If Jesus is God, who/where does Jesus pray to?

There are countless works already done on Trinity. Inspired by all these existing works, here is how we may address the question to whom Jesus prays to.

Jesus never said "I am God" nor "I am the Father" but said "I and my Father are one". The New Testament always address Jesus as the Lord, the Christ, the Word of God and the Son of God.

One with Father? This word is the most confusing part. As we are only mortal flesh, we are not capable of understanding the unique nature of God. Jesus also many times found it difficult to explain about God and Heavenly things. It's like trying to explain how a computer works to the elderly people who are not familiar with it. Once I tried to explain how a computer works to my father, it was impossible and I gave up.

  John 3:12 (NIV) I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not
  believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

It is not wrong to say that Jesus is God because Jesus equated himself with God (John 8:58). Jesus is the Word of God, who was with God from the beginning, was (also) God, who became flesh in order to die for our sins.

  John 1:1-18 (NIV) -Excerpt

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
  was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were
  made; without him nothing was made that has been made. The Word became
  flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the
  glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace
  and truth. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is
  himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made
  him known.

Answer: Jesus was praying to God, the Father, who is one with Him, who is in Heaven even when Jesus the Son was on earth. Jesus never did His own will but the will of the Father. Jesus came from the Father in Heaven to earth to fulfill His mission, which was to die for our sins. After the mission assigned to Him was completed, Jesus went back to the Father and sits at the right hand of the Father. Jesus is now a mediator between God and man, interceding for us always and acts as a High priest for us by using His own blood as an offering to the Father.

  Matthew 12:50 (NIV) For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

  John 16:28 (NIV) I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”

  Mark 16:19 (NIV) After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken
  up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.

  1 Timothy 2:5 (NIV) For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

  Romans 8:34 (NIV) Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ
  Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right
  hand of God and is also interceding for us.


What is the significance of the inverted pentagram symbols on the LDS Temple in Salt Lake City?

The symbol has no specific meaning within LDS theology, and there are no teachings regarding it.  According to an article found among the Wikipedia page's sources, the pentagram symbol actually has a long history in Christian and Jewish art and architecture, and only first began to be associated with Satanism and the occult in the 1850s.  By this point, the design for the Salt Lake temple had already been drafted.

The star symbolism in the temple was included, along with carved depictions of other celestial bodies, as symbolic of heavenly glory, which is described in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 76, as being similar to the brightness of the sun, the moon and the stars.


What does the Bible say about this question- Why do Jesus and God have two seats in heaven when they are the same God?

Jesus and the Father are one God, but they are two persons. Two persons deserve two seats.

To expand slightly, according to mainstream (i.e. Trinitarian) Christianity, Jesus and the Father are separate persons. In fact this passage is considered evidence that Jesus is not simply a different manifestation of God the Father. I recommend consulting a detailed explanation of the Trinity for more information.

Mike gives an excellent answer describing the imagary, by the way.


Are we God's slaves?

1 Corinthians 6:12-20

12“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”b 17But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.c

18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

We are bought as one who is bought from an en-slaver, who asks a ransom be paid for our freedom.  Now that we have been bought from our en-slaver (sin, devil, etc.).  We are now free.  Shall we then take our freedom re-enslave ourselves to sin?  No, we should serve our new master that bought us.  It is like God is saying, look, I know you were in a jam.  You were all bound up to sin.  Look, I will set you free.  Now that you are free, you get to do what you want.  You get a choice.  If you want I can give you a better way to live, do you want to come with me?  Do you want to be yoked with me, to plow though this field of life together?  It is your choice, you now have been set free to choose by me.  I am not going to make join me, but you can if you want.  Enlist in my service, and I will be your leader and protect you.  I offer excellent benefits.  But you don't have to if don't want to.  The choice is yours.

When I enlisted in the military service, I chose to do that.  I then gave up my freedoms as normal citizen to have my rights restricted to a military code.  To operate with in the parameters that the military laid out.  Why would I do this?  The benefits are great and the rewards include the knowledge that my sacrifice causes others in my country to remain free.

I was the government's slave, servant, service member.  They basically owned me.  But it was my choice, my election, my freedom, to choose to serve, enslave myself to their rules.  But before I joined I was enslaved a poor life, poor options, poor outlook for the future.  By enlisting in the service I was set free my old life, free a new life of adventure and challenge and reward.  But at what price?  1 Luke 14:28 advices count the cost.  1 Luke 14:25-27 lets us know, if you want to be his disciple it is going to cost you.  I hated my old life but traded it for a new one both by enlisting in the government's service and the Lord's service.  But fortunately my new master is benevolent and kind.  And the rewards are far greater than the old way.  I have jumped from the fire into the frying pan to become a finally cooked and delicious meal, fit for his consumption.  I have no desire to jump back into the fire.

Joshua 24:15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."


Can a Catholic priest conduct a Catholic baptism upon the request of non-Catholic parents, assuming that they will raise the child Catholic?

The Roman Ritual prescribes

  24. An infant of infidel parents may be baptized lawfully even though
  the parents are opposed, provided that its life is in such danger that
  one can reasonably foresee it may die before attaining the use of
  reason. Outside the case of danger of death, it may lawfully be
  baptized, provided its Catholic rearing is guaranteed, as in the
  following two cases: (a) if parents or guardians or at least one of
  them consent; (b) if parents, i.e., father, mother, grandfather,
  grandmother, or guardians do not exist, or if they have lost their
  right over the child or are unable to exercise it.

  25. Generally, the norms stated in the preceding rubric are to be
  applied to baptism of infants whose parents belong to a heretical or
  schismatic sect, or of Catholic parents who have lapsed into apostasy,
  heresy, or schism.

Note that "Catholic rearing" must be "guaranteed", and it is the priest who must assess that. He may feel that "infidel parents" may not be able to guarantee it sufficiently, even with a fully-qualified sponsor.

The Ritual recognises that the sponsor (or "godparent") will be an important part of the child's religious upbringing:

  38. It is the duty of sponsors by reason of their position ever to
  regard their godchild as a personal charge, and in all that pertains to
  his Christian upbringing to watch over him faithfully, so that in his
  whole life he may prove himself true to the promises which they once
  solemnly spoke for him.

... and it lays down rules which need to be met in order that the sponsor is deemed capable of discharging that responsibility:

  33. There should be only one sponsor (who may be of different sex from
  the one baptized); or at most two may be employed, a man and a woman.

  34. To validly act as sponsor it is required:

  (a) that the person is baptized, has attained the use of reason, and
  has the intention of acting in this capacity;

  (b) that he does not belong to a heretical or schismatic sect, is not
  excommunicated whether by condemnatory or declaratory sentence, nor
  legally infamous, debarred from legal acts, nor a deposed or degraded
  cleric;

  (c) and that the person is not the father, mother, or spouse of the one
  baptized;

  (d) that he is chosen by the one baptized, or by the parents,
  guardians, or, if these are wanting, by the minister;

  (e) that during the act of baptizing the sponsor (or his proxy)
  physically hold or touch the one baptized, or immediately lift him out
  of the water, or take him into his arms from the font or from the hands
  of the minister.

  35. To lawfully act as sponsor it is required:

  (a) that he has reached the age of fourteen, unless the minister sees
  fit to admit a younger person for some valid reason;

  (b) that he is not excommunicated for a notorious crime, nor excluded
  from legal acts, nor legally infamous (even though no sentence has been
  issued to that effect), nor interdicted, nor a public criminal, nor
  infamous in fact;

  (c) that he knows the rudiments of the faith;

  (d) that he is neither a novice nor a professed religious, unless
  necessity urges it and the sponsor has the express permission from at
  least the local superior;

  (e) that he is not in sacred orders, unless he has the express
  permission of the Ordinary.

  36. When in doubt as to whether a person may validly or lawfully be
  permitted to act as sponsor, the pastor should consult the Ordinary if
  time allows.

(In every place in the quotes, lawfully is referring to Canon law. If the parents are opposed and a baptism takes place, there may be a civil case to answer.)


Is there a sect of Christians that believe in the divinity of Mary, Mother of Jesus?

Collyridianism was a movement in the 4th century in Arabia which is said to have taught that Mary was a goddess. We know little about them however, and they are mentioned in only one contemporary source by Epiphanius of Salamis.


I would say, Yes, definitely.
For example the word 'redemption' has a common meaning in the English language and is used in regard to mortgages and financial transactions. It is also used in a very loose way meaning that one can 'redeem' oneself from a bad mistake by correcting that mistake.
But in scripture we see two Hebrew words in the Old Testament scripture translated 'redeem' - gaal and padah. These two words are related and have precise meanings.
Then in the New Testament Greek scripture we see two sets of words, which relate to the two Hebrew words. One set of Greek words is agorazo/exagorazo. The other set is lutron/lutrosis/apolutrosis.
I am not going to go into all this as this answer is not about 'redemption' as such : it is about how words are used.
If one studies the very logical setting out (by the Holy Spirit who inspired all of scripture) of the two Hebrew words and the two sets of Greek words, one will come to an understanding of what we call (in the English language) 'redemption'.
Strictly speaking, we need two words to describe 'redemption' since there are two Hebrew words and two sets of Greek words.
But it is, in my view, sufficient (for the time being until we can really sort this out properly) to at least be aware of what is there in scripture, so that we can be intelligent in our reading of it.
This is a word (strictly speaking - two words) which the Holy Spirit would have us to understand. I would say.

