning the people in their family in this life).

Most people on earth will end up in one of these degrees of glory.  Even most people guilty of some terrible and despicable things and not repented of them will.

Ending up in Outer Darkness takes something that most people on earth are not capable of: rebelling against God after knowing (not only having faith) of the truth of the gospel.  The vast majority of people, including me, do not.  If you have any wonders about if you do, you don't.

Satan will end up in outer darkness for his wilful rebellion against God with such a knowledge.

LDS Scriptural Ref:

D&C 76:50-70 - Description of "Kingdoms of Glory"
D&C 132:26-27 - 'blasphemy against the Holy Ghost'


Do any Christian denominations forbid pronouncing the Tetragrammaton?

The Tetragrammaton ('Hashem', The Name) was written many times in the Hebrew Scriptures without vowels, therefore YHWH could not be pronounced by anyone without knowledge of the vowel points. Nor was it encouraged, out of concern not to break the second of the Ten Commandments. When it came to the Christian Scriptures, they were originally written in koine Greek, and the equivalent of the Tetragrammaton never even occurred once. Of the more than 5,000 available copies of ancient Greek Christian Scripture manuscripts (MSS), some from as early as 200 C.E., there are no MSS that show any evidence of the Tetragrammaton.

However, there are no superstitious views about any need to refrain from translating the Tetragrammaton into other languages, for Christians to read or to pronounce. Of course, it remains true that no Christian would wish to take The Name of God in vain, but it is not the pronunciation that is the problem here. We all know that it is pronounced in different ways in different languages.

A Dominican monk, Raymundus Martini, was commissioned by the Pope to translate the Latin Vulgate Bible into German. That’s when ‘Jehova’ first appeared. In German, the 'J' is pronounced ‘Yah’. 'Jehova' is first recorded in 1270 in Martini's book "Pugeo Fideli".

It was William Tyndale who first used Jehovah in English, as a new word, once the letter 'J' had been introduced into the English alphabet in the early 1500s. Tyndale produced his translation of the Pentateuch in 1530. There are many old hymns (particularly in the Protestant tradition) where the name of God, Jehovah, is sung - usually with reference to Hebrew (Old Testament) events. YHWH is often viewed as God's OT (or, covenant) name. There is no taboo in Christianity against pronouncing God's Name.


Does faith cometh by hearing only as alluded to in Romans 10:17?

There are two primary groups.

One hears the gospel, builds faith on it and understand. He is like the good soil.

  Matthew 13:23 he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Another group hears the gospel, but do not build faith on it and do not understand. He is like the hard ground of the way side.

  Matthew 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

But imagine if there were no seed at all, no gospel, no word of God?

Therefore, faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of God.

Now faith is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8), grace and the Holy Spirit are also the gifts of God. But the gospel, which is the word, which is really Jesus Himself, is the seed and root of all.


Did the Jews use icons and images to help them worship as Catholics or Orthodox worshippers do?

The remains of an ancient Jewish Synagogue have been found at a site known as Dura-Europos. Inside this Jewish Synagogue, all the walls are covered in frescoes of scenes from the Tanakh, which date to about 250 AD.


Does Luke 13:24 give us a more vivid picture of how many people will be saved?

Any time you hear anything along the lines of "I'm trying to be a Christian", a giant red flag should immediately go up in your mind. Whoever said that is either playing fast and loose with words or they have completely missed the point.

Being a Christian is a binary state (our position as either lost or saved in the eyes of God) that is not determined by anything we could ever do but on something somebody else did in our stead. This is so fundamental to Christianity that our way of speaking should never include a suggestion that we could ever do anything to change that status.

  1 Corinthians 4:7 (ESV)
  For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?

Of course there are things we do in response to having had our status changed, but the way we talk about these things should clearly reflect their nature.

  Ephesians 4:1 (ESV)
  I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called,

By the same token I think your question is symptomatic of a similar misunderstanding. Never is "trying hard" connected to "entering the Kingdom of God". In fact from beginning to end you will find a long saga about the God who does all of the doing to save his people.

The question you should be asking yourself in light of what you know about your life is more along the lines of "are my current desires and resulting actions evidence that I have been fundamentally changed and do I understand this change to be God's handiwork as effected by Christ who has adopted me?"

Answer that question and your other one will become clear.


Does "all Israel shall be saved" mean that all Jews, even those who die in their sins, will be saved?

All of Romans 9-11 should be read together. Paul was responding to the accusation that God's promises to Israel had failed, and his response is basically: "you misunderstand what God means by 'Israel'; it is only the remnant of Israel's natural descendants that count as 'Israel', so actually, all Israel will be saved and God's promises have not failed".


How does the LDS church back up the statement "I'm stronger than Satan"?

Frankly, according to the Bible Christians are NOT stronger than Satan, and that is not because he is a spiritual being and they are physical/spiritual beings. If anything, having bodies makes Christians more vulnerable to his attacks, not less. As the apostle Paul observed, our bodies have "members," and since our members war against each other (Romans 7:23) Christians must allow "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus to set . . . [them] free from the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:2).
There is nothing inherently wrong with the human body, since it has been designed by God, but physical senses and appetites of necessity and by God's design interact with bodily members, sometimes in God-pleasing ways and sometimes not.
First John 4:4, quoted already in an answer, is a good starting place, but the verse needs to be unpacked a bit!
Notice in this verse that the Spirit (capital S) is greater than the spirit (lower-case S) who lives in the world (viz., the devil). The Holy Spirit, who indwells every believer, is the Spirit of Christ. Through Christ's Spirit within them, Christians are "more than conquerors" in spiritual warfare (Romans 8:37), since he fights on their behalf. Their duty is simply to stand in the power of his might (Ephesians 6:10). Jesus said,

"Without me you can do nothing" (John 15:5)

