What are the key differences between the Western and Eastern Christianity?

Before I can answer, I must clarify several terms that you are using incorrectly/ambiguously and define how I will approach this question. I also must begin with the disclaimer that I will be answering from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.

Eastern Orthodox vs. Oriental 'Orthodox' vs. Nestorianism

Nestorianism was condemned at the third and fourth ecumenical councils (Ephesus I & Chalcedon I), so calling them 'Orthodox' is incorrect. While some Eastern Orthodox Christians do lump Nestorians and Oriental Orthodox Christians together as monophysite churches, Oriental Orthodox Christians reject this label and distinguish themselves from Nestorians as miaphysite churches.

Concerning Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians, the difference is that the latter accept only the first three ecumenical councils (Nicaea I, Constantinople I, & Ephesus I), while the former accept seven ecumenical councils. There are some Eastern Orthodox Christians who consider the controversy between Oriental Orthodox and themselves to be primarily semantic (and some dialogue has been made in the 20th century to reunite the churches, but full communion has not yet been restored), but officially they are not considered to be 'Orthodox' (despite their use of the title) as they were condemned as heretical for rejecting the fourth ecumenical council (Chalcedon).

In summary, Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that they are the only Church that can rightly be called 'Orthodox,' and thus Nestorians and Oriental Orthodox Christians are actually heterodox. With that said, I will focus exclusively on defining some key differences between Eastern Orthodox Christians and Western Christians.

Painting Western Christianity With Broad Brush Strokes

Comparing Western Christians only to other Western Christians would be too broad to address in an answer on this site. Similarly, comparing Eastern and Western Christians will necessarily have to be even broader. For this reason, I must make a caricature of Western Christianity that will not fit all Western Christians at all times and in all places. My apologies are extended to those of whom this caricature is not representative. It is also difficult since Western Christianity is extremely divided. For the sake of simplicity, I am lumping Roman Catholicism and Protestantism together (I am aware that many Protestants actually reject this label and consider themselves a separate division altogether, perhaps rightly so in the case of Anglicans - however in this response I will only recognize the two divisions as stated yet treat all of Western Christianity as one group).

Here are some of the primary characteristics of Western Christianity (that stand in sharp distinction from Eastern Orthodox Christian views) that I will use to define it:

Western Christianity has assimilated much of Hellenistic philosophy/thought. Oddly enough, the opposite charge is often made. However, close study of philosophy and history will reveal that Eastern Christians almost immediately began challenging Hellenistic philosophy and created a distinctly Christian philosophy, while due to historical and linguistic circumstances, much of Hellenistic thought and knowledge of the Greek language was lost in the West for some time and only rediscovered later, and was adopted uncritically by many theologians (cf. Scholasticism). For more information on this, please read Jaroslav Pelikan's outstanding work published through Yale University Press entitled Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism. The implications of this point affect every other point of difference.
Western Christians believe that mankind has inherited some form of original sin from Adam and Eve that includes an inheritance of guilt. There is a wide spectrum within Western Christianity concerning this issue, but generally it is held that man is depraved to some extent and will go to hell because of 'original sin' if one is not 'saved.' Death is thus viewed as a form of punishment inflicted on mankind because of sin, and 'hell' is a place of intentional, conscience punishment by God (or complete separation from him, which is intended as a punishment).
Western Christians believe in a juridicial atonement, that is, God's wrath had to be propitiated by a perfect sacrifice: Jesus Christ. Western Christians generally believe that someone has to be punished in order to satisfy divine justice. In other words, mankind deserves to be punished but Jesus gets punished for us.
Western Christians discuss (forensic) soteriology as an isolated issue within theology (as distinct but related to anthropology, Christology and the theology of the Godhead), and focus on the ordo salutis (which often defines the primary contentions between various Western Christian groups).

I could go on but this will have to suffice (again, this is a broad question).

The Key Differences Between Eastern and Western Christianity

With the above definitions and considerations in mind, I offer the following key differences. This is certainly not an exhaustive list, and they are all interrelated:

Historically, culturally, and linguistically, the two churches have grown apart. The churches grew apart for lots of historical reasons, and the Great Schism was precipitated by numerous factors and made permanent by unfortunate conflicts (namely the Roman Catholic Church's decision to sack Constantinople, the seat of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, during the fourth Crusade). The East continued to mainly speak Greek until the 15th century, while the West soon forgot Greek and spoke mostly Latin and a mixture of other languages (but Latin remained the ecclesiastical language through the Reformation - and it still is within Roman Catholicism).
As previously stated, Western Christianity has assimilated much of Hellenistic philosophy/thought (largely uncritically). Conversely, Eastern Christians went through a long phase of assimilating, challenging, condemning, and modifying Hellenistic thought until a distinctly Christian philosophy emerged (largely attributed to the Cappadocian Fathers). Fr. Alexandre Kalomiros explains this in his speech The River of Fire:

  Paganism is ignorance of the true God, an erroneous belief that His
  creation is divine, really a god. This god, however, who is Nature, is
  impersonal, a blind force, above all personal gods, and is called
  Necessity (Ἀνάγκη).... The pagan gods are parts of the world,
  and they are immortal because of the immortality of nature which is
  their essence. In this pagan mentality, man is also god like the
  others, because for the pagans the real man is only his soul, and they
  believe that man's soul is immortal in itself, since it is part of the
  essence of the universe, which is considered immortal in itself and
  self-existent. So man also is god and a measure of all things....

  It is this pagan way of thought that was mixed with the Christian
  teaching by the various heresies. This is what happened in the West,
  too. They began to distinguish not between God and His creation, but
  between spirit and matter. They began to think of the soul of man as
  of something eternal in itself, and began to consider the condition of
  man after death not as a sleep in the hands of God, but as the real
  life of man, to which the resurrection of the dead had nothing to add
  and even the need of the resurrection was doubtful....

  ...they began to feel that God was subject to Necessity, to this
  rationalistic Necessity which was nothing else but human logic. They
  declared Him incapable of coming into contact with inferior beings
  like men, because their rationalistic, philosophical conceptions did
  not permit it, and it was this belief which was the foundation of the
  hesychast disputes; it had already begun with Augustine who
  taught that it was not God Who spoke to Moses but an angel instead.

  It is in this context of Necessity, which even gods obey, that we must
  understand the Western juridical conception of God's justice. It was
  necessary for God to punish man's disobedience. It was impossible for
  Him to pardon; a superior Necessity demanded vengeance. Even if God
  was in reality good and loving, He was not able to act lovingly. He
  was obliged to act contrary to His love; the only thing He could do,
  in order to save humanity, was to punish His Son in the place of men,
  and by this means was Necessity satisfied....

  This is the triumph of Hellenistic thought in Christianity. As a
  Hellenist, Origen had arrived at the same conclusions. God was a
  judge by necessity. He was obliged to punish, to avenge, to send
  people to hell. Hell was God's creation. It was a punishment demanded
  by justice. This demand of justice was a necessity. God was obliged to
  submit to it. He was not permitted to forgive. There was a superior
  force, a Necessity which did not permit Him to love unconditionally.

  However, Origen was also a Christian and he knew that God was full of
  love. How is it possible to acknowledge a loving God Who keeps people
  in torment eternally? If God is the cause of hell, by necessity then
  there must be an end to it, otherwise we cannot concede that God is
  good and loving. This juridical conception of God as a instrument of a
  superior, impersonal force or deity named Necessity, leads logically
  to apokatastasis, "the restoration of all things and the
  destruction of hell," otherwise we must admit that God is cruel....

  So the loss of God's grace, which is eternal, spiritual death, in
  other words, hell, is in reality an act totally dependent on God. It
  is God Who is punishing these people by depriving them of His grace,
  by not permitting it to shine upon them. So God is the cause of the
  eternal, spiritual death of those who are damned. Damnation is an act
  of God, an act of God's justice, an act of necessity or cruelty.

There is far too much that could be said here, so I will allow the quote to stand. I recommend reading the entire speech. Also, I know that the quote hits on a myriad of differences in worldview (which really must be understood before the differences can be understood, as many of the biases inherent in Western Christianity are part of the Western worldview itself), but this will have to suffice for now.

Also, as it stands, I would expect a large number of Western Christian rebuttals to this point. However, please understand that without first studying the underlying thought, it is impossible to have constructive conversation about this (the East and West don't even use terms like 'faith', 'grace', or 'prayer' in the same way/meaning).