I study the KJV myself and I have found Young's Analytical Concordance an invaluable tool. All of the above (regarding the word 'redemption') is set out, very neatly and simply, in the two halves of Young's Concordance, the first half being a list of the English words used in the bible and the second half being a Hebrew/Greek lexicon (that is all written in both anglicised letters and original letters) so that one can see the different English words that a particular Hebrew/Greek word has been translated into.
Without Robert Young's extensive lifelong labours, or the equivalent, such as I would not have been able to write this answer at all.


Was the Assumption of Mary a belief in the early church?

Pope Pius XII's 1 Nov. 1950 Apostolic Constitution defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mother, Munificentissimus Deus, says "that, since ancient times, there have been both in the East and in the West solemn liturgical offices commemorating this privilege." He then mentions the Roman liturgy, Gallican sacramentary, and the Byzantine liturgy of the Dormition and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mother.

Pope Pius XII also mentions or quotes St. Anthony of Padua, St. Damascene, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Peter Canisius, and Suarez, all of whom supported the Assumption (or at least did not deny it).

St. John Damascene (675-749), Encomium in Dormitionem Dei Genetricis Semperque Virginis Mariae, Hom. II, n. 14; cf. also ibid, n. 3.:

  It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in the act of giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father. It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God.

St. Germanus of Constantinople (8th century), In Sanctae Dei Genetricis Dormitionem, Sermo I.:

  You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life.

St. Anthony of Padua (b. 1195), explaining "I will glorify the place of my feet" (Is 61:13.), said (Sermones Dominicales et in Solemnitatibus, In Assumptione S. Mariae Virginis Sermo.):

  you have here a clear statement that the Blessed Virgin has been assumed in her body, where was the place of the Lord's feet. Hence it is that the holy Psalmist writes: "Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark which you have sanctified."

And that she

  has risen up, since on this day the Virgin Mother has been taken up to her heavenly dwelling.

There are more quotes like these in Munificentissimus Deus.

See also this quote and Shoemaker's Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption.


What is the difference between Demon and Devil?

From the perspective of the Greek New Testament, demon could be said to represent δαίμων (daimōn, from which the corresponding English word is derived) and devil could be said to represent διάβολος (diabolos; viz. "diabolical").  A variant of the word δαίμων -  δαιμόνιον (daimonion) - is more often used.

Daimon and daimonion together appear 82 times in Scripture (17 times in the Septuagint, 65 in the New Testament).  Diabolos appears 60 times (22 times in the Septuagint, 38 in the New Testament).

The word diabolos can also mean "slanderer", as in:

  Esther 8:1 LXX

  Καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἀρταξέρξης ἐδωρήσατο Εσθηρ ὅσα ὑπῆρχεν Αμαν τῷ διαβόλῳ

  And in that day king Artaxerxes gave to Esther all that belonged to Aman the slanderer

In the "diabolical" sense it seems always to refer to a single individual - the devil.  In the Septuagint, for example, Job refers continually to ό διάβολος (the devil).  This is also the case in the New Testament:

  Matthew 4:1

  Τότε ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνήχθη εἰς τὴν ἔρημον ὑπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος πειρασθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου

  Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

  Acts 10:38

  Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ, ὡς ἔχρισεν αὐτὸν ὁ Θεὸς Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ καὶ δυνάμει, ὃς διῆλθεν εὐεργετῶν καὶ ἰώμενος πάντας τοὺς καταδυναστευομένους ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου

  how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil

  Ephesians 4:27

  μηδὲ δίδοτε τόπον τῷ διαβόλῳ

  and give no opportunity to the devil.

Daimon and daimonion, on the other hand, are almost always used in the plural, and when not, the context implies that the word refers to one of many.  For example:

  Matthew 10:8

  ἀσθενοῦντας θεραπεύετε, λεπροὺς καθαρίζετε, νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, δαιμόνια ἐκβάλλετε·

  Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons.

  John 10:21

  ἄλλοι ἔλεγον· ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα οὐκ ἔστι δαιμονιζομένου· μὴ δαιμόνιον δύναται τυφλῶν ὀφθαλμοὺς ἀνοίγειν;

  Others said, “These are not the sayings of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”

  James 2:19

  σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς εἷς ἐστι· καλῶς ποιεῖς· καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσι καὶ φρίσσουσι.

  You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe — and shudder.

In the Vulgate Latin, the Greek διάβολος (diabolos) is almost always mirrored by the Latin diabolus in the New Testament.  δαιμόνιον (daimonion) is mirrored by the Latin daemonium.

In the Septuagint, diabolos translates the Hebrew שָׂטָן (śā·ṭān) - obviously the origin of our English word, "Satan".  On 36 occasions, the New Testament transliterates שָׂטָן into Greek (Σατανᾶς - Satanas); as in:

  Matthew 16:23

  ὁ δὲ στραφεὶς εἶπε τῷ Πέτρῳ· ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, σατανᾶ·

  But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!"

In the Septuagint daimonion often translates שֵׁד (šēḏ), which means "evil spirit" - usually of the sort that is worshipped as a god.

Ambiguity between the two terms is in the English language, but not necessarily the Greek or Hebrew Scriptures.  The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines demon as "an evil spirit or devil" and devil as "an evil spirit; a demon".  Some English Bible translations use the two terms somewhat interchangeably.  The King James Bible, for example, translates all three Greek words (diabolos, daimon, daimonion) as "devil".  The RSV (and I presume the Catholic Edition RSV), on the other hand, seems to preserve the distinction and translate(s) diabolos as "devil" and daimon/daimonion as "demon".

The origin of and distinction between the devil (diabolos) and demons (daimonia) according to first millennium Chalcedonian Christian theology is explained in John of Damascus' (676-749) The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith in Book II, ch.4, "Concerning the devil and demons", written sometime in the early 8th (or perhaps late 7th) century:

  He who from among these angelic powers was set over the earthly realm, and into whose hands God committed the guardianship of the earth, was not made wicked in nature but was good, and made for good ends, and received from his Creator no trace whatever of evil in himself. But he did not sustain the brightness and the honour which the Creator had bestowed on him, and of his free choice was changed from what was in harmony to what was at variance with his nature, and became roused against God Who created him, and determined to rise in rebellion against Him: and he was the first to depart from good and become evil. For evil is nothing else than absence of goodness, just as darkness also is absence of light. For goodness is the light of the mind, and, similarly, evil is the darkness of the mind. Light, therefore, being the work of the Creator and being made good (for God saw all that He made, and behold they were exceeding good) produced darkness at His free-will. But along with him an innumerable host of angels subject to him were torn away and followed him and shared in his fall. Wherefore, being of the same nature as the angels, they became wicked, turning away at their own free choice from good to evil.

(John of Damascus is considered a "Doctor of the Church" by the Roman Catholic Church and an authoritative Church Father by Eastern Orthodox).

The Scriptural basis for these beliefs is summarized in one Orthodox dogmatic theology:

  According to the testimony of the word of God, the origin of sin comes from the devil: He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning (I John 3: 8). The word “devil” means “slanderer.” Bringing together the evidence of Sacred Scripture, we see that the devil is one of the rational spirits or angels who deviated into the path of evil. Possessing, like all rational creatures, the freedom which was given him for becoming perfect in the good, he “abode not in the truth” and fell away from God. The Saviour said of him: He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it (John 8: 44). He drew the other angels after himself into the fall. In the epistles of the Apostle Jude and the Apostle Peter, we read of the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation (Jude, v. 6; compare with II Peter 2: 4).*

* M. Pomazanski, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.; St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2005), p.153


Did the city of Nazareth exist in the time of Jesus?

It's very easy to look back thousands of years, once time has had plenty of time to change things, and say that there's no evidence for something and so it must be false.  But it's a very different matter when there aren't thousands of years in the way.

The Gospels were written in the first century AD, by people who experienced it personally, to their contemporaries, and they were believed.  Now, miracles are one thing--believing in them takes faith, of course.  But miracles aren't the only things in the Gospels.

If I wrote a supposedly non-fiction account about my own experiences living in the city of Blargsenberg, New Jersey, it wouldn't take long before someone looked at it and said "hey, there's no such city! This is a made-up story!"  But the interesting thing is, there's no evidence of contemporaries rejecting the Gospels on the basis of them contradicting easily verifiable facts on non-miraculous claims.

In the video, the speaker suggests that if there was no such city as Nazareth, the entire Gospel narrative falls apart.  But he does not seem to understand that if there was no such city as Nazareth, it would not have taken people 2000 years to realize that!

