Has there ever been an Eastern Catholic Pope (Post-Schism)?

There are really only two requirements for becoming pope: being male and being baptized into the Catholic Church.

  Canon 332 § 1 of the 1983 Code simply states that one already a bishop (nb: not necessarily a cardinal) who accepts legitimate papal election becomes pope immediately. One who is not yet a bishop (and the Church has elected several non-bishops to the papacy) can accept election, but must be immediately consecrated bishop. By implication, that would seem to require that a papabile (a) be male, and be willing (b) to be baptized, (c) ordained deacon, priest, and bishop, and (d) have the use of reason in order to accept election and, if necessary, holy orders. - In the Light of the Law

Could an Eastern Rite cardinal be elected pope? Yes, it could happen and a pope is free to make changes to reflect his heritage, but we would have to wait and see if this ever happens.

  When Eastern Rite cardinals meet with other cardinals or con-celebrate the liturgy, they generally wear their own vestments. On the other hand, if a bi-ritual priest celebrates the liturgy, not native to him, he uses the other rite's vestments. Someone elected pope is the Bishop of Rome, so presumably he would celebrate henceforth as Bishop of Rome, i.e., Latin Rite. Since we haven't run into this situation in modern times (and probably don't have sufficient records when it did happen, which I think it did) they would probably have to make some new decisions about it, much like they did with Pope Benedict's resignation.

  My guess is he would wear Western vestments when celebrating a Latin-rite Mass. As for his white cassock, I'm not sure. On the one hand that's kind of unique to the pope and in a class by itself, but then again it is based on Latin-rite dress.

  Maybe the pope would like to retain some of his Eastern heritage. I don't know, I think that would be up to him. - Ask A Catholic

Update: Thanks to  @AthanasiusOfAlex and his comment: There seems to have been no Eastern Catholic pope. "Looking at the list of popes since 1054, the answer appears to be “no”."


Were the children of an annulled marriage planned by God?

It's not clear that there is any sense in which we created beings can "know" God's plan—for the universe, or for any being or group of beings. What we can know generally is that God wills good, and salvation, for all beings:

  God, who "dwells in unapproachable light," [cf. 1 Timothy 6:16] wants to communicate his own divine life to the men he freely created, in order to adopt them as his sons in his only-begotten Son.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 52; emphasis added)

It is not we, but God, who creates each human being, body and soul. Having created each being, it seems apparent that He certainly wished for them to be. Whether God planned for them to be born this way?—now we're getting into questions of foreknowledge and God's interaction with time, always a rough area given that God is outside of time. The very least, and perhaps the most, that we can say, is that children are a gift from God, regardless of the circumstances in which they are conceived, born, and raised:

  Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents.

(Gaudium et Spes, section 50)

As far as their legal status (by which I assume you mean their status in canon law, as their civil status might vary by jurisdiction) and spiritual status, canon law is very clear on this:

  The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage [that is, a marriage which is thought to be valid by at least one of the parties] are legitimate.

(Code of Canon Law, Canon 1137; emphasis added)

Both parents have an obligation to care for the children:

  [If a decree of nullity is issued]  the parties are to be reminded of the moral and even civil obligations which may bind them ... toward their children to furnish support and education.

(Canon 1689)

The Catechism has a section on the duties of parents towards their children (paragraphs 2221–31). Nowhere in that text is it stated, or even implied, that parents do not have these responsibilities if they did not have a valid marriage.

In short, though we can't know, in any sense, what God's plan is with respect to the children of these people, the Church treats them in all senses the same as children of a valid marriage.


What is the Biblical basis that God "cannot" act against his nature?

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th ed.) defines "nature" as "the basic or inherent features, qualities, or character of a person or thing."

For God to act against His nature would mean, employing the COED definition of "nature", that He would be exhibiting features, quality, or character that were not basic or inherent to Him.  In essence, He would change.

Scripture teaches that God does not change.  According to James, there is no variableness nor shadow of turning in God (James 1:17).  The Lord said to Malachi (3:6), For I am the Lord, I change not.


Why did the Commonwealth Parliament ban theatre?

I do not believe this can be explained by the facts surrounding the ban, but it can be (1) explained from scripture. The scriptural explanation can then be validated by (2) interesting facts surrounding the case.

(1) This is all about the doctrine of ’weak scruple’s and ’weak faith’ leading to the belief that the art of theater was unredeemable and worthy of a ban. This effectively attributes its practice as 'evil'. Just as banning Christian rap-music today would be attributing that form of music as unredeemable and literally 'evil'.

Although much more reasonably grounded, some ‘weak brothers’ back in the apostle's days also had ‘weak scruples’ and ‘weak faith’. 'Eating meats' 'sacrificed to idols' even when sold in the common market, seemed very horrible to them, because they could not shake their superstitions. They actually believed idols were real gods and 'evil.'. To this, Paul say's even though those who are stronger in their faith understand that this is not actually a sin (because there are no real gods) they must be careful in love not to offend their brother. They then need to think a bit before practicing their freedom in a way that might offend.

  10For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. (1 Corinthians 8:10-11)

In the end, Paul says you can still be free in your private life but not when others bring this question of conscience in your face:

  27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake b— 29the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? (1 Corinthians 10:27-29)

So the doctrine says that it is those of weak faith that assign material things to sin, whether it be drama, music, art, or even as horrible and 'sinful appearing' as food sacrificed to idols!

(2)  In the case of the ban of theatre there is an interesting article (secular source) describing these events in detail called, THE CLOSURE OF THE THEATERS BY THE PURITANS.

The facts of the case show that on the 6th of September, 1642, the theaters were closed by ordinance. Then in 1656 they began to reopen. An interesting fact at the same time is one of the most influential Puritan writers, John Owen, was alive and preching in those very same years. He was a highly influential and an academic administrator at the University of Oxford and lived over the years 1616 to August 1683. In 1651, on October 24 he preached the thanksgiving sermon before parliament. This Puritan was very aware of the ban.

These surrounding facts lead to confirming the scriptural explanation, for Owen was a person who seems to have ‘great faith’. As evidence, in all the thousands of pages from his brilliant works, not once did he mentioned 'card playing', 'theatre', or any other similar past-time. He was so Christ focused that he could not be at all bothered, whatever his personal views may have been. I am referring to his published works, written by him.

So even at this time in 1642, when weak scrupled legalists were embarrassing the name of Christ, by banning theatre, and more pompously by promoting the 'upper class' entertainment of 'opera', strong believers were not bothered to even refer to the subject in their voluminous thoughts on a multitude of subjects. They may have avoided all such entertainments, so as not to offend their weaker brothers, but that only further manifest their maturity.

Regarding why 'theatre' was banned and not 'opera', it’s not difficult to imagine that 'sinners' would have enjoyed theatre more than opera. The language of theatre has always delveded more into sexual innuendo, etc. But in the end, not all plays could have been ‘filthy’. Opera would also seemed more proper as it would have appealed to the arrogance associated with the ‘upper class'. In conclusion, if Jesus would have come at that time this verse might have substituted the word 'tax collectors' with 'actors':

  10While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and “sinners” came and ate with him and his disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?” (Mathew 9:10)


Are blessed secular objects categorically lower than or different from traditional sacramentals like altars, priest vestments, etc.?

The ritual the O.P. is describing is a typical blessing of ordinary objects, of which there are many examples in the Shorter Roman Ritual, for example. (Keep in mind that there is no set “rite” for blessings of this kind—the ritual is indicative, not binding.)

The blessing of a “normal” object does not turn it into a sacramental or (better said) a sacred object. Only an object destined to specifically religious use becomes a sacred object. (I am not aware of any specific Church law regarding this, but this is clearly how the rites of blessings treat such objects.)

Such a blessing (i.e., of school supplies) is not really intended to increase one’s chances of passing an exam (I am afraid that there is no substitute for studying), but rather reflects the fact that even “mundane” goods such as these are, ultimately, given to us by God. It is a way of giving thanks to Him, and of placing potentially difficult circumstances (e.g., exams) into His hands.


Per John McArthur in "The Glory of Heaven":

  Whenever angels do appear to people in Scripture, it is in the role of a messenger. In fact, “messenger” is the primary meaning of the Greek word angelos. So the angels provide a sort of heavenly messenger service, and we get glimpses of this throughout Scripture. The angel who appeared to Mary at the Annunciation identified himself: “I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee” (Luke 1:19). On this particular occasion, perhaps because of the sacred importance of the message, the highest-ranking archangel from the very presence of God was sent to Mary to deliver the word.

If you think about Angels - be it the visitors to Abraham, the visitors to Samson's parents, even to Mary and Zechariah, their job function is obvious. They have a message to deliver - "You're going to have a son' or 'God is going to destroy this city' or 'The Lord has heard your prayer,' etc. That these 'messengers' are being couriers is obvious from the name. Angelos means messenger in Greek.  To quote another post, Angelos is a job not a species.

