What was the point of the third article of Remonstrance?

When I first read your question my immediate thought was it is not what is said here that shows the conflict with Calvinism but what is 'not said'.  Interestingly enough I was trying to find proof of this impression and found the very same observation made my a modern Remonstrant with respect to the seventh article of the Methodist church.

  Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually. (VII Article, Methodist Church)

What may not first be obvious on the Methodist article is that the 'inclination to evil' is not an actual sinful depravity and personal wickedness at birth but more like a severe weakness that will result in sin, while still maintaining innocence until a sin is actually committed by free will.  The Arminian John Miley in his book Systematic Theology attempts to explain this point regarding article VII, lest we confuse the idea with Calvinism:

  There is not one word about a sharing of the race in the sin of Adam, or about the corruption of human nature as a judicial infliction on the ground of a common Adamic guilt. Nor is there one word which expresses or even implies an intrinsic sinfulness and damnableness of this inherited corruption of nature. Therefore we could controvert these special elements of the Augustinian doctrine, as we have done, without the slightest departure from our own doctrine as formulated in this article. (John Miley's Systematic Theology, p523)

Note: I am not sure Miley truly represents original Methodist though under John Wesley, but am pretty sure is he correctly representing original Remonstrant beliefs, which seem to also be his own.

This fully confirmed by own understanding of the difference.  Therefore to answer the question: In simple terms the remonstrants replace Augustinian/Calvinistic election with freedom of will. Therefore a person was not born guilty with a sinful nature but born innocent.  Being born innocent does not mean that a person can do good but just means they are not personally guilty and made sinful by participating in Adam's sin and punishment for it.

The third article regarding saving faith is simply to say without faith one can't be saved or do good.  What is NOT said is that humans can't do good because before they were born they were damned into an actual wicked nature and that as soon as their souls ate capable of expressing the slightest of moral inclination or choice they will sin accordingly.

The fourth article just assigns grace as the procuring cause of anything that a man can be enabled to do that is good. Then it is affirmed that grace is not provided to the elect but that all men are provided grace so that they can receive or not receive Christ.  The directive of both articles is to establish two things that lay the foundation of all Arminian thought.

Faith and grace are not denied when departing from traditional  Augustinian/Calvinistic views of original sin.
Human freedom, guilt and moral depravity
can only be counted from one's own choice and not imputed from Adam in the form of personal guilt and corresponding actual perverseness in birth.

Arminian doctrine as defined by Arminias is largely defined by how it disagrees with Calvinism and these two articles establish this position by showing what they retain and what they do not say.

Reference

One book that deals heavily with the difference between Airman concepts of original sin and Calvinist concepts is from John Owen entitled 'A display of Arminianism' in the Works of John Owen Volume VII.

Owen begins by charging Arminians with overthrowing all traditional beliefs on the subject. (Roman Catholic dogma on this area is actually very close to Calvin as well by the way at least compared to Arminian).

  My purpose for the present is not to allege any testimonies of this kind; but, holding myself close to my first intention, to show how far in this article, as well as others, the Arminians have apostated from the pure doctrine of the word of God, the consent of orthodox divines, and the confession of this church of England.
  In the ninth article of our church, which is concerning original sin, I observe especially four things:—First, That it is an inherent evil, the fault and corruption of the nature of every man. Secondly, That it is a thing not subject or conformable to the law of God, but hath in itself, even after baptism, the nature of sin. Thirdly, That by it we are averse from God, and inclined to all manner of evil. Fourthly, That it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. All which are frequently and evidently taught in the word of God, and every one denied by the Arminians, as it may appear by these instances, in some of them:—
  First, That it is an inherent sin and pollution of nature, having a proper guilt of its own, making us responsible to the wrath of God, and not a bare imputation of another’s fault to us his posterity: which, because it would reflect upon us all with a charge of a native imbecility and insufficiency to good, is by these self-idolizers quite exploded.
  1“Infants are simply in that estate in which Adam was before his fall,” saith Venator.2 “Neither is it at all considerable whether they be the children of believers or of heathens and infidels; for infants, as infants, have all the same innocency,” say they jointly, in their Apology: nay, more plainly,3 “It can be no fault wherewith we are born.” In which last expression these bold innovators, with one dash of their pens, have quite overthrown a sacred verity, an apostolic, catholic, fundamental article of Christian religion. (Works of John Owen Volume VII)

After mentioning various proofs of the Calvinistic doctrine of original sin, Owen goes on to explain how Adam's sin imputed to human nature is not just a bare imputation of another’s fault, but an intrinsically inner corruption of our nature and shared guilt. That is to say that we are guilty of sin before we are born and we crave sin as soon as we are possible to crave moral things. Then he explains that Arminian thoughts that oppose this traditional concept:

  The Arminians deny all such imputation, as too heavy a charge for the pure, unblamable condition wherein they are brought into this world. They deny, I say, that they are guilty of Adam’s sin, as sinning in him, or that his sin is any way imputed unto us; which is their second assault upon the truth of this article of faith.
  1“Adam sinned in his own proper person, and there is no reason why God should impute that sin of his unto infants,” saith Boræus. The nature of the first covenant, the right and power d God, the comparison instituted by the apostle between Adam and Christ, the divine constitution, whereby Adam was appointed to be the head, fountain, and origin of all human kind, are with him no reasons at all to persuade it.2 “For it is against equity,” saith their Apology, “that one should be accounted guilty for a sin that is not his own,—that he should be reputed nocent who, in regard of his own will, is truly innocent.” And here, Christian reader, behold plain Pelagianism obtruded on us without either welt3 or guard; men on sudden made pure and truly innocent, notwithstanding all that natural pollution and corruption the Scripture everywhere proclaims then to be replenished withal. Neither is the reason they intimate of any value, that their wills assented not to it, and which a little before they plainly urge. “It is,” say they,1 “against the nature of sin that that should be counted a sin to any by whose own proper will it was not committed:” which being all they have to say, they repeat it over and over in this case,—“It must be voluntary, or it is no sin.” But I say this is of no force at all; for,—first, St John, in his most exact definition of sin, requires not voluntariness to the nature of it, but only an obliquity, a deviation from the rule. It is an anomy,—a discrepancy from the law, which whether voluntary or no it skills not much; but sure enough there is in our nature such a repugnancy to the law of God. So that, secondly, if originally we are free from a voluntary actual transgression, yet we are not from an habitual voluntary digression and exorbitancy from the law. But, thirdly, in respect of our wills, we are not thus innocent neither; for we all sinned in Adam, as the apostle affirmeth. Now, all sin is voluntary, say the Remonstrants, and therefore Adam’s transgression was our voluntary sin also, and that in divers respects..... (Works of John Owen Volume VII)


According to Catholic Church, does John the Evangelist mention the same individual Jews at 8: 31 and 8:59?

Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., commentates that they were different:

Ver. 59.—Then they took up, &c., as a blasphemer, who placed Himself above Abraham, and made Himself equal to God. Blasphemers were ordered to be stoned (Lev. 24:16). It is clear that these Jews were not those who were said to have believed in Him [in v. 31] (as Theophylact supposes), but the others who were opposed to Christ. “And to what should such hardness betake itself but to stones?” says. S. Augustine (in loc.) “They sought to crush Him, whom, they could not understand,” says S. Gregory (Hom. xviii.)


How should we dress when attending church?

We are not commanded to dress a certain way in Scripture, other than that it should be modest.

However, I have a strong personal conviction - one I would not try to force on anyone else - that you should dress up for Church.

When God appeared to Moses as a burning bush, He commanded Moses to "put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground."  To me, this implies that God expects us to respect Him, and approach Him with reverence, as one who is Holy and worthy of our best.  Therefore, I dress up, not to look good to others, but because it's such a small thing for the God who created me and saved me.

That said, I do not look down on anyone who doesn't feel the same.  Not everyone thinks the same way, and it's not for me to try to force them.  Christianity isn't about a bunch of rules and regulations, it's about our hearts, and our relationship with God.


How is Jesus God's final word? (Protestant Perspective)

The final word refers to the final revelation, in practical terms Matthew to Revelation.  There is no Scripture after this or above it. In the past God 'gradually' over a long period revealed his word, bit-by-bit, shadow-by-shadow but when Christ came he brought the final conclusion in the gospel of grace and truth.

  For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (NIV, Jn 1:17 )

And

  In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. (NIV, Heb 1:1-2)

In the same short period he also established all remaining doctrines necessary for the church through the Apostles and forever closed up into the canon of scripture.

This final revelation was initiated at the time of Christ ending very shortly after. Its glory and superiority is based on the directness of its communication in that God himself through the incarnation spoke it to men as a man. We are not to expect any new revelation and supplemental books such as the Koran, or other books various Christian sects have claimed to have been given as a supplement in the last few hundred years.


How did Zipporah know that God was going to kill Moses?

Moses surely would have told Zipporah about God's command to circumcise. While we have to speculate about the details, the Pulpit Commentary suggests a plausible sequence of events.