Occam's Razor cuts his argument to ribbons.  Now, if no evidence for an ancient town matching the Biblical narrative exists on the present-day site known as Nazareth, a much more plausible explanation is that the present-day site is located in the wrong place.


Can Catholics attend the secular wedding of two people baptized as Catholics?

For the Church to recognize a marriage between two baptized Catholics as valid, they must follow canonical form:

  Can.  1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses…

Thus, you mother understandably does not want to commit a sin of scandal by giving any support to an invalid or doubtfully valid marriage.

The fact you and your fiance positively choose not to have a Catholic wedding shows ill-will on your part toward the only true religion.


Why do many churches use grape juice in communion?

The Protestant practice of traditionally substituting grape juice for wine during communion must largely be credited to one man - Thomas Bramwell Welch

From Wikipedia:

  While some Christians consider the use of wine from the grape as
  essential for the validity of the sacrament, many Protestants also
  allow (or require) pasteurized grape juice as a substitute. Wine was
  used in Eucharistic rites by all Protestant groups until an
  alternative arose in the late 19th century. Methodist dentist and
  prohibitionist Thomas Bramwell Welch applied new pasteurization
  techniques to stop the natural fermentation process of grape juice.
  Some Christians who were part of the growing temperance movement
  pressed for a switch from wine to grape juice, and the substitution
  spread quickly over much of the United States, as well as to other
  countries to a lesser degree. There remains an ongoing debate between
  some American Protestant denominations as to whether wine can and
  should be used for the Eucharist or allowed as an ordinary beverage,
  with Catholics and some mainline Protestants allowing wine drinking in
  moderation, and some conservative Protestant groups opposing
  consumption of alcohol altogether. (emphasis added)

Anyone with basic knowledge of wine making knows that once grape juice is successfully squeezed and collected, it doesn't remain as juice for very long. Unpasteurized grape juice, if not consumed within a few days of harvest, will quickly ferment, rendering it not consumable (unless treated and stored to begin the wine making process).

As the excerpt from Wikipedia above states, prior to the turn of the 20th century "grape juice communion" was practically non-existent. Before the modern discovery of the pasteurization process, it would have taken a significant amount of effort to have enough freshly squeezed juice for a congregation readily available every Sunday (or less frequently depending on the denomination).

So, contrary to the traditional presuppositions held by Temperance Movement grandchildren, the theological "roots" of sipping grape juice instead of wine during communion has more to do with pasteurization and prohibition than it does biblical exegesis.


Why did God wrestle with Jacob and why did this appearance not become a "big deal"?

When you see how those who knew they were sinners grabbed the gospel from Christ, almost violently pressing in on Him, you see the heart of Jacob. Christ initiates the fight, but sinners will not let Him go. The tax collectors and sinners, whom the scribes and Pharisees thought had  no right to the kingdom, seized the mercy of the Gospel. The self righteous shunned them and the  Devil, Hell, and Sin are all giants that oppose them, but they wrestled against it all until they received the promised Messiah.

If man is not absolutely determined to give up his sins and wrestle to find Christ at every expense, his faith can't be compared to Jacob. Even if the difficulties of our life, when our faith in God's love is tested, we are tempted to shrink back and consider God as hard and cruel. However, like a big Dad wrestling with his young child, to take a toy away and only to give it back with hugs and kisses, we will find after that our struggle with God is always with a God that loves us.

So in Jacob what we really see is the struggle of faith which is nothing less then a struggle with God himself.  Many believe that this angel that Jacob struggled against was the pre-human form of Jesus himself. This view is taken whenever the original Hebrew uses the phrase 'The Angle of the Lord'. See a post on that here.

Now to answer the questions specifically:

1-Why did God still chose to wrestle with Jacob?

He did so to draw Jacobs faith out and to be an example for us all who equally wrestle with God. Jacob's desire for the blessing was really His desire for Christ, for the blessing was that through Abraham a Messiah would be born to crush the head of the serpent and  bless many nations. (Gen 12:3)

2-Did he blessed Jacob so he would just let God go?

God seems to let Jacob overpower Him so that Jacob has confidence in his own strength, but then he touches his thigh like a wrestler twisting his joint out. This would be all the more agonizing to be beaten by someone that seems weaker than you. It is meant to show how intense and intimate the struggle is, and how sweaty and tiring. God finally gives in, whenHe decides the struggle is enough for poor Jacob.

  No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it. (1 Corinthians 10:13)

Notice when Jacob walked away limping, it seemed that he had learned the same thing as the Apostle Paul:

  That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Corinthians 12:10)

3-God showed himself to Jacob, how come there it didn't become a big deal? meaning is there any written article the tackles about it even more?

I am sure there are many sermons on this and much to find in commentaries. For a deep read I would suggest Martin Luther's commentary of Genesis, but I am not sure how easy it is to find. A good free source for much of the Bible is Matthew Henry, here.


How did Brigham Young become the most well-known Mormon leader (after Joseph Smith left the scene)?

The reason behind Young's rise to prominence is found in an understanding of the organization known as the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and Young's role in it.

Young joined the church in 1832, 2 years after the church was organized and after the publication of the Book of Mormon, therefore he had no part in the initial roots of Mormonism. In 1834, Joseph Smith organized Zion's camp in Ohio as a military expedition to Missouri in order to fight persecution that the Mormons received there. The camp never actually engaged in any fighting, however there were many who defected and it allowed Smith to gauge who would be loyal to him even in hardship. Brigham Young was a member of this camp.

In 1835 after the return of the expedition, Smith then organized the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Most of the members of the the quorum were selected from those who were loyal in Zion's camp. Brigham Young was one of the first ordained and set apart to the quorum but did not have the designation of senior most apostle. As you mentioned many people were excommunicated from the church in those days. Though most of the quorum remained faithful, a few were excommunicated or killed, necessitating calling more people to the quorum. Young quickly became the senior most apostle of the quorum of the twelve. Thomas B. Marsh, who happened to be in the first presidency, was the senior most apostle before his excommunication in 1839. Young was subsequently set apart as president of the quorum in 1840 as a result of his new status as senior most apostle. He held this designation until Smith's death.

Brigham Young was not considered the second-in-charge to Smith. That was given to Smith's brother Hyrum who was ordained "Assistant to the President of the Church". Following him, the other natural successors would seemingly be the members of the first presidency. Hyrum was killed along with Joseph, ruling out Hyrum's succession. The subsequent succession crisis ensued; would it be the senior most member of the first presidency, would it be the senior most member of the quorum of the twelve apostles, or was it to be Smith's posterity?

Several candidates for Smith's succession emerged, and all of them gained some followers. Young contended, using revelations recorded by Smith, that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a body held all the 'keys' of the priesthood that Smith held, and that the first presidency was dissolved upon Smith's death, and that the Quorum held authority equal to that of the first presidency. He was successful in convincing many of his rightful succession. Sidney Rigdon, Young's primary challenger, proposed that Smith have no successor and that he be named "guardian" of the church. The majority of church members rejected that motion. A few others believed that Smith's successor was to be Joseph Smith III (who was not even an adolescent at the time).

Young's personality was forceful, charismatic, and direct. His ability for quick decision making and well-articulated instruction allowed him to emerge as a natural leader following Smith's death. He organized the very difficult colonization of the Rocky Mountains: Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, and others; he led the church through federal persecution for polygamous practices; he helped organize the difficult immigration of European Mormon converts to Utah. Under his leadership, vast irrigation projects, roads, bridges and even universities were established in Utah and surrounding areas. There is little doubt that he had the credentials to lead the church at that time. Young led the church for a time merely as president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Most of the extant Quorum of the Twelve Apostles followed him and, with the belief that as a body they had the same authority as Joseph Smith, they eventually ordained Young as Smith's successor in 1847, giving him the same power, authority, and title that Joseph Smith had in the church.

Today, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is the largest LDS denomination and is headquartered in Utah, still follows the same succession practice. When the president of the church dies, the first presidency is dissolved and the senior most apostle is ordained to the office of "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator." It is believed that the current president has the same power and authority that Joseph Smith had.

For more information from official sources, see:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Zion%27s_Camp

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Young,_Brigham

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=51&chapid=436

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5216

Additionally, the Wikipedia articles covering these subjects, though somewhat disorganized, appear to be relatively accurate and present several other views.


Does ‘palm branches’ in Palm Sunday draw meaning from Jewish culture, or Greco-Roman culture that the Jews adopted?

This use of Palm branches was common among ancient Greeks, Romans and Hebrews. It seems from the Hebrew use, palm branches symbolized ’rejoicing’ during the Feast of Tabernacles. During the feast Hebrew people were commanded to take branches of palms, with other trees, and rejoice before God.(Leviticus 23:40) However this was just not palm branches, but other ‘leafy branches’ as well, along with fruits. Later on the specific use of palm branches also agrees closer to with the meaning used in Greece, for example in 142 BC, when Simon Maccabees liberated Jerusalem from the Greeks:

  On the twenty-third day of the second month, in the year 171,[c] there was a great celebration in the city because this terrible threat to the security of Israel had come to an end. Simon and his men entered the fort singing hymns of praise and thanksgiving, while carrying palm branches and playing harps, cymbals, and lyres. (1 Maccabees 13:51)

Before the time of the Maccabees, Greek Hellanodikai ( judges at the Olympics) awarded winners with ‘palm branches’ and crowns (source).

