What are the mechanics of interaction with the Holy Spirit?

Note: This response was written in response to the question as it was originally worded, which was in the form of a request for reference works.

It sounds like you're looking for works in the discipline of "pneumatology," the study of the Holy Spirit.

Prefatory blathering, because I like to write:

Great men have lamented the extent to which scholars' pens have neglected the work of the Holy Spirit throughout history. The protests of venerable Christian leaders notwithstanding, books about the one whom the Bible calls the "Spirit of Truth" are almost rare when compared with the vast numbers of pages devoted to the Father and the Son.

It's worth reflecting on the fact that the Holy Spirit is the one who enables, encourages, and facilitates Christians' efforts to grow in conformity to God's Son, and one of the primary resources provided for Christians who seek to do so is the Bible -- that is, disciples follow Christ by learning (through reading and/or hearing) about his life and teaching, and putting what they learn into practice. One of the primary roles of the Holy Spirit is to enable Christians to understand what they learn about the triune God; AFAIK, he does not provide separate teachings distinct from what is offered through the Father and the Son.

A few actual resources:

Volume 1, chapter 8 of Hodge's Systematic Theology is about the Holy Spirit.
John Owen, an important Reformer, wrote a thousand-plus page book called Pneumatologia that could keep anyone busy for a lifetime.
Abraham Kuyper wrote a book called The Work of the Holy Spirit that looks interesting. He was a nineteenth century Dutch Calvinist, and I'm not familiar with his work, but the biographical sketch that I read looks clear.
Spurgeon sermons, numbers: 278, 738, 167, 630, 465, 2907, 3048, 2382, 1532, 1708, 1662, 2074, 1870, 1877, 201, 574, 178 -- and more.

There are, of course, many more resources out there, but those titles provide a good place to start.


Word origin
As stated in previous answers, the "X" in "Xmas" comes from the Greek word for Christ, Χριστός.  However, since precision is important, I want to clarify when the abbreviation was first used in English.  The 1511 date comes from the Oxford English Dictionary entry for ''Xmas'', which reads:
 1551   in E. Lodge Illustr. Brit. Hist. (1791) I. 145   From X'temmas next following.
c1755   in B. Ward Hist. St. Edmund's Coll. (1893) 303   In ye Xmas and Whitsuntide  Vacations.
 1799   S. T. Coleridge Let. to R. Southey 24 Dec. (1956) I. 552   My Xstmas Carol is a quaint performance.   1801   S. T. Coleridge Let. 31 Dec. (1956) II. 778   On Xmas Day I breakfasted with Davy.
 1875   S. G. Thomas in R. W. Burnie Mem. & Lett. (1891) 55   We are not going to have any Xmas festivities or visitors of any kind.

For those unfamiliar with OED the format is original publication date, work (year of printing consulted), page, quote.  As you can see, the form from 1551 is actually X'temmas.  The OED has made a judgement call that this form is closely enough related to Xmas to count.  The first usage of the exact letting Xmas is 1755.
This is an interesting judgement because it appears X'temmas is actually a unique formulation and not a shortening of the then-current word for Christmas, Cristmas (according to the OED entry for Christmas).
However, the twelfth century (so Old English) form of Christmas, Cristes mæsse ("Christ's mass", OED, from Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1134), actually does have an attested shorter form, Xp̃es. mæssan (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1123).  (Xp=Chi rho, the first two letters in Χριστός.)  The Dictionary of Misinformation (1975), however, suggests that the Xp̃es form is actually the originally form of the word which was then lengthened into Cristes.  I believe the OED agrees with that judgement by listing Xp̃es. mæssan under the Christmas entry instead of the Xmas entry.
The use of Χ as an abbreviation for Χριστός dates back to some of the earliest extant Greek manuscripts, in the third century, by the way.
So, the answer to the question is, it depends on how you consider the history of the word.  In one sense, something like X mass was the original English way of rendering the holiday, which was then lengthened in the twelfth century and shortened again in the sixteenth, with the exact modern lettering not appearing until the eighteenth century.  So, before 1123, around 1511, or around 1755 are all valid answers to the question as to when Xmas first appeared, depending on how one decides if something is the same word or not.
"Secular" claim origin
In contrast, the claim that Xmas is a secularization of Christmas is pretty recent.  It seems likely that C.S. Lewis was the first to (indirectly) popularize the idea.  In 1955, he wrote a satirical essay called "Xmas and Christmas: A Lost Chapter from Herodotus" which contrasted "Exmas," a holiday devoted to drinking and commercialism and "Crissmas," a religious holiday which just happened to occur on the same day.  Although his intent was not to attack the abbreviation of "Xmas," his association of "Exmas" with commercialism seems to have entered (or captured the existing) the public conscious, as attacks on the "unholy" abbreviation start appearing in Christian publications shortly thereafter.
Conclusion
The origin of Xmas has nothing to due with secularism.  The next time someone claims you are "taking the Christ out of Christmas" tell them you are actually "putting the chi back into chi-rho-mass."


Prior to 1900 were there any depictions of Satan in Christian art as a woman/female?

Lucas Cranach the Elder (c.1472 – 16 October 1553), a German Renaissance painter and printmaker in woodcut and , made the following woodcut in 1523.It depicts Satan as half serpent and half woman!

Adam and Eve, Woodcut by Lucas Cranach, the Elder, 1523.


What are Andrew Wommack's most foundational truths?

Having never heard of Andrew Wommack, I had to do some research.  He is an American conservative charismatic TV evangelist and faith healer.  One foundational belief is that the Bible is inspired and empowered by God, is infallible and is authoritative.  It has to be the foundation of everything a Christian believes.  He says:

God's Word has to be the foundation of everything a Christian believes. Most problems that Christians have come from an ignorance of God's Word or wrong teachings from His Word.  https://www.awmi.net/audio/audio-teachings/?teaching=a-sure-foundation

He believes in the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ has accomplished all that is necessary for man’s salvation.  He also believes in the need to repent of sin and to confess Jesus as Lord.  This will result in regeneration by the Holy Spirit.  On the subject of the Holy Spirit, it is important to understand he believes in the gift of speaking in tongues and the gift of healing.  Womack teaches, “It’s never God’s will for us to be sick; He wants every person healed every time” and “Jesus told us to heal the sick, not pray for the sick.”  Again, this is not the biblical understanding of orthodox Christians.
Be aware that the teachings of this man incorporate “Word of Faith” theology and promotes a form of “Prosperity Gospel” which goes against biblical orthodox Christianity.
In order to discover the “rankings” of Andrew Womack’s “foundational truths” you will need to spend over six hours listening to his lessons.  Frankly, I would rather spend six hours just reading the Bible, a much more productive exercise.
Finally, a word with regard to the penultimate fundamental beliefs of Andrew Wommack:

We believe the true Church is composed of all born-again believers in Christ, regardless of denominational affiliation.  https://www.awmi.net/about-us/our-beliefs/

Jesus warned of false teachers during the last days.  You need to pick up your Bible and put your faith in the words of Jesus, not in the words of men who claim "special revelation".


Did the early church devote themselves to prayer or to "the prayers", and if the latter, which prayers?

BibleHub.com has an interlinear translation (word-by-word translation of Greek to English) of this verse. The Greek reads:

  ἦσαν δὲ προσκαρτεροῦντες τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων, καὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ, τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου, καὶ ταῖς προσευχαῖς.

The word by word English translation reads

  "they were moreover steadfastly continuing in the teaching of the apostles and - in fellowship the breaking of the bread and the prayers.

(emphasis added)

The word "the" in "the prayers" is the standard Greek article (in the appropriate gender, case, and number), ταῖς. One would think that the phrase should be translated "in the prayers", as the ESV has it.

On the other hand, the dash between and and in fellowship corresponds to a similar article that is not translated. A word-by-word translation of that phrase, καὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ, would be "and in the fellowship". Yet most translations (the ESV seems to be an exception) make that phrase "in fellowship". And indeed "in the fellowship" sounds a bit awkward to me.

The root of the problem is simply that Greek puts in definite articles before words in situations where English doesn't, and even the ESV seems to remove them sometimes. Acts 2:40, for example, contains the Greek phrase

  Σώθητε ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς τῆς σκολιᾶς ταύτης

A literal, word-by-word translation is

  Be saved from the generation the perverse this

The ESV removes both articles in its translation,

  Save yourselves from this crooked generation

Thus it appears that the phrasing "the prayers" in Acts 2:42 is simply a choice by the translators to translate the Greek literally in this instance, rather than a reference by the author to specific prayers.


Were humans worshipped as gods in Biblical times?

Perhaps the word 'gods' here can also mean the kings and lords. That would be a question for Hermeneutics.

However, it is widely believed among Egyptologists that the Pharaoh was considered a god-king of sorts and a descendant of Ra, an Egyptian deity. Source 1 Source 2.

I do not know of any other place where these gods are mentioned again in the Bible. The closest, similar event I can think of is Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 3 creating an image of gold and decreeing that all worship it. Some have argued that it was a statue in Nebuchadnezzar's likeness, although, the Bible says no such thing.

However, after reading a few books on the topic of pagan worship at the time of Christ, emperor worship was somewhat common. Everything from Augustus building up the Imperial Cult, where he was prayed to and "worshiped", however casually, to the Candace of Kush (modern Ethopia) ruling by divine right as the incarnate god. This timeline, though, is about 1500 years after Ramases. Still, the Egyptians had many gods they worshiped, including the Pharaoh, and these verses likely are referring to them.