The suggestion is that it was the eighth day after the birth of their second son; that the first son had already been circumcised; and that Zipporah talked Moses into not circumcising the second.

  The narrative of verses 24-26 is obscure from its brevity; but the most probable explanation of the circumstances is, that Zipporah had been delivered of her second son, Eliezer, some few days before she set out on the journey to Egypt. Childbirth, it must be remembered, in the East does not incapacitate a person from exertion for more than a day or two. On the journey, the eighth day from the birth of the child arrived, and his circumcision ought to have taken place; but Zipporah had a repugnance to the rite, and deferred it, Moses weakly consenting to the illegality.

The commentary goes on to suggest Moses may have become seriously ill, and recognized it was a judgment for his weakness. He no doubt would have said something to Zipporah, who then might have needed to do the circumcision because of Moses' weakness, but complained about it. According to the commentary, the complaint likely referred to both circumcisions.

The commentary acknowledges that the language suggests a miraculous appearance, but that it could refer to an illness as well.


What evidence is there that the Herodians were distinct from mainstream Phariseeism?

Part of the last paragraph in entry the Pharisees on New Advent has:

  [T]he extreme faction of the Sadducees, known as the
  Herodians, was in sympathy with the foreign rulers and pagan culture,
  and even looked forward to a restoration of the national kingdom under
  one of the descendants of King Herod. Yet we find the Pharisees making
  common cause with the Herodians in their opposition to the Saviour
  (Mark 3:6; 12:13, etc.).

Herodians | Jewish Encyclopedia are also identified with the Sadducees.


According to Acts 20:7, which day was the first day of the week?

The Sabbath is the Lord's day, set apart each week for rest and worship. In Old Testament times, God's covenant people observed the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week because God rested on the seventh day when He had created the earth. After the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which occurred on the first day of the week, the Lord's disciples began observing the Sabbath on the first day of the week, Sunday (see Acts 20:7).

  original link to this info with more scriptural references to the sabbath day in christianity particularly in the LDS tradition [found on lds.org]

this is what I was taught and as someone who has been both Jewish and Christian this makes the most sense to me as an argument that holds water. Hope that helps!


Why are the books of the Protestant Bible in the order that they are in?

Note that this answer refers to the Protestant Bible.  The Catholic Bible, and the Eastern Orthodox Bibles largely follow this pattern, but contain different books.  More on the differences  can be found here.  The differences are also noted below.

First, understand that the Bible is not a single book  It's a collection of 66 books, written at different time periods, by different authors (but all through the Divine Inspiration God, a phrase which has a deeper meaning, and wider implication for the Bible's trustworthiness than inspiration as you'd usually think of it.)

It is also not written in a chronological order.  It is divided primarily in a topical manner.

The Bible is first divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The Old Testament consists of the books that are included in the Jewish Scriptures, but the organization is different.  For more info on the Jewish Scriptures, you'd be better off checking out the Judaism Stack Exchange site.  I include this bit of information here because the roots of Judaism and those of Christianity are the same.  It is at the boundary of the beginning of the New Testament, with the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus that Christianity sprang out of Judaism. The Old Testament ends with the Jews awaiting the Messiah.  The New Testament writings begin with the accounts of that Messiah - Jesus Christ.

Within the Old Testament the books are grouped into:

The Books of the Law, aka the Books of Moses, or the Pentateuch.

This consists of the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  Collectively, this is called the Torah. These lay the foundations of the faith, introducing God as Creator, the establishment of his promise with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whose line eventually becomes the Jewish people.  We learn of the captivity in Egypt, the exodus, exile in the wilderness, and the giving of God's law to His chosen people.

For Jews, this represents the covenant and are the most important books period.  The Sadducees believed no other part of the Bible to be inspired. These books are chronological in their subject matter, with Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers being primarily story.  Leviticus represents the first iteration of the covenant, given at Sinai, in the events that occurred in the Exodus. Numbers recounts what occurs after Exodus, and Deuteronomy (literally 'Second Law') being the re-iteration of the covenant after the wandering of Israel. The names of the books are the first significant words in each book.
Next, come the Historical books, which cover the history of the Jewish people, including the establishment of their kingdom, and various (somewhat frustrating) cycles of turning away from God, punishment for their transgressions, repentance on the part of the people, and healing by God, only to have the people turn from Him and start the cycle anew.  This includes Joshua through Esther.

The Catholic Bible also includes 1 and 2 Maccabees. The Orthodox Bible includes, 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees, as well as 1 Esdras.  Protestants consider these non-canonical, and if they are included at all, they will usually be in a separate section called "Apocrypha".

The events in these books are chronological as well, with the exception that the events of 1 & 2 Kings (also called 3rd and 4th Samuel in older traditions) are repeated in 1 & 2 Chronicles. The difference between Kings & Chronicles is that Kings focuses on the Kings, and Chronicles on the Temple.

Interestingly, in the Hebrew Bible, the "Ketu'vim" is placed after the Prophets (the Nevi'im) and thus the Hebrew Bible ends with the Temple in 2 Chronicles.
Next are the books of writings, sometimes called Poetic Writings or Books of Wisdom.  This includes Job,Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon.

Again, the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles include extra books here: Wisdom and Sirach

These books are in no particular order - indeed both Psalms and Proverbs are merely collections and are not even chronological within themselves.
The remainder of the Old Testament is made up of prophetic books, broken up into the Major Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel) and the Minor Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi).

The Major prophets are roughly in chronological order, although there is an argument about Isaiah actually being two books.

The Minor prophets collectively are smaller than Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, and were often bound together in a single scroll. These books are specifically not in any chronological order, but rather are ordered the way they are based on the ending words of one book leading into the start of the next.

Within the New Testament, the books are grouped as follows:

The Four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) which tell of Christ's birth, life, teachings, miracles, death, and resurrection from four different perspective.

Historically, it was believed that Matthew was the first to be written, followed by Mark, then Luke, the John. Modern scholars now often believe in what is called Marcan priority, meaning that Mark predates Matthew - both consensus solidly places John to be the last Gospel to be written.  The events of the 4 Gospels are all roughly contemporaneous.

Next comes the Book of Acts (or Acts of the Apostles), which begin with a resurrected Christ, and give an overview of the birth of the Christian Church.  The various missionary trips, and some basic doctrines are established in the telling of these lives.

There is very little doubt that Acts is a sequel to Luke, written by the same author, but about the events that occurred after the Gospels.
Next come the Epistles.  These are letters that were written to specific Churches by various authors.  There are Specific Epistles, and Generic Epistles.

First come the Specific Epistles: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews.  Each serves as a message to speak to an individual group of people in that exact place and time, but also apply to every people since then, including today.  The Epistles are named after the group of people they were written to.

With the exception of Hebrews, these are all written by Paul (the Church erroneously attributed Hebrews to Paul) or a person claiming to be Paul.  These books are ordered by length, and length alone.
Following these come the General Epistles: James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude

Within each author, these are also ordered by length.  2 Peter and Jude are so similar that they are often treated as the same book.
Finally, the Book of the Revelation is the main prophetic work in the New Testament (although many of the other books contain prophecy as well.)  It is largely symbolic in nature, and interpretations vary, but it speaks to the end times, and the establishment of Christ's final rule, and the creation of a new Heaven and a new Earth.


Was Jesus handsome according to Psalm 45:2?

Psalm 45 is a love song celebrating a royal wedding.  This view is expressed in the New International Version study Bible, the New Living Translation study Bible and the English Standard Version study Bible.  In order to avoid falling into the trap of giving a personal opinion, allow me to quote from the comments in the ESV:

This is a hymn celebrating a royal wedding; as the title says, it is a love song.  It is impossible to be sure for which king in David’s line the song was first composed, but it does not matter... The psalm has sometimes been taken as directly messianic, because Hebrews 1:8-9 cites Psalm 45:6-7, applying the verses to Christ.  The notes below will make clear how the book of Hebrews uses these verses.
45:1 A Song for a King.  Whether these words are to be sung by the congregation or by a choir, they are addressed to the king.  As a psalm, used in Jerusalem, this would refer to a king in David’s line.
45:2-9 You are a King of Beauty, Majesty, and Justice.  These words speak to the king, praising him for his appearance and gracious speech (v.2), military power (v. 3), and commitment to promoting justice for his subjects (v.4-7a).  These words focus the attention of a young king on the ideals he should hold for his reign and character.  These are what leads to God’s blessing for his people’s king, and to the king’s own respected position in the world (v.7b-9).

In other words, the verse you refer to is not a description of Christ Jesus.  It is a hymn which starts of by addressing the king (to verse 9) then the song turns to the bride and her new role as wife to her husband (the king).  Verses 13-15 describe the splendid attire of the bride (the princess) as she leaves her chamber and is led to the king accompanied by a procession of virgin companions.
It’s a song to be sung at a royal wedding.  The final verses return to the king and speak of the enduring Davidic line.  Is verse 2 saying Jesus was handsome?  No, it is not.  Neither does it mention David.  It seems to be a song to be sung at the wedding of any king from the line of David.
It is true that Hebrews 1:8-9 quotes from Psalm 45:6-7 and applies it to the Son of God, but it does not apply verse 2.
Isaiah 53:2, speaking of the Messiah, says this:

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him."