Most vivid and powerful was the waving of palm branches by the Romans as they celebrated military successes with palm branches and most relevant to Palm Sunday, welcomed royalty by waving them.

Some times the best historical records are printed on coins as they do not deteriorate as much as paper. According to ancient coins:

  Palm fronds had been used for centuries before the Romans as an attribute of winged Νικη (Nike), the goddess whose name is the Greek for Victory. The Hellenic bronze coin on the near right is from Sinope, 120-63 BCE, and shows Nike carrying her palm frond over her shoulder. Her name has been anglicized into a well-known brand of sportswear. (source)

Waving and use of palm branches during the time of Christ was a multicultural symbol symbolizing victory, praise and the presence of royalty. It also shows us that although God speaks to any given people within their culture and that His word condescends into it, speaking in familiar ways, the culture itself does not have to have any ‘deeper meaning’ beyond what it meant at the time. With a basic understanding of historical culture, Christ’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem when greeted by throngs of people making a make-shift carpet for him out of the branches and coats,  or in Revelation where the saints are holding them before the throne. It simply meant he was being treated as the 'future King' in the gospels and as the 'present king' in revelation.


If Christ has all power to perform miracles, how is that that "he could there do no mighty work" save that He healed a few?

In John 6:29, "Jesus answered them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.'" Jesus did not do His healing works merely for the sake of healing. He came to restore faith in God as an expression of repentance. His ongoing message was, "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand" (Mark 1:15). He wasn't sent as a humanitarian to fix people's health problems.

Jesus first proclaimed the kingdom with words, then He vindicated the truth of the message (that the kingdom has come) with healings. He rewards those who have faith in Him. If His hearers did not believe, they did not get the benefits of those who believe: "According to your faith be it unto you" (Matthew 9:29).


What are the biblical arguments against the papacy and papal succession?

This is a broad question, but in many ways, it boils down to the antecedent of "this" in Matthew 16:18.  After Peter tells Jesus, "You are the Christ," Jesus answers something like:

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (English Standard Version)

The question is, what is this rock?  Is it Peter or his confession?

Obviously, Protestants tend to favor the "confession" interpretation, and emphasize our equality before God.


You have asked for a biblical answer, and there are certainly different positions on this.  Some who believe that works are essential for salvation will refer to belief/faith as a work.  Indeed, if faith can be classified as a work, then requiring additional works for salvation seems more reasonable.  Yet, there appears to be good reason to distinguish faith from works.
Ephesians 2:8-9 is, of course, a key passage:

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.  Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV

Salvation comes through faith, but salvation is not our own doing, but a gift of God.  Salvation is not a result of works (but of faith).  Faith, then, is distinguished from works.
(Some assert that faith is the gift of God, "this" does not match "faith" in gender, so that doesn't really fit.  It would be like saying, "my brother and his wife came over, and he got a new job--you would know I am speaking about my brother getting a new job because of the gender agreement)
There are quite a few other passages that demonstrate salvation is by faith, but not by works:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the
law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the
righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who
believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and
fall short of the glory of God... Romans 3:21-23 ESV
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.  Romans 3:28 ESV
16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that
whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life... 18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe
is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the
only Son of God.  John 3:16, 18 ESV
We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know
that a person is not justified by works of the law but through
faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in
order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law,
because by works of the law no one will be justified.  Galatians 2:15-16 ESV

Addendum
I was reading in Romans last night and came across this verse that specifically distinguishes works from faith:

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.  Romans 4:5 ESV

Paul speaks of the one who does not work, but believes--that person's faith is counted as righteousness.  Thus, faith is not a work, but is contrasted with works.


How do those who reject both predestination and purgatory justify their beliefs?

There is still a binary choice, but it's not God who makes the decision. He leaves it to each of us to choose for ourselves one way or the other, and gives us our whole lifetime to make that decision. God could make the decision for us — He has that power — and He knows in advance — if concepts like "in advance" even have any meaning for a being that exists outside of time — what choice each of us will make. After all, He made us. What He desires is for each of us to choose Him of our own will. It is not interesting to Him if the choice is forced upon us.

There is an interesting philosophical question here of whether there is really any difference at all between determining an outcome and merely knowing an outcome with absolute certainty, when those outcomes are produced by a system that one designed, set in motion, and directs for oneself, as God does with us and our environment. God gives us something akin to free will, but is it really free will as we know it if He made each of us in the first place, knows what our choices will be in any situation, and has absolute power over all situations? This is especially interesting when you look at psychology studies that show how human behavior is much more about programmed responses and brain chemicals than any of us want to acknowledge.

For this reason, I don't really find the question of predestination vs free choice very interesting... I tend to think of it as two sides of the same coin. Do we have free choice? Yes! You can say we do. Are we predestined? You can say that as well, and not be entirely wrong about it. This question has historically caused a huge split in Christiandom, but I ultimately see it as more about philosophy than theology. Your answer has implications for how your view soteriology, but either way you still look to Jesus. Does it really matter how you view soteriology as long as you're looking at the right source? I think also that Jesus would find the question uninteresting... at least in a relative sense. He is far more concerned that look at Him as Lord, and with how you treat your fellow man.


What is the biblical basis or precedent for restricting women from serving in war?

Just because there is no explicit prohibition on a thing does not mean that the Bible "endorses it."
Unwritten Expectations
There is, for example, to the best of my knowledge, no biblical prohibition cannibalism. Possibly it wouldn't fall under definition of kosher, but it is at best ambiguous! In spite of this, the author of the text rightfully expects that the reader is revolted when, (in 2 Kings 6:24-33), during a siege, two women concoct a plan to eat their children.  When the second woman reneges and the first brings it before the King, the King rends his garments to show how he too understands how appalling this situation is. That, even in the absence, of an explicit prohibition in the Torah.
Likewise, the idea of women in combat would have simply been so outrageous as to not need explicit mention.   Women simply did not fight* or if they did, something was wrong.
This is not to say that every Jewish custom is somehow holy - but "unthinkable" things don't need explicit mention in a contract between two parties - which is what the Old Testament laws were.
*But back to that "women didn't fight."  There are two notable exceptions to that rule, but both fall into the category of 'the exception that proves the rule':
1. Judith
In the apocraphyal book of Judith, for example, Judith uses sex and cunning to murder Holofernes, the invading general.  Scholars all agree, this fictional tale was written, in many ways, for its shock value. Like David defeating Goliath, this story simply assumes the incongruity of the weak defeating the strong in combat, leaving the reader to marvel at the tables being so turned.
2. Deborah and Barak
Within canonical Scripture, however, the most important story to remember is that of Deborah and Barak (no relation to the current President). Here, like in most of Judges, the Children of Israel have been beset by the enemy for their wickedness, and must now rise up and defeat the enemy. The chosen leader, however, is too reluctant.  (Yeah, it really is a different Barak!) He demands that Deborah - the woman God sent to encourage Barak, must accompany him and assist in leading.
Now, on the face of it, you might say: Hey! See - a Woman fighting in combat!  The precendent is not only absent, but wrong!
But here's the rub - God (and Deborah) bring judgement against Barak for his lack of cohones. The author writes:

8 Barak said to her, “If you go with me, I will go; but if you don’t go with me, I won’t go.”
9 “Certainly I will go with you,” said Deborah. “But because of the course you are taking, the honor will not be yours, for the Lord will deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman.” So Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh.

That Barak would have no honor from this battle is quite the indictment.  The assumption that a woman should not be in battle is so implicit as to be laughable.
Women encourage, Men fight. That's the model.  Are there exceptions? TO be sure - but the Bible is clear its not the model to follow.


How do you "Convert" somebody to Christianity?

I don't wish to sound flippant but you don't convert anyone. God does. Having said that, our responsibility is:

To explain the hope we have, and be ready to do this, with gentleness and respect. 1 Peter 3v15

Then we can explain the theology, if people want to know. It comes down to this:

God is perfect (Deuteronomy 32:4, Matthew 5:48). That's His standard and His requirement to be with Him forever.
No human however is perfect (Romans 3:23).
Jesus is God become man (John 1:14). Therefore, He is a (and the only) perfect human.
Jesus offers to swap His righteousness for our sins (2 Corinthians 5:21). This is possible because He sacrificed Himself for us on the cross (Philippians 2:8).
Therefore we can immediately, on turning to Jesus, been declared perfect (forgiven) in the eyes of God (Acts 10:43).

As one of my friends once said, summarising the whole Gospel in seven words, "We don't reach Him, He reaches us."


Is there any Biblical reference strictly speaking about God being timeless?

