Does the Bible itself give us clues about which parts to interpret literally and which figuratively?

Jesus himself shows us that we should not interpret the Bible literally, but must always apply context ie. account for factors like genre, historical situation, cultural background, audience and author's intent.
He cures a sick woman rather than upholding an uncompromising law:

...whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death. (Exodus 31:15)

His priestly opponents challenge him and he responds:

a man was there with a withered hand, and [the Pharisees] asked him, ‘Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath?’ so that they might accuse him. He said to them, ‘Suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.’ (Matthew 12:10-12)

It is hard to imagine how bewildering and shocking it must have been for those present to witness this reinventing of the rules, let alone the subsequent miraculous healing.
It might at first glance appear logical to use the literal approach for some passages but not others. Since it is not clear how to do this, we risk making arbitrary decisions, jeopardising our objectivity. One seemingly obvious route would be to treat the two Testamants differently, but the following pronouncement from Christ shows that this is erroneous:

"‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19)

In other words, if we want to take the New Testament literally, we must do the same with the Old.
Another unusual but important clue that the Bible gives us is its inconsistencies. If we are supposed to interpret it literally, then we should be able to pull out any two verses without them giving different accounts or contradicting each other. However, there are counterexamples such as:

Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go, count the people of Israel and Judah. (2 Samuel 24:1)
Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel. (1 Chronicles 21:1)
Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.’ Having said this, he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46)
When Jesus had received the wine, he said, ‘It is finished.’ Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (John 19:30)

Even for theological doctrine, there are discrepancies unless we apply context eg.

Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death. (Deuteronomy 24:16)
Prepare slaughter for his sons because of the guilt of their father. (Isaiah 14:21)
For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. (Romans 4:2)
Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? (James 2:21)
The Father and I are one. (John 10:30)
If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)

If Scripture could be fully appreciated literally, then it would be so obvious as to leave no room for uncertainty or doubt. It would have the same implications as God appearing in all his majesty: faith would be rendered obsolete and free will would cease.
The danger of not applying context for every verse is that the Bible ceases to be a dynamic and evolving text and instead becomes outdated, inapplicable and irrelevant over time.


How is a Christian supposed to fear God when "there is no fear in love" (1 John 4:18)?

I heard it once said that the word fear in the bible has more senses and meanings than almost any other word.  Sometimes we think a word can only mean one thing, but even common words that we use every day, mean slightly different things depending on the context.

Takes this verse for example:

  Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28, NIV)

Afraid is the Greek word φοβηθητε which is based on the primary verb 'to flee' which developed in the idea 'being startled' and 'running away'.  You may have heard the phrase 'fight' or 'flight'.  When we get nervous, human response either puts our fists up, or we become afraid and we flee.  Therefore, the word can also be fright, panic, terror, depending on degree. As we extend the idea to God it is really as a small human encounters a strong force.

Now to the question. When a sinner under the Law, encounters a force infinitely opposed to him in holy wrath and vindictive justice, it is natural to be very afraid. It is in this context that in Christ we are no longer to fear, for we are no longer condemned.  However, even when such fear 'that has torment' is removed there is still a fear of humanity encountering a great force, now working for our good. A more joyful fear.

Imagine a neutral force. If we were to stand at Niagara Falls we would stand in reverent awe at the power.  If we walked along the grand canyon we would be in awe, and would not walk to close to the edge, as we would have a reverent majestic awe of the power of the situation.  In the same sense to approach and all powerful God who has moved the universe on the cross, to reach us with an undying love and rescue us from eternal torments, if we were not to stand in great fear, under such a wonderful power, we must not have a clue about who God is. If we were to abandon a great salvation like that it would be like stumbling into a canyon as a fool.

Fear as a result of faith makes us run to God, and under the gospel with the boldness and confidence of a child running to the strong arms of his father, with great respect, reverence, joy and love.


Caesar Augustus' census in Luke 2 - is it a-historical? Fabricated story?

This question is addressed here: http://www.comereason.org/roman-census.asp

The article cites references that corroborate that Rome periodically conducted censuses, and that Caesar Augustus made frequent use of the practice. Some were widespread, while other were restricted to a single region. A brief quote:

  Indeed, it seems that Caesar Augustus was the type of leader who
  ordered many censuses in his day. Records exist to show that
  Roman-controlled Egypt had begun a census as early as 10 B.C. and it
  was repeated every 14 years. And Augustus himself notes in his Res
  Gestae (The Deeds of Augustus) that he ordered three wide-spread
  censuses of Roman citizens, one in 28B.C., one in 8 B.C. and one in 14
  A.D.2 In between there are several other censuses that happened
  locally across Rome. Luke's account corroborates the idea of multiple
  censuses for Judea when he writes "This was the first census taken
  while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Certainly, the word "first"
  implies that more than one census happened.

The article also suggests that Quirinius may have served in Judea on two occasions, once as procurator in charge of the census, and later as governor, in light of the different terms used to describe the two roles.


A bit of context (Matthew 6:5-6):

  “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

It's primarily instructing us to not pray for the intent of showing people that we're praying, as hypocrites do ("see, I'm praying! look how good I am!"). It instead tells us to do what you can to keep it unobtrusive, and if possible, secret.


Is "You cannot love your neighbour unless you love yourself" a form of antinomianism?

Applying cultural context can aid in understanding scripture.

Antinomianism does not appear to enter into this; a cultural disconnect is more likely.

  Antinomianism:  ... from two Greek words, anti, meaning "against"; and
  nomos, meaning "law."  Antinomianism means “against the law.”  Theologically, antinomianism is the belief that there are no moral laws God expects Christians to obey.

Reading (and then restating in different terms) the scripture as described seems to contradict the teaching that was going on, as described by John J. Pilch.

  Another custom was to sum up the Torah’s commandments in a small
  number of precepts or a summary statement. Thus King David proposed
  eleven (Ps 15), Isaiah six (33:15), Micah three (6:8), and Amos only
  one (5:4).

  In reply to the Pharisee’s question about the “greatest commandment,”
  Jesus combines two: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and
  with all your soul, and with all your mind” (citing and amending Dt
  6:5). And the second of equal importance is “love your neighbor as
  yourself” (citing Lv 19:18). Jesus does not discard other
  commandments. He explicitly adds: “On these two commandments hang all
  the law and the prophets.”

Pilch has written articles, and books, about the cultural context of first century life in the Middle East (which he often refers to as Mediterranean Culture).  He presents various New Testament encounters couched in the cultural context of a given scene, interaction, or teaching.  A useful caveat on reading scripture from "A Cultural Handbook to the Bible' explains:

  The task of interpreting the Bible — which was written by and to people living in very different cultural contexts from contemporary Western society — can seem monumental. The opposite is also true: people can easily forget that studying the Bible is a type of cross-cultural encounter, instead reading their own cultural assumptions into biblical texts.

The passage you cite, rather than the variation offered, has underneath it an embedded cultural assumption of first century Mediterranean Culture, which is spelled out in Ephesians 5:29 by the Apostle Paul.

Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, an audience who were often not steeped in the base culture in which the New Testament narrative takes place.

In other words, anyone contemporary to Jesus who heard

  "You shall love your neighbour as yourself,"

is already making the cultural assumption spelled out later in Ephesians 5:29 (KJV).

  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

Taking the teaching as Jesus presented it, and then changing it, seems to be willful misinterpretation of scripture rather than antinomianism.

  You cannot love your neighbour unless you love yourself."

As Jesus said (roughly) to Pilate during the interview: your words, not mine.

Put differently, the embedded assumption is that you love yourself.  It is a 20th century overwrite to throw doubt into that cultural assumption.

For fuller context on the Ephesians passage, Paul was speaking about marriage and love as a reflection of the Church as the body of Christ:

  28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
  29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
  30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

One's wife is someone outside of himself, as is one's neighbor, so the embedded assumption that one does not hate one's self (while modern secular culture seems to accept self hate as normal (perhaps?) or common(?)) the message is clear and consistent with the commandment.

Applying the modern self-hate concept is where the confusion arises; that isn't scriptural, nor a matter of the law, but rather a "loss in translation" across the cultural divide.  (And possibly scriptural distortion, depending upon how the translation from the Greek to English proceeded).


According to the Methodist Church, is white grape juice an acceptable alternative in communion?

Methodist Churches enjoy a great deal of flexibility when it comes to when and how they conduct their services, and this is illustrated by the freedom they have to use grape juice (red or white, it matters not) and bread that doesn’t contain gluten. Their attitude can be summed up thus:

In the essentials – unity
In non-essentials – liberty
In all things – charity

Below are links to a couple of articles about the history behind the use of grape juice within Methodist Churches:

In 1864, the General Conference of The Methodist Episcopal Church entered the conversation [about non-alcoholic grape juice] when they approved a report from the Temperance Committee that recommended “the pure juice of the grape be used in the celebration of the Lord's Supper.”
In 1869, he [Dr. Thomas B. Welch] perfected a juice pasteurization process in his kitchen and began selling “Dr. Welch’s Unfermented Wine” to churches preferring an alcohol-free substitute for Communion.  Unfortunately, the idea didn’t take off.  After four years, Welch gave up this side business.  Two years later, his son Charles convinced him to produce unfermented wine again. Charles offered free samples of the sacramental wine substitute to churches.