The two churches approach theology differently. The East takes an apophatic approach to theology while the West a cataphatic one (this is somewhat of an unfair caricature as both groups take both approaches, and Eastern Orthodox generally balance both ways of doing theology - but again, these are broad caricatures). This represents a fundamental difference in how God may be approached intellectually. In the East, theology begins with the premise that God is unknowable in his essence, but we can encounter him through his energies. It is thus impossible for finite creatures to make cataphatic statements about their infinite Creator. Thus theology is something that the East does, it is not an abstract field of study. The purity of the nous that has been attained by the theologian is vital in the task of theology. Having advanced degrees and knowledge does not make one a theologian, but rather the one who prays is rightly called a theologian in the East, and his or her journey in theosis is directly proportional to his or her ability to 'understand'/'experience' theology, which is an encounter with God himself (as opposed to merely studying a topic; cf. theoria). The West largely approaches theology cataphatically within a Scholastic framework. It would not be fair to deny that the West has had theologians in the Eastern sense of the word, but the West generally labels these individuals as 'mystics,' while in the East all theology is mystical.
The East views salvation as the process of theosis, and thus the Incarnation is the central event in redemptive history. The West views salvation through a multitude of singular events within the ordo salutis, and the crucifixion is generally seen as the central event (although some Protestants would argue that the resurrection is the central event). In Eastern Orthodoxy (as well as in Roman Catholicism and Arminian Protestantism), salvation is synergistic, while in much of (Calvinist-influenced) Protestantism it is monergistic.
The East believes that the central tenet of Western theology is that Western Christianity considers God to be the real cause of all evil - regardless of whether or not Western theologians acknowledge this position or not (some staunch Calvinists admit this). Obviously many Western Christians would disagree. Eastern Orthodox Christians therefore have no need of justifying God (cf. theodicy). In Eastern Orthodoxy, evil is the estrangement from God who is life. Thus death is evil. However, most Western Christians teach that death is a punishment from God, although some Protestants consider death to be 'natural'. Either way, since God is the Creator of all things, the West necessarily believes that God is the real cause of death. They also apply this to the soul, so that God is also the cause of spiritual death for mankind (by punishing mankind in hell). As Fr. Kalamiros explains,

  The 'God' of the West is an offended and angry God, full of wrath for
  the disobedience of men, who desires in His destructive passion to
  torment all humanity unto eternity for their sins, unless He receives
  an infinite satisfaction for His offended pride. What is the Western
  dogma of salvation? Did not God kill God in order to satisfy His
  pride, which the Westerners euphemistically call justice? And is it
  not by this infinite satisfaction that He deigns to accept the
  salvation of some of us? What is salvation for Western theology? Is it
  not salvation from the wrath of God? Do you see, then, that Western
  theology teaches that our real danger and our real enemy is our
  Creator and God? Salvation, for Westerners, is to be saved from the
  hands of God!

Conclusion

This answer is necessarily incomplete. Asking about how the East and West differ in regards to specific doctrines or positions is a much more attainable goal. However, given the broad question, this is my best attempt at answering it. Also, this is certainly a biased answer as it represents an Eastern Orthodox perspective. Obviously a Western answer will differ considerably.

Also, to avoid the duplication of content and repeating myself, I did not address topics that I've answered on before in any depth. You may also wish to check out these responses of mine:

Universalism in the Orthodox Church?
What is the ecclesiastical 'hierarchy' of the Eastern Orthodox Church?
Is the Eastern Orthodox Church independent from regional governments?
What happens with a soul after one's death according to Eastern Orthodox doctrine?
Who is a Christian according to the Russian Orthodox Church?
How can common believers in the Eastern Orthodox Church be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous?
Is there a significant difference between salvation by faith with works and salvation by faith and works?
How do Protestants in general respond to these points concerning them?

For a great book that explains these differences in greater depth to those already well-versed in Western theology, check out James R. Payton's Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition.


Does the Bible say anything about chimeras or explains their purpose?

The only strange animals in the Bible are the pre-historic ones mentioned in Job

Leviathan
Rahab (Also psalm 89)

and

Behemoth

Imaginationless bible scholars have equated Behemoth and Leviathan with hippos and crocodiles.  And I answered this question about Rahab a while back, she sounds pretty interesting, probably some sort of dragon!

and the giants called the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6:4, but they'd be dead by then I think - they certainly weren't on the ark.

and the talking donkey of Balaam in Numbers 22, but God made the donkey talk so he's not that strange of a beast.

A better answer hopefully can comment on Simon De Myle's style, but in the "Here be dragons" style of the map making of the time (1570, there's no reason to think that these creatures weren't talked about or expected to exist in the far reaches of the earth at the time.


What is the basis of the Jehovah's Witnesses' belief that Jesus died on a Stake instead of a Cross?

The Jehovah's Witnesses have addresses this issue. From their web site:
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/did-jesus-die-on-cross/

  Many view the cross as the most common symbol of Christianity.
  However, the Bible does not describe the instrument of Jesus’ death,
  so no one can know its shape with absolute certainty. Still, the Bible
  provides evidence that Jesus died, not on a cross, but on an upright
  stake.

  The Bible generally uses the Greek word stau·ros′ when referring to
  the instrument of Jesus’ execution. (Matthew 27:40; John
  19:17) Although translations often render this word “cross,” many
  scholars agree that its basic meaning is actually “upright stake.” *
  According to A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and
  Greek New Testament, stau·ros′ “never means two pieces of wood
  joining each other at any angle.”

  The Bible also uses the Greek word xy′lon as a synonym for
  stau·ros′. (Acts 5:30; 1 Peter 2:24) This word means “wood,” “timber,” “stake,” or “tree.” * The Companion Bible thus
  concludes: “There is nothing in the Greek of the N[ew] T[estament]
  even to imply two pieces of timber.”


Confusing argument from GotQuestion (Calvinist) about 24 Elders

You seem to be asking how the non-occurence of certain events are said to rule out certain interpretations of Revelation 4:4 and not others. I think this confusion can be cleared up if we recognize the difference between 'historical' non-occurence and 'narrative' non-ccurence from within John's vision.

The pre-tribulation and dispensational pre-millenial perspective that the author(s) of the article on GotQuestions seem to be writing from (see the beliefs of the author, Paul Benware who is cited at the bottom of the article) fits with points A and B that you summarize above. While it is true that for a dispensationalist neither A, B, nor C have occurred in a 'historical' sense from the time of John's writing, there is a 'narrative' time and order of events that seem to undermine pre-tribulation dispensational pre-millenialism if the 24 elders refer to either the elders of Israel or Tribulation saints.

The author(s) seem to feel that Revelation 4 takes places (within the narrative of the vision) sometime before the tribulation, but after the rapture. If A were true, then the narrative would be off because Israel has not been redeemed yet within the narrative and so there would be no 24 elders, but if B were true the narrative would still be off because tribulation saints do not appear yet within the narrative. Both A and B are not possible because the author(s) believe that at the 'narrative' time of John's vision the tribulation not considered to have occurred.

The challenge then becomes discovering who the elders are if they are not either A or B. The author(s) of the article then seem to assume that while the tribulation has not occurred, end-times events have nevertheless been kicked off and saints have been raptured. It is then from these raptured saints that the 24 elders must come. The confusion arises from not understanding the radical distinction held by dispensationalists between Israel and the Church and the fact that at the time of John's 'writing' within the narrative the tribulation has not occurred (or been completed).


Worshiping the Angels is condemned by the Bible. Colossians 2:18 says "Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind". So we can not accuse Catholics of Angel worship. The actual term used by the Catholics for Angels and Saints is veneration (Dulia in Greek). This point is reiterated by the Catholic Church over and again. Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions that "In the meantime, the whole life of the Church benefits from the mysterious and powerful help of angels" (Part One :The Profession of Faith, Section Two, Chapter One,Article I,Paragraph 5, Verse 334). So the Bible prohibits Angel worship and the Catholic Church says that it benefits from the Angels.

How can we understand this? The Angels have a mediation power. They are requesting to God for our cause but do not have the ability to interfere with the decision making process of God. The need for such a mediation arises from the fact that humans who are sinners and imperfect are not worthy of direct contact with God. We better channel our requests through a mediator who at least had a vision of God. The mediators are themselves imperfect and not at par with God in any way. But at least such an attempt looks more humble.


What "fundamentalist" beliefs are most commonly rejected by "moderate" Christians?

The hardest part in this answer is to distinguish Evangelicals from Fundamentalists, who share the same doctrines, but a different culture.

The Fundamentalist movement itself takes it's name from a set of books called "The Fundamentals," published in 1925 as a reaction to modern liberalism in church polity. It basically called for a return to literal interpretation of the Bible and an increased focus on holiness. After the humiliating press from William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes Monkey Trial in the same year, the movement also advocated a complete separation from and rejection of the culture. This has the practical result of demphasizing missions in most truly fundamentalist churches.

In the 1950s, Carl Henry, Billy Graham, and others reacted to this gap by telling fundamentalists they needed to reenage the culture- the foundation of evangelicalism. And, with Roe v Wade in the 1970s most remaining fundamentalists came to believe that engagement in politics was necessary.

Since Fundamemtalism itself is a movement and not a denomination, it is not possible to speak of doctrines or polity (though in effect most are Baptists in these matters) but rather culture and emphasis.

Primary distinctives are thus Literal Interpretation of the Bible, a rejection of theologically liberal learning (especially of the late 1800s) and a call to be separate from the culture.


What Christian groups do not observe or celebrate the Eucharist?

Two significant groups at least loosely associated with Protestantism that don't observe communion are The Salvation Army and the Quakers.