The closest thing you have to anything other than simple message would be the incident in Daniel 10. There, Daniel recieves a message from an Angel, but the Angel was delayed for three weeks. He says:

  12 Then he said to me, “Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words. 13 The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia, 14 and came to make you understand what is to happen to your people in the latter days. For the vision is for days yet to come.”

Here, Michael had to help "fight" the demonic presence of the PRince of Persia. But again, why? So that the Angel could deliver the message.


What should a Christian do when the state permits something the church does not?

I agree with your assessment.  You really answered your own question - don't do it.  That's as far as the civil disobedience can go in that case - not participating yourself.

Anything else (speaking out against the activity, protesting, etc) isn't civil disobedience, it's merely exercising your first amendment rights.

The only way that I can see such activity turning into civil disobedience is if the police show up and demand you stop protesting.  If you continue to speak out or protest at that point, you're exercising civil disobedience, not to the original law you're protesting, but to the attack on your first amendment rights.

That's not the same as exercising civil disobedience by refusing to partake in an unjust law, so it really doesn't apply to your question and we're back to just "don't partake" as the only possible act of civil disobedience, which isn't civil disobedience at all.

Example:  Drinking is legal in the U.S. as long as you're over 21 years old.  However, some Christians view drinking as sinful (or at least not profitable).  Not drinking isn't civil disobedience.

As I ramble on here, I can only come to the conclusion that the answer to this question isn't so much based on logic or Christianity, but on the proper use of the English language, and the definition of the term "disobedience".

Put simply, to refuse to partake in something isn't disobedience unless an authority is attempting to force you to partake.  Therefore, when the law allows something, but does not require it, then refusing to take part is not disobedience, civil or otherwise.


The answer to your question is a qualified yes. If we are to accept that all Scripture is inspired by God, then we can logically deduce that Jesus gave these predictions to Isaiah to write. Whether or not those exact words are the utterances of a pre-incarnate Jesus or not is not worth arguing in that they are so accurate that whether they came from Isaiah or from Jesus they are predictive of him.

Isaiah gave the most and the most accurate predictions of Christ of all the Prophets, however; much of his writings were to bolster the spirits of those exiles to Babylon, and even those prophesies concerning Christ were given to show that God would not abandon his people.

This excerpt is from the commentary known as the ‘Treasury of Scriptural knowledge.’

  Isaiah has, with singular propriety, been denominated the Evangelical Prophet, on account of the number and variety of his prophecies concerning the advent and character, the ministry and preaching, the sufferings and death, and the extensive and permanent kingdom of the Messiah.  So explicit and determinate are his predictions, as well as so numerous, that he seems to speak rather of things past than of events yet future; and he may be rather called an evangelist than a prophet.

In addition the following will help in understanding Isaiah’s prophesies when compared to the Gospel accounts and come from the same source:

(Compare Isa_7:14 with Mat_1:18-23, and Luk_1:27-35; see Isa_6:1-13; Isa_9:6; Isa_35:4; Isa_40:5, Isa_40:9, Isa_40:19; Isa_42:6-8; compare Isa_61:1, with Luk_4:18; see Isa_62:11; Isa_63:1-4); his miracles (Isa_35:5, Isa_35:6); his peculiar character and virtues (Isa_11:2, Isa_11:3; Isa_40:11; Isa_43:1-3); his rejection (Compare Isa_6:9-12 with Mar_13:14; see Isa_7:14, Isa_7:15; Isa_53:3); his sufferings for our sins (Isa_50:6; Isa_53:4-11); his death and burial (Isa_53:8, Isa_53:9); his victory over death (Isa_25:8; Isa_53:10, Isa_53:12); his final glory (Isa_49:7, Isa_49:22, 33; Isa_52:13-15; Isa_53:4, Isa_53:5); and the establishment, increase, and perfection of his kingdom (Isa_2:2-4; Isa_9:2, Isa_9:7; Isa_11:4-10; Isa_16:5; Isa_29:18-24; Isa_32:1; Isa_40:4, Isa_40:5; Isa_42:4; Isa_46:13; Isa_49:9-13; Isa_51:3-6; Isa_53:6-10; Isa_55:1-3; Isa_59:16-21; 60; Isa_61:1-5; Isa_65:25); each specifically pointed out, and pourtrayed with the most striking and discriminating characters.  It is impossible, indeed, to reflect on these, and on the whole chain of his illustrious prophecies, and not be sensible that they furnish the most incontestable evidence in support of Christianity.

I have highlighted those verses which are contained in your question, but It is well worth taking the time to study Isaiah in relation to the Gospels.


Has a Pope ever secretly canonized a saint?

No, such a thing would not be possible.

The Pope cannot unilaterally canonize anyone. That would completely miss the point of declaring someone a saint, which is to present their lives as a public example of heroic virtue for Catholics to imitate.

  By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 828)

  When we look at the lives of those who have faithfully followed Christ, we are inspired with a new reason for seeking the City that is to come and at the same time we are shown a most safe path by which among the vicissitudes of this world, in keeping with the state in life and condition proper to each of us, we will be able to arrive at perfect union with Christ, that is, perfect holiness.

(Lumen Gentium, section 50)

There would therefore be no purpose in canonizing someone if their life, and thus their name, could not be held up as an example from that moment.

Further,there is an extended process to be adhered to before anyone is formally declared a saint. This includes includes among other things arrangements for a formal investigation into the person's life, usually by the bishop of the person's diocese, a request for a declaration of sainthood by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, and a formal declaration by the Pope that the person is indeed a saint. (See the Wikipedia article for a reasonable summary of the process, with good source notes.) It's very difficult to see how such a process could be carried out without anyone but the Pope knowing the name of the one declared a saint.

There is a parallel process for the formal declaration of sainthood of someone who has long been considered a saint in some particular area; this is known as equipollent canonization (from Merriam-Webster: "equal in force, power, or validity"; that is, equally valid with the usual type of canonization). Nevertheless, being a canonization, it also requires a formal declaration from the Pope; and again, it's hard to see how this could be done without anyone knowing the person's name.


What happened to the tribe of Dan in Revelation?

This is an excellent question! Consider the following argument, posited in the seventh chapter of An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages by William Marrion Branham.

The book of Exodus tells the story of how the tribe of Levi was separated to serve the Lord.

  Exodus 32:26-29 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said,
  Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of
  Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them,
  Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his
  side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and
  slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man
  his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of
  Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

Because of their stand for God, God chose the Levites to serve Him.

  NUMBERS 18:6 And I, behold, I have taken your brethren the Levites
  from among the children of Israel: to you they are given as a gift for
  the LORD, to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.

Numbers 10:11-28 lists the twelve tribes as Reuben, Simeon, Issachar, Judah, Zebulun, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Ephraim and Manasseh. Levi ministered to the twelve tribes, and so was treated separately. When the twelve tribes encamped, they always camped three tribes to a side, surrounding the Levites and the temple.

You'll notice that Ephraim, in Revelation, is also removed from this list of tribes in Numbers.

The answer to the question of "what happened to Dan and Ephraim?" lies in Deuteronomy 29:16-20.

  DEUTERONOMY 29:16 (For ye know how we have dwelt in the land of Egypt;
  and how we came through the nations which ye passed by; And ye have
  seen their abominations, and their idols, wood and stone, silver and
  gold, which were among them:) Lest there should be among you man, or
  woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the
  LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations; lest there
  should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood; And it come
  to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless
  himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the
  imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst: The LORD will
  not spare him, but then the anger of the LORD and his jealousy shall
  smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this
  book shall lie upon him, and the LORD shall blot out his name from
  under heaven.

The curse of idolatry (or spiritual fornication) was to have your name blotted out.

Now, let's see how this applied to the tribe of Dan.

  I Kings 12:25-30 Then Jeroboam built Shechem in mount Ephraim, and
  dwelt therein; and went out from thence, and built Penuel. And
  Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house
  of David: If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the
  LORD at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto
  their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me,
  and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah. Whereupon the king took
  counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too
  much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which
  brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in
  Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for
  the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan.

And now Ephraim...

  Hosea 4:17 Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.

As Jesus said...

  MATTHEW 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not
  pass away.

God remembered His Word in Deuteronomy by removing Dan and Ephraim from the final list of the tribes sealed in the 144,000 of Revelation.


What are the views of Evangelical Christians on whether it is possible to go to heaven and back to earth?

The devil is in the details, and overall the lame answer is that we just don't have enough details.
But first, addressing your direct questions and examples:

2 Corinthians 12:2-3 ESV I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows—

Paul says he knows a man (not himself) who was taken up to the third heaven, and that he doesn't know whether it was "in the body or out of the body"--which could easily mean that Paul doesn't know if he literally went to paradise or if it was an out-of-body experience, i.e. a vision. Also, there's no other mention of the third-heaven in scripture, so is Paul talking about heaven or some other paradise? We don't know this either.
And as far as people claiming they went to heaven and back, this is kind of like people claiming they were abducted by aliens: you either take their word for it or you don't. How do they know it wasn't a dream? If they provide "evidence", how do we know that it's not coincidence? There's not enough tangible evidence one way or the other to know for certain.
I can of only one case in scripture where it a "channel" was opened between heaven and earth: Saul summoning Samuel.

