How do the rites for a first and second marriage (after death of a spouse) differ in the Orthodox Church?

There are distinct differences in the tone of the two marriage rites of the Orthodox Church. The second is distinctly penitential, with the priest praying specifically for the Lord to have mercy on the couple who have come forward to be married a second time. An excerpt of the prayer following the exchange of rings during the betrothal:

  O Master, Lord our God, who sparest all and providest for all, who
   knowest the secrets of men and hast understanding of all things: Do thou
   the Fashioner and Creator, who knowest the weakness of human nature,
  cleanse our sins, and forgive the transgression of thy servants, calling
   them to repentance, granting them remission of iniquities, cleansing of
   sins, and forgiveness of transgressions, whether voluntary or involuntary.
   O thou who didst forgive Rahab the harlot, and didst accept the repentance
   of the Publican, remember not our sins of ignorance from our youth up.
   For if thou shouldest mark iniquity, O Lord, Lord who should stand before
   thee? Or what flesh should be justified before thee?

Contrast that with the prayer immediately following the exchange of rings during the betrothal in the Rite of [a first] Marriage, an excerpt:

  For thou, O Lord, hast declared that a pledge should be given and confirmed in all things. By a ring, power was given to Joseph in Egypt; by a ring, Daniel was glorified in the land of Babylon; by a ring, the uprightness of Tamar was revealed; by a ring, our Heavenly Father showed His bounty upon His Son, for He said: Bring the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and make merry. By thine own right hand, O Lord, thou didst arm Moses in the Red Sea; by thy true word, the heavens were established and the foundations of the earth were made firm; and the right hands of thy servants also shall be blessed by thy mighty work and by thine upraised arm. And, O Lord our God, do thou now bless this putting on of rings with thy heavenly benediction; and let thine Angel go before them all the days of their life...

There are a few differences that are noted in the text I have linked below for further information, of note is the solemn entrance of the wedding party and that the wedding dress may not be white. Some Orthodox Churches may have their own regulations and protocols, and the presiding priest may even make judgement calls based upon his knowledge of the couples' situation. What's more, some jurisdictions may require counseling and/or meeting with and receiving the explicit blessing of a Hierarch.

In any case, the differences between the two Rites exist because the Church desires to recognize and proclaim the sanctity and holiness inherent in the mystery of matrimony. It is only right to do so because the Orthodox Church believes it to be just that, a Holy Mystery (or Sacrament in the vernacular of the West) that is imminent and occurs just once in the life of the couple. See the OCA's statements on this:

  According to the Orthodox teaching, only one marriage can contain the perfect meaning and significance which Christ has given to this reality. Thus, the Orthodox Christian tradition encourages widows and widowers to remain faithful to their spouses who are dead to this world but alive in Christ. The Orthodox tradition also, by the same principle, considers temporary “living together,” casual sexual relations, sexual relations with many different people, sexual relations between members of thie same sex, and the breakdown of marriages in separation and divorce, all as contrary to the human perfection revealed by God in Christ. Through penance, however, and with the sincere confession of sins and the genuine promise of a good life together, the Orthodox Church does have a service of second marriage for those who have not been able to fulfill the ideal conditions of marriage as taught by Christ. It is the practice of the Church as well not to exclude members of second marriages from the sacrament of holy communion if they desire sincerely to be in eucharistic fellowship with God, and if they fulfill all other conditions for participation in the life of the Church.

Since that is the case, the Church moves to draw a distinction between the two rites, the first being joyous and a celebration of the receiving the full outpouring of Christ's blessing and grace into the Mystery, with the second being granted out of Christ's abundant mercy, in the understanding of human weakness and our shortcomings, and that to be able to marry a second time is due to the extension of God's abundant grace and deep compassion for mankind, not man's right or privilege. Thus we see the penitential, almost sorrowful tone weaving through the Second Marriage Rite and climaxing with the joyous prayers of the service of crowning in the end.

See here for the full text of the Marriage Rite and here for the full text of the Rite for a Second Marriage.


What is the status of Eunuchs now in the Church and also in the world to come?

What was an Ancient Ivri (Hebrew) Fetsua (Eunuch)? - Emasculated (פְצֽוּעַ) man.
Deuteronomy 23:2 [MT] "He shall Not (לֹֽא) Enter (יָבֹ֧א) Who is emasculated (פְצֽוּעַ) by crushing (דַּכָּ֛א) or cutting (וּכְר֥וּת) Shafekah (שָׁפְכָ֖ה) into-Assembly (בִּקְהַ֥ל) of YHVH (יְהֹוָֽה)."

Becoming a Hebrew "Fetsua" (פְצֽוּעַ) or damaging male Shafekah (שָׁפְכָ֖ה)** was prohibited by Moshe (משֶׁה֙) in [Chapter 23, verse 2] in the scroll of "Devarim" (דְּבָרִ֗ים) known by English translations as the book of "Deuteronomy". The English KJV, NIV, NASB translations of the Hebrew Torah change the verse-number & word-order of "Devarim" (דְּבָרִ֗ים) or "Deuteronomy".

