Did God want Satan to tempt Jesus as a means of showing the spiritual realm that Jesus's love for and loyalty to God was undeniable?

There are a lot of biblical insights we can draw from this encounter.

Look for example at Johns description of the worlds temptations

    For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world.  1 John 2:16 NKJV

Jesus experiences these three in his encounter with Satan.

The lust of the flesh: He hungers for bread, his body wants it, its natural human desire.

Lust of the eyes: He is taken to the mountain tops and shown all the kingdoms that he could want.

Pride of Life: He was tempted to jump off of the temple (In plain sight of the worshippers). To show in a dramatic way his glory, and earn the praise of the crowds. (as opposed to the path God put before him of suffering and shame leading to the cross).

This is also a pattern for believers in how to resist sin, notice that in each temptation Jesus responds with the Word of God, citing the Bible to refute the temptations of Satan.

    Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ ” Matt 4:10

Jesus is the example for the believers, modeling what James says

    Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. James 4:7

Also, This shows us that Jesus is familiar with the types of struggles which we encounter daily! He is familiar with temptations, and lived a life that we can relate too.

    Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:14-15

Finally, like you mention in the question, Jesus entire life was a witness to his love for the Father, especially in his temptation. Look what Jesus says about the Satan, and the Father in John

    30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me. 31 But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, so I do. Arise, let us go from here. John 14:30-31

Jesus says that Satan has nothing in him, which was evidinced by his ability to withstand temptation. He also says, that his obedience to God is a witness of his Love for the father.

This witness stands today, as a witness before not only the spiritual realm, but also the mortal realm.

We see from Paul in Ephesians that one purpose of God in Jesus Christ was to reveal his plan to the world and the spiritual world

    To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; 10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, 11 according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord,


Is there is any external source about Demas, Paul's fellow worker?

Demas is mentioned in the Acts of Paul and Thecla, an apocryphal work attested by Tertullian around AD 190.

In this work, Demas is portrayed as a troublesome "follower" of Paul.  Paul is portrayed as teaching the value of chastity, and Demas opposes him:

  [Paul] deprives young men of wives, and maidens of husbands, saying, There is for you a resurrection in no other way, unless you remain chaste, and pollute not the flesh, but keep it chaste.

Demas encourages a young man, whose fiancee has been influenced by Paul's teaching, to oppose Paul before the governor, who then scourges Paul and throws him out of the city.

Other than this account, there does not appear to be much tradition related to Demas.  A man by that name is also mentioned in On the Seventy Disciples, as one who "became a priest of idols."  But he has no entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia, nor the Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, suggesting that little more is known about him.


In the Protestant traditions I am familiar with suicide is not an automatic exclusion from Heaven. However it must be said that there is a logical incompatibility between suicide and faith. A faith that aborts just when it has something to trust is no faith at all.

First of all, suicide flies in the face of everything that we learn from Christ about what is good and true. Suicide is murder. It is taking a life that does not belong to you. As Christians we believe that we are the property of another -- that we belong to Christ as a slave belongs to a master.1 We believe that the life that is in us belongs to him. We believe that those who commit suicide will only be in heaven on the same grounds that any of us will, by grace and forgiveness, even for murder.2 However faith in Christ demands action, those who love Him will obey his commands. His commands including not murdering.3

Also, belief in Christ is the very thing that gives us hope for this life4, not just the life to come. We are able to endure whatever sufferings we experience here5 knowing that they will produce in us something even better6. To take your own life is to despair of life itself. This is fundamentally at odds with Christian belief. There would be no logic in believing and then killing yourself, because the later act would show that you really did not understand the former.

See the way the Apostles introduced themselves in letters as "bond-servants", Parables such as in Luke 12 were Jesus uses the servant/master analogy, and Romans (The whole book).
See the David in the OT, the thief on the cross in the NT.
See the commandment "You shall not murder." Exodus 20:13 (ESV)
Hebrews 6:19
1 Peter 5:10
James 1:1-4


Enoch and Elijah are the two that fit this category.

  When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah. Enoch
  walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had
  other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years.
  Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.  Genesis 5:21-24 ESV

  And as they still went on and talked, behold, chariots of fire and
  horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a
  whirlwind into heaven.  2 Kings 2:11 ESV

Some have speculated that Moses also fits into this category, but that doesn't fit with this verse:

  Moses was 120 years old when he died. His eye was undimmed, and his
  vigor unabated.  Deuteronomy 34:7 ESV

The idea that Moses could have been in that category probably comes from the record that Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration.

  And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun,
  and his clothes became white as light. And behold, there appeared to
  them Moses and Elijah, talking with him.   Matthew 17:2-3 ESV

So, Enoch and Elijah are the two that meet this criterion.

As an aside, Lazarus and a few others died twice, so the death rate of all people who have ever lived is actually slightly greater than 100%.  :)

It should also be noted that according to 1 Thessalonians, there are still some people who will not experience physical death, but will enter eternity prior to death.  This is yet future, though.  (Asleep is thought to be a euphemism for physical death)

  But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are
  asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For
  since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through
  Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this
  we declare to you by a word from the Lord,[d] that we who are alive,
  who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who
  have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with
  a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound
  of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we
  who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in
  the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with
  the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words.  1
  Thessalonians 4:13-18 ESV


Why does the Coptic church still perform circumcisions?

Actually they don't; it is derived from Egyptian culture, not necessarily Christian Coptic. The Coptic Church does infant baptism as a sign of the covenant, and you should know that the Coptic Church holds to the view that the Church is the New Israel.


Does the Catholic Church have a policy on how altars are to be destroyed?
Churches and altars may loose their sacred consecration in any number of ways!
Normal loss of an altar’s consecration is due to damage because of age.

Loss of consecration
An altar loses its consecration: (1) when the table of the altar is broken into two or more large pieces; (2) when at the corner of the table that portion which the consecrator anointed with holy oil is broken off; (3) when several large stones of the support of the table are removed; (4) when one of the columns which support the table at the corners is removed; (5) if for any reason whatever the table is removed from the support, or only raised from it — e.g., to renew the cement; (6) by the removal of the relics, or by the fracture or removal, by chance or design, of the small cover, or slab, placed over the cavity containing the relics.

The scenario the OP has written involves an act of desecration and as such the the whole church and it’s altar must be reconsecrated by the local ordinary (bishop) as soon as possible.
The vast majority of Catholic Churches have stone altars and not wooden altars, thus both altar and church would need to be reconsecrated to sacred usage after doom serious profanity happened within the walls of a consecrated church such murder or a scenario mentioned above.
The Archbishop of New Orleans reconsecrated both altar (wooden) and church on October 10th, 2008.

The archbishop of the New Orleans Archdiocese visited the church to perform a ritual that would restore the sanctity of the altar. - Priest arrested for having threesome with corset-wearing dominatrices on church altar

Archbishop Aymond reconsecrates church and altar; calls priest's acts 'demonic'
Does the Catholic Church have any rules for how to dispose of profaned church altars? If so, does it mandate that they be burned?
General usage would be to reconsecrate the altar (and church) since Rome requires at least one fixed altar in stone be present in each parish church.
Catholics are instructed to dispose of old sacramentals in a way that shows due reverence. All sacramentals can be either burned or buried in order to properly dispose of them. This type of disposal honors their sacred purpose and returns them to the earth in a dignified way. If a person is unable to do either, the sacramental may be dropped off at the parish office and someone on staff can take care of it.
Stone and metal can not be burned, so burying it in the ground where people would not walk over then is an option.
Canon Law deals with sacred objects thus:

Can.  1171 Sacred objects, which are designated for divine worship by dedication or blessing, are to be treated reverently and are not to be employed for profane or inappropriate use even if they are owned by private persons.

The Church takes seriously the sacred and a grave violation of this means the sanctuary and it’s altar must be reconsecrated as soon as possible so the faithful may have a sacred place to worship again. In Latin the prayers used in the old rite are called Ritus Recconciliandi Ecclesiam Violatam (Page 214) of the Rituale Romanum of Pope St. Pius V
Even the desecration of a Catholic Cemetery must be reconciled backed to it’s proper usage after a desecration or sacrilegious usage. See: Ritus Reconciliandi Coemeterium Violatum (Page 218) of the Rituale Roamanum of Pope St. Pius V.

Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us. - Catechism of the Catholic Church

According to Matters liturgical worn out priestly vestments are permitted to be disposed of in the typical manner (fire or burial) as well as transformation. Old priestly vestments may be cut up and made into some other usage as long as one can not distinguish their original usage and it is not intended for sacrilegious purposes.
A little note:
Sometimes churches are sold or in danger of being desecrated as in times of war. In such times, the Church though the local ordinary (bishop) may pray the ritual of deconsecration (us consecrating prayer) asking Almighty God to take it’s consecration or blessing away, before the building are turned over to secular hands.


Was Jesus having the beatific vision when He said: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?"

