You're asking the wrong question. This isn't a place; it is a state.

"Sleep" is used hundreds of times throughout the Old and New Testaments as a euphemism or metaphor for death. Likewise, the theme of being created from the dust of the earth and then returning to it when we die is seen in several places. This is a reference to those that have died, not to any particular physical location.

This point isn't really a matter of opinion either. All major branches of Christianity, all Bible translators, commentators, and theologians agree on this general interpretation of the "dust" and "sleep" references in Scripture. The specific context in some cases might involve other interpretive difficulties, but the basic point that this and many similar references are to death is pretty much undisputed.


According to Seventh Day Advent theology when does the 2300 evenings and mornings in Daniel 8:13-14 begin?

According to SDA theology, 457 B.C. is the beginning of the 70 weeks prophecy.  The prophecy of Daniel 9:25 was fulfilled in 457 B.C. when Artaxerxes authorized Ezra through a royal decree to go to Jerusalem accompanied by a group of exiles to restore and rebuild the city.  The document below presents historical evidence to support the validity of 457 B.C.  Source: https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/prophecy/70-weeks-and-457-bc  Copyright © Biblical Research Institute General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists®
As I understand it, the principal that one day equals one year in prophetic language is based on the following Scriptures:

According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land, forty days, for each day you shall bear your guilt one year, namely forty years (Numbers 14:34 NKJV).
I have appointed thee each day for a year (Ezekiel 4:6).

On the basis that one day equals one year, then the 70 weeks equate to 490 days or 490 years.  490 years from 457 B.C. brings us to the baptism and ministry of Jesus, the Messiah.

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy (Daniel 9:24).

“Thy people” were God’s chosen people Israel. Seventy weeks resolves into 490 days. Applying the day-year principle, 490 days become 490 years.
There follows another prophetic “week” from the baptism of Jesus, as the Messiah, to his crucifixion, the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost when the Gospel was then taken to the Gentile nations, culminating in 70 A.D. when the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem.  More information here on the Seventh-day Adventist prophetic time chart regarding the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_theology#/media/File:Adventist_1863_chart.jpg
Please note I am NOT a Seventh Day Adventists, but I have done my best to find reliable sources of information in an attempt to answer your question.


What are all the things that can contain the Holy Spirit?

Your question is misleading.

  Did He not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union?

this doesn't say that the marriage is filled with the Spirit, it says that He blessed the marriage by the Holy Spirit, with the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is a thing that takes action, It does things like filling, blessing, anointing, joining  etc.

The Spirit is not in the Marriage, the Spirit is among them in the Marriage.

The point I am trying to make is that really anything can be affected by the Holy Spirit.


Is a testimony from devil about Jesus, good?

Rhoads, Dewey and Michie say, in Mark as Story, page 83 (third ed), the demons in Mark's Gospel seek 'to get power over Jesus by naming him as "the holy one of God" and "son of the most high God." These statement might be true, but we can see from that analysis that the were not intended to be "good".

Rhoads, Dewey and Michie (ibid, page 61) say the composer of Mark uses "considerable storytelling skills".  I see one example of those skills to be his ability to present to his first-century audience the portrayal of Jesus as son of God in such a way that early Christians could not be accused by Jews of blasphemy or by the Romans of mocking the emperor, who was regarded as the son of a god. In Mark's Gospel, only outsiders call Jesus the son of God.

So, when the demons refer to Jesus as "the holy one of God" and "son of the most high God", the Christians could not be faulted, because clearly the demons were opposed to Jesus. Even when Jesus does not allow the demons to speak "because they knew who he was", Mark's audience knew this was further, unspoken evidence that Jesus is truly the Son of God. When the High Priest raises this topic by asking (Mark 14:61), "Art thou the Son of the Blessed?" the Christians remain blameless. The centurion watching the crucifixion says, "Truly this man was the Son of God," a sign of approval from a Roman of some importance.  God himself describes Jesus as his beloved son (Mark 1:11; 9:7), and God is above criticism.

Testimony from demons is powerful, because they knew the truth about Jesus, even if they were the embodiment of first-century evil. Mark's author has made good use of their testimony to ensure that Jesus was properly recognised as the holy one of God, the Son of God.  The later gospels were less constrained, so we begin to see Jesus directly referred to as the Son of God.


How does the Catholic Church visualize Jesus breathing over His disciples post-resurrecion?

St. Thomas Aquinas commentates on that verse, saying:

  Jesus makes them adequate for their task by giving them the Holy Spirit, "God, who has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit" (2 Cor 3:6). In this giving of the Spirit, he first grants them a sign of this gift, which is, that he breathed on them. We see something like this in Genesis (2:7), when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life," of natural life, which the first man corrupted, but Christ repaired this by giving the Holy Spirit. We should not suppose that this breath of Christ was the Holy Spirit; it was a sign of the Spirit. So Augustine says, in The Trinity: "This bodily breath was not the substance of the Holy Spirit, but a fitting sign that the Holy Spirit proceeds not just from the Father but also from the Son." [De Trin., 4, ch. 20]

Thus, it appears that He breated on them in the same manner in which God breathed onto Adam (into his nostrils).


What issues do Catholics representing God in fiction historically face?

Starting off with the Church teaching on images

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

  CCC 2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary
  to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor
  rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates
  an image venerates the person portrayed in it."1 The honor
  paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration
  due to God alone:

  Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered
  as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading
  us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not
  terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it
  is.2

  1. St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto 18,45:PG 32,149C; Council of
  Nicaea II: DS 601; cf. Council of Trent: DS 1821-1825; Vatican Council
  II: SC 126; LG 67.
  2. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,81,3 ad 3.

Therefore making of images which Christians may venerate is not contrary to God's commandments, and is in accordance with Church Tradition and practice from the earliest times3.

3. cf. Veneration of Images | New Advent.

In the New Advent articles, we gather that in the first centuries of Christianity, there are no pictures of the Crucifixion except the mock-crucifix scratched by some pagan soldier in the Palatine barracks.

Therefore a picture of the crucifixion can be made to mock in one case and in another for  veneration. Also the article quotes Catholic teaching that "we do not pray to relics or images, for they can neither see nor hear nor help us."

Therefore answering

What issues have been brought up by other Roman Catholics in the past as integral to the act of representing God and/or the end times in a fictional work?

In conclusion, the representation is to be made in a way that is in obedience to God's commandments [the first and the second], in accordance with Church tradition and practice, and also done tastefully and in a way that does not offend not only Catholic, but also Christian sensibility4 as well.

4. cf. Jesus Christ Superstar - an utter blasphemy!!! | The personal blog of Rev Brian McClung, Minister of Newtownabbey Free Presbyterian Church & Administrator of Newtownabbey Independent Christian School.

The Last Judgement, a mighty composition, painted by Michelangelo between 1536 and 1541, in the Sistine Chapel.


What are the predominant Christian views on whether Jesus had to specifically die by crucifixion? Could he have chosen another kind of death?

I am mostly familiar with the evangelical perspective, which I think is shared with mainstream Protestant denominations, since they all rely on Bible evidence alone (instead of relying on the writings of the Church Fathers or St. Thomas Aquinas).  The Catholic viewpoint may have been answered already (link provided by Peter Turner).

From sermons I heard and books I read about why Jesus had to suffer and die this way, the virtually unanimous reason I keep hearing is to fulfill Old Testament prophecies.  (Surprisingly the above Catholic answer didn't touch on OT prophecies at all.)  Furthermore, it is very obvious that the Gospel writers themselves refer to those prophecies when writing about the Passion of Jesus, as though they try to find as many of those as possible to give additional proof / authentication that Jesus was really the Messiah promised by God because he died & suffer that way, in addition to non-Passion identifying OT prophecies fulfilled by the life, the saying, and the ministry of Jesus.

The main prophecies about his suffering are in Isa 53, Ps 22, etc.:

Isa 53:3 ("like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised")
Isa 53:7 (led like a lamb to slaughter, did not open his mouth)
Ps 41:9 (betrayal by close friend who shared bread)
Zech 11:12 (Judas's 30 pieces of silver)
Ps 22:1-2 ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me...")
Ps 22:7-8 ("All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads: 'He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him...")
Mic 5:1 ("... with a rod they will strike the leader of Israel in the face")
Isa 50:6 ("I give my back to those who beat me .... I do not hide from shame, for they mock me and spit in my face")

In addition, the OT verses closest to crucifixion are:

Ps 22:14-16 (NLT): (pierced hands and feet)

  My life is poured out like water,
      and all my bones are out of joint.
  My heart is like wax,
      melting within me.
  My strength has dried up like sunbaked clay.
      My tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth.
      You have laid me in the dust and left me for dead.
  My enemies surround me like a pack of dogs;
      an evil gang closes in on me.
      They have pierced my hands and feet.

Zec 12:10 (NLT) (pierced)

  “Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the family of David and on the people of Jerusalem. They will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for him as for an only son. They will grieve bitterly for him as for a firstborn son who has died.

Ps 22:17-18 (NLT) (stare and gloat, dice for clothing)

  I can count all my bones.
      My enemies stare at me and gloat.
  They divide my garments among themselves
      and throw dice for my clothing

Isa 53:12 (NLT) (exposed himself to death, counted among the rebels i.e. the thiefs on either side, interceded for rebels see Luke 23:40-43)

  I will give him the honors of a victorious soldier,
      because he exposed himself to death.
  He was counted among the rebels.
      He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels.