The rationale for the Salvation Army's position is more fully explained here: Why does the Salvation Army not administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper?  But the short version is that they don't observe the Lord's Supper because (1) it has been a source of division in the church, and (2) it is not required for salvation.

The rationale for Quakers focuses more on all of life being "sacramental"; see, for example, this summary from the BBC:

  [Quakers] don't regard some activities as more sacred than others, nor do they believe that any particular ritual is needed to get in touch with God, so they do not believe in the sacraments practised in mainstream Christian churches. (source)

As for Messianic Jews, their practice varies on the actual denomination that they belong to.  Some tie communion closely to the annual celebration of passover, while others observe it regularly like other Protestants.


Is there Scriptural Evidence that Moses had a command that made it Lawful for a Man to Divorce his Wife?

Moses did in fact allow divorce, it was not a law only a permission.

It was permitted here;

  Deuteronomy 24:1-4 KJV  When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house.  And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's [wife]. And [if] the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth [it] in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her [to be] his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that [is] abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.

Jesus however said:

  Matthew 5:31 and 32  KJV It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

and:

  Matthew 19:3 through 9  KJV The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

So from this we see that Divorce is a man made law, and not permitted by God.

Many read:

  Matthew 19:9  And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

To say; that it is okay to divorce a spouse for Adultery, while other read it to say; that if a man divorce his wife, unless she has already committed adultery he causes her to commit adultery.

You must make your own decision  as to how that Scripture reads.


The short answer is yes. But it is not as simple as that either. From a Catholic view point I am going to let Fr. Gabriele Amorth,the head exorcist for the Diocese of Rome answer your question. Other denominations will see things somewhat differently.

Fr. Gabriele Amorth in his in his book An Exorcist Tells His Story (1999) gives a Catholic viewpoint of how Christians can fall victims to the powers of evil (pages 56-60).

With God's Permission.
When we are subject to an evil spell.
A grave and hardened state of sin.
Association with evil people and places.

"It is almost redundant to say that in all these stages, the way to healing can begin only with a sincere conversion (page 59)." - Fr. Amorth.

"At the root, the true cause is always a lack of faith." (page 58).

In his second book An Exorcist More Stories (2002), chapter 10 (Questions and Answers), page 195, Fr. Gabriele Amorth writes from the viewpoint of the sacrament of confession as being helpful in liberation from evil:

My pastor claims that the best exorcism is confession?

"He is right. It is the most direct means to fight Satan, because it is the sacrament that tears souls from the demon's grasp, strengthens against sin, unites us more closely to God, and helps to conform our souls increasingly to the divine will. I advise frequent confession, possibly weekly, to all victims of evil activities"

Once again this is only a Catholic perspective, as other denomination view this subject differently.


What is "sin that leads to death" in 1 John 5:16?

Protestants actually provide a variety of interpretations of this passage.  The "easy" answer, that this refers to the "unforgivable sin," is held by some, but others argue that the case for that interpretation is weak, and suggest several  alternatives.

A couple of notes to begin:

Protestant definitions of the unforgivable sin vary significantly, and these variations impact how this passage is interpreted.
Many commentators point out that John is not necessarily forbidding prayer for sins that lead to death: he may be simply not commanding it.

Physical death

Adam Clarke references two possibilities in particular that he finds preferable, and both involve interpreting "death" as physical death, not spiritual.

The first, described by John Hewlett and held by John Rosenmuller and Henry More, is that the "sin unto death" is a crime deserving capital punishment.  Thus, the government, and not God, should be petitioned in such cases.

The second possibility of this type was advanced by John Wesley.  Citing the example of the disobedient prophet in 1 Kings 13, Clarke summarizes:

  The sin unto death means a case of transgression, particularly of grievous backsliding from the life and power of godliness, which God determines to punish with temporal death, while at the same time he extends mercy to the penitent soul.

Spiritual death

The theologians described here broadly agree that the "death" mentioned here is spiritual death, and that it applies to those who demonstrate themselves, by their actions, to be outside the Body of Christ.  However, they disagree on the definition of the "unforgivable sin."  The first group thus holds that the two are the same, but the latter does not see a reference to it.

Reference to the unforgivable sin

The New Bible Commentary is straightforward on this point – John is referring to the unforgivable sin, which the authors see as a "state of sin, of being in rebellion against God":

  Our Lord warns that he who blasphemes against the Spirit 'will not be forgiven' (Lk. 12:10) and it is this kind of thing that is in mind here.

John Calvin also sees the unforgivable sin as the referent: not a mere "partial fall" but "apostasy, by which men wholly alienate themselves from God."  This corresponds to his view that the unforgivable sin can only be committed by the unsaved: he sees this passage as referring the "reprobate" and those "given up to destruction."

Matthew Henry is a bit more cautious, but still believes "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" and "total apostasy [...] to be the sins chiefly intended by the apostle."

Not a reference to the unforgivable sin

Colin J. Kruse isn't convinced that John is referring to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit here, "because it fails to note the explanation given by Mark concerning the nature of this sin, that is, that it involves ascribing the miracles of Jesus to the work of the devil.  There is no hint of this in 1 John."

Brooke Westcott, argues that the phrase "sin unto death" was borrowed from Rabbinic writings (cf. Numbers 18:22).  Thus, "a 'sin unto death' would be a sin requiring the punishment of natural death.  [...] Death in such a case was final exclusion from the Divine Society."  Extending this to Christian society, then, he sees this sin as referring to any sin that by "its very nature excludes from fellowship," such as hatred of believers or denial of Christ: acts that reveal that one is not a part of the Body.

Kruse argues that from the context of the book, John is "very likely" referring to the sin of a group called secessionists, people who denied the incarnation and atoning death of Christ.  Kruse sees this group as one of the "central issues being addressed by the letter," and thus finds it preferable to interpret the sin that leads to death to be "that of the unbeliever," particularly, these "antichrist" heretics.

Robert W. Yarbrough similarly sees the sin as those actions proceeding out of "a heart unchanged by God's love in Christ," and IVP New Testament commentary agrees:

  The distinction between kinds of sin is not, therefore, a ranking of the seriousness of sins that believers commit. Instead, we have here an implicit distinction between kinds of sinners and sinning. "Sinning not unto death" is, paradoxically, sin in the realm of life, committed by one who has eternal life. [...] But where there is no confession, there is "sinning unto death," sin committed in the realm of death, sin that comes from and leads to death for the one who is guilty of it.

Summary

The Protestant interpretation of this passage is by no means clear cut, as evidenced by the number of variations advanced by these theologians.  However, it's important to note that despite the wide-ranging rationales, ultimately two views emerge: (1) that this sin is naturally punished with physical death, and (2), that the sin is committed only by those outside the Body of Christ.

Thus, we find general agreement that John is not describing a sin that, if committed, sends a Christian to hell.  Nor is he concealing some mysterious infraction that, if accidentally committed, results in spiritual death.  If indeed he does have spiritual death in view, he refers only to sins that in themselves demonstrate alienation from Christ's church.

References:

Calvin, Commentary
Clarke, Commentary
Henry, Commentary
Hewlett, Commentaries and Annotations on the Holy Scriptures, V, 171
IVP New Testament Commentary
Kruse, The Letters of John, 2000, 192–94
New Bible Commentary, 1970, 1270
Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, 209ff..  This text also includes a number of quotations from church fathers on the subject.
Yarbrough, 1–3 John, 2008, 309–11


What was the population of the world at the time of the flood?

According to Tom Pickett on this site: http://www.ldolphin.org/pickett.html

  Although it is difficult to obtain an actual value of world population at the time of the flood, 5 to 17 billion people would appear to be reasonable populations, with an average of around 10 billion.

The site shows the assumptions and formula used for calculation. Inherent in the assumption of an average age of 900 years is a tacit assumption of a very low mortality rate.  On the other hand, it has what could be considered a very low average family size given the reported ages of the pre-diluvians (6 to 7 children per family for the figures given although other family sizes are considered). In view of these figures, the following comment seems highly pertinent:

  If the population reached over a billion, there would tend to be some logistical problems in feeding and caring for the population (clothing, housing, jobs, etc). This indicates that they would have required a higher level of technology than what we currently give them credit for.

Given this, it seems likely that the pre-flood population was approaching the carrying capacity of the accessible arable land and that at least some of

  ...how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. - Genesis 6:5 NIV

may have been triggered by conflict over scarce resources.


How do United Pentecostals and other Oneness groups interpret Hebrews 2:9?

United Pentecostals do not deny that there is a Father and there is a Son.  They believe the Father and Son are one Spirit.  They believe that there is a distinction between Father and Son.  The Son is God in the Flesh.  The Father is God not in the flesh.  The United Pentecostals point out that in Scripture, the term "Son" is always used in reference to God in the flesh. If you would like to read more of what the UPC doctrine is, I suggest "The Oneness of God," by David Bernard. (I am not UPC, thus, I hesitate to go any further specifically regarding their doctrine, lest I misrepresent them).