Physical appearance is of no consequence.


What is the difference between "love one another" and "love your neighbour"?

Wikipedia gives a brief overview of how the commandment has generally been seen as "new." It accords with what I've heard through the years:

  The "New Commandment", the Wycliffe Bible Commentary states, "was new in that the love was to be exercised toward others not because they belonged to the same nation, but because they belonged to Christ...and the love of Christ which the disciples had seen...would be a testimony to the world".

  One of the novelties introduced by this commandment – perhaps justifying its designation as New – is that Jesus "introduces himself as a standard for love". The usual criterion had been "as you love yourself". However, the New Commandment goes beyond "as you love yourself" as found in the ethic of reciprocity and states "as I have loved you", using the Love of Christ for his disciples as the new model.

The idea that Jews were only commanded to love one another, and not to love outsiders, doesn't seem to hold water. Sixteen verses after "love your neighbor," we read:

  The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 19:34 NIV)

Not to mention the fact that according to Luke's gospel, Jesus had already claimed that "my neighbor" in the context of the commandment is whomever you can show mercy to. So if you believe that John and Luke report the same Jesus, as Christianity has traditionally taught, that can't be what's "new" about Jesus' New Commandment.

John Piper helpfully expounds on what makes the New Commandment new in a sermon on John 13:

  First, the command is new because it is a command to live out the love of Jesus. Second, the command is new because it is a command to live on the love of Jesus. The words “as I have loved you” contain a pattern for our love for each other, and they contain a power for our love for each other.

  Loving each other is not a new command per se. It was already there in the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”). What’s new is that Jesus is now the pattern we live by and the power we live on. Let’s look at these two kinds of newness.

Piper quotes Jesus' words from earlier in John 13:

  Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.

What this seems to mean is that Jesus' disciples are to serve one another, regardless of their social status. Piper thus says that the "pattern we live by" according to the New Commandment is to "lay aside status and rank and prestige and privilege and take the form of a servant" and engage in "practical deeds of helpfulness."

So, "Love your neighbor as yourself" seems to involve loving everyone. "Love one another as I have loved you" seems to involve loving fellow believers. Obviously this is a subset of the old command, but it raises the standard, from "as you love yourself" to "as I (Jesus) have loved you," and it gives a new purpose, that "by this everyone will know that you are my disciples." This purpose is reminiscent of Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount: "Let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."

It doesn't appear that the old command was done away with either, since Paul says in a discourse on love:

  Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

So both commands are in effect, but they have different scopes and different purposes.

To recap:

Love your neighbor as yourself

a. Command: love all people

b. Standard: love as you love yourself

c. Purpose: to pursue peace on earth

d. In effect: yes
Love one another as I have loved you

a. Command: love and serve fellow believers

b. Standard: love in the ways that Jesus demonstrated

c. Purpose: that non-believers will take notice

d. In effect: yes


Understanding Zechariah's prophecy in Luke 1 as a Protestant, Evangelical Dispensationalist believer

The dispensational Moody Bible Commentary seems to address both of your questions at a high level.  On this passage, it reads:

  With his restored powers of speech, and being filled with the Holy Spirit [...], Zacharias immediately turned to praising God.  This song—a work of poetry—was intended to be the answer to the people's question in 1:66—What will this child turn out to be?  The song, drawn mostly from quotations and allusions of the OT (e.g., 1:68 with 1Kg 1:48; Ps 41:13; 72:18; 1:69 with 1Sm 2:1, 10; Ps 18:2; 89:17; 1:71 with Ps 106:10; 1:73 with Gn 22:16; 1:78 with Mal 4:2; 1:79 with Is 9:2), is called the Benedictus (after the first word of Lk 1:68 in the Latin version).  In one long sentence (1:68–75) Zacharias praised God for His work of fulfilling His covenant promises to David (1:69) and to Abraham (1:73).  This work of "covenant fulfillment" was to be accomplished by the One whom John would one day announce and introduce to the world—this child (you, child 1:76).  In the rest of the song (1:77–79) Zacharias highlighted the ministry of the coming One in terms of salvation, forgiveness, mercy, guidance, and peace. [emphasis in original]

So we see that Moody does indicate that Zacharias understands the idea of spiritual salvation that "was to be accomplished by the One whom John would one day announce," particularly on the basis of verses 76–79, and it links the Benedictus to many OT passages.  Most of these are allusions and not necessarily prophecies, but perhaps 1 Samuel 2:10 and especially Isaiah 9:2 would be understood as Messianic prophecies.  And Moody sees Zacharias's prophecy being fulfilled in general terms through the ministry of Jesus, "in terms of salvation, forgiveness, mercy, guidance, and peace."

Dispensationalist theologian Thomas Constable goes into more detail in his commentary on Luke.  He connects the "horn of salvation" of 1:69 with Ps 18:2, and argues that Zechariah is speaking of Jesus, knowing that the birth of Jesus was imminent because of Mary's visit. He also believes that the reference to "Lord" in 1:76 is primarily a reference to the Messiah (not simply God).  And he finds a reference to Numbers 24:17 ("a star shall come out of Jacob") in the phrase "sunrise shall visit us" of 1:78, and he too connects 1:79 with Isaiah 9:2.

Like Moody, Constable doesn't connect specific events in Jesus' ministry to the prophecy of Zechariah, but clearly sees a connection between the prophecy and the Messiah's salvation (both political and spiritual) and the fulfillment of the covenant promises.


What are some of the reasons for which mainstream non-Catholic Christians are against gender-neutral secular marriage?

Christians believe that God's law is not an arbitrary set of rules designed to make life inconvenient, but that it represents God's intended pattern for living a happy, successful, fulfilled life.

Many Christians believe that following God's pattern for human behaviour therefore results in more fulfilled people and a better society, whether or not those people believe in the source of the pattern (God). Many also believe that it is the duty of secular authorities to  promote moral behaviour; and especially the duty of Christians to use whatever influence they have on the government to make it promote moral behaviour.


What kind of Roman cross was used to crucify Jesus?

The Biblical evidence is a bit ambiguous in this particular case, but tradition definitely says that it was cross in the shape of a small t, the common one found in classical and medieval art. Some thoughts from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
It states the cross shape explicitly:

The cross on which Jesus Christ was nailed was of the kind known as immissa, which means that the vertical trunk extended a certain height above the transverse beam

First, Biblical proof that it could not have been an "X":

We gather as much from St. Matthew (27:37), where he tells us that the titulus, or inscription containing the cause of His death, was placed, "over", the head of Jesus Christ

And then confirmation that it was a "✝" with historical evidences:

St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., II, xxiv) says that the Cross had five extremities: two in its length, two in its breadth, and the fifth a projection (habitus) in the middle
Nonnus confirms the statement that Jesus Christ was crucified on a quadrilateral cross.

Interestingly, there seems to have been a seat for Christ as well (that fifth extremity).

St. Irenæus... says that the Cross had a fifth extremity, on which the Crucified One was seated

But, the foot support probably wasn't there:

[That] the Crucifixion there [was] a wooden support... is very doubtful.


Which denomination agrees with our beliefs?

The Free Methodist denomination agrees with your beliefs on both points.

Women have been ordained, and eligible to lead a congregation, for over a century.  In fact my own (southwestern Pennsylvania) congregation was pastored by the Reverend Laura Lamb in 1915-16.  Free Methodist pastor B.T. Roberts wrote an entire book (published in 1891) examining the biblical principles involved and concluded there was no barrier to allowing women to be ordained: Ordaining Women.

The denomination also maintains a biblical & traditional view of sexuality (fidelity within marriage, celibacy outside of it, marriage is one man and one woman).  Homosexuality is acknowledged as a sin, without 'elevating' it as though it's a worse sin than any other:

  Paul makes it clear in the first section of his letter to Rome that
  behaviors such as gossip, greed and boasting in the same category as
  homosexual sin. [See] Romans 1, starting at verse 26 [through verse
  32].

The above quote comes from this much lengthier article: Sexual Issues: A Pastoral Resource.

There may or may not be a Free Methodist congregation near you (you don't mention where you live), so this may or may not be an option.  And also, I'm sure there are other denominations that hold the same principles.

Either way, my own advice -- beyond checking doctrines, which is a good thing to do -- is to seek God's guidance in earnest prayer to find a church that He wants you to attend.  1 Corinthians 12:18 reads, "But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be."  Acknowledge and submit to His leading when it comes to the church you choose.


What is the biblical basis for Jesus being God incarnate?

For the quick answer to your question, see John 1:1, 14.

But really, this is a simple matter of the transitive property.

Jesus forgives sin (Mark 2:1-12): It's a non-debated point of doctrine that only God can forgive sins. It's easy for the modern reader to marvel at the miracle without realizing the greater significance of Jesus' statement. Jesus here uses the miracle to refute the accusations of blasphemy (See Psalm 130:4; Isa. 43:25; Dan. 9:9).

