How do the Catholic and LDS views of what a prophet is differ?
First of all, let us deal with what a prophet is within Catholic understanding.
Catholic generally only apply the title of prophet to those individuals named in Sacred Scriptures. Many Catholic Blesseds and Saints have received the genuine gift of prophecy as been given by the Holy Spirit, but the Church does not call them prophets. The word Prophet is traditional reserved for the Biblical Prophets of Old.

Prophet
Definition
The biblical term "nabi" means one who spoke, acted, or wrote under the extraordinary influence of God to make known the divine counsels and will. Yet commonly associated with this primary function to proclaim the word of God, a prophet also prophesied by foretelling future events. His role, then, was to both proclaim and to make the proclamation credible.

The Catholic Encyclopedia in its’ article entitled Prophecy, Prophet, and Prophetess, goes into much greater detail on the Catholic viewpoint as to what is a Prophet.

General idea and the Hebrew names
(1) General Idea — The Hebrew Prophet was not merely, as the word commonly implies, a man enlightened by God to foretell events; he was the interpreter and supernaturally enlightened herald sent by Yahweh to communicate His will and designs to Israel. His mission consisted in preaching as well as in foretelling. He had to maintain and develop the knowledge of the Old Law among the Chosen People, lead them back when they strayed, and gradually prepare the way for the new kingdom of God, which the messias was to establish on earth. Prophecy, in general, signifies the supernatural message of the Prophet, and more especially, from custom, the predictive element of the prophetic message.
(2) The Hebrew Names — The ordinary Hebrew for prophet is nabî'. Its etymology is uncertain. According to many recent critics, the root nabî, not employed in Hebrew, signified to speak enthusiastically, "to utter cries, and make more or less wild gestures", like the pagan mantics. Judging from a comparative examination of the cognate words in Hebrew and the other Semitic tongues, it is at least equally probable that the original meaning was merely: to speak, to utter words (cf. Laur, "Die Prophetennamen des A.T.", Fribourg, 1903, 14-38). The historic meaning of nabî' established by biblical usage is "interpreter and mouthpiece of God". This is forcibly illustrated by the passage, where Moses, excusing himself from speaking to Pharao on account of his embarrassment of speech, was answered by Yahweh: "Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak to him all that I command thee; and he shall speak to Pharao, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land" (Exodus 7:1-2). Moses plays towards the King of Egypt the role of God, inspiring what is to be uttered, and Aaron is the prophet, his mouthpiece, transmitting the inspired message he shall receive. The Greek prophetes (from pro-phanai, to speak for, or in the name of someone) translates the Hebrew accurately. The Greek prophet was the revealer of the future, and the interpreter of divine things, especially of the obscure oracles of the pythoness. Poets were the prophets of the muses: Inspire me, muse, thy prophet I shall be" (Pindar, Bergk, Fragm. 127).
The word nabî' expresses more especially a function. The two most usual synonyms ro'éeh and hozéh emphasize more clearly the special source of the prophetic knowledge, the vision, that is, the Divine revelation or inspiration. Both have almost the same meaning; hozéh is employed, however, much more frequently in poetical language and almost always in connexion with a supernatural vision, whereas râ'ah, of which ro'éh is the participle, is the usual word for to see in any manner.
Brief sketch of the history of prophecy
(1) The first person entitled nabî' in the Old Testament is Abraham, father of the elect, the friend of God, favoured with his personal communications (Genesis 20:7). The next is Moses, the founder and lawgiver of the theocratic nation, the mediator of the Old Covenant holding a degree of authority unequalled till the coming of Jesus Christ. "And there arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and wonders, which he sent by him, to do in the land of Egypt to Pharao, and to all his servants, and to his whole land, and all the mighty hand, and great miracles, which Moses did before all Israel" (Deuteronomy 34:10 sqq.). There were other Prophets with him, but only of the second rank, such as Aaron and Maria, Eldad and Medad, to whom Yahweh manifested himself in dreams and vision, but not in the audible voice with which He favoured him, who was most faithful in all His house (Numbers 12:7).
Of the four institutions concerning which Moses enacted laws according to Deuteronomy (14:18-18), one was prophecy (18:9-22; cf. 13:1-5, and Exodus 4:1 sqq.). Israel was to listen to the true Prophets, and not to heed the false but rather to extirpate them, even had they the appearance of miracle-workers. The former would speak in the name of Yahweh, the one God; and foretell things that would be accomplished or be confirmed by miracles. The latter were to come in the name of the false gods, or teach a doctrine evidently erroneous, or vainly endeavour to foretell events. Later prophetic writers added as other signs of the false Prophets, cupidity, flattery of the people or the nobles, or the promise of Divine favour for the nation weighed down with crime. Balaam is both a Prophet and a soothsayer; a professional soothsayer it would seem, of whom Yahweh makes use to proclaim even in Moab the glorious destiny of the Chosen People, when He was about to lead them into the Promised Land (Numbers 22-24).
But the two greatest figures of prophecy between Samuel and Isaiah are Elias and Eliseus. Yahweism was again endangered, especially by the Tyrian Jezabel, wife of Achab, who had introduced into Samaria the worship of her Phœnician gods, and Israel's faith was tottering, as it divided its worship between Baal and Yahweh. In Juda the danger was not less menacing, King Joram had married Athalia, a worthy daughter of Jezabel. At that moment Elias appeared like a mysterious giant, and by his preaching and his miracles led Israel back to the true God and suppressed, or at least moderated, their leaning towards the gods of Chanaan. At Carmel he won a magnificent and terrible victory over the Prophets of Baal; then he proceeded to Horeb to renew within him the spirit of the Covenant and to be present at a marvellous theophany; thence he returned to Samaria to proclaim to Achab the voice of justice calling out for vengeance for the murder of Naboth. When he disappeared in the fiery chariot, he left to his disciple Eliseus, with his mantle, a double share of his spirit. Eliseus continued the master's work against the Chanaanite idolatry with great success, and became such a bulwark to the Kingdom of the North, that King Joas wept for his death and took his farewell with these words: "My father! my father! chariot of Israel and its horsemen"! Not all the Prophets left their oracles in writing. Several of them, however, have written the history of their times. Gad and Nathan, for instance, the history of David; and Nathan that of Solomon; also Semeias and Addo the annals of Roboam; Jehu, son of Hanani those of Josaphat.....Is it possible that the historical books of Josue, Judges, Samuel, and Kings were called in the Jewish canon the "earlier Prophets" because of the belief that they were written by the Prophets or at least based on their writing? To this query there can be no solution.
(2) Prophetic Writers — The prophetic books were entitled in the same canon the "later Prophets". Gradually the custom of calling their authors the prophetic writers crept in. There are four Greater Prophets, that is those whose works are of considerable length. Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, and Daniel, and twelve Minor Prophets, whose works are briefer—Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, and Malachias. The Book of Baruch, which is not included in the Hebrew canon, is united in our Bibles to the Book of Jeremias. The ministry of Amos, the most ancient perhaps of the prophetic writers, is placed about the years 760-50. Osee follows him immediately. Next comes Isaias (about 740-700), and his contemporary Micheas. Sophonias, Nahum, and Habacuc prophesied towards the last quarter of the seventh century. Jeremias about 626-586; Ezechiel between 592-70. The prophecy of Aggeus and in part that of Zacharias are dated exactly in 520 and 520-18. Malachias belongs to the middle of the fifth century. As for Daniel, Abdias, Joel, Baruch, as well as portions of Isaias, Jeremias, Zacharias, their dates being disputed, it is necessary to refer the reader to the special articles treating of them.
(3) The Prophetesses — The Old Testament gives the name nebî'ah, to three women gifted with prophetic charismata: Mary, the sister of Moses; Debbora; and Holda, a contemporary of Jeremias (2 Kings 22:14); also to the wife of Isaias meaning the spouse of a nabî'; finally to Noadia, a false Prophetess if the Hebrew text is accurate, for the Septuagint and Vulgate speak of a false Prophet (Nehemiah 6:14).
(4) Cessation of Israelitic Prophecy — The prophetic institution had ceased to exist in the time of the Machabees. Israel clearly recognized this, and was awaiting its reappearance. Its necessity had ceased. Religious revelation and the moral code expressed in Holy Writ were full and clear. The people were being instructed by the scribes and doctors—a living magistracy, fallible, it is true, and bound overmuch by letter of the law, but withal zealous and learned. There was a feeling that the promises were about to be fulfilled and the consequent apocalypse increased and intensified this feeling. It was not unfitting, therefore, for God to allow an interval to elapse between the prophets of the Old Covenant and Jesus Christ, who was to be the crown and consummation of their prophecies.