The church teaches that the three divine persons of the Trinity are one, truly united, and inseparable (CCC 252' 255' and 689, among other references). So it is not possible for Christ to be excluded from relationship with the Father. Additionally, God the Father is pure spirit and so his relationship with the eternal son would not be affected by Jesus' bodily death.

The understanding of what this verse is saying is not addressed as a doctrine, but I have heard priests preach on this more than once that Jesus is quoting Psalm 22 verse 1 here:

  Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?Why are you so far
  from saving me,so far from my cries of anguish?

Jesus is praying, and the Jewish people would have recognized that he was quoting the Psalm, which expresses anguish but also fundamental trust in God:

  Psalm 22:3-5 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;you are the one
  Israel praises. In you our ancestors put their trust;they trusted and
  you delivered them. To you they cried out and were saved;in you they
  trusted and were not put to shame.

Jesus is also fulfilling what was written, in that the people and Jewish leaders are mocking him, as described in the Psalm:

  Psalm 22:7-8 All who see me mock me;they hurl insults, shaking their
  heads. “He trusts in the Lord,” they say,“let the Lord rescue him.Let
  him deliver him,since he delights in him.”

And again, that they would cast lots for his garments:

  Psalm 22:17-18 All my bones are on display;people stare and gloat over
  me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.

Now later I. The Psalm Jesus' trust in God and the fact that God has not turned his face away is made even more clear in the passages leading up to verse 24:

  Psalm 22:19-24 But you, Lord, do not be far from me.You are my
  strength; come quickly to help me. Deliver me from the sword,my
  precious life from the power of the dogs. Rescue me from the mouth of
  the lions;save me from the horns of the wild oxen. I will declare your
  name to my people;in the assembly I will praise you. You who fear the
  Lord, praise him!All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!Revere him,
  all you descendants of Israel! For he has not despised or scornedthe
  suffering of the afflicted one;he has not hidden his face from himbut.
  has listened to his cry for help. (emphasis mine)

As in Gethsemane, Jesus is expressing his fundamental trust in God, and that God will rescue and vindicate him. We should not understand Jesus' words to mean that he has been put at arms length or has been put out of relationship and perfect union with God.

Edit: to address whether Christ's humanity only was separated from God:

The church definitively declared in 451 at the council of Chalcedon, also referenced in CCC 467 regarding Jesus divine and human natures, that:

  We confess that the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to
  be acknowledged in two natures within confusion, change division, or
  separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by
  their union...  ... As they came together in one person (prosperon)
  and one hypostasis.

And in CCC 468:

  Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his
  Divine purpose...  ... Also his sufferings and even his death.

So we are taught that there is never any division between Jesus' divinity and his humanity, even such that his humanity is now expressed by his person in the unity of the Trinity (CCC 470).

If this aspect of Christ interests you, you may find the entire article in the catechism helpful, paragraphs 464-483.


Why did Peter, James and John (all three) appear to Joseph Smith?

If I understand your question to be why did all three need to appear to Joseph Smith then there is no precise answer out there that I can find, but there are several closely related answers.

The simple answer as to why they appeared to Joseph Smith can be found in D&C 27:12

  And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them;

Why all three and not just one. Part of it may be because all three are recognized as prominent apostles during Christ's ministry. Having just one or two would lead to questions like why didn't all three appear to him. And from 2 Cor 13:1

  This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Also, the LDS believe that Jesus Christ, Moses, and Elias gave the keys to Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration; so they (Peter, James, and John) are following the same pattern as they did anciently by having three members confer the keys. 1

The exact reasoning for having 3 apostles/prophets confer is not stated but 3 is a symbolic number for completeness or the Godhead (and the Priesthood is the power and authority of God and that power given to man to act in His name). 2

For more on Priesthood keys see this article that has select teachings by various LDS prophets/leaders.

1 http://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf pg 158

2 '3' sybmol meaning https://bible.org/question/what-significance-numbers-scripture and http://www.biblestudy.org/bibleref/meaning-of-numbers-in-bible/3.html and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/3944/22319


Why does Vatican require "Yahweh" not to be used?

The "removal" of it is actually a reminder of Roman Catholic tradition. That is, uttering the tetragrammaton has always been prohibited, mostly for the same reasons it's prohibited in Jewish traditions. The usage of it has crept into recent usage unintentionally in attempts to be more modern with translations.

To combat this (and other translation issues), the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued the Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001, which provided guidance on how to translate the Bible based on Church teaching, and provided instructions specifically about the tetragrammaton:

  [I]n accordance with immemorial tradition, which indeed is already evident in the above-mentioned “Septuagint” version, the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) and rendered in Latin by the word Dominus, is to be rendered into any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning.

In 2008, a letter was sent to all the Bishops' conferences (PDF) intended to remind them of this instruction. This letter again provided reasons why the tetragrammaton ought not be uttered and reiterated:

  Avoiding pronouncing the tetragrammaton of the name of God on the part of the Church has therefore its own grounds. Apart from a motive of a purely philological order, there is also that of remaining faithful to the Church's tradition, from the beginning, that the sacred tetragrammaton was never pronounced in the Christian context nor translated into any of the languages into which the Bible was translated.

The letter then specified three directives which serve to remind the conferences about the prohibition on the use of the tetragrammaton in prayers, songs, and Biblical translations.

The Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible were published in 1966 and 1985, respectively: as mentioned above, Wikipedia suggests the use of Yahweh in them was an attempt to modernize the translations. They are mostly unique in this respect: other translations like the New American Bible and the Douey-Rheims Bible translate it to "God" or "Lord" in accordance with Church teaching.

Given the 2001 and 2008 instructions provided by the Holy See, any future editions based on the Jerusalem Bible should and likely would avoid the use of the tetragrammaton in favor of "Lord".


Can a non-christian be trusted to translate the Bible?

Yes. Anyone who has the technical skill can translate material.  Translation is a skill that has to do with understanding the technique and fluency in the languages/cultures, and it's certainly possible for non-Christians to have the requisite skills, just as it's possible for a Christian not to have it.  That should be fairly obvious, so I assume by "trust" you are wondering about them getting away with altering the texts or getting them wrong.

If that's the case, let's step back a moment so I can ask how you'd go about verifying if a Christian got it right.  You wouldn't know for sure if anyone, Christian or not, got it right, unless the work had undergone some form of peer review]1, where other translators verify the work.  This is standard and common in translation, history, and any discipline where someone can make a mistake.

The risk of a Christian and non-Christian making errors in understanding the meaning is the same, so in one sense, the answer is "no", but not because they're not Christian, but because they are human, and therefore not perfect.

We can grant a non-Christan the same amount of trust that we'd grant a Christian simply because peer review for catching errors is an implicit part of establishing whether the work was done right, regardless of who did the work.

It's the same principle as the one behind manuscript evidence.  The more examples to compare, and agreement we have, the higher confidence we can have that we have it right.

There would be so many versions to compare it to that obvious changes that affect doctrinal issues would be discovered and lambasted immediately after it was published.  Not to mention the hundreds of experts that could refute and dispute errors, intentional or otherwise.


How are Romans 3:24 and James 2:17 reconciled?

In the passage in Romans, Paul has just finished condemning the whole world through their sin, and shows us that by the law, by following rules, no one can be made righteous before God (Rom. 3:20). But now by God's graciousness, He has prepared a way for us to be saved from our unrighteous state through faith alone in Jesus (Rom. 3:21, 24), apart from good deeds. Paul is noting the fact that our entrance into salvation is by faith alone.

But James is addressing our state after we have received God's salvation. The tendency of many Christians is to say, "Well, I'm saved and going to heaven," and forget that God is looking for fruit from that salvation, which is a relationship with God of trust and obedience. For instance, a wife would be frustrated if her new husband never has anything to do with her other than to say, "Well, I'm married now." No -- that's the time to learn to love his wife and do good for her.

In the same way, faith is dead if there are no steps of relating to God, of obeying Him, appreciating Him, wanting to submit to His wisdom, wanting to learn more about Him and wanting to imitate Him. Again, all this is after salvation by faith alone.

To put it practically, we, as unbelievers, realize that we have sinned and are due for an awful judgment before God. So we come to Christ by faith, submitting to him, since we can "do" nothing to save ourselves. Now, on the other side of salvation, we prove our faith by dealing with sin, cutting them off as the Spirit shows them to us. After all, if we believe that Jesus died for our sins, then it makes sense to renounce those sins and learn to live a holy life. These are the works James is advocating (as is Paul when he wrote us to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling" in Philippians 2:12).


Why did Adam and Eve not die after eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Adam and Eve Suffered Spiritual Death

The death of which God spoke, "on the day that thou eatest thereof," was the spiritual death of Adam and Eve. (Physical) Death entered the world by that act, too (Romans 5:12). Before they had rebelled against God, there was no death, in any form. But to make sense of God's command, it makes more sense (to me) for him to be speaking of spiritual death.