Deut 21:22-23 (NLT) (executed and hung from the tree, cursed, must not remain hanging overnight)

  “If someone has committed a crime worthy of death and is executed and hung on a tree,  the body must not remain hanging from the tree overnight. You must bury the body that same day, for anyone who is hung is cursed in the sight of God. In this way, you will prevent the defilement of the land the Lord your God is giving you as your special possession.

Ps 34:20 (NLT) (bones not broken)

  For the Lord protects the bones of the righteous;
      not one of them is broken!

Ex 12:46 (NLT) (Passover lamb's bones should not be broken)

  Each Passover lamb must be eaten in one house. Do not carry any of its meat outside, and do not break any of its bones.

By looking at those verses it is obvious that the manner of death Jesus had to undergo had to be crucifixion, if it had to be done during the Roman period.  If Jesus were to come today, the nation of Israel / Palestine wouldn't execute someone like that anymore.

For an extensive collection of OT verses that cover most of the above as well as other non-suffering related prophecies see a list of matching OT and NT verses here.

This is an even more extensive list covering all possible types of OT references: prophecies, typologies, shadows, allegories, illusions, also from Reformed / evangelical perspective.


Why Christian Translator Translate Rhea as Neighbor?

As is often the case, the Bible interprets itself.  In the parable of the Good Samaritan, someone asks Jesus who exactly his neighbor is?  Jesus replies by telling the story of a Samaritan caring for a complete stranger.

  25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying,
  “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him,
  “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered,
  “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all
  your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your
  neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered
  correctly; do this, and you will live.”

  29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my
  neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to
  Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and
  departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going
  down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32
  So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by
  on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where
  he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and
  bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his
  own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the
  next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper,
  saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay
  you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved
  to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said,
  “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do
  likewise.”  Luke 10:25-37 ESV

The word neighbor is probably used by convention.  Oftentimes, new Bible translations follow conventions from older translations.

However, I know of no one who would say, "this person does not live next to me, so I don't have to love them."  Obviously, in the light of the Luke passage, that is absurd.  The passage is clearly indicating that we should love our fellow man.


Significance of Virgins in the Catholic Church

These virgins need a disambiguation.

Virgin Mary

On the one hand, La Virgen, Is Our Lady, Blessed Mother. She's the only Holy Mother of God the Blessed Virgin Mary. That's her with her place of honor on the side of the altar at most Catholic Churches throughout the world.  If you hear of her under the title of La Guadalupana (Our Lady of Guadalupe), Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of the Snows, Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of La Salette, Our Lady of Kibeho or any of the titles in the Litany of Loreto then that's still her.  It's a worldwide thing, but Latin America is particularly fond of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and with good reason, according to this book her apparition in Mexico is responsible for millions of conversions and the end of human sacrifice!

We don't have her remains since she was assumed into heaven, so the statues are just statues. Every church has an altar with some relic of a saint in it (anything from a bone to something a saint wore or a piece of their casket).  Sometimes relics are transported from place to place in a procession (which is a lot of fun).  It wouldn't be a relic of Our Lady though.  Statues are blessed and are sacramentals, so they do have some significance in the Church, but aren't to be prayed to as idols ever.  There probably is a bit of pride in having a beautiful statue of La Virgen, but that's about it.

The titles that Mary goes by more akin to those given to her Queenship, like all the titles you'd see the King of France go by (and go through).  They're not different virgins, they're titles she is given (by the grace of God, as even the king of France would have said) when she conquers a nation for her Son (in a real an spiritual sense).

Holy Virgins

On the other hand you have the holy virgins.  Unless otherwise noted, those are the female saints who took vows be a spouse of Christ who didn't die a martyrs death.

Male saints who take similar vows are usually referred to as Confessors, not because they heard a lot of confessions, but because they confessed the faith. Male chastity is every bit as reverenced and useful as female in the Church.  Can't give you a legit explanation of why men aren't titled under 'virgin', but keep in mind most church words (Ordinary, Common etc...) have completely different connotative meanings than in ordinary and common usage. (that was a Catholic joke, har har).

Regarding the title 'virgin'

Catholic calendars usually say, St. Agnes Virgin, Martyr to signify which prayers are supposed to be read in the Liturgy of the Hours (unless otherwise noted the section you read for a saint like St. Agnes is called the 'Common of Virgins') it also signifies what colors are supposed to be worn by the priest at Mass. Red for martyrs, white for other saints (including virgins).


There is a reason this guy sounds like he is privy to some other revelation about two creations we all don't know about: what he is saying is nowhere actually taught in the text. Of course any number of theories can be read into Genesis' ambiguous statements all too easily.
Let's look at what he says, highlighting everywhere he assumes what he's trying to prove:

The Timing of the Satanic Rebellion: Finally, it should be mentioned that, in addition to the compelling reasons listed above for placing Satan's rebellion within the time frame of the Genesis Gap (that is, between original creation and the eventual re-creation of the earth – a period of unspecified length), there is, in fact, no other period in which it can reasonably be located. After the angels sing for joy with obvious relief at earth's re-creation (and the sea's restriction: Job 38:4-11), the temptation of Adam and Eve by Satan follows their creation in apparently rapid succession, leaving scant time for Satan's own fall and seduction of a large portion of angelic kind (Genesis 1-3; see Part 1 of this series).
III. Creation and Re-Creation: Before all else, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1
Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of the heavens and the earth.
.....As we have seen, however, the second verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:2, is split grammatically from verse one with an abrupt, adversative construction. Verse two propels us untold eons forward in time [ha!] from the original, awesome act of creation, and moves us to the other side of the Genesis Gap, describing for us the state of the universe as it existed before God re-created the earth:
But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled – darkness lay upon the face of the abyss while God's Spirit brooded over the surface of its waters. Genesis 1:2
Original creation had been marred by Satan's revolt, and cast into darkness by God's judgment upon the rebellious angels. In order to make the universe habitable once more for creatures with physical bodies (the attempted possession of which was a major issue in Satan's pre-fall propaganda, it will be remembered from Part 1 of our study), a re-creation of the earth was essential. Genesis 1:3 - 2:3, the account of the seven days, is a description of this renewal of the heavens and the earth. The objective behind this process of the seven days is also quite clear: the creation of Man. Everything God accomplishes within the period of re-creation is specifically designed to make life supportable for this His second category of creature possessing free will:
The Seven Days of Re-Creation....

(brackets mine)
That's pretty embarrassing. As you can see, he is just coming to Genesis with a doctrine of two creations, and then reading it into the maleable first chapter. There is nothing to refute—if you already accept his doctrine, Genesis has to be read in light of it; if not, you'll not actually find two creations in Genesis anywhere.
A key mark of heretics is peculiar translations of particular verses ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" comes to mind).
Notice how he translates Genesis 1:2 to suit his doctrine: "But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled."
This is laughable. For starters, תהו and בהו don't mean 'ruined and despoiled.' He needs them to mean that for his doctrine of a former world having been destroyed by evil or something. Particularly heinous/laughable is translating one of these words 'despoiled.' Despoiled, according to Merriam-Webster, means:

to strip of belongings, possessions, or value

Needless to say, this well exceeds the basic meaning of the word, and implies some agent which brought such desolation about, but which is nowhere actually indicated in the text.
But more greviously, he claims verse 2 is " split grammatically from verse one with an abrupt, adversative." This is, to put it lightly, complete garbage. For a start, in Hebrew ו wa (and/but) can be either adversative or copulative—and most of the time it is copulative (and; even, in the case of an appositive usage). Whether to translate/understand this as and or but is purely based on context, and how you understand the passage in light of it. So to beg the question and translate this as 'but' because (he has assured us) there is an extreme 'adversative, abrupt' part of the story to be told, is nonsense.
He claims this desolate state was, not before God has formed things in it, but it had 'come to be' this way—something nowhere stated in the text. Here he translates יהתה ([she] was—referring to the feminine noun ארץ meaning earth) as 'she became.' While this word can mean this in other contexts, there is no contextual reason when one reads the text to infer a previously 'un-desolate' earth! It's clear with the 'in the beginning' we are getting the run down of the creation: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." What isn't clear is that between this sentence and the next, this had been ruined by evil and so had 'become' this way. As you read the next few verses it becomes evident that this is just its state before He marked out seas and the land and created trees and animals on it.
I call this 'concordance translating,' where someone picks up a nice little concordance and fancies themselves a translator, and begins to assure us of new meanings of already understood texts—not so coincidentally coinciding with their new theology, which is on offer. If you want this showcased in an entire translation of the Bible, read the NWT. It is the most wooden, stick your foot in the door of every 'well its possible to translate it this way,' theologically driven, non-translations out there.


What does it mean to shed blood in the name of Christ?

In modern language 'shed blood' usually means someone else's, but language has changed a lot in 500 years. (read Shakespeare or the KJV).

The sense of the passage is clearly "no matter what good works you do, if you are outside the Church that counts for nothing". It is clearly building up a list of greater and greater deeds - fasting, alms, works of piety - and so literary sense would be that the last item would be the biggest sacrifice of all, conveying the sense that even if you give absolutely as much as you possibly can, still it avails you nothing.

The biggest sacrifice of all would, of course, be giving of your own life for Christ, and I would understand that this is the sense that "shed blood in the name of Christ" is meant. It means to shed your own blood.