Source: http://www.umc.org/who-we-are/methodist-history-controversy-communion-and-welchs-grape-juice
See also: http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/why-do-most-methodist-churches-serve-grape-juice-instead-of-wine
Removing stains from red wine or red grape juice is problematic.  And a large area of carpet could cost thousands of pounds/dollars to replace.  Prevention is always preferable to cure.


Meaning of the original Hebrew of "thou shall not" in the ten commandments

The syntax of the Hebrew is consistent with other prohibitions throughout the legal texts of the Torah. That is, the negative particle לא (lo) is followed by an imperfective verb.  Although imperfective verbs in other contexts are sometimes translated as simple future tense (i.e. indicative1) verbs in English, those in the Decalogue are clearly volitional — Yahweh is expressing a prohibitive injunction, not merely a statement of fact.

Biblical Hebrew has imperative verb forms, similar to English ("Go and do your homework!"). However, unlike English, imperative verbs in Hebrew can not be negated. Instead, to express negative commands (i.e. prohibitions), imperfective verbs are used. Unfortunately for English translators, this can at times be confusing since the imperfective is also used to express simple present and future tense ideas. One simple (though not fail-safe) test for identifying volitional uses of imperfective verbs is that the verb generally comes first in its clause. This is the case throughout the Decalogue, e.g. Exodus 20:4:

  לֹֽא תַעֲשֶׂה־לְךָ פֶ֣סֶל֙
  You shall not make for yourself an idol....

Perhaps the most straightforward rendering in modern English would be,

  Do not make for yourself an idol.

However, the construction "you shall not..." is consistent with traditional English grammar, where "shall" with second and third person verbs expresses volition (whether desire, injunction, or prohibition). This nuance is frequently neglected in modern English, and the persistence of "you shall not" in most translations of the Decalogue may in part reflect the pervasive nature of the KJV tradition. It's also the case that the use of the particle לא (lo) rather than the alternative negative particle על (al) indicates a more permanent and absolute sort of prohibition. In modern English, the use of "shall" tends to invoke an elevated register which may better accommodate the sort of nuance invoked by an absolute prohibition direct from the mouth of Yahweh.

1. If applied to the decalogue, an indicative verb would entail a translation such as "you will not kill", as a statement of fact. However,  imperfective verbs are not necessarily indicative. This is territory covered by any Biblical Hebrew grammar; see, e.g., Waltke & O'Connor §31.5.


Can Catholics knowingly work for evil entities?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not specifically prohibit employment of, say, working for a defense contractor, but it does set some parameters.

First, employment is the primary path to functioning within  the social order. CCC 2428 says: In work, the person exercises and fulfills in part the potential inscribed in his nature. The primordial value of labor stems from man himself, its author and its beneficiary. Work is for man, not man for work. Everyone should be able to draw from work the means of providing for his life and that of his family, and of serving the human community.

However, there is a firm stance of the Church that finances are not the big picture.  CCC 2424 states: A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.

The Church may not specifically instruct to quit one's job, but it gives us some avenues for consideration. Although not a definitive answer to your question, CCC 2256 states: Citizens are obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order. "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29)

Of note, workers, when faced with issues of injustice, may strike. CCC 2435: Recourse to a strike is morally legitimate when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit.

What I get from reading these passages is to simply follow one's conscience. Giving up a morally reprehensible, yet lucrative, job will be favored in the eyes of God.

One must also consider how closely linked the profession is to the malignant result. A fry cook at a fast food chain, owned by a consortium, one piece of the consortium sponsors terrorists, can hardly be held accountable for terrorism; but he might still choose to be a fry cook somewhere else.


Are there any Christian Churches or communities that teach same-sex marriage is a right? On what biblical basis?

Community of Christ

Their statement of note:

  The 2013 USA National Conference recommends the sacrament of marriage be extended, where legal in the USA, to persons of the same sex/gender. Thus the 2013 USA National Conference recommends a change to the current policy for the USA on the sacrament of marriage;

And the above recommendation was recently approved.

Here is their basis for it (though not explicitly Biblical):

  We believe this is where God is directing Community of Christ, to be an inclusive body where everyone is welcome source

This Wikipedia page lays it out pretty well which Christian denominations accept same-sex marriage and just how much they accept it. Some denominations just kind of accept a little, while others split over it.


What made Jesus question at Mt 21:25 a good example for Christians or was it a bad question because the Jews could not answer?

The question was effective, because it highlighted the hypocrisy of the religious Jews in question. According to the Bible, John was sent from God, and they knew it. Their concern was how answering this question would affect their agenda.

  if we say, ‘From men,’ we are afraid of the multitude; for all hold that John was a prophet

Denying John's God-sentness would have resulted in some backlash and punishment from the general population, which could have even escalated to the point of stoning.

On the other hand, by admitting that John was sent from God, it would remove all surface of attack on the person of John, because the authority of God was with him. Since they religiously-politically opposed him, doing so would have worked against their agenda.

This left them no option but to give no answer, which some bystanders would have understood the reason for, and revealed the agenda and hypocrisy of the religious Jews in question.


Did the cross permanently affect the intra-trinitarian relationship?

Phillippians 2 says that because of Jesus' death, God the Father exalted Jesus. As 2:9 specifically says (and note the therefore):

  Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
      and gave him the name that is above every name,
   that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
      in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

This theme is picked up by Athanasius, in De Incarnacione. His soteriology says our redemption was a gift that the Father gave the Son for his willingness to go through this separation. It's probably my favorite theory of how salvation works. The idea is that being God, both God the Father and God the Son already had everything. But out of an abundance of love, God the Father gave God the Son the opportunity to redeem that which was lost.


Topographical Map of Israel / Transjordan?

Quick look on google.  And the good news is that you can get maps from stanfords.co.uk .... the bad news is that there is a 4 to 6 month wait because of hot demand, and the even worse news is that each map costs £17.99 and there are between 22 and 26 of them. So assuming you want all of them that's over $500 plus postage.  However, if you know which specific area of Israel/Gaza/West Bank you want then its an option.

More bad news is that the contour lines are at 20 meters on some and 25 meters on others which is about 70 feet or 80 feet on others... perhaps not good enough for the price.

Search for "100k topographic israel" in google.


What is the base of the bible as the unique source of revelation?

Scripture is an aspect of Revelation, but not the whole of it by any means.

The Revelation is Jesus Christ, and Scripture is part of Revelation only because of its relationship to Christ.

Some Protestants might not agree with me on this, but Apostolic Christianity sees unwritten Tradition, prayers, and the Divine Mysteries/Sacraments, especially the Divine Liturgy/ Mass, as Revelation as well as Scripture.

Christi pax,

Lucretius


Does the concept of Gentile exist in Christianity?

The term Gentile in the Bible simply means non-Jew or non-Hebrew. In Old Testament times, the Hebrews called the other non-Hebrews as Gentiles and in the New Testament, non-Jews are Gentiles.

In the New Testament, Paul was famous for preaching to the Gentiles. Because Paul was a Jew, he was zealous for his own people and preached the gospel mostly to the Jews first. But later, as his own people rejected him, his focus shifted towards the Gentiles.

  Romans 10:1 (NIV) Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer
  to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.

  Acts 18:5-6 (NIV) When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that
  Jesus was the Messiah. But when they opposed Paul and became abusive,
  he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be
  on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the
  Gentiles.”

  Romans 11:11 (NIV) Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression,
  salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.

According to New Testament, anyone who is not a Jew is a Gentile, whether he is a Christian or not. And believe it or not, most of the users in this site are Gentile Christians.

Some recent new Christian sects call all non-Christians including Jews as Gentiles but it's not biblical. All non-Jews are Gentiles but non-Jews who are non-Christians are more appropriate to be referred to as Pagans, Heathens, Infidels or simply non-believers, depending on the target.


The progression in your list is actually somewhat (although not exactly) representative of the decreasing level of weight carried by the word.

Let's start with this: Only God is holy.

Holy means to be set apart, entirely-other. Untouched by any imperfection. Unmarred by any fault. God is the only one that matches these criteria. And boy is he Holy. The angels in heaven cry out in eternal accord that he is thrice holy. Holy. Holy. Holy.

After that things go down hill fast. Absolutely nothing else exists or ever will exist apart from God that is holy in the way that he is.

And yet there is one crazy exception: Those who through faith in Christ are adopted to be joint heirs with Christ and inherit his very holiness. Over and over through the Old and New testaments we see God calling his chosen people to "be holy, as I am holy." This is an absurd thing to ask of a degenerate created being -- except that he also makes us this way by covering us with his own holiness. At the cost of the life of His own holy son God provided a way to make un-holy people holy.