Jesus is eternal (John 8:53-59): The Jews weren't about to stone Him because they didn't like what He said, but because He was saying that He is God. I AM is His name. At the very least, Jesus is claiming to be no ordinary man, for how else could He claim to exist before Abraham? Also, see John 1:2; 17:5; Rev. 1:8

Jesus is creator: See John 1:3, Col. 1:16,17, Hebrews 1:2.

Jesus is rightly worshiped: Jesus is worshiped throughout the Gospels (recorded seven times in Matthew alone: 2:11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 28:9; 28:17) and it is not recorded that he stopped them. See also Philippians 2:10; Heb 1:6, Rev. 5:12-14, when all of creation and the heavenly angels worship Him.


I think one good way we can look at this and understand that that section was commandments instead of promises is by letting other parts of Scripture that either reference or comment on it help define it.

For example in the NT we find Jesus giving a sermon and instructing people on the way they should live. In several cases he clearly references the statements we find in Exodus 20 and expounds on them to show the scope of the commandments is even larger than sometimes understood.

  Mathew 5:27-28 (ESV)
  You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

This is clearly a reference to Exodus 20:14, and using Jesus understanding of it and how other people in Scripture used that passage in their own teaching, we can understand that it was indeed a command.


Is the Catholic teaching regarding the definition of mortal sin de fide?

I don't know if there has been a solemn definition of the doctrine by a pope or council, but this definition is part of the deposit of faith. It is defined exactly as you state in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in point 1857, and the distinction between venial and mortal sin is also defined in point 1854.

Point 1854 states:
"Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience."

This point states that the doctrine is present in Scripture and is part of the tradition of the Church.

If we understand dogma to be "a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful." Then yes, this definition of mortal sin is dogmatic.

If by dogma we mean a solemn declaration from the Church, I would still argue that yes it is dogmatic since it is defined in the CCC which is the product of a Council.

The Council of Trent also discusses mortal sin, but I haven't been able to find a definition in it. Perhaps one of the earlier councils has a definition.


Does Satan have a physical dwelling place on earth?

Having been to Bergama, I can tell you this is an amazing place. An imposing temple stands at the top of a 1200 meter or so mountain. Winds blow at the top that will make you feel you will be blown into the valley below. I remember my wife driving in the valley below, and before we had even entered the town, I looked up, saw the Temple, and said - I know exactly where we are going.  It is a powerful place, and the presence of "the gods" is felt from miles away as one looks to the top of that mountain

That said, the reference in Revelation as to its position as "Satan's seat" is not that he has a chair there, but rather that it was a "capital" of sorts in Satan's empire. It was a place of power in Greek theology (and remember, Turkey was Greek at the time!) In the same way that Washington, DC is the "seat" of power in the United States, Bergama was the center of power for a particular belief system that emphasized the power of the gods to grant healing.

The Greek god Asclepius in particular drew followers from all over to experience healing.  The fact that this pagan influence was so strong would likely have led John the Revelator to say something to the effect of "Satan is very strong here," as evidenced by the deep pagan influences against which Christianity would place itself.

All this said, this does not address the question of Satan's abode.  As a created being, Satan must, by definition, have a physical presence.  Unlike God who is omnipresent, Satan is a finite being.  As such, he has a place.  When in Job, for instance, he confronts God, it says specifically that he had returned from walking the earth, and seems to indicate that there was a place in which he could come face to face with the presence of God.  Whether the earth was his home or merely on his intinerary is unclear from Scripture.

One can argue whether it is he who is cast down from heaven in Revelation 12, 18, and other places, or whether he is embodied in the "AntiChrist" or not, but this much is sure: At some point, I'll be able to pinpoint his exact location. It will be in a lake of fire where he'll spend the rest of eternity.  I'd rather not have any closer understanding of his geography than that. :)


What was the significance of thirty pieces of silver Judas was offered for betraying Jesus?

In Hebrew culture, thirty pieces of silver was the price paid to the master of a slave if his slave was gored by an ox:

“If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned” (Exodus 21:32).

A prophetic reference to the thirty pieces of silver given to Judas Iscariot is found in Zechariah 11:13.  This is the amount of money that Zechariah was paid after his work as a shepherd.  He asked his employers to pay him what they thought he was worth.  They gave him thirty pieces of silver, which he sarcastically calls a “lordly price” because it was such a small amount.  The employers meant to insult Zechariah with this amount of money.  Returning the insult, God tells Zechariah to “throw it to the potter,” and Zechariah tossed the money into the house of the Lord to be given to the potter:

“Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord, to the potter” (Zechariah 11:13).

These actions are an accurate and detailed prophecy, for when Judas Iscariot bargained with the chief priests to betray the Lord Jesus, he asked, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver him over to you?” The chief priests then counted out for Judas “thirty pieces of silver” (Matthew 26:15). That’s all they considered Jesus to be worth.
Later, Judas was overcome with guilt for betraying Jesus, and, fulfilling Zechariah’s vivid prophecy, he threw the thirty silver coins into the temple (Matthew 27:3–5). The Jewish leaders used the thirty pieces of silver to buy a field from a potter, again as Zechariah had predicted (Matthew 27:6–10). It was in that field that Judas hanged himself.
The significance of the thirty pieces of silver is that this paltry amount - the price paid to the master of a slave to compensate for the death of a slave - is all the chief priests considered the life of Christ Jesus to be worth.
Edit: I found the references to the 30 pieces of silver and the connection to the prophecy in Zechariah 11:12 from the Catholic Encyclopedia, part of which says this:

St. Matthew is the only Evangelist to mention the sum paid by the chief priests as the price of the betrayal, and in accordance with his custom he notices that an Old Testament prophecy has been fulfilled therein ( Matthew 26:15 ; 27:5-10)... Matthew sees the fulfillment of the prophecy ascribed to Jeremias (but found in Zechariah 11:12): "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was prized, whom they prized of the children of Israel. And they gave them unto the potter's field, as the Lord appointed to me" (Matthew 27:9, 10).

The article goes on to say how a field was purchased with “the reward of iniquity,” that it was “bought with the rejected price of his treachery” and goes on to discuss the motives/reasons for the betrayal by Judas.  It asks the question, why was Judas “tempted to such gross ingratitude for such a paltry price?”  This is the connection between the value placed on the life of a slave (in Exodus 21:32), and the prophecy about the thirty pieces of silver in Zechariah 11:12.

“The same Evangelist [John], as we have seen, tells of an earlier intimation of Christ's foreknowledge of the betrayal (John 6:71-2), and in the same chapter says expressly: "For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him" (6:65).”

It is worth pointing out that the thirty pieces of silver was no random amount.  It was prophesied long before the event took place.
Source: Judas Iscariot (Catholic.org)
P.S. The thirty pieces of silver had a value of 120 denarii.  Back then, a labourer would be paid one denarius for a day’s work.


Q. Why do Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to pledge allegiance or salute the flag?

A. The answer is found in the very definition of what the words "pledge" and "allegiance" mean and on what God's word the Bible states / shows to Whom we are to pledge our allegiance.

  pledge
  noun \ˈplej\

  a serious promise or agreement
  a promise to give money
  something that you leave with another person as a way to show that you will keep your promise

~ Above definition taken directly from Merriam Webster online dictionary.

  al·le·giance
  noun \ə-ˈlē-jən(t)s\

  the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord
  (1) :  the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government
   (2) :  the obligation of an alien to the government under which the alien resides

  devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause"

~ Above definition taken directly from Merriam Webster online dictionary.

  “You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth. 5 You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting EXCLUSIVE devotion"
  ~ Exodus 20:4, 5

  So he brought him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time; 6 and the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and the glory of them, because it has been delivered to me, and to whomever I wish I give it. 7 You, therefore, if you do an act of worship before me, it will all be yours.” 8 In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”
  ~ Luke 4:5-8

Therefore, we who are members of the worldwide unified Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses will ONLY pledge our allegiance to the One who as the Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth exacts EXCLUSIVE devotion / allegiance... JEHOVAH God (the Heavenly Father of Jesus Christ).

If we had an official pledge it would probably be recited in the following way:

I pledge allegiance to JEHOVAH GOD, the Almighty Creator and Sovereign Lord of Heaven and Earth. And to His Kingdom of which Christ stands, holiness under God indivisible with righteousness and justice for all.

Furthermore, on the subject of allegiance to one's country, Jehovah directed ancient Israel to use warfare to take possession of the land that He himself as the Sovereign Lord of the universe designated as their inheritance and to execute people whose depraved practices and defiance of the true God caused Jehovah to view them as being no longer fit to receive His gift of life and continue to live. (Deut. 7:1, 2, 5; 9:5; Lev. 18:24, 25) Nevertheless, mercy was shown to Rahab and to the Gibeonites (who were not Jehovah's Witnesses / members of the nation of Israel) because they demonstrated faith in Jehovah. (Josh. 2:9-13; 9:24-27)

In the Law covenant given through Moses, God laid down very specific rules for warfare that He Himself would approve, stipulating exemptions and the manner in which this warfare was to be carried out. Such were truly HOLY WARS OF JEHOVAH. That IS NOT true of the carnal warfare of ANY nation (including the United States of America) today.