At the end of Public Revelation which ended with the death of the last Apostle prophecy will continue within the Church, but the Church does not accord the title of prophet to them.
Immediately after Paul’s oft-quoted 1 Corinthians 13 pericope on the importance of integrating love into every gift of the Spirit, he encourages his community, “Strive eagerly for the spiritual gifts, above all that you may prophesy” (14:1).
Prophecy is the normal biblical way of surfacing God’s will in one’s life. Though Catholics look to the hierarchy and Protestants open their Bibles to discover God’s plan for them, the people who gave us our Scriptures obviously had neither the Bible nor a hierarchical structure as we know it to fall back on.
They believed God had blessed certain individuals in their midst with a special gift of knowing God’s will in specific situations. People of faith were expected to find those insightful persons, listen to them and then carry out their message.
Paul was convinced that prophecy is essential for any Christian community. If you don’t have prophets, you’ll be walking in the dark, not knowing what direction to go.
The gift of prophecy is very much alive within the Catholic Church.

Father Michael Scanlan’s 1976 Prophecy and the Events of 2020
The Gift of Prophecy
Those who, like Father Scanlan, who died in 2017, speak such messages are believed to have the gift of prophecy, as described in the New Testament Book of Ephesians, Martin said. This gift and others are given for the building up of the Church, he continued, and, although associated with the Charismatic Renewal movement, they are supposed to be part of the normal life of Catholics.
Martin has given prophecies, as well, including one in 1975: “Days of darkness are coming on the world, days of tribulation. ... Buildings that are now standing will not be standing. Supports that are there for my people now will not be there.”
However, Martin said he considers Father Scanlan’s message to be more specific in its references to the crime and chaos that many Americans are seeing on their streets in the wake of the death of George Floyd and in the mention of churches here and in other countries being closed because of the coronavirus. Martin said the references in the prophecy to dependence on the institutions of schools and parishes also are significant, as dioceses across the country struggle financially.
But he said there are important lessons to be learned as Catholics and others experience the events cited in Father Scanlan’s prophecy. He said during the coronavirus shutdown, when his parish was having online Masses, his pastor pointed out the four ways Christ is present: in the Eucharist, in the person of the priest, in the word of God and in our souls.
When the first two aren’t available, Martin said, Catholics can develop an understanding of and appreciation for the other two. “Those are important things we could learn during this time, but a lot of us haven’t learned it yet. We’re so dependent on the structures of the church building that it will be hard if those are taken away again.”

More can be seen here:

Pope Benedict XVI Predictions for the Future of the Church (YouTube video)

As for the  teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term Prophet is quite different.
The General idea of Prophets in Biblical times is somewhat (not exactly) similar to the views of Catholics in this regards. However the similarities end there.

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord, as did Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, and other prophets of the scriptures. We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church. We also sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.
Like the prophets of old, prophets today testify of Jesus Christ and teach His gospel. They make known God’s will and true character. They speak boldly and clearly, denouncing sin and warning of its consequences. At times, they may be inspired to prophesy of future events for our benefit.
We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:38).
Our greatest safety lies in strictly following the word of the Lord given through His prophets, particularly the current President of the Church. The Lord warns that those who ignore the words of the living prophets will fall (see Doctrine and Covenants 1:14–16). He promises great blessings to those who follow the President of the Church:
“Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.
“For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory” (Doctrine and Covenants 21:4–6). - Prophets

Every President from Joseph Smith to Russel M. Nelson is considered a Prophet in the viewpoint of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).


The maps of the tribes of Israel contain a lot of guesswork. The tribe of Asher is one of them. No one is even sure whether Asher had a continuous territory.


What does it really mean to leave parents after the marriage?

Mat 19:5  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?
Mat 19:6  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Eph 5:31  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Gen 2:24  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Gen 24:67  And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.
...
Gen 25:5  And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.

No its specifically referring to sex but some including my maternal grandparents would disagree. Before the advent of modern technology many people did not move far from their place of birth in their lifetime. For instance Isaac did not leave "home" when he married Rebekah. I'm certain there are other examples but caring for relatives especially widows is something which is required of believers. Communal dwellings are common for the very poor and very rich.


Bland white rice and tea in Chinese-American Christian Churches

I'm Chinese and am a Christian and I've attended many different churches and have not encountered what you described. I fairly convinced that the meal was more related to Chinese cultural practice and there isn't any theological significance that that particular meal.

Chinese children have traditionally been weaned on rice gruel (also called rice porridge, konji, congee, jook or chook), and it is to be a breakfast dish for adults. It is also served to invalids. It can be served with nothing else added to it except perhaps some soy sauce. Sometimes chicken stock or other flavouring is added. This is therefore just part of Chinese cultural practice.


What is the substance/nature of God based on Trinitarians?

The Trinity; or the God head; as we Baptist often refer has no material substance since He (as we often refer to God) is a Spirit. But does have substance in the Spiritual Realm.
According to Merriam Webster:

SUB'STANCE, n. [L. substantia, substo; sub and sto, to stand.]

In a general sense, being; something existing by itself; that which really is or exists; equally applicable to matter or spirit. Thus the soul of man is called an immaterial substance, a cogitative substance, a substance endued with thought. We say, a stone is a hard substance, tallow is a soft substance.

It is this definition of substance that we must assign to the Trinity.
Notice that in Latin the it means to stand, and if we apply that standard to the Spiritual Realm to which the Trinity belongs it has meaning other than in the material realm.

Exodus 3:14 NKJV  And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

This is what God meant when:

Genesis 1:26 NKJV  Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Since God has no Material substance what He must be referring to is his Spiritual substance or what could be called his nature referring to his Spiritual characteristics. When Moses asked him who should he say sent him; the LORD replied:

Exodus 3:14 NKJV  And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

God knew that if He were to present himself in some form, which they would understand, it would of necessity have some resemblance to something their minds could envision, and would therefore require some material reference.
Even to this day we have no real concept of the Trinity since we refer to it as **the Father, the son, and the Holy Ghost. None of these is truly descriptive of God in any of his three forms. The minds of man cannot adequately imagine something which has no shape or form, but exists as pure intelligence and power. The same is true of man's soul which is truly God's image just as Webster described it:

Thus the soul of man is called an immaterial substance, a cogitative substance, a substance endued with thought.

In fact the human mind is incapable of envisioning nothing, it has to have some reference to compare, and there is no counterpart to nothing. as an exercise try to conjure up in your mind neither darkness or light, but pure intelligence, and you will always seek something to compare it to, and yet that is the realm in which God exists.
I among others have attempted to envision God in that way, but are unable to, since it is totally contrary to the World we know. let alone trying to imagine it existing in three parts.
The substance/nature of God is truly inexplicable and is why God said:

Isaiah 55:8 and 9 NKJV  "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. 9  "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Hope this helps


How do dispensationalists understand the "antichrists" and "last hour" in 1 John 2:18?

Regarding the "last hour" language, dispensationalist Thomas Constable writes that it is the entire time between the ascension and the return of Christ:

  In the drama of human history, all of John's readers, including ourselves, play our part in the last act. Throughout the New Testament, the writers regarded the present inter-advent age, after the Incarnation and before the Lord's return, as the "last hour" or the "last days." This is the final period before the Lord Himself breaks into history again.

Following this period will be the two-stage "New Era" or end-times proper: the Tribulation and Millennium.

Regarding "antichrists," Constable sees John drawing a distinction between the Antichrist and antichrists:

  Even as John wrote, "many" little "antichrists," people who exalt themselves against God, had arisen. John saw this as evidence that the appearance of the Antichrist was not far away. "Antichrists" are those who oppose Jesus Christ and His teachings, and or people who profess to be the Messiah.

The Moody Bible Commentary describes these "antichrists" as "professing Christians who rejected orthodox Christianity's teaching on the identity of Jesus Christ" and people who "abandoned the church." Ultimately, they "were forerunners of the antichrist," the man who Moody identifies with the "man of lawlessness" in Mark 13:14 and 2 Thessalonians 2.

Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable
Moody Bible Commentary


When did the one-way monologue sermon first become a normal feature of church assemblies?

The way the question is phrased means we must look at two historical developments:

How preaching evolved in the early church, from Jesus through the pioneer stage of Acts to the early church fathers.
How preaching evolved in the protestant church, from Luther into what we have today.

Also, one must note the context of the preaching: Small group, large amount of people; evangelistic setting, instruction in the faith for believers; etc.

In the Gospels, especially Matthew and John, we do hear Jesus delivering what one might called uninterrupted sermons. Matthew have five distinct sermons. However, Jesus interacts with followers, opponents and average people throughout the day. There is not really a pattern of distinct worship services, with distinct starts and stops. It's hard to see a model for preaching in a Sunday service in the Gospels.

In Acts we have a number of distinct sermons as well, but they are mostly ad hoc, in an evangelistic setting. They are very carefully crafted to the audience though. When appealing to Jews or "God fearers", the apostles used scripture, when appealing to unlearned gentiles, Paul used natural analogies and when appealing to learned Greeks, Paul used quotations from their own traditions. Once again, it is hard to see the kind of preaching we assume today, when the preacher starts with a text (or a few texts) from the Bible and tries to use them for exhortation and instruction.