As a Oneness adherent, I would continue thus in regard to this verse and your question:

Flesh is mortal, spirit is not. Flesh can suffer, flesh can die, the spirit experiences the suffering of the body, but the spirit does not die; Thus, When Christ died on the cross, God did not die.    Note:

  Luke 23
  46 Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last (NKJV).  /"gave up the ghost" (KJV).

So, God did come in the flesh, and did experienced death in the Body he took on; He suffered, and in the sense that any man dies, he died.  But God (Spirit) did not die.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses understand Hebrews 1?

The Jehovah’s Witness understanding is based upon their doctrine of the Son of God having been created by Jehovah God as his first created creature. They say the first thing Jehovah created was the Archangel, Michael, who also has the name, the Word of God. This Archangel then created all the other angels, this universe, this planet and all life on it, with Jehovah’s enabling. He later became the man, Jesus Christ. It is Michael the Archangel who will return in the future, they claim.

This is what their ‘What Does The Bible Really Teach?’ book (2009 printing) says about Jesus as Michael the Archangel (pages 218-219):

  "Likewise, the Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus
  Christ, before and after his life on earth… Moreover, Jesus is linked
  with the office of archangel… Thus the voice of Jesus is described as
  being that of an archangel. This scripture therefore suggests that
  Jesus himself is the archangel Michael… Since God’s Word nowhere
  indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven – one
  headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus – it is logical to conclude
  that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role."

Their “Insight On The Scriptures” Vol. II page 394 (published 1988) uses Revelation 19:11-16 to conclude

  “that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah’s appointed
  King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har-Mageddon.”

So Jehovah’s Witnesses believe it will be Michael the Archangel who heads up the angelic armies at the battle of Armageddon. All of the foregoing establishes clearly their belief that Jesus is actually a created angel.
Now it becomes obvious why their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures renders Hebrews 1:6 as,

  “But when he again brings his firstborn into the inhabited earth, he
  says, ‘Let all God’s angels do obeisance to him’.”

Angels must not receive worship - a clear teaching in the Bible that Jehovah' Witnesses agree with. That is because angels are created and creatures must not be worshipped. Now, I quoted that verse from their 1984 edition. Yet their 1969 ‘Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures’ says,

  ‘…let all God’s angels worship him’.”

I do not know what year that transition from ‘worship’ to ‘do obeisance to’ was made, but it seems that the change was made to prevent their version of the Bible from even hinting that God would have his angels worship Christ.

In their New World Translation, every time the word for worship applies to Jesus, they render it as bowing down with respect. But every time the word applies to Jehovah God, they render it as worship. An article on this view of Jesus is found here

The Jehovah's Witnesses say that angels are merely to bow down respectfully before Jesus but deny that this amounts to worship. That is how they see Hebrews chapter 1.  Yet verse 3 presents a theological problem to them, which they don’t seem to have taken account of. Their KIT renders it as,

  “[Jesus] is the reflection of [God’s] glory and the exact
  representation of his very being.”

Well, if the Jehovah’s Witness Jesus has the being of an angel, they are effectively saying that Jehovah God also has the being of an angel. However, that requires another question as you did not seem to include verse 3 in your question, asking specifically about verses 4 to 14.


Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great and younger brother of Archelaus (both by Malthrace). Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. Herod the Great's initial political career was as the the governor of Galilee, and later he was appointed as king over Judea by Caesar Octavius (Augustus). After he died, there was some conflict as to which of his sons were to become king of Judea (ultimately, none of them became king over all of Judea as he was). Herod made an amendment to his will just days before his death indicating that Archelaus should be king, but it didn't play out that way.1

  Herod had written six wills during the course of his life. The sixth will was actually a codicil of his fifth will. Since this final version had been written only five days before his death, it had not been ratified by the emperor. Therefore, although Archelaus took over the leadership at Herod’s death he did not use the title king (Antiq. 17.8.4 §§202–3; War 2.1.1 §§2–3). After the Passover he and Antipas set out for Rome to dispute the last two wills, leaving Philip behind to govern. Archelaus wanted to convince Augustus that he should ratify the will made just before Herod died, because it represented his wish. On the other hand, Antipas sought to convince the emperor that Herod had not been of sound mind and body when he wrote the last will. While they were in Rome there was a revolt in Palestine, and a Jewish delegation arrived in Rome to ask autonomy for the nation and for union with the province of Syria. After much debate Augustus devised a compromise. He made Archelaus ethnarch (meaning “ruler of a nation”) over Idumaea, Judea, and Samaria. He made Antipas tetrarch (meaning “ruler of a quarter”) of Galilee and Perea and Philip tetrarch over Gaulanitis, Trachonitis, Batanea, and Paneas (Antiq. 17.11.4 §§317–20; War 2.6.3 §§93–100). Thus, Antipas, while losing his bid to be king, did prevent Archelaus from ruling the entire nation.2

So to clearly answer the question, Herod Antipas was "ruler of a quarter" (tetrarch) over Galilee and Perea. I've highlighted these regions in red/pink in the map below.

3

1 Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 967-8.

2 Ibid., 968. I linked all of the primary sources cited in the Encyclopedia to the English translations of the works available for free on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library so that you can read them for yourself.

3 Map from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perea#/media/File:First_century_Iudaea_province.gif (edited to highlight Galilee and Perea).


What is the importance of Leviticus 19:19?

The point was to give a concrete definition of "holiness" - namely that God was "set apart," i.e. holy, and God wanted his people to be "set apart" from the other nations.

These vestigal practices mainly were a symbol of a greater concept - that as God's chosen people, they were to be different / separate from everyone else.

The opposite of holiness is syncretism - mixing in religious practices from outside Israel into the worship of YHWH.  He would often say of himself "I am a jealous God." He would not share his glory with any other.


In order for the language of being "saved" to make sense one has to understand what we are being saved FROM. There has to be a before and after scenario. We are saved from the wrath of God. Those without faith in Christ are described as children of wrath.

Consider this passage that uses the language of being "saved" including some details on our original position before God, the change that happens, and our final standing after salvation as well as the key operative bits on how that actually happens:

  Ephesians 2:1-9 (ESV)
  1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

That wrath was meted out on Christ (Isaiah 53:5) and by bearing this punishment and separation from the Father, He claimed the right to make us Sons. He transferred us from the domain of darkness into the light.

  Colossians 1:1-14 (ESV)
  11 May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Returning to the language of Ephesians above, "being saved" means being made alive, to be raised up with Christ. A few verses after the Colossians passage above it talks about how God reconciled us to Himself through Christ.

To "be saved" thus means to be rescued from the wrath of God, made alive in Christ and reconciled to the Father. The pre-salvation scenario thus has us as an object of God's wrath, the post-salvation scenario has us as objects of His affections and co-heirs with Christ.


Interfaith marriage in Christianity with Bible reference

The Bible verse most commonly cited about this issue is 2nd Corinthians, Chapter 6 verse 14:

  Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? (NIV)

This is generally taken as a very strong discouragement, if not prohibition, of Christians marrying non-Christians. There are also several places in the Old testament where God commands the Jews not to marry those of other faiths, specifically lest that cause them to depart from worshipping the Lord. While Old Testament prohibitions are not usually regarded as binding on Christians, this does tend to back up the idea that marrying someone of another faith will tend to take you away from your faith.

Most Christian denominations believe it is a bad idea to marry someone not of the faith. Apart from the above Bible verse, marrying a non-Christian is something that is probably going to take you away from your faith, or at best be a distraction from it. It's also going to put stresses on a marriage for the two partners to have fundamentally different life views. Even secular marriage counsellors will point out that such marriages can have severe challenges.

Christians differ in their response when someone marries outside the faith. It's unlikely, in the Western world, for a family or community to completely cut off someone who marries outside the faith, and on the rare occasions it happens it's as frequently for cultural reasons as it is for reasons of faith. Roman Catholics will sometimes even permit such a marriage to happen with the blessing of the church, as long as there is a promise to bring up any children in the Catholic faith.


Are Christians not permitted to have sex with wife when she's on her period?

There is no external law that binds the Christian.

  1 Corinthians 6:12 "All things are lawful to me," but not all things
  do profit. "All things are lawful to me," but I will not be mastered
  by anything.

  Romans 7:4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have been put to death to the Law through the body of Christ, for you to belong to another, to the One having been raised out from the dead, so that we should bear fruit to God.

  Galatians 2:19 For through the Law I died to the Law that I might live to God.

So it is just a matter of sound judgement of what is appropriate and what benefits by the Holy Spirit in you. It is called by many names:

Law of Christ ( Galatians 6:2 )
Law of the Spirit ( Romans 8:2 )
My laws ( Hebrews 8:10, 10:16 )
Law of Faith ( Rom 3:27 )
Law of Liberty ( James 1:25 )

All aspects of the same truth pertaining to Christ's nature inside us partaken through heart transformation by the indwelling Holy Spirit also Known as Sanctification ( 2 Thes 2:13-14 )

  Galatians 5:6 ...All that matters is faith, expressed through love....