To grow and thrive in Christ, Christians must "abide in Christ" as he abides in them (John 15:4 ff.). Abiding in Christ requires Christians' heart commitment; it takes spiritual awareness of the warfare going on around them and within them; and it takes unbroken fellowship between them and Jesus, which requires frequent confession and repentance.
Yes, believers can choose to surrender control to the devil and his influence, but without an awareness of their vulnerability to his attacks they can surrender more control to him than they think they do. Forewarned is to be forearmed. Knowing that the devil prowls about as a lion seeking to devour true believers (1 Peter 5:8) requires spiritual diligence on their part. Do they therefore need to fear the devil? Yes and no.
Yes, Christians need to fear the devil because he is powerful, hateful, and well organized. His "world system" exerts a powerful influence on earth, and believers need only to read the headlines of today's newspapers to realize he is indeed very active in wreaking havoc in people's lives and in society at large.
Jesus likened the devil to a sheep-stealer who comes only to "steal and kill and destroy" (John 10:10). Jesus, on the other hand, comes only to give his children an abundant life. That abundant life is within reach of every Christian, but sometimes spiritual strongholds and besetting, entangling sins in their lives (Hebrews 12:1) short circuit that abundant life in Christ.
For that reason, believers must come back again and again to the cross of Christ, where Satan was defeated. As the old hymn puts it,

Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to thy cross I cling . . ..

So no, Christians need not fear the devil. When they cling to the cross of Christ, crucifying their old natures by taking up the cross daily (Luke 9:23), victorious living for them becomes a reality as the atoning blood of Christ and their whole-hearted witness to the truth of God come together through faith. Revelation 12 says the following:

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren [viz., Satan] has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night. And they [i.e., believers] overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death" (vv.10-11 NASB Updated, my emphasis).

The blood of the Lamb is the atonement to which you referred in your question. The word of their testimony comprises the truths to which Christians cling, truths which assume 1) that their testimony is informed by the truth of God, and 2) that they are prepared and willing even to die for that truth.
In conclusion, Satan is a formidable foe. To fail to recognize this truth is to underestimate his influence and power, and failure in this regard opens believers up to his influence and attacks. The solution is to put on by faith the complete armor of God (Ephesians 6:13-17):

God's truth, which guards the loins

the breastplate of righteousness

battle shoes of the preparation of the gospel of peace

the shield of faith

the helmet of salvation

the sword of the Spirit

Having done these things, believers are then simply to "stand firm" (v.14), which means they are not in attack mode; rather, they are dependent on God and his armor to defend them.


Is holding hands and forming a circle around the altar during eucharistic prayer allowed?

Is it permitted to form a circle around the altar and hold hands during the Eucharistic Prayer?

The short answer is: No.

When I was in the major seminary, we would gather around the altar once a week (Saturdays) during the Eucharistic Prayer, but we did not hold hands. Apparently Canon Law is silent on this subject, which is sometimes considered a local custom. The seminary, later abandoned this custom, when a rather traditional student refused to join in and remained in the pews. The rector tried to encourage the seminarian to make some gesture of fellowship with the others, but to no avail.

The student in question thought the custom mimicked the actions of the priests at Mass and stayed firm in his resolve not to join in.

Today, he is a priest in the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter and is highly respected by his former seminary professors, even though the seminary at that time was not a traditional one.

If the priest is holding hands with the Children during the Eucharistic Prayer than that might pose more serious problems, because the priest is obliged to perform certain gestures like laying his hands over the gifts to be consecrated, to make the sign of the cross and to elevate the Body and Blood of Christ at the appropriate times. These gestures are non-negotiable and must be performed uniquely by the priest only.

It may not be in Canon Law, but Rome has spoken against it:

  Although there is no precedent in Catholic liturgical tradition the question of whether it is permissible for children, youth or adults to stand around the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer continues to be asked. The argument often given by those who encourage this practice is to foster "community". In 1981 the Congregation for Divine Worship addressed this question in its official journal Notitiae. In an official interpretation of no.  101 in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) it responded as follows:

    Query: At the presentation of gifts at a Mass with congregation, persons (lay or religious) bring to the altar the bread and wine which are to be consecrated. These gifts are received by the priest celebrant. All those participating in the Mass accompany this group procession in which the gifts are brought forward. They then stand around the altar until communion time. Is this procedure in conformity with the spirit of the law and of the Roman Missal?

    Reply: Assuredly, the Eucharistic celebration is the act of the entire
    community, carried out by all the members of the liturgical assembly. Nevertheless, everyone must have and also must observe his or her own place and proper role: "In liturgical celebrations each one, minister or layperson, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to that office  by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy." (SC art. 29). During the liturgy of the eucharist, only the presiding celebrant remains at the altar. The assembly of the faithful take their place in the Church outside the "presbyterium," which is reserved for the celebrant or concelebrants and altar ministers. [Notitiae 17 (1981) 61]

  The necessity of preserving the proper distinction of roles was again addressed in 1997, as part of a larger problem of growing confusion between the roles of the ordained and the non-ordained. In that year, the Roman Congregations of Clergy, Doctrine of the Faith, Bishops, Divine Worship, Religious, Laity and Evangelization, as well as the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, jointly issued a document intended to recall the Church to the practice of a clear distinction between the role of the laity and that of the clergy. Called the Instruction On Certain Questions Regarding The Collaboration Of The Non-Ordained Faithful In The Sacred Ministry Of Priest it noted the confusing practices present in the Church today which do not respect the theological distinction between those in Holy Orders and those who are not. On the one hand the activity of the laity is a sign of the vitality of the Church in attempting to live the teaching of Vatican II, which calls us to an active role in the liturgy and a greater role in the mission of the Church. On the other, it is a sign that some have forgotten necessary and basic distinctions that reflect the different sacramental meanings of different vocations in the Church. - Standing Around the Altar

Her are a few more sources on holding hands at Mass and the Our Father in particular:

Holding Hands at Mass During the “Our Father”

Should people hold hands during the Our Father at Mass?


Are Seraphim and Cherubim angels?