Are there any accidents (philosophical term) in God?

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this directly in the Summa.

Article 6. Whether in God there are any accidents?

  I answer that, From all we have said, it is clear there can be no
  accident in God.

  First, because a subject is compared to its accidents as potentiality
  to actuality; for a subject is in some sense made actual by its
  accidents. But there can be no potentiality in God, as was shown (2,
  3).

  Secondly, because God is His own existence; and as Boethius says
  (Hebdom.), although every essence may have something superadded to it,
  this cannot apply to absolute being: thus a heated substance can have
  something extraneous to heat added to it, as whiteness, nevertheless
  absolute heat can have nothing else than heat.

  Thirdly, because what is essential is prior to what is accidental.
  Whence as God is absolute primal being, there can be in Him nothing
  accidental. Neither can He have any essential accidents (as the
  capability of laughing is an essential accident of man), because such
  accidents are caused by the constituent principles of the subject. Now
  there can be nothing caused in God, since He is the first cause. Hence
  it follows that there is no accident in God.

Briefly, there are no accidents in God.

The entire section on The Simplicity of God may help to clarify this, if there's any confusion. The main contributing points, I think, are that God's essence and existence are one in the same, that God is His own essence and existence, and that God is absolutely simple.


If God could make Mary sinless, why not anybody else?

God being omnipotent, could have created the world differently and made it that we were all "immaculate conceptions", but he chose not too. We must respect his decisions.

First of all there are only two people the Catholic Church recognizes as being preserve from original sin: Jesus and Mary. However there are two other people who were created prior to the fall and were thus at one time in a state of grace (sinless) and in union with God: Adam and Eve.

Your question now begs another. If mankind were to have been preserved from original sin, would that mean that we would have been completely sinless until we died?

Part of Mary's graces in receiving the gift of the Immaculate Conception is that she cooperated with the supernatural graces given her in order to avoid sin also. Mary too, just like us was tempted to sin. Unlike us, she conquered the temptation she experienced in this world and remained sinless.

One can not stress enough the fact that the Virgin Mary like us had to diligently work out her own salvation, even though she received special graces because she was the mother of Jesus, who is called the Christ.

Although preserved from Original Sin, Mary still was a human being like the rest of us. But, she was given preventative redemption, meaning that the grace she was given at her conception was in anticipation of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.

  What is true is that her very personal sinlessness gave her a deep sense of what sin and evil are. It only caused her moments of suffering to be intense to a point we cannot fully grasp.

  If you want to ask what sin is, don’t ask an evil person. The one who knows sin is the one who is in a deep and loving relationship with God, and one who suffers from the evil of others.

  The idea that Mary was never tempted is trumped by the simple fact that Satan tempted Jesus himself. For Satan, Mary would have been a real prize. So understanding Mary’s own humanity, as perfect as it is, consider what would be one of the most painful experiences she or anyone could have? - The Loneliness of Mary of Nazareth.

So in the end, God could have created us all sinless at birth , But would we have all preserved our sinlessness? Who knows what form of temptations Satan would have mustarded up against us then?

But for myself, the Exsultet say it all:

  O certe necessárium Adæ peccátum,
   quod Christi morte delétum est!

  O felix culpa,
   quæ talem ac tantum méruit habére Redemptórem!

  O truly necessary sin of Adam,
   destroyed completely by the Death of Christ!

  O happy fault
   that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer!


How did the cross come to be a symbol for Christianity?

The first chapter of John Stott's The Cross of Christ provides a history of the development of the use of the symbol of the cross in Christianity.  I'll briefly summarize it here.
Pre-cross images
The earliest images used by Christians did not include the cross. Persecution required that they be circumspect, which meant that an image clearly associated with both Christ and execution could not be preferred.  Thus, the earliest images included peacocks, doves, and particularly fish.  The greek word for fish, ichthys, served as an ancronym for Iesus Christos Theos Huios Soter ("Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour"), which drew less attention from the uninitiated.
Second-century images included biblical scenes like Noah's ark, Abraham killing the ram, and the raising of Lazarus.  These had a closer relationship to the redemption of Christ, but were still not obvious enough for the public at large to understand the reference.
Choosing the cross
Christians had a variety of emblems to choose from, such as the manger where Jesus was born, or the boat from which he taught, or the stone that rolled away from his grave.  But, says Stott, Christians wanted to:

commemorate as central to their understanding of Jesus neither his birth nor his youth, neither his teaching nor his service, neither his resurrection nor his reign, nor his gift of the Spirit, but his death, his crucifixion.

The cross image at this time was not a crucifix, that is, a cross with Jesus' body on it; such images apparently arrive in the sixth century. (for more on this, see When did the split in crufix/empty-cross symbolism occur?)
Early use of the cross
Stott argues that the cross was in use by the 2nd century.  He interprets Tertullian's  AD 200 writing, "we trace upon the forehead the sign," as being the sign of the cross (De Corona, chapter 3).  He also presents the writing of Hippolytus (The Apostolic Tradition, AD 215):

He mentions that the sign of the cross was used by the bishop when anointing the candidate's forehead at Confirmation [...] [i]t is also, he adds, a protection against evil.

Hippolytus, says Stott, was a conservative who would not have been describing rites and customs unless they were "already long-established," perhaps a generation or more.
Additional evidence from the early church comes from Cyprian, in the middle of the third century, who also appears to make reference to the symbol of the cross in his work De Lapsis.
Constantine
Constantine famously propelled the use of the cross as a symbol when he reportedly saw a vision at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge.  The vision showed a cross and the words, "Conquer by this sign."  The subsequent victory inspired Constantine's conversion, and he began using the cross on the standards of his army.  The cross thus became widely known across the Roman Empire as the symbol of Christianity.


Why isn’t the soul (ψυχή) considered to be a “person” (ὑπόστασις)?

Humans are living souls. Soul (psyche) means the breathing existence. The body (soma) is the outward appearance and the physique of the human.
It all means the same human being. Soul more in the sense of living and ability to feel. Body more in the sense of physical existence.

The spirit, pneuma, is what moves the person, what his thoughts are and his emotions.

It all is the human as one whole living being.

The difference is regarding what of a person one is looking at. It is about aspects to the human, not about entities or compound parts.

In certain instances the soul is considered the person, but in a more impersonal way to say. (Name, onoma, would be the more personal expression.)

Person (prosopon) is used for the human encounter, the facial and bodily appearance towards one another.


Since Satan was defeated by Jesus on the Cross, why is he still allowed to vex us today?

One of the theological problems that has plagued theologians and Christians generally throughout the church age is theodicy.

At the heart of theodicy is an apparent contradiction.  On the one hand you have an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and holy God, whose purpose concerning humankind is to redeem a people for His glory.  This people, composed of members of every ethnic group in the world, will one day bear the image of God's well beloved Son and our Savior, Jesus Christ, who came to earth to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8).

On the other hand you have a powerful, cunning, hate-filled, unholy spiritual being, originally created sinless by God, but who allowed pride to enter his heart and rebelled against God's authority.  It is Lucifer, a fallen angel, who is responsible not only for introducing sin into the universe but also for much of the misery on planet Earth.  His goal is to usurp God's Lordship in the universe and to dethrone God.  His modus operandi is to kill, steal, and destroy (John 10:10); in short, to do everything within his finite, though awesome, power, and for his own glory and honor, to defeat the works of God.  As Martin Luther said,

  "His craft and power are great, And armed with cruel hate, On earth is not his equal" (A Mighty Fortress Is Our God).

How, then, can we reconcile these two seemingly irreconcilable truths?  Can they in fact be reconciled?  I suggest the greatest existential problem which has confronted humankind from the Garden of Eden to today has in its solution the answer to these difficult and vexing questions.

There are three phrases which together can frame an answer to your question about the seemingly unnecessary protraction of Satan's diabolical activities.  Each phrase begins with the letter C, and they are:

  the C osmic war
  the C ross of Christ
  the C hurch of God

The cosmic war between God and Satan, which rages on planet Earth, the focal point and stage for this epic struggle between good and evil will ultimately be won by God.  As you pointed out in your question, God's Salvation is in one sense a fait accompli, but more on that in the next point.

God has not been silent since Satan first challenged His power in the rebellion he instigated in heaven.  In the counsels of eternity God had a plan, and when God has a plan, no one and nothing can prevent that plan from coming to fruition.  Victory is assured, but on God's terms, not ours.

If we human beings and not God were all-powerful and in charge of the universe, we probably would have thought it wise to destroy Satan and his angels from the get-go, annihilating him and his cohorts by fiat, thus sparing humankind from the ravages of sin and death.  I know that's how I would have done things!

Thank God, however, we are not God!  Our point of view is finite and flawed; God's point of view and plan are infinitely wise in both conception and implementation.  Moreover, not one of His attributes is compromised in any way as He brings His plan for the ages to fruition.

What if God were to have annihilated Satan the very moment pride entered Lucifer's heart?  After all, He is all-powerful, is He not?  Yes, of course.  God is much more than the possessor of awesome power, however, and He most definitely is not a cosmic bully who zaps His enemies the very moment they begin to rebel.  God created sentient beings in the first place (angels first and then humankind) so they could enter into relationship with Him by their own choice.  He gave us all the ability to make decisions.  The prohibition God gave to our first parents would not make sense otherwise.  Why tell someone not to do something if they cannot do otherwise?  That's not freedom; that's something altogether different.