Perhaps one could say that this is not the death of which God appears to be speaking, but which death is more serious, the death of the body or the second death (Revelation 20:14)?

If we assume that the Scripture is true and consistent, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that God was not speaking of their immediate physical death, since death clearly entered the world on that day, and both Adam and Eve earned spiritual death (Romans 3:23).


The Book of Jashar is mentioned in two places in the Bible:

2 Samuel 1:18 (NASB)

  and he told them to teach the sons of Judah the song of the bow; behold, it is written in the book of Jashar.

Joshua 10:12-13 (NASB)

  Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,“O sun, stand still at Gibeon,And O moon in the valley of Aijalon.”So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

It's not clear, from your question, to which specific modern version of the Book of Jasher you are referring.  There are several different books by that name.  However, of that list, there are only two likely candidates for the one about which you are asking:

Pseudo-Jasher
Sefer haYashar

Neither of those two books are considered by most people to legitimately be the book mentioned in the Bible.

Pseudo-Jasher

This book was first published in 1751 by Jacob Ilive.  It claimed to be an English translation of a Hebrew text which was found (and translated) by Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus.  It was widely criticized as being a forgery by its contemporaries.  It's author, Jacob Ilive, was sentenced to three years in jail for publishing it.  You would be hard pressed to find anyone serious today who considers this book to be authentic.

Sefer haYashar

This is a Hebrew midrash of unknown origin.  It was supposedly first published in Naples in 1552, but the oldest extant copies are from a later reprinting in Venice in 1625.  The 1625 edition claims that the text from a manuscript which was found in the ruins of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but many people believe that it was likely written at a later date.  Although it has sometimes been presented as the Book of Jasher that is referenced by the Bible (most notably by Moses Samuel's English translation in 1840), rabbinical Judaism does not accept that claim and the book does not itself make that claim either.  Unlike Pseudo-Jasher, however, many people do believe that Sefer haYashar at least does contain legitimate Jewish legends.


What are the good Bahasa / Malay / Indonesian words to refer to the Christian God?

The Christian God is given a wide range of names in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

My first thought was to clarify with a generational phrase. You might say "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," but that might confuse you with Jews. Also, Since "Allah" is the usual translation for "God" you would risk offending Muslims and breaking the law.

My second thought is "Yahweh." In the Old Testament God refers to himself as "I am." The transliteration of the Hebrew for this is "YHWH." The original vowels are unknown, but it has become common to pronounce it "Yaw - way" and spell it "Yahweh." A less popular pronunciation that has fallen out of vogue is "Jehovah."

You might also choose to say Jesus Christ, but I suspect that would even be more offensive to Muslims. It seems that believing Jesus is God is a major sticking point that upsets many Muslims.

Wikipedia has an interesting article on the names of God and gives a few other options that might work for you.

  Some Quakers often refer to God as The Light. Another term used is 'King of Kings' or 'Lord of Lords' and Lord of the Hosts. Other names used by Christians include Ancient of Days, Father/Abba, 'Most High' and the Hebrew names Elohim, El-Shaddai, and Adonai. The name, "Abba/Father" is the most common term used for the creator within Christianity,[citation needed] because it was the name Jesus Christ (Yeshua Messiah) himself used to refer to God.

I am partial to "King of Kings" or "Lord of Lords." I'm sure there are those are common words, once translated into Arabic, that will not offend Muslims or break the law. From what I can tell "Tuhan" means "Lord," so using it in "Tuhan of Tuhans" would work (obviously I have Englishized the Arabic word).


Can you only have a sacramental marriage?

The Catholic Church recognises the laws of the countries in which it is present. An information booklet issued by the Australian Catholic Marriage and Family Council  for the Bishops Commission for Pastoral Life of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference - 'Getting Married in the Catholic Church: Frequently Asked Questions' - contains the following paragraph:

ARE CATHOLIC PRIESTS AUTHORISED MARRIAGE CELEBRANTS?
Most catholic bishops, priests and deacons are normally authorised marriage celebrants in Australia and its Territories under the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 and as such are legally authorised to solemnise marriages in accordance with Australian law. Note that each country has its own laws with regard to civil marriage requirements.

As well as being a registered marriage celebrant in order to perform any form of marriage ceremony. the priest must include prescribed words in the marriage ceremony and must officially register the marriage as soon as practicable. There are serious penalties for non-compliance.

In any case, why would you want to have a marriage ceremony that is recognised only by the Church and not by society at large? If you wish to maintain financial independence either during marriage or in the event of marriage breakdown, then talk to a solicitor about managing your financial affairs.


Is the beast of Revelation 13 the same as the beast of Daniel 7?

The beasts in Daniel 7 are explained in Daniel 7:17 as four (separate and distinct) kings (kingdoms) which arise out of the earth (mankind). These respectively correspond to the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome.
They give rise to a little horn (power) which rises up out of the fourth kingdom (Rome).
In verses 11, 20, 21, 24 and 25 of Daniel 7, this power is said to be bombastic (:11), a persecutor of the true saints (:21), one who destroys other contenders or powers (:24), one who claims great titles and glory to itself, crushes the true church almost out of existence and changes times and laws (:25).
Papacy fulfills this description minutely. Any short investigation of the Inquisition would remove the thought of this church system as an holy representation of God on earth. It is anti-Christian in the sense of being a false Christian system which supplants God's Church and it is anti-Christian also in that it has fought to destroy any Christian that disagrees with it.
Daniel chapter 7 is similar to Daniel chapter 11 in that it relays historical happenings yet to occur in a symbolic form.
Is the beast described in Revelation 13 the same as the beasts (plural) of Daniel? No.
Although there are similarities in the description, the book of Revelation was written during the fourth kingdom (Rome) and so, being prophetic like Daniel, it referred to the Papacy only and not to the past "beasts" or kingdoms.
Is the beast/whore of Babylon also said in Revelation to be a persecutor of the saints or the Church? Yes: Revelation 17:6, 18:24, 13:7

The following links refer to the beast/whore of Babylon more minutely and completely than I have outlined here for those who are interested:
Beast of Revelation - Part 1:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gugLOPrWfSM
Beast of Revelation - Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHGtjwZ79Xs

Thank you for the warm welcome and I apologize for not originally following the form of this forum.


What is the reason to genuflect when the Incarnation is mentioned?

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was) wrote about this article of the creed for the Mariological Congress in March 1995. The essay is reprinted in Mary: the church at the source by him and  Hans Urs von Balthasar (Ignatius Press, 2005). He speaks about the centrality of the incarnation to Christian faith:

  In manifesting himself, God shows that he is our Lord, not just our idea. His self-manifestation is rightly at the heart of the Creed. The confession of God's history in the heart of man's history is not a departure from the simple profession of faith in God: rather, it is its intrinsic condition. For this reason, the center of all our creeds is a Yes to Jesus Christ: "By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man." At this article of the Creed we genuflect, because now heaven, the veil surrounding the hidden God, is torn open, and the Mystery comes into immediate contact with us. The distant God becomes our God, Emmanuel - "God with us".

I would imagine that there is also some link with genuflecting to the consecrated Host, for the same reason.

Hugh Latimer expressed a similar opinion in a sermon of 26 December 1552, though in more "English Reformation" terms:

  We read a story, (take it as you will, though it be not a true story:) The devil came once into the church whilst the priest was saying mass; and when he was at these words, Et homo factus est, the devil looked about him, and seeing no man kneel down, or bow his knees, he strake one of them in the face, saying, "What! will you not reverence him for this great benefit which he hath done unto you? I tell you, if he had taken upon him our nature, as he hath taken upon him yours, we would more reverence him than ye do." This story is prettily devised; for we should reverence him; we should honour him, and shew ourselves thankful for his inestimable benefits that he hath shewed upon us miserable wretched sinners, in taking upon him our nature.

The footnote says that the story appears in the Vita Christi by Ludolph of Saxony. This was written in 1374, so there is some history to the idea that it is particularly important to show reverence at this point.


How to learn to chant the Liturgy of the Hours?

I am glad you enjoyed sung Liturgy of the Hours.

The "music part where one word was underlined" is called the mediant, and the music changes accordingly with that word (or syllable).  If you are working with a text that does not have the mediant identified (such as a common breviary), you determine it on the basis of meter and spacing.  It is only possible to understand how to do this with accuracy once you are familiar with the tone.  Usually praying often with a community teaches you how the community finds the mediant, and you naturally learn how to do it on your own.

A "tone" or "psalm tone" is a music setting for the Liturgy of the Hours.  There are many different sets of tones and styles of chanting.  These can differ based on geographical location, language group, religious order, or other factors.  One common set of tones in the U.S. is the St. Meinrad Psalm Tones (which come from St. Meinrad's Benedictine monastery).

