Are Catholics allowed to entertain that the Old Vulgate might contains errors?
The Old Vulgate Bible translation of St. Jerome is free of errors on faith and moral. Like any translation there may be technical error of nuance of given words or expressions that may have been translated better.
Pope Pius XII declared the Vulgate as "free from error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals" in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu:

Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching [...]"

The inerrancy is with respect to faith and morals, as it says in the above quote: "free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals" but not in a philological sense:

[...] and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.

So yes Catholics may hold that there could be technical biblical inaccuracies in translation within the Old Vulgate, but no outlandish errors.
For many centuries, it effectively was the Bible for countless Christians.
Through long ages in the west, educated people could read Latin but not Greek or Hebrew, and there were few Bible translations in the vernacular available.

The Original Languages
Despite its influential role, the Vulgate is a translation.
It thus does not contain the text of the Bible in the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek).
While it can play a useful role as a translation, it cannot replace the original language texts.
This is an important point, because some Catholics have placed so much stress on the Vulgate that some people have been confused on this point.
Trent’s Statement
To see this, let’s start by looking at what the Council of Trent had to say regarding the matter:
[This] sacred and holy Synod—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever [Decree Concerning the Edition and Use of the Sacred Books, 1546].
Or, more simply:
[This Synod] ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition . . . be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic.
“Authentic” in this context means “authoritative.” So Trent is saying that, of the Latin editions available in its day, the old Vulgate was to be considered the authoritative edition for use in lectures, debates, sermons, and expositions.
Note the qualifiers: “out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation.”
Trent isn’t saying anything about original language editions. It’s just talking about Latin ones.
It also isn’t saying that the old Vulgate can’t be superseded later by a newer Latin translation.
Both of these points will be important.
Pius XII’s Statement
In 1943, Pope Pius XII commented on Trent’s statement, writing:
And if the Tridentine Synod wished “that all should use as authentic” the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts.
For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time [Divino Afflante Spiritu 21].
Here Pius XII does two important things.
First, he makes the point we’ve already mentioned—that the Vulgate does not “in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts” (i.e., the ones in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek).
Second, he clarifies that Trent’s declaration “as all know, applies only to the Latin Church.”
This is important because the Latin Church is not the whole of the Catholic Church. - Is the Vulgate the Catholic Church’s Official Bible?

St. Jerome was commissioned by the Church to translate the Bible into Latin. Infallibility of the pope extends to faith and morals, not biblical translations or translators.
Please note I am only dealing with the Old Vulgate in the Latin of St. Jerome. The Duoay-Rheims Bible is an English translation of the the Old Latin Vulgate.


Why did St. Martin give half of his cloak, and didn't give the whole?

Sulpicius (or Sulpitius) Severus was a younger contemporary of St. Martin, being 34 years old  when Martin died. He wrote, amongst other things, a biography of St. Martin. The story of the cloak is in Chapter Three.

This chapter relates how, in an extremely cold winter, there was a beggar outside the city of Amiens, about 75 miles North of Paris. He is described as being "destitute of clothing" and was beseeching everyone who passed by to have compassion on him, but nobody did.

  Martin, that man full of God, recognized that a being to whom others showed no pity, was, in that respect, left to him. Yet, what should he do? He had nothing except the cloak in which he was clad, for he had already parted with the rest of his garments for similar purposes. Taking, therefore, his sword with which he was girt, he divided his cloak into two equal parts, and gave one part to the poor man, while he again clothed himself with the remainder.

So Martin had already given away his other garments, which would normally be worn under a cloak. If he had given the beggar the whole cloak Martin would have left himself naked.

Severus goes on to describe the reaction of onlookers

  Some of the bystanders laughed, because he was now an unsightly object, and stood out as but partly dressed. Many, however, who were of sounder understanding, groaned deeply because they themselves had done nothing similar. They especially felt this, because, being possessed of more than Martin, they could have clothed the poor man without reducing themselves to nakedness.

It would have been possible for other people, who had not already given away their undergarments, to assist the beggar much more easily than Martin could.

That night Jesus appeared to Martin in a vision:

  In the following night, when Martin had resigned himself to sleep, he had a vision of Christ arrayed in that part of his cloak with which he had clothed the poor man. He contemplated the Lord with the greatest attention, and was told to own as his the robe which he had given. Ere long, he heard Jesus saying with a clear voice to the multitude of angels standing round— ‘Martin, who is still but a catechumen, clothed  me with this robe.’ The Lord, truly mindful of his own words (who had said when on earth— Inasmuch  as you have done these things to one of the least of these, you have done them unto me), declared that he himself had been clothed in that poor man; and to confirm the testimony he bore to so good a deed, he condescended to show him himself in that very dress which the poor man had received.

This is, of course,  a reference to Matthew 25:40.

OP asks if it was real or an allegory. There is nothing in the biography to suggest this was an allegory. It is told as something which really happened.

Even though giving the beggar the whole cloak would have left Martin naked himself, wouldn't that have been even more noble than just giving half?

On St. Martin's Day, 11/11/2007, Pope Benedict XVI spoke before the Angelus of St. Martin:

  May St. Martin help us to understand that only by means of a common commitment to sharing is it possible to respond to the great challenge of our times: to build a world of peace and justice where each person can live with dignity

The Pope referred to sharing and dignity. Martin and the beggar both needed clothing. They had one cloak between them, so Martin decided they would share it. He treated the beggar as an equal, so each had half a cloak. How would the beggar have felt if he had been given the whole cloak, and seen Martin reduce himself to the beggars former position?  He would have felt embarrassed and undignified, a mere object of Martin's largesse. In sharing  there is dignity and equality. Martin did not say he didn't care about himself, he showed that he cared about the beggar just as much as himself.

St. Martin did many things, but the incident with the cloak is by far the best known. It is a frequent subject in art, and as KorvinStarmast says, El Greco did a very famous painting of it.  In the Orthodox Church Martin is known as Martin the Merciful. His feast day is November 11th, and this day was traditionally marked across Europe in Protestant and Catholic countries alike. He is (I think) the only human saint whose day has a specific name in English: Martinmas.    It's position in the year was partly responsible as it marked the end of the harvest, New  wine was ready then, and indeed Martin is a patron saint of alcoholics.

In Germany the carnival traditionally began at 11.11 am on this day. Martin had been a reluctant soldier and the  Armistice, bringing to an end the fighting in the Great War, took place on his day in 1918.


Which Catholic writer(s) has compared St Paul's "third heaven" to the third stage of interior prayer?

Perhaps you are thinking of "The Interior Castle" by St. Teresa of Avila, Doctor of the Catholic Church?  On page 77 of the document at this link, the introduction to the 3rd Chapter, she specifically cites 2 Cor. xii. 2-4.

This sounds to me close to your question, though this is not the final stage of perfection in that book.


Did the original Greek scriptures use upper and lower case letters, in particular for "Holy Ghost"?

Actually none of the above. The original Greek manuscripts were written in all capital letters. The minuscule script (which evolved into the Greek lowercase) was developed only during the 9th-10th centuries.

Capitalising "Holy Ghost" does not imply Trinitarian theology, all it says is that the translators think it is a proper noun. There are many theological positions which would identify "Holy Ghost/Spirit" as a proper noun without accepting Nicene or Chalcedonian Trinitarian theology, such as gnosticism, modalism, Arianism, Mormonism, and many more.


Did Jesus forgot that he was asked by his disciples where he was going?

There is no contradiction or forgetfulness of Yeshua's part. Peter did ask where he was going previously, and Thomas implies the question, but at this particular time nobody asked him where he was going.

But now I am going to him who sent me. None of you asks me, ‘Where are you going? ’Rather, you are filled with grief because I have said these things.
νῦν δὲ ὑπάγω πρὸς τὸν πέμψαντά με, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐρωτᾷ με Ποῦ ὑπάγεις

The word ἐρωτᾷ (asks) is in the present tense. You can see that here, as well as in the translation. Meyer's NT Commentary offers the interpretation that Yeshua paused between "me" and "none", though he says such an interpretation is unnecessary...

None of you asks me: whither dost Thou go away? but because I have spoken this to you, namely, that after my departure such sufferings shall befall you, grief has filled your heart, so that you have become quite dumb from sorrow, and blunted to the higher interest which lies in my going home to Him who sent me. According to De Wette and Lücke, there is said to be a want of exactness in the entire presentation, resting on the fact that John 16:6 does not stand before καὶ οὐδείς. The incorrectness of this assumption, in itself quite unnecessary, lies in this, that the first proposition of John 16:5 is thus completed: “But now at my departure I could not keep silence concerning it,” by which the 6th verse is anticipated. According to Kuinoel and Olshausen, a full point should be placed after πέμψ. με, and a pause is to be assumed, in which Jesus in vain awaited a question, so that He continued subsequently with an interrogation: “Nullusne vestrum me amplius interrogat, quo abiturus sim?” But the assumption of pauses (others, including De Wette, make the pause after John 16:5) is, when the correlation of the conjunctions is so definitely progressive, unwarranted.
The fact that already in John 13:36 the question had been put by Peter ποῦ ὑπάγεις (comp. the question of Thomas, John 14:5), does not stand in contradiction with the present passage; but Jesus censures simply the degree of distress, which they had now reached, in which none among them fixed his eye on the goal of the departing One, and could come to a question for more definite information respecting it.