In other words, God is all about relationships.  He did not create angels and human beings because He needed them; He did so in love, so they would have the privilege of glorifying and enjoying Him forever.  God also takes delight in His creatures, especially when they willingly and wholeheartedly love, worship, serve, and adore Him.

Furthermore, God's delight in us extends to every child of His, each one of whom is unique and has something uniquely special to offer God.  That is true not only here on earth, but it will be especially true in heaven, where we will be distracted neither in our worship of God nor in our service for God.

We must not take lightly the radical freedom we have on earth to choose to obey or disobey God. How we exercise that freedom determines our eternal destiny, and God desires that as many people as possible join His forever-family.  Sin, however, prevents this from happening.  Since we all are fallen creatures in need of God's forgiveness and cleansing, God provided a way whereby He could justly and righteously put away the sin that separates us from Him.  He did so by making the greatest sacrifice possible:  by giving us His well beloved Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The cross of Christ, then, was the means whereby holy God could atone for our sins, thus turning aside His righteous anger from us and onto Christ, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

  "For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings" (Hebrews 2:10 NAS).

The cross of Christ, then, was fallen humanity's only hope.  The "perfection" of which the writer to the Hebrews speaks is not sinless perfection but "a fitness for the fulfilling of the office assigned to Him" (see Everett F. Harrison in “The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Bibliotheca Sacra 121:484, October-December 1964:338).   In other words, Jesus was the high priest who offered Himself as a sacrifice for sin, once and for all, and through the unimaginable suffering He endured in being crucified, we have been redeemed--set free--through His shed blood.

At the cross, Jesus wrestled with Satan and won.  Satan indeed had bruised Jesus' heel, but Jesus had dealt Satan a death blow (see Genesis 3:15), which brings us to the final phrase.

The Church of God is a living organism composed of believers in Jesus, each one of whom has placed his or her faith in Him and received Him into their lives as Savior and Lord.  Through the Church of God, the Body of Christ, God demonstrates to the world and to Satan and his minions that God will prevail, but only after the church universal is complete and the last "living stone" is added to the superstructure of which Christ is the chief cornerstone (see 1 Peter 2:4-8).

After the church is gathered up to heaven (1 Thessalonians 4:16,17), the earth will undergo a cataclysm unlike any other it has experienced since the beginning of time.  Through the events of the Great Tribulation and the Battle of Armageddon spoken of in Revelation, the earth as we know it will be destroyed; Satan, the archenemy of God and of His saints, will be cast forever into the lake of fire, along with his minions; and the unbelieving portion of humanity who refused to repent of their sins will along with Satan be cast into the lake of fire.  God will then usher in a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells forever (see Revelation 20:7-21:8).

In the meantime, the church of God has to endure much suffering.  If our God and Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, the pioneer of our salvation had to be perfected through suffering--and he had committed no sin, can we as His redeemed people, whose sins were nailed to His cross, expect any less (see Colossians 2:14)?  Suffering is hard, but for those who endure it there are great rewards:  patience, endurance or perseverance, proven character, God's comfort to us and through us to others, and hope, because as Paul points out,

  "and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us" (Romans 5:3-5).

In conclusion, God allows Satan to remain on the scene today, for a time, because God's timetable, though fixed, cannot be rushed.  Furthermore, God's forbearance and patience are not to be construed as slackness.  As Peter said,

  "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" (2 Peter 3:9 KJV).

While for a time God will allow Satan to do his best to make life difficult for us, we can take comfort in Martin Luther's great hymn:

  And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
   We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
   The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
   His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,
   One little word shall fell him.

  That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;
   The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:
   Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
   The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
   His kingdom is forever.

Another hymn which underscores the importance of endurance in running the race set before us, is Isaac Watt's "Am I a Soldier of the Cross?":

  Am I a soldier of the cross,
   A follower of the Lamb,
   And shall I fear to own His cause,
   Or blush to speak His Name?

  Must I be carried to the skies
   On flowery beds of ease,
   While others fought to win the prize,
   And sailed through bloody seas?

  Are there no foes for me to face?
   Must I not stem the flood?
   Is this vile world a friend to grace,
   To help me on to God?

  Sure I must fight if I would reign;
   Increase my courage, Lord.
   I’ll bear the toil, endure the pain,
   Supported by Thy Word.

  Thy saints in all this glorious war
   Shall conquer, though they die;
   They see the triumph from afar,
   By faith’s discerning eye.

  When that illustrious day shall rise,
   And all Thy armies shine
   In robes of victory through the skies,
   The glory shall be Thine.


From a Roman Catholic point of view, what should a Protestant chaplain do for a dying Catholic?

Some years ago, I befriended an inmate who was scheduled to be executed and was ask to be at his execution, in order to give him any support I possible could. I prayed the act of contrition with him and encouraged him to trust in Jesus' Merciful love for sinners.

In the absence of a priest, which was my case, I prayed for the inmate the best I could.

Many small Catholic Missals have a selection of prayers for the dying, usually just before or after the various prayers for the dead. One is quite free to follow the dictates and promptings of the Holy Spirit in the choice of prayers to use, but a Perfect Act of Contrition is most important, since this prayer directly prepares the soul for its voyage home: heaven. If you, as a Protestant chaplain are comfortable reciting Catholic prayers, in the presence of the dying, then I would recommend saying the following prayers.

If the Catholic knows how to make a perfect act of contrition, this would be the ideal prayer to begin with. If not, one can teach it to him or pray it with him. There are many version of this prayer and here is an example:

  Forgive me my sins, O Lord, forgive me my sins;
   the sins of my youth, the sins of my age, the sins of my soul,
   the sins of my body; my idle sins, my serious voluntary sins;
   the sins I know, the sins I do not know; the sins I have concealed
   for so long, and which are now hidden from my memory.

  I am truly sorry for every sin, mortal and venial,
   for all the sins of my childhood up to the present hour.

  I know my sins have wounded Thy Tender Heart,
   O My Savior, let me be freed from the bonds of evil through
   the most bitter Passion of My Redeemer. Amen.

  O My Jesus, forget and forgive what I have been. Amen.

One should encourage him to focus on Christ and His Passion:

  Ways of Comforting the Dying and Encouraging Him to Focus on Christ and His Passion

  Throughout the dying person's time in his sick bed, it is good to offer to him short acclamations that encourage the focus on Christ and the prayers of the Saints. Below are the ones listed in the 1958 St. Andrew Daily Missal. Periodically whisper these prayers into the dying person's ears:

  Into Thy hands, Lord, I commend my spirit.

  O Lord Jesus Christ, receive my spirit.

  Holy Mary, pray for me.

  Holy Mary, Mother of grace, Mother of mercy, do thou defend me from the enemy, and receive me at the hour of death.

  It is recommended, too, to read the 18th and 19th chapters of the Gospel according to St. John to the dying, helping him to focus on Christ.

If your are still comfortable reciting more Catholic prayers you could say the prayers Commending the Soul to God.

Here is an article for Catholics (Eucharist Ministers) on how they should give the Sacraments for the Dying in the Absence of a Priest (Viaticum). Although only for Catholics, it does point out that one should at least have the dying person pray a Perfect Act of Contrition.

  "Can. 916 Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible." Code of Canon Law, Sanctifying Office of the Church, Participation in the Blessed Eucharist.

  (Being in danger of death should certainly constitute a "grave reason" and the "absence of a priest" would mean no opportunity to confess.)


Why is the matter of women's authority determined by Eve's acts in her life?

  1 Timothy 2:14  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being
  deceived was in the transgression.

Paul is not describing a penalty on women in general because of something the first woman did.

Paul is using Eve as an example of one of the the differences between men and women.

Paul is saying that women are more susceptible to deception than men. This is not very acceptable in an age when so much political effort is spent declaring that there are no differences between men and women.

However, if one sees in women that which is trusting and accepting, one has to consider that such a nature can be both a valuable contribution to a marriage and a vulnerability otherwise.

The idea that it is this character of women that is being described can be further supported by;

  1 Timothy 2:13  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Here it is not just primacy that is indicated, but that Eve was created for Adam and not the reverse. The implication here is there is that in women that make them adept in being supportive and suited to helping. This is stated as also making them susceptible to deception and thus not reliable as teachers.


Do Biblical Unitarians consider worshiping Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit as God to be idolatry?

Biblical Unitarians consider trinitarianISM idolatry (point 8). In reality, all humans are guilty of some form of idolatry - this is covered under Christ's sacrifice, but God holds the teachers of error accountable.
There is only one God (the Father), so He deserves our worship. God also directs worship to as His exalted son, the Lamb, who co-rules with Him, sharing the throne of God. Rev. is explicitly clear - the Lamb is not God.
So nothing has changed - there is still one God, He now has a son who has exceedingly fulfilled all expectations and is now honoured and given a place at the highest - but he is a man and still not God. To modify the clear biblical teaching on this is to create our own god which is idolatry. To make Jesus equal with God is to diminish His GODliness - also idolatry. No scripture places Jesus equal with God - that is man's doing.
That millions of Christians have died believing some kind of error - even about God Himself, is irrelevant to God's salvation plan.
That error largely took over the church within a few centuries is irrelevant to God's salvation plan.
Believing that Jesus is God might be 'common' sense, but this is not what the bible teaches.
The Holy Spirit is simply God - His presence, His power and His wisdom and love. The apostles understood this. The link explains extensively the riches of correctly understanding what God's Spirit is and does.

for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say." Luke 12:12
for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Matthew 10:20.