  We are now not under the law anymore, but instead we live by faith.
  And here is a shocker, something that will no doubt shut the mouths of
  those who still try to be justified by obeying the law. Lets look at 2
  verses first:

  Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith…

  and also

  Rom 14:23b … for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

  Can you see what it says when you combine these 2 verses?

  Can you see it??? Since the law
  is not of faith, and since anything that is not of faith is sin, then
  it means that those who try to be justified by their own good works
  and try to live up to some moral code (the law) are actually living in
  sin!!

  From Christ the End of the Law

  Living by the Law is Separation

  The law presupposes the separate self to obey it. The fact that we see
  the law outside us as something we have to attain to, something which
  we are not now but should or ought to be, is our perpetual admission
  that we are lawbreakers and in separation from God. In this
  separation, we can only hear the law as if it is coming from outside
  us and therefore we are apart from it, so that we are bound to both
  the demands of the law and to the separateness in which to do them.

  This separate outer law demands that we live up to the reality that we
  are the image of God. That is an impossibility, because we are only an
  image, and not God Himself. Only God can be God. An image does not
  create or sustain itself, but is dependent on the object of which it
  is an image. We are images that have come out of the breath of God,
  and so we have some measure of life and will in ourselves – for we are
  persons in His image! As persons, we have all been tempted to try to
  become God ourselves by trying to be like Him, whether knowingly or
  unknowingly. It is the most absurd thought that ever came into the
  temporal universe. Still, we have all tried it. Like Lucifer, we have
  all said, “I will be like the Most High.” (Is 14:14).

  Nevertheless, the very attempt to emulate God, even if out of a
  supposed good motive – to do “good” – is the point of separation from
  God, because no separate will can work in Him. A will that says, “I
  will be like Him,” is already separated unto itself and not to God,
  because no created being can be like Him. He is Himself and there is
  no other. However, He has created us that through Christ in us we
  would be the visible expression of which He is the invisible reality,
  so that our lives are what they are supposed to be when we are one
  with God. Something that is one with something has no need to become
  or change into something else – to “be like” something, because it
  already IS a perfect expression of that with which it is “one.” It
  just is itself, and thinks and wills as one with its source. As a
  branch of a vine lives only from the sap from the vine, and therefore
  bears the fruit of the vine through its organic oneness with the vine,
  in the same exact way we bear the fruit of Christ since we are one
  with Him and are living branches on His vine.

  From Fred Pruitt

Further resources to study this are:

The Naked Gospel: The Truth You May Never Hear in Church
101 Lies Taught In Church Every Sunday
Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices
The Story Behind Galatians - Frank Viola
Grace & Law - Natural Church


Is there a difference between theology and apologetics?

"Theology" is the study of God, the gods, and related ideas like angels and demons and heaven and hell.

"Apologetics" is the defense of a theological position.

You could say that apologetics is a subset of theology, that part of theology concerned with proving (or at least, arguing) that the rest is true.


Was Jesus was sent to speak to the Jews only?

If Jesus said He was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, then that is certainly true.  If we don't accept Jesus' own words as true, then it would be difficult to imagine what the qualifications for acceptance would be.

So, yes, Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.  That does not mean, however, that Jesus, the eternal Son of God, did not come ultimately to save the entire world.  His mission was quite strategic.  It has been well said, that "Jesus loved the world, preached to the multitudes, and gave His life to 12 men."

He came to the Jews as their Messiah, yet His strategy was to reach the entire world.  Incidentally, that strategy is working quite well, and Christianity continues to spread even in the harshest and remotest of places.

God's plan from the beginning was to have a world full of people who reflected His image and who were in a relationship with Him.  His purpose has remained the same throughout time.  Becoming flesh in the virgin birth and presenting Himself as the Jewish Messiah to the Jewish people was just a part of that plan for all people.


Do any Christian traditions assert that there can be more than one "messiah"?

The English word "messiah" is a loanword derived from the Latin word messias, which itself is a transliteration of the Greek word μεσσίας (cp. John 1:41, 4:25), which itself is a transliteration of the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ, which is accurately transliterated into English as mashiach.
That being said, the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ is an adjective which translates into English as "anointed." As an adjective, it can also function as a substantive meaning "anointed one."
In the Bible, many people are referred to as מָשִׁיחַ, including priests (Lev. 4:3), prophets (1 Kings 19:16), the kings of Israel (1 Kings 19:16), and even the king of Persia (Isa. 45:1). Hence, we encounter the phrase הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ (ha-kohen ha-mashiach), or "the anointed priest" (Lev. 4:3).
It is thus evident that there were many "anointed ones," or as you put it, "messiahs." Even the Tanakh mentions many "anointed ones" ("messiahs") in one verse. For example,
In 1 Chr. 16:22, it is written,

Do not touch My anointed ones; do not harm My prophets.
אַל תִּגְּעוּ בִּמְשִׁיחָי וּבִנְבִיאַי אַל תָּרֵעוּ

ִּבִּמְשִׁיחָי is not "My anointed one," for that would have been written בִּמְשִׁיחִי. The word בִּמְשִׁיחָי is plural, meaning "My anointed ones."
Furthermore, all Christians today are anointed and technically "messiahs."

Now He who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, is God. 1 Cor. 1:21

Also,

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know everything. 1 John 2:20

And,

And the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you, but as the same anointing teaches you about everything, and is truth, and is no lie, even as it has taught you, you shall abide in Him. 1 John 2:27

However, there is one anointed one who is the anointed par excellence (κατ' εξοχήν), and that is who Christians identify as the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e., Lord Jesus, the Anointed One). The reason the Lord Jesus is the Anointed One par excellence is because he was anointed with the "oil of gladness" more than any of his brothers. This "oil of gladness," which he was not given by measure (John 3:34), is the Holy Spirit (cp. Acts 10:38).

6 O' God, Your throne is for ever and ever. The sceptre of Your kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 You loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore O' God, your God anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your fellows. Psa. 45:6-7

Hence, we call the Lord Jesus "the messiah" and not "a messiah."


The reason is because God is perfect love, but God is also simple. That means all His attributes are present and none can be divided from the others. So He is loving, just, truthful, faithful, patient, and many other things all in perfect balance.
Did God not say He would exact eternal punishment upon sinners who refuse to repent? He is truthful, so He could not lie about this.
Will God do it? He is faithful, so He keeps all His promises.
Is God just? Then He must punish wrongdoing.
Is this punishment a just punishment? For one, is there an alternative path He could take to achieve His goals that enhances His love without diminishing His other attributes? God is infinitely wise so must have considered every option. If Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane asked His Father if there was another way besides the cross and this infinitely wise and loving God when addressing His sinless Son whom He loves said, "No", then it is certain that there is no better way that ensures the salvation of as many as can be saved. If God is wise and loving and truthful and declares that this punishment shall go forward, then it is just.
You say, "I didn't ask to be here..."
Isaiah said,

You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it,
“You did not make me”?
Can the pot say to the potter,
"You know nothing”?

(Isaiah 29:16)

Paul in Romans said,

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For
who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to
talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it,
‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the
right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special
purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power
known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for
destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory
known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for
glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but
also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:19-24)

If we harbour ideas that the punishment is too great for the crime, yet God is just in punishing sin as He does, it must be because we grossly misjudge the severity of sin. Jesus died to pay for that sin, if only we accept his work by having faith in him. God does not take sin lightly. He paid the ultimate price. Consider the severity of sin to be equal to the payment made to eriadicate it. Infinite God offered His Son, of infinite worth, to fix the problem. That means that sin is far more deadly than we can possibly imagine. Our inability to see that or accept it is a measure of our spiritual blindness.
Yet that is not the only reason God punishes us for sin! A measure of the suffering that we endure is really a message from God. Jesus suffered on behalf of others. Such character and love is highly valued by God. God wants all His children to possess exceeding virtue. He wants us to become more like Jesus. To do that, we must suffer as he did so that our lives may produce the fruit of righteousness. The greatest faith is displayed by those who trust in God's goodness in the midst of great suffering. Such a person is a witness to all around them of a miracle. Only a miraculous faith can persist in the midst of suffering. This is what Job displayed to the people around him. Job's reward was that the longest single speech in the Bible that God ever delivered to any person, He spoke to Job.
As a personal example, years ago I several times visited a woman named Janet  in a nursing facility who suffered horrible pain from rheumatoid arthritis. She was a believer in Jesus Christ and continued to share her faith with all who visited her. After leaving her room after my first visit, I was overcome with tears and sobbing. But a half hour later, the tears were replaced with peace, and then ecstatic joy. The joy stayed for an entire week. A few months later I attended her funeral. One of the people there said something I will never forget: "When you were with Janet, it was like the Holy Spirit was pouring out of her." Amen. After that meeting with Janet, I was delivered from over a decade of depression. Why do we suffer? Some of that suffering, if we believe that God loves us no matter what, becomes spiritual power to shower blessings on the people around us. Broken but faithful people are channels of God's love.

12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater
love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
14 You are my friends if you do what I command. (John 15:12-14)

God's desire is that we be people who love. Love means laying down your life for the ones you love.