Which canon did the Early Church recognize?

The earliest Old Testament canon is mentioned by Josephus circa 95CE, as well as the reason why they considered it "from God".  From there, it's history is shown by Melito of Sardis circa 175CE.  These earliest canons never included what came to be called the apocrypha.
Josephus
Although he does not name specific books, it is quite clear to which 22 he refers.  He also speaks of a valid prophetic line for their acceptance and not others.  This, of course, is mentioned by Christ (Mat 11:13, Luke 16:16, Luke 24:44).

“We have not, therefore, a multitude of books disagreeing and conflicting with one another; but we have only twenty-two, which contain the record of all time and are justly held to be divine.

Of these, five are by Moses, and contain the laws and the tradition respecting the origin of man, and continue the history down to his own death. This period embraces nearly three thousand years.

From the death of Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets that followed Moses wrote the history of their own times in thirteen books. The other four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the regulation of the life of men.

From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have been recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the same confidence that we repose in those which preceded them, because there has not been during this time an exact succession of prophets.
-Josephus, Against Apion-

He is very clear about which books they considered "God breathed", meaning the valid prophetic line.
Melito
For more context on Melito, "Melito may have been the immediate successor of the "angel" (or "apostle") of the church of Sardis, to whom our Great High Priest addressed one of the apocalyptic messages. He was an "Apostolic Father" in point of fact; he very probably knew the blessed Polycarp and his disciple Irenaeus. He is justly revered for the diligence with which he sought out the evidence which, in his day, established the Canon of the Old Testament, then just complete." see here.
As quoted by Eusebius; emphasis mine.

Accordingly when I [Melito] went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus,1310 Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David,1311 the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also,1312 Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book1313; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.1314 From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.” Such are the words of Melito.
-Eusebius, Church History-

As quoted elsewhere.

I accordingly proceeded to the East, and went to the very spot where the things in question were preached and took place; and, having made myself accurately acquainted with the books of the Old Testament, I have set them down below, and herewith send you the list.  Their names are as follows:—

The five books of Moses—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua,3623 Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two of Chronicles, the book of the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, also called the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, of the twelve contained in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.  From these I have made my extracts, dividing them into six books.
-Book of Extracts-

This canon is the same as the Protestant canon, sans Esther.  Some would argue, however, that Esther was also part of the one book "Esdras" (Ezra, Nehemia).  Or it was a mere oversight as he mentions Esther elsewhere.  See the links for more.
Jerome
Jerome is an interesting figure in the history of the canon of Scripture.  He wrote circa 400.

Preface to the Books of the Kings. Circa A.D. 391.
This preface, also known as the Prologus Galeatus, "Helmeted Preface," was written by Jerome about the year 391. In it he maintains that, for the Old Testament, only the Hebrew books traditionally regarded as Holy Scripture by the Jews are canonical, and the extra books of the Septuagint "are not in the canon."
-Source-

This link will also provide more information on the canon.  As noted in the comments, the definition of "early" is an interesting one.  I try to find the earliest references and see what is said.
Justin Martyr
He wrote about 140 and taught in Rome.  This is his confirmation of what Josephus and Melito had said about the prophetic line and authentic Scripture.

There were, then, among the Jews certain men who were prophets of God, through whom the prophetic Spirit published beforehand things that were to come to pass, ere ever they happened. ... And He was predicted before He appeared, first 5000 years before, and again 3000, then 2000, then 1000, and yet again 800; for in the succession of generations prophets after prophets arose.
First Apology, Chapter XXXI

End
So, which OT canon did the early church recognize?  The answer is it recognized what the Protestants recognize for the same reason.


Are there Christian Denominations or Movements who believe that Jesus didn't actually pay our sin debt?

It is possible that the movement called “The New Church” (which came out of Swedenborgian theology) believes that Jesus did not actually pay our sin debt.  I base this on two of their principal doctrines:

"There are two essentials which constitute the church, and hence two principal things of doctrine — one, that the Lord's Human is Divine; the other, that love to the Lord and charity toward the neighbor constitute the church, and not faith separate from love and charity."  It is by these two essential doctrines that conjunction with the Lord and salvation is effected.  If one is unaware of these two essential doctrines of the New Church and yet has believed in one God and lived a good life, they will be taught this by angels after death.

From what I’ve read I understand that they believe Jesus’ soul was divine from eternity although he did not exist prior to being born of Mary.  After his resurrection he put off the human body he inherited from Mary, and put on a human body from the Divine within Him, which is known in the New Church as the Divine Human.

During His life Jesus progressed towards God by gradually making the human body he inherited at birth one with the Divine...  It was this progress towards unification, completed by the passion on the cross that is the means by which all of humanity was saved from hell.

Other names for The New Church include Swedenborgian, New Christians, Neodan-Christians, Church of the New Christ, and The Lord's New Church.  Swedenborgians accept the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; and the Book of Revelation as divinely inspired canon of Scripture. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Church
If Jesus’ “progression towards unification” with the Divine is the means by which all of humanity is saved, and if all that is required is for people to repent, love God and live a good life, then there would be no need for Jesus to pay the entire debt of sin.  The following Christianity Stack question is relevant to the Swedenborgian view of Jesus’ sacrificial death:

Many Christians believe that Jesus died to appease the anger of God. One reason for this is 1 John 2:2, which says: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”  Propitiation basically means to appease the wrath of a god through an offering.  How did Swedenborg interpret 1 John 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins"?

In response to this question, Lee Woofenden says:

Swedenborg was aware of, but rejected, the traditional philosophically-based interpretation of "propitiation" as meaning to appease the wrath of God the Father through the literal shedding of blood and death of the Son of God on the Cross.  He goes on to explain why divine justice does not save one person due to the actions of another person (in this case, the Son of God)...

Swedenborg insists that although God does indeed forgive all of our sins out of pure love and mercy, the only way we can receive that forgiveness is to repent from our sins and live a new life of love and service to our fellow human beings, as Jesus Christ and the entire Bible command us to do...    "propitiation" has to do with God "covering over" our sins, meaning forgiving them out of pure love and mercy—which forgiveness we receive when we repent from our sins and live a good life instead, as God commands us to do throughout the entire Bible, both Old Testament and New.

I could be wrong, but I get an impression that “The New Church” and those groups associated with Swedenborg, believe that “it wasn't required that Jesus' suffering was equal to or exceeded all the suffering of punishment that each one of us is due because he dealt away with the legal requirement, period, through the cross.”
If I have misunderstood and misrepresented anybody, I will apologise unreservedly.  Please be aware I do not agree with the views expressed by The New Church or Swedenborg.


What is the Book of Mormon equivalent of John 3:16?

If any such "unofficial canon within a canon" existed in the Book of Mormon, it would have to be in 3rd Nephi, from chapter 11 to approximately chapter 28.  This is from the record of Nephi, a distant descendant of the Nephi from the beginning of the book, who lived through a time period that our modern calendar counts as the 0030s AD: the time of Christ's mortal ministry, his death and resurrection.

This part of the record recounts how, at some point soon after the resurrection of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem, (the exact time frame is not given, but it is said to be "in the ending of" the same year,) the resurrected Lord appeared to the people of the Nephites.  He spent some time among them, teaching them about the principles of the Gospel and how the Law of Moses had been fulfilled in him, re-organizing the church among them in light of this fundamental shift in the law, and blessing and healing all who came unto him.

In fact, if "the guys in the white shirts" do come by and visit you, it's quite likely that 3rd Nephi chapter 11 will be one of the first things they invite you to read.  This section of the narrative is widely considered to be one of the most beautiful and spiritual parts of the Book of Mormon.


According to Catholic Tradition, what is Jesus doing right now?

The most relevant sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church seem to be 662 and 664.  The first focuses on Christ's priestly ministry:

  Jesus Christ, the one priest of the new and eternal Covenant, "entered, not into a sanctuary made by human hands. . . but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf." There Christ permanently exercises his priesthood, for he "always lives to make intercession" for "those who draw near to God through him". As "high priest of the good things to come" he is the centre and the principal actor of the liturgy that honours the Father in heaven.