With the establishing of the 1st century Christian congregation, a NEW situation came into existence. True Christians ARE NOT under the Mosaic Law. Christ’s followers were to make disciples of people of all nations; so worshipers of the true God would in time be found in all those nations. However, what is the motive of those nations when they go to war? Is it to carry out the will of the Creator of all the earth or is it to further some nationalistic interest?

We all know the answer.

If true Christians in one nation were to go to war against another nation, they would be fighting against fellow believers, against people who prayed for help to the same God that they did. Such an action as that is utterly unacceptable and chaotic, being that true Christians are in fact part of the same worldwide spiritual family.

Appropriately, Christ directed his true followers to lay down the sword at Matt. 26:52. He himself, glorified in the heavens, would henceforth carry out the execution of those who showed defiance of the true God and His will as recorded at —2 Thess. 1:6-8 and Rev. 19:11-21.


Who does Paul consider to be "Saints" in Romans 1:7?

Paul refers to “the saints” many times in his writings. The clearest definition of a saint is found in his salutation at the beginning of 1 Corinthians:

1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ
(1 Corinthians 1:1–3)

According to Paul, a saint is someone who is “sanctified in Christ Jesus.” This describes all who believe in Christ and are made holy by his grace. Also included in the definition are “all that ... call upon the name of Jesus Christ” (who may or may not yet be fully converted).
In Romans 8:27, it says that Christ “makes intercession for the saints.” In the surrounding verses it explains that the saints have the Holy Spirit, love God, and are “called according to his purpose.”
As a side note, the word saint is also used in the Old Testament, though not as often. For example, Psalm 50:5 defines saints as “those that have made a covenant with [the Lord] by sacrifice.” In other words, the saints are any who can be identified as God’s people.


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that there are humans in heaven now?

There are no explicit statements in the Bible that any of the people mentioned in the question are now in heaven. The belief on the part of many Christians that they are now in heaven is based on reading key Bible passages about their death and their status after death in light of a more generalized belief that humans go to heaven after they die.
On the people specifically mentioned in the question, here are the Bible passages commonly quoted to support a belief that they are now in heaven:
Enoch

Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty-five years. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him. (Genesis 5:23-24)

And:

By faith Enoch was taken so that he did not experience death; and "he was not found, because God had taken him." For it was attested before he was taken away that
"he had pleased God." (Hebrews 11:5)

Neither of these passages state that Enoch is in heaven now. But in light of the generalized belief among many Christians that people go to heaven after they die, these verses are read by such Christians as meaning that God took Enoch directly to heaven.
Moses & Elijah
These two are taken together because the Bible passages most commonly referred to as saying that they are now in heaven are the accounts of the Transfiguration of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. The full accounts are found in Matthew 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36.
Here are the verses from these accounts in which Moses and Elijah are specifically mentioned, with the lead-in verse about the transfiguration of Jesus quoted only for the first one:

And [Jesus] was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will make three dwellings here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." (Matthew 17:2-4)
And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." (Mark 9:4-5)
Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. Now Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep; but since they had stayed awake, they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. Just as they were leaving him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah"—not knowing what he said. (Luke 9:30-33)

Here Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus, very much alive, and in the Luke account even "appearing in glory" and talking about upcoming events. The three disciples who witnessed this event perceived Moses and Elijah as being present in person with them—hence Peter's offer to make dwellings for all three figures: Jesus, Moses, and Elijah.
The natural conclusion for Christians who believe that human beings go to heaven right after death is that Moses and Elijah could appear with Jesus because they are not still in the grave awaiting resurrection, but are currently very much alive and well and living in heaven.
The thief on the cross
Of all the figures mentioned in the question, the incident of the thief on the cross comes closest to providing an explicit statement that a human being is now in heaven. Here is the full passage:

One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding him and saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!" But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." He replied, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise." (Luke 23:39-43)

Here Jesus tells the repentant thief, who witnessed to his fellow thief on the cross, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 24:43).
Some have argued that since there is no punctuation in the original Greek, it could read instead, "Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise," so that it could refer to a future resurrection to Paradise. However, that would be a somewhat strained parsing of the Greek. That's why it is almost always translated in the traditional manner, as "today you will be with me in Paradise." In the list of all translations of Luke 24:43 at BibleGateway, though the specific wording varies, every single translation interprets the verse this way.
Though "Paradise" is not necessarily identical to "heaven," most Christians do interpret "Paradise," especially when it is mentioned in the New Testament, as a reference to heaven.
The saints who were resurrected during the crucifixion
Here is the relevant passage in its context:

Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. Now when the centurion and those with him, who were keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were terrified and said, "Truly this man was God’s Son!" (Matthew 27:50-54)

Here there is no explicit statement that these saints who were raised from the dead (or from having "fallen asleep," to use the Biblical term) went to heaven. It says only that they were raised, came out of the tombs, and entered the holy city—meaning Jerusalem—and appeared to many people there. However, the idea that they would then go back into their tombs after being resurrected seems unlikely to many Christians. So many Christians believe that they then went on to heaven.
Other Bible passages providing support for humans now being in heaven
As I mentioned earlier, none of these Bible passages about the figures specifically mentioned in the question explicitly and unequivocally say that these people are now in heaven. In fact, no matter what passages you care to quote, there are Christians who dispute that they point to humans currently being in heaven.
Having said that, here are a few other passages in the Bible that can easily be read as saying that there are humans currently residing in heaven.
First, two passages from the Gospels:

"And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is God not of the dead, but of the living." And when the crowd heard it, they were astounded at his teaching. (Matthew 22:31-33, and see the parallel passages in Mark 12:26-27; Luke 20:37-38)

Here Jesus uses the example of the words of God at the burning bush (in Exodus 3:6) in support of a resurrection. And the way he interprets God's words make it clear that he is speaking of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as being alive now, not still dead in their graves awaiting a future resurrection.
Another passage from the Gospels that speaks of human beings currently alive in the afterlife is Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. Here is the most relevant part of the story:

The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. (Luke 16:22-23)

Here Jesus speaks of two men dying and immediately being carried to their place either with Abraham (commonly interpreted as heaven) or in Hades, the Greek word for the underworld. The entire action and dialogue of the story is presented as currently taking place in the afterlife. And even if this is read as a parable rather than as Jesus narrating a literal occurrence, his reference to these two people being immediately carried to their eternal dwelling place supports the idea of immediate resurrection of human beings to heaven (or hell) after death.
And two passages from the book of Revelation:

After this I looked, and there was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white, with palm branches in their hands. They cried out in a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb!" (Revelation 7:9-10)

Here John describes seeing a huge crowd of people from every nation standing before God's throne and praising God. And though the book of Revelation is commonly interpreted as referring to future events, John narrates it in the present tense, as things he was currently seeing in heaven. This is therefore another passage providing Biblical support for Christians to believe that humans go to heaven directly after death.

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered for the word of God and for the testimony they had given; they cried out with a loud voice, "Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?" They were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number would be complete both of their fellow servants and of their brothers and sisters, who were soon to be killed as they themselves had been killed. (Revelation 6:9-11)

Here the book of Revelation speaks of souls slaughtered as pleading their case, receiving white robes, and being told to "rest," or wait, a while longer. This implies that they are currently alive in some state, which is most easily interpreted as their being alive in some part of heaven.
This is by no means an exhaustive list of passages providing Biblical support for the belief that there are humans in heaven now. But these are a few of the key passages related to the question.
Even more broadly, it has become a common belief among Christians that human beings become angels, and that this happens immediately after death. For the Biblical basis of this belief, see this Christianity.SE question: What is the biblical basis for humans becoming angels after they die?
On the origins of this belief in Christian history, see this Christianity.SE question: What is the source of the belief that the deceased become angels?


Why didn't Syriac Christianity keep Aramaic as their liturgical language?

The Oriental Orthodox churches are somewhat divided on this, many still celebrate the Divine Liturgy in Syriac (which is a later dialect of Middle Aramaic). One of the biggest reasons is that many Oriental Orthodox consider the Syriac Peshitta to be the authoritative scriptures, some even insisting on New Testament Aramaic primacy (such as the Nestorians/Assyrian Orthodox, although many would not consider them to be Oriental Orthodox). Many Orthodox traditions still observe the Divine Liturgy in older languages, even when those languages are no longer spoken (such as Church Slavonic). This is especially true of the Syriac Orthodox who can rightly claim that theirs is the oldest Divine Liturgy text and is therefore closest linguistically to the language spoken by Jesus and the apostles. It is generally accepted that they are the oldest Christian church in existence, which is another motivation for not changing the language and tradition.