The short answer is yes.

Angels appear on numerous occasions in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. However, the Scriptures do not always reveal their angelic rank on each occasion. Traditionally, there are Nine choirs of angels. This question deals with the biblical basis of the two highest choir of angels: the Seraphim and the Cherubim.

The Apostle St. Peter dealt with angels when he was freed from the prison of King Herod Agrippa. You can read about  St. Peter’s Miraculous Escape From Prison here.

St. Paul was encouraged by an angel, just before his shipwreck on Malta (Acts 27: 21-24)

An angel sometimes would stir the waters in the pool of Bethesda.

  4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. - John 1: 9

Thus we can conclude that angels do exist.

Now let us see if there are any references to Seraphs and Cherubs being angels in the Scriptures.

St. Paul definitely believe in an angelic hierarchy.

  16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. - Colossians 1:16

  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. -  Ephesians 6:12

Cherubs are the most commonly name angel beings named in the bible.

  The cherubim are the most frequently occurring heavenly creature in the Hebrew Bible, with the Hebrew word appearing 91 times. The first occurrence is in the Book of Genesis 3:24. Despite these many references, the role of the cherubim is never explicitly elucidated. While Hebrew tradition must have conceived of the cherubim as guardians of the Garden of Eden (in which they guard the way to the Tree of life), they are often depicted as performing other roles; for example in the Book of Ezekiel, they transport Yahweh's throne. The cherub who appears in the "Song of David", a poem which occurs twice in the Hebrew Bible, in 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18, participates in Yahweh's theophany and is imagined as a vehicle upon which the deity descends to earth from heaven in order to rescue the speaker (see 2 Samuel 22:11, Psalm 18:10).

  In Exodus 25:18–22, God tells Moses to make multiple images of cherubim at specific points around the Ark of the Covenant. Many appearances of the words cherub and cherubim in the Bible refer to the gold cherubim images on the mercy seat of the Ark, as well as images on the curtains of the Tabernacle and in Solomon's Temple, including two measuring ten cubits high.

  In Isaiah 37:16, Hezekiah prays, addressing God as "enthroned above the cherubim" (referring to the mercy seat). In regard's to Solomon's Temple as described in 1 Kings, Eichler renders the phrase yoshev ha-keruvim as “who dwells among the cherubim”. This phrase is the same in 1 Kings and Isaiah. Eichler's interpretation in contrast to common translations for many years that rendered it as “who sits upon the cherubim”. This has implications for the understanding of whether the ark of the covenant in the Temple was literally YHWH's throne or simply an indicator of YHWH's immanence.

  Cherubim feature at some length in the Book of Ezekiel. While they first appear in chapter one, in which they are transporting the throne of God by the river Chebar, they are not called cherubim until chapter 10.[21] In Ezekiel 1:5–11 they are described as having the likeness of a man, and having four faces: that of a man, a lion (on the right side), and ox (on the left side), and an eagle. The four faces represent the four domains of God's rule: the man represents humanity; the lion, wild animals; the ox, domestic animals; and the eagle, birds. These faces peer out from the center of an array of four wings; these wings are joined to each other, two of these are stretched upward, and the other two cover their bodies. Under their wings are human hands; their legs are described as straight, and their feet like those of a calf, shining like polished brass. Between the creatures glowing coals that moved between them could be seen, their fire "went up and down", and lightning burst forth from it. The cherubs also moved like flashes of lightning.

  In Ezekiel chapter 10, another full description of the cherubim appears with slight differences in details. Three of the four faces are the same – man, lion and eagle – but where chapter one has the face of an ox, Ezekiel 10:14 says "face of a cherub". Ezekiel equates the cherubim of chapter ten with the living creatures of chapter one: "They were the same creatures (חיה) I had seen by the river Chebar" (Ezekiel 10:15) and "These were the living creatures I had seen under the God of Israel on the banks of the river Chebar" (Ezekiel 10:20). In Ezekiel 41:18–20, they are portrayed as having two faces, although this is probably because they are depicted in profile. - Cherub (Wikipedia)

As for Seraphs, they are named less frequently in Scripture, but nonetheless are of the angelic Orders.

  There is emerging consensus that the motifs used to display seraphs in Hyksos-era Palestine had their original sources in Egyptian uraeus iconography.

  The word saraph/seraphim appears three times in the Torah (Numbers 21:6–8, Deuteronomy 8:15) and four times in the Book of Isaiah (6:2–6, 14:29, 30:6). In Isaiah 6:2–6 the term is used to describe a type of celestial being or angel. The other five uses of the word refer to serpents.

  The vision in Isaiah Chapter 6 of seraphim in an idealized version of Solomon's Temple represents the sole instance in the Hebrew Bible of this word being used to describe celestial beings. "... I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly." (Isaiah 6:1–3) And one cried to another, "Holy, holy, holy, is YHWH of hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory." (verses 2–3) One seraph carries out an act of ritual purification for the prophet by touching his lips with a live coal from the altar (verses 6–7).

  The text describes the "seraphim" as winged celestial beings with a fiery passion for doing God's good work.8 Notwithstanding the wording of the text itself, at least one Hebrew scholar claims that in the Hebrew Bible the seraphim do not have the status of angels, and that it is only in later sources (like De Coelesti Hierarchia or Summa Theologiae) that they are considered to be a division of the divine messengers.

  Seraphim appear in the 2nd-century BC Book of Enoch, where they are mentioned, in conjunction with cherubim, as the heavenly creatures standing nearest to the throne of God. They are also called the Akyəst (Ge'ez: አክይስት "serpents", "dragons"; an alternate term for Hell).

  In the Second Book of Enoch, two classes of celestial beings are mentioned alongside the seraphim and cherubim, known as the phoenixes and the chalkydri (Ancient Greek: χαλκύδραι khalkýdrai, compd. of χαλκός khalkós "brass, copper" + ὕδρα hýdra "hydra", "water-serpent" — lit. "brazen hydras", "copper serpents"). Both are described as "flying elements of the sun" that reside in either the 4th or 6th heaven, who have twelve wings and burst into song at sunrise.