Through the prayer of his people, Jesus is in communion with his body, and acts as their priest, hearing their prayers and interceding on their behalf. (cf. CCC 2565)

Section 664 deals with Christ's rule over his kingdom:

  Being seated at the Father's right hand signifies the inauguration of the Messiah's kingdom, the fulfilment of the prophet Daniel's vision concerning the Son of man: "To him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." After this event the apostles became witnesses of the "kingdom [that] will have no end".

Thus, according to the catechism, the two primary activities of Christ during his session are a) intercession as our high priest and b) ruling over his kingdom.


What is the justification used by the Nazarene denomination that permits women to be pastors/ elders?

The Church of the Nazarene publishes a Manual which details their theology and doctrine. In Page 186, paragraph 501, the justification for ordaining women is presented:

  501. Theology of Women in Ministry. The Church of the
  Nazarene supports the right of women to use their God-given
  spiritual gifts within the church and affirms the historic right
  of women to be elected and appointed to places of leadership
  within the Church of the Nazarene, including the offices of
  both elder and deacon.

  The purpose of Christ’s redemptive work is to set God’s creation
  free from the curse of the Fall. Those who are “in Christ”
  are new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17). In this redemptive
  community, no human being is to be regarded as inferior on
  the basis of social status, race, or gender (Galatians 3:26-28).

  Acknowledging the apparent paradox created by Paul’s instruction
  to Timothy (1 Timothy 2:11-12) and to the church
  in Corinth (1 Corinthians 14:33-34), we believe interpreting
  these passages as limiting the role of women in ministry presents serious conflicts with specific passages of scripture
  that commend female participation in spiritual leadership
  roles (Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:17-18; 21:8-9; Romans 16:1, 3, 7;
  Philippians 4:2-3), and violates the spirit and practice of the
  Wesleyan-holiness tradition. Finally, it is incompatible with
  the character of God presented throughout Scripture, especially
  as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.

As far as I can understand the text, the Church of the Nazarene states that ordination cannot be restricted to men only because "no human being is to be regarded as inferior on the basis of social status, race or gender" citing II Cor 5:17 and Gal 3:26–28 as support.

Furthermore, while recognising the direct instructions by St Paul (I Tim 2:11–12, I Cor 14:34–35) regarding the role of women in Church, they reject their literal interpretation by asserting they are in contradiction to passages that "commend female participation in spiritual leadership roles," citing Joel 2:28–29, Acts 2:17–18, Acts 21:8–9, Rom 16:1–7 and Phil 4:2–3, as well as furthermore being "incompatible with the character of God presented throughout Scripture, especially as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ."


It's not just that no priest is involved -- after all, anyone with the correct intention is able to perform a valid baptism, though it is forbidden, except in cases of emergency, to just "do it yourself". It's that no other persons at all are involved. Just the person undergoing a baptism by desire, and God. (Not to imply that God is one person; He is three Persons, one Being).
The Baltimore Catechism addresses this question directly:

Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

Further:

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.

So it is as effective as baptism by water. God is always effective.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives further details:

1259 For catechumens [catechumens are those who are in the process of joining the Church] who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Note that in the above, "will of God" means will of God, not the will of a god. 1260 is of special relevance to those who are wondering whether, for example, people in uncontacted tribes can be saved. Short answer: yes, they absolutely can.


Do any Christian groups believe that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain in?

Here is a fascinating article about the history of the idea that the pyramids were grain stores.

There is no mention of pyramids in the Bible's version of the story but in the Middle Ages people started to write them into the story. "If you go to St Mark's cathedral in Venice, there's a medieval depiction showing people using the three great pyramids of Giza as granaries in Joseph's story," says John Darnell, a professor of Egyptology at Yale University. "If you didn't have access to the structures, the idea had some currency." The belief was also popularised by Saint Gregory of Tours, a sixth century Frankish bishop, who wrote: "They are wide at the base and narrow at the top in order that the wheat might be cast into them through a tiny opening, and these granaries are to be seen to the present day."
But Darnell says the idea began to fall out of favour during the Renaissance, when people made more detailed studies of the pyramids.
Egyptologist James Allen of Brown University [says] "There's no way in the world an ounce of grain would be stored in a structure like that. It would be totally impractical. It's like saying the Tower of London was built as a granary store."

For details of why the theory is now discounted, see Gordon Stranger's excellent answer.
There seems to be no hint that any modern Christian groups hold this view as a matter of doctrine.


According to Catholicism, did St. Paul believe that end of the world was imminent?

The Catholic Church has a nuanced approach to Biblical inerrancy. A dogmatic constitution of the Second Vatican Council states inerrancy applies only to

that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation [and that]
the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. -  Dei Verbum

So it would seem possible that Paul could be wrong in a technical sense that "time has grown short", as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, while still conveying what God 'wanted to communicate to us' in 1 Corinthians.
If we turn to the Catholic Encyclopedia it states:

A common characteristic of all these passages [in Thessalonians] is the apparent nearness of the parousia. Paul does not assert that the coming of the Saviour is at hand. In each of the five epistles, wherein he expresses the desire and the hope to witness in person the return of Christ, he at the same time considers the probability of the contrary hypothesis, proving that he had neither revelation nor certainty on the point. He knows only that the day of the lord will come unexpectedly, like a thief (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3), and he counsels the neophytes to make themselves ready without neglecting the duties of their state of life.

However, you are asking about St. Paul's personal belief on this matter, not exactly what he may have written in his canonical epistles. Did St. Paul write inerrantly in 1 Corinthians? I believe the Church would say yes as far as what God thought important to communicate to us with that text. But was St. Paul's personal belief about 'end times' correct? I have not been able to find anything stating one way or the other on this as far as official Catholic teaching, so my answer is no, the Catholic Church does not officially hold that St. Paul believed that the end of the world was imminent.


What is the background of the words "notitia," "fiducia," and "assensus" and how do they relate to the biblical notion of "faith"?

Origin - Loci Communes Theologici, 1521 A.D.

The words notitia, assensus, and fiducia applied to faith originates with the Reformers of the 16th Century. Martin Luther argued that saving faith or true faith is a fides viva, a vital or living faith (Sproul, 2010, pg.47). This concept was further explicated by one of Luther's contemporaries, Philip Melanchthon. In 1521 Melanchthon first published his work, "Loci Communes Theologici," which was the first systematic explanation of Protestant theology, and condensed the thoughts of the Reformers and defined notitia, assensus, and fiducia as the three essential elements of saving faith. It is he that codified what the scriptures had taught, and it was from Melanchthon's work that these words first appeared in the context of faith (Israel, 2007, pg.233).

Context and Usage

Rome feared that the doctrine of justification by faith alone or Sola Fide would encourage people to live immoral lives and to think that the casual acceptance of Jesus without any change in one’s life is the kind of faith that justifies.

The Protestant Reformers were therefore careful to outline the biblical definition of faith in their writings. They wanted to show that true saving faith would always produce the fruit of good works. Though the reformers believed that works played no part at all in justifying them before God (Rom 3:28; 4:4, 5; Eph. 2:8, 9) they justified or vindicated their claim to faith before a watching world. They believed that their lives should demonstrate that the faith professed was also faith possessed.

The words themselves are simply common Latin words used to describe the elements of faith. Literally translated, they are:

nōtitia: notice, acquaintance
assēnsus: agreed with, assented to, approved
fiducia: trust, faith, confidence, credit

An example of these elements found in scripture:

  13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God (i.e., notitia) which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men (i.e., assensus), but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe (i.e., fiducia). (1 Thessalonians 2:13 KJV, emphasis added)

Notitia refered to the content of faith, or those things that they believed. (example: To believe in Christ, you must first know something about him)

Assensus was their conviction that the content of their faith was true. You can know about the Christian faith and yet believe that it is not true. Genuine faith says that the content — the notitia taught by Holy Scripture — is true.

Fiducia referred to personal trust and reliance. Knowing and believing the content of the Christian faith was not enough, for even demons can do that (James 2:19). Faith was only effectual if, knowing about and assenting to the claims of Jesus, one personally trusted in Him alone for salvation.

 Israel, R. (2007). Glasow Road. ISBN-13: 978-1-60034-900-3.
Ligonier Ministries
Reformation Theology,
Sproul, R. C. (2010). Justified by Faith Alone: Wheaton, IL: Crossway Publishers.


Does the Catholic Church teach that God requires our consent to work miracles on us?