1 Samuel 28:13-15,19 ESV ... Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Moreover, the Lord will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me. The Lord will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines.

Samuel references the fact that he was "disturbed" and "brought up" and that Saul and his sons would be with him tomorrow, implying that Samuel is indeed in heaven. Samuel does not, however, come back to earth, but simply communicates with Saul.
There's another example of a channel being opened in Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus, but this shows a conversation between residents of heaven and hell, not heaven and earth. This doesn't totally apply to your question, but gives interesting perspective of how God separates the "realms".

Luke 16:22-26 ESV  The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades... [Abraham said] 'And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’

Having said all that, there's no explicit case in scripture of a person literally, physically going to heaven and coming back to earth, only the potential implication noted in 1st Corinthians 12, but even Paul says he doesn't know.
A really good question here would be this: where were Lazarus and Dorcas while they were dead?

John 11:43-44 ESV  When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”
Acts 9:40 ESV But Peter put them all outside, and knelt down and prayed; and turning to the body he said, “Tabitha, arise.” And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up.

Did they go to heaven? We just don't know. The devil is in the details and there aren't enough details to know for certain that they went to heaven and came back.


Is the definition of "sin" subjective? Of whom's morals is it based on?

Sin is absolutely objective but in its application in our lives has a subjective element.  The particular case that you mention is where Paul is saying if a person thinks something is a sin (even though it is not) then it is a sin to that person if they run about doing what their conscience condemns.  This is because anything done without faith is a sin:

  But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23, ESV)

In other words if you truly thought that wearing a purple shirt was a sin, you should not wear a purple shirt.

However the reverse is not true. Anything that is objectively a sin, like blasphemy, murder, sexual perversion, etc. even if you think it is not a sin, is still a sin. Sin is anything that is done not derived from pure love to God. This means we all sin daily as none perfectly loves God.

To answer your question: sin is objective (it is not loving God perfectly) but one objective sin is doing things you incorrectly consider as sin due to want of knowledge or wisdom. This is a sin because it shows lack of respect to God when you ignore your own conscience, even when it is confused on neutral matters.


A "prince", literally speaking, is not necessarily a "future king". He is the son of a king, and so MAY be a future king, but may not. If a king has two sons, they are both princes, but it is quite possible that one will become king and the other never will. In English the word "prince" is also used for the husband of a queen when it is the queen who holds the power. Like the husband of Queen Elizabeth of Britain is called "Prince" Phillip.

By extension, the word "prince" is often used, in the Bible and elsewhere, as a general term for a person with power or authority.

I am not aware of any more specific meaning in the Bible as the word is used in general. Of course one could examine specific uses of the word and discuss exactly what sort of power is being described, but then we're not really talking about the word "prince", but rather about a specific person who is called a prince.


Do any Christian traditions think that evil desires are not sin?

Baptists believe that being tempted is not sinning, for two reason, the first being because of James 1:13-15.

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. "
James 1:13-15 (KJV)

This verse indicates that sin doesn't occur until  after you are tempted. Another reason is the fact that Jesus was tempted and did not sin. (mark 1:24 says Jesus is the Holy one of God, indicating that Jesus is holy)


Are those instructed before baptism considered catechumens before entering the catechumenate formally?

One who is exploring whether to become Catholic is known as an Inquirer and is in the stage known as Period of Evangelization and Precatechumenate, as explained by the USCCB's webpage devoted to explaining the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults. It goes on:

  After a conversation with a priest, or RCIA director, the person, known as an "inquirer," may seek acceptance into the Order of Catechumens, through the Rite of Acceptance. During this Rite, the inquirer stands amidst the parish community and states that he or she wants to become a baptized member of the Catholic Church. The parish assembly affirms this desire and the inquirer becomes a "catechumen."

Those who are already baptized Christians desiring full communion with the Catholic Church, known as Candidates, go through a process known as formation. As practical matter at many parishes, both candidates and catechumens attend many (if not most) of the same instructional classes.


Is it possible to get into heaven, but then be cast out at a later date?

In the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, Jesus says no:

  And he cried out, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.’ Abraham replied, ‘My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.’  (Luke 16:24-26 NABRE)

Now, Heaven here is the "bosom of Abraham", but if this parable has anything to do with us (and all scripture has something to do with us) I doubt Jesus is only talking about Heaven in the moral sense here.


Why is the Gospel of Mark said to present Jesus as "the Servant"?

Since Mark presents the Savior as a Slave, he does not tell His genealogy and status, as the ancestry of a slave is not worthy of note. Mark also does not intend to impress us with the Slave’s wonderful words (as Matthew does with His marvelous teachings and parables concerning the heavenly kingdom, and John with His profound revelations of divine truths), but he impresses us with His excellent deeds in His gospel service, providing more detail than the other Gospels, in order to portray the Slave-Savior’s diligence, faithfulness, and other virtues in the saving service He rendered to sinners for God.

In Mark’s Gospel is the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning Christ as the Slave of Jehovah in Isaiah 42:1-4, 6-7; 49:5-7; 50:4-7; 52:13—53:12, and the details of the teaching regarding Christ as the Slave of God in Philippians 2:5-11. His diligence in labor, His need of food and rest (Mark 3:20-21; 6:31), His anger (3:5), His groaning (7:34), and His affection (10:21) display beautifully His humanity in its virtue and perfection. His lordship (2:28), His omniscience (2:8), His miraculous power, and His authority to cast out demons (1:27; 3:15), to forgive sins (2:7, 10), and to silence the wind and the sea (4:39) manifest in full His deity in its glory and honor. Such a Slave served sinners as their Slave-Savior, with His life as their ransom (10:45), for the fulfillment of the eternal purpose of God, whose Slave He was.


What is the biblical basis for Dispensational Premillennialism?

This question should probably be answered by somebody that believes in dispensationalism as well. (Obviously, from that sentence you all know that I do not.) Nevertheless I will venture a "pre-answer". I will not discuss passages of scripture, that taken together might be understood as supporting the view.

I'd like to put some focus on the hermeneutics behind this view. How do you read the Bible in order to come up with this specific interpretation? I think the following points apply:

Unless there is a compelling reason to interpret a passage differently, all scripture should be read literally. The question of genre is not high on the agenda. When reading texts about eschatology in the Bible, they are all considered a topic, not a genre.
Thus, there exist no specific apocalyptic genre that needs special consideration. The question what the texts in Revelations, Daniel, Ezekiel, etc meant to the original hearers is therefore low on the agenda. Instead all focus is on how we today can harmonize various sayings in different passages having access to the finished Bible.
Specifically, numbers telling passage of time are to be understood literally. Saying that a number only has a symbolic meaning is out of the question.
When there is a possible difference between various passages in the scripture, the main solution is not to re-interpret the passage as such, but to apply them in different phases. Thus the second coming is a 2-phase event, all time, including the Old Testament time, is divided in different "dispensations" during which God uses partly different means to help mankind.
The "natural Israel" is of utmost importance when God is shaping history. The church age is basically just a phase. It's importance is primarily in preaching the Gospel to the ends of the earth. For the salvation of the individual, this is of course very important, but it is not really important for God's rule of the earth.

Using this hermeneutic approach one can dive in at various places in the Bible to explain Dispensational Premillennialism, since the teaching relies on how to fit different parts of the Bible together. The Bible read this way is (among other things) a puzzle and the pre-trib view is its solution.

(Yes, my bias does show through in this answer. I hope, however, that it does not mean I have explained anything in a false way. I have read substantial amounts of text written by pre-trib theologians.)


Does Jewish tradition predate Christian tradition in any meaningful way?

Judaism predates Christianity in one overwhelmingly important way:  Jesus was a Jew, and is considered (by Christians at any rate) to be the realization of at least a couple of thousand years of Jewish prophetic promises.

In another dimension, Judaism has a long-standing ethic of accurate copying of scripture that Christianity sorely lacks.  See Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus for some solid scholarship about the variation between ancient sources of the New Testament.  On the other hand, a scroll of Isaiah from around the time of Jesus that turned up among the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls is very close to the Masoretic orthographic one you'll find in your neighborhood synagogue today.  This is not so with the typical ancient Christian copy.

The chain of teaching of the language and the scriptural traditions is also continuous, in a very similar way that we Christian clergy types claim a commission from Peter.

Why would one ask a Jewish scholar about the meaning of a Hebrew Bible text rather than a Christian scholar?  Well, they learn Hebrew when young.  They're most likely steeped in the Hebrew traditions of studying scripture.  They know the ancient and Talmudic traditions well.

Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity both had the destruction of the second temple as a very early event in their development.  They share the idea that the Holy One may be addressed from anywhere.

Is Holy Communion a sacrifice? Well, yes, it can be interpreted that way, but it's a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise. It is nothing at all like the temple sacrifices.

Sometime we'll get into Rene Girard's theological anthropology which makes a good case that the Resurrection was God's definitive statement "NO!" to sacrifice.  But that's a long story.

Direct blunt answer to your question: Yes!


Besides Paul, were there any other enemies of the early church who converted to Christianity?

In Peter's sermon at Pentecost he accuses the members of his audience of delivering up Jesus to be crucified:

  "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested
  to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did
  through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus,
  delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God,
  you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." (Acts 2:22-23,
  ESV)

Concluding remarks end on their guilt for crucifying Jesus.

  "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has
  made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts
  2:36, ESV)

The response of the crowd was to be convicted:

  Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to
  Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" And
  Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the
  name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will
  receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and
  for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord
  our God calls to himself." And with many other words he bore witness
  and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this
  crooked generation." So those who received his word were baptized, and
  there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:37-41,
  ESV)

Why would a crowd of Jews in close historical proximity to the crucifixion be cut to the heart over an accusation of crucifying Jesus, and repent and be baptized, if they were not in some way involved in the crucifixion itself? The simple answer is that they were involved in the persecution of Jesus, and therefore of early Christianity.

Whether or not this meets the definition of persecuting the early church depends on your definitions of "the early church" and "persecution."

But secondarily, what is difficult to prove in specifics is easier in statistics. Rome was not sympathetic to Christianity, and generally did persecute early Christians. And yet, the church achieved explosive growth that took the form of abandoning one's former lifestyle. Are we to believe there was zero overlap between these two groups?


Are there any traditions or schools of thought that track Jesus' movements?

I just joined SE today, so I'll jump right in - in 2008 I was researching this very subject for a book I wrote on Jesus life. I apologize for this if it seems like I'm trying to plug my book (so I won't give you the name of it), but I spent years meticulously going through the gospels and Acts, placing the events of Jesus' life in chronological order. So you might want to Google the chronological order of Jesus' life events. Also, as to Jesus' hometown, that was Nazareth, not Capernaum.

You also might find this site Bible Geocoding a wonderful tool for your studies.1

My book is called Come to Me and it is a novel about the life of Christ through the eyes of His mother. I used this website http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/harmony/ for my research to get a starting point. I then read through each Gospel account cross-checking both Hebrew/Greek words with Strong's Concordance before I even agreed with the website I just listed. My book is a novel though, so while I tried to keep myself within the confines of Scripture and what I perceived to be the proper timeline, I did use my imagination in some parts - for example, conversations Jesus might have had with his parents, events in his childhood not mentioned in Scripture, etc. While that is a writer's privilege I did not stray from Scripture in regards to the important things. In fact I included Scripture throughout the novel where necessary so the reader could see "truth from fiction." The book is available on my website www.laurajdavis.com or through Amazon.

As to your question - where was Jesus between Matthew 12:46 ("these are my mother and brothers") and Matthew 13:54 (coming to his hometown)? My research led me to believe that Jesus "home-base" was Peter's house in Capernaum. When his mother and brothers came to see him in Matthew 12:46 he was there. In Matthew 13:54 he was in his hometown which was Nazareth.


Are there any biblical examples of Early Church disciples praying to deceased saints in order to request their intercessory prayer?

Is there any biblical evidence that [asking dead saints for intercession] was a common practice in the early church?

The New Testament contains neither any example of nor any reference to this practice.  Even prayers to Jesus didn't start until after the risen Jesus had revealed himself to his disciples, so those praying to him did not believe him to be dead.
Generally speaking, one cannot prove a negative, but in this case you can read the entire NT to verify.  Or you can accept Martin Luther's comments about the practice, in the Smalcald Articles:

The invocation of saints is also one of the abuses of Antichrist
conflicting with the chief article, and destroys the knowledge of
Christ. Neither is it commanded nor counseled, nor has it any example
[or testimony] in Scripture, and even though it were a precious thing,
as it is not [while, on the contrary, it is a most harmful thing], in
Christ we have everything a thousandfold better [and surer, so that we
are not in need of calling upon the saints].

(emphasis added, but square brackets are from the original).
Luther continues a bit more from there, and it's worth the read, but the bit quoted above is the part that responds directly to the question at hand.
I don't think any conscientious Christian will dispute Luther's claim that "Neither is it commanded nor counseled, nor has it any example [or testimony] in Scripture," but some will, I am sure, vigorously dispute his scathing criticism of the practice.  This was among the key issues in the schism between the Catholic church and what we now call protestant churches.


Are there rules regarding the content of Roman Catholic artwork?
Of coarse there are guidelines, but they are merely to be seen as general norms to be followed. For details about a specific piece of art, one has to try to find a particular decree or pronouncement about it.
Catholic art is art produced by or for members of the Catholic Church. This includes visual art (iconography), sculpture, decorative arts, applied arts, and architecture. In a broader sense, Catholic music and other art may be included as well.
Christian art is nearly as old as Christianity itself. The oldest Christian sculptures are from Roman sarcophagi, dating to the beginning of the 2nd century. As a persecuted sect, however, the earliest Christian images were arcane and meant to be intelligible only to the initiated. Early Christian symbols include the dove, the fish, the lamb, the cross, symbolic representation of the Four Evangelists as beasts, and the Good Shepherd. Early Christians also adapted Roman decorative motifs like the peacock, grapevines, and the good shepherd. It is in the Catacombs of Rome that recognizable representations of Christian figures first appear in number.
In the final session of the Council of Trent in 1563, included a short and rather inexplicit passages concerning religious images, which were to have great impact on the development of Catholic art. Previous Catholic Church councils had rarely felt the need to pronounce on these matters, unlike Orthodox ones which have often ruled on specific types of images.
Images are to be approved of by the local bishop! In cases of doubt one is to proceed to Rome.
The following decree confirmed the traditional doctrine that images only represented the person depicted, and that veneration to them was paid to the person themselves, not the image:

On the Invocation, Veneration, and Relics of the Saints and on Sacred Images
The holy Synod enjoins on all bishops, and others who sustain the office and charge of teaching, that, agreeably to the usage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and agreeably to the consent of the holy Fathers, and to the decrees of sacred Councils, they especially instruct the faithful diligently concerning the intercession and invocation of saints; the honour (paid) to [Page 234] relics; and the legitimate use of images: teaching them, that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their own prayers to God for men; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, (and) help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our alone Redeemer and Saviour; but that they think impiously, who deny that the saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invocated; or who assert either that they do not pray for men; or, that the invocation of them to pray for each of us even in particular, is idolatry; or, that it is repugnant to the word of God; and is opposed to the honour of the one mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus; or, that it is foolish to supplicate, vocally, or mentally, those who reign in heaven. Also, that the holy bodies of holy martyrs, and of others now living with Christ,-which bodies were the living members of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Ghost, and which are by Him to be raised unto eternal life, and to be glorified,--are to be venerated by the faithful; through which (bodies) many benefits are bestowed by God on men; so that they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of saints; or, that these, and other sacred monuments, are uselessly honoured by the faithful; and that the places dedicated to the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid; are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and now also condemns them.
Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in temples, and that due honour and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed [Page 235] their hope in idols; but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images.
And the bishops shall carefully teach this,-that, by means of the histories of the mysteries of our Redemption, portrayed by paintings or other representations, the people is instructed, and confirmed in (the habit of) remembering, and continually revolving in mind the articles of faith; as also that great profit is derived from all sacred images, not only because the people are thereby admonished of the benefits and gifts bestowed upon them by Christ, but also because the miracles which God has performed by means of the saints, and their salutary examples, are set before the eyes of the faithful; that so they may give God thanks for those things; may order their own lives and manners in imitation of the saints; and may be excited to adore and love God, and to cultivate piety. But if any one shall teach, or entertain sentiments, contrary to these decrees; let him be anathema.
And if any abuses have crept in amongst these holy and salutary observances, the holy Synod ardently desires that they be utterly abolished; in such wise that no images, (suggestive) of false doctrine, and furnishing occasion of dangerous error to the uneducated, be set up. And if at times, when expedient for the unlettered people; it happen that the facts and narratives of sacred Scripture are portrayed and represented; the people shall be taught, that not thereby is the Divinity represented, as though it could be seen by the eyes of the body, or be portrayed by colours or figures.
Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed, all filthy lucre be abolished; finally, all lasciviousness be [Page 236] avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a beauty exciting to lust; nor the celebration of the saints, and the visitation of relics be by any perverted into revellings and drunkenness; as if festivals are celebrated to the honour of the saints by luxury and wantonness.
In fine, let so great care and diligence be used herein by bishops, as that there be nothing seen that is disorderly, or that is unbecomingly or confusedly arranged, nothing that is profane, nothing indecorous, seeing that holiness becometh the house of God.
And that these things may be the more faithfully observed, the holy Synod ordains, that no one be allowed to place, or cause to be placed, any unusual image, in any place, or church, howsoever exempted, except that image have been approved of by the bishop: also, that no new miracles are to be acknowledged, or new relics recognised, unless the said bishop has taken cognizance and approved thereof; who, as soon as he has obtained some certain information in regard to these matters, shall, after having taken the advice of theologians, and of other pious men, act therein as he shall judge to be consonant with truth and piety. But if any doubtful, or difficult abuse has to be extirpated; or, in fine, if any more grave question shall arise touching these matters, the bishop, before deciding the controversy, shall await the sentence of the metropolitan and of the bishops of the province, in a provincial Council; yet so, that nothing new, or that previously has not been usual in the Church, shall be resolved on, without having first consulted the most holy Roman Pontiff.