While how much philosophy has influenced the church on this can be debated,  one only has to look to Scripture to see that God clearly operates outside time.

The term "outside time" may mean different things to people. To to clarify I'm saying that in order to be considered outside time one must display the ability to

Control time.
Independent of time, not bound by its linear restrictions.
Understand and perceive events in time, if not time itself, in a way that is,  again,  not restricted by the laws of time as they apply to us.

Creation

First,  we have the idea that God created the universe. As physics has advanced we have learned more and more how time is an integral part of our universe, tied together with how it operates. So when God created the universe it seems plain that he created time as well.  And if he has dominion over all creation,  then that would include time.  This may be the simplest and yet strongest argument.

Controlling Time

If that seems to be too much philosophical reasoning,  which may or may not be influenced,  then consider what scripture has to say.

We see in Joshua 10 that the sun and moon stopped. Now,  time still passed in some way, allowing the Israelites to continue the fight,  but this shows extreme control over creation.  Many speculate that the only way to do such a thing without causing a massive cataclysm to the entire solar system would be to actually stop time around the Israelites,  or to accelerate it so it seemed it stopped around then.

Either way,  there is control of time in the ability to stop,  slow,  accelerate time simply violate physics entirely without damage.

A similar event happens in 2 Kings 20 when God moves the shadow backwards as a sign to Hezekiah.

Independent of Time

The OP seems to accept God's eternal nature. To be eternal is to be independent of time. It has no effect on him as he never changes.
Psalm 90 has much to say including in verse 2:

  from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

Perceiving Events from Outside

We also see prophecy in scripture where God has clear knowledge of our future as if it was the past.

Isaiah 46:9-10

  I am God, and there is none like me,10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done,

Isaiah 48:5

  I declared them to you from of old, before they came to pass I announced them to you,

Psalm 139:16

  Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
  in your book were written, every one of them,
  the days that were formed for me,
  when as yet there was none of them.

Also it seems time does not pass for God the way out does for us.

2 Peter 3:8

  But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Conclusion

There is lots of internal evidence in scripture,  if you accept it on its own merit,  that suggests that God is independent, in control, and able to perceive all of time.


When was Jesus anointed and who did the anointing?

Jesus of Nazareth was not anointed with the anointing oil which was typically used for the priests of the Levitical priesthood.1 Rather, he was anointed with the Holy Spirit, “the oil of gladness.”
In Psa. 45:6–7, it is written,

6 O’ God, Your throne is forever and ever; the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of righteousness. 7 You loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore O’ God, Your God anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.

This event was documented in all four of the gospels.2 In addition, in Acts 10:38, it is written,

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. KJV, 1769

Augustine wrote,3

Who here, however slow he may be, does not recognize Christ whom we preach, and in whom we believe, when hears [that he is] God, whose throne is for ever and ever, and [that he is] anointed by God, as God indeed anoints, not with a visible, but with a spiritual and even intelligible chrism (chrismate)? For who is so ignorant in this religion, or so deaf to its far and wide-spread fame, that he has not known that Christ (Christum) is named from chrism (chrismate), this is, from anointing?
Quis non hic Christum, quem praedicamus et in quem credimus, quamlibet sit tardus, agnoscat, cum audiat Deum, cuius sedes est in saecula saeculorum, et unctum a Deo, utique sicut unguit Deus, non visibili, sed spiritali atque intellegibili chrismate? Quis enim tam rudis est in hac religione vel tam surdus adversus eius famam longe lateque diffusam, ut Christum a chrismate, hoc est ab unctione appellatum esse non noverit?

It is certainly true that Christians are also anointed by God the Father with the Holy Spirit who dwells in them.4 The difference is that the Lord Jesus Christ does not possess the Holy Spirit “from a measure.”5 The Greek word μέτρου, the genitive declension of the noun μέτρον, means a measuring instrument. God the Father did not restrict the quantity of the Holy Spirit given to His Son. Rather, “all the fullness of deity” dwells in the Lord Jesus Christ.6

References
Sancti Aurelii Augustini Episcopi. De Civitate Dei, Libri XXII. Vol. 2. Lipsiae: Teubneri, 1877.
Footnotes
1 cp. Exo. 29:7
2 Matt. 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–22; John 1:32–3; also, Luke 4:18 cp. Isa. 61:1
3 De Civitate Dei (“On the City of God”), Book 17, Ch. 16, p. 238
4 1 John 2:27
5 John 3:34: «ἐκ μέτρου»
6 Col. 1:19, 2:9


Do Biblical Unitarians believe that Christians can pray to Jesus and, if so, that he can answer a prayer in which he is asked about his divinity?

Biblical Unitarians have a wide range of views about a wide range of subjects - the term simply groups together people who believe God is the Father, not Jesus, and also hold that the Bible has authority in a strong sense (as opposed to other forms of Unitarianism which view the Bible as having authority in a weaker sense). Biblical Unitarians are a faction within Christianity, not a specific denomination.
Question 1. is highly relevant to the defining features of Biblical Unitarianism. If Jesus is not God, is it OK to pray to him?
The answer commonly seems to be yes, but there is debate.
The article Can We "Pray" to Jesus Christ? from BiblicalUnitarian.com addresses this question.

"There is a controversy among Christians who believe that Jesus is not
God but the Son of God, about whether or not we can pray to Jesus. The
only definitive place to go for an answer to that question is the Word
of God. [...] We believe that the Bible makes it clear that one can
pray to Jesus, but does not have to, and we will do our best to show
why that is."

This is perhaps similar to the debate between Protestants and Catholics about whether praying 'to' Saints is OK. Different people have different views.
In particular, Jesus seems to say we can ask Him for things. John 14:14

"You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."

However, there is debate about whether this means addressing the prayer to Jesus, or addressing the prayer to God in Jesus' name, which Jesus unambiguously says we can do.
So the answer to 1. is 'yes' for at least some Biblical Unitarians. Even there, though, the emphasis is perhaps different from standard Trinitarian practise.

"Those who enthusiastically embrace the idea of praying to the Lord
Jesus must recognize that this practice ought not to be carried out to
the point of distracting one from the worship of the Father. We are
sure that the Lord Jesus would find it ironic indeed if he himself
were to become the principal object of Christian worship and
adoration, when his entire life and ministry was devoted to the
glorification of his Father."

For question 2., as the OP points out, there are instances in scripture where people seem to 'hear' Jesus. Since that's the case, I don't see why Biblical Unitarians would object to this idea.
Question 3. moves away from something specific to Biblical Unitarianism, presumably a prayer could be answered unambiguously.
Question 4. is an empirical question, but really two questions. Has someone had an experience like this? Were they having a veridical experience? I'm sure a Biblical Unitarian has done this, but I don't have a link to reports of this.


What are the differences/distinctive between the Anglican and Episcopal churches?

Anglican Churches and Episcopal churches are almost all members of the Anglican Communion, a group of churches all associated with the Church of England. As such they all subscribe to a similar theology - e.g. the historic creeds, ordained minsters overseen by bishops, infant baptism, liturgy, sacraments. You can read more details at the Anglican Communion Doctrine page.

Whether a church within the Anglican Communion is called 'Anglican' or 'Episcopalian' is more a matter of history than doctrine. Churches tend to use the name 'Anglican' in countries with strong historic ties to England (Australia, Canada, South Africa), and Episcopal in countries without those ties (Brazil, USA, Philippines) but there are exceptions to both of those. Some members of the Anglican communion use neither. Doctrines of individual churches within the Communion also vary, but there is no correlation between the name and the doctrine.

Anglican and Episcopalian churches are also well-know for the breadth of their beliefs. Beliefs of Anglican congregations, or individual members, can range from 'virtually Catholic' to 'strongly evangelical'.

So there are no distinctives between Anglican and Episcopalian churches in general, although there will be differences between individual Anglican or Episcopalian churches. There are beliefs and practices that distinguish the Anglican/Episcopalian community from other churches, but even then there is widespread variation in practice.


Do Baptists teach that baptism by full water immersion is essential to salvation

Most Baptist churches do not teach that Baptism is essential for salvation.
See https://www.christianity.com/church/denominations/the-most-well-known-protestant-denomination-10-things-everyone-should-know-about-baptists.html

Baptism is not a requirement for salvation and many churches do not
subscribe to infant baptism Instead, Baptism in the Baptist church is
a public expression of faith. “While it is personal, it is not
private,” an article from the Southern Baptist Conventions’ journal
says. “Such an act of obedience actually then clarifies their
testimony and opens the door for ministry in the church.”

I belong to an American Baptist Church. We require baptism for membership as a public declaration of the faith that already saved the believer.


In what sense they don't have life in them? John 6:53-57

I believe the counterpoint in the next verse explains it:

  Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.  (John 6:54-55)

They lack eternal life, which John 17:3 defines:

  Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

St Augustine, a Doctor of the Church, teaches in his 26th Tractate on John

  He spoke these words, not certainly to corpses, but to living men. Whereupon, lest they, understanding it to mean this life, should strive about this thing also, He going on added, Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life. Wherefore, he that eats not this bread, nor drinks this blood, has not this life; for men can have temporal life without that, but they can noways have eternal life.