OP Concludes
Reading the above verses together, one reaches at the conclusion that God cannot work miracles on us without our consent.
The Plain Correct Conclusion (as I see it)
Plain reading of these texts [where one always needs to begin in accordance with Church's rules for biblical interpretation] is that it was because of their unbelief/lack of faith in him that the LORD did not did not do [many] mighty works there.
Therefore the LORD did some but not as many as he would have wanted to perform had they had belief/faith in him. Therefore it is safe to conclude just from these texts that lack of unbelief/lack of faith cannot stop the LORD from working miracles to achieve his purposes, even while noting from the rest of the scriptures that the belief and faith in him from those who ought to believe in and have faith in him is very BIG with the LORD. Scripture has examples of the LORD requiring or encouraging faith before he performs a miracle.
Answer
Catholic doctrine taught by early Church Fathers especially St. Augustine being pre-eminent in this matter is that:

God's rule is absolute over men's wills by [virtue] of His omnipotence
and omniscience - through the infinite store, as it were, of motives
which He has had at His disposal from all eternity, and by the
foreknowledge of those to which the will of each human being would
freely consent. - Cf. Free Will | New Advent.

The way I explain this to myself is that as regards God and those who make themselves his enemies, if they were playing chess, God has infinite moves he can make and he knows beforehand ALL the moves his enemies will make. Actually, from the nature of infinity, he has infinite moves for each move of his enemies. He can't lose.

Whatever the LORD pleases he does,
in heaven and on earth,
in the seas and all deeps. - Ps 135:6 (RSVCE)

Therefore even if unbelief/lack of faith in him on the part of those who ought to believe might at quick glance appear to be a hindrance to God performing miracles, if he wanted to perform the miracle for his glory and the good of men, he will find a way to work that miracle.
One Old Testament example that comes to mind is the Massah and Meribah incident.


Were there indulgences sold for those who had no family when they died?

Yes, they were. I'm not sure about generic, nondescript people, but they were sold to friends of the dead. Tetzel apparently marketed to all people indiscriminately, encouraging them to purchase indulgences for anyone they knew who had passed. *The Jesuit Priest in the Family, the Church, and the Parish: In reply to a Letter by W.H. Anderson says this on page 86:

  Tetzel also asserted that Indulgences not only saved the living, but also the dead. He used, likewise, to harangue his auditory in such strains as, "Priest! noble! merchant! wife! young girls! young men! hear your departed parents, and other friends, crying to you from the bottom of the abyss! 'We are enduring horrible torments! A little alms would deliver us; you can give it, yet you will not!'"

Emphasis is the author’s, bold text is mine. Credit is due to Tis_Bearself from Catholic Answers for this answer.


Are tithes allowed to be food items in the Mormon church?

As in the Bible, tithes in the LDS Church were once commonly paid in-kind, that is in livestock, crops, land, etc.

Nowadays, tithing is usually paid with money because (1) that is what most people earn (2) it is easiest to account for and (3) financial contributions are easiest to process/use. (You can't build a church out of oranges.)

That said, the LDS church does accept donations in kind.

LDS Church Donations-in-Kind Office

Address:

Donations-in-Kind Rm 1514

50 E North Temple

Salt Lake City, UT 84150
Phone: 800-453-3860 ext 2-2554, or 801-240-2554
Fax: 801-240-2202
Email: donationsinkind@ldschurch.org

Most often, though, these these will be stocks, bonds, or real estate.

If someone wants to make a local donation (e.g. oranges):

Give the donation to the local bishop.
The bishop sends to the Donations-in-Kind office a letter stating the donor, the date, the description of the item, and the approximate value (for tax and accounting purposes).

As far as quality/quantity, it's the same as in the Bible: give God the best of what you have.

Genesis 4:4

  And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering

Exodus 12:5

  Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats

Also, it's worth mentioning that the LDS Church has very little to say about the details of tithing (before or after taxes, personal business, etc), other than it is "10% of increase/income." No further statement or clarification has been made.


Are there any ecumenical movements among lay people working to unite Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians?

One such organization is Orientale Lumen.

As stated on their web site here:

  Started in 1997 in Washington, DC, these ecumenical conferences are a "grass roots" movement among lay persons and clergy to provide a forum for Christians to learn about the "light from the east." They allow Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholics and Roman Catholics to meet and pray together, learn from each other's traditions, and become friends together searching for a common goal: "that they all may be one" in the One Church of Christ.

The conference speakers usually include members of the clergy, so I wouldn't call it a "ecumenical movement at lay people level", but it is an excellent conference, which addresses topics such as you suggest.


Did the Community of Christ denounce the Book of Mormon?

The Community of Christ has not denounced the Book of Mormon. According to Wikipedia the Community of Christ views the Book of Mormon as an additional witness of Jesus Christ and publishes two versions of the book through its official publishing arm, Herald House, all of which is inconsistent with a view that the Community might have denounced the book in order to win favour with the World Council of Churches.

However, the Community of Christ is uncertain about the proper use of the Book of Mormon and even its historicity. In 2001, President W. Grant McMurray reflected on increasing questions about the Book of Mormon, while stating that in speaking on behalf of the community he did not speak for each person within our community:

  "The proper use of the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture has been under wide discussion in the 1970s and beyond, in part because of long-standing questions about its historicity and in part because of perceived theological inadequacies, including matters of race and ethnicity."

At the 2007 Community of Christ World Conference, President Stephen M. Veazey ruled as out of order a resolution to "reaffirm the Book of Mormon as a divinely inspired record". In so doing he stated:

  "While the Church affirms the Book of Mormon as scripture, and makes it available for study and use in various languages, we do not attempt to mandate the degree of belief or use."

So, the Book of Mormon remains part of Community of Christ scripture, although it is said to be a longstanding tradition that belief in the Book of Mormon is not to be used as a test of fellowship or membership in the church. Belief by some members of the mainstream Mormon Church (Latter Day Saints) that the Community of Christ has officially denounced the Book of Mormon probably results from a misunderstanding, not only of the comments by McMurray and Veazey, but because many members of the CoC are said to believe the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith himself, and not translated from the writings of ancient Americans.


What effect did the 1897 decree regarding the Johannine Comma have on Catholic scholarship?

Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., discusses this in the introduction (§ "New Testament Testimony On The Three Persons") of his The Trinity & God the Creator (1952):

The second text of St. John referring to the three persons together is the famous Johannine comma: "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one" (I John 5:7). A great controversy has arisen about the genuineness of this text. Those who attack the text argue from the fact that it is not found in any Greek codex of any authority, nor in many Latin codices and versions. From this they conclude that this "comma" was originally a marginal note which in the course of time was incorporated into the text. Consequently the text would enjoy only the force of tradition. The defenders of the text say that it was always in the Latin version, which is more ancient than the Greek codices, for it is found in many Latin codices and is cited by many of the Fathers, by Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and St. Augustine. The omission of this verse in the Greek codices is explained by the fact that the seventh and eighth verses begin and end in the same way and thus the scribes could easily have omitted the seventh verse. In the Latin version the seventh verse is: "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one." The eighth verse is: "And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one."
On this matter the Holy Office has issued two declarations.[Denz., no. 2198] In the first, dated January 13, 1897, we read:The authenticity of this text of St. John cannot be safely denied or called into doubt.Later, on June 2, 1927, the Holy Office declared:This decree has been issued to repress the temerity of those private teachers who have attributed to themselves the right of completely rejecting this 'comma' of St. John or at least by their final judgment of calling it into doubt... . It is in no way intended to deter Catholic writers from investigating the matter more fully,... or from adopting an opinion opposed to the genuineness of the text, as long as they profess to be willing to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom has been committed by Jesus Christ the duty not only of interpreting the Sacred Scriptures but also of guarding them faithfully.


One theory:
It's not the easiest thing to follow, but The Star of Bethlehem has a very interesting hypothesis on the subject.  The information is all there, especially in footnotes, but unfortunately it's not presented very clearly on the site itself... they want you to get the video.* The upshot is that the date is most likely 3BC, and maybe 2BC.
You get around the Herod problem because of a recent study that found a typesetting error made in 1544 for the manuscripts used to date Herod's death. It is now believed he died in 1BC, rather than 4BC:

The Bible recounts that Herod learned of the Messiah's birth from astronomers who had seen the Star of Bethlehem. He tried to kill the child, so, obviously, the Bible records that Herod was alive at Jesus' birth. Remember that this mattered to Kepler, because historians of his time apparently inferred from Josephus' history that Herod died in 4 BC (9). Necessarily, Kepler assumed Christ was born before that date, perhaps 5 BC or earlier...
But modern scholarship has deepened our understanding of Josephus' manuscripts. A recent study was made of the earliest manuscripts of Josephus' writings held by the British Library in London, and the American Library of Congress. It revealed a surprise that allows us to target our mathematical telescopes better than could Kepler (10). It turns out that a ... printer typesetting the manuscript of Josephus' Antiquities messed up in the year 1544. Every single Josephus manuscript in these libraries dating from before 1544 supports the inference that Herod passed in 1 BC.  Strong recent scholarship confirms that date (11).

* As a side note, the video is well worth your time. It's just a shame that they charge for it; this is something that would be good to see spread more widely.