We can see some sermons in Acts ending in dialogue, one ending in a murderous frenzy by the hearers (Stephen's) and some ending in an exhortation to be baptized.

Another factor: Most of the epistles of the New Testaments are in fact sermons. They were supposed to be read aloud. (A side note: Gather a small group, shut your Bibles and have one member read Galatians from start to finish. It will take 16-17 minutes. Do not interrupt and ask what a single verse might mean, but follow the train of thought. The experience is highly instructive!)

Since Paul (or the other authors) naturally could not be present when the epistles were read, this is very much a one way event. But in some letters Paul is addressing specific questions he has heard or specific problems he has heard of, providing a sense of a dialogue by mail or messenger

The early post-apostolic churches seem to have begun formalizing the worship service quite early on. While retaining many parts of the synagogue service, new elements were added. The preacher would sit and the congregation would stand. Sermons seem to be mostly one way. Questions and dialogue would be handled in smaller settings, like in the catechumenate.

From that era to the time of Luther, there seems to be precious few examples of dialogue being used in the sermons on Sunday services. Preachers like Chrysostomos (early 5th century) are clearly not expecting questions from the congregation. However, in evangelistic settings, like when Bonifatius talked with the heads of Frisia, dialogue occurred. One can also assume this was the case with the friar monks, preaching in public, during the middle ages.

Luther himself seem to have given himself license to do a few things he did not expect other preachers to do. In fact, he strongly admonished most of them to use written sermons, since he had a low opinion about their ability to produce sermons of sufficient quality of their own. To this end he wrote quite a number of postillas.

Luther also seemed to have preached mostly ex tempore, having worked with the texts in earnest when he prepared his lectures at the university, and a bit later, when he translated them into German. Most surviving sermons were written down by his hearers. Once again, it is clear that he expects other preachers to use a script for their sermons.

Given Luther's low opinion about the state of preachers' abilities, it would be surprising if he would encourage dialogue type sermons, even though I've not read anything myself that clearly says that he did or did not. He, and almost every other notable reformer, did however provide catechisms, that are structured in a question and answer format. In some ways these can be seen as FAQs, but in some ways they also are saying that this is a question one should ask.

Within a generation after Luther's death, Lutheran orthodoxy happened, clearly stifling innovation and providing a strong impetus for one way communication, regardless of the setting. "Cuius regio, eius religio" and that meant subjects were expected to conform. Any possible remnant of dialogue (if there ever were such a thing outside of Wittenberg) would probably have died now.

Still, all of this is an attempt to answer the question when. It says very little about the question how we should be preaching today. If anything, I think the lessons from early church age seem to be pick the format that works best in your particular setting.


J. F. Rutherford taught:

  that the faithful men of old will soon be resurrected by the Lord, be
  back on earth, and take charge of the visible affairs of earth. http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/bethsarim.php

These faithful men of old (probably Abraham and other patriarchs/prophets) would need somewhere to live and Rutherford set aside the house known as Bath Sarim to be that place:

  if and when the princes do return and some of them occupy the
  property, such will be a confirmation of the faith and hope that
  induced the building of Beth-Sarim. http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/beth-sarim.html

I think Bath Sarim is Hebrew for "House of Princes".

Rutherford's predictions of when they would return failed to come true, and the house has been sold (1948).

  The belief that the "princes" would be resurrected before Armageddon
  was abandoned in 1950 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_Sarim

I couldn't find any references to alters being built, or even a complete list of who the princes would be.


Consider doing a little googling, such as I did.  In a couple minutes I came up with the following:

http://answering-islam.org/Case/case1.html  (Copyright © 1994 by The Issachar Institute.)

From http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/advanced/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament.htm#_edn2  From J.P. Moreland, "The Historicity of the New Testament", footnote number 2:  "[2] For a summary of archaeology and the New Testament, see Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Archaeology and the New Testament;" in Introductory Articles, vol. 1 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), pp. 645-69. Two of the best summaries of extra-biblical evidence for Jesus are Gary R. Habermas Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus: Historical Records of His Death and Resurrection (Nashville: Nelson, 1985), E F Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974)."  Moreland's complete article is well worth reading!

http://images.acswebnetworks.com/1/934/Historicity_of_Bible.pdf  I can't vouch for this web site (nor can I vouch for the previous two), but it does seem to take a novel approach to a controversial issue!

The Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanegraaff, of the Christian Research Institute has some interesting things to say.  See http://www.equip.org/articles/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/#christian-books-1

See Wayne Jackson's "The Historicity of Jesus Christ" at https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/26-historicity-of-jesus-christ-the

In short, there is a wealth of information out there that may serve to buttress your faith and give you the encouragement you need at this time.  I wish you well.  Don


According to the Bible, is cremation an acceptable Christian practice?

There is nothing in the Bible that specifically deals with what to do with the bodies of the deceased.  Cremation does not appear to be a part of any burial customs of God's people in biblical times.

Joseph (Jacob's son), in faith, gave instructions to the Israelites to carry his bones back to the Promised Land when God would give Israel that land centuries after he died.  With his role in Egypt, he may have even been mummified according to Egyptian customs.

We also know that Jesus was not cremated, and His body did not see corruption.

It seems that the biggest issue with cremation is that it actively destroys the body rather than passively surrendering it to natural processes.


Why do Protestants accept the inerrancy of the canon, while rejecting other decisions of the Roman Church?

To answer your main question: The Council of Laodicea, being a regional council, would only have been binding on the Faithful living in the region (specifically, on areas that were represented by their bishops). Being only a regional, and not an ecumenical council, it is not binding on all the Faithful.

For your question about scripture, the answer is a little complicated. Wikipedia summarizes it well, but the important point is that we have points at time where we know Canon was already considered settled, which was certainly before 400. It is harder to point to the moment where it actually was settled, although the broad strokes clearly had been in agreement for a while.


Why do Catholics believe that it is a priest's blessing that transforms the elements into the body and blood of Christ?

The Catholic Church believes that this has been the tradition since "the beginning" of the Church.

Firstly, according to the Church, Christ makes it very clear in John 6:41-58 that the literal, physical consumption of His body is ultimately intended. The phrasing used in this passage, particularly in the Greek, is very unambiguous. As compared to other passages, wherein Christ clarifies figurative language, in John 6, when pressed to clarify, he intensifies the language, using a more animalistic and "gory" verb to denote the eating/gnawing of His own flesh.

Secondly, the Church sees the Last Supper as the formal establishment of the Eucharist. Christ says a blessing, the exact words of which are not included in the Gospel, but were undoubtedly remembered by the 12 and/or were simply commonplace blessings. He declares the bread and wine to be His body and blood. He distributes it. And He commands the disciples to repeat what He's done (by calling it a covenant in Matthew and Mark, and by also explicitly commanding it in Luke). Especially in the context of John 6:41-58, it's unambiguous in Catholic belief.

  14 When the hour came, he took his place at table with the
  apostles. 15 He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to
  eat this Passover with you before I suffer, 16 for, I tell
  you, I shall not eat it [again] until there is fulfillment in the
  kingdom of God.” 17 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and
  said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I
  tell you [that] from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of
  the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 Then he took
  the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying,
  “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of
  me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying,
  “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you. (Luke 22:14-20)

Speculating into the Church rationale a little: It may be worth mentioning that in the general command to eat His flesh and drink His blood is given to a crowd / the general faithful. In this Last Supper discourses, however, Jesus is with "the twelve," with whom He often gives special commands and teachings not given to the general faithful. Thus, the Church may be concluding from this the command to consecrate the bread and wine is given only to the Apostles and their successors.

So, the framework is set in the Gospel. Christ establishes a set of procedures for the disciples to follow, by which they are to consume His body and blood (of "the new and everlasting covenant"). Historically, the practice is referred to in the New Testament and early Church writings.

In the New Testament, for instance, 1st Corinthians makes it clear that the Eucharist was common practice. It's also fairly clear that practice thereof followed a particular pattern, and that reception thereof was to be taken very seriously.

  23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I
  delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he
  was betrayed, took bread, 24 and giving thanks, broke and
  said: Take and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you.
  This do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also
  the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new
  testament in my blood. This do, as often as you shall drink, for the
  commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this
  bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord,
  until he come. 27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this
  bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of
  the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man
  prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the
  chalice. 29 For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and
  drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (1
  Corinthians 11:23-29)

Outside the New Testament, the Didache, among copious other writings, confirms the practice.

  Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First,
  concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of
  David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your
  Servant; to You be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken
  bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You
  made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for
  ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was
  gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered
  together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is
  the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one
  eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been
  baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord
  has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. (Didache
  9)

Summa Theologica, question 75, Article 2 further confirms some historical tradition of the belief in transubstantiation and that it through the act of consecration that the Lord makes Himself physically present in the species of bread and wine.

Beyond that, I'd suggest taking a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Real Presence. In particular, see the Proof from Tradition section.