A few cases that I am aware of that have been forbidden by the Church includes those depicting Mary wearing priestly vestments.

First of all I would like to refer to the question of the title of priest attributed to the Virgin in tradition. A writer of the end of the fifth century calls Mary "Virgin, and at the same time priest, and altar who has given us Christ -- bread of Heaven for the remission of sins."1 After this, there were frequent references to the topic of Mary as priest, which subsequently became the object of theological developments in the 17th century, in the French school of St. Sulpice. In it, Mary's priesthood is not placed so much in the context of a relationship with the ministerial priesthood, but rather with that of Christ.
At the end of the 19th century a true and proper devotion to the Virgin-priest spread, and St. Pius X even accorded an indulgence to its relative practice. However, when the danger was perceived of confusing the priesthood of Mary with the ministerial priesthood, the magisterium of the Church became reticent and two interventions of the Holy Office practically put an end to such devotion.2
After the council, the priesthood of Mary is still spoken of, but it is no longer linked to the ministerial priesthood nor to the supreme priesthood of Christ, but rather to the universal priesthood of the faithful. As figure and first fruits of the Church, she possessed in a personal way that "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9), that all the baptized possess in a collective way. - Mary, Mother and Model of the Priest Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, OFMCap, Pontifical Household Preacher

Thus images depicting Mary as a priest are now forbidden.

Pope Pius X was originally in favour of this!

"In 1906, Pope Pius X approved a prayer which says "Mary, Virgin Priest, pray for us." (emphasis mine). However, a Holy Office decree of 1916 forbade the use of any image that had Mary wearing vestments – some say for fear of the possibilty of an argument for women’s ordination, others that Mary as a priest was a metaphorical image taken too far."- The Priesthood of Mary

The Church sets out that specific colours are to be used within the liturgy for particular liturgical seasons. She also apparently forbids skull and crossbones as well as memento mori or images of the dead (imagines mortuorum) are forbidden on sacred vestments.

Over the years I have shared many photos of black requiem vestments replete with skulls, scythes, bones, even the poor souls in Purgatory. These vestments usually inspire a great deal of interest for reason of their relative rarity and also for reason of these symbols. Reaction to them is either one of great interest or, alternatively, a certain hesitancy and discomfort.
Most of the extant examples of this sort of work comes from the 18th century. In the realm of liturgical books we also find a number examples from the first half of the 19th century. Interestingly, however, such inclusions -- at least as far as paraments were concerned -- were already excluded at least as early as the 1600 edition of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum. The text of the C.E. notes that images of the dead (imagines mortuorum), as well as white crosses (cruces albae), were not permitted on the paraments of the altar, the sacred ministers' vestments, the seldom used missal covering, for the coverings of the faldstool and so on. (See Book II, Chapter XI, No. 1) Later, in the 19th century, clarification was asked of the Sacred Congregation of Rites as to whether the prohibition against images of the dead was meant to only exclude those of the souls in purgatory as opposed to skulls and such, however the answer came back in the negative. It excluded both. (See SRC 4174.)

Here follows three examples of images that are forbidden on sacred vestments:

One last source I would like to add here is the book entitled Matters Liturgical (Collectio Rerum Liturgicarium). This book contains some helpful information, but is dispersed here and there throughout the liturgical norms presented.
Although not forbidden, St. Bernard of Clairvaux was famous for speaking out against gargoyles carved on the walls of his monastery's cloister.

The primary use of the gargoyle was to illustrate evil through the form of the gargoyle,[citation needed] while another theory posits that grotesques in architecture were apotropaic devices. Sometimes the use of the gargoyles illustrated pagan beliefs to reflect the unique cultural history of the community the cathedral is part of. In the 12th century, before the use of gargoyles as rain spouts, St. Bernard of Clairvaux was famous for speaking out against gargoyles carved on the walls of his monastery's cloister:

What are these fantastic monsters doing in the cloisters before the eyes of the brothers as they read? What is the meaning of these unclean monkeys, these strange savage lions, and monsters? To what purpose are here placed these creatures, half beast, half man, or these spotted tigers? I see several bodies with one head and several heads with one body. Here is a quadruped with a serpent's head, there a fish with a quadruped's head, then again an animal half horse, half goat... Surely if we do not blush for such absurdities, we should at least regret what we have spent on them. Gargoyle

A gargoyle on the Basilique du Sacré-Cœur, Paris, France, showing the water channel
I am sure more images have been forbidden by Rome, but I can not locate the particular circumstances.


Is there a registry of Book of Mormon Geography Theories?

From the article below it seems that Dr. Lynn Rosenvall and his son, David, have published various models of ‘Book of Mormon Geography’: The Baja model, the Peruvian model and the Great Lakes or Mesoamerican model, which seems to have the greatest support.  The Baja model is discussed in an article by Michael R. Ash for the ‘Mormon Times’ (November 22 2010), part of which says this:

Specific strengths for the Baja model include a climate (in the northern parts of the peninsula) that is very similar to that of the Mediterranean Basin (from which the Lehites would have derived). Another evidence in favor of the Baja model is the description of the land of Nephi and Zarahemla as nearly surrounded by water (Alma 22:32) and Nephi’s comparison of their land to an “isle of the sea” (2 Nephi 10:20).

Like supporters of the Peruvian model, the Rosenvalls offer answers to criticisms of their model. I find their answers to be less persuasive, however, than those strengths I see in other models. Readers can follow the links to the Peruvian and Baja models and come to their own conclusions...  The topic of Book of Mormon archaeology in general will be dealt with in a future installment.    Source: https://www.deseret.com/2010/11/22/20367661/challenging-issues-keeping-the-faith-the-baja-model-of-book-of-mormon-geography

This link gives access to various articles - An Approach to ‘The Book of Mormon Geography’ http://www.achoiceland.com/home
A New Approach to Studying the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ Paperback – August 1, 2017 by Lynn A. Rosenvall (Author), David L. Rosenvall (Author) $13.39   https://www.amazon.com/New-Approach-Studying-Book-Mormon/dp/0998717800
I realise there is no mention here of any registry of only Book of Mormon geography theories, but it may be that the link to the Deseret/Mormon Times magazine will help you on your way.


In Rev 9:4 What grass was left for them to not hurt?

Cecil is very correct in that the book of revelation was written with heavy use of symbolism. You really have to study the scriptures around the one you are confused about in order to understand them.

There is also the translation to consider. My New World Translation renders the scripture in Revelation 8:7 as:

  "The first one blew his trumpet. And there was hail and fire mingled with blood, and it was hurled to the earth; and a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green vegetation was burned up."

However those scriptures are talking about the same thing whether it be grass or vegetation. I have the book, but it is not currently on the website. I will be using the book Revelation-ITS GRAND CLIMAX AT HAND! chapters 21 and 22 as my source for gleaning more from the book of revelation. The book itself is very well researched and breaks down each scripture and explains it. So on the topic's we are looking at in chapters 8 and 9 it says this.

  "In the Bible, the word “earth” often refers to mankind. (Genesis 11:1; Psalm 96:1) Since the second plague is on the sea, which also has to do with mankind, “the earth” must refer to the seemingly stable human society that Satan has built up and that is due to be destroyed. (2 Peter 3:7; Revelation 21:1) The plague scenario reveals that false religion's third of the earth is scorched by the searing heat of Jehovah’s disapproval. Her prominent ones—standing like trees in the midst of her—are burned up by the proclaiming of Jehovah’s adverse judgment. All her hundreds of millions of members, if they continue to support false religion, become like scorched blades of grass, spiritually wilted in God’s eyes.—Compare Psalm 37:1, 2."

Really then false religion is not being literally burned up, but spiritually. They are at that point experiencing God's full disapproval of them.

Later in chapter 9 of revelations that book again elaborates as to what those symbols mean.