Deuteronomy 23:1 [NASB] :"No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."
Deuteronomy 23:1 [NIV] :"No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord."
Deuteronomy 23:1 [KJV] :
"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."
Why does the Law of Moshe (Moses) get reversed by Yeshua (Jesus) in Matthew 19:12-14 ? - Perhaps Jesus regarded a spiritual union between humans which creates only a philosophical understanding of God > greater than the physical union between humans which provides a tangible understanding of God in the creation of children.
Matthew 19:12-14 [NASB] :
"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
Matthew 19:12-14 [NIV]
"For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Perhaps Jesus understood the ultimate loss of children by emasculated men took away worldly joy & blessings, causing Eunuchs to inherit a spiritual joy & blessing in the kingdom of heaven.
Acts 8:27-39 offers righteous Eunuchs hope in their salvation / spiritual union with the Assembly of YHVH.
How is a Eunuch viewed in Protestantism?

In Methodism, John Wesley's Commentary : "The eunuch — Who is here joined with the stranger, because he was forbidden to enter into the congregation of the Lord, Deuteronomy 23:1. Under these two instances he understands all those, who either by birth, or by any ceremonial pollution, were excluded from church privileges, and so he throws open the door to all true believers." [https://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=wes&b=23&c=56]


Remember who he was talking to.  This was certainly not intended to be understood in the context of modern science, which hadn't been invented yet, but to be understood as his listeners understood it.  When the seed is still part of the living plant, it is alive, but when it is detached from the living plant (to fall into the ground) it is no longer connected to the life-giving roots, and therefore is thought of as being without life.


The quick answer is "No." However, there has been a lot of speculation on this.

We do know that the accusers of the woman left without stoning her after Jesus said, "He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her," but apparently none of them left before He did this. We also know that the older ones were the first to leave.

So, what He wrote on the ground could have been irrelevant, and the people left perhaps under conviction from the statement alone.

One interesting suggestion is that Jesus was writing out the 10 Commandments. If so, it could have been that the accusers realized that they were guilty of breaking the law.  "Honor your father and mother" comes before the "Thou shalt not commit adultery". Also included are the prohibition against bearing false witness and coveting, both of which could likely have indicted all of the accusers.

It is also possible that Jesus was writing other specific commandments (outside the ten commandments) of which each person was guilty of breaking.

Yet, again, we don't really know. We aren't told, so we can conclude that it wasn't important for us to know. What Jesus wrote may or may not have added to what drove the accusers away.


Clarifications on the concept of Trinity according to Catholic creed

From what I understand the concept of Trinity is 3 persons who are one and the same. Is this correct?
Yes. But your statement is incomplete. Trinity is 3 persons who are one and the same God NOT one and the same person.
So from this understanding, would you say God(Father) sent Jesus or would you say God(Father) is Jesus also?
Catholics claim God the Father sent Jesus. They do not say God the Father is Jesus, because Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons.
Is Jesus God or not? And is he All-Knowing like God?
Jesus is God and so he is omniscience (knows everything that there is to know).
I assume the distinction and the similarity between the three persons of the trinity is causing you confusion.

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: 'substance', 'person/hypostasis', 'relation'.
252The Church uses

the term 'substance' (rendered also at times by 'essence' or 'nature') to designate the divine being in its unity,
the term 'person' or 'hypostasis' to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and
the term 'relation' to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

253The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the 'consubstantial Trinity'
254/255 The divine persons are really distinct from one another and are relative to one another.
(From CCC)


How to identify a Catholic 'order' from initials that follow a nun or priest's name?

Here is a partial list of orders with members who are/were bishops. That is this list contains only males religious societies.

Here is another 800 abbreviations including women religious.

Annuario Pontificio lists all the existing approved and recognized Catholic religious orders. You can see the 2011 list here.

That should help you to some extent. But please note that it is nearly impossible to list all religious organizations that exists now and has existed before. Religious organizations in their early stages can be limited to only certain diocese to function under the jurisdiction of a diocesan bishop.


Is the Catholic faith based purely on the Bible?

Is the Catholic faith purely based on the Bible?  No.  Is it largely based on the the Bible, and is the Bible the most sacred text in the Catholic faith? Yes.

There are lots of important parts of Catholic theology that are extrabiblical traditions, and generally not believed by Protestant congregations who consider themselves "purely" based on the Bible.  Protestants are not "purely" based on the Bible, either.  It is entirely possible both churches would be purely based on the Bible, but the Bible doesn't answer every question people like to ask.

Here is one belief that deviates from the Bible in both churches: the virginity of Mary after giving birth to Jesus.  If someone believes anything on that subject, they have exceeded the scope of the Bible.