How do restorationist Christian churches cooperate with mainstream Christian churches?

I think you'll get broad differences of opinion on such a question. On the one hand, two churches may work together on a project which both agree is worthwhile despite differences in doctrine on the grounds that as long as we both agree on the goal, we can co-operate. Others refuse to work with other churches that differ from them by some sufficient degree because they don't want to give the impression that they are endorsing these beliefs, or that these beliefs do not matter.

Evangelicals and Catholics have frequently worked together on the pro-life movement and on religious freedom issues. But I'm hard pressed to think of other examples.

This certainly isn't a new issue. Recall the Puritans and the Separatists in the 1600s: they had similar beliefs, but the Puritans believed that the strategy should be to reform the established church, while the Separatists said that they should separate and form their own churches.


What does John 3:16 mean according to Calvinism?

From John Calvin's Commentary on John chapter 3

John Calvin made much about the love of God in John 3:16 arguing that the cause is the love of God for us, not any good in ourselves, or any quality that belongs to us, but the cause is God's love! Our believing then is a result of God's saving love being applied to our lives, through faith, which is itself a gift of God.

John Calvin also owned the world here and whosoever as terms that are universal arguing that they make it clear that despite the offer being open to all, though not all have believed and therefore stand justly condemned:

  He had employed the universal term whosoever both to invite all
  indiscriminately to partake in life, and to cut off every excuse from
  unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term world which he
  formally used, for though nothing will be found in the world that is
  worthy of the favour of God yet he shows himself to be reconciled to
  the whole world when he invites all men without exception to the faith
  of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life. Let us
  remember on the other hand that while life is promised universally to
  all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all, for
  Christ has held out to the view of all that the elect are those whose
  eyes are opened.

Some other Reformed writers would point out that the world is more an acknowledgement that salvation is given to people from every tribe and tongue rather than literally the whole world as in universalism or the world as in a potentially universal response. They have argued that the world, is qualified biblically by the fact that it is those who believe, it is further qualified by John 3:18 which indicates that those who disbelieve stand already condemned because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only son.

John Calvin would agree that it is only the elect whose eyes are ultimately  opened to the glory of God's one and only Son. Though he seems to allow for the offer being open to the world and whosoever if only to show that God is just in condemning them.


What is the purpose of the ten Hail Marys in the Rosary if you should not focus on them?
The basics of your question can be answered here: How to pray and meditate while saying the rosary?
Knowing that some people may have a short attention span, the meditation on the Most Holy Rosary in ten Ave Marias intervals keeps our time frame to just about 15 minutes each time we pray the rosary. This may vary according to the language employed and the speed in which one recites a particular mystery one is contemplating.
Another point is that it means a great way to consecrate about 1% of our day to prayer and meditation. The can help up also help us pass the time in a waiting room, when we know we have just over 15 minutes to kill (pardoning the expression).
Pondering the actual meaning of the words one is pronouncing as one prays the rosary, is a fine way to say the rosary, especially for novices getting into the practice. As one gets more comfortable in this practice, other ways of meditation while saying the rosary will open up.
To put it simply: Reciting 10 Hail Marys gives us a time frame to help meditate on a Sacred Mystery for some 15 minutes of the day!
A second manner of praying the Rosary is to meditate in one certain biblical passages associated with the particular mystery one is reciting. This is called a scriptural rosary.
As one recites a Hail Mary one meditates on the word of God revealed in Sacred Scripture.
A third way to meditate the Mysteries is definitely the the most profound and in-depth manner to do. The soul that is accustomed to pray and meditation delves into the rosary mysteries by placing himself into the mystery contemplated and getting totally absorbed into the sacred realities being pondered. Some (very few) find this way of meditation as being a sort of second nature!
Some Jesuits like to put this in the sense that we try to place ourself at the very scene that we are contemplating and in a sense become a participant in the mystery we are meditating.
I like to think of this as making myself a fly on the wall and watching the the Mysteries of the rosary unfold before me.
Sorry for the lack of more Catholic references, but if I find anything of value I will edit it in.
As a side note, one can obtain CDs of praying the rosary with the pope. They are great for praying the rosary in a car when it is good to have your hands free for driving and not worrying about counting.


If the Devil is the Great Deceiver, how would I know that he's not deceiving me through Christianity?

By their fruits ye shall know them

Your question is very valid. Satan is the great deceiver, he's been leading people down the wrong path for thousands of years, and he knows that the most elaborate deceptions are 90% truth. Satan discovered long ago that the most effective way to cause people to commit sin, was to make them believe that their actions are done in righteousness, so he sent false prophets to establish false churches that teach the doctrines of men mingled with scripture. He leads them astray with by luring them in with the truth, and then feeding them the doctrines of men.

Christ warned us about deception:

  15 ¶Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing,
  but inwardly they are ravening wolves.  (Matt 7:15;)

Satan has certainly used the name of God to lead many people to do the devils work. Of this there is no doubt, those that blindly followed him were typically deceived by the flattering words of charismatic leaders, many who professed authority from God, who they themselves were most likely also deceived.

Christ told his disciples how they can know a true prophet:

  16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns,
  or figs of thistles?

  17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt
  tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

  18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt
  tree bring forth good fruit.

  19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and
  cast into the fire.

  20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matt 7:16-20;)

How shall we know them by their fruits? In Galatians chapter 5, Paul explains that a true disciple of Christ is led by the Spirit, and lists the fruits of the spirit.

  22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
  gentleness, goodness, faith,

  23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (Gal 5:22;)

Satan CANNOT bring forth good fruit, for "a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." Therefor you can know with a surety whether a church is led by a true prophet of God through prayer. Only the Spirit can testify of the truthfulness of all things.

  26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will
  send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things
  to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John
  14:26;)

Trust Only God

You must not trust any man that claims to know the truth without first receiving confirmation from the Spirit that their words are true, you must come to a knowledge of the truth by yourself, through prayer, the Lord will not deceive you. Men will use clever arguments and reason to try to persuade your mind, but you must listen only to your heart for those comforting feelings of love, joy, peace and gentleness. Be careful not to confuse the feelings of the Spirit with pleasure, excitement, pride, or satisfaction, or the like, these are not fruits of the Spirit. Learn to recognize the promptings of the Spirit, and ye shall know the truth of all things.


What does a "non-denominational" Protestant believe?

A Christian denomination is simply a group of churches which have agreed to work together (in over-simplified terms).  Some denominations have very rigid structures, others not so much.  They tend to share some degree of theological beliefs, but even within a denomination there may be a wide variance.

A non-denominational church, by contrast, simply does not belong to such a group.

It's quite analogous to retail chains.  Some retail chains maintain very strict control over their various retail outlets, ensuring that branding is the same everywhere, that customer service is the same everywhere, etc. Cracker Barrel comes to mind.

Some chains maintain a very loose control, allowing franchisees to set cleanliness standards, customer service standards, etc. Phillips 66 comes to mind.

Then you have one-off, mom-and-pop stores, which have no corporate or franchise oversight at all, and they do whatever they wish.  They may have the same standards of service and products as some chain stores, but not by mandate.

So asking what a non-denominational protestant believes, is a lot like asking what a non-chain store is like:  It's all over the map.

Pretty much the only thing that non-denominational protestants all believe, is that they are not Catholics.


Does the Catholic church believe that God really forgives by confession alone?

No; the Catholic Church does not believe that confession by itself is sufficient to ensure forgiveness of sins.
The Catholic Church believes that God alone forgives sins, but has delegated that authority to certain human beings within the Church (cf. John 20:21-23).
God is "gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in mercy" (see Psalm 145); he is also "abounding in steadfast love, and relenting in punishment" (cf. Joel 2:13). Nevertheless, there are three conditions which (except in extraordinary circumstances) the Church believes are required to ensure forgiveness of one's serious sins: confession, contrition, and satisfaction (or penance).

"Penance requires... the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1450; quoting the Roman Catechism)
Let's take these one at a time.
Confession
This is the practice of telling the priest the sins you have committed since your last Confession. Catholics are required to go to Confession at least once a year; more often is better (and makes it easier to remember what sins you've committed!).
Confession should be preceded by an examination of conscience, in which one thoroughly and frankly looks at one's behavior—one's thoughts, words, and deeds—in light of Christ's commandments. Any serious sins that you remember must be confessed. If after a sincere examination you forget a serious sin (and, for example, remember it only after confession), there is no need to worry about whether you are forgiven—but if you deliberately leave out a serious sin, you are lying (by omission) not only to the priest but to the Lord. This is itself a serious sin. It appears that such an omission invalidates the entire confession; at least that's my understanding of a statement given by the Council of Trent, and quoted in paragraph 1456 of the Catechism:

When Christ’s faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest, "for if the sick person is too ashamed to show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does not know."

Contrition
The Catholic Church has a very specific understanding of contrition, and the Council of Trent developed a valuable distinction between what it called perfect contrition and what it called imperfect contrition or attrition; but essentially, contrition is an intense, sincere sorrow for—perhaps even a hatred of—one's own sinful behavior, together with a sincere resolution to avoid sin again.
This, it seems, addresses the problem you bring up. If someone sins Monday through Saturday, and goes to Confession Sunday with sincere sorrow and the sincere intent not to sin again, he's all good, even if he does in fact sin again on Monday. But if he goes to Confession not caring whether he sins on Monday (or perhaps even planning to), he is not showing a desire to be reconciled with God; he does not turn again toward God, and we cannot say that he is forgiven.
Satisfaction (Penance)

Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."