  In the Book of Revelation (4:4–8), the beasts are described as being forever in God's presence and praising him: "[A]nd they rest not day and night, saying, 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." This account differs slightly from the account of Isaiah, stating in the eighth verse, "And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within". They appear also in the Gnostic text, On the Origin of the World. - Seraph (Wikipedia)

There can be little doubt that both Seraphims and Cherubims are angels.


Why did the Apologists adopt Stoic Philosophy of the λόγος?

The 2nd century Apologists took advantage of Stoic Philosophy to advance the Gospel.

The Greek word λόγος succinctly means something like word, message or reason "from the inside out."

The Apologists adopted the Stoic distinction of the λόγος for one purpose: evangelism.

The Apologists used the Stoic concept of the Logos as a means of arguing for Christianity to non-Jews. Since a Greek audience would accept this concept, their argument could concentrate on identifying this Logos with Jesus.

Logos endiathetos - The conceived Word.

One who is conceived does exists.

  "My heart produced the most excellent Logos." ~ Psalm 45:1 (Septuagint)

Logos prophorikos - The nativity or birth of the Word.

One who is born existed priorly from the womb.

  "I have given birth to you in my womb before the star of the morning." ~ Psalm 110:3 ( Septuagint)

Note

The Apologists ( like Justin Martyr, Titan and Tertullian) had a good intention (i.e. soul winning) but they'd compromised and this is where they erred.It seems that if it were not their intention to lessen the deity of Christ, they did still come to that way which as history shows paved the way to Arianism. In other words, the Apologists obscured the doctrine of the divinity of Christ by Stoicism.Nevertheless, the Apologists weren't the only Christians in their day, there was their contemporaries like Irenaeus , Athenagoras, Gregory of Thaumaturgus, Novatian and Dionysius of Rome who all taught that the λόγος was the eternal Son.


According to Catholicism, is there a place of reverence for Hagar in Christianity?
Do the teachings of Catholic Church mention the meekness of Hagar as something worth emulating?
The short answer is no.
Hagár, the Egyptian servant of Sarah, who gave birth Abraham’s firstborn Ishmael, the progenitor of the Ishmaelites holds no particular honour or reverence within the Catholic Church or even in Christianity in general for that matter.
St. Augustine of Hippo referred to Hagar as symbolizing an "earthly city", or the sinful condition of humanity.
Later on both St. Thomas Aquinas and John Wycliff expounded on the same point of view of St. Augustine about Hagár.

Hagar is a biblical person in the Book of Genesis. She was an Ancient Egyptian servant of Sarah, who gave her to Abraham to bear a child. The product of the union was Abraham's firstborn, Ishmael, the progenitor of the Ishmaelites, generally taken to be the Arabians. Various commentators have connected her to the Hagrites (sons of Agar), perhaps claiming her as their eponymous ancestor.
The name of the Egyptian servant Hagar is documented in the Book of Genesis; she is acknowledged in all Abrahamic religions. Hagar is alluded to in the Quran, and Islam acknowledges her as Abraham's second wife. According to Islamic tradition, Hagar the Egyptian is named as the "Grand Mother of Arabians" and her husband Abraham the Mesopotamian as the "Grand Father of Arabians".
Christianity
In the New Testament, Paul the Apostle made Hagar's experience an allegory of the difference between law and grace in his Epistle to the Galatians chapter 4 (Galatians 4:21–31). Paul links the laws of the Torah, given on Mount Sinai, to the bondage of the Israelite people, implying that it was signified by Hagar's condition as a bondswoman, while the "free" heavenly Jerusalem is signified by Sarah and her child. The Biblical Mount Sinai has been referred to as "Agar", possibly named after Hagar.
Augustine of Hippo referred to Hagar as symbolizing an "earthly city", or sinful condition of humanity: "In the earthly city (symbolised by Hagar) ... we find two things, its own obvious presence and the symbolic presence of the heavenly city. New citizens are begotten to the earthly city by nature vitiated by sin but to the heavenly city by grace freeing nature from sin." (The City of God 15:2) This view was expounded on by medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and John Wycliffe. The latter compared the children of Sarah to the redeemed, and those of Hagar to the unredeemed, who are "carnal by nature and mere exiles".
The story of Hagar demonstrates that survival is possible even under harshest conditions.


What Is The Roman Catholic Church's View on Mohnism

It just so happens that the Catholic Encyclopedia has an article on this.  Their definition is much broader than the one you provided.  It actually has extensive notes on several meanings of the term.  the section in the term in the context of theology is as follows:

  The term Monism is not much used in theology because of the confusion
  to which its use would lead. Polytheism, the doctrine that there are
  many gods, has for its opposite Monotheism, the doctrine that there is
  but one God. If the term Monism is employed in place of Monotheism, it
  may, of course, mean Theism, which is a monotheistic doctrine, or it
  may mean Pantheism, which is opposed to theism. In this sense of the
  term, as a synonym for Pantheism, Monism maintains that there is no
  real distinction between God and the universe. Either God is
  indwelling in the universe as a part of it, not distinct from it
  (pantheistic Immanentism), or the universe does not exist at all as a
  reality (Acosmism), but only as a manifestation or phenomenon of God.
  These views are vigorously combated by Theism, not only on
  considerations of logic and philosophy, but also on considerations of
  human life and conduct. For the ethical implications of pantheism are
  as detrimental to it as its shortcomings from the point of view of
  consistency and reasonableness. Theism does not deny that God is
  indwelling in the universe; but it does deny that He is comprised in
  the universe. Theism does not deny that the universe is a
  manifestation of God; but it does deny that the universe has no
  reality of its own. Theism is, therefore, dualistic: it holds that God
  is a reality distinct from the universe and independent of it, and
  that the universe is a reality distinct from God, though not
  independent of Him. From another point of view, theism is monistic; it
  maintains that there is but One Supreme Reality and that all other
  reality is derived from Him. Monism is not then an adequate equivalent
  of the term Theism.