At the same time, many Middle Eastern Oriental Orthodox churches have switched to using Arabic in services (such as the Coptic Orthodox). The reality is that most people no longer speak Syriac (just as hardly anyone still speaks Church Slavonic - possibly no one). Services have begun to be in Arabic in the Middle East for the same reasons services have begun to be in English in North America - people understand it. Add to this the fact that most Syriac Christians experience intense persecution and it is no wonder they have begun using the common spoken language in order to preserve the faith.

In regards to the first tradition to localize the language to the people, many Orthodox traditions did this prior to the Protestant Reformation. Study the history of the Eastern church and you will see that it often used the language of the people. Oddly enough, Church Slavonic itself was originally designed to be in the language of the people, which is why it is so ironic that churches are hesitant to change it to use the spoken language of people today.


I believe you are asking two questions.  I'll answer the one in the heading first:
Does God punish people for their ancestors' sins or not?

Yes, in the Christian traditions (majority of the denominations) God absolutely does "punish" the children of those who committed sin - else there would be no original sin.

1 Corinthians 15:22 KJV

  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

and

Romans 5:12-21 KJV

  12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by
  sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

  13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed
  when there is no law.

  14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that
  had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is
  the figure of him that was to come.

The second question is:

How can Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20 be reconciled?

Reading the end of Ezekiel 18 explains it:

Ezekiel 18:30-32 NIV

  30 “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to
  your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all
  your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves
  of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new
  spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure
  in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!

Therefore, to repent and come to God will stop the inherited sin.  In a similar regard, mainstream Christianity teaches that believing in Jesus (thus repenting) will stop the cycle of sin (see original sin) and allow you to live.  Exactly what it means to "believe" in Jesus differs by denomination.

TLDR:

God punishes people for the previous generation's sin.  Repenting stops this cycle but doing nothing continues the sin's wrath.


According to Catholicism, do Gabriel, Michael and Rafael still have the option of turning away from God?

If you take St. Thomas's answer as good 'nuff.  He has about 3 articles that hint at an answer in the Summa of which, I think this is the most concise:

  I answer that, The beatified angels cannot sin. The reason for this is, because their beatitude consists in seeing God through His essence. Now, God's essence is the very essence of goodness. Consequently the angel beholding God is disposed towards God in the same way as anyone else not seeing God is to the common form of goodness. Now it is impossible for any man either to will or to do anything except aiming at what is good; or for him to wish to turn away from good precisely as such. Therefore the beatified angel can neither will nor act, except as aiming towards God. Now whoever wills or acts in this manner cannot sin. Consequently the beatified angel cannot sin.

  http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1062.htm#article8

So, like Mother Mary,  in Heaven, an angel would follow intellect, not passions, and therefore never turn towards sin.


Malachi had prophesied that “Elijah” would prepare the way for the
  Messiah (Mal. 3:1; 4:5). He did not actually
  imply only a literal reappearance of Elijah, and John’s earlier denial
  that he was Elijah (John 1:21) was probably an attempt to correct a
  popular belief that Elijah himself would reappear. Before John’s
  birth, he was designated as the one who would minister in the “spirit
  and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), thereby fulfilling Malachi’s
  prophecy.

Crossway Bibles: The ESV Study Bible. Wheaton, IL : Crossway Bibles, 2008, S. 1842

  John the Baptist, preacher of repentance and faith, was accordingly
  the Elijah who was to come. Like the Elijah of old, John too was a
  preacher of repentance. The two resembled each other also in the
  sudden character of their appearance, the incisiveness of their
  message, and the simplicity of their life. See on Matthew 3:3. True, John was
  not literally Elijah (John 1:21), but inwardly he was indeed, for “he
  went forth in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), and was
  therefore called Elijah by no one less than Jesus himself (Matt.
  17:12).

Hendriksen, William ;   Kistemaker, Simon J.: New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids : Baker Book House, 1953-2001 (New Testament Commentary 9), S. 490

  When asked: “Are you Elijah?” John clearly answered: “I am not.”
  (John 1:21) It had, however, been foretold that John would precede the
  Messiah “with Elijah’s spirit and power.” (Luke 1:17; Malachi 4:5, 6)
  In other words, John the Baptizer was Elijah in the sense that he
  carried out a work comparable to that of Elijah.

Watchtower 2001 5/1 Box on p. 22 DOES THE BIBLE TEACH REINCARNATION?


How do "once saved, always saved" advocates explain the Parable of the Sower?

As expected, "once saved, always saved" advocates (I'll use "reformed" as shorthand for this) generally agree that both the second and third types of soil represent people who were never saved.  Broadly speaking, they make these points:

The four soils represent four types of people or hearts: the unresponsive, the impulsive, the preoccupied, and the well-prepared
The main difference between the impulsive and the preoccupied is found in the specific reasons that growth does not occur
There are biblical examples of both the impulsive and the preoccupied that we can learn from
Ultimately, the parable should lead us to self-reflection: it should inspire the unbeliever to repent, and the believer to greater faithfulness

The four soils
The breakdown of the four soils given by William Hendriksen is characteristic of reformed commentators:

One might speak of the unresponsive heart (verse 19), the impulsive heart (verses 20, 21), the preoccupied heart (verse 22), and the good, responsive, or well-prepared heart (verse 23). [referring to verses of Matthew 13]1

The statuses of the first and fourth groups are quite obvious, while the second and third are worth further investigation in light of the question: If both of these soils refer to "people who were never saved to begin with," as reformed commentators believe, what is the point of the distinction? It is to show and warn against two ways that people fail to properly respond to the Gospel.
The impulsive
The profession of faith of the impulsive person, John Gill says, "is taken up in haste, immediately, upon a flash of affection, and a little head knowledge, it does not last long, nor prove honourable."2 As Hendriksen writes:

The trouble with the people symbolized by seed that fell on rock is that their emotions are superficial, not based on deep-seated convictions.3

The disappearance of this "faith" occurs when trials and persecution come.  But what about the language of Luke 8, where Jesus says that these people "believe for a while"?  Is that not an indication that they have faith, and then lose it?  John Calvin admits that the "honor which they render to the Gospel resembles faith," and that that they are "widely different from unbelievers, who give no credit to God when he speaks."  But ultimately, they do not have the "true faith":

None are partakers of true faith, except those who are sealed with the Spirit of adoption, and who sincerely call on God as their Father; and as that Spirit is never extinguished, so it is impossible that the faith, which he has once engraven on the hearts of the godly, shall pass away or be destroyed.4

John Gill understands them to be the sort of hearers who

whilst they are hearing, assent to what they hear, but when they are gone, either forget it, or, falling into bad company, are prevailed upon to doubt of it, and disbelieve it.5

Biblical examples suggested for this type of person include Simon the magician (Acts 8), the crowds who turn away from Jesus when his teaching is difficult (John 6), those who shouted "Hosanna" and later, presumably, "crucify him" (Mark 11), and those who abandoned the faith in 1 John 2:19.
The preoccupied
The seed in the heart of the preoccupied person, on the other hand, fails to grow not because of trials and persecution, but because of distractions and pleasures.  John MacArthur calls it the "worldly heart, swept up in the deceitfulness of riches."6 In such a person, Calvin writes, "sinful affections of the flesh prevail,"4 and Hendriksen emphasizes the inability to focus on Christ:

[The preoccupied heart] has no room for calm and earnest meditation on the word of the Lord.  Should any such serious study and reflection nevertheless attempt to gain entrance, it would immediately be choked off.7

Many biblical examples of this type are suggested, including the rich young ruler (Matthew 19), Demas (2 Timothy 4), and the merchants of Amos 8.
Application and summary
Hendriksen writes that the lesson of the parable is:

Examine yourself to discover to which group you belong.  If you belong to any one of the first three groups, be converted!  Not, of course, by power residing in yourself but by God's sovereign grace! Even if you should belong to the fourth group, ask yourself the question, 'Am I sufficiently fruitful?'8

Calvin similarly notes that believers should take heed not to let thorns hinder their fruitfulness:

We ought to labor, no doubt, to pull out the thorns; but as our utmost exertion will never succeed so well, but that there will always be some remaining behind, let each of us endeavor, at least, to deaden them, that they may not hinder the fruit of the word.4

To put it simply: Reformed commentators see the parable as a description of and warning against three distinct types of unbelief, and a call to greater fruitfulness in the Christian walk.

References:

Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, 558.
Gill, Exposition of the Whole Bible, Matthew 13.
Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke, 427.
Calvin, *Commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Volume 2.
Gill, Exposition of the Whole Bible, Luke 8.
MacArthur, "Receptivity to the Gospel, Part 3" (sermon).
Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, 561.
Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke, 429.


What does the story of Noah's Ark foreshadow in the New Testament?

The flood is explicitly used typologically twice in the New Testament.

Jesus, speaking of the final judgment (Matthew 24:37-41), says it will be like "the days of Noah".

  For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left.

1 Peter 3:20b-22 says that the flood prefigured the sacrament of baptism.

  God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.