Some more interesting powerful uses of the word holy involve things like the temple (both the tent tabernacle and the permanent temple) where the sanctuary was holy because it was dedicated to a certain use, but the inner chamber was the _holy of holies because that is where Gods very presence would dwell.

Moving on down the line, the word has some common usages that only involve being set apart or dedicated for a certain use. Church buildings are only holy not in that they are physically sacred but that they are reserved for certain uses ... they are dedicated to the work of God through his body the church.

Cities such as Jerusalem can be considered holy in the sense that they play a special role or enjoy a unique identity or history.


Surveys to find out which Christian denomination I am most like

Sure, here are a couple:

http://www.gotoquiz.com/which_christian_denomination_do_you_belong_to

http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=christiandenom

But remember, denominations are not perfect, they are man-made, and fallible:.
The true body of Christ is made up of every born-again Christian, regardless of 'denomination'.


When is it too late to ask for salvation?

It is never too late, as long as a person is alive.  The thief on the cross is a good example of this in the Bible.

What about obtaining salvation after death?

Some Christians believe that everyone will be given a second chance to believe after death.  Usually the proof text used is:

  1 Peter 3:18-20 (NIV)
  18  For Christ also suffered once  for sins,  the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.  He was put to death in the body  but made alive in the Spirit.  19  After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits  — 20  to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently  in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.  In it only a few people, eight in all,  were saved  through water,

To extract from this passage a doctrine that everyone will have a chance to be saved after death is quite a drastic stretch - especially since it is found nowhere else in Scripture.  While I'm not sure about the meaning of this passage, it simply does not support that:

Anyone besides the people described heard or will hear Jesus's proclamation.
Anyone that heard Jesus's proclamation was given a chance for salvation.

These claims, which are necessary for the doctrine of obtaining salvation after death, are not supported by this passage.

Is it better to wait as long as possible to be saved?

No.  It sounds like you may have the notion that when you are saved, you are saved from your past sin, but not your future sin.  If this were true, then no one would be saved - no matter how "good" someone becomes after they become saved, no one is able to meet God's perfect standards.

When we are saved, God will conform us to the likeness of Christ through sanctification, but understand that no one undergoes this process perfectly.  On the day of redemption, we will be justified - not because of our works, or our ability to keep from "screwing up", but because of our inclusion in Christ, and his sacrifice for us.


Is there a digitized version of the Tyndale Bible available?

The reason for the absence of the Old Testament in the accepted website is that the Tyndale Bible did not include most of the Old Testament as he was only about half-way done translating it before he was executed.
This website includes the Old Testament books that he did complete: Genesis-Deuteronomy + Jonah, as well as the New Testament

http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-books/william-tyndales-translation/


At the second coming, will Jesus descend in the same body or will he be reborn again?

At the second coming, Jesus will descend or he will reborn again?
The biblical answer is Jesus will descend on His Second Coming just like when He ascended with clouds.

"For the Lord himself will descend from heaven, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first."(1Thessalonians4:16)
“Look, he is coming with the clouds,”
and “every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him”;
and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.”
So shall it be! Amen. (Revelation 1:7)

The question is, will he descend as adult man as he ascended to God the father or will he reborn again as an infant in new incarnation?.
The biblical answer is NO. The scriptures does not teaches reincarnation.

"It is appointed for men to die once."(Heberews9:27)

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the following;

1013 Death is the end of man's earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When "the single course of our earthly life" is completed,586 we shall not return to other earthly lives: "It is appointed for men to die once."587 There is no "reincarnation" after death.

To put more clarity, why Jesus will not be reborn again is, the Second Coming of Christ speak of His coming as the Just Judge. The key is the word Parousia.
For all the bible verses and apologetic explanation please see the link below;
The Parousia: Christ's Second Coming


We do not know exactly where heaven or hell is.  However, in Scripture, the word "up" is commonly used in association with the location of heaven and "down" is typically associated with the location of hell, either figuratively or literally.  Also, from the vantage point of heaven, earth is down.
The "up" and "down" context may certainly be completely figurative, as heaven is exalted and glorious and hell is shameful and desolate.
Up to Heaven

And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven. 2 Kings 2:1b NASB
The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men To see if there are any who understand, Who seek after God.  Psalm 14:2 NASB
We lift up our heart and hands toward God in heaven.  Lamentations 3:41 NASB
And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it.  Matthew 28:2 NASB
While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven.  Luke 24:51 NASB

Down to Hell or Hades

And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will be brought down to Hades!  Luke 10:15 NASB
In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.  Luke 16:23 NASB


Does the New Testament have any mention of Kolob and if not, how come?

It's not in the New Testament, but I would be more surprised if it was found in the New Testament.

The compilers of the New Testament were obviously not concerned with revealing the deepest mysteries of God (see comment for clarification), but rather, were focused on documenting the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and His Apostles.

Most of the New Testament's purpose is to show that Jesus is the Christ. This was done by the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The epistles, then, mainly declare His doctrine and document the ministry of the apostles.

Abraham was shown much about the sky in vision. His communion with God as recorded in Abraham 3 is highly personal to him. It's not something that would be written in an epistle to somebody else. It's not a direct account of the life and ministry of Christ or His apostles.

As the Book of Abraham is more like a personal journal rather than a letter or biographical account, I don't see why, even if the compilers of the Bible had Abraham's manuscripts, they would choose to include it with the New Testament.

Of course, any number of answers -- mainly guesses -- could be given for why anything else isn't in the New Testament, either. Or the Old Testament. Mormons would say that because these things aren't revealed in the Bible, it validates the need for a restoration.


Is the biblical idea of being "born again" compatible with eastern religious ideas of reincarnation?

Being "Born again" and being reincarnated are completely different concepts.

The concept of being born again comes from this Bible passage below.  I know it's long but the theological and doctrinal implications found in this passage are profound and critical to understanding what it means to be "born again" and what salvation requires.

  John 3:3-21 (NIV)
  3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

  4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

  5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

  9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

  10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

  16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

TL;DR
If you balked at reading all of that, it basically says this:

You must be born again, which means born of water (from your mother) and born of the Spirit (from God)
In order to be born of the Spirit, you must believe in Jesus
You must live your life according to Jesus and follow him in order to truly believe in him.

That's the essence of being "born again".


Does a Catholic bishop appoint the Canon priests of his cathedral?

The short answer to this question is possibly.

  Manner of appointment

  As only the Holy Father can erect a chapter, so also he alone has power to appoint the individual members of a chapter. This power may be, and in fact is delegated, and hence canons are appointed sometimes by the pope, sometimes by the bishop or the capitular body, sometimes by others to whom the right has been given. By the rules of the Roman Chancery all prebends which become vacant in curia (i.e. when one who holds a benefice dies in Rome) are reserved to the Holy See, also the appointment to a vacant prebend the former holder of which has been deprived of it by an act of the Holy See, the appointment of the first dignitary of each chapter, and to all other prebends which become vacant during the months of January, February, April, May, July, August, October, and November. Beyond this the law does not expressly state in whom resides the power to collate to cathedral canonries and prebends, but the general opinion is that the right is invested simultaneously in the bishop and chapter; therefore for a valid election the majority of the canons must agree with the bishop when a new appointment is made. Exceptions are made in the following cases: if from the foundation of the church or benefice the appointment belongs to a particular person; if there is an immemorial custom to the contrary; the appointment of the canon theologian and the canon penitentiary; the canons in France (Deshayes, Memento Juris Eccl., 3d ed., Paris, 1903). Appointment is practically always made by letter, and possession of a canonry cannot be obtained until the nominee presents his letter of appointment. The Council of Trent orders that on the day of taking possession, or at least within two months, the new canon is to make his profession of faith and also obedience to the bishop. This profession of faith is made to the bishop himself or, if he be absent, to the vicar-general or another delegated for this purpose. The profession of faith must be made in presence of the chapter, otherwise the new canon may be deprived of possession and the prebendal fruits and daily distributions. - Canon (Catholic Encyclopedia)


How to understand the paradox of 1John 5:3 and Mathew 5:29

Well, it would indeed be burdensome if it was taken in a way not intended by the words, namely, literally. Jesus uses hyperbole a lot in His teaching, so that it would be very memorable to his disciples, who were chosen to convey His teaching to the nations—and even to their audience.
The meaning of 'cut off rather than' is a hyperbolic way of teaching us to avoid occasions of sin. If [x] causes you to sin, and sin leads to death, avoid x. More than anything else, it's common sense crystalized in a hyperbolic littel packet which is easy to remember and hard to forget.
The question assumes that Christians have no more help for overcoming sin than unbelievers, which is not true: they have the Spirit of God in them. And "if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you shall live." (Rom 8:13)—St. Paul's version of the same teaching.