Different groups and psalm tones will also break up lines differently.  The basic back-and-forth, two-party structure of the chant is called "choral recitation" (because choir-style seating has traditionally been used to represent the two sides).  The simplest approach is to break up every other line, but it is more common to switch sides after each pair of lines, or especially after each stanza.  The difficulty with the last option is that different psalm stanzas have a different number of lines, so psalm tones usually have ways of handling stanzas of different lengths, ways which often include a flex line that can be added for stanzas with a odd number of lines.

More info: Reciting Tone.


According to the Catholic Church, whom does Jesus refer to as the “ruler of this world” in Jn 16:11?

The Greek word in John 16:11 is ἄρχων (archōn - see Strong's G758). The "Outline of Biblical Usage" gives: ruler, commander, chief, leader. The Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count gives a total of 37 (ruler 22, prince 11, chief 2, magistrate 1, chief ruler 1)
In Rev 1:5 it is referred to Jesus, ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς ("the prince [or ruler] over the kings of the earth")
In Matthew and Mark, Satan is repeatedly referred to as the "prince of the devils" (or "ruler of the demons" - Matt 9:34; 12:24; Mark 3:22)
In John, Satan is repeatedly referred to as the "prince of this world" (or "ruler of this world" - John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11)
In what sense Satan is "prince [or ruler] of this world" is made clear at the narration of The Temptation of Jesus (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13)
Here is a selection of official Catholic references from the Holy See.

Pope John Paul II, Angelus, Sunday, 22 November 1998
Pope Francis, Angelus, Sunday, 22 November 2015
Pope Francis, Saturday, 22 April 2017

In all of them, Satan is the "prince of this world", who hates Jesus and those saved by Jesus.


How is the historical accuracy of the Bible defended?

I'd like to start out by pointing out that history is a murky subject.  We're all familiar with the saying that "history is always written by the winners".  There are plenty of things that are accepted as historical fact that are either in dispute, or that are later proved false by new evidence.  Just because something is regarded as reliable, accepted historical "fact" does not mean that it is, indeed a "fact" or Truth.  This applies equally to secular history and the historical accounts recorded in Scripture.

There is another issue here, as well, in dealing with supernatural events as described in Scripture.   It's covered pretty well at http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/hartlich.html in the "Thesis 2" section.  In summary, it tells us that, as applied to Sacred Texts there is a limit to how much we can actually verify.  It gives the example of Matthew 28 as follows:

  Here it is related that — as the women came to the grave — a great
  earthquake took place, "for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven
  and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance
  was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. And for fear of him
  the guards trembled and became like dead men. But the angel said to
  the women..."

Several paragraphs of detail go into the fact that we could, theoretically, verify that an earthquake took place, but not that it was caused by an Angel of the Lord.  We could also not verify the appearance of said angel, nor the trembling of the guards.  (But neither could we refute it.)

So, from the outset, the apologist acknowledges that we cannot prove or disprove the supernatural nature of events.  We are limited to those things, and those things only that can be proved historically.

Failure to recognize this is to set us up immediately for straw-man attacks, and to be accused of circular reasoning.

That said, the first rule in determining historical accuracy to those events that we can verify is to use the same rules that would be applied to secular historical documents.  Using a different set of rules to determine historical accuracy of Scripture is dishonest, and shows a bias that is not acceptable in applied historical methodology.

As much as I hate using Wikipedia as a source, the core principles are defined here in layman's terms much better than what I can find at other sources.

  Core principles

  The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by
  two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén
  (1997):1

  Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than
  narratives.
  Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
  The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description
  of what actually happened.
  A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source which is more reliable than a tertiary source, and so on.
  If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
  The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite
  motivations.
  If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is
  increased.

  Procedures

  Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step
  procedure for source criticism in history:2

  If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.
  However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the
  test of critical textual analysis.
  The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it
  is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.
  When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"—that is the source
  created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
  Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately
  reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with
  facts known by most contemporaries.
  If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.
  When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best
  with common sense.

Using this framework, apologists point to the fact that the Gospels, and many of the Scriptures were written by eyewitnesses to the accounts, as well as to internal textual criticism, additional supporting information from extra-Biblical texts (where they can be found), and from archaeology.

Based on archaeology alone, we have overwhelming evidence for the historical accuracy of much of the Bible.  But, as the atheist point out, this still proves nothing about the supernatural aspects of Scripture.

Fortunately, the field of apologetics doesn't deal with proving the Truth of Scripture.  As stated in a different answer, Christianity assumes a measure of faith.  Apologetics deals with defending what is defensible from detractors, not proving anything.

When it comes to the supernatural, apologetics doesn't say "We can prove this happened as recorded in Scripture".  However, arguments can be made, and questions can be asked about which proposed version of events is the most plausible, or reasonable.

Unfortunately, that's a grey area, and personal bias and preconceived notions will likely dictate what any one individual will think is "the most plausible explanation."

Therefore, the best we can do in trying to defend the supernatural aspects of the Bible is to say "this is one possible explanation.  I believe it makes sense because....  Take it or leave it."  This falls outside the realm of defensible apologetics and into debates over personal opinion based on interpretation of provable facts.  Those provable facts may well be within the realm of "on-topic" for apologetics, but the unprovable portions are iffy.  They may offer reasonable explanations, but nothing that will satisfy your typical "I won't believe it unless you can prove it to me" skeptic.

This is not to say that providing views on why you believe the supernatural aspects is wrong, or that it doesn't have a place in witnessing, or defending your beliefs.  Just know the difference between what can be conclusively proven and what needs to be accepted by faith.  You can be sure that most of the atheists and non-believers do, and are ready for this type of mistake.


Why did the Council of Laodicea condemn "Judaizing" Sabbath rest?

Judaizer is a term for those early Christians who held that adherence to Mosaic law  was necessary for salvation. Observance of these laws (such as circumcision and the distinction of clean and unclean foods) was proscribed in Acts 15 and 11, respectively.
The New Testament distinguishes the Lord's Day from the Sabbath, and it commemorates the day of the Resurrection. While the topic has only a few scriptural references (e.g., Acts 20:7, Rev 1:10), the testimony of the early Church Fathers is consistent.
The intent by the Council in using the term Judaizer seems clear: Christianity is not just another sect of Judaism. Jews worship on the seventh day, the Sabbath. Christians worship on the eighth day of Creation, the Lord's Day, to commemorate the day of the Resurrection. Those who teach otherwise must be called out.
You can find the complete canons of the Synod of Laodicea here.


According to Pentecostal doctrines, can a widower marry a divorced person without committing a mortal sin?

There are several questions here to be answered:

Are there special rules for a widower as opposed to someone who has never been married?
In what circumstances is it sinful to remarry after divorce?
Is it ever a "mortal sin" to remarry after divorce?

I will answer these questions using publications of the Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal denomination, and the writings of prominent Renewal theologian J. Rodman Williams.  While there is likely some variation in pentecostal beliefs among the many dozens of small denominations, I have found no explicit disagreement between these two major expounders of Pentecostal/Charismatic thought.
Remarriage after being widowed
Neither the AG nor Williams explicitly cover the question of widows remarrying in their treatments of remarriage, which isn't surprising given that very few Christians believe that one who is widowed ought not remarry.  However, the AG tangentially addresses the question of remarriage of the widowed in several places, in particular when analyzing the qualifications for church officers (1 Timothy 3).  It rejects the idea that the literal rendering, "one woman man," refers to a prohibition of remarriage after being widowed. Thus, even widowed church officers, being held to a standard at least as high as others, may remarry.1
Remarriage after divorce
Remarriage among those who have been divorced, however, is a more complex question.  Williams writes:

It is a tragic thing to see two people, having become "one flesh," trying to live separate lives because of divorce; but it is an evil thing to see either or both of them trying to contract another marriage.  It is evil, indeed perverted, because the original marriage had made two people one.2

However, he makes an exception in the case of one who was the victim of adultery:

It may be asked, what if, in the marriage, only one partner proves to be unfaithful.  Are there not Scriptural grounds for a legitimate re-marriage of the innocent party?  The answer to that question is "Yes" [...] Re-marriage and not committing adultery is possible if the divorce resulted from "unchastity." The one who has remained chaste may re-marry without committing adultery.2

The same view is taken by the Assemblies of God:

One who has been divorced because of the repeated adultery of a partner is not bound by the former marriage and is free to remarry.3
Jesus clearly assumed that those who were divorced by sinful spouses, or those who divorced sinful spouses for “marital uncleanness” or abandonment, were free to remarry without any tinge of adultery.1

"Mortal" sin?
The term mortal sin, often associated with Roman Catholicism and contrasted with venial sin, appears in some translations of 1 John 5.  In Protestantism generally, and Pentecostalism particularly, this sin is often seen to be the same as the sin Jesus called "unforgivable" or "unpardonable" in Matthew 12:31 and elsewhere.  It is only with this understanding that we can make any sense of the question of "is divorce after remarriage a mortal sin," since Pentecostalism does not classify sin in the same way that Roman Catholicism does.
Turning now to Williams, we find that he does believe that Christians can commit a "mortal" or "unforgivable" sin, which will not be forgiven, he does not say that about remarriage after divorce:

if we have been divorced and re-married, but not on the grounds of the Scripture [...] if we are truly sorry, God, for Christ's sake, will always forgive.2

Rather, the unpardonable sin, quoting the AG, is "more descriptive of a spiritual state or condition than a single act of sin."  It "involves a deliberate or willful act of unbelief," and is not "committed in ignorance" nor is it a "single momentary act."4
Williams writes:

By failing to abide in Christ, to continue in Him and His word, to persevere in the midst of worldly trial or temptation, to make faith firm and strengthen it—thereby allowing unbelief to enter—believers may fall away from God.  Thereby they may tragically forfeit their salvation.5

Summary
Can those who remarry after divorce commit a "mortal" ("unpardonable") sin, according to Pentecostalism?  Perhaps, yes, if they do so willfully and as part of a pattern of unbelief.  However, grace is freely offered to those who truly repent of their sin.
Though remarriage after divorce is generally sinful, exceptions are made for adultery or abandonment: in such cases, the innocent victim may remarry without sinning.