For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses
their life for me will save it. (Luke 9:24)

The ones who go to Hell try to save their life by not loving others in a costly way. The ones who go to heaven are willing to lose their life to help the ones they love. The responsibility is ours. God shows us the respect to accept our decision as people with free will.
UPDATE:
In a comment, the OP asks:

Why not just leave those who don't want to follow him alone?

What do you suppose being alone for eternity would be like? In The Great Divorce, C. S. Lewis took a stab at it. His shining example was Napoleon, on a planet by himself, endlessly arguing with himself over who was to blame for his defeat. Lewis showed people arriving in Hell. At first they hang out with their former family and friends, but with no light of goodness from God, every good part of the people they knew on earth is gone, they figure it out, and eventually can't stand being near each other. Every person in hell slowly moves away from every other person until they are completely alone.
We have a conceit that we are all in this world together: good people, bad people, good things, bad things, God and Satan. We can imagine putting up a fence and separating the good from the bad so that each would leave the other alone. What is it like to exist in a world without God? A world with no goodness? A world of comlpete loneliness?
What happens to prisoners in our world that are put in solitary confinement for too long? They go crazy. The emotional pain of being separated from human contact grows until it exceeds the worst physical pain. It is a pain without hope of ever diminishing. That is Hell. The only antodote is to be in the presence of God, which they have rejected. There are no good things apart from the presence of God.
Lewis shows a woman from Heaven going to visit her husband at a waypoint in the middle. She tries to convince him to come to heaven and share her joy. He is mad at her for not sympathising with his pain and torment. However, she is wrapped up in the beatific vision. She can no longer experience sadness or pain, only joy. Her husband cannot guilt her by his old put downs into feeling shame and powerlessness. He cannot cut her down and it infuriates him. He can no longer oppress or control her, the thing he desires more than happiness. So he leaves and returns to hell. His every inclination is to do to the saints things which God will no longer permit. The frustration at having a sinful will opposed in all its actions forever is exhausting and agonizing. That is hell.


Why did the Pharisees need Judas to betray Jesus?

It's something you probably don't think about much, but we have reason to believe that Jesus really wasn't all that distinctive in his appearance.

  John 8:58-59

  58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

  59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

  Luke 4:28-30

  28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were
  filled with wrath,

  29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the
  brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast
  him down headlong.

  30 But he passing through the midst of them went his way

This is the act of someone who is very ordinary-looking and able to blend in with a crowd at will.  See also Isaiah 53:2.  The context makes it clear that he's prophesying about the Messiah here, and he clearly states that he does not look like what you'd expect of a powerful, charismatic leader:

  ...he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

As Dancek pointed out, Jesus reminded them that they could have come for him any time he was in the temple teaching.  It's not hard to find him then: look for the one who's the center of attention!  But looking for him at night, when you don't really know what he looks like and even if you did, that description might match any of thousands of Jews? (And this was Passover season, so there were a lot of extra Jews in Jerusalem at the moment.)  The only way to make sure you've got the right guy in a situation like that is to get someone who personally knows your target to identify him.  And so that's exactly what they did.


Catholic position about non-truthfully conversion to islam

According to canon law on mixed marriages (i.e., marriages between a Catholic and non-Catholic),

  1917 Can. 1060 … if there is a danger of perversion to the Catholic spouse and children, that marriage is forbidden even by divine law.

Also—regarding the children, the procreation and education of whom is the primary purpose of marriage—it is required that

  1983 Can.  868 §1. … 2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion…

Can that be said for a crypto-Catholic, pseudo-Muslim father living in an Islamic theocratic country? Wouldn't this be to tempt God?

The Church's laws on mixed marriages must be respected before attempting a clandestine marriage or a marriage under false pretenses.


What is the origin and basis for the Catholic teaching regarding Mary's vow of celibacy prior to her betrothal?

Nobody will mind if I quote a 1850 year old document at length here right? If you don't read it with any context it might seem kind of strange.  The Protoevangelium of St. James is definitely apocryphal, but that doesn't make it bad and it certainly shows evidence of an age old tradition (and a good one).

  And her months were added to the child. And the child was two years old, and Joachim said: Let us take her up to the temple of the Lord, that we may pay the vow that we have vowed, lest perchance the Lord send to us, and our offering be not received. And Anna said: Let us wait for the third year, in order that the child may not seek for father or mother. And Joachim said: So let us wait. And the child was three years old, and Joachim said: Invite the daughters of the Hebrews that are undefiled, and let them take each a lamp, and let them stand with the lamps burning, that the child may not turn back, and her heart be captivated from the temple of the Lord. And they did so until they went up into the temple of the Lord. And the priest received her, and kissed her, and blessed her, saying: The Lord has magnified your name in all generations. In you, on the last of the days, the Lord will manifest His redemption to the sons of Israel. And he set her down upon the third step of the altar, and the Lord God sent grace upon her; and she danced with her feet, and all the house of Israel loved her.

So far it's Our Lady just being a cute little kid and it's her parent who vow to give her to the temple (ala Hannah who she herself definitely prefigures).

And her parents went down marvelling, and praising the Lord God, because the child had not turned back. And Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel. And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?

and here it's the priests who don't want Mary to be defiled, so they try to marry her off to an old guy.

  And they said to the high priest: You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto you, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judæa, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran.

So, in the end, all the pieces fit snugly with unchanging Sacred Tradition concerning the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.  Even if the Holy Spirit didn't choose to assert Himself through the truths contained in this ancient text.  The evidence of a tradition is certainly evidence of a tradition.

That she, of her own accord, decided to be a temple virgin or not isn't particularly important.  Whatever God did for her, He preserved her from following her passions and going off and doing something sinful so he could use her, whom he most loved of all His creatures, for something amazing.


According to a ‘forgiveness in Christ alone’ framework how did ‘sin offerings’ make atonement for sin under the Mosaic Law?

How did the old ceremonial sacrifices made atonement?

They didn't. Old Testament sacrifice was only able to atone for someone who followed the Mosaic law perfectly... a feat which is beyond any of us, especially as most of us are not Jews, and even if we were the Altar and priests are gone. The whole point of Jesus' sacrifice is that the former sacrificial system was inadequate. Sin offerings succeeded only until "just the right time", when Christ made one sacrifice for all.


In history, a name has far more significance than in modern western culture, where it has been relegated to simple a "handle" by which you identify someone.  It used to be significant of the person, and their character.

The idea of lifting someone's name is to exalt that person.  So when we lift the name of Jesus, we are exalting him.

Consider also, the idea of acting in someone else's name - that is acting with their authority by proxy, as if that other person were actually present.  "Open up, in the name of the King!"

Also, consider too, "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".


What is the basis of not following Halakha?

Most Christians do not believe that they are changing or ignoring any law. However, there are many laws which certain Gentile Christians do not believe apply directly to them.

In the early days of the church, as chronicled in the book of Acts, there was some division on how Gentiles should respond to the various laws held by the Jews, such as the Kosher food laws. Paul and Peter initially disagreed, and there was a council held to consider the question. The decision was that Gentile converts would not have to become Jews and follow their laws, but instead were only bound by certain laws, which were very similar to those given to Noah. This is in the book of Acts in chapter 15. Outside of the Bible, this is often called the Council of Jerusalem.

Most Christian denominations would consider any law that is outside of the Torah itself to be extra-biblical, and therefore, only of interest to gain context on the law that is written in the Torah. When Jesus spoke, he pointed out several occasions where the current Jewish law of his day contradicted the actual Law of the Torah, or at the very least, was practiced in a way that was opposed to the original purpose. The reason that Jesus had to say that he was not breaking the law, as you quoted, was because many people believed he was doing just that when he challenged the traditions of the day. For instance, he picked corn and healed on the Sabbath, and he didn't necessarily keep the custom of washing before eating. In those cases, he would explain how the current practice was not actually part of the law given by God and cite the Scriptures in support.

With regards to the the laws directly in the Torah, some Christian denominations will divide those into categories of ceremonial, civil, and moral law. The ceremonial laws, like performing sacrifices, have already been fulfilled in Christ, and as such, doing so again would be equivalent to putting Christ on the cross again. Also, there is currently no proper temple for the performing of the sacrifices, and so these are impossible to properly fulfill. Civil law would be those portions of the law which were designed to create a framework for society within Israel. Many of these were never intended to apply to people outside of country Israel, and some only applied to Jews inside of Israel. Most of these laws would not work well without the framework that God setup for that state, and so could not be properly practiced elsewhere.

This would leave the moral laws, and there are a variety of opinions between denominations on how to approach these. One way some approach them is to say that the majority of the Levitical Law was given "because of the hardness of their hearts." In other words, they weren't actually intended for Gentiles, but to express the character of God and emphasize holiness and principles that the Jews could not understand otherwise, and function as pictures for the rest of us. Those groups tend to lean on Paul's teachings that salvation is by faith alone, and that the law does not save, but only shows that we need salvation. Other denominations claim that the 10 commandments are what were meant to apply to all people and follow them alone. There are some denominations which do try to follow all the laws.