According to Non-Trinitarians, why did God allow Trinitarianism to become the mainstream understanding of His nature?

(I assume that by "the Church" the OP includes the Roman Church and probably its Protestant daughter denominations too.)
This question implies that "the Church" is God's church.
The problem with this is that non-Trinitarians in general don't believe that what the question refers to as "the Church" is actually God's Church.
Jesus referred to the faithful as a "little flock" (Luke 12:32).
God's church is small:

“For many are called, but few are chosen.”
— Matthew 22:14

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. — Matthew 7:13–14

The "god of this age" (2Corinthians 4:4), which most of nominal Christianity follows, is not the leader of God's church.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. — Matthew 7:15

That organizations calling themselves "Christian" happen to teach false beliefs to their members in no way means that the members of God's Church hold these beliefs.

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.
And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, …
— 2Colossians 11:13–15

The idea that God is currently trying to save the world is almost blasphemous.
It implies that his plan is failing miserably.
Only a few, the elect, will be saved during this age.

In fact, unless that time of calamity is shortened, not a single person will survive. But it will be shortened for the sake of God’s chosen ones.
— Matthew 24:22 (NLT)

By allowing the world to deteriorate until it is almost destroyed by mankind, God sets an example of what happens when people follow Satan and decide for themselves what is right or wrong.


Why is it not that a state divorce is actually an argument AGAINST a church annulment petition rather than a necessary condition for such petition?

Your state marriage is valid though your church marriage is still invalid.

I think that this is the answer in most cases:

In nearly all cases I have heard about a state marriage would be perfectly valid but a church marriage is not.

Edit

I have heard about the following cases:

The husband had a child with another woman and he didn't tell his wife
The husband was homosexual and the wife did not know about this

In both cases a civil marriage is valid and a church marriage can be annulled.


The question asks "Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?" Because clearly, some do. This is not the place to hold forth on your own beliefs on the matter, this is Stack Exchange, where we answer the question posed.
Potentially Valid Reasons

Many Christians (including the Catholic Church, as recently restated by Pope Francis) believe that "being" homosexual (having homosexual sexual tendencies to some degree - remember bisexuals exist too) is not sinful in and of itself , but that having sex with another same-sex person is a sinful act. So a chaste homosexual is as holy as anyone else who's not sinning. Homosexual (or sexual, in general) acts are simply a sin like any other, from gossip to lying, not in some special "worse" category in any mainstream theology; most of the current firestorm about homosexuality specifically is political and bigotry related, not religion related.

Some Christians believe that the Biblical passages regarding homosexuality are misapplied/badly translated and therefore do not speak against what we would today regard as "otherwise moral" homosexual practice.  For more see What does the bible say about homosexuality? and this Human Rights Campaign article of the same name.

Some Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant in concept but not literally inerrant (see the Wikipedia entry on biblical inerrancy), and that there is a lot of cultural baggage associated with it that has to be sifted out to correctly interpret it. There are a lot of things we do/don't do partially based on this understanding (rejection of slavery, for instance).

Related to the previous point, some Christians believe that just as Jesus obsoleted/fulfilled the Law in favor of the love of God and the Golden Rule, we should look at the "big picture" and not focus on lists of sinful acts. Because, to be honest, the Bible says a lot of things. The OT says to not eat shrimp; that ban is not one most modern Christians recognize. If you love God and your neighbor, then the specifics which were intended to generally point you in that direction are not needed any more. Some Christians would say that the rejection of legalism and embrace of a more direct relationship with God (which is more complex than any set of rules) was the main point Jesus was trying to get across to us during his life and that Paul and other writers then also tried to get across in the other letters and such that became books of the Bible.

The church I'm in has better theologians on staff than I, and they say it's OK. Some denominations officially accept homosexuality in whole or in part.  For a good overview of different Christian teachings on homosexuality, see wikipedia. This includes mainline Christian churches such as various Lutheran, Anglican, and United Churches of Christ denominations.

Mostly Invalid Reasons
There are probably other reasons; those previously listed are the ones I feel have a decent foundation.  The illogical/unfounded reasons one might hear are:

"But they're born that way." It's not known for certain that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexual inclinations, but even if there is one (and I think there probably is), that has no bearing on the morality of the act. Sin is about the choices we make, not our DNA. Whether from original sin, the Fall, or the human condition, we all have tendencies that point us towards sin, and though those tendencies may make it difficult to live moral lives, we are not bound by them, and they are never excuses for sin. This is an odd argument that is applied to no other sin; would anyone say that if they had a genetic disposition against monogamy that they could get a mulligan on adultery? Of course not.

"Oh, who cares what the Bible/church says?"  This of course is a difficult position to hold about anything for a Christian. And if you're of another/no faith, we love you and all, but our worldview is guided by those things you reject, so that opinion is of limited help to someone wrestling with this problem from our worldview. One can argue that the Holy Spirit has guided them to this understanding, which is fine, though in general we are asked to test our perception of the Spirit's guidance by the Scriptures and church to verify it's God speaking and not the product of our own creative minds.

"I know a homosexual and they're not a bad person." This is someone unclear on Christianity's teachings in general, unaware that even good people sin and require repentance. The demonization of homosexuals by the more hateful elements in society actually feed this one; once someone meets a homosexual and sees that they don't have little goat horns and rape babies, they assume they were probably lied to 100% and reject even honest Biblical critique. Understandable, but not logical.

The polarization of society on this topic makes a lot of the usual Scriptural measuring sticks difficult to use. We are encouraged by culture and the media to think of things in terms of "right side/wrong side", so when we try to apply, say, "By their fruits you will know them," we see some homosexuals who clearly favor a licentious and ungodly lifestyle, but others who seem as normal as anyone's parents, just gay. And similarly we see some Christians with balanced views on the topic but plenty who are spouting hate and other clearly unchristian stuff as well. Which "side" is right? That's a false dichotomy that leads to confusion. My one contribution to this discussion is that I think we need to reject what the world is trying to tell us about which faction or football team we're on and, like God does, address it on an individual basis. There's a lot of judging around this topic based on the extreme activities of the exceptionally disturbed on one side or the other.


What does the Bible say about ones wishes concerning their body after they have died?

Interestingly, the OT saints and, I assume, many NT saints, had two burials! The first was either in the ground or in a cave or crypt, if they could afford it, and after the flesh had decomposed and only bones remained, the bones were reburied in an ossuary, or miniature casket of stone, and then "reburied" in the crypt along with other deceased family members, each in his or her own ossuary. Today, of course, it is not uncommon for relatives of the deceased to bury the loved one in a place specified by the person prior to his or her death, which more often than not is in close proximity to the graves of other family members.

I cannot speak to RC tradition regarding this issue. Furthermore, I think the Bible does not weigh in on this question, at least directly. As with so many potentially controversial issues, we need to be guided, rather, by general principles and not specific prescriptions or prohibitions. In other words, in many issues God gives us liberty to do one thing or another, but we must never flaunt our liberty before a brother or sister in the Lord, or within local assembly which may not have the same liberty as we do.

From Romans, chapters 14 and 15, and 1 Corinthians, chapter 9, then, we can glean some helpful guidelines regarding cremation versus burial, and many other issues besides.

We need to be fully convinced in our own minds about a particular liberty we believe we have (Romans 14:15). In other words, we need to look deeply into our motives for believing the way we do. Are we truly convinced of the rightness of our liberty or are our motives mixed with doubt or obstinance or some other dishonoring-to-Christ attitudes. Some Christians, for example, tend to be "contraries" who when another believer says "I believe __ to be right" says, "Well, I believe ______ to be wrong!" Many other base motives can also be at work, but I'll leave them to you to imagine. Furthermore, whatever attitude or action, belief or behavior, does not proceed from faith is sin (Romans 14:23).
We as Christians hold our beliefs within a community of other believers whose beliefs, convictions, liberties, scruples, and sensitivities are going to be different from ours. This isn't a bad thing; it's perhaps simply the normal state of affairs within any given assembly of believers. God doesn't make duplicates, only originals. God also gave us one mouth, but two ears, so that we'd listen more than we speak.  In other words, we can almost always learn from a brother or sister who feels differently about __ than we do. "None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself" (Romans 14:7). No man is an island, as John Donne (and Paul Simon, of Simon and Garfunkle fame) said. This does not mean we have to give up, say, having a glass of wine with our meal just because Sally feels strongly that the drinking of wine is "sinful." It does mean if we happen to be dining with Sally we forgo the glass of wine for her conscience's sake. What we do in the privacy of our own home is between us and the Lord. This guideline is not much help regarding cremation versus burial, but it does serve to make us more sensitive to the consciences of others. Sometimes Christians simply need to agree to disagree agreeably, which is more difficult, I suppose, for the person who does not share another brother or sister's freedom. This does not mean that a local assembly cannot have, and state, a policy regarding a controversial issue; it does mean that policies not based on the clear teaching of God's word need to have some wiggle room for differences of opinion and liberty.
God judges us as individuals, and we fall or stand before Him alone. Each of us bears his or her own load (1 Corinthians 10:29; Galatians 6:5). Being judgmental in any given area of freedom is not fitting for Christians within the local church. Overt sin is one thing; a grey issue is quite another.