References:

AG, "Divorce and Remarriage" position paper
Williams, The Ten Commandments, "The Seventh Commandment". Emphasis in original.
AG, "Divorce and Remarriage" summary
AG, "Unpardonable sin"
Williams, Renewal Theology, Vol. II, 129


What problems, if any, do Christadelphians have with the Apostles' Creed?

Christadelphian beliefs impact on their view of the Apostle’s Creed, though that Creed is not something mentioned much (if at all) in their literature.

Their literature does make it clear how antagonistic they are towards all the fundamental doctrines of what they call ‘Christendom’, so that we can conclude they would never subscribe to that Creed. To substantiate this, let me quote from ‘Who Are The Christadelphians?’ pp 3, 6, 8.

  “Convinced that this is the only Scriptural constitution of the ‘one
  body’, of which Jesus Christ is alone the head, and Who has no
  personal representative on earth, we repudiate the popular churches,
  and all their adjuncts, as no part thereof, and affirm that there is
  no salvation within the pale of any of them. For we hold that the
  religious opinions and sacramentalism of all orders and classes of men
  in ‘Christendom’ so-called are nothing more than that ‘strong
  delusion’ sent of God upon all mankind that they should believe a lie,
  that they might all be condemned. We object to the fundamental
  doctrines of Christendom; the religion of the churches and chapels is
  a negation of Bible teaching on almost all points. We hold it to be
  ‘the abomination of the earth’ with all dissenting names and
  denominations, aggregately styled ‘names of blasphemy’, of which the
  European body politic, symbolised by the eight-headed,
  scarlet-coloured beast is said to be ‘full’.”

On that basis, they could not possibly assent to the Apostles’ Creed, for that would align them with an ancient tradition which they despise and which they claim is cursed of God. Yet, technically, they could agree with it, if their interpretation of the doctrines involved was understood as the meaning. For example, the Creed expresses belief in “the resurrection of the flesh”. Christadelphians do believe that when Christ returns, they and the Jews will be resurrected with physical bodies on to the earth (but not to heaven).  That, however, falls far short of orthodox Christian teaching about all the dead being resurrected.

You mentioned their repudiation of the Trinity doctrine, and here is what Roberts said about it in ‘Christianity Astray’ p 108

  “A contradiction, a stultification, an impossibility.” “There were not
  two or three eternal persons before ‘the man Christ Jesus’, but ONE –
  God the Father, whose relation to the Son was afterwards exemplified
  in the event related by Luke (i. 35)… Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is
  not ‘the second person’ of an eternal Trinity of Gods [sic], but the
  manifestation of the ONE ETERNAL CREATOR.”

Regarding Jesus Christ, Walker writes in ‘Truth About The Trinity’ p 13,

  “The Father was manifest in the flesh, not a pre-existent co-eternal
  Son, which is impossible.”

And in ‘Constitution of the Christadelphian Ecclesia’ p 13 we read,

  “That ‘Christ’s nature was immaculate’ is among the doctrines to be
  rejected.”

This means that although they could agree with the Creed on many points, their rejection of Christ’s pre-mortal existence, denial that he had a sinless nature when on earth etc. means that their idea of who Christ is differs vastly from the Christ of the Creed even though the Creed does not spell such details out.

The Apostles’ Creed is, on the surface, a very simple declaration of basic Christian faith, yet there are so many denominations (like the Christadelphians) who will not be aligned with it, the question, ‘Why not?’ can only be answered with, ‘Because the early Church circa A.D. 400 came up with it, and such new groups so differ from mainstream Church doctrine, they cannot be identified with that which they claim was already corrupted by then.”


What does Jesus mean that those that can be trusted on small matters can be trusted in large matter?

With parables you have to remember that they are directed at a specific audience, and make a specific point. Trying to extrapolate to draw conclusions outside the purpose of the parable would lead to a wrong conclusion. Parables are also used to illustrate general principles, not to lay down hard and fast rules.

In the Parable of the Talents, the point is about the behaviour of the servants. Jesus makes that pretty clear from context. The conclusions the hearer should draw are about parallels to the servants, not to the master. So (to simplify a little) the lesson from this parable is "work hard with what you are given to generate 'profit' for your master". You could also reasonably infer the lesson: "show yourself trustworthy in small things so that you will be trusted with larger things". (That's different from the lesson you are talking about.)

To derive a lesson that "anyone who is trustworthy with small things is also always trustworthy with large ones" would be outside the scope of the parable. It's focussing on the wrong part of the parable. The character in the story doesn't say it is a general rule, but only as something specific to another character: "Because you have shown yourself trustworthy in small things..." We shouldn't infer that it is applicable in all cases.


What is the argument for papal succession?

The issue here is Apostolicity and the succession thereof; from the Nicene creed (emphasis mine):

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church

The doctrine rests on the central tenants that in Matthew 16:18-20 Jesus invested apostolic leadership and kingdom authority in Peter and the apostles and Matthew 18:18 via the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and the power to "bind" and "loose", and finally that Peter ended his ministry in Rome, bringing the principle seat of the church's authority to Rome when he died.

Matthew 16:18
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 18:18
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

That Peter came finally to Rome appears to be a settled question, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

As soon as the problem of St. Peter's coming to Rome passed from theologians writing pro domo sua into the hands of unprejudiced historians, i.e. within the last half century, it received a solution which no scholar now dares to contradict; the researches of German professors like A, Harnack and Weiasticker, of the Anglican Bishop Lightfoot, and those of archaeologists like De Rossi and Lanciani, of Duchesne and Barnes, have all come to the same conclusion: St. Peter did reside and die in Rome.

And Peter's martyrdom in Rome seems to be upheld by the early church fathers and it forms their own claim for apostolic authority; from the above linked article:

Beginning with the middle of the second century, there exists a universal consensus as to Peter's martyrdom in Rome; Dionysius of Corinth speaks for Greece, Irenaeus for Gaul, Clement and Origen for Alexandria, Tertullian for Africa. In the third century the popes claim authority from the fact that they are St. Peter's successors, and no one objects to this claim, no one raises a counterclaim.

It's seems, at least in my reading of early church writings, that the Roman church may have reached a place of significance within the wider church body by the 3rd or 4th century.  The church in Rome is either called on or preemptively steps in to arbitrate disputes in other churches.  The council of Sardica, 343, agreed that to "honor the memory of the Apostle Peter" they should "provide that letters be sent to Julius, Bishop of Rome" regarding any legal case involving a Bishop which is in dispute, for the Bishop of Rome to possibly hear the appeal. In 376 St. Jerome calls the "chair of Peter" the "Rock on which the Church is built".  And in about 401 Pp. Innocent I claims the authority of the Roman See such that "any just pronouncement might be confirmed by the authority of [the Roman] See".  (Documents of the Christian Church, in the section entitled The Authority of the Holy See).
Who is St. Linus and why did He succeed St. Peter when St. John was still alive?
The bishop Linus who succeeded Peter is believed to be the one mentioned in the letter to Timothy:

2 Timothy 4:21
20 Erastus stayed in Corinth, and I left Trophimus sick in Miletus. 21 Do your best to get here before winter. Eubulus greets you, and so do Pudens, Linus, Claudia and all the brothers and sisters.