In terms of why the laity cannot yield the effect of transubstantiation, I don't have an extensive enough knowledge to pin that question down precisely. But, the general tone of the NT letters and the Didache is that ordained bishops and deacons (Apostles) and prophets retain special rights to speak and perform in Church gatherings, Eucharistic celebrations, and so forth. The distinction is made in the Catholic Church between Apostles and Disciples -- anyone and everyone can be a disciple, but not all are Apostles, if I'm not mistaken.

From a more theological standpoint, bear in mind that Catholic theology is just generally sacramental, wherein specific things, individuals, group members, or entire groups represent  or reveal spiritual realities. As such, it detracts from the sacrament if the symbolism is lost in some way, such as if the priest's Church-given, sacramental, iconic role is confounded or infringed on. The priest is assigned, in ordination, as a sacramental icon of Christ. If anyone is allowed to step in and out of this iconic role at any given time, the sacramental nature is largely lost.

To illustrate that point of Catholic understanding, consider an umpire. Two teams and a host of onlookers assemble and agree, more or less, to operate under the ruling of an "ordained" umpire, whose job it is to represent [and enforce] the rules of the game. If anyone were free to step in at any time to make a call, the rules become blurry -- they have no unbiased body or icon on the field anymore. And if an this game, wherein anyone can step in to make a call, were to go on for too long, the rules would change in-play and the game would devolve in to chaos.

Now, if we can imagine the loss of integrity and the rise of chaos that naturally takes place in petty human affairs by blurring iconic lines, imagine, says Catholic theology, how much more dangerous it is to blur the lines around sacramental icons (icons representing spiritual realities). We lose sight of truth very quickly. And in fact, any authority or "real" effect is immediately lost once we desecrate an iconic role -- even in petty human affairs! It makes a huge difference whether someone in the stands yells, "you're out" or the game's designated umpire yells, "you're out!" Much greater is the difference, says Catholic theology, in sacramental affairs.


When did the immutability of God become entrenched in Christian literature?

Writings
Very early. At least as early as Justin Martyr, in The First Apology (~AD 150):

For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.

Theophilus of Antioch, in Book I of his writings to Autolycus (~AD 170–80):

And He is without beginning, because He is unbegotten; and He is unchangeable, because He is immortal.

Also, Tertullian, in Against Hermogenes (~AD 200):

[B]eing the Lord, He is indivisible, and unchangeable, and always the same.

Origen, around AD 235, wrote On Prayer, in which he writes:

But in the case of God, inasmuch as He is himself ever unchangeable and unalterable, the proper name which even He may be said to bear is ever one, that mentioned in Exodus, "He that is," or the like.

Creeds
With respect to creeds, the AD 325 version of the Nicene Creed specifically mentions the immutability of the second person of the Trinity:

But those who say: [...] 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

The Chalcedonian Definition (AD 451) says something similar.
Considerations
When considering this question, we need to remember that:

We don't have much in the way of early writings of the church (i.e., 2nd century)
Early creeds were not meant to nail down every point of Christian doctrine: they were often written as responses to particular heresies, and if no heretical group challenged the immutability of God, then that phrase would be unlikely to occur in a creed.

The fact that the immutability of God is so well attested in Scripture (in addition to the excellent verses mentioned in Mike's answer, we have Exodus 3:14, Psalm 102:26–28 and Hebrews 1:11–12, among others), it seems likely that no one seriously challenged this doctrine in the early church, except in the case of Christ's nature.  Therefore, there was no need to make more than passing reference to it in writings, and no need to include mention of it in the creeds.


What was the forgers intentions for doing their forgeries?

In the protestant reformation these books were regarded as unreliable hence the term "apocryphal" meaning unreliable, and were eventually left of bibles altogether, which is why even today the King James is usually printed without them. The main reason for forging these books is to alter history so the prophecies of Daniel no longer point to Jesus Christ as Messiah the Prince.

Which is why even today the scribes say that the temple in Jesus' time was Herod's temple and not the second temple whose building is described in Ezra.

This altering of times and laws (dates, history, scripture) is prophesied in Daniel.


What is the significance of presenting the Apostles as acting foolishly many times in the Gospels?

I think the answer can be summed up in what John the Baptist says regarding Jesus in John 3:30:

  "He must increase, but I must decrease."

That is to say, the Gospels were not primarily about bolstering confidence in the disciples, but rather about telling the truth about and bolstering confidence in Jesus.

In other words, I think you partially answered your own question, when you said, "If they only cared to look better and show later Christians that "the group you are joining is the best", they wouldn't have included these unflattering descriptions about themselves."

That's just the point, they weren't only trying to show later Christians that they group they are joining is the best.  They were telling the truth, and leaving it to the reader to decide whether to accept the truth or not.

  That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have
  seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our
  hands, concerning the word of life—  the life was made manifest, and
  we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal
  life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— that
  which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too
  may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the
  Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

The entirety of the Gospels is written to depict the interaction of God with the interaction of fallen, feeble, and confused human beings, so let me answer the question with a question:  How could the authors have demonstrated Jesus's patience and love for immature and confused people without showing their sinfulness, immaturity, weakness, and confusion?

The answer is, they can't.  The greatness and wisdom of Christ can only be seen clearly against the backdrop of the sinfulness and short-sighted nature of people.  Take away the immature sinful behavior of the disciples, and all you have is a set of smart, perfectly kind, loving people talking about smart, perfectly kind, loving things in complete agreement with one another.

Without conflict, there's no story.


The doctrine you are describing is called Adoptionism.  It is one of many Nontrinitarian doctrines.  Nontrinitarianism is a catch-all category for all forms of Christology which do not agree with orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.  Although some forms of Nontrinitarianism are adhered to by some mainstream denominations today, such as LDS and Jehova's Witnesses, adoptionism is not.  There are no modern mainstream denominations that teach adoptionism.

The particular form of adoptionism which you mentioned (in which the divine Christ was united with Jesus at some point after his birth) was first popularized by Theodotus of Byzantium during the second century.


Do the Adultery Pericope and Mark 16:9-20 disprove the inerrancy of the Bible?

The Adultery Pericope and the Long Ending of Mark prove no more than that they were additions to the gospels as originally written. They, by themselves, do not prove or disprove the inerrancy of the original compositions, and certainly not the spiritual essence of the Bible.

Since you believe in biblical inerancy, you would already have a definition for 'inerrancy' that suits you. However, Wikipedia says that biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".  Wikipedia goes on to say that some equate inerrancy with infallibility and others do not, and states that biblical inerrancy should not be confused with Biblical literalism.


What was Van Til's view on the use and validity of historical proofs for the resurrection?

Presuppositional apologetics eschews using worldview-neutral facts which other types apologetics such as Evidential apologetics use as common ground for the starting point of the defense of Christianity, especially to non-believers.  So it makes sense for evidential apologetics to start with historically verifiable resurrection event.  This question wonders how would Van Til, as the father of Presuppositional apologetics, would use the Resurrection in their apologetics with non-believers.

A book chapter Resurrection, Proof, and Presuppositionalism - Acts 17:30-31 by Systematic Theology professor Lane G. Tipton published in the 2007 book Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics published by P & R shows how "presuppositional apologetics in the tradition of
Cornelius Van Til" tackles precisely this challenge.

Opening quotes from the book which provides the 5 propositional structure of the strategy:

  The basic contention of this essay is that Paul’s conception of
  the resurrection as proof of final judgment in Acts 17:31b
  depends on revealed categories derived from redemptive history. This
  distinctive approach to proof places the evidential function of the
  resurrection in a redemptive-historical setting and supplies an exegetical
  line of support for presuppositional apologetics in the tradition of
  Cornelius Van Til. Five basic propositions summarize the argument
  developed in this section:

  Paul the theologian of redemptive history is Paul the apologist
  for the resurrection of Christ.
  Paul provides a covenant-historical conception of proof in 17:31,
  which rests on (a) Christ’s resurrection as an eschatological event, and (b) Christ’s resurrection as a covenantal (or solidaric) event.
  Paul refuses to separate the denotation (fact) of the resurrection
  from the connotation (meaning) of the resurrection, because
  the fact and meaning of the resurrection are covenantally and
  eschatologically qualified.
  As such, Paul’s notion of proof cannot be reduced to an ordinary,
  standard, philosophical conception of proof (e.g., based on rational
  reflection, empirical observation, or pragmatic utility), since it
  rests on revealed categories derived from redemptive history.
  Paul’s argument requires us to rethink or at least reorient
  the discipline of apologetics in light of redemptive-historical
  categories.

Conclusion:

  Paul’s argument on Mars Hill therefore lends strong support to the
  development of presuppositional apologetics. A careful analysis of his
  conception of proof gives us an opportunity to enrich apologetics in
  light of redemptive-historically regulated exegesis. As we seize that
  opportunity, the disciplines of biblical and systematic theology will
  stand in a much more organic relationship to our defense of the faith,
  and will place us in a better position to demonstrate the deep lines of
  continuity between Reformed theology and Reformed apologetics.