Over the centuries Christians have found additional typology in this story:

The ark has "rooms" for the animals (Genesis 6:14); Jesus says that his father's house has "many rooms" (John 14:2).
The ark had one door (Genesis 6:16); Jesus claimed to be "the door" to salvation (John 10:9).
God invited Noah to come into the ark (Genesis 7:1); Jesus said, "Come to me, all you that  are weary" (Matthew 11:28).
The ark was made of wood (Genesis 6:14) just as the cross was.
Because God saved him, Noah "remained alive" (Genesis 7:23); Jesus gives us eternal life (John 10:28).

This is only a sample; you can find longer lists here and here. Some of the connections are more explicit in the King James Bible; newer translations use different phrases that don't always match up, but the similarity should still be apparent.


Since you did not ask for a particular denomination's viewpoint, please allow me to give a Catholic perspective to this question.

The Baptism of Jesus marked the beginning of His public ministry and the wanted the faithful to not only to have an example, but He also wish to share to all our humanity at the same time and show us the way to salvation. God also used this occasion to anoint Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power.

What does the Gospel tell us about this event:

  Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased." - Matthew 3:13-17

Now let us see what St. Thomas has to say on thi subject.

  St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica (see ST 3, 39, 1-8), listed a number of objections, including, “It would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to be baptized. For to be baptized is to be washed. But it was not fitting for Christ to be washed, since there was no uncleanness in Him. Therefore it seems unfitting for Christ to be baptized.” His answer draws upon both Scripture and the Church Fathers: “I answer that, It was fitting for Christ to be baptized. First, because, as Ambrose says on Luke 3:21: ‘Our Lord was baptized because He wished, not to be cleansed, but to cleanse the waters, that, being purified by the flesh of Christ that knew no sin, they might have the virtue of baptism’.”

  He also quoted St. Gregory Nazianzen, who had written, “Christ was baptized that He might plunge the old Adam entirely in the water.” He further noted that Jesus, in being baptized, was setting an example for everyone who would follow him and take up the cross of discipleship. After all, if the sinless Son of God would willingly enter the waters of baptism, how much more urgent is it that we sinners are washed in the waters of regeneration?

  There are other reasons given, including one implicit in the sermon of St. Peter to the first Gentile convert, Cornelius, heard in today’s reading from the Acts of the Apostles: “You know the word that [God] sent to the Israelites as he proclaimed peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all, what has happened all over Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached, how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power.”

  Here the emphasis is on the anointing; the Greek word is echrisen (ἔχρισεν) and the root word is chrió, from which comes the word “Christ”. And the title “Christ” is itself the Greek translation of the Hebrew word, “Messiah”, which means “anointed”. The Catechism explains that this is “the name proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the divine mission that ‘Christ’ signifies. In effect, in Israel those consecrated to God for a mission that he gave were anointed in his name. This was the case for kings, for priests and, in rare instances, for prophets. This had to be the case all the more so for the Messiah whom God would send to inaugurate his kingdom definitively” (par. 436). Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit and presented as uniquely fulfilling the threefold office of prophet, priest, and king. - Was it fitting and necessary for Jesus to be baptized?


Why is "elohim" translated as "God" and not "gods"?

The reason this plural noun is translated into other languages as a singular noun is because it's being used with a singular verb.
This would be comparable to saying "Ants is here to stay" instead of "Ants are here to stay".  It turns this plural word ("ants") into a proper noun.
Example with singular verb
In Genesis 1:1 (referenced in the question), we see a great example of the plural elohim being used with a singular verb:

In this text, elohim is being matched with the singular verb bra.  This indicates elohim is the proper noun and it's translated as "God".
King James Version

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Example with plural verb
However, when Elohim is used with a plural verb, it's translated as plural "gods":

Here, elohim is used with olim, which is also plural.  This is, therefore, translated as "gods" (or sometimes "spirits").
King James Translation (emphasis added)

And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

Plural as Singular
Dori pointed me to a question on Judaism.se discussing this point.  Their answers show that there are some words in Hebrew that, although they end in the im (making them plural), are not actually plural. The Hebrew word for "sky" (shamayim) also ends in im, making it plural in some cases, singular in others: based on the verb.  (Also, this makes the translation "heavens" or "sky" based on the plurality, for what that's worth.)
This accounts for why a word that appears to be plural--indeed many reference sites indicate that it indeed is plural--but is actually used as a singular word.  When we read the original Hebrew, we presume that because it ends in im, it is plural.  The truth is, though, that this may or may not be a plural word; we have to look at the verb.
(There are a couple of analogues to this in English:  For example news, clothes, species, panties, etc.)
Summary
Because of the verb that is being used is singular, we can be confident in our assessment that this is a singular god that is performing all these tasks.  Also, the use of the singular verb converts this plural noun into a proper name.
Source


Was everyone who worked on the tabernacle given the Spirit?

The pronoun "them" at the beginning of vs. 35 refers to Bezaleel and Aholiab.  We have to stay with the scriptures immediately preceding:
Ex. 35:30-35,

"And Moses said unto the children of Israel, See, the Lord hath called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah;
31 And he hath filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship;
32 And to devise curious works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass,
33 And in the cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of wood, to make any manner of cunning work.
34 And he hath put in his heart that he may teach, both he, and Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan.
35 Them hath he filled with wisdom of heart, to work all manner of work, of the engraver, and of the cunning workman, and of the embroiderer, in blue, and in purple, in scarlet, and in fine linen, and of the weaver, even of them that do any work, and of those that devise cunning work."  (KJV)

Bezaleel and Aholiab were given the knowledge to be able to teach others how to do all of the workmanship in order to build the tabernacle according to all of God's instructions.  You might think of it as a kind of delegation.
I am not sure what you mean by "walked like Christians today".  But, in the context of the question of the work of the Spirit....
The Spirit goes where He wills to do what He wills.
John 3:8,

"the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'"  (YLT)

The Christian is born of the water and the Spirit (John 3:5), and this is a result of baptism (immersion).  The tribes of Israel were "baptized" in the cloud and the sea -
1 Cor. 10:1-4,

"And I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
2 and all to Moses were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea;
3 and all the same spiritual food did eat,
4 and all the same spiritual drink did drink, for they were drinking of a spiritual rock following them, and the rock was the Christ;" (YLT)

However, 1 Cor. 10:5-6 makes it clear that God was not pleased with many of the children of Israel as they were evil at heart, and unbelievers who turned to idolatry.  So, the Spirit only works with those believers who follow after God.
The tribes of Israel were given a set of instructions - the law of Moses - and the obedient believers followed it as best they could.  The animal sacrifices were a type that looked forward in time to the One sacrifice that would redeem all believers from their sins.
Those of the OT days that walked after God, the obedient who believed in God were redeemed by Christ at His crucifixion and are now part of His kingdom (Gal. 4:5).
The obedient believers today who follow after Christ according to the gospel of Christ are put into that same kingdom when we are baptized into Christ.  We are the royal priesthood (1 Pet. 2:9) that God had purposed originally of the tribes of Israel in Ex. 19:6.
God had wanted them all to be priests, not just a few.  The purpose was for Israel to be an example to all nations of the earth so that all people could know God.  The work of the Spirit has always been to accomplish the will of the Father in bringing all people to the knowledge of the Father.
There were many strong men and women of faith in the OT who were lights to many of other nations.  Ruth, a Moabitess, raised in paganism, is in the line of Christ because of her belief.  Rahab, once a harlot, is in the line of Christ because of her belief.
So, it has always been the line of the faithful that have walked according to the Spirit (Rom. 1:17; 3:27; 4:16).  And, the Spirit breathed that life to others who heard the word, and also believed.
Under the gospel of Christ, under the new covenant, all who are baptized into Christ, put on Christ and are born of the water and the Spirit (John 3:5).  Our sacrifices are the fruit of our lips, continually praising His name (Heb. 13:15-16). We are to always stand ready to speak as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11) to give an answer of the hope that is within us (1 Pet. 3:15), and the Spirit then uses that spoken word - breathed word - to work on the heart of those who will hear it.
He has always done so.  And, so I would say that those believers in ages past had much the same walk that we do today.  The walk of the faithful.
You might like to read some of the commentary on the wind and breath of the Spirit at BibleHub on John 3:8 here.  I especially like Ellicott's.


Can Catholics eat food offered to idols?

Probably not (I was going to say no, but it's rather nuanced).

St. Paul takes up the issue in 1 Cor:8.  The reason isn't so much that he believed in the idols or that the food in-and-of-itself was bad, but because it gave the appearance (aka scandal) of a follower of Christ participating in a pagan ceremony.  The rule at place is much bigger than just eating, it's mainly about not confusing others who may look up to you as a solid Catholic.

And the Bishops in the footnotes of the Bible make the point :

  Although the problem with which he is dealing is dated, the guidelines for moral decisions that he offers are of lasting validity. Essentially Paul urges them to take a communitarian rather than an individualistic view of their Christian freedom. Many decisions that they consider pertinent only to their private relationship with God have, in fact, social consequences. Nor can moral decisions be determined by merely theoretical considerations; they must be based on concrete circumstances, specifically on the value and needs of other individuals and on mutual responsibility within the community.