The key sentence in there is this:

  In this sense of the term, as a synonym for Pantheism, Monism
  maintains that there is no real distinction between God and the
  universe.

if you follow the link to their article on pantheism,  you get this clear statement:

  The Church has repeatedly condemned the errors of pantheism.

Therefore, the Catholic Church's official position is that monism is an erroneous view of God.


What is the use of faith if God doesn't need/require anything from humans to save them?

There are a few facets to this, but the Calvinist perspective (though not nec. only the Calvinist perspective) would say that faith is the mechanism for salvation, because it gives God the glory; it doesn't give man room to boast (also, it doesn't help that man doesn't quite cut it with his works).

The apostle Paul addresses this in his letter to the Ephesians:

Ephesians 2:1-10 (ESV) [Emphasis mine]

  1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once
  walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of
  the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of
  disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our
  flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were
  by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But
  God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he
  loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive
  together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up
  with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ
  Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable
  riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by
  grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own
  doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one
  may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus
  for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in
  them.

Reformed Theology understands the order of salvation as beginning with regeneration (being "born again" -- see John 3) with a capacity for faith.   This faith is not something that is effected through the will of sinful man (who is "dead in [his]...sins"), but rather, it is a gift from God.


What is the support for the idea that the "angel of the Lord" is actually God?

Our church also teaches this.  In a recent sermon, our Pastor taught that the Angel of the Lord can be used interchangeably with Christ.  As we believe in the Trinity, this means the Angel of the Lord is also God.

The following is some (but not all) of the Scriptural evidence used to support this teaching:

From Baker's Evangelical Dictionary:

  The connection between the angel of the Lord and the preincarnate
  appearance of the Messiah cannot be denied. Manoah meets the angel of
  the Lord, and declares that he has seen God. The angel accepts worship
  from Manoah and his wife as no mere angel, and refers to himself as
  "Wonderful, " the same term applied to the coming deliverer in Isaiah
  9:6 ( Jud 13:9-22 ). The functions of the angel of the Lord in the Old
  Testament prefigure the reconciling ministry of Jesus. In the New
  Testament, there is no mention of the angel of the Lord; the Messiah
  himself is this person.

Scriptural instances when the Angel of the Lord speaks as if He were God:

  Genesis 16:9-12 (KJV) 9 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.

  10 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed
  exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

  11 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with
  child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because
  the Lord hath heard thy affliction.

  12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and
  every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of
  all his brethren.

  Exodus 3:2-4 (KJV) 2 And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and,
  behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

  3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why
  the bush is not burnt.

  4 And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto
  him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said,
  Here am I.

  Judges 2:1-2 (KJV) 1 And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have
  brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said,
  I will never break my covenant with you.

  2 And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye
  shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why
  have ye done this?

(There are more, but I'll stop here.)

The Angel of the Lord also accepts worship:

  Judges 6:19-21 (KJV) 19 And Gideon went in, and made ready a kid, and unleavened cakes of an ephah of flour: the flesh he put in a
  basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out unto him
  under the oak, and presented it.

  20 And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the
  unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth.
  And he did so.

  21 Then the angel of the Lord put forth the end of the staff that was
  in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there
  rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the
  unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the Lord departed out of his
  sight.

Also, like Christ, there are times when the Angel of the Lord is treated as distinct from God.

  Judges 13:9 (KJV) 9 And God hearkened to the voice of Manoah; and the angel of God came again unto the woman as she sat in the field:
  but Manoah her husband was not with her.

Like Christ, the Angel has the authority to forgive sin.

  Zechariah 3:3-4 (KJV) 3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.

  4 And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying,
  Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold,
  I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee
  with change of raiment.


Is it generally acceptable to attend a bible study as a non Christian?

The best bet is probably to talk with the leader of the group you are considering going to.  Many Bible studies welcome non-Christians.  You don't have to be Christian to study the Bible and people are unlikely to get offended in most cases.

Some Bible studies may be more uncomfortable for you than others depending on how they are run and what kind of spiritual things you are comfortable with though.  They may include prayer, worship music and confessing sins among other things in addition to time studying the Bible.

Bible Studies do tend to form tight knit communities studying together and often result in really interesting religious and philosophical discussions.  If you want a safe context where you can get questions answered about the Bible, it is probably worth trying one out.

As for your scientific background, as long as you don't treat people like they are stupid, you are unlikely to run in to any serious issues.  There are, in fact, many Christians who are very scientifically minded (myself included among them).  It may make some people a bit uneasy at first, but if you are polite and honestly try to understand where people are coming from and express yourself clearly and respectfully, the vast majority of people will be fine with you.

I've been to many Bible studies where there were non-Christians, young Christians and long term Christians alike.  Each have something different they can add and the best groups have generally been those that have a mix of all three.


Does Catholicism teach that Jesus was a theistic evolutionist?

There's certainly no reason Jesus couldn't have used the story of Creation for teaching purposes even if He had been a theistic evolutionist—that's why everything in the Bible is there. But there's nothing in Catholic teaching even insisting that theistic evolution is correct, let alone stating what Jesus' belief on the subject was. The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically states that Jesus did not know anything that did not directly relate to his relationship with the Father and the Spirit, and the Divine plan of salvation, except what a human being of his time and location would be able to know, and what he could gain in knowledge of others by his ability to read their hearts:

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 favor 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."
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.
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.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 472–74)
It would thus appear that the Catholic Church believes that Jesus did not know the truth of theistic evolution. What he believed about it, if indeed he held a belief about it, is not stated anywhere; but it appears likely from the phrasing of these paragraphs that even if Jesus ever thought about it, he was probably (as others of that time and background were probably) less likely to believe it true than to believe that the Genesis story, taken literally, was true.