Mere Christianity Chapter 7 ("Let's Pretend") Book IV: Reference to Story of Mask

C.S. Lewis won a triple first (the highest honours in three areas of study – Classics, Philosophy and English) at Oxford. He then taught as a fellow of Magdalen College for nearly 30 years. Later, he was the first Professor of Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge University. Much of his academic work concentrated on the later Middle Ages, especially its use of allegory. His book “The Allegory of Love” (1963) helped reinvigorate the serious study of late medieval narratives. His last academic work was “The Discarded Image, An introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature” (1964). In his book “Fern-seed and Elephants” Lewis picks a statement from a liberal commentary where John’s Gospel is called a ‘spiritual romance’, ‘a poem not history’. He retorts: “I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this.”
I would suppose that this second story about a person having to wear a mask for years, comes from that wealth of late Medieval literature with which he was so conversant. It is hardly necessary to track it down; he knew of that story and incorporated it into chapter 7 of his book as an illustration of what he was going to explain:

“What had begun as disguise had become a reality. I think both these
stories may (in a fanciful way, or course) help to illustrate what I
have to say in this chapter.”

That story might have been, basically, just what he said it was, in his first paragraph of chapter 7. If the original tale had been more elaborate, Lewis would have expertly condensed it to its salient points. He was just using it (and the summary of Beauty and the Beast) as a spring-board from which to launch into application of knowing theology. If you could find the original story, it would not have anything further in it that would improve its application in Lewis’s chapter. I’m not so sure that his application is sound, but I have no doubt that his condensed version of that un-cited story is a neat summary which helps in his explanation of applying theology in order to become more Christ-like.
His conclusion is important, for he says there has been something very misleading in his language up till that point.

“I have been talking as if it were we who did everything. In reality,
of course, it is God who does everything. We, at most, allow it to be
done to us. In a sense you might even say it is God who does the
pretending. The Three-Personal God, so to speak, sees before Him in
fact a self-centred, greedy, grumbling, rebellious human animal” and
acts as “the higher thing” which “always raises the lower. A mother
teaches her baby to talk by talking to it as if it understood long
before it really does.”

That ties the opening illustration (of wearing a mask for years) with the conclusion, that God can transform a horrible person into a Christ-like one.


May Christians read self improvement books?

This is opinion only, but I'll throw my two cents in.  I'm also not going to add in supporting Bible verses as I'll stick to commonly accepted, cross-denominational concepts that any Christian should be familiar with.  (If comments ask for verses, I will come back and edit them in.)

Most of the self-help books that I've read personally are, in retrospect, based on very humanistic concepts, or the popular psychology of the day.    However, many of them contain very good ideas mixed in with the psychobabble.

My personal opinion is that there is nothing inherently wrong with reading self-help books, provided that you've got a solid foundation in Biblical doctrine, and are able to discern the good from the concepts that are anti-Biblical.

Many of these books have value, and follow along with Christian teachings.  Books on success often advocate following the golden rule - treating your peers, employees, customers, etc, as you'd like to be treated.  Or the teach the value of honesty, integrity, etc.  None of these are anti-Christian, and all are examples of how God would have us behave anyway.

The biggest pitfall that I an see with these books is that they can further the illusion among the unsaved that following the advice in the books makes them a "good person".  Of course, a person has to realize that he or she is lost before they can turn to the Savior for salvation.  We can all be better people, but we can never be good enough to earn our own salvation.  (If we could, the Cross would not have been necessary.)

Then there are the books that teach outright contradictions to the word of God.  Humanistic, or spiritual growth books that point to one new age theology or another.  Again, these can be dangerous for obvious reasons.  However, I still believe that someone with a grounding in doctrine with the gift of discernment can still read these books and use the knowledge for God's will. the people who fall for these lies need the Savior just as much as anyone else, and you can't refute something you don't know about.

As a parallel to this last once, many Christians study the beliefs of various cults and non-Christian religions in order to learn how to more effectively witness to those involved.  It helps to provide a common starting point.  Being aware of what's being taught in these "new-agey" books can be valuable for the same purpose.

The bottom line comes down to whether or not you're grounded enough in the Word to understand and discern the truth from the lie.


Not necessarily. There are christians on all parts of the spectrum. I see them as 2 main camps.

#1 mutation/natural selection exists but only to a point

There are many christians that will accept parts of the constructs of evolution such as natural selection via environmental pressure and/or artificial selection but quote the scripture "God made the beasts of the earth after their kind" to illustrate that one species can never turn into another. They say a dog will always be a dog no matter how much you breed it to have long hair or a squashed nose. The don't believe that new information or bio-mechanical function can arise from random mutations like gene repetition/deletion, copy errors, etc. They point out that creatures like dogs that are bred down certain paths have always lost information not gained. Now this group of Christians can either believe in an ancient universe or a 6-10k year one but all will state that life is about 6-10k years old. They also like to point out that that there as been no documented examples yet of NEW function arising from selection pressure.

#2 Everything happened according to science but God started/nurtured it

This is a belief held by many modern Christians. It combines predestination in varying degrees as a lens to view reality. The most 'hands-off' interpretation says that God stacked the deck a certain way (the weightings of various physical laws, vacuum energy etc) before he exploded the gigantic soup of particles and started off the universe down the track of star and then planet formation and eventually life. The other end of the predestination spectrum is that you and I were conceived of before the Word spoke the universe into existence. Every facet of chemical reactions, evolution, mutation was planned so as to produce you and everyone else so as to participate in eternity with our Creator.


Is it possible to describe Christian lifestyle?

Given that there are over 2 billion Christians and only 14 million Jews, there is considerably more diversity in Christian lifestyle and practice compared to Jewish lifestyle. That said, the Wikipedia article on Christianity summarizes the commonalities that most Christians practice in their life, which identify them as Christian.

Belief in the statements of faith described in one or more creeds. The Apostle's Creed is the most commonly accepted, which includes statements about:

The Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
Jesus Christ, who died and was resurrected
Life after death

Reverence for the Bible as the inspired word of God
Participation in communal worship, most commonly every week on Sundays (the day of the week that Jesus was resurrected)
Participation in sacraments, the two most commonly recognized being baptism and holy communion
Celebration of holidays in relation to faith, such as Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost (some have these as part of a liturgical calendar)
Reverence for symbols, such as the cross (Christian aniconism is rare)
Prayer, with the Lord's Prayer being archetypical since Jesus gave it as an example of how to pray

There are certain exceptions to these traits (e.g. New England Puritans considered themselves Christian, but did not celebrate Christmas). However, I would say that the vast majority of active Christians would follow these aspects in their lifestyle, thus it can broadly be considered a "Christian" lifestyle.


Where do those who say Noah's flood was an actual event say the water went?

Creationists who believe the flood was a real global event say the water is still here, in the earth's oceans.

The oceans are much deeper than the mountains of earth are high, and they cover a much greater proportion of the earth's surface. Some have estimated that if the earth's surface was flattened the oceans' waters would cover the land to a depth of 2.7km.

Creationists see passages like Psalm 104:5-9 as teaching that during the flood there was significant tectonic activity, as the mountains rose and valleys sank, giving us the continents we see today, and 'hiding' the flood waters in the oceans.

  Ps 104:5 He established the earth on its foundations;
  it will never be shaken.
  6 You covered it with the deep
  as if it were a garment;
  the water stood above the mountains.
  7 At your rebuke the water fled;
  at the sound of your thunder they hurried away—
  8 mountains rose and valleys sank—
  to the place you established for them.
  9 You set a boundary they cannot cross;
  they will never cover the earth again.

Passages like these are ambiguous, and could be read as referring either to the original creation of land in Genesis 1:9-10, or to the aftermath of Noah's flood. In the case of Psalm 104 I think verse 9 does indicate that, at least by the end of this stanza, it is referring to the flood, for it speaks of God's promise not to flood the earth again, a promise that God had not made before the flood. I think the creation-flood ambiguity is deliberate - the story of Noah is a story of re-creation: a new earth, a new set of life (preserved on the ark), and a new family to repopulate the earth.


Why did Jacob insist that Joseph's sons were his?

This appears to be essentially a bit of pragmatism.  The foremost heir would inherit a double share of the father's inheritance, (this is what Elisha was referring to in 2 Kings 2:9,) and Joseph had been given this honor.

Since the inheritance was to be passed down throughout generations, and Joseph had two sons, Jacob essentially said "we'll do it like this: each of your two sons gets a full share, and that takes care of your double share."


What is the Catholic stance on creation science?

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).

The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338).

The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.


How do Protestants view "Catholic" miracles, such as those that attest to a saint?

This question strikes very close to the heart of the Protestant Reformation, along with the subsequent generations of the Reformers. This topic mainly revolves around what the Catholic Church defines as the communion of Saints, which is one of the main Catholic theological DNA strands rejected by Protestants. Perhaps the most feasibly specific answer can be narrowed down to the positions held by the Reformers of the Classical Reformation.