(Catechism, paragraph 1459)
Penance, or satisfaction, involves spiritual and temporal works designed to restore relationships broken and damaged by sin. The Catechism says that penance

can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, "provided we suffer with him."

The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of "him who strengthens" us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ... in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth "fruits that befit repentance." These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.

(paragraph 1460; the quoted material is from the Council of Trent.)

As the Catechism says elsewhere, God is not bound by his sacraments, and He can forgive even outside the context given here; but this is what the Church believes to be required, under ordinary circumstances, to ensure that sins are forgiven. The simple act of telling one's sins to a priest and having the priest recite the formula of absolution1 will not do.
1Here, if you are interested, is the formula:

God, the Father of mercies,
through the death and resurrection of his Son
has reconciled the world to himself
and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins;
through the ministry of the Church
may God give you pardon and peace,
and I absolve you from your sins
in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.


What is depicted on this piece of artwork?

The picture depicts the Coronation of the Virgin or Coronation of Mary.

  The Coronation of the Virgin or Coronation of Mary is a subject in Christian art, especially popular in Italy in the 13th to 15th centuries, but continuing in popularity until the 18th century and beyond. Christ, sometimes accompanied by God the Father and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, places a crown on the head of Mary as Queen of Heaven. In early versions the setting is a Heaven imagined as an earthly court, staffed by saints and angels; in later versions Heaven is more often seen as in the sky, with the figures seated on clouds. The subject is also notable as one where the whole Christian Trinity is often shown together, sometimes in unusual ways. Although crowned Virgins may be seen in Orthodox Christian icons, the coronation by the deity is not. Mary is sometimes shown, in both Eastern and Western Christian art, being crowned by one or two angels, but this is considered a different subject.

  The belief in Mary as Queen of Heaven obtained the papal sanction of Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Ad Caeli Reginam (English: Queenship of Mary in Heaven) of October 11, 1954. It is also the fifth Glorious Mystery of the Rosary. The Roman Catholic Church celebrates the feast every August 22, where it replaced the former octave of the Assumption of Mary in 1969, a move made by Pope Paul VI. The feast was formerly celebrated on May 31, at the end of the Marian month, where the present general calendar now commemorates the Feast of the Visitation. In addition, there are Canonical coronations authorized by the Pope which are given to specific Marian images venerated in a particular place. - Coronation of the Virgin

The Latin (Converte nos)is from Psalm 84 and is part of Complines and  the Little Office of the Blessed Sacrament amongst other places in the Divine Office of the Church:

  V. Converte nos Deus salutaris noster:

  R. Et averte iram tuam a nobis. (Psalm 84:5)

In English:

  V. Convert us, O God our Savior.

  R. And turn away Thy wrath from us.

This illuminated manuscript comes from a beautiful 15th-century leaf from a French Book of Hours with a large miniature of the Coronation of Mary.

  On recto:

  Miniature of the Virgin kneeling before the enthroned God the Father, with an angel holding the crown of Mary. Behind them is a canopy. Miniature measures 100 mm x 65 mm (3.9 x 2.6 inches). The image is surrounded by a foliate border with red, blue, and pink flowers with green leaves; border also contains blue and gold acanthus leaves and penwork along left margin. One triple-line illuminated initial (the letter “C”) in burnished gold and red with white details. One single-line initial in burnished gold and blue. The text, in gold-brown Latin gothic script, is from Psalm 84:5.

  On verso:

  20 lines of text in gold-brown Latin gothic script on vellum. One double-line illuminated initial in burnished gold and blue with white details. 11 single-line illuminated initials in burnished gold and red/blue with white details. The text is from Psalm 69:2 and Psalm 128.

I do not know if you have the reverse side of this image, so I will include it as part of my answer.

Illuminated Manuscript: Coronation of the Virgin Mary


Looking for a verse like "if all the Jews repented at once the world would be saved"

The Jerusalem Talmud, also called the Palestinian Talmud, not to be confused with the Babylonian Talmud, is a collection of rabbinic writings. It includes a statement  by the fourth century AD Rabbi Aha:

  If Israel repents for one day, forthwith the son of David [the Messiah] will come.

According to some Jewish thought, in every generation there is someone ready to become messiah. if the circumstances of the time are right, God will appoint him, otherwise not. Another similar expression is that if Israel kept one or two Sabbaths properly, the Messiah would come.

The Christian Biblical version of this is in the second epistle of St. Peter.  Christians believe that the Messiah has already come, but will return. We read in  chapter 3. verse 9:

  The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

This verse is in the context of the delay in the Second Coming (v 4), and explains the delay as due to patience, a desire to give more time for repentance. If God is procrastinating to give more time for repentance, what would happen if everybody did repent? There would then be no further need to delay the Second Coming. This verse, then, may suggest that if everyone repented the Second Coming would happen immediately.  However, some Christians  see this as merely a hypothetical inference since they believe that, in fact,it is predestined that not everybody will repent.

Reference - see When will the Mashiach come? or for more detail on Rabbi Aha's discourse see Messiah in Routledge's dictionary of Judaism


Does Judah's betrayal to Jesus have something to do with Judah's betrayal to Jehovah in OT (Jeremiah 2:23?)

This is my first attempt at an answer, so bear with me.

They do seem potentially related. And by that I mean, the earlier betrayal of Judah (by worshipping Ba’al) can be seen as a type of what would end up happening to Jesus. But also, Judas himself can potentially be interpreted as a type for the Jews, as it is Judas (which is the same meaning as Judah, or Yehuwdah) that would betray Jesus. And according to the Gospels, it is the Jews that are described as the ones responsible for Jesus’ death when they called for Him to be crucified.

Hence, Judas AND Judah betrayed Him.

In short, there could be a lot in common between those events.


How did Christian Death Metal arise?
Christian metal, white metal, Jesus metal or heavenly metal emerged in the late 1970s as a means of evangelization to the wider heavy metal music scene and was pioneered by the American Resurrection Band and Barnabas, the Swedish Jerusalem, and Canadian Daniel Band.
This Christian sub-culture eventually saw the development of Christian Death Metal arise in the 1990s.

Christian metal, also known as white metal, Jesus metal or heavenly metal, is a form of heavy metal music usually defined by its message using song lyrics as well as the dedication of the band members to Christianity. Christian metal is typically performed by professed Christians principally for Christians who listen to heavy metal music and often produced and distributed through various Christian networks.
Christian metal bands exist in most of the subgenres of heavy metal music, and the only common link among most Christian metal bands are the lyrics. The Christian themes are often melded with the subjects of the genre the band is rooted in, regularly providing a Christian take on the subject matter. It has been argued that the marginal yet transnational Christian metal subculture provides its core members with an alternative religious expression and Christian identity, and that the music serves the purpose of offering a positive message through lyrical content. This may not necessarily show a direct connection or reference to the Christian faith but often it does.
Christian metal emerged in the late 1970s as a means of evangelization to the wider heavy metal music scene and was pioneered by the American Resurrection Band and Barnabas, the Swedish Jerusalem, and Canadian Daniel Band. Los Angeles' Stryper achieved wide success in the 1980s. In the mid to late 1980s, extreme metal genres were popularized by bands such as Vengeance Rising, Deliverance, Believer and Tourniquet. In the early 1990s, the Australian death metal band Mortification rose to prominence within its country's underground metal scene. At the turn of the 21st century, the nu metal band P.O.D, with two platinum-selling albums, achieved a mainstream commercial success rivaling that of Stryper. The metalcore groups Underoath, Demon Hunter, As I Lay Dying and Norma Jean (dubbed "The Holy Alliance" by Revolver Magazine) also brought some mainstream attention to the movement in the first decade of the 2000s, achieving ranks in the Billboard 200.
Death Metal
In 1990, the Australian group Mortification became the first widely recognized Christian death metal band. Their 1992 album Scrolls of the Megilloth garnered the band some attention from the heavy metal underground, according to Allmusic.
At roughly the same time, the band Living Sacrifice was creating thrash and death metal, particularly on the albums Nonexistent (1992) and Inhabit (1994), with Allmusic commenting that "the term Christian death metal seems like one of music's most comical oxymorons." Later they "evolved from their early death metal-inspired rumblings into a crushing, staccato-driven, heavily percussive metallic behemoth that pummels listeners with intense riffage and a decidedly personal, though nevertheless, often evangelical lyrical viewpoint." The Minneapolis-based Crimson Thorn is described by Allmusic as "one of the world's most extreme-sounding Christian metal bands." Norwegian band Extol's 1998 album Burial was called "Revolutionary. This release may have single-handedly been responsible for the revival of the Christ-centered extreme metal." The band was popular among both Christian and general metal fans, mostly touring with well-known non-Christian bands. - Christian metal (Wikipedia)

German death metal group Sacrificium live at Elements of Rock 2007, Switzerland.


What is the Biblical basis for the idea that God doesn't have form?

This is a great question.  1 John 4:12, John 1:18, & 1 Timothy 6:16 all cross reference each other and all say that God (the Father in this case; I'll get to this later) has not been seen, and cannot be seen.  It doesn't directly say formless, but we interpret it that way as something that can't be seen would logically lack form.