Do paedobaptists suggest that a baptised infant is really 'born again'?

You will probably find different denominations have a slightly different flavour to this answer. To put my cards on the table, I come at this from an Anglican perspective.
My first point would be, what do credobaptists think is going on in communion and how is that different to paedobaptists? Most of the credobaptists I know, if I understand correctly, do not think that baptism washes away sin - that event has happened with conversion; baptism is just the sign. It's the same with paedobaptists as well. I don't think that anyone from protestant churches would actually say that baptism and regeneration were one and the same event.
I know of people who were baptised as teenagers, then went away from faith, then came back to it later in life. I can't see how this is really different from being baptised as a child and then going away from faith before coming back to it.
According to Lee Gatiss' booklet "From Life's First Cry: John Owen on infant baptism and infant salvation", infant baptism is not so much about affirming faith but rather "the promise and covenant of God" (p. 24). John Owen argues from the fact that, since children of believers are part of God's covenant, they should be considered within God's covenant people and therefore have a right to the sign of baptism.
So he says:

This is why impenitent sinners are not to be baptised, because not having the reality they have no right to the sign. But he goes on to say that if the sign is denied to believers' infants then that implies (by the same logic) that God is denying them the reality of salvation too - "and then all the children of believing parents dying in infancy must, without hope, be eternally damned." ... It is certainly  not that for Owen baptism is essential for salvation, but rather that if God desires the sign of salvation to be withheld it must be because he withholds salvation itself from such infants. [My emphasis] (p. 30)

I would say, paedobaptists baptise infants who are too young to profess faith because they belong within the covenant people of God. This isn't tying in baptism with regeneration, but rather - by virtue of belonging they have a right to the sign of belonging.
So my answer to your final question is - yes, infants baptised who then go away from Christ can be recovered and do not need re-baptism. (In the Church of England we have an order "re-affirmation of baptismal vows" which is often used for occasions when someone comes back to faith but is already baptised). In fact I would suggest that to go away from Christ in New Testament terms is an eternal thing: someone can go away but then come back again. The final moment of being cast away and rejecting Christ doesn't happen until death.
Additionally: I saw this Twitter thread yesterday and I think you might find it helpful. He quotes Herman Witsius:

God has given that pledge to pious parents that they may regard their little ones as the children of God by gracious adoption, until, when further advanced, they betray themselves by indications to the contrary and that they may feel not less secure regarding their children dying in infancy than did Abraham and Isaac of old.


Short Answer, No.

1. The model of Jesus argues against it

In laying down His life for creatures he made, Jesus had absolutely nothing to gain. Being God, he is in no way contingent upon us. Despite this, he willing gave up the perks of being God, humbled himself, and became obedient unto death - even the death of a cross! Now, yes, because of this, at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father. (Phillippians 2:5-12) But remember, he was already God, so it wasn't needed. So, from the standpoint of Jesus, the answer would have to be no.

2. Biblical teaching argues against it

When Jesus said, "You must take up your cross, and follow me," he did so knowing there would be no gain. When Jesus said, Blessed are you when men shall persecute you and revile you for My names sake, he was being clear that this was not a path to power, riches, or fame. Even Peter admitted that the disciples had given up houses and family- and Jesus replied that they wouldn't be paid back for any of those things in this life. So, from an instructional point of view, the answer must be no.

In Acts 5, when the first believers came together, they willingly shared all they had in common. From a Randian perspective, for example, this is sheer lunacy. To give up all they had just out of love is completely contradictory. So, from an early practioner's point of view, the answer would have to be no.

Furthermore, James and many others stress humility - that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.  Using the term doulous (a slave), Christians are regularly told that their duty is to serve one another in Christ, and that "the first shall be last, and the last first - " all the exact opposite of self-interested service of any kind.

3. The definition of Love argues against it

Overall, the major theme of Johanine literature is the idea that people should be able to recognize Christians by their love. Love often involves a cost - As Jesus said, no greater love hath a man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. Jesus showed his love for us in this - that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us!  Likewise, Paul explicitly defines love as something that "Seeketh not its own" (1 Cor 13).  So, from a theological point of view, the answer would be no.

4. Original Sin suggests that grace overrides man's choice anyway

Finally, far more Christians adhere to the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity than its heretical opposite (which I now know to call Pelagianism). Total Depravity says that as a result of original sin, man's will has a fundamental defect that prevents it from seeking God on its own. That man can be saved is an act of grace - unmotivated by selfish interest from a perfect God - and (as Paul says), not through any work, lest any man should boast.  In other words - even if man is inherently self-interested in the out come of faith, it isn't really a choice he is even capable of making in the first place.  (Here, some Arminians might say that God supernaturally enables man to make a free choice - but even there, the act of grace is required to get man to the place where he can choose in the first place.)

tl;dr>

In short, I can't think of a way to make Rand and Jesus go together. So, from a answer standpoint, I'd have to say, no.


Can a priest administer last rites to himself?

A priest could consecrate a host and administer himself Viaticum (last Holy Communion before his death). A priest cannot absolve himself, but he could make an act of perfect contrition. Extreme unction is performed by a priest on a sick person with the use of reason.


What is the historical origin of the "Last Supper" expression?

Doing a quick search of Patrology, I found the expression ultimam coenam in St Augustine of Hippo's tractatus 109 on Jn 17:20:

  Dominus Iesus iam sua propinquante passione, cum orasset pro discipulis suis, quos et Apostolos nominavit, cum quibus coenaverat ultimam coenam...

  The Lord Jesus, his Passion already approaching, after having prayed for his disciples, whom he had named Apostles, and with whom he ate the Last Supper...

So the term dates at latest to the beginning of the fifth Century, which is when St Augustine refers to it. He does use it offhandedly, though, which suggests the term was already in current use by then.


Schism leading to present day Christian Churches?