John 15:5 (DRB)
I am the vine; you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.

Something could also be said of the difference between the Law of the letter, and the Law of grace, the latter of which doesn't change the moral requirements, but involves as a constituional part of the Covenant, the grace won for us on the Cross, of which we are made beneficiaries when we confess to God our sins: that is, mercy.

John 1:17(DRB) For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.


Torment of Unbelievers vs those who take the Mark of the Beast

I believe Hell is just eternal separation from God. The torment will be from those  who have denied Jesus. But the day will come when God will put it onto everyones heart that he is real , it will be too late to repent and this is where the nashing and grinding of teeth will be


What is the basis for the Catholic teaching that artificial birth control is wrong?

Since sexual intercourse is the defining act of marriage, it's helpful to look at what the Catholic Church says about marriage. Traditionally, Catholic theologians have identified three purposes of marriage, which I present here in no particular order:

Mutual help of the spouses (which I believe has developed more recently into the notion of  the union of the spouses)
Procreation and education of children
Relief of concupiscence

Generally speaking, I think the prohibition of artificial birth control follows from the principle that married couples should use their sexuality in a way that always respects all three of the basic purposes of marriage. But the use of artificial birth control implies the ordering of a particular act of sexual intercourse in such a way that it is intrinsically incapable of procreation. Before he was Pope John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla argued further, in Love and Responsibility: that choosing to withhold one's fertility in sex is also to work against the unity of the spouses.

All told then, the Catholic philosophical view could be summed up thus: artificial birth control makes marriage one-dimensional, by deliberately limiting its defining act to the service of the least noble of the three purposes of marriage.

Plenty of objections arise on the way from the principle to the conclusion, of course -- particularly in the articulation of how abstinence-based methods can be morally legitimate while artificial methods and sterilization cannot -- but I'm not sure if this is the right venue for considering and responding to all of those.

One thing I'd like to try to clear up, though, if I might. In your question you said:

  However, planning to wait a little bit here and there seems reasonable enough.

Of course, and this is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches, at least as I understand it. The clearest official statement of this point that I've seen is Gaudium et Spes paragraph 50.

The Church certainly does not require its faithful to have as many children as they're capable of, nor does it require every act of sexual intercourse to be aimed at procreation -- just to set aside two very common misunderstandings. One has to bear in mind that one of the purposes of marriage, in Catholic thought, is the "procreation and education [or bringing-up] of children". Every married couple must discern for themselves the right balance between fruitfulness and their responsibility for the children they already have.

The main thing is that any "waiting a little bit here and there" be achieved by morally acceptable means. This is of course what the comments on your question were getting at.


What does "Altare privilegiatum" mean exactly today?

Are the indulgences attached to privileged altars still valid?
The short answer is no.

A Privileged Altar (Altare Privilegiatum) is an altar in a Roman Catholic church where a plenary indulgence can be gained for a soul in purgatory whenever Mass is celebrated there.
Two examples are the Vallarpadam Church, Kerala and St. Thomas of Canterbury Church, Canterbury.
The term 'Privileged Altar' is used in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The plenary indulgence is attached usually by the celebration of a Requiem Mass and benefits a soul in purgatory when Mass is offered for that intention at the Privileged Altar.
The grants of privileged altars were suppressed by Norm 20 of Pope Paul VI's Apostolic Constitution 'Indulgentiarum Doctrina'. - Privileged Altar

In Pope Paul VI's new rules for indulgences were published in his Indulgentiarum Doctrina he states the following:

Transitional Norms
These new norms regulating the acquisition of indulgences will become valid three months from the date of publication of this constitution in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Indulgences attached to the use of religious objects which are not mentioned above cease three months after the date of publication of this constitution in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
The revisions mentioned in n. 14 and n. 15 must be submitted to the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary within a year. Two years after the date of this constitution, indulgences which have not been confirmed will become null and void.
We will that these statutes and prescriptions of ours be established now and remain in force for the future notwithstanding, if it is necessary so to state, the constitutions and apostolic directives published by our predecessors or any other prescriptions even if they might be worthy of special mention or should otherwise require partial repeal.
Given at Rome at St. Peter's on January 1, the octave of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, 1967, the fourth year of Our Pontificate.

I have personally been in churches where these once called privileged altars still exist and the local clergy had told me the the indulgences pertaining to the deceased had been suppressed. In other words, these once called privileged altars have lost their privileged status and are simply altars or main altars whichever the case may be for a particular church altar.
It is interesting to note that certain priests carried this privilege with themselves, regardless if they offered a requiem mass on privileged altars or not. The privilege was attached to their person!
The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about privileged altars as they existed prior to Vatican II:

An altar is said to be privileged when, in addition to the ordinary fruits of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, a plenary indulgence is also granted whenever Mass is celebrated thereon, the indulgence must be applied to the individual soul for whom Mass is offered. The privileged altar must be a fixed, or immovable, altar, but in a wider sense that is, it must be stationary or permanent, whether built on a solid foundation or attached to a wall or column, even though it be not consecrated, but have merely a consecrated stone (portable altar) inserted in its table. The privilege is annexed not to the altar-stone, but to the structure itself, by reason of the title which it bears, that is, of the mystery or saint to whom it is dedicated. Hence if the material of the altar be changed, if the altar be transferred to another place, if another altar be substituted for it in the same church, provided it retains the same title, and even if the altar is desecrated or profaned, the privilege is preserved. To gain the indulgence, the Mass must be a Mass of Requiem, whenever the rubrics permit it. If, on account of the superior rite of the feast of the day, or on account of the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, or for other reasons, a Requiem Mass cannot be celebrated, the indulgence may be gained by celebrating another Mass (S. C. Indulg., 11 April 1864). This privilege is of two kinds, local or real and personal. It is local or real when it is annexed to the altar as described above. Hence whoever the priest may be who celebrates Mass at such an altar, the indulgence is gained. It is personal when it is inherent in the priest, so that it does not depend on the altar, but on the priest who celebrates. Hence on whatever altar he may celebrate, whether it be a fixed or a portable one, and in whatever church he celebrates, the altar he uses is for the time being a privileged altar. On 2 November every altar is privileged. The bishops of the United States have the faculty (Facultates Extraordinariae C., fac. viii) of declaring privileged one altar in every church and public chapel or oratory, whether it be consecrated or not, of their dioceses, provided this privilege had not been previously granted to any other altar in such church under the same conditions.

Although these ecclesiastic privileges no longer exist, Pope St. Paul VI makes note of the formatting in his Apostolic Constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina:

n.20—Holy Mother Church, extremely solicitous for the faithful departed, has decided that suffrages can be applied to them to the widest possible extent at any Sacrifice of the Mass whatsoever, abolishing all special privileges in this regard.


How many practicing Canon Lawyers are there in the USA, and the world?

Disclaimer

My answer is hardly based upon poor database, wild speculations and extrapolations. If you have access to any of the data I claim to have no access or any other useful data or suggestions for extrapolations, please write a comment.

What is a canon lawyer?

I am not sure what kind of persons you mean when you say "canon lawyer". According to Wikipedia the word "lawyer" is inconsistently used in the English speaking world. As I am from Germany I have no idea in which way the term "canon lawyer" is used. One of your sources and EWTN use the term for someone who has an license in canon law (academic degree). In this answer I will do the same and use the terms "canon lawyer" and "canonist" in a synonymous way.

How many of them are there?

Ask the universities

To find out how many canon lawyers exist means to find out how many people got a license in coanon law. The universities know how many graduate with this degree. I searched on the websites of the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C, the Papal University Gregoriana in Rome, the Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität in Munich and the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität in Münster. The only information I found was a list of all license theses since 1990 in Münster and statistics of all degrees in 1998-2003 in Munich. Acoording to these sources they gave about 7 licenses per year in Münster and no licenses at all in these years in Munich. I believe Munich was in an extraordninary situation in these years and an average of ca. 7 students per year seems to me a minimum for regular teaching for a faculty.

Who else could know figures?

The Congregation for Catholic Education (for Educational Institutions) ist the Vatican supervisory authority for the universities and could know the the figures for every university and the whole world. Unfortunately, I found no such figures on their website. I suspect such numbers can be found in the Annuarium Statistica Ecclesiae (statistical yearbook), but I do not have access to it.

Extrapolation

We know there are 43 faculties and institutes, 48 if we count outpots, which award the licenciate. If we assume there would be at least 7 graduations per year and the canonists work at least 30 years in this field, we have at least 48*7*30 = 10,080 active canon lawyers worldwide. For at most 50 students per year (only my gut feeling) we would have 48*50*30 = 72,000.

As it is asked explicitly for the US: The only faculty of canon law is at the Catholic University of America. So there may be between 1*7*30=210 and 1*50*30=1,500 active canon lawyers in the US.