Its important to note that there are quite a few categories of Catholic miracles such as Eucharistic, stigmatic, healing, etc.

However, for the sake of conserving time and space, let's focus specifically on the two aspects indicated in the body of your question...

Miraculous intercession of the Saints

What the Catholic Church teaches

A canonized saint, according to Rome, is a Christian who during his/her life lived a life of exemplary holiness. At first martyrs were singled out as such. From the 4th century on, confessors, those who had refused to deny Christ in the face of death, were also recognized. Finally many others who had lived remarkable lives of holiness were admitted to the cultus.

  In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of
  Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very
  earliest days of the Christian religion, has honoured with great
  respect the memory of the dead; and, "because it is a holy and a
  wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from
  their sins" (2 Mac. 12:46) she offers her suffrages for them. The
  Church has always believed that the apostles and Christ's martyrs, who
  gave the supreme witness of faith and charity by the shedding of their
  blood, are closely united with us in Christ; she has always venerated
  them, together with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy angels, with
  a special love, and has asked piously for the help of their
  intercession. Soon there were added to these others who had chosen to
  imitate more closely the virginity and poverty of Christ, and still
  others whom the outstanding practice of the Christian virtues and the
  wonderful graces of God recommended to the pious devotion and
  imitation of the faithful. (Lumen Gentium 7.50)

By the 12th Century popular devotion to saints swelled so incredibly that it became difficult to separate fact from fiction. It was Alexander III, who in 1170 first declared that no one should be venerated as a saint apart from the Roman Church. This found its way into canon law. The process of beatification and canonization was an attempt to regulate the cult of the saints and to remove the abuses.

Beatification is the act by which the Pope permits the restricted public veneration after death of a Christian who lived an exemplary life of holiness. Normally, the person in question had to have performed one attested miracle. Those beatified receive the title "Blessed." Only those beatified are eligible for Sainthood.

Canonization, as mentioned above, is the definitive declaration by the Pope, that a Christian previously beatified has entered into eternal glory and therefore a public cult is established for the new Saint throughout the whole Church. Prior to this declaration, however, is a long legal process which begins at the diocesan level, proceeds to the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints in Rome, and eventually comes before the cardinals and bishops who advise the Pope. Normally one miracle since beatification is required for canonization. There must be a miracle associated with the person's grave or relics, which is said to occur through the intercession of the saint in heaven.

What the Reformers taught

The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, however, involved a radical reaction against the cult of saints and their relics. The Reformers rejected the idea of saintly intercession, which was thought in Lutheran terminology to constitute reliance on works rather than on faith.

Traditional Lutheran theology teaches that saints pray for the Church in general, but are not mediators of miraculous intercession. Martin Luther, the founder of Lutheranism, approved honoring the saints, but condemned with strict sobriety the acceptance and promulgation of miraculous intercession by the Saints in Heaven.

From his commentary on 1st Peter:

  Thus Scripture calls us holy while we are still living here on earth,
  if we believe. The papists have taken this name away from us and say:
  `We should not be holy; only the saints in heaven are holy.' Therefore
  we must get the noble name back. You must be holy. But you must be
  prepared not to think that you are holy of yourself or on the strength
  of your merit. No, you must be holy because you have the Word of God,
  because heaven is yours, and because you have become truly pious and
  holy through Christ. This you must avow if you want to be a Christian
  (Luther's Works 30:7)

Luther is commenting here on the phrase in 1 Peter 1:2, "by the sanctifying work of the Spirit." But his emphasis, as in the previous quote, is on the Scriptural fact that all believers in Jesus Christ, all Christians, are holy, that is, are saints.

In Luther's 1531 Galatian commentary he reflects on the view of saints he previously held.

  When I was a monk, I often had a heartfelt wish to see the life and
  conduct of at least one saintly man. But meanwhile I was imagining the
  sort of saint who lived in the desert and abstained from food and
  drink, subsisting on nothing but roots and cold water. I had derived
  this notion about unnatural saints from the books not only of the
  sophists but even of the fathers . . . But now that the light of truth
  is shining, we see with utter clarity that Christ and the apostles
  designate as saints, not those who lead a celibate life, are
  abstemious, or who perform other works that give the appearance of
  brilliance or grandeur, but those who, being called by the Gospel and
  baptized, believe that they have been sanctified and cleansed by the
  blood of Christ. Thus whenever Paul writes to Christians, he calls
  them saints, sons and heirs of God, etc. Therefore saints are all
  those who believe in Christ, whether men or women, slaves or free
  (Luther's Works 27:81-82)

A little later in the same work...

  When we have repudiated this foolish and wicked notion about the name
  "saints" which we suppose applies only to the saints in heaven, and on
  earth to hermits and monks who perform some sort of spectacular work
  let us now learn from the writings of the apostles that all believers
  in Christ are saints (LW 27:83)

John Calvin composed a systematic critique of the cult of miraculous relics in the vernacular (Traité des reliques,1547), in which he rejected the veneration of relics on theological grounds.

The Thirty-Nine Articles formulated by the Anglican Church condemned the "invocation of saints" as...

  ...a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of
  Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God. (Article XXII)

Theological opposition often turned to violent iconoclasm on the part of Huguenots  during the Wars of Religion. Collections of Catholic relics that had been revered as miraculous were destroyed and the statues of the saints in many French churches still bear the scars of attack.

Many Protestant churches strongly reject all saintly intercession, on  the basis of verses like 1 Timothy 2:1–5, which says that Jesus is the sole mediator between God and man, as well as Deuteronomy 18:10-11, which seems to forbid invoking departed souls. They also point to the fact that there are no examples in the Bible of anyone requesting the intercession of the dead - Jesus Christ being the lone exception, because he is believed to be alive and resurrected, and because he is believed to be both human and divine.

Marian apparitions

According to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, the era of public revelation ended with the death of the last living Apostle. A Marian apparition, if deemed genuine by Church authority, is treated as private revelation that may emphasize some facet of the received public revelation for a specific purpose, but it can never add anything new to the deposit of faith. The Church may pronounce an apparition as worthy of belief, but belief is never required by divine faith. The Holy See has officially confirmed the apparitions at Guadalupe, Saint-Étienne-le-Laus, Paris (Rue du Bac, Miraculous Medal), La Salette, Lourdes, Fátima, Pontmain, Beauraing, and Banneux.

The only way a protestant (or anyone else) could justify belief in Marian apparitions is to accept completely the Roman Catholic view of Mary. If these apparitions are authentic and are performed under the auspice of almighty God, then we are dealing with the Mary revealed in Roman Catholic theology.  These apparitions do nothing but confirm distinctly Catholic beliefs.

For example:

  In 1858 Saint Bernadette Soubirous was a 14-year-old shepherd girl who
  lived near the town of Lourdes in France. One day she reported a
  vision of a miraculous Lady who identified Herself as "the Immaculate
  Conception" in subsequent visions. In the second vision she was asked
  to return again and she had 18 visions overall. According to Saint
  Bernadette, the Lady held a string of Rosary beads and led Saint
  Bernadette to the discovery of a buried spring, also requesting that
  the local priests build a chapel at the site of the visions and lead
  holy processions there.

The messages of these approved apparitions are, for the most part, cut and dry. You won't find many (if any at all) protestants willing to accept any of this. If you do find any...then perhaps you might consider quietly and charitably directing him or her to their nearest parish priest.


Are Catholics permitted to honour Mary as a priest?

St. Alphonsus di Liguori used to pray: "Nos cum prole pia benedicat Virgo Maria." (May the Virgin Mary bless us with her pious offspring [Jesus].) Thus it seems she has the ability to bless, yet this isn't necessarily reserved to ordained priests in all circumstances.

She is a "priest" (or sacerdote, "a giver of the sacred"), but she was not ordained a priest, as she was not present at the Last Supper when Jesus instituted the sacrament of Orders by washing the feet of His disciples. Nor could she be an ordained priest; only men can be ordained priests.

Although all Christians are a "kingly priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9), not all Christians are Ordained priests.

One of the greatest mariologists and Doctor of the Church, St. Albert the Great, wrote (Mariale 42 & 165):

  The Blessed Virgin was not called by God to be a minister, but a consort and a helper, in accordance with the words "Let us make him a help like unto himself."

Quoted in Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s Mother of The Savior and Our Interior Life (p. 42).


If according to the Jehovah Witnesses that "there was a time when God was alone," who was with God at John 1:1?

The answer is in The Watchtower that you cite in your question.

The Word” was with Jehovah God “in the beginning,” when “the heavens and the earth” were created. He was the one to whom God said: “Let us make man in our image.” (John 1:1; Genesis 1:1, 26) Jehovah’s firstborn Son was there at his Father’s side, actively working with him. At Proverbs 8:22-31, he is represented as saying: “I came to be beside [the Creator] as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that long before any angels were created, certainly long before and physical matter that makes up the universe  was formed, Jehovah created Jesus. If you need to say this happened outside of space and time to understand it that is fine. It was if space and time began with the creation of the universe.
We can better understand John’s words here if we analyze exactly what he said. Notice again that he wrote:

In the beginning was the Word.”