Biblically, the norm in both the OT and the NT seems to have been burial, but even so, only the rich could afford burial in a cave carved out of rock. Jesus was buried that way, not because He was wealthy, but because He had a disciple who was (Joseph from Arimathea). Joseph and Nicodemus (see John 3) brought burial cloths and 75-100 pounds of spices (myrrh and aloes) with which to "anoint" Jesus' body (John 19:38-42; cf. Isaiah 53:9), which was a Jewish custom in that day.

I italicized the word custom deliberately, because regarding the manner of disposing of the body of the dearly departed, there are bound to be controlling customs in any and every culture, whether in the tenth century BC, the first century AD, or the twenty-first century AD. Customs are not necessarily good, bad, or indifferent; they are simply customs. In the absence of any clear biblical mandate, God expects us to use the guiding principles of the passages I've cited above, as well as a good measure of sanctified common sense.

In conclusion, a godly aunt of mine decided on being cremated rather than buried. Her husband retained the ashes in an urn. Her father, had he been alive when she died, may have objected to her decision, but on balance, he (my very godly grandfather) had surprised me on more than a few occasions with some of his laissez faire attitudes about a variety of things, so I guess I'll never really know whether he would've approved or disapproved. My point is this: the cremation-versus-burial issue may be controversial for some, but as with so many issues, whether we do one thing or another, God looks at the heart. If our hearts are blameless before Him and at the same time His word gives no clear guidance in any given matter, then we are free in Christ to be "pro," "con," or neutral, or even to change from one to the other, as the Spirit leads us.


"See" comes from the Latin word sedes, which means "seat" or "chair".

"Holy See" is Sedes Apostolica (lit. "Apostolic Chair") in Latin.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives this etymology for see, n.1:

  Etymology: < Anglo-Norman see, sed, sied, siet, sez, siez, Anglo-Norman and Old French se, sie, Middle French sie, siet dwelling (c 1100), capital city (c 1100), cathedral city (1139 or earlier), cathedral (a 1175), diocese (12th cent.), throne (second half of the 12th cent.), seat (second half of the 13th cent. or earlier), the papacy (1360) < classical Latin sēdēs  seat (see sedes n.).

  Compare siege n.  and seat n.

  Compare Old Occitan ses, se, sea (12th cent.), Catalan seu (14th cent.), Spanish †sey, †sé, †seo (1266), Portuguese sé (13th cent.).

Also:

  [In patristic writers (e.g. Augustine, 5th cent.) post-classical Latin Sedes Apostolica ‘Apostolic See’ was applied more widely to any of the bishoprics founded by apostles; in medieval writers (e.g. in the 11th cent.) it occurs also in the general sense of ‘cathedral’.]

St. John Lateran's basilica is the Pope's cathedral (cathedra = chair), and this is his chair there:


Angelic apparitions could be either metaphoric or real depending on who you ask.

"Throughout Scripture, we see numerous instances in which angels were an integral part of God’s plan. One verse alludes to the possibility of angels walking among us today: “Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it” (Hebrews 13:2). The obvious reference is to Abraham, whose angelic visitors appeared to him as mere men (Genesis 18). This verse may or may not confirm that angels are indeed walking among us unawares; “have shown” is past tense, so present-day encounters are not explicitly mentioned.

There are dozens of scriptural examples of angelic encounters, so we know that God can and does use angels to accomplish certain things. What we don’t know for sure is how often angels allow themselves to be seen by people. Here are the basics about angels from the Bible: angels can instruct people (Genesis 16:9), help people (Daniel 6:22), deliver messages to people (Luke 1:35), appear in visions and dreams (Daniel 10:13), protect people (Exodus 23:20), and help carry out God’s plans.

We know that God created angels, and He uses angels in His plan. Angels have a sense of individuality, as some have names (such as Gabriel and Michael) and all have different responsibilities within the angelic hierarchy."- Are there Angels among us?

Let us not forget that the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary at the Annunciation.

Many Catholics believe that an angel appeared to the three children of Fatima in 1916.

It is also said that St. Frances of Rome (1384-1440) was guided by an Archangel that only she could see.


Who first associated the fourth beast of Daniel 7 with the Roman Empire?

Several commentators before Jerome make this connection.  We'll mention three,1 starting with Cyril of Jerusalem (313–386), who indicates that he is not the originator of this interpretation:

  The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall surpass all kingdoms.  And that this kingdom is that of the Romans, has been the tradition of the Church’s interpreters.  For as the first kingdom which became renowned was that of the Assyrians, and the second, that of the Medes and Persians together, and after these, that of the Macedonians was the third, so the fourth kingdom now is that of the Romans. (Catechetical Lectures, 15

Over a century earlier, Hippolytus (170–235) had written:

  Then he says: “A fourth beast, dreadful and terrible; it had iron teeth and claws of brass.” And who are these but the Romans? which (kingdom) is meant by the iron—the kingdom which is now established; for the legs of that (image) were of iron. (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist)

See also Scholia, Daniel 7.9 for similar analysis.

But Hippolytus seems to draw this interpretation from his teacher, Irenaeus (d. 202).  In Against Heresies, 5.26.1, he writes of the connection between Daniel 7 and Revelation 17, and puts the empire in which he lives – Rome – in the middle of it:

  In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules (the earth) shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel. [emphasis added]

So it does indeed seem that we can trace this view back even further, all the way to the second century.  It's likely that even Irenaeus is not the originator of this idea, but it seems that his works are the earliest surviving that make the connection.2

Notes:

1 Another would be Victorinus (d. 304) (Commentary on the Apocalypse, 17).  Shortly after Jerome, Theodoret (393–460) says the same (Commentary on Daniel, 7, p203)
2 Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, 31) and the Epistle of Barnabas, 4 quote the relevant passage, but don't directly connect the fourth kingdom to Rome.


Assuming the Book of Mormon is historically accurate, does this necessarily imply the Great Apostasy?

First, you should be aware that not all of Mormon doctrine, or even of the things that are generally considered "the stuff that makes Mormons unique among Christianity," is contained in the Book of Mormon.  A lot of it is found in the Doctrine and Covenants, a compilation of revelations and historical context from the early days of the modern-day church.

Having said that, the answer is yes.  2 Nephi chapter 28 describes the latter days, before the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the restoration of the the church, as a time of universal apostasy, when "the churches which are built up, and not unto the Lord, when the one shall say unto the other: Behold, I, I am the Lord’s; and the others shall say: I, I am the Lord’s; and thus shall every one say that hath built up churches, and not unto the Lord," and states "Yea, they have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted."

Likewise, Mormon chapter 8 speaks of the same time period as a time of corrupted and apostate churches.

Also, even if such prophecies were not contained in the Book of Mormon, it seems that acceptance of the book implicitly requires acceptance of the concept of the Great Apostasy:

To accept the Book of Mormon necessarily requires accepting its origin: that it is an ancient record that was found and miraculously translated--by a farm boy with very little formal education--through the power of God.
To accept this requires accepting that Joseph Smith was called of God as a prophet, given the power to translate the record, and shown where it was located.
To accept this requires accepting his story of what happened, including the part where, when Joseph prayed to God to know which of the many churches of his day was the correct one that he should join,

  19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Therefore, accepting the Book of Mormon necessarily implies accepting the Great Apostasy.


How did the livestock of the Egyptians die twice?

Answers in Genesis, an Apologetics site dedicated to defending the Bible as inerrant, gives five "reasonable" possibilities:  Bear in mind that the real answer is, "we don't know for sure", and we can't answer what did happen. The best we can do is offer plausible explanations of what might have happened.  Typically this is done using common rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies.  So, from an Apologetic standpoint, their answers do offer plausible resolutions to the apparent conflict.

  First, Exodus 9:3 states, “"Behold, the hand of the Lord will be on
  your cattle in the field, on the horses, on the donkeys, on the
  camels, on the oxen, and on the sheep—a very severe pestilence."”
  Surprisingly, this verse does not mention one of the most important
  domestic animals at that time—the goat.1 Therefore, it is possible
  that all of the livestock except goats were killed in the first plague
  on the livestock (fifth plague overall), and in the second instance it
  was goats that were affected by the plague of hail.

  Second, Exodus 9:19–20 mentions that those who “"feared the word of
  the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh"” were told to get their
  livestock out of the fields. Some scholars mention that these
  Egyptians may have been warned about the previous plague of pestilence
  (although it was not recorded), so they still had all of their
  livestock left. In this scenario, God warned them to put all of their
  livestock in barns so they wouldn’t be killed by hail.