Another point that is important to understand is that many Christians believe that passages like Isaiah 52:15, and many verses like the ones listed here: Are there Old Testament Scriptures that mention salvation for the Gentiles?, imply that God's intention was always to provide a method of salvation to the Gentiles, and that even though we are grafted into Israel, by Christ, we do not have to individually become Jews to experience salvation. Previously, those who desired salvation would convert, and then become bound by the law, where this is not the case after the promise was fulfilled.

I am not currently aware of any Christian denomination which would think they are actually changing laws. Generally, their goal is to do away with man-made laws, and then to understand God's Law as well as they can with the new understanding that the law has been completely fulfilled in Christ, and that because of the sins of Israel, God's grace has now been poured out on Gentiles also. The various disputes arise over how best one should correlate those truths.


Are there members in people's ancestry who claim to have seen Jesus, or witnessed His acts?

There are some families amongst the Ancient Churches of the Levant (Syria, Lebanon etc.) that do claim descent from particular apostles. For example, some members of the Semaan family claim descent from the Apostle Peter. Similarly for the families Andraos (Andrew), Hanna (John) and Matta (Matthew).


Are any Greek or Roman gods mentioned by name in the Bible?

Yes, several different Romans and Greek gods are mentioned.  Artemis, Zeus, and Hermes are all Greek gods and Ashteroth was known as Astarte or Aphrodite to the Greeks.
Artemis was also known to the Romans as Diana and Ashteroth was known to them as Venus.

When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”  Acts 19:28 ESV
Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker.  Acts 14:12 ESV
After three months we set sail in a ship that had wintered in the island, a ship of Alexandria, with the twin gods as a figurehead.  Acts 28:11 ESV  [This apparently refers to Castor and Pollux.]
For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.  1 Kings 11:5 ESV

List of false gods mentioned in the Bible.


Do any Protestant Sects object to the existence of angels?

They are not making an idol or a graven image (an idol) of God by putting a cherubim (These are not the heart arrow cherubs) on the Ark of the Covenant. They are not worshiping the cherubims, they are worshiping God.
I have not found a denomination that doesn't believe in angels (see this comparison of denominations), so for what I know of there isn't (This is not including a few people that don't, this is groups).
And to answer your question, there is no reason a Christan group shouldn't believe in angels. Angels are mentioned 273 times in the Bible!


What is the basis for anointing of physical objects and who practices this?

Anointing an object certainly appears in the Bible, and is part of ancient Jewish practice:

Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Take the following fine spices: 500 shekels of liquid myrrh, half as much (that is, 250 shekels) of fragrant cinnamon, 250 shekels of fragrant calamus, 500 shekels of cassia – all according to the sanctuary shekel – and a hin of olive oil. Make these into a sacred anointing oil, a fragrant blend, the work of a perfumer. It will be the sacred anointing oil. Then use it to anoint the tent of meeting, the ark of the covenant law, the table and all its articles, the lampstand and its accessories, the altar of incense, the altar of burnt offering and all its utensils, and the basin with its stand. You shall consecrate them so they will be most holy, and whatever touches them will be holy.
Exodus 30:22–29 [NIV]

It's also part of the Catholic liturgy for consecrating an altar Reference. The oil of chrism which is used is a fragrant oil rather like that described in Exodus.
However this use of oil is part of the consecration, the setting-apart, of the object to God's use. The objects would not be put to any other use whatsoever. Whether a house is set apart in quite the same way may be open to question, and most house-blessings (such as the one I was involved with recently) would involve sprinkling1 holy water.

1 Sprinkling is a technical term, which refers to splashing water around with a brush or some sort of shaker. It's not usually a delicate operation!


What time is the "sixth hour" in John 4?

The hour of the day for Jews was calculated according to 12 hours of daylight, from sunrise to sunset.

A Jewish source explains it:

  an hour in halacha is calculated by taking the total time of daylight of a particular
  day, from sunrise until sunset,1 and dividing it into twelve equal
  parts. A halachic hour is thus known as a sha'ah zemanit, or
  proportional hour, and varies by the season and even by the day.

  For example, on a day when the sun rises at 5 a.m. and sets at 7:30
  p.m., one sha'ah zemanit, or proportional hour, will be 72.5 minutes
  long. The third hour of the day will come to a close at 8:37:30 a.m.

A Messianic source explains it (see also in the visual that the night hours were similarly divided into watches):

  A Hebrew Hour is defined as 1/12 of the time between sunset and sunrise, or 1/12 of the
  time between sunrise and sunset. The only Scriptural reference to
  there being 12 Hebrew Hours in a Hebrew Day is found in John 11:9
  where  יהושע the Messiah asked a famous question, "Are there not 12
  hours in a day?"


How do those who reject the deity of Christ understand the 'sameness of honor' in John 5?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe a bit of both of those possibilities, depending on what kind of "honor" is being referred to. To the same degree as the Father is honored as "Judge of all the earth" (Gen. 18:25), they honor the Son as Judge. However, they do not honor the Son as being the Father or as God. Given the context of John 5:23, Jehovah's Witnesses qualify the "sameness of honor" assigned to the Father and Son to their respective roles as the judges of mankind.
Here are some Watchtower articles which discuss the meaning of John 5:23 (bold mine):

"Passing Over From Death to Life" - w64 12/1 p. 714-715
13 The Sender is greater than the one sent. Jesus himself said that. (John 13:16) God the Greater sent the Son the Lesser, for which reason Jesus also said: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) The Father the Greater appointed the Son the Lesser to be a judge, committing all the judging with reference to mankind to the Son, who died sacrificially for them. If we humans respect the Father’s power to appoint, we ought to honor the one whom he appoints as judge. Just as we should honor God the Father who is “the Judge of all,” so we should honor the Son whom he appoints to judge mankind. Certainly if we do not honor the Son as God’s appointed judge, we do not honor God the Father who clothed his Son with judicial power. We cannot claim to honor God the Father and at the same time rightly ignore the Son as judge.
14 Our everlasting life depends on our thus honoring the Son as judge in the same way as we honor the heavenly “Father who sent him.” Today, by means of John’s written account in the Holy Bible, we are hearing Jesus’ words in this regard. If, after thus hearing, we do as Jesus said, namely, ‘believe on him that sent me,’ we shall have everlasting life. This life we shall enjoy in God’s promised righteous order of things under his kingdom.

"Source of His Life" - w62 10/1 p. 592
ALL along the evidence has been mounting up from John’s own writings that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. This very fact in itself argues that Jesus as a Son was dependent upon God and was not equal to God. A son is not greater than his father, but must honor his father, according to God’s command. As God’s Son, Jesus said: “I honor my Father.” (John 8:49) How, then, can anyone say he was making himself God or the equal of God when he said: “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him”? (John 5:22, 23, AV) In those words Jesus was not telling us to honor him as being the Father or as being God. He did not say we were to honor the Son as much as the Father.
34 Look at Jesus’ words again and see why he said he was to be honored just as the Father is to be honored. Jesus said that the Father had appointed him to be judge, to act as the deputy or representative of God the Supreme Judge. Hence as God’s appointed Judge the Son deserved to be honored. By honoring the Son we show respect for God’s appointment of the Son as Judge. If we do not honor the Son as Judge, then we do not honor “the Father which hath sent him.” But that does not mean we honor the Son as being God himself or honor the Son as much as God himself, who sent the Son.


Is there a complete list of Catholic Saints somewhere online?

The following website is the most complete source of Catholic saints I know to exist: Catholic Saints Info. Not only is this site constantly being updated, but it also show the reader other sources of information, variations of saints' name, but it even shows particular (local) feasts of saints such as translations, if applicable.

The ultimate "List of Saints" from Rome can be found in this book which is published by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints: Index Causarum Sanctorum ac Beatorum. Unfortunately it exists only in book form and only very few Catholic libraries or Religious Institutions possess a copy. It gets updated every so often, but not yearly.


What did Jesus mean by " many" beneficiaries of His ensuing blood-shed?

In his Commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel, St. Thomas Aquinas writes:

  “He shall sprinkle,” meaning with His Blood, “many nations” (Is. 52, 15). For many, and for all, because if its sufficiency be considered, “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” (I Jn. 2, 2). But if we consider its effect, it only has its effect on those who are saved, and this is the fault of men.

Although He redeemed everyone, not everyone's sins are forgiven; some people are damned due to their own fault.

Remigius explains it this way (quoted in St. Thomas's Catena Aurea on Mt. 26):

  And it is to be noted that He says not "For a few" nor "For all", but "For many"; because He came not to redeem a single nation, but many out of all nations.


Are there any examples of sarcasm in the bible?

The first instance of sarcasm that jumps into my mind is 1 Kings 18:27, where Elijah is taunting the prophets of Baal because their sacrifice is not burning up (they were having a sort of contest). The NET renders the verse:

  "At noon Elijah mocked them, 'Yell louder! After all, he is a god; he may be deep in thought, or perhaps he stepped out for a moment or has taken a trip. Perhaps he is sleeping and needs to be awakened.'"