Now, you raised some good points about God walking in Eden, the Israelites seeing someone seated on a throne, etc., but that diverges from your question of God being formless into a discussion on the Trinity.  The member/person of the Godhead (Father, Son, & Holy Spirit) that is referenced in the verses I referred to is God the Father, and He has never been, nor will ever be, seen.  Again, a discussion on the Trinity is a whole new question for another time, and really should be a separate question, but I hope this is simple enough to reference for your question.

Awesome question by the way, IMHO.


Minimum age of marriage in the Catholic Church through the ages

Not being of marriageable age is a diriment impediment,

  A condition, circumstance, or situation that makes an action [of marrying] null and void in its intended effects. Thus an existing marital bond nullifies any attempt to enter a second marriage.

The Church has the authority to determine impediments to marriage (cf. Session 24 on Matrimony of the Council of Trent, can. 4), but, according to the commentary of canonist Charles Augustine, O.S.B., D.D., on 1917 can. 1067,

  The Code [of Canon Law] does not determine which of these [impediments] belong to the order of the natural and divine law, and which to the order of ecclesiastical law.

However,

  pastors of souls should deter from it [i.e., from marriage] young people who have not reached the age at which, according to the custom of the country, marriage is usually contracted.In this formulation the impediment is of merely ecclesiastical law, which now demands a higher age than was formerly required. The Decretals [an early codification of ecclesiastical law] followed the Roman law in reckoning the age. There was a controversy between the Cassians and the Proculejans, until Justinian adopted the view of Proculejus, who maintained that the number of years, fourteen for boys and twelve for girls, should be decisive in admitting one to marriage. The Cassians, on the other hand, held that not only age but natural capacity for the marital act should be taken into consideration. […] There are pontifical constitutions which forbid marriage to be contracted at the age of six or seven, but they do not state a precise limit.

Thus, your "series situated in XV century France, where a girl (princess) aged 8 married a +18 years old man (prince), through the Catholic Church" seems fictional.

(Also, the Church can give and has given dispensations regarding consanguinity and affinity.)


Why do Matthew and Luke contain genealogies of Jesus, while Mark and John do not?

I don't think we can ever know for sure as we can't ask them. However I think the answer is probably to do with who they are writing to and what is the purpose of their writing.

Matthew is probably writing to a Jewish audience. For them the Christ has to have come from Abraham & David and so Matthew spends the time to show that Jesus has the credentials to be the Christ.

Luke has probably been employed to write the book by Theophilus (debated if that is the persons name or title). He has been tasked to report on what has happened and what it means - thus it goes into a lot of detail.

Mark seems to be focused on just reporting the facts as they happened. He doesn't need to present the background information on what it means, just runs through the events.

John is in a completely different format than the other gospels. In terms of who Jesus is he is very much focused on Jesus' divinity - not his human family.


According to Catholicism, are Popes expected to receive power by the Holy Spirit to operate in the miraculous as Peter did?
The short answer is no.
However, if one is asking in reference to the administration of the sacraments then the answer is yes. I believe the OP is asking more so as in miraculous events having taken place.
Historically there have been popes that were saints, while others who were sinners. The Holy Spirit can chose whom he desires to operate the miraculous.
The Church has been given the gift of infallibility by the Holy Spirit when the pope pronounces on doctrine ”ex cathedra” on the points of faith and morals.
The Holy Spirit is free to chose whomever he desires to for doing his Divine Will. Caiaphas prophesied about Christ’s death, yet I do not believe many hold him as particularly worthy of working the miraculous.

49 But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing.
50 Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation. - John 11:49-51

Generally speaking working the miraculous goes hand in hand with one’s particular holiness, than with the office of the papacy. Even then, the real saints of God do not like to advertise such gifts given to them from the Holy Spirit. Even pope’s should strive to remain humble. The gifts they may receive in this life as pope are for the benefit of the Church and not their personal glory.
There are always a **Ridleys Believe It or Not moments in everything. Nevertheless, occasionally the miraculous has happened in the lives of some popes:

Pope Fabian I
Miracle: Was made pope when a dove landed on his head
Fabian was a layman—a Roman soldier—but when he attended the synod that was meeting, in the year 236, to elect a new pope, a dove flew into the room and landed on his head, a miraculous sign that this otherwise unknown man should be elected the next pope.
Pope Urban I
Miracle: Knocked down an idol that killed 22 people
Towards the end of his life, in 230, Urban and his followers had been imprisoned and brought before an idol, to pray. Instead, Urban prayed to the Christian God, and the idol fell down, killing 22 priests.
Pope Pius V
Miracle: Beat the Ottomans, and knew it
In October of 1571, the Vatican, along with its European allies, went into battle against the Ottoman navy, which was aiming to take over more of the continent, starting with Italy. The Pope led prayers for Christian victory—and when the European forces did triumph, he announced it before the news had returned from the battlefield.
Pope Alexander I
Miracle: Escaped a well-guarded prison cell
Early in the second century A.D., after Alexander had converted a Roman governor, Hermes, and his 1,500 person household, the emperor sent an official to investigate. The official put Alexander in jail and Hermes in the custody of another high-ranking official, Quirinus. Hermes asserted that Alexander could escape jail, with the help of Jesus Christ, and Quirinus accepted the challenge, doubling the guard. When he came back, Alexander was in the same room with Hermes.
Agapetus I
Miracle: Made a paralyzed man walk
In the early 6th century, a paralyzed man was brought to pope; after Mass, the pope took the man by the hand, and he was able to stand up.
John XXIII
Miracle: Cured a dying 23-year-old nun
In 1966, an Italian nun was on the verge of death, from a gastric hemorrhage, when another nun took a relic of the recently deceased pope and put it on the stomach of her suffering sister. Within days, the director of the hospital says, she saw Pope John in a vision and the suffering nun’s condition disappeared.
John Paul II
Miracle: Cured Parkinson’s and a brain aneurysm
Pope John Paul II died in 2005 of Parkinson’s, and three months later, Sister Marie Simon Pierre, who suffered from the same disease, prayed to him; one day, she woke up able to move again. Later, doctors told a woman in Costa Rica, Floribeth Mora Diaz, that she would die within days, of a brain aneurysm; she prayed to the pope, heard his voice tell her not to be afraid, and was healed, with no medical explanation.
Pope Celestine V
Miracle: Sheer number (7 dubious miracles, 11 real ones)
Celestine V, a monk and hermit, was pope for just five months of 1294, before abdicating the office. In his 1313 canonization hearing, a panel considered 18 miracles; they only approved 11. One allegedly miraculous cure might have actually been a medical success; others had too few or contradictory witness. Still, 11 miracles isn’t bad.
Pope Pius X
Miracle: Cured a paralyzed child, etc.
After Pius X became pope in 1903, he was credited with many healing miracles. He returned a man’s paralyzed arm to life and cured an Irish girl covered with sores. His sock cured another girl’s foot disease. A nun with abdominal cancer was cured after she swallowed a bit of his clothing. Another was curid of a hip disease after one of her young students asked the pope to pray for her.  He blessed two ailing nuns who were so restored that the driver who took them to see the pope didn’t believe they were the same people when they came out.  One of his most dramatic healing miracles, though, was curing a child who had been paralyzed since birth. He sat on the pope’s lap and within a few minutes started running around the room.
Pope Cornelius I
Miracle: His statue blessed the marriage of an unlikely couple
In medieval Germany, a lord’s daughter fell in love with an artist hired to decorate a chapel dedicated to Cornelius, a third-century pope. The lord said he would not give his blessing to the marriage unless the pope did; a devotional statue of Cornelius bowed from the altar and blessed the couple.
Pope Gregory II
Miracle: Made Christian soldiers immune to Muslim enemies
In 720, when the Duke of Aquitaine was heading into battle against a Muslim army, he fed his soldiers bits of three pieces of bread that Pope Gregory II had blessed, and everyone who ate that bread survived the battle with a wound.
Pope Clement I
Miracle: Underwater tomb revealed by ebbing sea
After he was martyred and thrown into the Black Sea in 101 A.D., the waters of the sea receded until they revealed a marble tomb, where Clement’s body was found in a stone coffin. Every year after, once a year, the sea would recede and reveal the shrine.
12 Papal Miracles: An Unscientific Ranking

"Peter had the authority to lay hands on new believers so they may receive the Holy Spirit". The Popes have this same ability also along with many others within the Catholic Church when administrating the sacraments of ordination and confirmation.
Both bishops and popes lay their hands on ordinands and confirmands so they can receive  the Holy Spirit as in Acts 8:14-17.

14 Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John.
15 Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost.
16 For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17 Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost. - Acts 8:14-17


"Ask and it will be given to you" vs. "Not my will, but yours be done."

There are three occasions in scripture when I can think of someone not receiving an 'answer' to prayer. But on all three occasions, they did receive a response from God the Father.
The person asked, but did not receive what they asked for. But they received a response.
Firstly, the one you mention : Jesus prayed that the cup should pass from him yet only if it was within the Father's will. The response was :

And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. [Luke 22:43 KJV]

Jesus did not receive an 'answer' as such, but he did receive a response.
The second occasion is when Paul prayed three times :

And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. [2 Corinthians 12: 7-9 KJV]

Paul did not receive an 'answer', as such, but he did receive a response.
And, lastly, there were certain people who prayed yet their prayer was 'amiss' and it was not answered. But they did receive a response, and it was James who was sent to respond to them :

Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. [James 4: 3 KJV]

They did not receive an 'answer' to their prayer but they did receive a response.