Distribution

As we have no total figures we have no data about distribution. But I assume that density of canonists correlates with densitiy of faculties and institutes of canon law. We see in the maps of faculties and institutes, that they are not uniformly distributed in the (catholic) world. In countries without such an institution there wont be many canon lawyers, only the ones who study abroad at next faculty or in Rome (there are 8 faculties of canaon law in Rome). In Europe there are many faculties and institutes, in every bigger catholic country at least one. In the rest of the world there are only a few institutions. In North America may be the best situation out of Europe, because there is a faculty in each of the three countries.

Are they enogh?

For the whole world the Congregation for Catholic Education (for Educational Institutions) says: No. In April 2018 the congregation released a new instruction "The Study of Canon Law in light of the Reform of the Matrimonial Process". Apart of new norms for the universities the instruction complains about the situation of the jurisprudence and teaching. Because of the need it even calls for new courses below the level of licenciate for a part of the staff of the courts.

  There is a general decline in the number of students, such that in some situations a balanced academic life cannot be ensured.

  Having Tribunals staffed by those who are competent and well-prepared is not a luxury. The good of souls demands a solid formation, which is the main task of academic institutions.

  To meet the urgent need for a greater number of clerics, lay men and women, and religious who are well formed in canon law, even though they do not (yet) possess the degree of Licentiate or Doctorate, so as to make up for the lack of competent personnel in many dioceses around the world, some possible formation courses are proposed.

So we see, there is need of good educated canonists. We may assume that the biggest need is where only few faculties are. I have no idea about the situation in the US.

More speculative figures, please!

How many canon lawyers do the world and the US need? Let's make a extrapolation again. I assume based on my experiences that there are enough but not way too many canonists in Germany. So we have 2 canon law institutes in Germany for 23,300,000 Catholics according to the German bishops' conference in 2018. Worlwide there are 1,285,000,000 Catholics according to the Vatican for 2015. So we would need 1,285,000,000/23,300,000 * 2 = 110.3 institutions. We only have 48. So we would need to double the number of canonists. As this number is very speculative, I believe the more important problem is the distribution of the canon lawyers over the world.

Same calculation for the US with (officially) 68,500,000 Catholics in 2017 according to the Center for applied research in the apostolate: 68,500,000/23,300,000 * 2 = 5.9 faculties. There is only one. I do not know whether their is really a lack of canonists in the US or the whether the Catholic University of America just has more students of canon law than the institutions in Germany.

Conclusion

Based on public avavible internet sources it is very hard to find any exact number of canon lawyers or needs for them. The first may be easier with the printed yearbooks of the universities and the Vatican. The latter has to remain speculation (but maybe based on better database). The only thing we know for sure is: The Vatican thinks the church needs more well educated canonists.


Was the First Apocalypse of James written after the Second Apocalypse of James?

The terms "first" and "second" in these two titles are "scholarly conventions to distinguish the two,"1 not meant to indicate the date of origin.  Instead, they reflect their original ordering in Codex V of the Nag Hammadi documents, in which the First Apocalypse precedes the Second Apocalypse.  Still, this ordering was no accident:

The presence and order of the two James apocalypses in Codex V are undoubtedly due to deliberate scribal organization.  The two apocalypses stress different aspects of the James tradition and actually complement one another.  The setting of 1 Apoc. Jas. emphasizes the period prior to the suffering of James, while 2 Apoc. Jas. describes his suffering and death in line with the predictions in 1 Apoc. Jas.2

Next we can turn to the dating of the works.  There is little certainty about the dating, but the Second Apocalypse is generally dated before the First Apocalypse based on comparisons of the texts to those of other early movements.  Thus Robinson writes, regarding the Second:

The absence of allusions to the later developed gnostic systems, and the almost total absence of allusions to the New Testament tradition suggest an early date for the origin of the tractate.2

Primarily on this basis, numerous scholars date the text to the early or middle second century.3 4
On the other hand, the final text of the First Apocalypse reveals some similarities to Valentinian writings:

The Valentinian theologoumena utilised in it (cf. especially the doctrines of an upper and a lower Sophia, or of 'Sophia' proper and Achamoth', which also occur in the text outside the mystery formulae quoted: p. 36.5, 8) seem to presuppose the fully-developed Valentinian system, and therefore suggest the composition of the document at the earliest towards the end of the 2nd century.5

Similarly, "the rejection of a bodily fraternal relationship between Jesus and James (p.24.15f.)"5 points to a later date.
Summary
The names of these two works are based on the order in which the appear in the codex in which they were originally found.  This seems to have been the deliberate ordering of a scribe based on their contents, not the presumed date of origin.
Textual analysis points to an earlier date for the Second Apocalypse due to its lack of allusion to early Gnostic texts, as compared to the use of developed Valentinian thought in the First Apocalypse.  Thus the Second Apocalypse is dated to early or middle second century, while the First Apocalypse is dated to the late second century at the earliest.

References:

Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, 427

Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library in English, 270

Myllykoski, "James the Just in History and Tradition," part II, Currents in Biblical Research 6.1 (2007), 54

Funk, in Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 328

Funk, in Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 315


What are the main beliefs/themes of the Prosperity Gospel and which are the current prominent groups and their pastors?

The main premise of the prosperity doctrine is that the believer is in total control of his life and the wealth and health that he has or doesn't have is in direct correlation to the words he speaks. The main proponents of this doctrine are leaders such as: Kenneth Hagan Jr; Kenneth Copeland; Joel Osteen; Norvel Hayes; Derrick Prince...


Why were verses taken out of the Bible when it was being formed? Was there any major stuff taken out?

Yes, some books of the Bible had a harder time than others getting into the New Testament we have today (all 27 "books"). I believe, however, the Holy Bible we possess today, however, comprises all that God wanted it to comprise. Nothing has been "left out," as you put it.

God's word was certainly inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim 3:16), but it was also  preserved from the very beginning, I suggest, by the same Holy Spirit. Ever since it was penned it has been dynamic, living, and powerful (Heb 4:12), containing as it does all that is needed for a life which is pleasing to God (2 Pet 1:3). Ever since it was penned it has encapsulated and preserved the

  ". . . faith which was once for all handed down to the saints (Jude 1:3),

both in written and--let us not forget--spoken forms, since one of the most important spiritual gifts beginning on the Day of Pentecost was the gift of prophecy, which is the foretelling and forth-telling of God's word!

How the Bible came to us is a subject well worth investigating, and I suggest you go here for a nice overview of that fascinating process. That link will take you to other helpful sources of information, including F.F. Bruce's fine book and other valuable tools.

The canon of Scripture came about slowly but surely, with many twists and turns, as believers convened many different colloquies over many years to discuss "what stays in and what stays out." I believe God's Holy Spirit, just as He inspired the writers of Scripture to write what they wrote, also superintended the process of canonization, so that the Bible we have today is exactly what God wanted us to have. The Bible's internal consistency bears witness, I believe, to the supernatural origin and preservation of Scripture.

Having said this, and more apropos your answer, there were two major kinds of colloquies. The first kind focused on which books "should make it" and which books "shouldn't make it." Second Peter had a particularly hard time making it into our Bible, because as Nelson Publishers NASV Updated Edition noted in their NASB Visual Reference Bible,

  "No other book in the New Testament poses as many problems of authenticity as does 2 Peter" (p.1355).

The Muratorian Canon, based on an ancient list of 24 of the 27 books of the NT and compiled in Latin by L.A. Muratori, provides us with significant evidence that the early Councils of the Christian church, such as the Council of Laodicea (AD 363), were "on the right track" in recognizing the authoritative nature of the 27 books of what we today call the New Testament. Other Councils followed, such as the Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), both of which also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative. Again, read more, here.

The second kind focused on how to translate into whatever language the committee chose (whether English, Swahili, Tagolog, Chinese, Aleut, ad infinitum), the books which had already "made it" into the canon of Scripture. These gatherings, or committees, of Bible scholars translated the canon of Scripture by using whatever texts were at their disposal, some ancient and some not so ancient.

A famous text for the New Testament, for example, is the Nestle-Aland text which is now in its 28th edition! The scholars involved in this project took it upon themselves to do critical editing of the original Greek-language version of the NT, the Novum Testamentum Graece. The resulting Nestle-Aland text is the primary source today for modern NT translations, thanks to people such as Cardinal Cisneros and also Erasmus, who produced the first published edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516.

The many translation committees which have convened down through the years were guided, I believe, by the Holy Spirit of God in providing average, ordinary people (some of whom were not even literate and had to rely on hearing the Word of God read to them) with the inestimable privilege of reading and hearing God's special revelation, despite the irrational opposition of the powers that be among authoritative leaders of "the church's" hierarchy. The story of organized opposition to the translation of God's word into the "language of the people" is alternately fascinating, inspiring, and appalling, given the sacrifices many brave men and women made, to the point of losing their very lives on account of their commitment to make Scripture available to people everywhere.