There have been several significant schisms or divisions of the Christian church.  Here is a sample:

431 - Council of Ephesus which produced the distinction between the Assyrian Church and the "the rest"; provoked by disputes about the nature of Christ (Nestorianism in this case) among other things.
451 - Council of Chalcedon which produced the Oriental Orthodox Church; provoked by disputes about the nature of Christ among other things.
1054 The "Great Schism" when the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome excommunicated each other to produce the Roman Catholic Church vs the Eastern Orthodox Church
The "Reformation" of the 16th century produced three or four new branches of Christianity, namely, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, and Anabaptists.  The last two subsequently spawned several more such as Methodism, Pentecostalism.  Calvinism and Lutheranism also spawned new denominations.  All these are collectively known as "protestant" because they protested against the authority of Rome.
1552 saw another schism in the Church of the East dividing it into two factions; one entered full communion with Rome and the other remained separate until the 19th century.

This brief list does not include some very early Church divisions such as Gnosticism, Arianism, Ebionites (whose teachings influenced Mohammad), etc.  All these survive today in various forms.  For an introduction to much more detail, see  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination


What is an overview of classifications of the Sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11) by denominations who adhere to the tripartite division of the Law?

I note the following examples of this type of tripartite division of the Torah:

Thomas Aquinas discussed the tripartite law, moral, ceremonial, and judicial, in his “Summa Theologica”, section entitled "Treatise on the Law" and more specifically in questions 99-105.
Luther appears to believe in a bipartite Law, when in The Bondage of the Will, he referred to "the civil or moral law”. (Luther Bondage CXLVI)
Calvin, in book 2 of Institutes of the Christian Religion (2.7, 2.8.31), presented a bipartite view when he discussed the law, its moral and ceremonial aspects.  However, later, in book 4 of the Institutes (4.20.14), when he discussed civil government, he presented a tripartite law when he stated: "the well-known division which distributes the whole law of God, as promulgated by Moses, into the moral, the ceremonial, and the judicial law.”
The Westminster Confession (1646) set out a tripartite law
The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) almost copies the Westminster Confession in assuming a tripartite law (see Chapter 19).
The Church of England 1662 liturgy for Holy Communion required the minister to read each of the 10 commandments (including the Sabbath commandment) and the congregation would respond, “Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.”
However, according to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, no such division exists.

The problem with all of these is that no such distinction is made in the Torah itself.  The closest we come is the difference we have between:

Israelite Covenant: Exodus 19-24, and expanded in parts of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy – often called, “The Old Covenant”, or, “Moral Covenant”, or, sometimes incorrectly called, “The Mosaic Covenant”.
Levitical Covenant: – Lev 1-9, 16, 21-27 , Num 3, 4, 8, 18, 25:10-13, Deut 33:8-11, Neh 13:29, Mal 2:4-8. This is an eternal covenant (Num 25:12, 13, Ps 106:30) of salt, Num 18:19.  This is almost the same as what people call the "ceremonial law" (not quite) but goverened all the rules of priests and sanctuary regulations.
Davidic (or Regal, or Royal) Covenant: 2 Sam 7, 23:5, 1 Kings 6:11, 12, 8:25, 1 Chron 17:11-14, 2 Chron 6:14-16, 7:17, 18, 13:5, Ps 89:4, 29, 34, 39, 132:11, 12, Jer 33:21, Eze 37:15-28.  This is an eternal covenant.  This was essentially the civil authority to govern Israel.

None of these have been retracted and Jesus even says so in Matt 5:17-19.  But how the covenants work and which should now be kept is another matter for another question.
When Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment in the law (Matt 22:37-40, Mark 12:29-31) He responded with two commandments about love (Deut 6:5 & Lev 19:18) that are not part of the 10 commandments.  Therefore, even for those who believe that we can separate moral laws from ceremonial laws, the moral laws clearly more than just the 10 commandments.
I know of some groups who say some of the following things:

There is NO law any more - all law has been abandoned, including the 10 commandments - some Baptists and evangelicals say this.
We should keep all the Torah including the annual feasts - this included the United Church of God and some fringe elements of other denominations

None of these are even internally consistent.


A few things concerning your confessor from the Catechism:

The confessor is not the master of God’s forgiveness, but its servant. The minister of this sacrament should unite himself to the intention and charity of Christ. He should have a proven knowledge of Christian behavior, experience of human affairs, respect and sensitivity toward the one who has fallen; he must love the truth, be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, and lead the penitent with patience toward healing and full maturity. He must pray and do penance for his penitent, entrusting him to the Lord’s mercy.
CCC 1466

The sacraments comes from Christ, not from the person you are going to confession with.  Vestments, etc.. don't make it valid - it might make it illicit; then again, I don't think the things you mentioned are as grave as some of these things that make the sacrament truly illicit.
It is certainly OK to postpone the satisfaction that the priest has given to you as penance. I've never confessed much of anything that didn't involve going and saying a few prayers.  I have confessed things where I had to pray an entire Rosary (being quite a prolific sinner).  But the priest wouldn't expect me to do for that before Mass.

The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent’s personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, “provided we suffer with him.”
CCC 1460

And the priest can give you some penance that requires more than a few seconds between Confession and Mass to perform; you're still absolved under the normal criteria.
That's what is important - if you are sorry and you confess your sins, they're all forgiven.
However (and this comes from the Handbook of Prayer's guide to confession that I've read a few times), if you remember some sins you didn't confession in previous confessions it is good to confess them at your next confession.  And it is even OK to bring up past sins that you have confessed, as context for the priest.
For instance, if you had a problem with pornography, but you watched an R-rated movie with nudity (as opposed to an X-rated one) then you shouldn't feel prohibited from mentioning that - it helps the priest to know what and why you're confession what you're confessing.
And, I'm not going to give pastoral advice (because that's verbotten on this site) but priests who don't show they're taking your confession seriously are probably telling you that they aren't the kinds of priests you want to visit to develop a habit of frequent confession.