So, today, you have sought an answer and what I am saying to you may not be what you expected, it may not be what you wanted.
But it is a response. You are not being neglected.
I, too, began to follow Jesus Christ at the age of sixteen, as do you. I am now sixty eight years old and I have been helped every single step of the way, without fail.
I wish you well on your journey.


Can Christians still eat meat with blood in it?

As this question explains, some denominations do still follow Old Testament food laws, so would likely answer "no, they can't".

However, many Christians also take Jesus' words in Mark 7 to explain that Christians do not have to follow Old Testament food laws, so would likely answer "yes, they can".

  For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) Mark 7:19 (NIV®)


What are biblical arguments for congregationalist church polity?

Having grown up within the Plymouth Brethren tradition, I was taught that a local church should be led by a plurality of elders and served by a plurality of deacons. While the definitions, uses, and even connotations of the terms elder, overseer, bishop, and under-shepherd have changed significantly in the years following the Apostolic Age, local churches in the apostles' days were ruled by elders and served by deacons.
From Michael J. Kruger:

The New Testament evidence itself seems to favor a plurality of elders
as the standard model. The book of Acts tells us that as the apostles
planted churches, they appointed “elders” (from the Greek term
πρεσβυτέρος) to oversee them (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2; 20:17). Likewise, Titus is   > told to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5).

A very similar word, ἐπι,σκoπος (“bishop” or “overseer”), is used in
other contexts to describe what appears to be the same ruling office
(Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-7
The overlap between these two terms is evident in Acts 20:28
when Paul, while addressing the Ephesian “elders” (πρεσβυτέρους), declares that“The > Holy Spirit has made you overseers
(ἐπισκόπους).” Thus, the New Testament writings indicate that the
office of elder/bishop is functionally one and the same.

As for church polity, each local church (or possibly numerous local churches in a given locality, such as in the province of Galatia in the apostle Paul's day) likely had its own elders and deacons. I am not suggesting, however, that local churches were hermetically sealed off from one another. When a collection was being made for the poor saints in Jerusalem, for example, many local churches participated in that generous good deed.
I suggest that in the intervening centuries, local, independent congregations participated in various projects together for the common good, for evangelistic purposes, and ultimately for the glory of their common Lord and Savior.
In the Plymouth Brethren movement in the 19th and 20th centuries, many local congregations, though independent (and interestingly, supposedly "non-denominational"!), collaborated in financing the building of new church structures, supporting missionaries in dozens of countries around the world, and pooling resources to launch various ministries, including evangelistic efforts, such as a city-wide crusade.
Even beyond the "tri-state" area in my neck of the woods in the 1950s, at least a dozen independent Plymouth Brethren (hereafter, PB) churches banded together in founding a Christian summer camp for boys and girls, where kids had loads of fun, of course, but also received instruction from God's word, sang Christian choruses together, had "testimony time" at evening campfires, ate together in a lodge in which each cabin of similarly aged boys or girls dined together, listened to announcements, and participated in the "cleanest cabin" competition, with the camp nurse as chief inspector!
Volunteers from New York State, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and several cities in Ontario Province, Canada, converged on the campgrounds located in the Southern Tier of New York State. They volunteered their labor to build the camp from the ground up, but they also labored each year in the spring to get the camp ready to open in late June for the first of many camp sessions for children, young adults, and later, for entire families.
The board of directors for the camp is composed of members from the various churches that support the mission of the camp. They meet regularly at the camp to manage its finances, to plan expansion and maintenance projects, and to assign tasks--including camp-session directorships--to men and women who are vetted by their home churches.
My dad, an elder in one of the two--at that time--PB assemblies in Rochester, New York, was the first Spiritual director of the camp. I could not count the number of times that my family made the three-and-a-half-hour trip to camp for Saturday workdays to prepare the camp for summer. My dad served as camp director for at least one two-week session for elementary-age children each year, and my mom served as chief cook and bottle washer during the same two-week session, cooking for almost 200 campers and staff volunteers.
I could go on and on about the spiritual fruit that came about because of that summer camp. Children and young adults were won to the Lord, young people who were once campers became volunteer staff workers, counselors, lifeguards, craft instructors, ropes-course instructors, and teachers of skills such as knot tying, fire making, compass reading, canoeing, archery, riflery, swimming and lifesaving, horseback riding, and much more.
In short, a congregational church polity seems to work best when individual congregations are free to administer their day to day affairs, including church discipline, and are at the same time free to unite with other like-minded Christians of similarly independent congregations to collaborate in doing the work of ministry for the glory of God.


Religious justification for creating a large angry scene with the ostensible purpose of making people not gay

The motivations for protests against homosexuality differ based on the group, and as such the answers must be tailored to the groups.  It should also be mentioned that overall (meaning as a percentage) relatively few Christians tend to take part in these protests, for precisely the reason you state.

Furthermore, there are several Christian denominations that actively support homosexuality. The Metropolitan Community Church, for example, is a denomination that is in many ways founded on the idea idea of being gay positive.  Other denominations, such as the more liberal parts of the Anglican Communion (i.e. the Episcopal Church in the US) actively support and encourage the lifestyle, although this splits the church.

Because I do not know what group is doing the protest at your school, let me break down the motivations of a few that do.

Hate (e.g. Non-Reflective Christians)

I would argue the largest body of gay-haters are, as you say, Christians who haven't read the Scripture. Remember that for many people, Christianity is a cultural thing, not a spiritual thing. Homosexuals are different (if you'll forgive the pun.) For many people, homosexuality represents a threat to the established order, and if there is one thing many people hate, it is change. For centuries, many "Christians" also "knew" that white people were better than black people. There were even sermons that pointed out how Ham and Caanan (who I guess must have been black) was cursed by God (well, Noah really, but Noah speaking for God, I guess).  As such, by reading verses out of context, one could conveniently ignore texts like "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek,"... etc...

But what such hatred did do is to serve the preservation of the culture. People who don't want to change will naturally seek to preserve it by any means possible. There are "scientific," "cultural," and "historical" arguments.  Note: They may even be valid. But the motivation is important, and if it is not done out of a God given spirit, despite the veneer of Christianity, it is not Christian.

It should be said here that Jesus never claimed that "preserving the culture" was his mission.  His mother (in Luke 1) exults in the fact that old order will be turned upside down. He himself also says in Luke 12:

  49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Fear (e.g. Westboro Baptist Church)

Fred Phelps is a minister who believes that the judgment of God is being visited on the world because of homosexuals. He and his church are almost universally condemned across the Christian spectrum. Their preferred method of "being faithful to the Gospel" as they see it is to find high profile, sad events, like military funerals or the funerals of well known people, and hold up signs tht say things like "God hates fags."  These people protest out of fear - not necessarily of homosexuals per se - but out of fear that a totally just God will visit punishment on the country.  They misread texts like Luke 11:31 saying that the USA is worse than Sodom, and that in the final judgement, God will visit destruction upon us all.

Again, it should be made clear that this is not biblical.  As 1 John states (ch 4)

  Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love ... God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 17 This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. 18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

In Ancient Rome, there were laws against atheism for this exact same reason - fear that a vengeful god would destroy the town for gross acts of sacriliege by any who would deny the gods' existence. Initially, because Jews and Christians only believed in one God, they were branded atheists and punished accordingly.

Love (e.g. Exodus International)

Finally, there is a Christian motivation for the sentiment, if not the tactic (sorry, protests don't change minds) of persuading people "not to be gay."  From the website of Exodus International:

  Many settle for so much less than what God intended. Perhaps you are one of them. But the Good News of the Gospel is we can be restored and reconciled to the MORE we were created to experience. God came to bring us life and life MORE abundantly

First off, please understand that Exodus International is extremely controversial. Many, many Christians would disavow it**, but it is worth looking at a motivation that really is grounded biblically.  In their estimation, homosexuality damages the individual - it is an oppression from which an individual can and should be freed.  Much like an alcoholic should be freed from the prison of drink, so a homosexual, in their estimation, should be freed from the "stunted growth" of a homosexual lifestyle.

**Update:  Recently, Exodus International has disavowed itself of any conversion therapy approaches, meaning that it does not believe that any proclivities will necessarily disappear.  They continue to stand with gays, however, in resisting the impulse to act on the desires, and do so with love, compassion, and empathy.

Love, it should be remembered, does that which is in the best interests of its target.  It is more than being nice. When I stop my son and my daughter from doing things that hurt them, that is love. That is the motivation out of which Exodus International operates, and I argue, the real reason why people hate it so much - because it actually is trying to be Christian. It isn't borne out of fear or hate, nor is it a caricature of faith - it is people who genuinely want to be Christian. People don't hate counterfeit three dollar bills - they hate the genuine thing.

Finally, a personal note. I was engaged in a homosexual relationship for many months after college. I do not claim to speak on behalf of all gays, and I won't even argue that my experience was typical. I will tell you that for me (and I repeat FOR ME) homosexuality was ultimately a trap.  I liked the companionship, and the relationship was actually quite positive. For a young man to be involved in a deep romantic relationship for the first time in my life, it was highly pleasurable.