I wish you well in your investigation into the fascinating subject of the process through which our Bible came to us. Both "testaments" came about in slightly different ways, but the end result was (and continues to be) a reliable, trustworthy document, which is not only a perennial bestseller in scores of languages, but has the power to transform the lives of all who read it.

Is the Bible "perfect" in every way? No. Translators have always disagreed and will continue to disagree on the minutiae of how best to translate a given word, or verse, or even an entire passage from the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

The upside of all this, however, is that Christians today have an embarrassment of riches of Bible versions, not one of which disagrees with another on any significant and indispensable doctrine of the Judeo-Christian faith which was once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).

There may be a version or two, here or there, which deliberately tamper with God's word, such as Thomas Jefferson's expurgated version of the New Testament, which excised all the miracles recorded in the four Gospels, as well as every reference which asserted that Jesus was divine (see here). By and large, however, we have never had such a wealth of Bible-study tools at our disposal (and at the speed of light!), than we do today, thanks to the internet. Praise the Lord!


Why is hell more prominent in the NT and not the OT?

The New Testament has Gospels, history (Acts), epistles, and Revelation. It is easy to answer why the New Testament other than the Gospels has this focus: because Jesus in the Gospels often spoke of Heaven, Hell and resurrection. Paul, John, Peter, James, Jude and the author of Hebrews took their lead from their savior, expanding on the topics he covered, as well as additional commentary on the Old Testament.

I once read through all the parables of Jesus and counted how often Jesus spoke of Heaven and how often he spoke of Hell. Slightly over half the parables addressed Hell and eternal judgment, slightly over half addressed Heaven and eternal reward, and many parables mentioned both.

The principal revelation Jesus was working towards, first in riddles and then plainly (in the speeches at the Last Supper in John 13-17), was his coming crucifixion and resurrection. He framed this as a shattering, divisive, determinative event in history. The world was about to be divided in two, and all people needed to make a decision about which side they would be on. This decision would then be ratified by the angels, who wold implement it in some fashion.

The rest of the New Testament showed the beginning of this outworking, as a realignment, as some Jews joined the Church and others did not, as some Greeks joined the church, and others did not, as some Romand joined, and others did not. This ends with Revelation, which describes the final separation of people into two camps.


What is the significance of adding "fiery" to Ephesians 6:16?

As I learned from my pastor a while ago, archers of the time would light their arrows on fire in an attempt to set wooden shields on fire and thus rob soldiers of any significant protection. In response to this, the Romans developed shields that had a gap in between the outer and inner plates. As such, flaming arrows would actually be extinguished by the lack of oxygen in between the wooden plates. Similarly, our faith should be like that; extinguishing the flaming arrows of the evil one and preventing continual damage.


According to Catholicism, did Jesus whip the people selling cattle in the Temple?

John 2:15 And when he had made, as it were, a scourge [whip] of little cords, he drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen: and the money of the changers he poured out, and the tables he overthrew.

Note that Matthew 21:12 and the other Synoptics don't mention the scourge/whip (σχοινίον).
St. Augustine (as quoted by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Catena Aurea on Jn. 2) says He literally scourged/whipped them:

Our Lord intended a meaning to be seen in His making a scourge (flagellum) of small cords, and then He scourged (flagellavit) those who were carrying on the merchandise in the temple. Every one by his sins twists for himself a cord, in that he goes on adding sin to sin.

St. Cyril's Commentary on John 2 compares the Jews' folly to slaves deserving corporal punishment:

Reasonably is the Saviour indignant at the folly of the Jews. […] He shows His emotion not by mere words, but with stripes and a scourge thrusts He them forth of the sacred precincts, justly devising for them the punishment befitting slaves; for they would not receive the Son Who through faith maketh free.


Why did Jesus have to leave for the Holy Spirit to come?

Understanding the second part of your question is the key to answering the first part.

Part One: (How the Spirit was with them before and after Jesus "going away")

In John 3:34, it is said of Christ that He had the Spirit of God "without measure". So as He was living on Earth as a perfect sinless man, Jesus had unlimited access to the Holy Spirit, who descended on Him to empower Him for ministry at His baptism. So the Holy Spirit was here, empowering Jesus Christ without measure.

In John 14:16-18, Jesus told the disciples, "you know him, for he dwells with you and shall be in you." So the Spirit of God was with the disciples, but He (the Spirit) was going to be with them and in them in a new way.

Now in the context of John 16:7, Jesus talks about "going away" through the crucifixion (John 16:19-22). But He speaks of the Comforter in ways that also refer to the Spirit's ministry after the ascension (John 16:13). If you think about it, Jesus actually went away from the disciples twice: once for 3 days and nights from death to resurrection, and once at the ascension. There are two "going aways", and there are two events involving the Holy Spirit that are mentioned after each of those "going aways".

First event:

After the crucifixion and resurrection, in the upper room, Jesus breathes on them and says "receive ye the Holy Ghost" (John 20:22). We breathe air in order to live, so this speaks to the aspect of the Spirit's ministry when He regenerates the believer and gives them new life.

Second event:

After the ascension, the disciples waited in Jerusalem to receive power from on high (Acts 1:4-5). This speaks to the Spirit's ministry of empowering believers for service. This is like a mighty rushing wind that can be harnessed to help us do work. Natural air is breathed for life; and as wind, is harnessed for power: so the Spirit gives us life and empowers us for service.

Part 2: Why Jesus had to "go away" in both cases

For Regeneration to occur, the disciples had to have their sins atoned for. This could not occur until after His death and resurrection. So He had to leave them to atone for their sins. Once that was done, He could return and they could "receive the Holy Ghost" when He breathed on them.

For Empowering to occur, it's a little more complicated. The disciples were going to be empowered to help them go and tell others about Jesus. Those people would have to believe their words (John 17:20) to be justified by faith. If Jesus had NOT gone away, it would be simple for everyone to just "go check Him out", see the risen Lord, and prove it. There would be nothing to believe or not believe, there would only be proof that everyone would go check out, so there would be no justification by faith. And there would be no sense empowering the disciples with a measure of faith (Romans 12:3) to do anything because Jesus would be here and would have the Spirit of God without measure. The woman at the well in Samaria ran into something similar (John 4:39-42). At first people believed in Christ because of her words. But then others believed because they went and listened to Him directly, so until His ascension she was out of a job, so to speak.

Part 3: Why Jesus remains away during this Gospel Age

Notice that after the resurrection, Jesus only spends time with those who believed in Him before His death. Had He showed up publicly risen from the dead, there would be proof and no opportunity to believe God's words by faith. (Mankind fell through believing the lies of the Serpent; therefore mankind is justified through believing the words of God). The disciples already believed in Him, so He appeared to them confirming the faith they already had. Now, because He is not on Earth in a bodily form, mankind has the opportunity to respond in faith believing God's words and the freedom to disbelieve if they so choose.

Also, the church has the opportunity to preach God's words and work together with the Comforter who comes beside us to give us a measure of the Holy Spirit and work together with us to reach the unbeliever. We have a measure of empowering so we have to work together; there are no lone rangers who have it all on their own. When Christ returns to Earth, the time for faith will no longer be here because proof will arrive.

It might be said that Christ "proved it" to Paul and therefore He had no opportunity to believe by faith. But Paul is the one who wrote that we are justified by faith (Romans 5:1) so that perhaps he had the opportunity to reject the vision of Christ He received on the road to Damascus but instead responded by calling Jesus "Lord" (Acts 9:6).

So to sum it up: Jesus had to depart by dying to make regeneration available; and He had to ascend so that empowering for service would be needed to spread God's word. If the risen Christ were here on Earth there would be proof and no opportunity to believe by faith; and there would be no need for empowering to spread God's word because people wouldn't have to hear it and believe, they could just go check it out. Because He left Earth in bodily form, everyone has the opportunity to experience both aspects of the Spirit's ministry in their lives.

And no, the Spirit was present the entire time; but He "came to them" in a different way each time Jesus "departed" from them.

Hope that helps! :)


How can these inconsistencies about Jesus' tomb be explained?

So, in the first three cases (the Synoptic Gospels), you have:

an angel (or someone dressed in a gleaming white robe)
a stone rolled away

(And that's just one sentence)

In John, you have two angels, yes, but this purports to be the account of a different person. (the Synoptics have the disciples as the antecedent, John explicitly mentions Mary)

I suppose you could say that Matthew differs from Mark and Luke, in that one purports to narrate that the angel rolled it away, but before the disciples got there.

I'm not seeing the inconsistency -

There was one angel when the disciples came.
There were two when Mary came.

In all instances, you have angels, a rolled away stone, and an empty tomb.


How to receive the gift of tongues according to the New Testament?

The New Testament does not give us a method for receiving the gift of tongues.  On the contrary, we are taught that the Holy Spirit distributes various gifts according to His own will.  Thus, it may not be His will that you or me receive the gift of tongues.