Speaking or praying to the Spirit is really addressing God (the Father) There is no 'person' Holy Spirit and in no text of Scripture is the Holy Spirit worshipped or prayed to, send greetings or other basic relationship essentials. The New Testament nowhere represents the Spirit, any more than the 'wisdom' of God, as having independent personality.
The other questions about 'sinning and 'going to hell' are of no value - should we judge one another in matters that concern God's judgement through His son? All are covered under the one sacrifice and will be called to account of the lives we have lived - none can stand alone, but depend wholly on Jesus.
God has provided His word for all men to read and enquire of the one true God mentioned since the beginning. If we choose to believe other messages about who God is, that is for each to decide. Deception is a beast that no one can defeat unless God grants the victory and resultant clarity of truth and wisdom.
Either we are so blessed or we may ask. Or we must wait until the truth is revealed to all.


Is a prenuptial agreement permitted for a Catholic marriage?

No.
From the perspective of God and the Church, a validly contracted marriage is indissoluble, "till death do us part."
There can be conditions attached to the marriage contract (conditional marriages); however,

Can.  1102 §1. A marriage subject to a condition about the future cannot be contracted validly.
§2. A marriage entered into subject to a condition about the past or the present is valid or not insofar as that which is subject to the condition exists or not.
§3. The condition mentioned in §2, however, cannot be placed licitly without the written permission of the local ordinary.

§1 thus forbids contracts like: "I marry you provided we cease having children 1 decade from now." etc.
The 1917 Code can. 1092, which permitted future conditions, explicitly specified that a contract "against the substance of marriage" (such as divorce) "renders [marriage] invalid."
cf.• commentary on 1983 can. 1102 / Dom Augustine's commentary on 1917 can. 1092• Chapter 9 on pre-marital agreements of Ford, S.J.'s Validity of Virginal Marriage


Why did the slave girl at the gate stop Peter but not John?

Bible tells that as soon as Jesus was arrested, all His disciples fled and went into hiding. So there was this possibility that whoever known to be close to Jesus would be arrested or tried like Jesus.

Matt. 26:56 But this has happened so that the scriptures of the prophets would be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.

So there could be two possibilities. First: Peter was reluctant to enter inside lest he might be recognised by the people to be disciple of Jesus and land in trouble just like Jesus. Second: Peter was stopped because he was an unknown person trying to enter into a sensitive area.
In case of the “other disciple”: Like the Beloved Disciple, this other disciple is unnamed, closely associated with Peter and characterized as having special knowledge, wanted Peter to come inside to witness the trial of Jesus. Note that John says that this other disciple “knew the high priest and went into the courtyard with Jesus” indicating that in the courtyard this other disciple was not known to be a close disciple of Jesus or else he would have been in the same danger as other disciples.
Gill's commentary says:

If this Apostle is thought to be  John, because he frequently speaks of himself in Gospel of John, then he is supposed to be known to the high priest, by carrying fish to his house, and selling it to him; so Nonnus says, he was known from his fishing trade and it is not probable that he was known, or could be known by the high priest, so as to have any intimacy with him; nor is it likely that he, being a Galilaean, would venture in; he was discoverable by his speech, and would have been in equal danger with Peter.
Or possibility is that this desciple was some other disciples of Christ, who had not openly professed him; one of the chief rulers that believed in him, but, for fear of the Pharisees, had not confessed him; or it may be Nicodemus, or Joseph of Arimathea, or the man at whose house Christ had eaten the passover. In the Syriac version he is called one of the other disciples; not of the twelve, but others.

Adam Clarke in his commentary on the bible states that:

For this “another disciple”, there are many conjectures who this disciple was: Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Nonnus, Lyra, Erasmus, Piscator, and others, say it was John.

Clarke however further says that:

“It is true John frequently mentions himself in the third person; but then he has always, whom Jesus loved, as in Joh 13:23; Joh 19:26; Joh 21:7, Joh 21:20, except in John 19:35, where he has plainly pointed out himself as writer of this Gospel. So in this instance verse, he has mentioned no circumstance by which that disciple may be known to be John.

Conclusion: So Peter was stopped either because he was an unknown person entering the sensitive area or Peter was reluctant to go inside courtyard out of fear that he might be recognised, yet his love for his master brought him till the gate.
Whereas the other disciple, if he is John the apostle, was either not known in the courtyard to be close disciple of Jesus as Gill,s commentary suggest or he was brave enough to face any danger unlike Peter or this other disciple was not from the twelve apostles.


Were there any female priests in the temple?

The answer is a definite "no."

According to the Torah, only males descended from Aharon (i.e., בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן) were permitted to be priests (כֹּהֲנִים).

In Exo. 40:13-15, it is written,

  13 And you shall clothe Aharon with the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him, so that he may be a priest for Me. 14 And you shall bring his sons and clothe them with coats. 15 And you shall anoint them, just as you anointed their father, so that they may be a priest for Me, and their anointing shall certainly be for an everlasting priesthood in their generations.

  יג וְהִלְבַּשְׁתָּ֙ אֶֽת־אַהֲרֹ֔ן אֵ֖ת בִּגְדֵ֣י הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ וּמָשַׁחְתָּ֥ אֹתֹ֛ו וְקִדַּשְׁתָּ֥ אֹתֹ֖ו וְכִהֵ֥ן לִֽי׃
  יד וְאֶת־בָּנָ֖יו תַּקְרִ֑יב וְהִלְבַּשְׁתָּ֥ אֹתָ֖ם כֻּתֳּנֹֽת׃ טו וּמָשַׁחְתָּ֣ אֹתָ֗ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֤ר מָשַׁ֨חְתָּ֙ אֶת־אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וְכִהֲנ֖וּ לִ֑י וְ֠הָיְתָה לִהְיֹ֨ת לָהֶ֧ם מָשְׁחָתָ֛ם לִכְהֻנַּ֥ת עֹולָ֖ם לְדֹרֹתָֽם׃ WLC


What would the Jews of Jesus' time have known about heaven?

I believe the best way to approach this question is to start with the following verse Acts 23:8 (RSVCE)

  8For the Sad′ducees say that there is no resurrection, nor
  angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.

Thus some Jews in Jesus' time believed in spirits. When one died, their soul went down to Sheol.

All however, did not suffer the same fate, the wicked one, cut off from his people, was tormented in Hades while the righteous one was gathered to his people, into the bosom of Abraham. [cf. Luke 16:23]

Heaven for them was the dwelling-place of God and where his throne was, the angels also resided there, and it was also the firmament, the region in which sun, moon, and stars are placed, and from where rain, the hail, and the lightning came. [cf. HEAVEN | Jewish Encyclopedia]

It should be noted that the Torah focuses on "Olam Ha Ze," which means "this world." That was the main focus for the Jews.

As for the kingdom of heaven? With reference to the Messianic age, it applies to the time when God will be the sole King on earth, in opposition to the kings of worldly powers. [cf. HEAVEN | Jewish Encyclopedia]

Further reading

Olam Ha-Ba: The Afterlife | Judaism 101
The Afterlife in Judaism, by Ariela Pelaia | About.com

cf. Ancient Hebrew Cosmology | Michæl Paukner.


How do non-trinitarians reconcile Rev. 22 verses 6 and 16?

Both God and Jesus can be understood to send the angel, because Jesus is at God's right-hand (Matthew 26:64) and is God's representative - God does things through Jesus.
The NT generally, and Revelation in this case, repeatedly and clearly distinguishes between Jesus and God. Jesus is the 'Son of God', Jesus says 'My God, my God'. Jesus says 'Your God and my God'. In Revelation, Jesus (= the Lamb) is repeatedly distinguished from God, such as Revelation 1:1 "the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him", Revelation 1:6 "who has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His [i.e., Jesus'] God and Father", and Revelation 3:12 which contains this distinction 4 times in one sentence. One of the verses you quote, 22:1, is another example of this ("the throne of God and of the Lamb" - two different things).
Therefore, when you have a pattern of clear statements distinguishing between the two, it is poor exegetical practice to take one, unclear instance and try to draw overarching consequences from it. Instead, the author of Revelation is repeatedly drawing a distinction between God and Jesus while simultaneously drawing a close relationship between them.
So, if we take Jesus to be saying "I am the Alpha and the Omega" and so on, then a non-trinitarian has two obvious options. First, to say that Jesus is speaking in the place of God (as his representative, much as the angel is speaking in the place of Jesus). Second, to say that all those descriptors can apply to either Jesus or God, depending on what is meant. They are all vague titles.
So whatever exactly is occurring in this passage and whatever exactly the descriptors mean and to whom they are supposed to be applied, what is clear from Revelation overall is that Jesus (= the Lamb) and God are two distinct things.


What do the woman and the man child from Rev.12 symbolize, for diferent traditions?