  The third possibility is similar to the previous explanation except
  that the survival of their livestock hinges on the phrase “servants of
  Pharaoh.” Perhaps this means they were not actually Egyptians, but
  other vassal subjects who were warned of the plagues so that their
  animals could be spared. So in Exodus 9:6, where it says that all the
  livestock of Egypt died, this view suggests that the animals belonging
  to these foreign vassals were spared if they obeyed God and not
  Pharaoh.

  Fourth, the Bible does not reveal how much time passed between the
  fifth plague and the seventh plague. Following the fifth plague, which
  wiped out the livestock of Egypt, the Egyptians may have taken some of
  the livestock belonging to Israel. Another possibility is that they
  bought (or took) livestock from surrounding areas (Libya, Ethiopia,
  Canaan, etc). The first option would require very little time to
  complete while the second would probably require at least a few weeks.
  But since the Bible does not specify how much time passed, either is
  possible.

  The fifth, and perhaps simplest solution, would be to acknowledge the
  fact that “all” does not always mean exclusively “all.”2 We must use
  the context to determine its meaning. In the case of Exodus 9:6, it
  might be best translated that “"all manner of livestock of the
  Egyptians died."” In other words, the plague included all kinds of
  animals, as clarified in the third verse: “"on the horses, on the
  donkeys, on the camels, on the oxen, and on the sheep—a very severe
  pestilence."” This is the approach taken in Coverdale’s translation,
  and the New English Translation includes a footnote with a similar
  explanation.

 -


This person kind of seems like they just bury their head in the sand when it comes to something they don't want to hear. To illustrate they could claim that the sky is purple. You know that it is blue. You offer that they look outside to see, but they refuse.

These kinds of people are either so convinced they are right that they won't look, or they are so afraid of being wrong they can't. I think a reason for this is that when they realize they are incorrect, they:

they A have to take responsibility
Then B have to adjust their knowledge base accordingly along with their actions

This is never a good thing. This is especially true when coming to a forum such as this. If you refuse to look at evidence contrary to what you believe, then what are you doing on a forum to exchange biblical views?
Matthew 7:12:

“All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them. This, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean."

If you are not willing to look at their evidence or beliefs, why should they in return look at yours? What if they are correct? It could indeed mean your life and being stubborn in not looking for knowledge is not an excuse. I look at and research everyone's evidence regardless of my own knowledge. It generally keeps me from making a fool of myself.


Why did God use humans to write the Bible?

If you created a universe, and you wanted to communicate some important message to the people who lived there, how would you choose to do it?  I can see two possible scenarios:

Give your entire message to one "prophet" to relay the message to the rest of the people.
The obvious problem with this option is that the one "prophet" looks like a lunatic to everyone else, and is impossible to authenticate.  We have such claimed prophets all the time, leading cults, or other sects.  And they are usually considered lunatics, and impossible to authenticate.

Give the message to numerous people, over centuries, and have them each write part of it, in agreement with each other.
This scenario adds a lot of credibility.  If hundreds of authors, spread over geography and time, all share parts of the same message, and all agree with each other, then this is far more credible than a single prophet.

Of course there are a few other options, too, that I can think of:

Go in person, and deliver the message.
Make the message appear miraculously, so that it was unmistakably from you.

But then, the Christian Bible contains both of these, as well.
Your question suggests that this method lacks authenticity, but I can't think of any other way to deliver a divine message that could carry any greater weight of authenticity. How else would you have done it?


How do Reformed Baptists view Dispensationalism?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GrwL5pXHbc

This video is very helpful at seeing the overlap and distinctions between Reformed Baptist theology and Dispensationalism.

First of all, you'd have to define Reformed Baptist. I prefer to define it as someone who holds to the 1689 London Baptist Confession. The LBCF1689 is a covenantal confession which by definition rejects dispensationalism.

It's hard to boil down into a small post the biblical basis for 1689 Federalism (covenant theology), but it is based on letting Scripture interpret Scripture, especially the New Testament as a fuller revelation of the Old. It also recognizes the typological relationship between Israel and the Church.

As with most systems, there is some overlap of good material. Dispensationalism rightly recognizes some of the problems with traditional Paedobaptist covenant theology, for instance, but their "solution" ultimately goes much too far.


According to the Catholic Church, when Peter briefly walked on water, was it a miracle attributed to him?

According to the Catholic Church, no saint ever performs a miracle him- or herself.  All miracles ever, past, present, and future, are performed by God, as the Master of His creation.  In Catholic theology, saints are powerful intercessors before the throne of God conveying our prayers and supplications to Him, much like Abraham pleaded for God to spare Sodom from (deserved) destruction.

And what about those people who seem to perform miracles while alive --- and hence, by definition, not yet considered saints proper?  Catholic theology would say that even in this case God is really performing the miracle (through a special indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the intermediary person), and that for some reason --- the growth of the Church, the shining of God's Glory, a sign of God's favor towards a particular teaching preached by the intermediary, the display of faith by one of His followers --- God has chosen to act through said person.

It is surprising that the Author of the universe should choose to act through mere humans --- or mere matter, for that matter.  But this is the way God has revealed Himself to be and to act in the Bible.

As to your question.  First of all, I should mention that I don't believe that the Catholic Church has decidedly taught whether his walking on water can be a miracle attributed to Peter specifically or not.  Therefore the question is one which allows speculation and argument, with evidence proposed on all sides.

My own personal interpretation of the passage in Matthew 14 --- which interpretation I think I can defend --- is that Jesus Christ chose to reward the faith that Peter displayed on Jesus's powers when he said that Jesus could make him walk on water; the way Jesus rewarded this faith was by actually allowing Peter to walk on water --- and thus showed Peter and the other Apostles that Jesus was indeed a being whom the natural world obeyed (i.e. God).

So, the miracle of Peter walking on water gets firmly attributed to Jesus first and foremost.  But how much of it can be attributed to Peter's intersession?  It is, after all, Peter who asked for the miracle from God.  Had Peter not asked, would Jesus have granted it?  Insofar as the asking was what provided he opportunity for Jesus to act, I suppose you could say that it would not have happened without his intercession.

And yet, I do not get a sense from this passage that it was specifically the fact that it was Peter that asked that made Jesus respond with the miracle.  The rest of the Gospels are full of occasions where petitioners (many of whom are not Peter) asking Jesus for miracles with great faith on His power to grant them.  If one of these people had shown the faith that Peter showed when he asked for the miracle, I get the impression that Jesus would also have granted the miracle --- to reward the faith implicit in the request.  In fact, when Peter's faith in Jesus' word to 'come' fails him, he starts to sink.  Thus, the miracle seems to be strongly linked to the faith of Peter's belief that Jesus can deliver, more so than to his personal request, or any particular gift imparted to him by the Holy Spirit.  Given these considerations, I am more inclined to give the credit of the miracle to Jesus than to the request by (specifically) Peter.

This does not deny that Peter walking on water was a powerful work. But I think this one should be attributed to Jesus instead of Peter. After all, the healing of the woman with the flow of blood in Luke 8 is not a miracle attributed to her, but to Jesus alone! On the other hand, the healing of the lame man on Acts 3:6 would definitely be a miracle attributed to Peter. What is the difference? There seems to be a greater amount of agency by Peter in Acts 3 than in Matthew 14.  In Acts 3 Peter attempts to heal the lame man himself, using the power of God (which power God does give in this instance).  In Matthew 14 it is Jesus who acts to bring about the miraculous, not Peter.


Does the Catholic Church rank the cardinal virtues?

From the Recapitulatio of Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s De Virtutibus Theologicis (p. 20), a commentary on St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica II-II, he gives the following categorization of the virtues (virtutes), following the organization of St. Thomas's treatment of the virtues in his Summa:

Here's a rough translation:

The Virtues

Theological (regarding the end)

in the will

virtue uniting us to God according to the beloved itself: CHARITY
virtue tending to God desired by us: HOPE

in the intellect

virtue knowing God according to the authority of God revealing: FAITH

Cardinal (regarding the means)

in the reason

regarding the right direction of the acts of the moral virtues: PRUDENCE

in the appetite

rational

regarding the operations toward another, rendering according to strict duty: JUSTICE

sensitive

regarding the passions

withdrawing from it what reason dictates (for fear): FORTITUDE
impelling toward something against reason (for sensual desires): TEMPERANCE

Prudence is indeed first among the cardinal virtues because it it deals with the "right direction of the acts of the moral virtues." Thomistic thought holds that "The will follows, does not precede, the intellect" (Thesis 21 of the 24 Thomistic Theses.)

St. Thomas Aquinas also wrote a Disputed Questions on the Virtues, and he distinguished three types of virtues—intellectual, moral, and theological—in Summa I-II q. 57.

The intellectual virtues are divided as follows (cf. Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought ch. 47 art. 2 "Classification of the Virtues"):

Intellectual Virtues

Speculative Order

Wisdom
Science (knowledge)
Understanding

Practical Order

Prudence
Art