How can a theistic evolutionist account for the origin of suffering and death?

For Christians who completely reject the story of Adam and Eve in any literal sense, the scriptures don't provide any definitive alternative. Thus you are entering into the realm of conjecture. Indeed, even if we were to take all of Genesis at face value, there isn't a lot of detail.

That said, I think I would approach this problem by questioning the axioms of the argument. Namely: is it true that if God is benevolent and omnipotent that there thus cannot be any suffering/death in a perfect world?

I would argue that a certain amount of suffering is actually beneficial to our growth as individuals and, at a more basic level, to our survival. A little cut from a knife teaches you that a knife is dangerous and to be handled with care, for instance.

Additionally, death is necessary for new life. You constantly hear about how we are running out of resources due to our growing populations - imagine if nothing ever died! Thus death enables the possibility for new life. Even if we didn't need to eat, the planet would quickly get overcrowded with life and we'd be miserable.

If we are focused on Theistic Evolutionists, they will further argue that God used evolution as the means through which he created life in all its various manifestations - which requires reproduction and ultimately death (as noted above).

Let us also note that physical death is not the end from a Christian perspective; merely a necessary step in transitioning from our natural bodies to spiritual bodies.

Finally, both God and Christ are believed to have suffered and, in the latter case, even died despite being sinless. So Christianity would appear to reject the notion that perfection = no suffering/pain/death.


Has the Church stated any advantages or reasoning or prompting to re-formulating positively the Catholic Church's salvation doctrine?

This re-formulation is nowhere stated to supersede the "Outside the Church..." formulation. It is a rephrasing which the Catechism uses to explain the original formula. An obvious advantage of having two reformulations is that it allows one to understand a single truth in multiple ways. Thus, there is the original formulation which you state, which certainly brings to mind the last sentence of paragraph 846, to which you link:

  Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

This is a re-translation of a quote from the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium:

  In explicit terms [Christ] Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

This last sentence sounds somewhat similar to "No salvation outside the Church"; the difference of course is that it allows that people who are outside the Catholic Church, and who have no knowledge of it but haven't actually rejected it outright, might be saved. This is not necessarily incompatible with older statements; for example Pope Pius IX's 1863 encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerere reads, in part:

  There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

The previous sentence to this quote reads:

  Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff.

It appears, then, that Pius IX was aware of these two aspects of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus, and did not feel they were contradictory. Nor does the Church now feel that they are contradictory:

  it must be firmly believed that "the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door". This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); "it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation"

Dominus Iesus (a declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith); the quotes cited are respectively from Lumen Gentium, a document of Vatican II, and Redemptoris Missio, an encyclical letter of Pope John Paul II

It's thus not truly clear whether this was completely a re-formulation, or simply a re-emphasis of a neglected part of Catholic teaching. There are no specifically published justifications that I can find for it; it seems to have been around for quite some time.


In the words of St. Paul:

  Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the
  commandments of God is what matters.

  1 Corinthians 7:19

The original circumcision what supposed to be symbolizing what was happening in the heart. It was supposed to be a mark of being part of the People of God. Nevertheless, it became a ritual that meant nothing in practice. This is why God Himself said:

  “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve
  the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to
  keep the commandments and statutes of the Lord, which I am commanding
  you today for your good? 14 Behold, to the Lord your God belong
  heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it.
  Yet the Lord set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their
  offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day.
  Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords,
  the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and
  takes no bribe.

  Deuteronomy 10:12-17

Read also, Leviticus 26:41; Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 6:10; Jeremiah 9:26; Ezekiel 44:7–9

All of these verses have to do with circumcision of the heart. It is to obey God's commandments, all of them.

In heaven this circumcision of the flesh will no longer be necessary because every one there will be a child of God and have perfect obedience, out of love to their Creator, or else they wouldn't be there.


What is the basis of the view that Jesus was separated from the Father and Holy Spirit upon death?

tl;dr> If Jesus isn't separated from the Father on the Cross, then the heresy of patripassianism is true, and more importantly, the notion that God does not change is not.

1. Scripture sets up cases that separate the Father from the Son

Scripturally the idea that Jesus was separated from the Father is typically supported from when Jesus cries out in Matthew 27:46

  "Father, Why have you forsaken me?" (a reference to Psalm 22).

To be forsaken implies that indeed, the Father is absent from Jesus in a very real way.

Additionally, 2 Corinthians 5:21 says:

  For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

We know that sin cannot abide in the presence of God ([Jude](For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.)), and therefore there must have been a separation.

Of this forsaking, the church fathers wrote:

  ORIGEN. But it must be asked, What means this, that Christ is forsaken of God? Some, unable to explain how Christ could be forsaken of God, say that this was spoken out of humility. But you will be able clearly to comprehend His meaning if you make a comparison of the glory which He had with the Father with the shame which He despised when He endured the cross.

  HILARY. (de Trin. x. 50 &c.) From these words heretical spirits contend either that God the Word was entirely absorbed into the soul at the time it discharged the function of a soul in quickening the body; or that Christ could not have been born man, because the Divine Word dwelt in Him after the manner of a prophetical spirit. As though Jesus Christ was a man of ordinary soul and body, having His beginning then when He began to be man, and thus now deserted upon the withdrawal of the protection of God’s word cries out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

  Or at least that the nature of the Word being transmuted into soul, Christ, who had depended in all things upon His Father’s support, now deserted and left to death, mourns over this desertion, and pleads with Him departing. But amidst these impious and feeble opinions, the faith of the Church imbued with Apostolic teaching does not sever Christ that He should be considered as Son of God and not as Son of Man. The complaint of His being deserted is the weakness of the dying man; the promise of Paradise is the kingdom of the living God. You have Him complaining that He is left to death, and thus He is Man; you have Him as He is dying declaring that He reigns in Paradise; and thus He is God. Wonder not then at the humility of these words, when you know the form of a servant, and see the offence of the cross

  DAMASCENE. (de Fid. Orth. iii. 27.) Although He died as man, and His holy soul was separated from His unstained body, yet His Godhead remained inseparate from either body or soul. Yet was not the one Person divided into two; for as both body and soul had from the beginning an existence in the Person of the Word, so also had they in death. For neither soul nor body had ever a Person of their own, besides the Person of the Word.

  Thomas Aquinas, S., & Newman, J. H. (1841). Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers, Volume 1: St. Matthew (958–959). Oxford: John Henry Parker.

2. If Jesus did not separate from the Father, then you are stuck with Modalism or Nestoriansism

2a. Modalism

Theologically, the idea that Jesus was separated from the Father whilst dying on the cross is necessary if one is to avoid the heresy of Patripassianism. Patripassianism states that the Son literally was the Father, so whatever the Son suffered, the Father suffered also. However, the problem with this is that when Jesus dies, it is important that God the Father does not die with Him.  If he does, then God has changed state - from live to dead - and is therefore "passable" meaning that he can change. If he can change, the thinking goes, then he cannot be fully 'perfect' because change implies going from a less perfect to more perfect state.

Most directly, Hippolytus wrote against Noetus who held this view.

Patripassianism is sometimes called "Monarchical Modalism," because it is inherently modal in its underpinning. If as Sabelius believed, God is modal, then patripassianism is tautological. If Jesus is God the Father incarnate, then the death of Jesus = the death of the Father.  As it is essential that Jesus actually died (and did not just appear to die as the Muslims believe) and if it is equally essential that God the Father not die, since he is perfect, then by definition, Jesus and the Father must have been separated at this point.

Since modalism was rejected as heresy, it was natural to make heretical the idea of patripassiansm.

The book "No one Like Him" explains it well:

  Modalism, if adopted, has the further consequence that the Father literally suffered on the cross with Christ. This notion is called “patripassianism,” and initially it may seem innocuous, for all Christians would say that the Father’s heart broke and he empathized and sympathized with Jesus while he was on the cross. But that is not what patripassianism means. It means that the Father, in playing the “Son role” while Christ was on earth, actually suffered and died on the cross. This conclusion seemed inescapably to follow from belief in only one divine nature and in the three “persons” as nothing more than different names that designate different roles or activities played at one time and another. But patripassianism met with strong resistance for a very simple reason. Typically, early Christians believed that God is atemporally eternal. As such, he is absolutely immutable, for change comes with time but is absent from an atemporal being. Moreover, if God is absolutely immutable, he cannot experience changes of any sort, including changes in his emotional and physical state (if he is at all physical). Therefore, patripassianism was clearly objectionable. It destroyed atemporal eternity and divine immutability and impassibility. God could suffer, he could undergo change; and if the divine nature was thoroughly resident in Jesus, then God was subject to time, or so it seemed

Pope Leo the Great, in the Post-Nicene Fathers, directly connects this patripassianism to the essence of the Trinity:

  This species of blasphemy they borrowed from Sabellius, whose followers were rightly called Patripassians also: because if the Son is identical with the Father, the Son’s cross is the Father’s passion (patris-passio): and the Father took on Himself all that the Son took in the form of a slave, and in obedience to the Father. Which without doubt is contrary to the catholic faith, which acknowledges the Trinity of the Godhead to be of one essence (ὁμοούσιον) in such a way that it believes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost indivisible without confusion, eternal without time, equal without difference: because it is not the same person but the same essence which fills the Unity in Trinity

2b. Nestorianism

It is possible to make an argument that says only the human nature of Jesus died on the cross - the nature of God did not. This maintains passability, but it presents, in my mind, an even worse problem.  It turns God into a monster and doesn't actually involve sacrifice.