Some have even speculated that the Hebrew term here translated "deep in thought" may mean "relieving himself," or that the term translated "stepped out for a moment" implies stepping out in order to relieve oneself. I have not found any scholarly support for this other than a former Hebrew professor of mine mentioning it, but either way, Elijah is being sarcastic about Baal.

Almost the entire book of Amos is satirical, dealing with the social injustices committed by God's people in the northern kingdom of Israel. Job can also be fairly sarcastic in the midst of his suffering, often crossing into cynicism.

Those are a few examples that come to mind.


Are we in the Messianic Age? (Catholic perspective)

It depends on your definition of the Messianic Age.

According to the Catholic Catechism and its interpretation of the Nicene Creed, Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah

  (436) The word "Christ" comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah, which means "anointed". It became the name proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the divine mission that "Christ" signifies. In effect, in Israel those consecrated to God for a mission that he gave were anointed in his name. This was the case for kings, for priests and, in rare instances, for prophets. This had to be the case all the more so for the Messiah whom God would send to inaugurate his kingdom definitively. It was necessary that the Messiah be anointed by the Spirit of the Lord at once as king and priest, and also as prophet. Jesus fulfilled the messianic hope of Israel in his threefold office of priest, prophet and king

So God has definitively established his kingdom with Jesus as king. In that sense, we live in the Messianic Age. It goes on to say that Christ rules in his kingdom already through the Church, but the final triumph of his kingdom has not occurred

  (680) Christ the Lord already reigns through the Church, but all the things of this world are not yet subjected to him. The triumph of Christ's kingdom will not come about without one last assault by the powers of evil.
  (681) On Judgment Day at the end of the world, Christ will come in glory to achieve the definitive triumph of good over evil which, like the wheat and the tares, have grown up together in the course of history.
  (682) When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works, and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace.

Since the kingdom is not yet complete, you could say we don't yet live in the Messianic Age.


Why do I sing, "Here I raise my Ebenezer?"

This has always been a favorite line of mine. As you may know, the word Ebenezer comes from 1 Samuel 7:12. Israel had just screwed up with the ark (the Philistines had captured it) and gotten it back (only because God has freaked the Philistines out by knocking their precious Dagon over), and Samuel was talking to Israel.

  Then Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen and
  called its name Ebenezer; for he said, "till now the LORD has helped
  us."

Ebenezer is "Eben ha-`ezer" which means "stone of help." God was a rock of salvation to Israel; Samuel was setting up a monument of God's rock-ness (which is all throughout the bible) and salvation. God had, once again, helped Israel where they had messed up.

This is especially emphasized by the irony that "Ebenezer" was the name of the place that the Israelites had lost the ark to the Philistines. Aren't the literary connections in Scripture cool?

The first two lines in Come Thou Fount that contain Ebenezer go (at least according to The Trinity Hymnal)

  Here I raise my Ebenezer; Hither by Thy help I'm come

The hymnist is, like Samuel, raising his stone of help as a tribute to God's salvation and grace. By thy help I've come this far; I praise you for it.

It's a great line because it captures the grace of God and the praise of Him for it in one succinct quote.


Does the priest have the power to forgive sins?

The Catholic Church teaches  that man's sins may be absolved by the Church.  Absolution from sin means "To free from sin", which is pretty much the same as forgiveness of sins.

In lay-person's terms, as I understand it, the Priest is acting under the authority and power of the Church, which, in turn, is acting under the authority and power of Christ.

This is probably a really poor analogy, but it helps me to keep principles simple, so here goes...

In my household, my oldest child has no authority over the younger ones.  She can't tell them what to do under normal circumstances, because she simply has no authority to do so.

However, if I leave her to babysit the younger ones, I give her the authority, and the younger ones understand the principle that she is acting under my authority, and that "to be naughty for her is the same as being naughty for me when I am in charge."  But if my oldest tells a younger one to hit another one, or to steal, or do anything I would not authorize, then she would not be acting under the authority I've given her because she is asking them to do something contrary to my will.

Applying the anology...

The way I understand it, the teaching is that the Priest is just a man, not a supernatural being with the power to forgive sins on his own, but when acing under the authority of the Church, which, in turn has been given authority from Christ, and when the Priest is acting in harmony with Christ's instructions, then he has the power to absolve since through the means described and established by the Church in Christ's authority.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says this (small excerpt):

  Absolution proper is that act of the priest whereby, in the Sacrament
  of Penance, he frees man from sin. It presupposes on the part of the
  penitent, contrition, confession, and promise at least of
  satisfaction; on the part of the minister, valid reception of the
  Order of Priesthood and jurisdiction, granted by competent authority,
  over the person receiving the sacrament. That there is in the Church
  power to absolve sins committed after baptism the Council of Trent
  thus declares: "But the Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament
  of Penance, when, being raised from the dead, He breathed upon His
  disciples saying, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall
  forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they
  are retained.' By which action so signal, and words so clear the
  consent of all the Fathers has ever understood that the power of
  forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the Apostles, and to
  their lawful successors for the reconciling of the faithful who have
  fallen after baptism" (Sess. XIV, i).


Is it appropriate to capitalize pronouns referring to Jesus Christ?

As a Catholic, I capitalize everything remotely concerning Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit out of respect and will always continue to.

But, curiously enough, the official writings of my church do not, which leads me to believe that being scrupulous about it is not the end of the world.


According to the Catholic Church, will people be able to have private conversations with God at any time in Heaven?

The Bible does not say anything explicitly regarding this question. However, there are a number of things that can be deduced from what the Scriptures say.

The resurrection of the body

The first thing to keep in mind is that in Heaven, at the General Resurrection, we will have our bodies restored to us. This is found throughout the New Testament (and parts of the Old Testament as well), but probably the most explicit statement is from St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians:

  So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. (1 Cor. 15:42-44, ESV; however, all of chapter 15 deals with this issue).

We could also mention Daniel 12:2, John 5:28-29, Acts 17:18, Matthew 22:29-32 and the parallel passages, as well as 2 Maccabees 7 (which for Catholics is considered canonical).

That means that, although (as St. Paul implies), our glorified bodies will have new and wonderful properties in Heaven, we will remain corporeal for all eternity.

Another observation to make is that, although God, in His Divine Nature, is pure spirit (as implied by passages such as Numbers 23:19), of course through the Incarnation, the Word, who is God, became flesh like us (John 1:14).

It follows that it will be possible to have physical interactions with Jesus (who is God), and presumably also private conversations. How exactly that will play out is difficult to imagine (e.g., there are an awful lot of us, and only one Jesus; however time will also work differently in Heaven), but since

  He will wipe away every tear from their eyes (Rev. 21:4)

we can be sure that our desire to speak with Him will be well provided for.

Seeing God “face-to-face”

It should be noted, however, that our happiness in Heaven stems not only from being in the physical presence of Jesus (although that will be an important part of it, certainly), but above all from the so-called Beatific Vision. This Vision is described beautifully by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians:

  For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known (1 Cor. 13:12, which comes right after the hymn to charity).

Similarly, in the First Letter of St. John says,

  Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is (1 John 3:2).

This implies that we will, as it were, be immersed in the presence of God in Heaven. It will probably not be necessary, therefore, to have private conversations with Him, in order to obtain knowledge.

That does not mean that we will not enjoy conversations with Jesus, or what have you—just that we will have access to an even more perfect form of communication with God. Having the Vision is better than a private conversation, and it will certainly be available always, since it is the very essence of Heaven.

Prayer, as we know it on earth, is not needed in Heaven. We will be in direct contact with Him. And no, of course, there is no question of appointments. Time will exist in such a way that it will not be a limit on our access to God.


How does the Bible describe the gender roles?

The biblical (at least, imo) view of gender roles is, in short, that the man symbolizes Christ and the woman symbolizes the church.

Delving in a little bit deeper, Eve was created as a "helper" for man, a "suitable partner" - not as a creature inferior, though, which I think could be inferred from the fact that Eve was made from the rib of Adam.

  But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused
  the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took
  one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then
  the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man,
  and he brought her to the man.

  Genesis 2:20-22

In Ephesians, Paul says:

  Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the  Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their  husbands in everything.
  25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave
  himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing
  with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a
  radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but
  holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their
  wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29
  After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care
  for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members
  of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and
  mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one
  flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ
  and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as
  he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

  Ephesians 5:23-33

I think the key phrases here are "love his wife" and "respect her husband" - the woman has a supporting role to the loving, caring, providing husband; both epitomizing Christ and the Church. (See Hosea for great imagery on this)

I know this is in the context of marriage, but generally I think it still applies - man providing, woman helping/submitting, especially since this is the general role given at Creation.

Also, in the context of the church, there's some information provided by Paul in 1 Cor. 14:34

  "women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to
  speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."

Ultimately though, these are minor distinctions: in Christ there is neither male nor female; we are all equally sinful but equally made righteous by the blood of Christ.