In orthodox traditions the Revelation is seen as a warning to be spiritually and morally ready for the end times, whenever they may come ("as a thief in the night"), but they will come at the time of God's choosing, not something that can be precipitated nor trivially deduced by mortals. This view is also held by many Catholics, although there is a diversity of opinion about the nature of the Apocalypse within Catholicism. Most denominations don't have an official interpretation of Revelation. Exceptions might be the Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons and Jehovah's Wittnesses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

Popular interpretations focus on the identity of the Woman of the Apocalypse. She may be understood as:

The Virgin Mary

The Church

The Nation of Israel

Dispensational Premillennialists, and Amillennialists who believe in multiple valid interpretations will often identify the woman as the nation of Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_of_the_Apocalypse

The earliest Church Fathers understood the woman as the church.

Hippolytus (170-235)

  “And there was seen a great sign in heaven. A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried out travailing, and bearing torments that she might bring forth.”] The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient Church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people. Moreover, being clothed with the sun intimates the hope of resurrection and the glory of the promise. And the moon intimates the fall of the bodies of the saints under the obligation of death, which never can fail. For even as life is diminished, so also it is increased. Nor is the hope of those that sleep extinguished absolutely, as some think, but they have in their darkness a light such as the moon. And the crown of twelve stars signifies the choir of fathers, according to the fleshly birth, of whom Christ was to take flesh.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.vi.ii.xii.html

Victorinus (died 303 or 304)

  By the woman then clothed with the sun,” he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father’s word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the “moon under her feet” he referred to her being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, “upon her head a crown of twelve stars,” refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded. And those, “she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered,” mean that the Church will not cease to bear from her heart the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world. “And she brought forth,” he says, “a man-child, who is to rule all the nations;” by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, “her child was caught up unto God and to His throne,” signify that he who is always born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even as David also declared of old when he said, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” (Ps. cx. 1.)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.ii.i.html?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=12&scrV=1#iii.iv.ii.i-p204.1

Methodius (died 311) devoted several chapters to an extensive interpretation of Revelation 12.

Six brief points summarize his contribution concerning Revelation:

Woman of Revelation 12 is the Church; the Child Represents the Saints.
1260 Days Precede New Dispensation.
New Earth Follows Present Earth.
Contends Against Origen on the Resurrection.
Change of World to More Glorious Condition After the Conflagration.
Bodies Received in the Resurrection Never Die.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.xi.iii.ix.iv.html


Christian denominations that view Jesus as a human moral teacher?

Unitarian Universalists maintain the Jesus was only a man, but with a unique relationship to God. Unitarians makeup the majority of a sect of Christianity known as nontrinitarianism. Nontrinitarians reject many parts of christian doctrine that other sects find essential. The most notably difference is their rejection of the concept of the Holy Trinity, the idea that God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ are all equal parts to a whole. This rejection of the trinity leads to the belief that Jesus was not supernatural but only a great prophet. Other belief systems that maintain this are:  Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, and the United Church of God. Islam and the sects of several sects of Judaism maintain the Jesus was only a great prophet as well.


Can one take up the cross of someone who is suffering from illnesses and carry them like Simon of Cyrene and pray that to God?

Romans 15:1:

  Now, we that are stronger ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not to please ourselves.

Galatians 6:2:

  Bear ye one another's burdens: and so you shall fulfil the law of Christ.

Fr. Andrew Pradel, O.P., St. Vincent Ferrer: Angel of the Judgment ch. 11 ¶15:

  [Saints] are not content with sharing the sufferings of their brethren, but joyfully take the whole on themselves. Thus the Seraphic Virgin of Siena [St. Catherine of Siena] took entirely on herself the pains of Purgatory which her father ought to have suffered; thus also did St. Michael-des-Saints of the Order of the Trinity, with God’s permission, undertake a malignant fever from which a friend of his was suffering. The Great Model of Saints gave the first example of this. “Surely He hath borne our infirmities,” says the prophet, “and carried our sorrows.” (Isaias 53:4).

Also, suffrages are when we offer our Masses, prayers, sacrifices, or acts of piety for the deliverance of the souls in purgatory.


What is the distinction between Justification and Salvation? (Reformed point of view)

Put simply, in Reformed theology, salvation is the application or administration of Christ's redemptive work to the elect, while justification is the part of that application in which the sinner is declared righteous.

Salvation

The Reformation Study Bible does a nice job of showing how broad salvation is:

  Salvation delivers the believer from the wrath of God, the dominion of sin, and the power of death.  God liberates sinners from the natural condition of being mastered by the world, the flesh, and the devil.  He frees believers from the fears that a sinful life generates, and from the vicious habits that enslaved them.  Salvation brings not only the promise of spiritual wholeness and peace, but also of physical healing.  Although Christians have already received salvation, they will experience the benefits of salvation in their fullness only when Christ returns at the end of the age.

There's a lot here to unpack, and one of the distinctives of Reformed theology is the ordo salutis, or the "order of salvation," which Berkhof defines:

  The ordo salutis describes the process by which the work of salvation, wrought in Christ, is subjectively realized in the hearts and lives of sinners.  It aims at describing in their logical order, and also in their interrelations, the various movements of the Holy Spirit in the application of the work of redemption.

There is some disagreement among Reformed theologians as to the exact elements and ordering of the ordo salutis, but a common layout is:

Election
The gospel call (or effectual call)
Regeneration
Conversion
Justification
Adoption
Sanctification
Perseverance
Death
Glorification

As you see, justification is one of the aspects within the bigger picture of salvation.

Justification

So what, then, is justification? Broadly speaking, it means "to be declared just or righteous."  Sometimes, such as in James 2:21, it considers the actual righteous condition of someone ("the just is declared just").  More frequently in the NT, it refers to the imputation of one person's righteousness to another.

Thus Berkhof defines it:

  Justification is a judicial act of God, in which He declares, on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, that all the claims of the law are satisfied with respect to the sinner.

It's important to note that it is a judicial act:

  It is unique in the application of the work of redemption in that it is a judicial act of God, a declaration respecting the sinner, and not an act or process of renewal, such as regeneration, conversion, and sanctification. While it has respect to the sinner, it does not change his inner life. It does not affect his condition, but his state, and in that respect differs from all the other principal parts of the order of salvation. It involves the forgiveness of sins, and restoration to divine favor.

As a judicial act, justification simply removes the guilt of sin, and does not change the inner life of the justified.  It is a single act (not a process) that occurs only once, so a person cannot be "partially justified."

Interactions with other elements of the ordo salutis

Though justification is viewed narrowly by Reformed theologians as compared to some, it is tightly connected with other elements in the ordo salutis.  For example, justification and adoption are inseparable – the removal of guilt in justification corresponds closely with the restoration of a sinner to a right relationship with God.

Similarly, the process or work of sanctification closely follows the act of justification.  Defined in the Westminster Shorter Catechism:

  Sanctification is the work of God's free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.

In other words, though justification does not in itself involve a change of heart or behavior, its immediate successor, sanctification, is a process – not an "act" like justification – through which a sinner is freed from sin, renewed in his nature, and enabled to perform good works.

Summary

Within the ordo salutis, as viewed by the Reformed, the act of justification takes a central role – without it, salvation would not be possible.  God imputes Christ's righteousness to the believer's account and declares him guiltless with respect to the demands of the law.

This declaration of righteousness necessarily follows election and regeneration, two other steps in the ordo salutis, and it is necessarily followed by adoption and sanctification, through which the believer comes into a right relationship with God and grows in his Christian walk.

References

Berkhof, Systematic Theology

4.1, Ordo Salutis
4.9, Justification
4.10, Sanctification

Grudem, Systematic Theology, Chapter 32, 670.  The order of salvation included here comes from Grudem.
Reformation Study Bible, 1680
Westminster Shorter Catechism, Answer 35


When was infant baptism rejected in the development of Pentecostalism?

Regarding the history of Pentecostalism, isolated Christian groups who were experiencing charismatic phenomena such as divine healing and speaking in tongues, eventually came together. The holiness movement provided a theological explanation for what was happening to these Christians, and they adapted Wesleyan soteriology to accommodate their new understanding.  It was not until the early 20th century that the denomination was established under the banner of Pentecostalism.

Pentecostalism or Classical Pentecostalism is a renewal movement within Protestant Christianity that places special emphasis on a direct personal experience of God through the baptism with the Holy Spirit.  It is distinguished by belief in the baptism in the Holy Spirit that enables a Christian to live a Spirit-filled and empowered life. This empowerment includes the use of spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues and divine healing—two other defining characteristics of Pentecostalism.  Pentecostalism emerged in the early 20th century...  In 1900, Charles Parham, an American evangelist and faith healer, began teaching that speaking in tongues was the Bible evidence of Spirit baptism and along with William J. Seymour, a Wesleyan-Holiness preacher, he taught that this was the third work of grace.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism

Although many of the Christians came out of churches that adopted infant as well as adult baptism by water (Anglicans and Methodists, for example) not all of them did (Baptists).