This, of course, was not talking about God’s beginning, for God had no beginning. (Psalm 90:1, 2)
It was the beginning of the things John was here discussing, including the creation of all other things by “the Word.”
Then John said: “The Word was with God.” A person who is with someone obviously is not the same as the one he is with.
So at John 1:1 when Jehovah began creating the heavens and the earth the Word (Jesus) was with Him.
Additional information on this closely  related question


The decisions you mention really are the major issues, but one other point has gotten notice as well.
Inclusive Language
The article The NRSV vs the ESV, while critical of both translations, says of the NRSV:

The main change found in the NRSV, and that which has been the most controversial, is its elimination of masculine-oriented language. The NRSV was the first major "inclusive-language" translation.

The article The Gender-Neutral Language Controversy, a survey of the "inclusive language" issue from a conservative standpoint, says:

The first version to use gender-neutral language in a really thorough and systematic way was the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which appeared in 1990. This version was created under a mandate from the copyright holder, the National Council of Churches, to eliminate “sexist” language. It did not however substitute gender-neutral language in reference to God, and it did not incorporate many of the misinterpretations proposed by feminists, and so it did not satisfy many liberals.

The article concludes:

Gender-neutral Bible versions originated as an attempt by feminists to transform both the language and the beliefs of Christians. They were welcomed in liberal circles, but were met with strong resistance among evangelicals. The creators and defenders of these versions have suffered a loss of reputation among evangelicals, and publishers are not likely to market them successfully among evangelicals in the near future.

It may be worth noting that the ESV uses some inclusive language, but only when the original language was inclusive, as pointed out in this review:

As far as gender is concerned, "anyone" rather than "any man" is used where there is no word corresponding to "man" in the original, and "people" rather than "men" is used where the original refers to both men and women.

Un-Messianic Renderings of the OT
The other major category of issues includes the Isaiah 7:14 issue you mentioned, as described in this review of the NRSV from bible-researcher.com:

The deliberately non-Christian interpretation of the Old Testament which made the RSV unacceptable to many Christians is continued in this revision. The most notorious verse of the RSV, Isaiah 7:14, “a young woman shall conceive,” is revised only to put the verb in the present tense and add the definite article: “the young woman is with child.” In some places the NRSV is worse than the RSV in this respect. For example, in Genesis 1:2 the RSV’s “and the Spirit of God was moving” has been changed to “a wind from God swept.” In Psalm 23 the RSV’s traditional renderings “valley of the shadow of death” and “dwell in the house of the Lord for ever” are changed to “the darkest valley” and “my whole life long.” We do however notice an improvement over the RSV in the NRSV’s translation of נברכו “be blessed” in Genesis 12:3, 18:18, and 28:14; and התברכו “gain blessing for themselves” in Genesis 22:18 and 26:4.

This is in contrast with the ESV, as the same review quoted earlier establishes:

The language and style are basically those of the RSV, but with the elimination of archaisms and a slight updating of vocabulary. In the Preface it is stated that the one hundred member publishing team "shares a common commitment to the truth of God's word and to historic Christian orthodoxy" (p. x), and the conservative stance of the translation is sometimes apparent where OT passages are treated with reference to the NT, e.g. "virgin" (Isa. vii 14; cf. Matt. i 23), "Kiss the Son" (Ps. ii 12) and "offspring" rather than "descendants" (Gen. xii 7; xxii 17; cf. Gal. iii 16).

OT Translational Novelties
Finally, there's an issue where NRSV translators would translate a passage based on conjecture rather than direct textual evidence, as detailed in this article (which also details the other issues quite well):

The RSV generally uses the Masoretic Text (traditional Hebrew). However, it has been widely criticized by conservatives for frequently revamping that text. Since the ancient text used only consonants, by inserting different vowels than the Masoretes wrote in, modern scholars are able to come up with some very striking variant readings—often strictly conjectural. These have often been labeled "Cn" for correction.
However, changes made without this warning have caused many to mistrust the RSV OT text in some places, especially where it impinges on conservative theology (e.g., Christology).
The NRSV follows the RSV in this. It also bases its text on the ancient versions in other languages much more than the NASB, NIV, or NKJV would, for example.
There are many footnotes referring to the Qumran mss. of Samuel (abbreviated "Q MS"). "Four sentences based upon one of the Dead Sea Scrolls have been tacked onto Chapter 10 of 1 Samuel, for instance."3
Many of the footnotes in the RSV are decidedly helpful to those who want to study the Bible in detail, but the liberal presuppositions of the NCC and its translators should be kept in mind by the Bible-believing reader.


Was Tetzel robbed by a man who had preemptively bought an indulgence?

This is a tentative answer.

Volume 15 of  Johann Walch's Sämmtliche schriften has the story of Tetzel's robbery in section 97 on the numbered page 363.  The Go To page number seems not to work, but doing find on Tetzel brings up 12 items on page xi and a little further down 9 items on page ccxxx. Clicking where it says page ccxxx gets one to the place.

This tells the story, in German, but before it does it ascribes the story to Georgii Arnoldi in his Life of the Elector Maurice, duke of Saxony; and to the German economist and historian Seckendorf's History of Lutheranism.

It seems that Dr Walch did not ascribe the story directly to Luther at all. This suggests that Dr Walch was unaware of any record of Luther recounting the story himself, which suggests that there is no record of him doing so.

It may be possible that the inclusion by Dr Walch of this story in his book  led someone mistakenly to ascribe it to Luther.

The nobleman's name was Hans von Hake (1472 - 1541) and the robbery is said to have  occurred near Juterbog, between Leipzig and Berlin. The empty chest which contained the money Tetzel had collected, and which Herr Hans relieved him of,   can still be seen in the Protestant Church of St. Nicholas in Juterbog.

The auto-translation of the German Wikipedia page on Tetzel  has the following:

  The Nikolaikirche in Jüterbog also has a Tetzelkasten.  Hans von Hake (1472-1541) from Julebog handed over this ark after Tetzel had removed the box.  He had already purchased the release card from him and waved it as Tetzel threatened him with the torment of purgatory.  Theodor Fontane describes this story in the first volume of his " Wanders through the Mark Brandenburg ".

There is no mention here of the story being attributed to Luther, as there is on the English site.

The Brandenburg site for the Luther 2017 Jubilee has a section on

  Luther und der "Bad Boy" von Juterbug

which translates as Luther and the Bad Boy of Juterbug. An auto-translation of the last part of this says:

  For, according to legend, Knight Hans von Hake has bought from the monk an indulgence for a yet unrequited sin in the future - and then attacked Tetzel and robbed his wooden vault.

Here again there  is no attribution to Luther (even on a site dedicated to his Jubilee), and the story is described as a legend suggesting that part, at least, is poorly attested historically, which doesn't mean it didn't happen.

So a tentative conclusion is that Luther did not make it up, or even, as far as we know,  mention it. But whether or not it really happened may be uncertain.


Creed, Encyclical, Decretal, Canon, Bull, etc - What's the difference?

CreedThis word comes from the Latin verb credo, which means "I believe." A creed is a collection of articles of the faith* which are necessary to believe for salvation; "creed" can also refer to an individual article of faith. A Sovereign Pontiff can draw up a symbol of faith, and he must do so if the faith is endangered by errors; e.g., the Arian heresy prompted Pope St. Sylvester I, under the guidance of the Council of Nicea, to draw up the Nicene Creed; or Pope Damasus to approve the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of the First Council of Constantinople. Other creeds include the Apostle's Creed and the Athanasian Creed.*The collection of articles of the faith is also called a "symbol," from "συμβάλλειν," which means "to throw together," i.e., a collection.
EncyclicalThese "circular letters" are circulated globally, to all the faithful, and they are meant to express the mind of the Pope. They are not per se infallible, but they are infallible wherever they reiterate previous infallible teaching. Pope Leo XIII was the first pope to write encyclical letters.Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), wrote, concerning the assent the faithful must give to encyclicals:20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[Luke, X, 16] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
DecretalThis is a somewhat more archaic term that refers to a papal decree, e.g., an official response to a question of discipline.
CanonThis word has several meanings (see them all here), depending on the context, but etymologically it comes from the Latin and Greek meaning "rule." In the present context of "official church doctrine," "canon" means "a short definition of some dogmatic truth, with attached anathema, made as a rule by general councils" (source), which are approved by a Pope. For example, this is one of the canons of the First Vatican Council (1870):1. If any one shall say that human reason is so independent that faith can not be enjoined upon it by God: let him be anathema.and one from the 24th Session of the Council of Trent (1563):Canon II.—If any one saith, that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine law: let him be anathema.
Papal BullThis word comes from the Latin bulla, which refers to the stamped seal on the letter that shows it's authentically from the Pope. Thus, a papal bull is simply an authoritative papal document. Here's the leaden bulla of Pope Urban V:and the bulla of Pope Urban VIII attached to his letter:

Popes can use the medium of bulls, encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, or briefs to speak ex cathedra (i.e., infallibly).**cf. Sixtus Cartechini, S.J.'s 1951 work De Valore Notarum Theologicarum (On the Value of the Theological Notes), which confessors have used when dealing with erudite penitents. It's also available in Italian translation. What I mention here is discussed on PDF p. 17 of the section "Chiarezza e volontà di definire" (Italian edition) or p. 19 of the Latin edition.