The twelfth chapter of 1 Corinthians is the key text on all of this:

  4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.  1 Corinthians 12:4-11 NASB

So, the Spirit will give believers gifts as He Himself wills--not as we will.  We may desire the greater gifts, but that is all.  From the following passage, it appears the the gift of tongues is not considered one of the greater gifts, as apostleship, prophecy and teaching are given as the first three.

  27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts.  1 Corinthians 12:27-31


Why did the pope say gender is a property of essence?

In his teaching, The Theology of the Body, Pope John Paul II argues that the essence of being human is both body and spirit.  He asserts that a human spirit without a body is as much an aberration as is a body without a spirit.  Therefore, either without the other is not entirely human.

He makes the very good point that Jesus was raised bodily, and that Paul taught that we will be raised bodily, that indeed that Christian afterlife is a translation into another realm of material existence and not a purely spiritual one.

He also makes the argument that gender is an essential aspect of what it means to be human.  We will not be raised genderless, but as male and female.  Jesus taught only that there will not be marriage in heaven, not that there would not be male and female. According to JP II the reason for that is because we will be experiencing the fullness of relationship that the Trinity share and the marital relationship, being simple a fore-shadowing of that unity with God, will be superfluous.

So all of that to say, yes, as I understand John Paul II's teaching, our sexuality (but not the sexual act) is essential to our being as humans.  That is, to be perfectly clear, sexuality, that is the state of being male or female is, according to JP II (and I agree), essential to being human; the expression of love in sexual intercourse may not be.  The latter may only be a temporal sign of the marriage of Christ and the Church which will be redundant in the eternal state.


Where does Calmet write when idolatry began?

Dictionnaire historique ... de la Bible

Usually when someone cites Calmet, it is a reference to his 1722 Dictionnaire historique, critique, chronologique, géographique et littéral de la Bible, published under the English title Dictionary of the Holy Bible.  I will use this English translation for my answer.  It has some additions by an American author, but these are clearly marked in the text, so it remains clear what Calmet wrote originally.

In the entry for Ham, no mention of idolatry is made.   The entry for idol says:

  Writers are not agreed about the origin of idolatry, or the superstitious worship paid to idols and false gods.

However, I did find a couple of mentions in other places.  The entry for Nimrod says:

  To Nimrod is imputed the invention of idolatrous worship paid to men.

And the entry for Teraphim in the expanded edition says:

  Father Kircher, Oedip. AEgypt Synt. iv. eap. s. and after him Ceneus, in his Republic of the Hebrews, maintain that all idolatry came from Egypt; and that the use of teraphim passed from that country into the east; for that Ham, or his son Mizraim, were the inventors of statues.

Assuming that the person mentioned by the OP got the information directly from Calmet, it was probably this passage.  It doesn't actually express Calmet's opinion, though, but could easily be misread to do so (i.e. thinking only the first line of the paragraph comes from Kircher/Ceneus.)

Commentaire littéral sur tous les livres

I also checked Calmet's other major work, Commentaire littéral sur tous les livres de l'Ancien et du Nouveau Testament.  The volume on Genesis mentions idolatry a number of times, but not in connection with Ham as far as I can tell.  In commentary on chapter 4, he writes:

  On commença alors profaner le nom du Seigneur, en le donnant aux Idoles. C'est la tradition de plusieurs Juifs, que l'idolâtrie commença s'introduire dans le monde sous Enos.

  We then began to profane the Lord's name, giving it the Idols. It is the tradition of many Jews, that idolatry began to break into the world under Enos.

In commentary on chapter 11, he writes:

  Epiphane met l'origine de l'idolâtrie sous Sarug. Les premières idoles ne furent, dit-il, que de simples peintures. Tharé pere d'Abraham introduisit l'usage des statues des figures de métal, de bois de pierres. L'Ecriture nous apprend que Tharé adoré les
  idoles, comme nous le montrerons ci-aprés mais on n'a aucune preuve certaine que ni lui ni Sarug ayent inventé cette pernicieuse coutume.

  Epiphanes puts the origin of idolatry under Serag. The first idols were not, he said, than just paintings. Terah, father of Abraham introduced the use of figurines of metal, wooden, and stones. The Scripture tells us that Terah worshiped idols, as we show here after but we have no certain proof that neither he nor Sarug invented that pernicious custom.

And in commentary on chapter 15, he says:

  il est certain que la plupart de ses ayeux étant morts dans l'idolâtrie font privez du bonheur éternel

  it is certain that most of his [Abraham's] forefathers having died in idolatry are deprived of eternal happiness.

In his commentary on the Book of Wisdom, Calmet has a long essay on the origin of idolatry.  The key paragraph starts:

  Quelques Pères ont cru que Sarug ayeul de Tharé et le septième depuis Noé avoit inventé l'idolâtrie depuis le déluge. Mais on ne trouve aucune preuve de ce sentiment. L'Ecriture dit d'une maniéré assez distincte que Tharé, pere d'Abraham, que Nachor ont été d'abord engagez dans le culte des Idoles; elle insinue la même chose en parlant d'Abraham; ce qui fait juger que ce culte impie n'étoit que trop ancien dans le monde puisqu'il étoit déja si répandu.

  Some Fathers have believed Serag, grandfather of Terah and the seventh from Noah, had invented idolatry from the flood. But we can find no evidence of that suggestion. Scripture tells rather clearly that Terah, father of Abraham, and Nahor were the first engaged in the worship of idols; it insinuates the same thing by speaking of Abraham; which judges this impious worship was only too old in the world since it was already so widespread.

This appears to represent Calmut's view.  A bit later in the same essay, there is a paragraph on Ham:

  D'autres rapportent à Cham, fils de Noé, l'originc des Idoles; d'âutres, à Chanaan son fils. On veut que Cham soit le même que Zoroastre, si fameux parmi les Anciens, & si peu connu par ceux-mêmes qui en parlent. On attribue Cham l'invention de la magie, & des arts dangereux qui y ont rapport. On veut que Chanaan ait répandu la superstition, & le culte des faux Dieux parmi les Phéniciens, & les Cananéens ses descendans, par le moyen desquels il s'est communiqué aisément par tout le monde. Sanchoniathon nous donne une Théologie presque complette des Phéniciens; & on voir par ce qu'il en dit que la fausse Religion a commencé dans ce pays, presque aussi-tôt que le monde. Mais ceux qui nous parlent de Cham, & de Chanaan n'ayant point de preuves positives de ce qu'ils avancent, on ne peut faire aucun fond sur leur rapport. D'ailleurs on fait que Sanchoniathon est un auteur forgé apparemment par Porphyre & qui n'exista jamais.

  Others relate to Ham, son of Noah, the origin of the idols; others, to his son Canaan. They want Ham to be the same as Zoroaster, so famous among the ancients, and so little known by those of whom we speak. They attribute to Ham the invention of magic and the dangerous arts that it entails. They want Canaan to have spread superstition and the cult of false gods among his descendants, the Canaanites and Phoenicians, through whom it is easily communicated to all the world. Sanchoniathon gives us an almost complete theology of the Phoenicians; we see he says the false religion began in this country, almost as early as the world. But since those who speak of Ham and of Canaan have no positive evidence for their claim, one can put no backing on their report. Moreover it is a fact that Sanchoniathon is an author apparently made up by Porphyry who never existed.

Based on the followup comments by the OP, this appears to be where the idea came from.  What Calmet is actually saying is that some scholars attribute the advent idolatry based on a passage in Porphyry's writing which itself apparently quotes someone know as "Sanchoniathon".  Porphyry (Latin Porphyrius) was a pagan philosopher and vocal opponent of Christianity in the late third century.  Calmet, however, basically calls the idea nonsense made up by Porphyry.

Summary

It appears that Calmet believed that idol worship began with Terah or possibly his father, Nahor.  It appears that the passage the OP refers to comes from Commentaire littéral sur tous les livres, but the passage is not expressing Calmet's view, but rather other scholars.  Ultimately, the idea stems from the pagan philosopher Porphyry.


Which are some of the Non Trinitarian sects in Christianity

Before answering, there are a few ways of defining "divinity".  I am going to answer from the traditional, orthodox understanding of the term as defined at http://carm.org/dictionary-divinity

  Divinity is the nature or quality of being God. Within Christianity it
  belongs to God alone. It is also important to note that orthodox
  Christianity believes that Jesus was divine in nature (Col. 2:9) as
  well as being a man. For more information see Jesus' Two Natures.

There's a pretty comprehensive list of denominations that reject the Trinity here. Groups from that list that also deny the divinity of Christ include:

Latter-day Saints
Jehovah's Witnesses
Christian Science
Unification Church
Unity School of Christianity

While not necessarily sects, there are certain teachings that deny both the Trinity and Christ's divinity, which were adhered to by various sects.