The footnote for Hebrews 10:5-7 in the New American Bible mentions the following:

  A passage from Ps 40:7–9 is placed in the mouth of the Son at his incarnation. As usual, the author follows the Septuagint text. There is a notable difference in Heb 10:5 (Ps 40:6), where the Masoretic text reads “ears you have dug for me” (“ears open to obedience you gave me,” NAB), but most Septuagint manuscripts have “a body you prepared for me,” a reading obviously more suited to the interpretation of Hebrews.

The original and ostensibly mistranslated passage appears in the Septuagint. Why this translation appears in the Septuagint and not the Masorectic text is something of a mystery, but there are a few different conjectures that discount the Masorectic text's translation. Notably by Benjamin Kennicott as descibed by Adam Clarke:

  Dr. Kennicott has a very ingenious conjecture here: he supposes that the Septuagint and apostle express the meaning of the words as they stood in the copy from which the Greek translation was made; and that the present Hebrew text is corrupted in the word oznayim, ears, which has been written through carelessness for az gevah, THEN A BODY. The first syllable THEN, is the same in both; and the latter which joined to makes oznayim, might have been easily mistaken for gevah, BODY; nun, being very like gimel; yod, like vau; and he, like final mem; especially if the line on which the letters were written in the MS. happened to be blacker than ordinary, which has often been a cause of mistake, it might have been easily taken for the under stroke of the mem, and thus give rise to a corrupt reading: add to this the root carah, signifies as well to prepare as to open, bore, Septuagint, and followed by the apostle, must have read the text thus: az gevah caritha li, σωμαδεκατηρτισωμοι, then a body thou hast prepared me: thus the Hebrew text, the version of the Septuagint, and the apostle, will agree in what is known to be an indisputable fact in Christianity, namely, that Christ was incarnated for the sin of the world.

That is, Psalms 40 in the Masorectic text has a transcription error that was not present in the translations upon which the Septaguint manuscripts were based.


The problem to solve is related to quoting Scripture out of context

  Purposely then He says nothing in answer to the idle question, but
  turns His discourse to a more important subject. ~ St Cyril

Jesus was speaking about himself ("a prophet") in the third person

Jesus also referred to himself as "a prophet" in Mark 6:4:

  “But Jesus said unto them, a prophet is not without honour, but
  in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house

The context of that comment in Mark is the negative reaction to him in Nazareth.

What's going on in Luke 13; what's the context?

Regarding Luke 13:33, a note in the New American Bible makes the following point:

  [13:33] It is impossible that a prophet should die outside of
  Jerusalem: Jerusalem is the city of destiny and the goal of the
  journey of the prophet Jesus. Only when he reaches the holy city will
  his work be accomplished.

Consider the context of that section in Luke: Jesus is engaging in foretelling.

Luke 13:27-35 (NAB)

  27 Then he will say to you, ‘I do not know where [you] are from.
  Depart from me, all you evildoers!’  28 And there will be wailing and
  grinding of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the
  prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves cast out.   29  And
  people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the
  south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. 30  For behold,
  some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.”
  31 At that time some Pharisees came to him and said, “Go away, leave
  this area because Herod wants to kill you.”  32 He replied, “Go and
  tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and I perform healings today
  and tomorrow, and on the third day I accomplish my purpose. Yet I must continue on my way today, tomorrow, and the following day, for it is impossible that a prophet should die outside of Jerusalem.  34 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were unwilling!  35 Behold, your house will be abandoned. [But] I tell
  you, you will not see me until [the time comes when] you say, ‘Blessed
  is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”s

What, the Bible wasn't written in English?

What is the correct rendering of the passage into English?  Good question.  If we look at bible gateway, the two most common renderings are (1) "... it is not possible/it is impossible" and (2) "... it cannot be" ... that a prophet dies outside of Jerusalem."  (More than 10 each).  Those aren't identical meanings, but they are similar enough, and most of them use "a prophet" as the subject.  (As Jesus did in Mark 6:4).

Other ways that is has been rendered into English. (All from biblegateway).

  AMPC ... for it will never do for a prophet to be destroyed away from
  Jerusalem!
  CJB ... it is unthinkable that a prophet should die anywhere but in
  Yerushalayim.
  CEV ... Jerusalem is the place where prophets are killed.
  DARBY ... for it must not be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.
  ERV ... I must go, because all prophets should die in Jerusalem.
  EXB  ... it cannot be right [is impossible; is unthinkable] for a prophet > to be killed anywhere except in Jerusalem.
  GNT ... it is not right for a prophet to be killed anywhere except in
  Jerusalem.
  PHILLIPS  ... for it would never do for a prophet to meet his death
  outside Jerusalem!
  MSG ... it’s not proper for a prophet to come to a bad end outside
  Jerusalem.
  NLV ... One who speaks for God cannot die except at Jerusalem.
  WYC ... for it falleth not [for] a prophet to perish out of Jerusalem.

Dead prophets

At least two other prophets died outside of Jerusalem, besides the example you offer.

Moses never made it to the promised land, so he obviously died
"outside of Jerusalem."
Jeremiah was released by the Babylonians and reportedly left for
Mizpah, and thence to Egypt.  As there is no record of his death,
nor of his return, it is most likely that he died in Egypt.

Conclusion

Jesus is speaking of himself in the third person.  He knows that it is God's will that he die in Jerusalem.

If you look at the commentaries of theologians who preceded Thomas Aquinas, you will find in Lectio 5 of the Cataena Aurea regarding Luke, none of them dwell on that phrase.  Their commentaries vary somewhat, but their themes and interpretations are on the bigger picture of the trials Jerusalem (where prophets are killed) has coming ... but Jesus will go on, as his Father's will directs.

St Cyril:

  Purposely then He says nothing in answer to the idle question, but
  turns His discourse to a more important subject.

@AndrewShanks points out that John the Baptist, a prophet, was killed by Herod who (according to Josephus) was based in Machaerus.