But I am glad I was not allowed to stay in that relationship. I eventually had a heterosexual relationship and even children. The joy of those relationships is, frankly, far more than I could have imagined when I was "stuck" in that homosexual one. Most people go through a homosexual phase, but continue to grow. I, personally, believe that phase holds many people - or at least held me - back.  If I can help a person grow, I will.

Tatically speaking, a protest is not the way to do that.  Jesus did command Christians to love everyone, and holding a sign is not love. I do not advocate for laws banning homosexuality (whether or not marriage is state thing or a church thing is not this question in any event). And if you ask me, do I hate homosexuals? I can clearly answer no.  But will I do everything in my power to help someone who is, in my estimation, trapped? Love compels me to say, Of Course.


Incense, candles, crystal and exorcism (Roman Catholic perspective)

Your question has to be divided into two parts: How are Catholic exorcisms actually performed and how is one able to help liberate the possessed through various sacraments and sacramental outside an actual exorcism.

It should be noted that sometimes the liberation of a soul from the grips of the evil one happens after just a few exorcisms, while others take years to be freed from the demon.

The Roman Ritual is where Catholics get its official rules on how to perform the Rite of Exorcism (Ritus Exorcizandi Obsessos A Daemonio).

According to the Roman Ritual, the exorcist is to be donned with a surplice and a purple stole (which at a particular point in time during the exorcism is to be draped over the shoulder of the possessed). The exorcist is to have holy water on hand and the following to items may be present:

  13 He ought to have a crucifix at hand or somewhere in sight. If relics of the saints are available, they are to be applied in a reverent way to breast or head of the possessed (the relics must be properly and securely encased and covered). One will see to it that these sacred objects are not treated improperly or no injury is done to them by the evil spirit. However, one should not hold the Holy Eucharist over the head of the person nor in any way apply It to his body, owing to the danger of desecration. Exorcism Of The Possessed.

Fr. Gabriel Amorth was an Italian Roman Catholic priest and an exorcist of the Diocese of Rome who has written two books on the on the subject of exorcisms: An Exorcist Tells His Story and An Exorcist: More Stories. Although they are not official Roman Catholic documents, they are in fact a very rich source of information of how some priests use various sacraments and sacramentals to help in the liberation of the possessed outside the actual Rite of Exorcism.

In his books, Fr. Amorth states that both the sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion are excellent aids in freeing a person from the possession of the demon.

Fr. Amorth would say Mass in the homes of those tormented by the devil. Other helpful things (outside an actual exorcism), he would encourage is to have the house blessed. He also mentions the use of sacramentals such as holy water, blessed oil, exorcized (blessed) salt, blessed religious medals (especially the now famous St Benedict's Medal) burning of blessed incense in the home and so on. All these sacramentals , as well as many more , have their own particular blessing and/or exorcism listed in the Roman Ritual.

The Book of Tobit has an episode (Tobit 6: 1-7) in which the angel Raphael gets Tobias to burn incense in order to make the demon flee away.

The use of crystal (balls?) is complete nonsense for the use of help in the liberation of the possessed and would, at least in my mind, be a hindrance towards the liberation of a soul, as being something out of New Age or even worse.

.


What is the Biblical basis against the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace?

The argument against irresistable grace is centered in the Biblical teachings that, on the one hand, God desires everyone to be saved and has made his grace available to all people.

1 Timothy 2:3-4
This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.
Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all.

On the other hand, we are asked to make a choice and salvation is said to be contingent on our response.

Joshua 24:15
Now if you are unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served in the region beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.
Ezekiel 18:21-22
But if the wicked turn away from all their sins that they have committed and keep all my statutes and do what is lawful and right, they shall surely live; they shall not die. None of the transgressions that they have committed shall be remembered against them; for the righteousness that they have done they shall live.
John 1:12
But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God.
Romans 10:9
[I}f you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

The flip side of this coin is that if we don't respond or don't follow through, we won't be saved.

Matthew 7:21
Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Matthew 24:12-13
And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
1 Corinthians 9:26-27
I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating the air; but I punish my body and enslave it, so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified.

If we can "be disqualified" or fail to "endure to the end", it stands to reason that God's grace can be resisted.
Summary
If:

God wants everyone to be saved, and
He has made his grace available to everyone, and
He asks us to respond to his grace, and
He promises salvation to those who respond but not to those who fail to respond or fail to follow through, then

it's hard to make the case that God's grace is irresistible.


Are there female devils cited in scriptures?

Spiritual beings do not have physical bodies.

  Luke 29:34 (NASB)
  "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

While the spiritual beings mentioned in the Bible are described as "men," they are not exactly "males" in the sense that we use to classify physical organisms. What does it mean for a spirit to be "male" then? (Genatalia? Testosterone? Leave their dirty socks on the floor?)

I assert that these beings were described as males because of the (appointed) dominant position that males have in God's created order. They are not "men" or "male" any more than they are "women" or "female" except that they appear (outwardly) as men so that it is more socially acceptable for them to deal with leaders and other people in those societies.

To answer your question: There are no female (or male) devils mentioned in the Scriptures.


Papal Infallibility and teaching heresy?

This is not completely hypothetical.

In the mid-300s, Pope Liberius may have signed a statement supporting what later became known as Arian heresy. That he did so in exile and possibly under torture is mitigation, and the story is complex, but it is a more concrete version of this question. In any event, there was clear pressure from the Emperor that came into play.

A similar situation occurred in the 600s with the anathemazation of Pope Honorious I in regards to Christ's nature and monothelitism. There were questions about whether or not the letter was spoken ex cathedra, and ultimately, this became a big discussion point when the dogma of papal infallability was promulgated.

The answer in both cases is basically that the church, having later repudiated his position, went to great lengths to say that the statement was not made under a condition in which papal infallibility is present. This article by Carroll explains the exact nuances of Liberius.  Vatcan I in the 1870's, formulating the doctrine of papal infallability said that Honorious never spoke ex cathedra.

This basically would suggest that a mitigated sedevacantism is a logical possibility, but that it is ultimately a “nuclear weapon” option that must be avoided at all costs.

Most likely, any other such heresy later pronounced by the Magisterium would need to prove a similar circumstance.


Protestant numbering of the 10 Commandments

It basically comes down to tradition.

There are three major divisions of the Decalogue, in order of date. To compare these divisions, see Wikipedia. The dates are from this article.

Philonic (first century), in the writings of Philo and Josephus.
Talmudic (third century), in the Talmud.
Augustinian (fifth century), in the writings of Saint Augustine of Hippo. Also found in Codex Alexandrinus, which was first noted in 1886. (Codex Alexandrinus dates to the fifth century, too)

The Philonic division is used by most Orthodox and Protestant churches, except for Lutherans. It's the earliest recorded division, and very similar to the Talmudic division. The Talmudic division is the one adopted by Jews, and is probably based on earlier rabbinic tradition.

The Augustinian division came centuries later. It was chosen as the official Catholic division by the Council of Trent in the 16th century, and also by Luther at about the same time.

It's probable that the Early Church used the Philonic or a similar division of the Ten Commandments. That's probably also why most Protestants choose to follow it.


When did the insertion of title-page for Old Testament and New Testament started?

The Old Testament and the New Testament are different sections of the library.  To think of this division as "insert a title page" is too far off the mark.

Imagine, if you will, a library of 66 books, written over the course of 1500 years, by 40 different men (possibly one woman).  As each of these works was created, it doesn't make sense to ask "When did someone insert a title page?" Rather, each work was created individually, and had its own distinction.

Eventually, these 66 (or 73 if you are Catholic) were recognized as the "best of the best."  And, as such, these became the manuscripts to have in your collection.  Over time, the Jews assembled the 39 manuscripts known as the "Old Testament" and even dictated the order in which they should be shelved on the library.  (The 12 minor prophets, for example, have a keyword at the end of each book that corresponds to the keyword at the beginning of the next.) An additional 7 books were considered the best runners up, and shelved accordingly.

By around 400 BC or 200 BC, the "Old Testament" was pretty well decided, and fixed.

In the First century after Christ, however, his work was so important to Christians that the apostolic writers' works were seen as being as important, if not moreso, to Christians then the original Jewish Scriptures.  While each of the works in question (Gospels, histories, letters from Paul, Peter, and James) was written between about 50 AD and 100 AD, they were, over time, also selected as the best of the best.

In order to distinguish the two origins - one distinctly Jewish, one Christian - they were shelved in different places - Old Testament and New.

With the invention of the printing press in 1453, it became affordable for people to have all of these manuscripts.  In order to save on printing costs, all 66 - 73 books were eventually printed under one binding.  The canonical order of the books was set by tradition, and the contents were already in agreement.  In order to help people locate the books, they were separated into the two categories.

As such, the technical answer to your question is - Gutenberg is responsible for the "Title Page," but all he was doing was following history and convention. These separate books had been separate all along.

Note: The 'title page' you show is just a restatement of a creed:

  ϊωβ
  Job

  ὁ παλαιᾶϲ καὶ καινῆϲ διαθήκηϲ θϲ
  Oh God of the old and new covenant

  ὁ ἐν τριάδι ὑμνούμενοϲ
  who in trinity is praised

  καὶ ἐν μονάδι δοξολογούμενοϲ αὐτὸϲ
  and in unity is glorified:

  δέξαι τὴν μετάνοιαν τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ θεοφυλάκτου
  receive the repentance of a God-guarded* sinner

  καὶ ἀξίωϲον αὐτὸν τυχεῖν τῆϲ βαϲιλείαϲ ϲου
  and count him worthy to attain your kingdom

  διὰ ϲπλάχνα ἐλέουϲ ϲου
  by the bowels of your mercy

  καὶ ἐλέοϲ ἀμέτρητον
  yea mercy immeasurable.