Linus would have succeeded Peter as the bishop of the Roman congregation; John's responsibility was another church body.
Note that much of what we understand about the happenings of this time were lost in antiquity with only church traditions passing on details from one generation to the next.  Several of the Roman persecutions made concerted efforts to wipe out Christianity, including burning as much of her writings as they could.
What is the basis for voting for a Pope?
The process by which the Pope is selected by the conclave of bishops has its roots in a simple consensus of church leadership which is believed to reflect the will of the Holy Spirit.  It is based on the idea of wise counsel, the idea being that with many seeking the will of God on a particular matter, some might miss it but the majority will not.  It is not supposed to be a political or popularity contest, but a genuine seeking of the Holy Spirit's leading.  What actually happens in practice is hard to say (but I would certainly not base my perceptions on Hollywood depictions like Angels and Demons).
Why don't Popes do the same things as Peter (heal people, write epistles, etc)?
On the miracles, the question of why they are so relatively rare in the modern church is a separate issue, for a separate question.
As for epistles, this is precisely the big bone of contention between Catholic and Protestant Christians.  The Catholic church teaches that the apostolic authority to teach with authority via the Holy Spirit continues to this day, via the Papal letters and encyclicals and exercise of the church's "magesterium" to pronounce doctrines as being infallible, making them dogmas (the latter being the only time, contrary to popular misconception, which the Pope is considered infallible).
Why is there a Pope if it isn't mentioned in the Bible (while apostles, pastors, etc. are)
Pope is simply the Latin word for "father", similar to and root of "papa" in other modern Romantic languages.  Judeo-Christian culture has a long established history of referring to respected elders and teachers as "father", as a term of simple endearment and respect (actually, Asian cultures do this also).  The moniker "Pope" simply stuck, over time, as the title for the Bishop of Rome.  In fact, it's not clear to me if there is any difference in Italian for the general title for a priest, bishop or the Pope, other than perhaps capitalizing the 'P'.


What is the difference between the names of "Jehovah God" and "The Lord"?

To definitively answer this question, one would need to know the Bible verses being compared...
"Jehovah God" almost certainly refers to יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים "YHWH elohim".  It is combination of the proper name of God (YHWH, known as the Tetragramaton; rendered in English as Yahweh or Jehovah, but the vocalization is uncertain - see below) and the generic word for god (usually).  The convention followed by most translations is to render the hyphenated "YHWH elohim" as "LORD God" (all caps).
"The Lord" is usually a translation of אֲדֹנָי "Adonai".  It is a special plural form of adon, which means lord or master, used only in reference to God.  The reason that it is plural is because the Hebrew word for God is grammatically plural and Adonai was often substituted for YHWH and/or elohim out of respect for the divine name.  (Eventually Hebrews stopped pronouning the divine name out loud at all). The convention followed by most English translations is to render Adonai as "The Lord" (with only the letter "L" capitalized).
So, the difference between "Jehovah God" and "The Lord" is a lot like the difference between saying "Barack Obama" (name) and "The President" (title).  Both are frequently used in the Old Testament, among dozens of other names and titles, to describe (the only) God of the Hebrews.
Further information
The English word for YHWH is Yahweh or Jehovah.  Because the Israelite stopped saying the name aloud before the third century BC and vocalization (vowels) were not added to the written text until the first millennium AD (finalized in the 9th century), the correct vocalization is uncertain.  The Masoretic (9th century) vowel points suggest Yəhō'wāh, but the word is variously also pronouned yä′wā*, -wĕ; Yah·veh (-vā, -vĕ); Jah·veh (yä′vā, -vĕ); Jah·weh (yä′wā, -wĕ).  YHWH with or without conjunction with the various titles for God occurs more than 6000 times in the Hebrew Bible.
Yahweh is occasionally shortened to Jah or Yah (Hebrew: יהּ Yahu). The short form of the name occurs 50 times in the Hebrew Bible, of which 24 form part of the phrase Hallelu-jah.  Adonai occurs about 450 times.
By the way (and to complicate things even more!), the Hebrew equivalent of the English letter "J" is pronounced as a "Y" in Hebrew, so that the name Jacob, for example, is pronounced Yӓʹ-kōb in Hebrew.


Have there been any high-profile converts from Catholicism back to high-church traditions?

Wikipedia has an article on people who have converted to Anglicanism and a category for Catholic-Anglican conversions. Ones specifically listed as converting to Anglicanism from Catholicism as adults include:

Madeleine Albright
Matthew Fox
Alberto Cutie

Dinesh D'Souza said he converted from Catholicism to his wife's tradition in a Christian's vs. Atheists debate I attended a few years ago.  He still defends the Catholic Church very well.


Can any sin be forgiven? (According to the teaching of the Catholic Church)

The Catholic Church does indeed believe that if the sinner fulfills certain conditions, any sin can indeed be forgiven. Paragraph 982 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. "There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest." Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin.

The quotation is from the Church's first universal catechism, the Roman Catechism, which states in Article X:

No crime, however heinous, can be committed or even conceived which the Church has not power to forgive, just as there is no sinner, however abandoned, however depraved, who should not confidently hope for pardon, provided he sincerely repent of his past transgressions.

(emphasis added)
We are told to forgive and keep forgiving (Matthew 18:21–22); how much more can God forgive! And just as God can forgive any sin, so the Church, to whom He has delegated this power, has the ability to do the same.
However, the process isn't as simple as just saying "I'm sorry" and leaving it at that. The Catechism explains:

Jesus' call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, "sackcloth and ashes," fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of the heart, interior conversion. ...  a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one's life, with hope in God's mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).

(paragraphs 1430–31)
The beginning of conversion is a rejection of one's previous life—not because one feels that one ought, or because one is afraid of consequences (secular or sacred), but because one sees how sin affects one's relationship with God. This rejection and sorrow for one's sins, and determination not to sin again, is called contrition; without it one cannot be forgiven of serious sins (such as the ones you describe).
Beyond contrition, the sinner must also recognize that his actions have injured others—perhaps emotionally, or physically, or spiritually. In order to completely repair his relationship with them and with God, he is required to expiate his sin; that is, to do something to make up for the harm he has caused.

Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."
The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent's personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all.

(Catechism paragraphs 1459–60)
In a case such as you suggest, I suppose that a prison sentence imposed by secular authorities might be part of penance for this sin. It will also involve prayer and perhaps other works of mercy aimed at helping re-establish the sinner's relationship with God.
Given the presence of contrition, though, and a humble willingness to perform the imposed penance, any sin can be forgiven by God and thus by His Church. This is true even if the sinner knew for certain that what they were doing was sinful. God's mercy extends not just to those who did wrong out of ignorance, but to those who knew what they were doing—provided they are contrite and sincerely desire to amend their life.


Is there anywhere in the bible that says Job and Jobab is the same
person?

Yes and no.
Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles finish the Book of Job with the death of Job at a great age in chapter 42 verse 17.
However the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, has an additional passage known as the Postscript. This additional passage is also in the Russian Orthodox Bible.

and it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up. This man is described in the Syriac book living in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia: and his name before was Jobab; and having taken an Arabian wife, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. And he himself was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth from Abraam. And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over: first, Balac, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba: but after Balac, Jobab, who is called Job, and after him Asom, who was governor out of the country of Thaeman: and after him Adad, the son of Barad, who destroyed Madiam in the plain of Moab; and the name of his city was Gethaim. And friends who came to him were Eliphaz, of the children of Esau, king of the Thaemanites, Baldad sovereign the Sauchaeans, Sophar king of the Minaeans.

According to this Postscript Job and Jobab were one and the same person.


What does the Bible say about being a witness to sin?

This answer points to the scripture only because that is what was requested.

Being a witness to adultery is really no different than being a witness to any sin. The Bible gives a blanket answer for all sins you witness a Christian brother or sister commit.

It is in Matthew 18, starting in verse 15, and it is commonly called the Matthew 18 Principle.

  Matthew 18  (NIV)
  15  “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16  But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17  If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Every Christian should desire not to sin. However, many of us do sin regularly and sometimes we continually commit the same sins. Matthew 18 covers this circumstance. So if the Christian brother in question committed this sin only once, the advice the Bible gives is not exactly clear what you should do, if anything. The key, though, in all circumstances is repentance. The sinner, compelled by his love for Christ, should desire to sin no more and turn from sin and evil ways.

Matt. 18 is a passage about forgiveness, however, is quite clear that you give a christian sinner a few chances to repent and if he does not then separate him from the body and call him a fellow believer no more.

Now we should note that the parable of the unmerciful servant immediately follows the Matthew 18 principle described above. Forgiveness for the repentant sinner is central to Christian doctrine.

I adapted this from a previous answer for a different question, but is not a duplicate


What Biblical scripture is used to support the concept of waiting for God to give direction?

Lamentations 3:25-27 (NIV)

  25 The Lord is good to those whose hope is in him,
      to the one who seeks him;
  26 it is good to wait quietly
      for the salvation of the Lord.

Micah 7:7 (NIV)

  7 But as for me, I watch in hope for the Lord,
      I wait for God my Savior;
      my God will hear me.

Luke 12:36 (NIV)

  36 like servants waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him.

Galatians 5:5 (NIV)

  5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope.


What is the proper title for someone who was a pope and is now canonized as a saint?

What is the proper title for someone who was a pope and is now a canonized saint.

I do not believe there is a single proper way to address a pope who has been canonized.

That said, I have seen all four of your examples in usage. There seems to be no official way of doing so either.