Believer's baptism (occasionally called credobaptism, from the Latin word credo meaning "I believe") is the Christian practice of baptism as this is understood by many evangelical denominations, particularly those that descend from the Anabaptist and English Baptist tradition. According to their understanding, a person is baptized on the basis of his or her profession of faith in Jesus Christ and as admission into a local community of faith.
The contrasting belief, held in nearly every other Christian tradition, is infant baptism (pedobaptism or paedobaptism, from the Greek paido meaning "child"), in which infants or young children are baptized if one or both parents are already members of the denomination. Such is the practice in the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches, Coptic and Oriental Orthodox Churches, Lutheran Churches, Anglican and Episcopal Churches, and others.
Baptisms are performed in various ways: believer's baptism is typically only by immersion or pouring (also called affusion) and infant baptism by either immersion, affusion, and aspersion (sprinkling). Believer's baptism is often referred to as adult baptism due to the denial that faith can exist prior to the age of accountability. Believer's baptism is also often extended to children so long as they are old enough to earnestly profess their faith.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believer%27s_baptism
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism

However, in order to establish WHEN infant baptism may have been rejected by the Pentecostal movement, it would be necessary to first find documented evidence that showed they ever embraced or practiced infant baptism in the first instance.  I have searched in vain for any reliable source that proves there was a moment in time when either the founders of the Pentecostal movement or the leaders of the various denominations within Pentecostalism denounced infant baptism and said they would no longer perform it.  That does not mean to say such evidence does not exist – only that it is impossible to identify at which stage in the development of Pentecostalism infant baptism was rejected if it was never embraced to begin with.  Pentecostals identify three distinct uses of the word "baptism" in the New Testament:

Baptism into the body of Christ: This refers to salvation. Every believer in Christ is made a part of his body, the Church, through baptism. The Holy Spirit is the agent, and the body of Christ is the medium.
Water baptism: Symbolic of dying to the world and living in Christ, water baptism is an outward symbol of that which has already been accomplished by the Holy Spirit, namely baptism into the body of Christ.
Baptism with the Holy Spirit: This is an experience distinct from baptism into the body of Christ. In this baptism, Christ is the agent and the Holy Spirit is the medium.
Pentecostals believe that the biblical pattern is "repentance, regeneration, water baptism, and then the baptism with the Holy Ghost".  The ordinance of water baptism is an outward symbol of an inner conversion that has already taken place. Therefore, most Pentecostal groups practice believer's baptism by immersion.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism#Baptism_with_the_Holy_Spirit

After searching various official Pentecostal web sites, I found this article of faith on baptism:

WATER BAPTISM: The scriptural mode of baptism is immersion, and is only for those who have fully repented, having turned from their sins and a love of the world. It should be administered by a duly authorized minister of the Gospel, in obedience to the Word of God, and in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Acts of the Apostles 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5; thus obeying and fulfilling Matthew 28:19.
The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
Source: http://www.preachingpoints.com/2009/06/articles-of-faith-of-the-united-pentecostal-church-international/

Given the emphasis placed by Pentecostals on baptism by the Spirit, the resulting speaking in tongues and other gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the official view of adult, or believers’ baptism, it seems doubtful that infants would have been sprinkled with water in some form of infant baptism.


What is the theory that there is more than one "Satan" called, and what is its basis?

The Hebrew word satan means "accuser" or "adversary". It can be used in a general sense rather than as a proper noun. This does not mean that all occurrences of the word refer to a generic accuser. For example, Luke 10:18,

  I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven,

is clearly referring to a specific individual. But in 1 Kings 11:14,

  Then the Lord raised up against Solomon an adversary, Hadad the Edomite, from the royal line of Edom,

the English "adversary" is translating Hebrew "satan". Clearly Hadad is not the actual devil.

In the book of Job, "Satan" appears in heaven and is instructed by God to torment Job. This matches the idea that "satan" can be a job title of an angel, who works for God but whose task is to tempt people and cause suffering. In particular, such a "satan" is not opposed to God. In the Hebrew, it is actually "ha-Satan", "the satan" or "the accuser" (eg in Job 1:6).

Historically, Jewish ideas about Satan changed significantly during and after the Exile, perhaps due to their exposure to Babylonian mythology. The idea that Satan is in active rebellion against God is certainly much more prevalent after this time, whatever the cause. Previously, the dominant view was against an independent adversary, and in favour of God controlling everything, good or bad.


Were Prophets Moses and Aaron magicians?

Scott B. Noegel's article Moses and Magic: Notes on the Book of Exodus, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society argues in great detail that Moses and Aaron's miracles are distinct from magic used by Pharaoh's magicians, and the nature of the miracles were challenges to the Egyptian understanding of magic.

In his conclusion, he writes:

  While Moses and Aaron do not employ magic of any kind, the miracles they perform do have Egyptian analogs, suggesting that the Exodus writer made a deliberate effort to allude to Egyptian magical praxis in order to polemicize against it. Such allusiveness bespeaks the literary and polemical sophistication of the ancient author.

Noegel has made the full article available online, which is worth reading for anyone who is interested in understanding how Moses' miracles would have been perceived by contemporary Egyptians.


How does the Catholic Church explain their belief that Jesus chose Peter to build upon?

Jesus was God and knew well the character and faults of Peter his disciple. The gospels give us a look at his impetuosity-asking Jesus 'if it is you, tell me to walk on the water', arrogance - wanting to call fire down from heaven, cowardice- denying the Lord, etc.

None of the twelve apostles were perfect. One doubted, one betrayed, one denied and all of them deserted him in the time when he most needed them. These men are far from perfect. Yet, in spite of themselves, God used them powerfully to change the known world in a single generation.

Since there are alternate explanations and meanings for Mathew 16:18

I don't know what alternative point of view you are talking about. But As far as I know, Jesus changed his name to Cephas (Yes, Cephas - as in Galatians 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, I Cor. 3:21, I Cor. 9:5 and I Cor. 15:5 meaning Rock not a pebble) has no other reasonable explanation. (Unlike James and John - the sons of thunder - , Cephas is not a name that denotes Peter's Character).

Peter seems unlikely as a foundation for the whole church .... Peter is not only unlikely from his character flaws that we see revealed in the gospels.

But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7)

But there could be many reasons why Jesus Chose Peter.

Peter had a natural leadership skills (John 21:3)
He was the first to act (John 20:6, John 21:7)
He loved the Lord so much. (John 21:17)

...but any human person seems unlikely as a suitable foundation for the whole church of Jesus on the earth... why does the Catholic Church adhere to this point of view? What is the reason that the CC adheres to this idea that Peter could be the foundation for the whole church of Jesus?

Probably because Jesus himself said that he will built his Church on him and even went on to change his name as a proof of it. In the Bible, name of a person is changed by God when they are called to lead a significant role. (Like Abram-Abraham/Jacob-Israel) If Peter was just one of the twelve, this event is an anomaly.

Also all thru the New Testament, Peter's Primacy is shown in hidden symbols. Like for example,

In Gospels

Peter's name appears first in every list of the twelve. Mathew even says he was the first (Mat 10:2)
When evangelists mention the apostles, Peter is unusually singled out (Mark 1:36, Mark 16:7, Luke 9:32)
Peter is approached by the temple authorities as a representative of the Group. (Mt 17:24-27 - Note this is the only place in the NT where Jesus refers himself in equal level with another human being. Jesus says '(Pay the tax for) me and for yourself')
Peter often spoke to Jesus on behalf of the twelve. (Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:66-69)
At the Last supper, Even though Satan has asked to sift all of them, Jesus says he prayed for Peter specifically and asks him to strengthen others after regaining his own faith (Lk 22:31-32)
John waited for peter to enter into the tomb. (John 20:6)
Among the Apostles the resurrected Lord appeared first to Peter. (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5)
Jesus made promises to Peter that he had not made to other Apostles. (Mt 16: 18-19; Rock/Keeper of Keys of Kingdom)
Peter alone was given in charge to be the head shepherd (Jn 21:15-17)

In Acts

Peter initiated and oversaw the replacement of Judas (Acts 1:15-26; Note that this happened before the decent of the Holy Spirit, i.e., he is acting on his own authority, given to him by Jesus)
Peter delivered the inaugural sermon of Church History (Acts 2:14-36; First to preached and administered Baptism to the chosen people after resurrection)
Peter was the first to preach and administered Baptism to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48)
Peter performed the first healing after the resurrection. (Acts 3:1-10)
Peter was the first to discipline (Acts 5: 1-11)
Peter was the final authority in the first council of Jerusalem (Acts 15: 6-11)

In New testament

Of all the twelve apostles Peter is mentioned more times than all other apostles put together. (Peter - 195 times; Other Apostles 130 times)

No other apostles has this unique mission of leading the Apostles/early Church as evident in the Bible.

[P.S: Also in your previous version of your question, you seem to confuse cornerstone with foundation rock. Corner stone is placed on Foundation rock to built upon. Both are different.]


What did Paul mean by 'work out your salvation'?

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose. (Philippians 2:12-13, NIV)

The idea of working out our salvation means that it is something we already own but must cooperate with the Holy Spirit if we are to enjoy its full benefits. If we did not already 'have' salvation residing in us, then we would not be able to work it outwards from that place.  The fact is when one enters the 'kingdom of God' it is heaven entering into them. This new life, generated by the Spirit, is called the inner man and the old sinful life inherited from Adam is called the outer.   Now having entered into heaven and heaven into us, we are already considered to be in heaven. To work to enter into heaven is silly because a believer is already in heaven and a full citizen of it:

  And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Ephesians 2:6-10, NIV)

As God is in us, and His presence is heaven, we must be fearful as we approach Him in ourselves.  Not only because he is so great and powerful do we revere him, but because his grace and love has overshadowed us in our sin that we must respect how awesome this salvation is.  The carnal believer will see the word 'work' and quickly loose sight of grace because they have little fear of God's salvation.  Paul counteracts this natural wicked inclination by reminding us that both our holy desire and the strength to carry is out into obedience is properly Gd's work in us and not our own.