Imagine, for a moment that this was "God's plan."  First and foremost, it inherently presumes a Nestorian understanding of the hypostatic union - also condemned as heresy. In over-emphasizing Jesus' humanity, it turns him into a dual-natured person. It exalts the created human (who was not, as it says in John 1, with God in the beginning, for it was created)

Leaving that aside, for a moment though, if the Divine nature of God the Son were to have left his human side, we have two unfortunate outcomes.

God himself never actually sacrifices himself in this scenario.  He sacrifices a created thing - it's like he tore off a soiled suit, rather than actually descending into Hell.
In this scenario, God creates a human being for the sole purpose of being tortured and abandoned. At the moment of greatest pain and suffering, God abandons him.  If only the human is crying out, "Father, why hast thou forsaken me!" then God has turned his back on the best human ever made.  Talk about sadistic!  Would you follow that vengeful, cruel, and hateful God? I certainly wouldn't!


Does Christianity give a reason for life experiences, such as in Hinduism?

It might be nice to believe that anyone who suffers must deserve it because of some evil thing he did, that everyone always gets exactly what he deserves, good or bad. But Christianity does not teach that.

As Asfallows and Thomas point out, in John 9 Jesus was specifically asked if a particular case of suffering was punishment for a person's sin, and he specifically said no.

This is not to say that suffering is never the result of sin. It often is. For example, Matthew 26:52

  "But Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword in its place, for all who take
  the sword will perish by the sword.'"

The Old Testament contains many warnings on the consequences of sin. Like Proberbs 10:27-29 "The fear of the Lord prolongs days, But the years of the wicked will be shortened. The hope of the righteous will be gladness,
But the expectation of the wicked will perish. he way of the Lord is strength for the upright, But destruction will come to the workers of iniquity."

Many people have the idea that the Bible says that at least there will be justice in eternity, that good people will be rewarded in Heaven and bad people will be punished in Hell. But again, this is not what the Bible says at all.

Ephesians 2:8-9

  "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of
  yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should
  boast."

Heaven is not a reward for good works, but is a gift that God freely gives to all who ask for it and accept Jesus Christ as savior. According to the Bible, people who have committed all sorts of sins will be forgiven for the asking: David was guilty of adultery and murder, Rahab was a prostitute, etc. The thief on the cross was saved in the last minutes of his life. He clearly had no chance to do anything to make up for his past sins.

God is not "fair". He is merciful. He doesn't give us what we deserve. He gives us something so much better.


Where is the prophecy of the star that the wise men followed?

A bright light will shine to all parts of the earth; many nations shall come to you from afar, And the inhabitants of all the limits of the earth, drawn to you by the name of the Lord God, Bearing in their hands their gifts for the King of heaven. Every generation shall give joyful praise in you, and shall call you the chosen one, through all ages forever. (Tobit 13:11)

Tobit is part of the original Christian canon.  Today, the book is called apocryphal.


The Cross is a Symbol of Victory

To modern Christians, the cross is an icon, a visual symbol of victory of Jesus over sin and death. It is incorporated into countless logos and images used by Christians because it was the means by which the greatest act of love and grace was accomplished. There's a certain irony that the figure of an instrument of execution has been turned into a symbol of triumph, which makes it that much more pleasing to the Christian. 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 comes to mind in this regard:

  For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (NASB)

People wear a cross as if to proclaim to the world that Christ was victorious over death (and therefore, so shall we be).

Idolatry?

(I'm assuming this is the commandment alluded to in the question.)

Having a picture, symbol, icon, etc. of a thing is not the same as having an object of worship. I believe that groups who use a crucifix (Jesus on the cross) use it as a vivid reminder during prayer or meditation, not an object that represents God and is worshiped as such.

I cannot provide a thorough answer for the practice of Roman Catholics, but I'm certain that they do not believe themselves to be making an idol or worshiping it. All the references I see to crucifixes, like Prayer Before a Crucifix (emphasis added), include "before" and no other preposition (like "to"). Roman Catholics and others who pray to saints do not believe themselves to be worshiping an idol or making an image fully representative of the living God.

I found a more thorough treatment of its use and history in Roman Catholicism here: The Cross and Crucifix in Liturgy.

There is no Christian practice of worshiping a cross or an image of Jesus. To a Christian, having a sculpture or pendant crucifix is no different than having a painting of illustration of Jesus. They are tools to remind us of important things, not objects of worship.


Disembodied souls now live in heaven or hell.

We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:8, NIV)
Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:42-43, NIV)

After the final judgment their will be a new heaven and earth and the disembodied souls in heaven and hell will also receive new bodies. (Rev ch 19 & 20)

However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. (Acts 24:14-15, NIV)

The verse you mention is a different subject all together. Jesus was trying to explain spiritual things that could partly be comprehended by similar earthly things. However the deep things Jesus had to say about his being sent from heaven to the world to die and resurrect for the salvation of all men who believe does not have earthly references to refer to. In fact this deep knowledge of salvation can never be arrived at by a human ascending into heaven, into  the region of absolute and eternal truth, so as to look upon it face to face. No man has ever done so.  The only way this knowledge can be attainted is by the One who came from heaven. He alone through the incarnation is the one that descends and rises back into that eternal place who alone  possesses that knowledge and declare it to men. By faith in Him and his death, we also rise to live with him, first the soul and then the body. Upon faith in this eternal son the descended and ascended back into heaven does one obtain life and knowledge.  This was too much for Nicodemus to understand at the time as we was stumbling over smaller things such as the new birth which have its fruits seen here on earth and referenced to earthly things to help us understand it.

“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven —the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up. (John 3:10-14, NIV)


Why are both Joseph and Manasseh listed as separate tribes in Revelation chapter seven?

There are actually 14 tribes if you consider Ephraim and Manasseh as additional tribes, but this is an abberation in my opinion since Ephraim inherited his father's portion so there were 13.  Levi was not given land, his offspring being the priests.

As you indicated Joseph received extra share of land which I suspect is what allowed Manasseh to separate from Ephraim as a 13th tribe.  A tribe is essentially a group of people who live together on a single plot of land so by logic if you separate into another plot of land you naturally create a new tribe.

Ephraim however was the oldest and inherited his father's share.  Although the oldest son inherited his father's house it was still his father's house and everything bestowed on that house also belonged to the father as long as he was alive (the house was never divided).

Most people today don't realize that.  Being the oldest was a mixed blessing.  Sure you inherited everything - but that included accountability and responsibility for the house and it's occupants, and deference to his father as long as the father lived.

Interestingly Dan is also missing from Revelations (Ephraim is represented via the mention of Joseph - imho).  This makes the count in Revelations back to 12 tribes.  Why is Dan not mentioned is a more intriguing question to me.


There is not a complete list or database of approved Vatican miracles, because miracles (or presumed miracles) are checked and approved for specific reasons. For example, if you search "miracles approved for John Paul II beatification" you'll find some result, or "miracles from Lourdes".
Miracles are generally announced when a miracle has been accepted by the Holy Father. Many of them at that time are published, but not all. There is no requirement for this in Canon Law.
The bishop of my diocese was member of Congregatio de Causis Sanctorum, and he studied a lot of presumed miraculous healings. Some time ago, I asked him about it. He told me that the "approving-miracle-procedure" is very long and complicated, but it follows 7 rules written by Pope Benedict XIV:

The disease must be serious (not a flu, or a cold, or a simple fever)
The diagnosis must be certified (there must be no doubt that the disease exists)
It must be "organic" (I'm not sure of what it means... I should ask more)
No known therapy can explain the healing
The healing must be instant and unexpected
The healing must be complete
The healing must be definitive

To satisfy that points, the Congragatio asks medical experts who don't know that they are searching for a miracle. See this BBC article for more information.
Since there is no database of Vatican approved miracles, one has to read about the specific miracle approved for each case of beatification and/or canonization. In rare cases the miracle that is approved for a specific case is not published, usually at the request of the recipient, who wish not to be publicly known.


What is the context of the "unequally yoked" passage?