It should be noted that Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest Greek Manuscript we have - but it is just that - a codex.  (Tischendorf found these manuscripts in a trash can in the monastery at Sinai and stole brought them back to England. It's the oldest manuscript we have.  What you are linking to are copies of each of the bound manuscripts.)

*Possibly the scribe's name: "this sinner, Theophylact".


Jesus himself said to baptize that way:

  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
  name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,      (Matthew
  28:19 ESV)

The word "trinity" is not a name or nickname, merely an adjective that describes the fact that there are three distinct persons (not personalities) that together are God.


What is the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation?

Basically, the difference between the Thomistic notion of transubstantiation and the interpretation of Lutherans  and Anglicans is that those who hold to the doctrine of transubstantiation believe that after the consecration, the "substance" of what was the bread is replaced by the substance of Jesus, while the "accidents" of the bread remain,so the host looks tastes, feels, smells, and reacts like bread, but is not.

By contrast, those who hold to consubstantiation, say that Jesus is present, just as those who subscribe to transubstantiation believe, but that this occurs by Jesus becoming really present in substance at the same time the substance of the bread is.

Some of those who believe in consubstantiation note that there is a problem reconciling yransubstantiation with John 6:48, wherein it is recorded that Jesus states:

  I am the bread of life

and John 6:51a, wherein it is recorded that Jesus states:

  I am the living bread which came down from heaven ...

Now, if Jesus is living bread, how can it be that after transubstantiation, that there is no substance of bread present, as Jesus is bread.


Is any of Jesus' carpentry still around?

Jesus being a carpenter is subject to debate among historians and Christians alike. There is no actual Scriptural evidence that Jesus ever was a "carpenter", however based on the times He grew up in it is an easy inference. If He truly was a carpenter, then there may be artifacts created by him circulating somewhere. However, it's a good bet to say these artifacts have degraded over the years or "current" examples are probably counterfeit for the exact reason I stated above - we really don't know if he was an actual "carpenter" or not.

Let's look at Scripture really quick to talk about why this is:

The only references to Jesus ever being a carpenter is in Mark & Matthew.

Mark 6:3

  “Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon?”

Matthew 13:55

  “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother called Mary, and His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?”

It's important to remember that these two accounts in the Gospel are of the same event. Seems pretty straightforward that he was a carpenter and/or the son of a carpenter. However, translation is where we have our difficulty.

The Koine Greek word τέκτων ("tekton") is the word translated as "carpenter" in these passages. This word has a wider semantic range. It can mean "carpenter", however it's terminology is much broader to include the following:

A new construction carpenter, like a framer
A general construction worker
A general craftsman
A cabinet maker
A Cooper (a person who makes barrels)
Or a Shipbuilder

If I were translating Mark 6:3 or Matthew 13:55 myself, I would use the term "craftsman".

There is a whole slew of other things that contributed to us just saying "Jesus was a carpenter", ranging from tradition - I cite Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 88:

  And when Jesus came to the Jordan, He was considered to be the son of Joseph the carpenter; and He appeared without comeliness, as the Scriptures declared; and He was deemed a carpenter (for He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life)

So we know Jesus was at least a craftsman. So, how about his work?

Well, being that we've established that He certainly probably worked with wood, we just have to look at how wood degrades over time. This depends on many factors including the type of wood, where its stored, how it's taken care of, etc. Some woods, such as cedar or redwood, are naturally resistant to rot, and may last in the open for two or more years without any special treatment. Other types of wood, such as sycamore, decay within a year.

Many noteworthy trees found here appear to be oaks. Oak can last a very long time (there's a fallen oak in my mother's yard that's been there for 15 years and it's only now beginning to rot away), however there are parts of town here with oak posts that have been there for 100+ years with little sign of wear. We're talking about 2000 year old furniture, however. So taking all that in to account, chances are all examples of Jesus' woodwork are gone. Why? Because He was a simple Jew (to those who don't know who He is/was), and depending on who His work was sold to, it probably wasn't taken care of very well. Following His crucifixion, had word gotten around, those who though He was a blasphemer may have ruined the works or sold them for money.

In short, we just don't know. However, the chances are good that objects being claimed to have been made by Jesus are counterfeit.


If John wrote the 4th Gospel, why did he not name himself or his brother?

St. John the Evangelist was a very humble, yet confident individual before God.

Humility kept him from naming himself as the author of the fourth Gospel.

Saint John and his brother, Saint James the Greater, the sons of Zebedee, were given the nickname "Sons of Thunder" by Christ Himself.

St. John the Apostle was known as the “beloved disciple” of Jesus.

It is said that John "reclined at the bosom of the Lord" during the Last Supper. It was John who asked Christ who His betrayer would be.

Please remember also that the only apostle who did not flee the scene of the crucifixion was St. John himself.

It was John the Beloved who kept vigil at the cross with the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was Saint John to whom Jesus confided the care of His mother from the cross: "John, behold your Mother...Woman, behold your son."

  John was with Peter when Mary Magdalen came upon them after seeing the empty tomb.  Both John and Peter ran to the tomb, but John ran faster, for he was younger.  However, upon arriving at the tomb, John waited outside for Peter and then followed him into the empty room where Christ had been laid. It is clear that Saint John acted in humility and respect. He allowed Peter—whom Christ had chosen to be leader of the Apostles—to enter first. - 3 Things We Can Learn From Saint John The Beloved

But it is the last chapter of the Gospel of St. John, that shows his true humility in not naming himself as author of the Gospel.

  20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

  22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

  24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

  25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. - John 21:20-25

Humility was possibly not the only factor. St. John looked after the Mother of Jesus for many years and it is not inconceivable that in order to protect Jesus’ Mother, the “Beloved Disciple” wished to remain to some degree anonymous, in case persecutions broke out.


Do they use icons in the Roman Catholic Church?

I don't know if it's common practice among all Catholics, but I kiss the image of Jesus on my scapular every chance I get.  It's pretty much an icon except it's done on cloth.

I kiss the cross when making the sign of the cross while praying the rosary and on Good Friday we venerate the cross of Jesus by kissing the crucifix. Latin American Catholics are also known to make a tiny cross with their fingers after making the sign of the cross and kissing that (their hand).

There is one company that I know of in the united states that makes Catholic Icons (as well as Orthodox Icons); that's monastery icons. I don't believe a Catholic would be prohibited from venerating any sort of holy icon in an appropriate manner. Blessed icons would be considered sacramentals.


For Catholics who object to Vatican II, what are the key issues?

In simplest form: Vatican II declared some very important things to be true which (in the minds of those who object) are radically incompatible with previous Church tradition. As the website of Sodalitium Pianum, an offshoot of SSPX, states:

  The teaching of Vatican II concerning episcopal collegiality, religious liberty, ecumenism, non-Catholics belonging to the Mystical Body of Christ, non Christian religions and particularly Judaism, relations between the Church and the modern world, is in contradiction to the teaching of the Church, of many popes, and many ecumenical Councils. The reform of the liturgy, especially of the Holy Mass, and of Canon Law, are harmful for souls, favor the Protestant heresies, and declare sometimes licit that which by divine right is in fact illicit. ... The Institute [the Institute of the Mother of Good Counsel, which sponsors Sodalitium Pianum], in front of this unprecedented crisis that involves necessarily all that have approved the conciliar documents and the subsequent reforms, realizes that it cannot accept these new doctrines contrary to faith and morals nor incite the faithful to disobedience towards the legitimate authority in the Church.

The other objection they present, again in simple terms, is that Vatican II was only a 'pastoral' council, defining no dogma [and not convened to condemn heresies or resolve a particular issue], thus lacked the doctrinal weight of past Ecumenical Councils - another reason advanced by those at odds with the post-Conciliar Church to maintain their rift with the Church. The following quotes from a Pope and a  future Pope are presented to bolster their arguments e.g.:

  (1)Paul VI:General audience of Jan 12,1966:"In view of the pastoral
  nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of
  dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided
  us teaching with the authority of the ordinary Magisterium, which must
  be accepted with docility...." - cf.  Introduction: Doctrinal
  Authority of Vatican II | EWTN
  Library

and

  The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the
  entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a
  new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined
  no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level,
  as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had
  made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance
  of all the rest. - cf. Cardinal Ratzinger's Remarks Regarding the
  Lefebvre
  Schism.
  The translated text of an address by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger,
  prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, given July
  13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile before that nation's bishops.

Since the Church does not change her teaching, traditionalists who hold beliefs of this sort feel they're faced with the choice to reject all of Church tradition as they understand it, or to reject Vatican II.


What are the soteriological implications of Arianism?