We must be willing cooperators under the influence of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Spirit will not possess us against our wills like a demon, but will fill us with power and desire like wind on a sail. We must just gently swing the sail of our souls into His wind and be blown about, striving under his might with great respect to the magnificence of his gracious power. This will require on our part great sweat and toil for the flesh, Devil and entire world will oppose all of God's works. Any other attitude would be ungrateful, irreverent and lacking in faith.


How verses from OT are selected for Jesus

Admittedly if the New Testament did not quote this passage as applied to Christ, I would be leery about understanding it as Messianic. I have not studied this Psalm carefully but it basically seems to be describing how God rescued David in a situation where some suffering was required. Yet his care, in David's suffering, is still evident in that not 'one bone was broken'. In other words as applied to the godly in their trials, it may seem that the world, or the Devil can harm us but yet even in our dire straights nothing can harm us, unless God allow it.  In our trouble we are yet divinely assisted, preserved and swallowed up in his ultimate plan of salvation, whereas the wicked are simply destroyed in the final end.  However, let us remember David was a prophet that foresaw the Christ and interwoven in his reflections on his own life he often predicted details of what was to come during the time of Messiah.

Given all this context of David and his predictions of Messiah, this instance should show us that we should not automatically discount things of similarity between his life as recorded in the scripture and the Messiah's predicted life. The fact that Christ was slaughtered like an animal, his blood shed for our sin, under the hands of his enemies...and yet not one bone broken! does unveil as it were a possible Messianic connection between the word's of David in the Psalm and the life of Messiah. Is it not the ultimate illustration in Christ's death that although the godly must suffer our suffering is under the protection of God and according to his design of salvation? Do we still not suffer in Christ, under his watchful care, as the world pours out its mad venom on every Biblical truth as taught by mocked-at preachers and teachers who have relied on his death for their  own salvation though simple bare faith? In conclusion, Christ is 'everywhere' preached in the law and the prophets but it is often very difficult to see him without careful review and consideration.

The intentional obscurity of these shadowy predictions can cause us to doubt their validity on occasions but when combined as a whole and compared to the only person in history that can even remotely be argued as matching them, the evidence is astounding. Jesus was predicted by scriptures. It is a literary miracle that no other book in history has been able to achieve. There are simply too many things, obscurely prefigured, that when compared to the life of Christ became a brilliant light of certainty.  The only reason why many Jews were not able to perceive these predictions properly was due to a veil that kept them blind. In contrast the prophets diligently looked into these things and I am sure many other holy men unknown to us, also genuinely looked forward to Christ with the same nature of faith which we have through these weak shadows.

It is also helpful to understand that before Christ died even the Apostles were not capable of connecting all the dots.

  He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. (NIV Luke 24:44-45 )


Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthias or Paul?

There is one problem with the argument - "Matthias was never sent by Christ to do anything, therefore he cannot be an apostle". The problem is that Barnabus (of whom we have no evidence that he was sent by Christ) is also called an "apostle" in Acts 14:14.

We know that Judas was an apostle and his "office" (Acts 1:20) was taken over by Matthias. And it is not as though this was done through some rash thinking on the part of the Peter, for he, along with the other apostles had in fact already received the Holy Spirit before Pentecost (John 20:22).

Moreover, with the inclusion of Matthias, the phrase "Peter and the eleven" is used in Acts 2:14, which strongly suggests that Matthias was indeed the 12th apostle.


The NASB is very much in the minority when it renders the word here as 'leaders'. Most translations have either 'masters' or 'instructors'. Even the NASB admits that 'teachers' is a possible meaning. So it is really far from clear that there is a prohibition on being called a leader.

Elsewhere in the New Testament it is clear that there were 'leaders' among the church. Hebrews 13 instructs Christians to be obedient to the leaders in the church, and in Luke 22 Jesus gives instructions for what Christian leaders are to be like (and uses the same word). So it seems pretty clear that Jesus isn't forbidding the existence of leaders (or leadership) in the church, or indeed the calling of those people 'leader'.


Does being a "state church" give the Church of Scotland any doctrinal distinctive?

Regarding belief, the Church of Scotland is entirely independent of the state in matters spiritual (and is a "national church" not a state church). Regarding practices, the call to be a "national church" means a self-understanding not to neglect areas of the country which are less prosperous or populous. The Church of Scotland is struggling to maintain a system of parishes, with ministers serving every parish (including very rural parts of the Scottish Highlands and Islands).

The Church of Scotland has, at times, criticised the policies of the British or Scottish Governments. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland has, for example, regularly approved "deliverances" calling for nuclear disarmament - contrary to British Government policy.


Is there such a thing as a Catholic commentary on the Bible?

Here is an incomplete list of some Catholic commentaries:

•  St Thomas Aquinas, “Catena Aurea” (Golden Chain) (English
   translation by J H Newman), Baronius Press (online: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)

•    Father George Haydock , “Haydock’s Commentary”, 1859

•    “Navarre Bible”, under development in Spain

•    Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, “Ignatius Catholic Study Bible” (Based
   on RSV-2nd CE)

•    Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy,
   Ed.,“Jerome Biblical Commentary”, 1968

•    Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy, “Jerome
   Biblical Commentary”, Ed., “The New Jerome Biblical Commentary”, 1990

•    “The Catholic Bible Personal Study Edition (NAB)” published by the
   Oxford Press.

•    Dom Bernard Orchard, “A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture”,
   1953, Nelson Publishers

•    “Christian Community Bible”

•    Fr. Cornelius à Lapide, SJ's commentary on the Gospels

I understand that the Christian Community Bible originally produced in the Philippines is an amended English translation of the Biblia Latinoamericana. A French translation was also produced (along with translations into several other languages) but it seems that this was subsequently banned in France because some complained that some comments were excessively anti-Semitic. I haven't read the Christian Community Bible myself, but I understand that the commentary is also perceived as having a Liberation Theology ideological bias. I would be most surprised if it is the official Catholic Bible commentary.


How did the Seven Deadly Sins originate and how is it used?

Another name for these is the capital sins or vices, meaning that they are the root causes of other sins (from the Latin caput, "head", also meaning "principal"). Gregory the Great wrote in his Commentary on Job (the Magna Moralia) 31:88:

These several sins have each their army against us.
For from vain glory there arise disobedience, boasting, hypocrisy, contentions, obstinacies, discords, and the presumptions of novelties.
From envy there spring hatred, whispering, detraction, exultation at the misfortunes of a neighbour, and affliction at his prosperity.
From anger are produced strifes, swelling of mind, insults, clamour, indignation, blasphemies.
From melancholy there arise malice, rancour, cowardice, despair, slothfulness in fulfilling the commands, and a wandering of the mind on unlawful objects.
From avarice there spring treachery, fraud, deceit, perjury, restlessness, violence, and hardnesses of heart against compassion.
From gluttony are propagated foolish mirth, scurrility, uncleanness, babbling, dulness of sense in understanding.
From lust are generated blindness of mind, inconsiderateness, inconstancy, precipitation, self-love, hatred of God, affection for this present world, but dread or despair of that which is to come.
Because, therefore, seven principal vices produce from themselves so great a multitude of vices, when they reach the heart, they bring, as it were, the bands of an army after them.

Thomas Aquinas agreed (Summa Theologica I-II Q84:3):

A capital vice is one from which other vices arise, chiefly by being their final cause.

He concurred with Gregory's enumeration. He does not link these vices with the venial/mortal scheme; in Q88 of the same part he describes the distinction as "mortal and venial are mutually opposed as reparable and irreparable", although he admits that venial sin can become or lead to mortal sin.
Dorothy L. Sayers, in her introduction to her translation of Dante's Purgatorio, described the vices rather neatly as "the fundamental bad habits of mind recognized and defined by the Church as the well-heads from which all sinful behaviour ultimately springs." She continues, in the manner of Gregory:

In classifying sin under these seven main heads, the Church displays more subtlety and a profounder psychology than is sometimes supposed. It is, for instance, often asked: "Why does the Church not count Cruelty as a Deadly Sin?" The answer is that although cruelty is indeed (in one sense) a sin deadly to the soul that indulges in it, it is not a root-sin. No sane person is cruel for cruelty's sake: there is always, hidden behind the act and habit of cruelty, some other (often unacknowledged and unsuspected) evil motive. [...] It may, in fact, derive from any one of the Capital Sins: from sheer selfish indifference to others' needs and feelings (Pride); from jealousy, resentment, or fear (Envy); from ill-temper, vindictiveness, or violent imagination (Wrath); from laziness, cowardice, lack of imagination, complacency, or irresponsibility (Sloth); from meanness, acquisitiveness, or the determination to get on in life (Avarice); from self-indulgence and the wanton pursuit of pleasure (Gluttony); from perversions of sexual and personal relationships, such as sadism, masochism, or possessiveness (Lust).

In summary, they are quite different from the Ten Commandments, which are about specific categories of action; the seven capital vices are categories of sinful thought which can lead to sinful deeds. As you note, there is no real basis in the Bible for this exact catalogue (there are various sin-lists but not this one). And there's no reason to believe (nor, I think, do the early writers claim) that the list is in any way "complete". I would imagine that it has persisted simply because it has been found pastorally useful, since the seven deadly sins are easy to preach about, and memorable for the congregation.