That said, the most common usage (and the one I prefer the most) is your third example: Pope Saint “X”. In fact I have just finished writing a book on the lives of various saints and blesseds in which I address canonized popes as such.

In the homily of canonization of Pope Paul VI, Pope Francis referred to the newly canonized pope as Pope Saint Paul. See here at 1:43:00.

Pope Saint Gregory the Great, pray for us.

Pope Blessed Pius lX, pray for us.

Addendum: About the usage of the surnamed title of great.

  Scholars of canon law say that there is no official process for declaring a pope "Great"; the title simply establishes itself through popular and continued usage, as was the case with celebrated secular leaders (for example, Alexander III of Macedon became popularly known as Alexander the Great). The three popes who today commonly are known as "Great" are Leo I, who reigned from 440–461 and persuaded Attila the Hun to withdraw from Rome; Gregory I, 590–604, after whom the Gregorian Chant is named; and Pope Nicholas I, 858–867, who consolidated the Catholic Church in the Western world in the Middle Ages. - Pope John Paul II

It should also be noted that in the Church’s official Litanies of the Saints titles are not placed along side of particular saints, but are placed separately within the litanies according to the traditional manner of praying to the saints.

Example:

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

All the Holy Apostles, pray for us.

Saints Leo and Gregory, pray for us.

All the Holy Popes, pray for us. (This invocation is permitted to be added at occasions like an ordination or solemn profession to the litanies of the saints.)

The same manner would apply to praying to popes that are saints. But this is a traditional way of praying the litanies of the saints only.


Where in the Bible does the greeting ("Dominus Vobiscum") used at Mass come from?

It is directly pulled from the Bible.

Based on my answer to this question: As far as scripture goes, the salutation is from Ruth 2:4 and 2 Chronicles 15:2 in the Vulgate.

In Ruth, the phrase appears in the sentence, "Et ecce ipse veniebat de Bethlehem dixitque messoribus: 'Dominus vobiscum'. Qui responderunt ei: 'Benedicat tibi Dominus'." ("[Boaz himself] came from Bethlehem and said to the harvesters, 'The Lord be with you!' and they replied, 'The Lord bless you!'").

II Chronicles recounts that Azariah said, "Audite me, Asa et omnis Iuda et Beniamin! Dominus vobiscum, quia fuistis cum eo. Si quaesieritis eum, invenietur a vobis; si autem dereliqueritis eum, derelinquet vos." ("Hear me, Asa and all Judah and Benjamin! The LORD is with you when you are with him, and if you seek him he will be present to you; but if you abandon him, he will abandon you.")

The phrase additionally appears in Numbers 14:42: "Nolite ascendere: non enim est Dominus vobiscum: ne corruatis coram inimicis vestris.”


Were those who perished in the flood of Noah eternally damned?

Interesting that it is that passage that leads you to the conclusion that " all who perished at the time of Noah were cast into Sheol to await the great white throne judgment". I say that because there is another passage which explicitly agrees with your conclusion!

  For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard) – if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.

2 Peter 2:4-9

We don't know for sure if they were eternally damned - only that they are being held for judgement. However, it is logical to think that they were / will be damned because they are being "held for punishment" and because they did not go to heaven when they died.


Does the Jerusalem Bible teach that Adam had a wife before Eve?

To start with Google Jerusalem Bible and Genesis 1.  The account is the same as NIV and KJV.  The story of another wife before Eve is an old one about Lillith,  It is not Biblical in anyway I forgot where the story is at the moment.  But then this lady becomes a demon later.    So  Nothing Biblical at all.


How do Catholics reconcile these verses about giving publicly and yet privately?

The question is based on a misreading of Romans 12:17. Paul is not exhorting one to do what is right and to do that in sight of everyone. Paul is saying that one should do what everyone deems right: "What is right in the eyes of everyone, be careful to do that."

Consequently, it's perfectly possible to do what is right and do it in secret. There is no contradiction.


These people were punished for their fathers' crimes. For many of us living in the 21st century in the West, this offends our sense of justice. But if you look back throughout history, generally the crimes of the son have always affected the father, and the crimes of the father have always affected the son.

Later in the Old Testament, in Ezekiel Chapter 18, the Lord decreed specifically that Children should not be punished for their parents sins, this is actually the context where we get a somewhat famous verse, Ezekiel 18:20: "The soul who sins shall die."

I'll quote some for context.

Ezekial 18:1-2:

  The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:
  ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
  And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

The idea is that fathers do an action, and the children are the ones who experience the consequence.

Gods response is in verse 3-4:

  “As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.

  “Behold, all souls are Mine;
  The soul of the father
  As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
  The soul who sins shall die.

So here God affirms that children should not be punished for their parents' crimes if they are indeed innocent, which is more in line with our modern view of justice for sure.

So to answer your question, they were killed for their father/grandfathers' crimes. But I sort of got the impression you were also asking, "What does the Bible say about children being punished for their fathers crimes?"  So I added that aspect also.


What is Martin Luther's approach to liturgical services in light of Paul Tillich?

I think the answer can be found in the article you have linked.

On Page 129 for example, there's a description of how Luther broke up the unity of the eucharistic prayer:

  Luther's recension of the Canon of the Mass is more controversial.
  How much Luther can be held responsible for  breaking up the unity of
  the eucharistic prayer and how much  late medieval additions had
  already destroyed its unity is  debatable. Luther admitted there were
  sacrificial aspects of the  Eucharist. However, he judges Roman
  Catholicism's stress on  the Eucharist as "a good work we offer to God"
  to be totally wrong. In his Treatise on the New Testament, Luther
  states: "It  is not we who offer Christ, but Christ who offers us. . .
  . We  offer ourselves as a sacrifice along with Christ . . . he takes
  up  our cause . . . and offers himself for us in heaven. . . . We
  offer  our whole selves, our need, praise and thanks in Christ and
  through Christ; and thereby (through faith) we offer Christ to  God,
  that is, we move Christ and give him occasion to offer  himself for us
  and to offer us with himself." Because it was offered silently,
  Luther could omit most of the Canon of the Mass without upsetting the
  people.

The rest of the paragraph you've quoted from page 127 I think gives us further context:

  We would call Luther's approach an evangelical-catholic one. He
  believes that unless God should provide a  better liturgy, the Church
  must stick as closely as is  evangelically possible to the liturgies
  of its past. Worship can and must express some continuity with the
  Church of the past,  since the Gospel had never completely vanished
  from it. In  short, Luther always remained closer to Rome than to the
  more  radical reformers who wanted to discard the historic church:
  "Sooner than mere wine with the fanatics, I would agree with  the pope
  that there is only blood."

Luther wanted to return the church to the way he believed it existed anciently. His greatest criticism of Catholic mass was obviously the way it had changed from the Church of the past, which is largely contained in his famous 95 theses.

In short, Luther preached the way he believed the Church of the past practiced. He took the tradition, liturgy, dogma, etc, of the Church (catholic substance)  criticized it (95 theses) and reconstructed it (protestant principle) then preached his reconstructions, which he believed to be what the Church preached anciently.


What does the Catholic Church require for a parent's name to appear on the child's baptism certificate?

Canon Law is explicit on this matter.

877 §1 The pastor of the place where the baptism is celebrated must carefully and without any delay record in the baptismal register the names of the baptized, with mention made of the minister, parents, sponsors, witnesses, if any, the place and date of the conferral of the baptism, and the date and place of birth.
877 §2 If it concerns a child born to an unmarried mother, the name of the mother must be inserted, if her maternity is established publicly or if she seeks it willingly in writing or before two witnesses. Moreover, the name of the father must be inscribed if a public document or his own declaration before the pastor and two witnesses proves his paternity; in other cases, the name of the baptized is inscribed with no mention of the name of the father or the parents.
[CIC]

The parents must be named; an unmarried mother or father must be named if the respective parent asserts that right in the manner required by the canon. If the infant's birth certificate names either parent (or both), that's a public record of parenthood and sufficient for the parent(s) who appear on it.


Why does the LDS Church put an emphasis on prepping?

There are a number of reasons you could name.

Historically, you could point to the experience of the Latter-day Saints in the 1800s which was one mass exodus after another. Emergency prepardness was life or death.

Culturally, there is a strong emphasis on hard work and temporal self-reliance (probably carried over from those early pioneer days).

Pragmatically, it makes good sense.

Doctrinally, they believe they live in the last times (latter days), which are promised to be so tough that even the righteous barely survive.

And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
Matthew 24:22

Many times, "emergency preparedness" is interpreted as "prepare for the nuclear/end-of-days/zombie apocalypse" by stockpiling food and weapons in bomb shelters.
In reality, emergency preparedness is much less dramatic. For all the decades Mormons have stressed preparedness, there's still no apocalypse.
But loss of employment, local natural disasters, illness, death of a family member, etc. are common. Mormons prepare for the proverbial rainy day.
Last month, the president of the Church said (and similar quotes can be found many places):

We live in turbulent times. Often the future is unknown; therefore, it behooves us to prepare for uncertainties. When the time for decision arrives, the time for preparation is past.