Paul is teaching about all close relationships between believers and non-believers, and while this could include marriage, it would also apply to other areas of life, for example a business partnership. The context of the passage (verses 15 to the end of the chapter) talk about how the beliefs of the unbeliever could lead the believer astray, and while I can see how the passage could be headed as a warning against idolatry, since the passage in question seems to be more than that I don't think the heading is the best possible choice. Both the RSV and NRSV group verse 7:1 with 6:14-18 in one section, which adds the verse

  Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God. [NRSV]

and the NRSV uses for the heading of the passage "The Temple of the Living God." [The RSV--or at least my copies of it--does not add section headings.


I agree with Wayne Grudem who cites 1 Tim. 2:5 in answering this question.

  For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men,
  the man Christ Jesus,

  The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Ti 2:5). Wheaton:
  Standard Bible Society.

Based on this we see clearly that Christ is the only mediator between Christians and God the Father. Additionally, Paul calls out the worship of angels as false doctrine in Col. 2:18. While praying to angels arguably may not be worship, in my mind the line is far too fine to mess around with.


Why was Martin Harris punished for revealing the Lost 116 pages?

The Lord had commanded Joseph Smith to reveal the manuscripts to no one who was not involved in the translation. Martin petitioned Joseph three times to show the manuscripts to his (Martin's) wife, and each time Joseph took the issue to the Lord.

The Harris family was wealthy, and Martin was helping pay for the publication of the Book of Mormon. His wife protested and wanted proof of the translation because of his involvement and probably because of the financial burden. Incidentally, she badgered him on the issue and demanded to see the plates -- or something convincing.

In response to Joseph's first two pleas, the Lord denied the request, and I believe He even said to trouble Him no more on the matter (See near the end of D&C 5). The third time, the Lord finally permitted it (kind of like the Parable of the Importunate Widow) -- but not without warning of the consequences for disobedience.

Joseph conceded to let Martin take the raw manuscript (but not the actual plates), being the 116 pages that had been translated. Later, Martin returned to Joseph and admitted that he had lost the pages. Joseph lost his gift to translate and was commanded to repent:

  5 Behold, you have been entrusted with these things, but how strict
  were your commandments; and remember also the promises which were made
  to you, if you did not transgress them.

  ...

  10 But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which
  thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you,
  and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work;

  11 Except thou do this, thou shalt be delivered up and become as
  other men, and have no more gift.

The pages consisted of what would be called, probably, the "Book of Lehi" -- writings at the beginning of the plates by Nephi's father, the same Nephi whose writing now starts the Book of Mormon record as we have it today.

In the Book of Mormon, we learn that Nephi was inspired to re-write at least some of what his father wrote, so that nothing too important was lost (see vs. 1-3 in linked scriptures for more context) -- emphasized parenthesis my own:

  3 And after I had made these plates by way of commandment, I, Nephi,
  received a commandment that the ministry and the prophecies, the more
  plain and precious parts of them (Lehi's writings), should be written upon these plates;
  and that the things which were written should be kept for the
  instruction of my people, who should possess the land, and also for
  other wise purposes, which purposes are known unto the Lord.

Now, the writings weren't so sacred that nobody could know what they said, but rather, they had to be carefully handled -- and understandably so. Imagine the frenzy if the translation of a record on "gold plates" was public while it was happening... especially during a major Christian excitement in the country!

So, the Lord warned Joseph to not re-translate the missing portion because evil men were plotting against them. From Doctrine and Covenants 10 (chapter heading):

  Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Harmony,
  Pennsylvania, in the summer of 1828 (see History of the Church,
  1:20–23). Herein the Lord informs Joseph of alterations made by wicked
  men in the 116 manuscript pages from the translation of the book of
  Lehi, in the Book of Mormon. These manuscript pages had been lost from
  the possession of Martin Harris, to whom the sheets had been
  temporarily entrusted. (See the heading to section 3.) The evil design
  was to await the expected retranslation of the matter covered by the
  stolen pages and then to discredit the translator by showing
  discrepancies created by the alterations. That this wicked purpose had
  been conceived by the evil one and was known to the Lord even while
  Mormon, the ancient Nephite historian, was making his abridgment of
  the accumulated plates, is shown in the Book of Mormon (see Words of
  Mormon 1:3–7).

The whole half of the 10th section is relevant here, but in particular:

  10 And, behold, Satan hath put it into their hearts to alter the words
  which you have caused to be written, or which you have translated,
  which have gone out of your hands.

  11 And behold, I say unto you, that because they have altered the
  words, they read contrary from that which you translated and caused to
  be written;

  12 And, on this wise, the devil has sought to lay a cunning plan,
  that he may destroy this work;

  13 For he hath put into their hearts to do this, that by lying they
  may say they have caught you in the words which you have pretended to
  translate.

  14 Verily, I say unto you, that I will not suffer that Satan shall
  accomplish his evil design in this thing.

Summary

In conclusion: The writings of Lehi were about as sacred as the rest of the Book of Mormon record, but it was vital that the work remain protected against those conspiring against it. And yes, Joseph and Martin both should have obeyed the Lord in this instance -- the first time. But the Lord saw it coming, so He prepared a way for us to still have the important parts of what Lehi wrote and allowed Joseph to repent and continue the translation (with a different scribe -- but Martin Harris still sacrificed in many ways, after losing the manuscript, to support the publication of the Book of Mormon and the Church).


Why did Jesus keep himself and the disciples hungry and thirsty on some occasions?

Matthew 12:1
St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on Matthew 12:1 gives two reasons for their hunger:

The disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck the ears of grain. Here two things should be considered: first,

the need, because they were hungry. And why? Because they were poor; hence 1 Corinthians (4:4): "Even to this hour we hunger and thirst..."

The second reason

is that they had been impeded on account of the crowds; hence they hardly had time to eat, as it says in Mark (4:31). But how did they satisfy their hunger? And example of abstinence is given to us, for they did not look for dishes of food but grains, in keeping with 1 Timothy (6:8): "If we have food and clothing, with these we are content."

Mystically by the plucking of the grains is understood the manifold understanding of Scripture or the conversion of sinners.

Mark 11:12
Commenting on Mark 11:12, St. John Chrysostom says in his Matt. Hom., 87 (as quoted in St. Thomas Aquinas's Golden Chain on Mark 11):

How is it that He was hungry in the morning, as Matthew says, if it were not that by an economy He permitted it to His flesh?
There follows, "And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, He came, if haply He might find any thing theron." Now it is evident that this expresses a conjecture of the disciples, who thought that it was for this reason that Christ came to the fig tree, and that it was cursed, because He found no fruit upon it. For it goes on: "And when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever." He therefore curses the fig tree for His disciples' sake, that they might have faith in Him. For He everywhere distributed blessings, and punished no one, yet at the same time, it was right to give them a proof of His chastising power, that they might learn that He could even cause the persecuting Jews to wither away; He was however unwilling to give this proof on men, wherefore He shewed them on a plant a sign of His power of punishing. This proves that He came to the fig tree principally for this reason [of showing His power], and not on account of His hunger, for who is so silly as to suppose that in the morning He felt so greatly the pains of hunger, or what prevented the Lord from eating before He left Bethany? Nor can it be said that the sight of the figs excited His appetite to hunger, for it was not the season of figs; and if He were hungry, why did He not seek food elsewhere, rather than from a fig-tree which could not yield fruit before its time? What punishment also did a fig tree deserve for not having fruit before its time? From all this then we may infer, that He wished to shew His power, that their minds might not be broken by His Passion.

St. Bede interprets Jesus's hunger as "desiring the salvation of mankind":

Just in the same way as He speaks parables, so also His deeds are parables; therefore He comes hungry to seek fruit off the fig tree, and though He knew the time of figs was not yet, He condemns it to perpetual barrenness, that He might shew that the Jewish people could not be saved through the leaves, that is, the words of righteousness which it had, without fruit, that is, good works, but should be cut down and cast into the fire. Hungering therefore, that is, desiring the salvation of mankind, He saw the fig tree, which is, the Jewish people, having leaves, or, the words of the Law and the Prophets, and He sought upon it the fruit of good works, by teaching them, by rebuking them, by working miracles, and He found it not, and therefore condemned it. Do thou too, unless thou wouldest be condemned by Christ in the judgment, beware of being a barren tree, but rather offer to Christ the fruit of piety which He requires.