  "First, though, let us examine other scriptures that will help us to understand this plague better.
  The Bible book of Joel, written during the ninth century B.C.E., describes a plague of insects, including locusts, that is similar to the one that John sees. (Joel 2:1-11, 25) It was to cause much discomfort for apostate Israel but would also result in individual Jews’ repenting and returning to Jehovah’s favor. (Joel 2:6, 12-14) When that time arrived, Jehovah would pour out his spirit upon “every sort of flesh,” while fearful signs and alarming portents would precede “the coming of the great and fear-inspiring day of Jehovah.”—Joel 2:11, 28-32.

  "There was a fulfillment of Joel chapter 2 in the first century. It was then, at Pentecost 33 C.E., that holy spirit was poured out, anointing the first Christians and empowering them to speak “the magnificent things of God” in many tongues. As a result, a large crowd assembled. The apostle Peter addressed those astonished onlookers, quoting Joel 2:28, 29 and explaining that they were witnessing its fulfillment. (Acts 2:1-21) But there is no record of a literal insect plague at that time, causing discomfort to some and leading others to repentance."

  "Was there a figurative plague during those days? Yes, indeed! It came as a result of the relentless preaching of the newly anointed Christians. Through them, Jehovah invited those Jews who would listen to repent and enjoy blessings from him. (Acts 2:38-40; 3:19) The individuals who responded received his favor to a remarkable degree. But to the ones who refused the invitation, the first-century Christians became like a devastating swarm of locusts. Starting in Jerusalem, they spread through all Judaea and Samaria. Soon they were everywhere, tormenting the unbelieving Jews by publicly proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection, with all that this implied. (Acts 1:8; 4:18-20; 5:17-21, 28, 29, 40-42; 17:5, 6; 21:27-30) That plaguing continued until the “fear-inspiring day,” in 70 C.E., when Jehovah brought the Roman armies against Jerusalem to destroy it. Only those Christians who in faith called on the name of Jehovah were saved.—Joel 2:32; Acts 2:20, 21; Proverbs 18:10."

So something very similar was prophesied about locusts tormenting people and an outcome is given in the bible. So what about the modern time fulfillment of revelations locusts? Revelation 9:4-6

  "They were told not to harm the vegetation of the earth or any green plant or any tree, but only those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. And it was granted the locusts, not to kill them, but to torment them five months, and their torment was like torment by a scorpion when it strikes a person. In those days people will seek death but will by no means find it, and they will long to die, but death will flee from them."

And the books explanation:

  "Notice that this plague is not directed first against the people or prominent ones among them—the ‘vegetation and trees of the earth.’ (Compare Revelation 8:7.) The locusts are to harm only those men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads, those of false religion who claim to be sealed but whose record belies that claim. (Ephesians 1:13, 14) Thus, the tormenting utterances of these modern-day locusts were directed first against the false religious leaders. How these self-assuming men must have been tormented at hearing it publicly announced that not only were they failing to lead their flocks to heaven but they themselves would not get there! Truly, it has been a case of ‘the blind leading the blind’!
  "

So now that we know what those passages mean we can analyze your question better. The green vegetation or grass mentioned in chapter 9 are the men that are not in a leadership position be it government or religious. They are the common people.

Because revelations is very symbolic is is tough to say what portion of mankind is included in the grass/vegetation or what it means for them to be burnt up. That could mean a spiritual burning or withering. Thus they are spiritually weakened, but they can be hurt or weakened further.


Do The Original Houses of Numbers Still Exist?

A few known facts:

The tribe of Levi was not allowed to be counted:
"But the Levites were not numbered among them by their fathers’ tribe;
for the LORD had spoken to Moses, saying:
Only the tribe of Levi you shall not number, nor take a census of them among the children of Israel" — Numbers 1:47–49.

The tribe of Levi was not assigned any land of its own.
Instead, the Levites were spread throughout the lands of the other tribes and providing the religious structure of the country, with Aaron's descendants as priests.

Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, were adopted by Jacob (Israel), forming two half-tribes in place of the tribe of Joseph: "And now your two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine." — Genesis 48:5.

The birthright promises were inherited by Ephraim and Manasseh, and they retained the family name Israel.

The messianic promises were inherited by Judah, and passed through King David and his descendants.

When Israel split into two kingdoms, the tribe of Benjamin remained with, and eventually became assimilated into, the tribe of Judah, who are also known as Jews.
Even during Jesus's time, some people still identified themselves as being Benjaminites.
Paul for instance, in Phillippians 3:5, described himself as "of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee".

The Kingdom of Israel was taken into captivity by the Assyrians.

The Kingdom of Judah (including Benjamin) was later taken into captivity by the Babylonians.
Eventually though, they returned to their homeland, centered around Jerusalem.
They are the ancestors of modern Jews.
Today, those named Cohen are considered descendants of the Levitical priesthood (Y-chromosomal Aaron - Wikipedia).

In the first century, historian Josephus recorded that "the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude and not to be estimated in numbers".
Since then, those ten tribes of Israel have been lost to mainstream history, but there is much speculation about what happened to them.
One theory is that they were taken by the Assyrians who migrated from the Black Sea area into what is now central Germany.
From there the tribes continued on, settling Scandinavia, the British Isles, and northwestern Europe.
Many Danes believe themselves descendants of the tribe of Dan.
Scots have significant Persian genes, and traditionally avoid certain non-kosher foods, such as eels and pork.
Some people (including Queen Victoria herself) believe that the current British throne is the continuation of the line of David.
It's a fascinating subject, especially for students of prophecy, but not an essential part of Christianity itself.


How can one judge how accurate a given Bible translation is?

"How accurate is translation X compared to translation Y?" sounds like a simple question, but it really isn't at all. There really can't be a single definitive translation, for a variety of reasons.

Some questions to ask about any particular translation are:

What source texts were being used? Newer translations aren't automatically better than older ones, but most scholars will agree (for instance) that the King James / Authorized Version must suffer from the fact that the translators only had access to relatively late copies of many texts.
What is the goal of this particular translation? The Good News Bible is more about accessibility than accuracy, so while it strives to be a faithful rendition, the need to use a compact vocabulary and keep sentences simple means that some nuances will be lost.
*Are there footnotes showing, for instance, important variant readings?" Translations that aim for high accuracy should also draw their readers' attention to issues such as doubt over the meaning of particular words, cases where there are rival ways of seeing where sentences and phrases start and end (there's no punctuation in all those Greek texts!) and significant differences between source texts that haven't been resolved by scholarship.

There really isn't - and couldn't be - such a thing as a definitive translation - even less a permanent one. Language just doesn't work like that. But it's well worth getting to know the aims, strengths and weaknesses of a few translations, particularly if you want to get to grips with the fine detail.

For me, I most often read Today's New International Version, because I find it reads very naturally, if I'm studying more deeply I'll reach for the *New Revised Standard Version," and if I'm looking to freshen up my view I'll add in a reading with more of the translator's personality, such as Eugene Petersen's The Message or J. B. Phillips (not a complete Bible translation). I have a host of others on shelves both actual and virtual, and I have at least enough rusty Greek to put an interlinear (Greek with English) to use if I want to try and see why translations differ.


Why do folks clasp their hands and bow their heads when praying?

IDK about clasping hands, as I don't do it. I do know that we bow our head in respect for the one we are praying to, God.

It is much the same in a legal case. When you approach a judge you address him differently than say a sales clerk. When you talk to the judge, your speech is more respectful as is your body language. When you talk casually to someone your mannerism change completely.

When we do these things for God, we are showing regard for his position of authority. We are also showing that we are in subjection to our father.

The clasping of hands may be to show love  and encouragement for your brothers in the congregation. Hebrews 10:24-25:

  "24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near".


Why was David disqualified from building the temple?

When David provoked the anger of God by counting the fighting men in Israel, the punishment was so severe. Then  God commanded David to build an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite (1 Chronicles 21) to pray to the LORD to have mercy on Israel. David called on the Lord, and the Lord answered him with fire from heaven on the altar of burnt offering.
David then decided to build the Temple there at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. David then commenced the building of the Temple of God immediately. But God already forbade David from building the Temple as David had shed much blood.

  1 Chronicles 22:1-10 (NIV)

  Then David said, “The house of the Lord God is to be here, and also
  the altar of burnt offering for Israel.”

  So David gave orders to assemble the foreigners residing in Israel,
  and from among them he appointed stonecutters to prepare dressed stone
  for building the house of God. He provided a large amount of iron to
  make nails for the doors of the gateways and for the fittings, and
  more bronze than could be weighed. He also provided more cedar logs
  than could be counted, for the Sidonians and Tyrians had brought large
  numbers of them to David.

  David said, “My son Solomon is young and inexperienced, and the house
  to be built for the Lord should be of great magnificence and fame and
  splendor in the sight of all the nations. Therefore I will make
  preparations for it.” So David made extensive preparations before his
  death.