In addition to individual preparation, the LDS Church itself has orchards, farms, canneries, storehouses, and the largest cow-calf ranch in the US. It puts these to use in its welfare program, charities, and humanitarian aid services.
For individuals, the Church emphasizes:
Employment The LDS church runs employments centers, open to members and the public to help people get job skills and find employment. Members are taught to get as much education as possible, and the Church has the Perpetual Education Fund.
Avoid debt Education and a house have been listed as reasonable exceptions, but other debt, particularly consumer debt, is strongly discouraged.
Food storage The LDS Church used to recommend two years. Now, they recommend three months plus "extended" food storage, when feasible.
Health Follow the Word of Wisdom (LDS health code: grains, fruits, no alcohol, no tobacco).
The Provident Living website is a good official LDS source.
Of course, there's always that guy with his bomb shelter, 200 gallons of canned food, and private armory, but the LDS Church isn't suggesting that.
Being from Florida, I've been through a number of hurricanes, and it continues to amaze how many people will wait until the last possible second to prepare. Katrina was probably the most extreme recent example of this. Preparing to take care of your needs, rather than waiting for FEMA to do it for you, is the right approach.


Need to know exact sacrifices required in the Old Testament Pentecost Feast

The Pentecost festival was the end of the Festival of Weeks.

A few things may help here:

The Festival of weeks itself was a several week affair that celebrated the entire harvest. It began when the barley was ready, and ended with the wheat.  As such, it was a season - but the highest day thereof was the single day of Pentecost.
As a harvest festival, the primary offerings would have been the non-living sacrifices.  The barley offering and the grain offering were the primary things one would think of - in the same way that a modern American would associate Thanksgiving with turkey.
That said, there were animal offerings - but these were not proscribed directly.  Rather, the most common would have been sheep (because that was the primary herd animal - your other suspects: pigs would have been unkosher, cows would have been too expensive, chickens would have been seen as bad luck).  Had you been unable to afford a sheep, however, as a freewill offering, you could substitute other less expensive animals - like two turtledoves / pigeons.


Is there assurance of salvation in Catholicism?

No, the doctrine of assurance is contrary to Catholic teaching. In fact, it was specifically rejected by the Council of Trent:

  If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema. (Sixth session, Canon XVI)

For Catholics, the virtues that you list (repentence, change in character, desire for God and his Word, desire to share the Gospel, etc) are not only subsequent to salvation but actually an essential part of justifying faith.

For Catholics, the destination of the person after death is determined at the point of death. This is known as the Particular Judgement (as opposed to the Last Judgement at the end of time):

  Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, -- or immediate and everlasting damnation. (CCC §1022)


What would be a divine image of a form that is in the water below the earth?

The translation "divine image" in the Hebrew is simply פֶּ֫סֶל (pesel), meaning image or idol.  The commandment in Ex 20:4 is a prohibition on making an image or likeness of anything above us, around us or below us in order to worship it.

This prohibition  against worshiping a man-made image/idol extends to everything.  The translation in the LEB, "divine image" is quite infelicitous and so misleading as it implies that the prohibition is only against images of the divine.  The word "divine" is not in the original.

The thrust of the sentence is against making an image of anything in order to worship it.  Ellicott summarises this well:

  (4) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.--The two main
  clauses of the second commandment are to be read together, so as to
  form one sentence: "Thou shalt not make to thee any graven image, &c.,
  so as to worship it." … It was not until the days of Hebrew decline
  and degeneracy that a narrow literalism pressed the words into an
  absolute prohibition of the arts of painting and sculpture (Philo, De
  Oraculis, ? 29). Moses himself sanctioned the cherubic forms above the
  mercy-seat, the brazen serpent, and the lilies and pomegranates of the
  golden candlestick. Solomon had lions on the steps of his throne, oxen
  under his "molten sea," and palm-trees, flowers, and cherubim on the
  walls of the Temple, "within and without" (1Kings 6:29). What the
  second commandment forbade was the worship of God under a material
  form. It asserted the spirituality of Jehovah.


Is there a difference between prayer and petition?

A petition, just as it is in the political arena, is a request to a sovereign to take some action.  Any request made of God, is thus a petition. Prayer, on the other hand, is any communication with God.

As such, all petitions presented to God are delivered as prayer, but there are forms of prayer (glorification, confession, thanksgiving) that are not petitions.

Going to the Greek, we see it is:

  παντὶ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει μετὰ εὐχαριστίας

παντὶ = in all things

τῇ προσευχῇ = in prayer

καὶ = and

τῇ δεήσει μετὰ εὐχαριστίας = in petition with thanksgiving.

As such one could parse the verse as "in all things .. by prayer (petition with thanksgiving) present your requests to God" as an equally accurate rendering.  This seems like an instrumental construction, meaning that petitions and thanksgiving would be how the prayer is done.

Again, in short - your petition is a kind of prayer, but it is not the only kind of prayer there is.


I would be wary of a sermon which develops it's doctrines concerning God's occasionally harsh treatment of man from the interpretation of a supposed ancient practice. As well-meaning as it is, from a standpoint of pastoral guidance and discipleship, it's not very helpful for a disciple to look upon human suffering and remember the alleged practices of ancient near-east shepherds.

From a Biblical theology standpoint, the most notable passage is:

  And we know that for those who love God all things work together for
  good, for those who are called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28
  ESV)

So there is a promise, all things work together for good of the object of that promise. Who is the object of that promise? Those who love God AND are called according to His purpose.

Generally speaking, being called according to the purposes of God is synonymous with being the elect of God. Various theological camps have different beliefs on what it means to be elect, but the reformed tradition of which I am a part believes that the Bible teaches that the elect are those whom God has predestined from before the foundation of the world by grace to be granted the gift of faith, unto salvation.

In practice, applying this idea to suffering is a good mindset but only in the most general sense that a Christian can know themselves to be loved and not abandoned in the midst of suffering, not that they can deduce the special reasons that make particular instances of suffering ultimately good for them. It is something to take God at his word for, even when it is not directly seen or experienced.


This issue is really just a sub-set of a much larger issue. See my answer on Are Christians bound to the laws of their country? for a defense of why Christians are bound to follow the laws of their countries whether or not they agree or disagree with them.

Whether or not some of the items you list would or would not fall under a biblical definition of "theft" and thus run afoul of one of the ten commandments, breaking a civil law is still something we're instructed against according to Romans 13:1. Hence breaking civil laws and ethical standards is also disobedience to God, which is sin.


What should one do who was baptised twice in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

I'll answer from the Catholic point of view, because I'm Catholic, but I think the Orthodox would agree (just interchange "Catholic" and "Orthodox" in the rest of this answer). Your first baptism is presumably valid (unless it was done in some weird way --- it's possible to mess up a baptism to the point of invalidity, but that very rarely happens). The sacrament of baptism can only be received once, so your second baptism is invalid, i.e., it's not really a baptism at all. The Catholic Church regards Orthodox baptisms as valid (and vice versa, as far as I know). So from the Catholic point of view, you're validly baptized, no matter which of your two baptisms came first.  If you've been practicing the Catholic faith (attending mass, receiving communion, going to confession, etc.) all along, you have nothing to worry about. If you haven't been practicing the Catholic faith but want to begin, you should consult a priest about what you need to do.  That may involve receiving instruction in the faith, it may involve making a general confession, or it may involve other things that don't occur to me just now. It should not involve baptism unless there's reason to suspect that both of your previous baptisms were invalid.

Edit: A comment requested sources for this information. The one I have handy is "Moral Theology" by Fr. Heribert Jone, which I consider reliable because it was recommended to me by a traditional Catholic priest and because no one has given me any reason to doubt it. Baptism is treated in detail in Sections 464 to 486. In particular, see Section 472 concerning validity of baptism by non-Catholics and Section 473 for the impossibility of being validly baptized twice.


Why doesn't God have to keep his own commandments such as "Do not murder"?

This question is about authority. It is wrong for you to discipline children unless you are their parent, or their teacher, or their sports coach etc. The relationship you have determines what authority you have over someone.

As our creator, God has complete authority over everyone. It is entirely right for him to kill any creature he made at any time for any reason. But we do not have that authority or right. We're not God.

Through the Bible you can see that at times God gives up his prerogative to kill. God's promise to Cain in Genesis 4 suggests that before the flood there were no situations when God allowed people to kill each other. After the flood in Genesis 9 God instructs his people to execute murderers and animals who kill people. In the Mosaic law he prescribes executions for many more crimes and sins. Fast forward to the New Testament, and Romans 13:1-5 says that God has given our civil rulers the right to punish wrongdoers. But in all of these cases a human's authority to kill people is always derived from God's own authority. None of us have that right in and of ourselves.

(And just for the record, the commandment is not "do not kill", but instead "do not commit murder". See this other question for an explanation of why the KJV says 'kill'.)