I don't see why this should be complicated. Soteriology is the study of salvation (Greek σωτηρία). Succinctly stated, Arianism posits that the Lord Jesus Christ is not "the only true god" (ὁ μόνος ἀληθινὸς θεός; cp. John 17:3), Yahveh (cp. Isa. 44:6), but rather, a creation of the one true god (i.e., a creature).
According to Isa. 43:11 (cp. Isa. 45:21; Hos. 13:4), it is written,

I, [even] I, am Yavheh, and there is no savior besides Me.
אָנֹכִי אָנֹכִי יַהְוֶה וְאֵין מִבַּלְעָדַי מוֹשִׁיעַ

If the Lord Jesus Christ is not Yavheh, then he cannot effect salvation for humanity, for Yavheh Himself states, "There is no savior besides Me."
Some may suppose that salvation is ultimately effected by Yahveh via the proxy of the Lord Jesus Christ.
However, this is refuted by Psa. 49, in which it is written,

7 A man certainly shall not redeem his brother, nor give his ransom to God.
7 אָח לֹא־פָדֹה יִפְדֶּה אִישׁ לֹא־יִתֵּן לֵאלֹהִים כָּפְרוֹ
15 But God shall redeem my soul from the power of the grave, for He shall receive me. Selah.
15 אַךְ־אֱלֹהִים יִפְדֶּה נַפְשִׁי מִיַּד־שְׁאֹול כִּי יִקָּחֵנִי סֶֽלָה

When it comes to the redemption of a man's soul from the power of the grave, man cannot redeem his brother. Only God can. Therefore, the Lord Jesus Christ cannot be just a man, otherwise he is wholly incapable of effecting the redemption of humanity. Consequently, if the Lord Jesus Christ is not God, then he cannot be the savior or redeemer of humanity.


In which writings does Tertullian apply the concept of satisfaction to salvation?

Tertullian uses the word "satisfaction" in several writings, but never, according to J. N. D. Kelly, to refer to Christ's atoning work on the cross.  Kelly writes:

  Tertullian has the theory that good deeds accumulate merit with God, while bad deeds demand 'satisfaction'—we observe the introduction of this important conception into Christian thought. Taken in conjunction with his doctrine of original sin, it might have enabled him to deal in a fresh way of his own with the problem of atonement. In fact, however, while using his ideas about satisfaction to explain the restoration of relations between the individual sinner and God, he altogether fails to apply them to the mediatorial role of Christ. (177)

Instead, Tertullian's uses of "satisfaction" come primarily in the contexts of repentance and good works, particularly baptism and martyrdom, which allow Christians to make satisfaction to God.  This theme is most prominent in De Paenitentia ("On Repentance").  For example, people can make satisfaction to God through repentance or to the devil through apostasy:

  Thus he who, through repentance for sins, had begun to make satisfaction to the Lord, will, through another repentance of his repentance, make satisfaction to the devil, and will be the more hateful to God in proportion as he will be the more acceptable to His rival. (5.9)

Along these lines, repentance is described as the "price" of pardon:

  Further, how inconsistent is it to expect pardon of sins (to be granted) to a repentance which they have not fulfilled! This is to hold out your hand for merchandise, but not produce the price. For repentance is the price at which the Lord has determined to award pardon: He proposes the redemption of release from penalty at this compensating exchange of repentance. (6.4)

Again emphasizing that the Christian makes the satisfaction:

  You will show your gratitude to the Lord by not refusing what the Lord offers you. You have offended, but can still be reconciled. You have One whom you may satisfy, and Him willing. (7.14; emphasis added)

In 8.9 he connects the more formal act of confession with satisfaction, and develops the idea more extensively in the following chapter, making it take the place of God's wrath:

  This act, which is more usually expressed and commonly spoken of under a Greek name, is exomologesis, whereby we confess our sins to the Lord, not indeed as if He were ignorant of them, but inasmuch as by confession satisfaction is settled, of confession repentance is born; by repentance God is appeased. [...] All this exomologesis (does), that it may enhance repentance; may honour God by its fear of the (incurred) danger; may, by itself pronouncing against the sinner, stand in the stead of God's indignation, and by temporal mortification (I will not say frustrate, but) expunge eternal punishments. (9.2, 9.5)

A similar argument is made in De baptismo, 20, that confession of iniquties "make[s] satisfaction for our former sins."  And in De Oratione, 7.1, he argues that God accepts penitence instead of "the death of the sinner."

Related themes, though not always the specific word "satisfaction," appear in other writings, such as Scorpiace, in which Tertullian argues that the sufferings of martyrs "pay" for spiritual benefits.  In chapter 6, the martyr pays with his "flesh and life" in order to receive blessings from God.  Martyrdom and the baptism of blood serve as "second supplies" of grace for those who sin following their conversions.  He concludes:

  For, strictly speaking, there cannot any longer be reckoned ought against the martyrs, by whom in the baptism (of blood) life itself is laid down. Thus, "love covers the multitude of sins;" and loving God, to wit, with all its strength (by which in the endurance of martyrdom it maintains the fight), with all its life (which it lays down for God), it makes of man a martyr. (6)

As Kelly notes, and Jaroslav Pelikan agrees, Tertullian does not connect the concept of satisfaction to Christ's death.  But Kelly notes the possibility of a "germ" of substitution doctrine in Scorpiace (7), "It is Christ who gave Himself up for our offences," and Pelikan points to a passage in De Pudicitia, where the merit earned by martyrs is compared to that earned by Christ:

  Let it suffice to the martyr to have purged his own sins: it is the part of ingratitude or of pride to lavish upon others also what one has obtained at a high price. Who has redeemed another's death by his own, but the Son of God alone? For even in His very passion He set the robber free. For to this end had He come, that, being Himself pure from sin, and in all respects holy, He might undergo death on behalf of sinners. Similarly, you who emulate Him in condoning sins, if you yourself have done no sin, plainly suffer in my stead. If, however, you are a sinner, how will the oil of your puny torch be able to suffice for you and for me? (22.4)

Conclusion

Thus we see that Ferguson's summary has merit.  Tertullian does introduce the concept of satisfaction to soteriology, but he does not clearly extend it to refer to an objective work of Christ.  G. D. Dunn argues that his focus was instead on the problem of sinful Christians, and quotes F. W. Dillistone:

  Tertullian did not attempt to construct a doctrine of atonement in terms of his own particular interests for it was not an age for systematic theological exposition. Rather was it a period, especially in the West, of applying the Christian revelation to the urgent practical problems with which the Church had to deal. In Tertullian's time no problem was more poignant, even agonizing than that of how to deal with the weaker members of the fellowship who fell victim to open and grievous sins.

Sources and further reading:

Dillistone, F. W., The Christian Understanding of Atonement, 187
Dunn, G. D., "A Survey of Tertullian's Soteriology," Sacri. Erudiri 42 (2003): 61–86
Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines, 177
Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition: A History of Development of Doctrine, I, 147–48


Where can I find the 5800 Greek NT Manuscript copies?

Who said we can't locate these manuscripts?!

Wikipedia actually has a pretty thorough set of lists of NT manuscripts:

List of New Testament papyri (136)
List of New Testament uncials (322)
List of New Testament minuscules (1–1000), (1001–2000), (2001–) (2911 total)
List of New Testament lectionaries (2453)

The lectionaries list is the least complete here, only having a few hundred out of the 2453 it says have been categorised by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF). You could I'm sure get their full list, but you might have to pay for it, and it might be in German.

Add up the papyri, uncials, minuscules, and lectionaries and you get 5822, which is likely the source of the 5800 that you've been seeing. But any total number like this will only be a rough estimate. Our knowledge of manuscripts is constantly changing. Wikipedia notes that 47 new manuscripts were discovered in Albania in 2008, and the number can decrease as well: as scholars discover that partial manuscripts which had been categorised separately are actually parts of one manuscript.

For most scholars however the data is considered pretty reliable, as minuscules and lectionaries play a smaller role in their studies than the papyri and uncials because of their later date. Wikipedia gives a table showing the dating of the manuscripts by century. The dominant position of textual critics is that the earlier manuscripts provide stronger witnesses to the original texts. However should a new papyrus be discovered, of which we currently only know of 136, you can be sure that Biblical scholars will pay close attention to what it says.


This verse is contrasting Jesus and David. Jesus ascended:

Luke 24:51
While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.

David went to heaven the old fashioned way: by dying first.
This is evidenced by David's body being buried:

Acts 2:29
“Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.

By contrast, Jesus was not "abandoned" (left) in the grave:

Acts 2:31
Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.

That David is in heaven is clear from Hebrews 11:32-40. David is named in verse 32 with other faith heroes. Then in verse 40 it says, "together with us would they be made perfect" (since they can only be perfected in heaven).


Are all confessions protected from being used in criminal court as evidence against someone?

To my knowledge the Catholic Church is the only denomination to reject mandatory reporting laws. Most Protestant churches now strongly emphasise training related to child safety and disclosures, and anyone confessing sexual abuse crimes will be told that those they are confessing to have a civil duty to report the confession to police. Most Protestants would probably also believe they have a moral duty to report these confessions. I know less about the Orthodox churches, but I did see that the Orthodox Church in America also accepts mandatory reporting laws.

Where the crimes confessed are not of a child abuse or sexual nature mandatory reporting usually does not apply, and other laws may protect or require the confidentiality of confessions. But the fact that mandatory reporting laws are accepted is enough to answer your question: no, other denominations do not protect all confessions.

And just personally, I do not think the Catholic Church's argument is remotely convincing. Of course we are in the business of saving souls. Most of the time being made to face civil justice is a good thing for someone's spirituality. The church should not intentionally be standing in the way of that.