  Then he called for his son Solomon and charged him to build a house
  for the Lord, the God of Israel. David said to Solomon: “My son, I had
  it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the Lord my God. But
  this word of the Lord came to me: ‘You have shed much blood and have
  fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because
  you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. But you will have a
  son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from
  all his enemies on every side. His name will be Solomon, and I will
  grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign. He is the one who will
  build a house for my Name. He will be my son, and I will be his
  father. And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel
  forever.’

Prophet Nathan also prophesied long before David married Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, that David was not the one to build the Temple.

  He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish
  the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will
  be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by
  men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. (2 Samuel 7:13-14, NIV)

Before Solomon was born, God already decided that Solomon should build the house of the Lord. David was not qualified because his hands were stained with blood. Moreover, David's purpose was to establish the kingdom of Israel. After 300 years of war with the inhabitants of Canaan, it was time to make an end to turmoil. David had the responsibility to build a powerful nation for Israel, the people of God. The reign of Solomon was the right time to build the Temple. God wanted to build His house in a peaceful environment, without shedding of blood in the country. After David defeated all enemies of Israel, the nation was in peace and his son Solomon received the honor of building the Temple of the LORD.


What specific thing in the Bible separates the Old Testament from the New Testament?

There's a little bit of history to the titles Old Testament and New Testament that needs to be explained.

We begin with the Greek word διαθήκη (diatheke) which has two major distinct sub-senses and cannot be translated with a single English word.

a last will and testament
a compact/contract/covenant, and in this sense it was used to translate בְּרִית (berith) from the Hebrew scriptures

You may be more familiar with the Biblical language of the Old and New Covenants. There are several passages which talk about them, which I'll quote (all from the NIV) but not really dig deeply into.

  Jeremiah 31:31-32:
  “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
   “when I will make a new covenant
  with the people of Israel
   and with the people of Judah.
  It will not be like the covenant
   I made with their ancestors
  when I took them by the hand
   to lead them out of Egypt,
  because they broke my covenant,
   though I was a husband to them,”
  declares the Lord.

  Luke 22:20: In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

  2 Corinthians 3:13-15: We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts.

  Hebrews 8:6-7: But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.

  Hebrews 8:13: By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

  Hebrews 9:15-18: For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
  In the case of a will (διαθήκη), it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.

So we read in Jeremiah of the promise of a New Covenant and Jesus's identification of the cup at the last supper before his death as the symbol of the New Covenant. We read in 2 Corinthians Paul say that the Old Covenant refers to the writings of Moses. In Hebrews the contrast between the Old and New Covenants is of major importance. Hebrews identifies the Old Covenant as the Israelite sacrificial system, while the New Covenant was instituted by Jesus's self-sacrifice on the cross. And in the last quote there we see the author bring both senses of διαθήκη together as he explains why Jesus's death was required to institute the New Covenant, joining the two concepts of contract and will.

These Biblical examples show the development of this idea of there being an Old Covenant of animal sacrifice which was done away with by the New Covenant of Jesus's self-sacrifice. But how did we get from there to calling the whole Hebrew Bible by the name of the Old Covenant?

The first aspect is that it is an example of synecdoche, where one thing is referred to by the name of one of its parts. So although the Mosaic covenant is only one of many covenants in the Hebrew Bible, because it was the foundation of the state of Israel, and it specified the statutes governing the formal Israelite religion, and it contained the promise of blessings and curses the prophets retold, it came to be used by Christians to refer to the whole Hebrew Bible, even though there was nothing "old" about the Noahic or Abrahamic covenants, nor were the Psalms etc. superseded.

Second, it arose through the breadth of meaning in the Greek word διαθήκη which is not shared by any of its English translations. BDAG explains that even when used in the sense of a covenant, διαθήκη has less of the sense of an agreement between two parties, and more of a "declaration of one person’s initiative". Similarly the English words testament and testimony are both derived from the Latin word testor. So the Old διαθήκη is not just a covenant, not just a will, but a testimony and witness to God.

The specific use of the terms Old Testament and New Testament to refer to the two parts of the Bible arose quite early in the history of the church. One noteable use was from Tertullian who was wrote against Marcion, who taught that the Hebrew and Greek scriptures revealed two gods who were at odds with each other, Creator and Christ. Tertullian countered by saying that the two collections of texts were two witnesses to the one God:

  the Divine Word, who is doubly edged with the two testaments of the law and the gospel.
  ...
  it is certain that the whole aim at which he [Marcion] has strenuously laboured, even in the drawing up of his Antitheses, centres in this, that he may establish a diversity between the Old and the New Testaments, so that his own Christ may be separate from the Creator, as belonging to this rival god, and as alien from the law and the prophets.

(Tertullian here also refers to the "law and gospel", two other labels for the Old and New Covenants, which has been used by many over the years, most notably Martin Luther.)

And there we have it. The two titles are terms where the part is used to refer to the whole, and the specific old thing is the Mosaic covenant.


In what way are we to be one, as Jesus and the Father are one?

Being of the same nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)

"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."


What is the Catholic understanding of 'reign with him' in 2 Tim 2:12?

I have always understood it as being connected with the Mystical Body of Christ. If we endure, stay firmly connected to the Mystical Body, then just as Christ is the King of the Universe, we are also part of that kingship by our connection to Him.


Are Origen's and Calvin's views on God compatible?

Origen's View on God
Origen of Alexandria (185-232) was a great Bible scholar and an influential early Christian theologian whose contributions has been underappreciated, mostly because he was posthumously declared heretic by Emperor Justinian in AD 543 and because works derived from some of his teachings were anathematized by the Second Council of Constantinople in AD 553.  However, none of the ten propositions condemned in 543 were about the nature of the Trinity.
In the development of the Trinitarian doctrine which culminated in the Nicene creed promulgated at the AD 325 First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, Origen's view represented an early 3rd century A.D. major development of the Trinity but still not the fully developed early 4th century A.D. shape.  He, along with his contemporary Clement of Alexandria (150-215), were battling Gnosticism in Alexandria and attempted to use middle Platonism fashionable in Alexandria at the time to defend the Orthodox understanding of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.  Although the resulting trinitarianism was flawed, it was still a step in the right direction [see [1] pages 10-11].
From a paper on the Historical Development Of the Doctrine of Trinity (emphasis mine):

In Clement’s trinitarian construct, God the Father is absolutely transcendent, ineffable and incomprehensible; He is unity, but beyond unity, and transcending the monad, and yet embraces all reality.  The Father can be known only through His Word (Logos), or Son, who is His image and inseparable from Him, His mind or rationality. Like the Nous of mid-Platonism and of Neo-Platonism, the Word is at once unity and plurality, comprising in Himself the Father’s ideas, and also the active forces by which He animates the world of creatures.  His generation from the Father is without beginning (the Father is not without His Son; for along with being Father, He is Father of the Son); and He is essentially one with Him, since the Father is in Him and He in the Father.  The Spirit, thirdly, is the Light issuing from the Word, which, divided without any real division, illuminates the faithful; He is also the power of the Word which pervades the world and attracts men to God.
Thus, pursuant to his Platonic Christian theism, Clement presents a graded hierarchy of a triune but one God in which the Son is subordinated to the Father, and the Spirit subordinated to the Son.  Notwithstanding, no inequality seems to be implied, since Clement and Origen set out to develop an orthodox Gnosticism in place of its heretical forms pervading Alexandria through the Gnostic teachers – Basilides, Carpocrates, and Valentinus.  Similarly, J.N.D. Kelly asserts that Clement and Origen were profoundly enamored to understand the triune Godhead in the light of middle Platonism fashionable in Alexandria in the time.  But it is Origen’s radical popularization of the same kind of Clementine trinitarianism that would lay the foundation for the most notable Christian trinitarian controversies.

Origen's trinitarianism is described at SEP History of Trinitarian Doctrines as follows:

... These late second and third century authors use such terms not to refer to the one God, but rather to refer to the plurality of the one God, together with his Son (on Word) and his Spirit. They profess a “trinity”, triad or threesome, but not a triune or tripersonal God. Nor did they consider these to be equally divine. A common strategy for defending monotheism in this period is to emphasize the unique divinity of the Father. Thus Origen (ca. 186–255),

The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit… (On First Principles 1.3)

Many scholars call this strain of Christian theology “subordinationist”, as the Son and Spirit are always in some sense derivative of, less than, and subordinate to their source, the one God, that is, the Father. One may also call this theology unitarian, in the sense that the one God just is the Father, and not equally the Son and Spirit, so that the one God is “unipersonal”.

Calvin's View on God
Your quote comes from Calvin's magnum opus Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter 13 titled "The Unity of the Divine Essence in Three Persons Taught, In Scripture, From the Foundation of the World", section 25, which is in the middle of sections 21-29 where he refuted a variety of objections to the true doctrine of Trinity.
Rather than analyzing the specific view rejected in section 25, let's simply consider Calvin's view of God, which of course is the fully developed Trinitarian understanding of the Nicene creed, which defines the Trinity as follows:
We believe in one God,
  the Father almighty,
  maker of heaven and earth,
  of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
  the only Son of God,
  begotten from the Father before all ages,
       God from God,
       Light from Light,
       true God from true God,
  begotten, not made;
  of the same essence as the Father.
  Through him all things were made.
  For us and for our salvation
       he came down from heaven;
       he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
       and was made human.
       ...