(which is interesting that they call it dated, since it's your question entirely!)

And St. Paul makes the point again in Romans where he says that if anyone had a problem with the food you eat, to take it seriously.

And the interpretation from the footnotes says (referencing the passage you cited):

  Since Christ spells termination of the law, which included observance of specific days and festivals as well as dietary instruction, the jettisoning of long-practiced customs was traumatic for many Christians brought up under the Mosaic code. Although Paul acknowledges that in principle no food is a source of moral contamination (Rom 14:14), he recommends that the consciences of Christians who are scrupulous in this regard be respected by other Christians (Rom 14:21). On the other hand, those who have scruples are not to sit in judgment on those who know that the gospel has liberated them from such ordinances

So basically, be sensitive to both the judgement and impressionability of those around you.  Take peoples' opinions seriously and don't do anything that leads another into sin.

On the other hand, James (The Bishop of Jerusalem, not one of the two from the Gospel) said in Acts:

  It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath.

And Haydock's commentary says

  In these prohibitions, the Church indulged the particular feelings of the Jews, that the bond of union between them and the Gentiles might be more closely united; the latter in these two instances giving way to the prejudices of the former, who in their turn gave up much, by submitting to the abolition of the ceremonial law of Moses. This prohibition was of course only temporary, and to cease with the reasons, which gave rise to it.

Which is more-or-less in line with what Paul says.  There's no inherent prohibition about eating the food.  Solidarity with other Christians, and the avoidance of scandal is the  main thing.

I don't know a lot about Hindu culture, but in America we have a tradition of shaping our butter for Easter in the shape of a lamb.  If you gave a butter lamb to a Hindu friend to take into their home, wouldn't their kids find that peculiar?


What is the meaning of the three letters in the halo of the Acheiropoieta?

Image of the Savior Nerukotvorniy (Made Without Hands): a traditional Orthodox iconography in the interpretation of Simon Ushakov (1658).
So what are the origins of Ὁ ὬΝ in the halo of Christ?
Your hunch is quite correct. These letters form the present participle, ὤν, of the Greek verb to be, with a masculine singular definite article, ὁ. A literal translation of Ὁ ὬΝ would be “the being one,” which does not mean much. “He who is” is a better translation. These words are the answer Moses received on Mount Sinai when he asked for the name of him to whom he was speaking. In Hebrew, he who was speaking said Yahweh, which is also a present participle. Greek translators of the Hebrew Bible put Yahweh as Ὁ ὬΝ.

We are so used to seeing the features of Christ in icons that we no longer pay attention to them, thinking they have always been there, as we see them, taking them for granted. We have perhaps forgotten that behind each feature there is a history and a theological meaning to discover and rediscover. So it is for the three Greek letters found in Christ’s cruciform halo.
These letters form the present participle, ὤν, of the Greek verb to be, with a masculine singular definite article, ὁ. A literal translation of Ὁ ὬΝ would be “the being one,” which does not mean much. “He who is” is a better translation. These words are the answer Moses received on Mount Sinai when he asked for the name of him to whom he was speaking. In Hebrew, he who was speaking said Yahweh, which is also a present participle. Greek translators of the Hebrew Bible put Yahweh as Ὁ ὬΝ.
Before I began to study this subject, I also thought that these letters had always been part of the image of Christ, but in examining the images that have come down to us from the first millennium, and even after, I noticed that the Ὁ ὬΝ is universally absent, as much in the West as in the East. I therefore started searching for the answer to the following questions: when, where and why did Christians add these letters to Christ’s halo?
I began by noticing that during the first millennium, Christ’s halo was sometimes empty and that, more rarely, it was absent.

The Icon of Christ Entering Jerusalem, Palm Sunday
On The Origin of Ὁ ὬΝ in The Halo of Christ

This particular icon was written by the Russian icon painter Simon Ushakov.
The entire history of such icons is quite fascinating.

Aside from the legend that Pilate had made an image of Christ, the fourth-century Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Church History, provides a more substantial reference to a "first" icon of Jesus. He relates that King Abgar of Edessa sent a letter to Jesus at Jerusalem, asking Jesus to come and heal him of an illness. In this version there is no image. Then, in the later account found in the Syriac Doctrine of Addai, a painted image of Jesus is mentioned in the story; and even later, in the account given by Evagrius, the painted image is transformed into an image that miraculously appeared on a towel when Christ pressed the cloth to his wet face.3 Further legends relate that the cloth remained in Edessa until the tenth century, when it was taken to Constantinople. In 1204 it was lost when Constantinople was sacked by Crusaders, but its iconic type had been well fixed in numerous copies.
Elsewhere in his Church History, Eusebius reports seeing what he took to be portraits of Jesus, Peter and Paul, and also mentions a bronze statue at Banias / Paneas, of which he wrote, "They say that this statue is an image of Jesus" (H.E. 7:18); further, he relates that locals thought the image to be a memorial of the healing of the woman with an issue of blood by Jesus (Luke 8:43-48), because it depicted a standing man wearing a double cloak and with arm outstretched, and a woman kneeling before him with arms reaching out as if in supplication. John Francis Wilson4 thinks it possible to have been a pagan bronze statue whose true identity had been forgotten; some have thought it to be Aesculapius, the God of healing, but the description of the standing figure and the woman kneeling in supplication is precisely that found on coins depicting the bearded emperor Hadrian reaching out to a female figure symbolizing a province kneeling before him.
After Christianity was legalized by the emperor Constantine within the Roman Empire in 313, huge numbers of pagans became converts. This created the necessity for the transfer of allegiance and practice from the old gods and heroes to the new religion, and for the gradual adaptation of the old system of image making and veneration to a Christian context, in the process of Christianization. Robin Lane Fox states "By the early fifth century, we know of the ownership of private icons of saints; by c. 480-500, we can be sure that the inside of a saint's shrine would be adorned with images and votive portraits, a practice which had probably begun earlier".
When Constantine converted to Christianity the majority of his subjects were still pagans and the Roman Imperial cult of the divinity of the emperor, expressed through the traditional burning of candles and the offering of incense to the emperor’s image, was tolerated for a period because it would have been politically dangerous to attempt to suppress it. Indeed, in the fifth century the portrait of the reigning emperor was still honoured this way in the courts of justice and municipal buildings of the empire and in 425 the Arian Philostorgius charged the orthodox in Constantinople with idolatry because they still honored the image of the emperor Constantine the Great, the founder of the city, in this way. Dix notes that this was more than a century before we find the first reference to a similar honouring of the image of Christ or his saints, but that it would seem a natural progression for the image of Christ, the King of heaven and earth, to be eventually paid the same cultic veneration as that given to the earthly Roman emperor. - Icons in Christendom

According to the Golden Legend, which is a collection of hagiographies, compiled by Jacobus de Varagine in the thirteenth century the king Abgarus sent an epistle unto Jesus and he answered him writing that he will send him one of his disciples (Jude Thaddeus) to heal him. The same works adds:

And when Abgarus saw that he might not see God presently, after that it is said in an ancient history, as John Damascene witnesseth in his fourth book, he sent a painter unto Jesu Christ for to figure the image of our Lord, to the end that at least that he might see him by his image, whom he might not see in his visage. And when the painter came, because of the great splendour and light that shone in the visage of our Lord Jesu Christ, he could not behold it, ne could not counterfeit it by no figure. And when our Lord saw this thing he took from the painter a linen cloth and set it upon his visage, and emprinted the very phisiognomy of his visage therein, and sent it unto the king Abgarus which so much desired it. And in the same history is contained how this image was figured. It was well-eyed, well-browed, a long visage or cheer, and inclined, which is a sign of maturity or ripe sadness. - History of the legend (Image of Edessa)

The Byzantine Catholic Church celebrates Feast of the Face of God on August 16.


What are the Biblical and theological problems with theistic evolution?

Answers in Genesis writes about this topic a lot.  Their primary arguments are:

The Genesis narrative seems to be written as a historical one, and not allegorical.  Adam and Eve are treated as historical figures, having offspring, a genealogy, and death.  Thus treating it otherwise would be poor hermeneutics.
The Genesis account of the order of things created is different from the evolutionary account.
In the Biblical account, death enters the world as a result of sin, specifically Adam's sin (Romans 5:12-21).  In the evolutionary account, death must precede man.  This view is argued to undermine the nature of the fall of man, and thus the redemption of Christ.


The NIV has some "missing" verses because it is based on different manuscripts than, say, the King James version.

For some background, we don't have manuscripts of the original writings of the New Testament.  We have copies of them, and as with text that is copied manually, there is room for copyist error, or for people to add or remove things - purposely or inadvertently.  Note that copyist errors don't affect the doctrine of inspiration, inerrancy, or infallibility of the Word.  And even though there are slight changes, it's still reliable for doctrine.

The verses that the NIV "removes" are simply not in the manuscripts used for translating it.

There's more detail available all over the web.  This is one such page.