One of my “go to” sources for Reformed Protestant theology is Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892) who preached at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, a large Independent Reformed Baptist church in London. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Tabernacle   This link provides access to 3,653 of his sermons:  https://www.spurgeongems.org/spurgeon-sermons/
I searched on key words such as “ghosts”, “dead spirits” and “demons” but all I could find was a reference to Deuteronomy 18:11 which says that anyone who consults with the dead is detestable to the Lord.  From there I searched on the Witch of Endor because that is what King Saul did – he consulted with a medium to bring up the spirit of the dead prophet Samuel.  This cost Saul his life “because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance” (1 Samuel 28:1-25; 1 Chronicles 10:13-14).  Another Bible reference about demons and false spirits warns against people who “will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons” (1 Timothy 4:1).
Here are a few partial quotes from sermons that mentioned Saul consulting the Witch of Endor in an attempt to seek guidance from the dead prophet Samuel:

Charles Spurgeon Sermon 457 - Religion – Reality (page 1 paragraph 2): Regarding ceremonial religion: You might as well go to the Witch of Endor for divine grace as to a priest; and if you rely upon words, the “Abracadabra” of a magician will as certainly raise you to heaven, or rather sink you to hell, as the performances of the best ordained minister under heaven! ...All ceremonial religion, no matter how sincere, if it consists in relying upon forms and observances, is a vain thing.  https://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs457.pdf

Charles Spurgeon Sermon 439 – The Danger of Doubting (page 3, paragraph 2): Saul was seeking a miserable witch of Endor, to raise Samuel from the dead...  When the Witch of Endor brought up the spirit of Samuel, he said to Saul “Why do you consult me, now that the Lord has turned away from you and become your enemy?” (1 Samuel 28:16) https://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs439.pdf

Charles Spurgeon Sermon 2179 – God Fighting Sin (page 3, paragraph 1): Regarding preachers who leave God: If God will not help him he is in the same plight as Saul, the son of Kish. He will try music first, and if that does not render him aid, he will go to the witch of Endor, now called “modern theology,” and ask assistance there! God have mercy upon us, if we ever do that!  https://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs2179.pdf

I concede that these quotes do not answer your question, so I looked elsewhere and have put together a brief overview of Protestant thought based on what the Bible says:

The Bible makes it abundantly clear that there are spirit beings, both good and evil. But the Bible negates the idea that the spirits of deceased human beings can remain on earth and “haunt” the living. According to 2 Corinthians 11:14-15, demons masquerade as “angels of light” and as “servants of righteousness”: “And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.”  Appearing as a “ghost” and impersonating a deceased human being definitely seem to be within the power and abilities that demons possess.  Whether it is called a ghost, a ghoul, or a poltergeist, if there is genuine evil spiritual activity occurring, it is the work of demons. What about instances in which “ghosts” act in “positive” ways? What about psychics who claim to summon the deceased and gain true and useful information from them? Again, it is crucial to remember that the goal of demons is to deceive. If the result is that people trust in a psychic instead of God, a demon will be more than willing to reveal true information. Even good and true information, if from a source with evil motives, can be used to mislead, corrupt, and destroy.  https://www.gotquestions.org/ghosts-hauntings.html

Some people hold the idea that unclean spirits (Greek ‘akathartos’) or demons are deceased humans who may or may not have been evil while alive. However, we know the unclean spirits mentioned in the Bible are not referring to the dead, for several reasons. One, humans are never called “spirits” when the word spirit is used as a stand-alone term, without a possessive. In Scripture, men are said to have a spirit/soul (saying “his spirit” in Proverbs 25:28 and 1 Corinthians 5:5), but men are not called “spirits.” Another reason is that, once a person dies, he immediately goes either to eternal life with the Lord or to eternal darkness in hell (Hebrews 9:27; 2 Corinthians 5:6–8; Matthew 25:46). Human spirits, therefore, do not and cannot wander on earth in their spirit bodies. Any unclean spirit that wanders around, taking up residence in places or people or interacting with people in any way, is a fallen angel—a demon (Matthew 12:44). All unclean spirits mentioned in Scripture are demons, and all demons are definitely unclean, unholy, impure, evil spirits doomed to an eternity in hell (Matthew 25:41).  https://www.gotquestions.org/unclean-spirits.html

Looking into the history of belief in ghosts I found some interesting information on how ghosts are viewed by Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists and Muslins.  It’s quite revealing:

In Medieval Catholic Europe, ghosts were assumed to be the tormented souls of people suffering for their sins in purgatory. But during the Protestant Reformation, since most Protestants believed that souls went immediately to heaven or hell, paranormal activity was thought to be the work of angels, demons or other decidedly nonhuman supernatural beings.  For Hindus, ghosts are the souls of individuals who suffered a violent death or of people who were not accorded the appropriate and required death rituals. Buddhist ghosts are reincarnated individuals who may be sorting out bad karma.  Muslims don’t believe that dead people can return as ghosts, so if a Muslim thinks he’s encountered a ghost, it’s thought to be the work of Jinn – beings that contain a mix of spiritual and physical properties, whose intentions can be malevolent or benevolent depending upon the situation.  There are several other religions, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, that also believe ghostly apparitions are demons in disguise rather than the souls of deceased people.  It appears people across eras, religions and cultures have always been curious about a spiritual world that exists behind the curtain of death.  https://theconversation.com/how-the-god-you-worship-influences-the-ghosts-you-see-84163

As a Swiss Reformed Protestant theologian, Ludwig Lavater rejected the idea of Purgatory (an intermediary place where souls of the newly dead that are destined for heaven go, until they are pure enough to ascend) as an outdated Catholic concept. This greatly complicated the idea of ‘ghosts’, often thought to be visitations by human souls that were not at rest, such as those who died unbaptized or in tragic or violent circumstances. Without Purgatory, ghosts could only be visitations from Heaven or Hell. Lavater felt they were more likely to have come from Hell, and this meant that many ghosts were demonic and their requests dangerous: they could be trying to lure humans into damnation, for example by persuading them to commit murder or suicide The Protestant rejection of Purgatory also made the subject of ghosts and their nature controversial and political as it became part of sectarian religious debate.  https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/of-ghosts-and-spirits-walking-by-night-by-ludwig-lavater-1572

Finally, this Wikipedia article looks into biblical references to mediums, summoning the dead and ghosts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost#Judaism_and_Christianity
The difficulty in answering this question is in trying to find anything published by Reformed Protestants on the subject of "ghosts".  They have plenty to say about the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, but any other sort of "spirit" or "ghost" does not come from God.


No, prior to the cross, Jesus spoke of God as ‘God’. In Mark 12:29-30 he quoted the Shema from Deuteronomy 6:4-5 which says,

  “Hear, O Israel. The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your
  God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your
  strength.”

A few verses further on in Mark’s gospel, Jesus commends one of the teachers of the Law by saying, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” (vs 34)

Then, after his resurrection, Jesus said to Mary, “I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:17)

You quote from Mark 15:34, (or Matthew 27:46) which relates an event sandwiched between those two other occurrences of Jesus speaking of God as ‘God’. On that occasion, Jesus spoke in Aramaic the words, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my God. Why have you forsaken me?’ This was a quotation from Psalm 22:1 and verses 6-8 also happened while Jesus was on the cross when he was scorned, despised and insulted with the challenge, ‘He trusts in the Lord, let the Lord rescue him’.” Verses 16 and 18 also happened: they pierced his hands and his feet, and cast lots for his clothes. Prior to that cry of dereliction, Jesus had called God his Father while on the cross (as in Luke 23:34, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”) But before Jesus breathed his last, he was able to call God his Father, once more. “Jesus called out with a loud voice, ‘Father, into your hands I commit my spirit’.” (vs 46)

Jesus mainly addressed God as his Father, and spoke of himself as God the Father’s Son.


Why is there no first Sunday in Ordinary Time?

The Catholic website ChurchYear.net has a good explanation, though it goes beyond what you're asking. Briefly:

The title "The Nth Sunday of" any season is short for "Sunday in the Nth week of" that season. This matches the titles given to the other days of the week: for example "Wednesday in the Third Week of Lent".

The Feast of the Epiphany of Our Lord is traditionally celebrated on the 6th of January, and the Baptism of the Lord on the following Sunday. Under certain circumstances, episcopal conferences can choose to have the Epiphany celebrated on the Sunday following January 1st (the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God). If this is the case, and that Sunday falls on or before the 6th, the Baptism of the Lord is to be celebrated on the following Sunday - on its traditional day. If, however, that first Sunday falls on the 7th or 8th (the last possible date), Epiphany is celebrated on that day (while others are celebrating the Baptism of the Lord) and the Baptism of the Lord itself is celebrated in these dioceses on the following day, Monday the 8th or 9th.

If this seems complicated, it is. But the takeaway is that the Christmas season ends with the Baptism of the Lord on either a Sunday or a Monday. The following days constitute the first week of Ordinary Time - but that week doesn't begin on Sunday - the Sunday belongs to the Christmas season! Therefore, there is no "Sunday in the First Week of Ordinary Time" - no "First Sunday of Ordinary Time".

The first full week of the season is the second week, and so here we see Sunday in the Second Week of Ordinary Time - free Second Sunday of Ordinary Time.