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
  the Lord, the giver of life.
  He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
  and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
  ...

For proof that Calvin subscribed to the Nicene creed, see article 5 of the A.D. 1559 French Confession of Faith composed by him:

We believe that the Word contained in these books has proceeded
from God, and receives its authority from him alone, and not from men.
And inasmuch as it is the rule of all truth, containing all that is necessary
for the service of God and for our salvation, it is not lawful for men, nor
even for angels, to add to it, to take away from it, or to change it. Whence
it follows that no authority, whether of antiquity, or custom, or numbers,
or human wisdom, or judgments, or proclamations, or edicts, or decrees,
or councils, or visions, or miracles, should be opposed to these Holy
Scriptures, but, on the contrary, all things should be examined, regulated,
and reformed according to them. And therefore we confess the three
creeds, to wit : the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian, because
they are in accordance with the Word of God.

Conclusion
Origen's and Calvin's views on God are compatible in that both affirm monotheism and the pre-existence of Jesus (as the Logos) and the Holy Spirit, but Calvin's view is of course the more fully developed doctrine of the Trinity, defined since AD 325, in that the subordinationist defect has been eliminated.
References

The Historical Development of the Doctrine of Trinity, a paper by Samuel Japhets for History of Christianity I, Liberty University, 2017
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article History of Trinitarian Doctrines
Nicene Creed


Some professions of OT prophets are recorded, but likely many of them were supported by God himself and by those putting faith in their message (much like Jesus would later be).

Did they have to rely on others?

Yes, but their need to rely on others was a test on those they were sent to.  Ultimately their reliance was on God himself, and the perceived need of the prophet was a test on the people the prophet was sent to.

A very good example is Elijah in 1 Kings 17

At first God feeds Elijah through the ravens themselves, showing as in many cases in Elijah's life, God's ability to provide directly for the prophet.

Second a person is used to feed Elijah - and when they give the last of what they have, yet another miracle is given so that both are fed.

This is not very different than any other prophet situation, because everything under the heavens belongs to God. If anyone could provide food for a prophet, they are giving something that was first given to them, and could be rewarded based on that faith - just like the widow of Zarephath was.

To reiterate - in every case the prophet's needy state was simply a test on those he was sent to.

Were they poor or wealthy?

The majority of what we know about OT prophets is that they were generally not wealthy, and this was not by accident - the prophets represented people lightly esteemed by the world of that time. But there are a few who had prophetic roles, directly or indirectly, who were not exactly the poor either.

Moses:
House of Pharoah (wealthy), turned Shepherd (not wealthy). While not necessarily poor, he was progressively humbled through is work to the point that he is called "The meekest on the earth". (Exodus 2)

Samuel
Not necessarily rich or poor, but instead a dedicated prophet. If he had access to wealth (being in the service of the temple) there is nothing to suggest he made personal use it. A clue we have on his wealth-or-not priorities was that he generally always wore the little coat his mother made him, and not expensive attire he may have had access to - 1Sa 2:18, 19. He was also good in his dealings. 1 Samuel 12:4,5

Jeremiah
Definitely not wealthy and did not benefit from the  world at that time. His attendant was, however, and it proved to be somewhat of a snare to the attendant. The entire book of Jeremiah testifies to his lowliness - especially the statement recorded here: Jeremiah 45:5 - he could not have given such advice as a wealthy man.

Solomon
A bit of a prophet through example, and definitely wealthy - but an example in wisdom and a prefiguration of Jesus in his kingdom. Later became unfaithful. Solomon is a common example of a wealthy man, and there are prophesies hidden scattered his writings in proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

Elijah
Elijah, during the time of his prophesying, was far from wealthy - to the point that God fed him by having ravens carry him food, and later by a few miracles. Spent much of his time on the run. See above.

Amos
Shepherd and fig farmer. Not wealthy professions. Amos 7:14

Daniel
One of the foremost prophets with the most interesting books of OT, we could say that Daniel was likely wealthy in terms of position and power, and likely had the perks of his position available to him if he wished, but its obvious that was not his concern. He was definitely wealthy at Babylon's fall when they gave him gifts and promoted him. Daniel 5:29

Abraham
Not necessarily known as a prophet, but certainly a tool of prophesy, was wealthy to a degree as many were dependent on him - but thats not an emphasis of his life. Genesis 24:35

Joseph
Certainly a prophet - had a series of ups and downs in wealth. Ended up being a foremost ruler of Egypt. Genesis 41

Ezekiel
The priesthood - but (wealthy profession?) was called to be a prophet, and the details of his prophesying work certainly do not reflect wealth at the time, but rather showed the poverty people would suffer in being reduced to eating food by careful ration cooked over dung cakes. Ezekiel 4:12

These are a few commonly known examples.

Poverty by Necessity

Prophets, during the time of their prophesying, rarely had "the good life" but were generally known for being treated insolently and being among the lower ranking ones of the world, much in the spirit of what is stated later in NT: 1 Corinthians 1:27 - God chose the foolish things of the world.

Depending on how you define wealth, you could even say they were the richest in the world, but again, proving such a thing requires New Testament reasoning provided by Christ, considering treasure in heaven.

If we assess a prophet according to their station during the time of their prophesying, most had very little.

Even Joseph, though quite wealthy in the end, was still at "prisoner" status when he arrived before Pharaoh to make the future known.

Although Daniel was indeed rich in comparison to his contemporaries, he longed to be back in Jerusalem, so likely the "riches" of the pagan empire were worthless in his eyes, keeping him poor in his own eyes.

Moses abandoned the rich life altogether. Its part of the OT story, but confirmed in the NT Hebrews 11:26-27 - summing up an important lesson.

You've asked a very good question, because the "wealth" of a prophet and their attitude toward their wealth (or lack of) is a very important part of their message, their values, and their faith.


Why do most Christians seemingly not mind swearing on the Bible in light of Matthew 5:33-37?

According to this source

The tradition of using the Bible in oath-taking likely comes from ninth-century England, where, without dedicated governmental centers, the altar of a church often served as the courtroom for oaths and contracts. Gospels began to be used in the contractual ceremonies, and, eventually, the tradition migrated into English courtrooms before crossing the Atlantic into American legal ceremonies. Though oaths are indeed religious in origin, the Constitution makes clear that the oath can be replaced with an "Affirmation," which substitutes the religious language (the "I swear" and "So help me God") with a secular affirmation (for example: "I affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth").


Is there any theological reason that Eastern Orthodox clergy tend to maintain long beards?

It's a tradition derived from two sources: first of all, Jesus had long beard - second, from Leviticus 19:27 "You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard"

However, it's not a prescription for ortodox clergy to do that: it's only a (widely observed) tradition
Note that catholic clergy usually not maintain long beards, for a different tradition: Romans used to shave their beards, and to consider men with long beards as uncivilized (barbarians).
Anyway, there is no prescription about beards (exept for some monks)


Is it historically inaccurate that Jesus is usually portrayed as European looking?

With regards to ethnicity and geography, the direct answer to this is a big Yes, it is wrong. Bethlehem is in Palestine, Asia. The borders of this nation is the red sea, Egypt, Lebanon Jordan, the Dead Sea and Syria, (varied with time). The closest picture we could estimate should be that of an Arab or middle eastern.

Theories that Jesus was European were forged, and claims that he was black, partly because Jesus lived as a small boy in Egypt, are inaccurate as well.

  "...the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying,
  Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and mother and flee
  into Egypt...that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord
  by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son." (Matthew
  2:13-15).

These claims do not have any  concrete scientific bases and are purely subjective.

Nowhere in the bible is was Jesus physically described apart from the transfiguration. We are only told of his descent Solomon and David, all from Israel and over 14 generations afterwards.

  "And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of
  her that had been the wife of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam; and
  Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;....And Jacob begat Joseph the
  husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
  (Matthew 1:6-16)

The names couldn't be European either.

Another possible answer also by logic is that God could not give him any look different from the people around him.

Let's assume that Christ was born in Eastern or West Africa where you can find the darkest people on earth. For Him to live an exemplary life so that people wouldn't find it a big deal doing what he did, he must have had the looks of blacks, not white to look strange for his black society to think it takes something supernatural to live a righteous life.

Remember that the society could not doubt him as the son of Joseph, the carpenter.

  "Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and
  his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" (Matthew
  13:55).

Remember Jesus hungered, slept, wept and got angry to prove his earthly being. The best assumption is that, in the Middle-east, he would be born Middle-eastern as some sort of placebo to win friends and followers.