See also my answer regarding when a Pope is infallible.


Eucharist for Catholic Candidates after Easter Vigil?

RCIA candidates who receive the sacraments of Baptism and First Eucharist at the Easter Vigil Mass also receive Confirmation at that time:

  Today in all the rites, Latin and Eastern, the Christian initiation of adults begins with their entry into the catechumenate and reaches its culmination in a single celebration of the three sacraments of initiation: Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1233)

The Code of Canon Law confirms this:

  Unless there is a grave reason to the contrary, an adult who is baptized is to be confirmed immediately after baptism and is to participate in the eucharistic celebration also by receiving communion.

(Canon 866)

In turn, this approach laid out by the Canons and the Catechism is meant to support what appears in the Second Vatican Council's Ad Gentes Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church:

  Then, when the sacraments of Christian initiation have freed them from the power of darkness (cf. Col. 1:13), having died with Christ been buried with Him and risen together with Him (cf. Rom. 6:4-11; Col. 2:12-13; 1 Peter 3:21-22; Mark 16:16), they receive the Spirit (cf. 1 Thess. 3:5-7; Acts 8:14-17) of adoption of sons and celebrate the remembrance of the Lord's death and resurrection together with the whole People of God.

(Ad Gentes section 14)

Thus, there is no continuance through Confirmation, since there is no delay of Confirmation.


Is disembodied heaven better or worse than embodied heaven, according to Catholicism?

Does the Catholic Church hold that the embodied state after the final judgment is better than heaven before being embodied, or from an individual perspective is there really no difference qualitatively in the two states?
The short answer is: YES, embodied state is better, and we will definitely notice the difference qualitatively!
The Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body
First, let's consider the certainty of the resurrection of the body.  This is the undisputed opinion of the unified church since the Apostolic Father era (i.e. the church fathers who knew the apostles personally), shown by a quote from Pope Clement I who was consecrated by St. Peter the Apostle himself.  Then as early as AD 125 this doctrine has been included in The Apostles' Creed.  Important quotes from the early church can be read in a Catholic Answers website Tract What the Early Church Believed: Resurrection of the Body.
Opposition to the Resurrection of the Body
Next, let's consider the opposite position which taught that the soul is better without the body, coming against the Early Church Fathers who were in the process of defining the orthodox faith in greater detail.  This position came through multiple streams:

Platonism which taught that the body is a hindrance to the pursuit of wisdom and that "the philosophical life involves the attempt to free oneself (or soul) from the body, and so the philosophical life is a preparation for death."
Gnosticism which taught that the mortal body belongs to the world of inferior, worldly powers, and only the spirit or soul could be saved.
Manichaeism, a descendant of Gnosticism, which taught the soul came from the World of Light and became trapped in a human body.  St. Augustine, having been a Manichaean devotee before becoming Christian, was very familiar with this and was later instrumental in refuting this religion.

Christianity continued the Israelite vision of the body as created "Good"
Even though many early church fathers were influenced by the philosophical vocabulary at the time (Platonism), they strenuously argued against their pagan critics that the Israelite vision of the ideal human being as recorded in the Book of Genesis is correct one: that God created human being as a material body infused with immortal soul and that the whole unified human being is made in His image and pronounced good (Gen 1:27, 1:31, 2:7):

²⁷ So God created human beings in his own image.
In the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
³¹ Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good!
⁷ Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed
the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person.

In contrast, modern theologians today need to defend not only the existence, but also the immortality of the human soul, against modern philosophical materialism which views the soul as merely an emergent property of the body.
Because of the fidelity to Genesis as well as to the full humanity of Jesus Christ as God incarnate, all mainstream Christian denominations for 2,000 years have been teaching that God will give the righteous a glorified body in heaven so that God's original purpose for human being, which was marred by death because of Adam's fall, will finally be fully realized.  Of course, due to the insufficient data from Scriptures, the conception of how the soul relates to the body has changed over time, and until today there is no dogma about it, BUT I believe the teaching that 1) the soul is UNNATURAL without the body and that 2) the glorified body in heaven is BETTER, has remained constant. If God doesn't consider the embodied person as better than just the soul, why would God resurrect our bodies?
Catechism of the Council of Trent on The Qualities of a Glorified Body
In the Catechism of the Council of Trent published 1566 under Pope Pius V, of which the PDF of the 1923 English translation based on the 4th Roman edition of 1907 can be found here) under Article XI ("The Resurrection of the Body") there is a section titled "The Qualities of a Glorified Body", which Catholic Apologist Tim Staples commented in his Catholic Answers article What is Heaven?:

... the Catechism of the Council of Trent, referencing the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas, lists these four “characteristics” or “gifts” that will be communicated to the blessed in heaven:
1) Subtility – This gift entails the absolute subordination of the body to the soul. So radical is this subordination that it will empower us to be able to pass through a wall as Jesus did in the Upper Room in John 20:19-20, while possessing flesh and bone just as he did as well. Remember: the disciples were gathered together in fear behind locked doors, after the resurrection of Christ, and before they had seen the risen Lord. Jesus suddenly appeared in their midst, though the doors remained locked. He passed right through the doors! Yet, as is revealed in Luke 24:39, in a parallel account of this same event, also after the resurrection, Jesus said to the apostles, “… handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
2) Agility – In Acts 1:9, Jesus ascended up to heaven right before the very eyes of the apostles. And he didn’t even need rockets like R2D2! In fact, according to St. Thomas, the blessed in heaven, even after receiving their bodies in the resurrection, will be able to travel at the speed of thought, or in the “wink of an eye,” as St. Thomas says it, to any distance. Star Wars ain’t got nothin’ that can even compare with what awaits those who are faithful to Christ!
3) Impassibility – In simple terms, this means the blessed in heaven cannot suffer and cannot die (see Rev. 21:4). Indeed the bodies of the blessed will not only be immortal, but no sickness or any imperfection will be possible. We will not even so much as be able to stub a toe, even if we wanted to! Not that we would want to! But you get my drift!
4) Glory (or as the Roman Catechism calls it: “Brightness”) – The blessed in heaven will be glorified like Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. Rooted in Jesus’ own words, “… the righteous will shine like the sun,” in Matthew 13:43, the Church teaches the blessed will shine with the glory of God so brilliant that it is believed by some that we on earth could not stand to even behold one of the blessed in heaven if he were revealed in all of his glory!

Modern Catholic restatement of the teaching that embodied state after final judgment is BETTER
The latest affirmation of the proper balance that Christians need to give to our bodies and our souls come from Pope John Paul II lecture series known as Theology of the Body with one sentence summary of each of the 129 lectures can be read at the EWTN website library.
Katrina J. Zeno, MTS who is endorsed by the Bishop of Phoenix to present talk, give workshop and teach courses on the Theology of the Body, wrote a web article It is the whole embodied person who is destined for salvation, not a soul separated from the body expounding on TOB Audience #67: The Resurrection Perfects the Person and John 15.
Several quotes from the article:

Only when both dimensions – body and soul are united forever in an eternal embrace of love – will you reach your full authenticity, your full stature and perfection. This is why every Sunday we profess, “I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen!” Do you realize that when those words escape your lips, you are professing belief in the resurrection of your body?
The resurrection of the body is not an abstract concept, like saying “I believe the color blue exists.” This latter statement is impersonal. It exists as true apart from you (unless, of course, you are a Smurf). On the contrary, the resurrection of the body is a statement about your personhood, about the fulfillment of your human nature. You are a unified creature of both body and soul, which means your eternal happiness must include the resurrection of your body. Put briefly, your body has an eternal relationship with your soul that will not be discarded in eternity, but recovered and perfected.
...
...  Sin and death introduced an unnatural separation into our human nature, into our personal selfhood. Death, we could say, divorces the two lovers of soul and body from each other and thrusts the soul into an artificial state of separation from the body. ...
...
... Embodiment matters. Masculinity and femininity matter all the way into eternity. If the deepest cry of the human heart is to be loved, and if eternity is where we are loved in the absolute fullness of our personhood, and if human nature is by its very nature a unity of body and soul, then our eternal happiness can’t be a state of the soul alone, divorced from the body. We must have a glorified body in order to experience the fullness of love, the fullness of total self-giving of our embodied person [our selfhood] toward which we have been maturing, laboring, straining our whole life long. It is the whole embodied person who is destined for salvation, not a soul separated from the body.
...