Many are found at http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/heresies.stm

  Arianism-- Jesus less than God -- more than human-- The Arian controversy began in Alexandria, Egypt about 318 AD. Arius (c. 250-c.
  336) was a popular Alexandrian priest whose theology about who Jesus
  was was condemned as heretical by the First Council of Nicaea in 325
  and also at the First Council of Constantinople in 381.
  Ebionite-- Jesus regarded as prophet rather than divine Word of God-- Ebionites originally were a first century Jewish-Christian sect.
  They emphasized Jewish law and rejected Paul's teachings. Most
  considered him to be a man, not God. Later use of this term refers to
  anyone who minimizes the divinity of Christ.
  Nestorianism--    Refers to theology of Nestorius of Antioch, who became Bishop of Constantinople in 428 A.D.

  Nestorius believed that Mary was mother only of the human Jesus, not
  the divine Logos and in the Antiochine "two-nature" Christology.


Which Bible verses support adult-only baptism?

There is no precedent for infant baptism in Scripture

Infant baptism simply is not found in the Bible.  That isn't an argument that it can't be done, but it should be seen as an extrabiblical tradition.

Baptism is commanded with salvation

Jesus commanded the apostles as follows:

  Matthew 28:19 (NIV)
  19  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,  baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

The thrust here (and everywhere baptism is commanded) is that the people that the apostles are making the disciples of, and the people they are baptizing, are the same people.  I believe that people must choose to be disciples for themselves, which is a choice babies are unable to make.

Baptism is an outward expression of an inward change

Paul describes the inward change that baptism symbolizes:

  Romans 6:2-4 (NIV)
  2  By no means! We are those who have died to sin;  how can we live in it any longer? 3  Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized  into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4  We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death  in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead  through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

It is a symbol of our spiritually putting ourselves to death, so that we may live with Christ.  This is not a decision that babies can make, so why perform an act that reflects an inward change that has not yet occurred?

The water is just water

In Acts, we have an example of people who had been baptized with water, and needed to be rebaptized.

  Acts 19:2-5 (NIV)
  2  and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit  when you believed?”
  They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
  3  So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
  “John’s baptism,” they replied.
  4  Paul said, “John’s baptism  was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”  5  On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Clearly not all baptisms are equal.  Yet, what changes between right and wrong cases?  The water is constant, so I argue that it is the heart of the baptizee.  Certainly, whatever knowledge the people were lacking that made their baptism null, babies lack even more.  Peter tells us explicitly that the water is not what's important:

  1 Peter 3:21 (NIV)
  21  and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you  also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience  toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Babies are easily able to undergo the removal of dirt from flesh - that can be accomplished by the simple act of pouring water on them.  What they aren't able to do is the very thing that Peter says is important: "the pledge of a clear conscience toward God".

In regard to your arguments...

I think you bring up some interesting points, but I don't think that they make a compelling case for infant baptism.

  Since the sign of inclusion into the covenant under the Old Covenant (circumcision) is so closely tied to the sign under the New Covenant (baptism) Col 2:11-12 and since the Old Covenant sign was offered to children and since the New Covenant is more inclusive in every way than the Old Covenant and since telling a Jewish Christian that they can not baptize their children would have been a big deal to them (and the scriptures show no discussion on this point at all), it has always seemed to me that the burden of proof showing the change in practice lies at the Baptist doorstep.

Is baptism circumcision 2.0?

It sounds like this is considering baptism to have been seen as a replacement for circumcision.  I don't know of any Scriptural basis for this, and Colossians 2:11-12 doesn't seem to make the case.  The absence of an argument in Galatians to this effect is also very conspicuous.  Since in Galatians, Paul is arguing that in Christ, physical circumcision is not important, it seems that the silver bullet argument for his case would have been that baptism is the new circumcision.

Does baptism place us in the new covenant?

I don't know of any indication in Scripture that water baptism includes us in the new covenant.  Rather, the indication seems to be that we are included by spiritual baptism, which occurs by faith in Christ, and water baptism is a subsequent act symbolizing that (1 Peter 3:21, Acts 10:44-48, Matthew 3:11).

John Piper makes an excellent point on this topic here.  He points out that in the New Covenant, we are not included by physical descent, but spiritual:

  Galatians 3:6-7 (NIV)
  6  So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
  7  Understand, then, that those who have faith  are children of Abraham.

As an aside

I'm not completely familiar with the doctrine surrounding infant baptism, so I may be off on this point.  But one thing I don't understand about infant baptism placing someone in the New Covenant, is this: isn't its efficacy disproven once someone who is baptized as an infant grows up to be a non-Christian?  Surely there must be some examples of this...  Or is the belief that infant baptism places babies in the New Covenant until they reach an age of accountability, and then they must decide to enter it themselves?  In that case, shouldn't they be rebaptized anyway once they re-enter? Neither option seems to have Scriptural support.


Does the Bible provide any passages that might help in understanding how Satan became sinful?

This seems like your main question:
"But if God created Satan (originally) as a good (i.e., sinless) being who only entertained good thoughts, what was the original cause of Satan's evil or sinful thoughts?"
That's tough to find a scriptural answer to because the first historically noted thing about Satan was that he was proud.

Isaiah 14:12,13 KJV How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Luke 10:17-19 NIV The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.” He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.

There's no historical details given about him before he succumbed to pride. This passage from James seems to say that it's one's evil desires that produce sin:

James 1:13-15 NIV When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

One could argue that evil desire causes pride, but you could say also that pride causes evil desire. God's word is intentionally ambiguous on this so one can't be dogmatic. And this still doesn't answer the question of how a sinless Lucifer could have gotten evil desires/pride in the first place.
But here's what we DO know:

God created Satan
Satan was tempted by power and...
Satan did succumb to that temptation.

God must have therefore created Satan with this ability to succumb to temptation, whether Satan was created sinless or not. Maybe God did all this to prove that anything outside his nature can succumb to evil, even his most gloriously created angel.


Are there any Christian denominations that incorporate Odinism?

We don't know as much about the German religion as the Greek and Roman ones, because the Germans used less permanent materials in their society, and didn't really write things down. What we have regarding them now is whatever Romans and Greeks decided to write down, and whatever elements were, as you pointed out, incorpated into the culture after Christianization.

"Odinism" is polytheistic, while Christianity is ruthlessly monotheistic. At most a Christian could believe that the German gods were demons misleading people, or angels whose message was misunderstood. Most just say they were idols, or, for those like C. S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton, saw the myths as factually false, but true in that they revealed a need of the human heart, a need that was fulfilled by Christ. Just as a boy might daydream about what his future wife might be like, and then later on in life meet her in reality, so the pagan myth makers were daydreaming about their Bridegroom, who they met Him for real by the Incarnation. For more detail regarding this, I highly, highly, recommend reading G. K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man, especially the chapter "Man and Mythologies," which is one of the best essays he has ever written. You can find it here: http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html#chap-I-v*

There are many elements of German belief in our society that were incorpated into culture practiced by later Christians. For example, our English weekday calendar, except for Saturday (who is a Roman god), are all Anglo-Saxon deities. The name "Easter" refers to the Old English name for the month of April, who was a fertility goddess (just as April is itself named after the Greek fertility goddess Aphrodite). Santa Clause might be based on an Old Norse legend involving Odin/Wodin. Just because things were pagan, doesn't make them wrong per se, because paganism is the religion of humanity, or at least of a fallen humanity. When Christ came, He didn't come to reject all of paganism, for that would be to reject humanity. Rather, He, and the Church, took what was good, and rejected what was bad, based on the doctrines of faith, just as the Israelites savaged the spoils from Egypt. The spoils weren't wrong and evil per se, they were just in the hands of the pagans and the evildoers.

Think about it. The New Testament is written in common Greek, a language created by pagans and used by pagans. Do you really think the Apostles should have rejected the pagan language just because it was pagan?

Christi pax.

*Here's an audio recording: https://archive.org/details/EverlastingMan (pick Book I, Chapter V). I got all this from this website ultimately: http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/index.html


Do the Catholics consider Orthodox Christians heretics?

No.  Perhaps the best statement of the current Roman Catholic position on the schism can be found in Unitatis Redintegratio from Vatican II.  Essentially, the Roman Catholic Church holds that the doctrinal issues that exist are minor if not meaningless, and often result as different ways of expressing or experiencing the same understanding of God rather than from a fundamentally different understanding of God in the first place; from the Catholic perspective, the split is primarily over matters of church organization and not theology.

For an example, consider the filioque: from the Catholic perspective, the difference between the single and double procession is a matter of choice of emphasis rather than of basically different belief.  Tellingly, the Roman church does not require Eastern-Rite Catholic churches to use it.


A older man and woman living under the same roof

Per my understanding, the Catholic Church would reserve judgement or position on this because it is not in the context of Marriage or Sexual relationships.
There are vast situations where people need in-home care by caregivers of the opposite sex.

If there is possibility of scandal or abuse, then there should be steps taken to mitigate these and put some "checks and balances" & transparency.