Certainly the Bible says that Mary was a virgin when she conceived, through the time when she gave birth to Jesus (see Matthew 1:23-25).  The Bible does not talk about her sex life after that.  In Protestant churches, many people believe Mary would have had a normal sex life with her husband Joseph, even going on to bear more children.  Evidence: Jesus has siblings.  In the Catholic church, the official belief is that Mary was eternally a virgin -- that is, throughout her entire life, she never had sex.  Jesus' siblings are explained away by other extrabiblical traditions: perhaps Joseph was a widower, and had children from another wife; perhaps the translation is incorrect, and the words for "brother" or "sister" should truly be translated as "cousin".

Both beliefs are based on things outside of the Bible.  Because the Bible doesn't say one way or another.


Why is Christianity so despised in the World?

Jesus said,

  If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.
  19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because
  you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore
  the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A
  servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they
  will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours
  also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake,
  because they do not know Him who sent Me.

  John 15:18-21

Satan has power in this world and will persecute the followers of Jesus until he is destroyed. Sometimes the hatred is irrational, sometimes it is excused by the actions of so-called Christians. Nevertheless the real reason is because Jesus is hated by Satan. He cannot touch Jesus so he goes after those who are dear to Him. Sometimes Jesus allows it for a purpose, to build our character, but sometimes he does not allow it.

It is not the Christian principles that people hate. Most of the time they do not know what Christians believe. It is the hatred put in their hearts by the enemy himself.

The truth is, if you were in the path of destruction, would Satan
 care? No, he would leave you just as you are. However if you are in
 the path of righteousness, and bringing other souls from perdition
 into salvation, Satan would hate you. So he would do everything in his
 power to kill you, hurt you, discourage you, or make you doubt.
 EVERYONE in the Bible that followed God was persecuted, hurt, and
 sometimes killed. Most of the prophets were murdered. Jesus Himself
 was murdered, hurt, persecuted, and called demon-possessed. If you
 follow Christ this is what you might face one day.


Why is the term Immanuel/Emmanuel considered to be a title rather than a proper name?

There are certainly many names and titles by which the Messiah is called. As well as "Emmanuel", Isaiah has in 9:6 (ESV):

  For to us a child is born,
      to us a son is given;
  and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
      and his name shall be called
  Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
      Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Aquinas says (Summa Theologica 3.37.2 ad 1):

  All these names in some way mean the same as Jesus, which means "salvation." For the name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is "God with us," designates the cause of salvation, which is the union of the Divine and human natures in the Person of the Son of God, the result of which union was that "God is with us." 1

He therefore sees no real contradiction, since both names/titles are apt ways to speak about the same person. (He does not distinguish here between a name and a title, though he of course acknowledges that "Jesus" is the proper name of Jesus.)

John Calvin (Commentariorium in Isaiam prophetam) investigates the meaning of "and (she) shall call" (וְקָרָ֥את) in the Hebrew text of Isaiah. He asserts that the giving of a name, in Hebrew custom, was reserved to the father, and so since it is the mother who is doing the calling here, she must be doing something other than giving the child its regular everyday name. Calvin says she is announcing it like a herald (in hoc nomine promulgando, virginem fore instar praeconis), and it is a designation which is far more splendid than any mere man could have. This all points to it being something other than an ordinary personal name. He further notices (Commentarius in harmoniam evangelicam) that in Matthew, the verb is "they shall call", indicating the shared faith of all believers in the fact and purpose of the Incarnation. If we are all doing the calling together, then it sounds a lot less like the bestowing of a personal name, and a lot more like the recognition of the nature of Jesus, in the form of calling him by a particular special title.

1. in omnibus illis nominibus quodammodo significatur hoc nomen Iesus, quod est significativum salutis. Nam in hoc quod dicitur Emmanuel, quod interpretatur, nobiscum Deus, designatur causa salutis, quae est unio divinae et humanae naturae in persona filii Dei, per quam factum est ut Deus esset nobiscum.


According to Roman Catholic Church is it only via Jesus you can come in Heaven?

But can you say that that is absolutely and exclusive or do you have
  to leave an opening because we don't always know the ways of God?

Current teaching leans more toward the latter than the former ... but the simplest (and arguably the best) way is through Christ.   (CCC 1987 - 2029 is a discourse to that effect, in detail, as is the treatment in CCC 1023 - 1029).  A reaffirmation of salvation being through Jesus is found in Dominus Iesus. (@AthanasiusofAlex goes into a detailed analysis of that source in his answer).  The takeaway from that is that if you know of Christ and don't accept the invitation for salvation through him, then having a relationship and a friendship with God is at serious risk.

Discussion

In current teaching the general case is that through Christ is the path to salvation.  The Roman Catholic Church allows that there may be salvation subject to the Grace, Mercy (and discretion) of God for those in a relationship of friendship with God who through no fault of their own don't know Christ.  But even then, it was Christ who opened the path back to Heaven, so salvation has been through him in the meta sense.

  CCC 1026 By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has "opened" heaven
  to us. The life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect
  possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ.

Grace per CCC 1996:

  Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

God can give his grace to whomever He so chooses.  How someone responds to that gift of grace will inform their relationship with God.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 1023, you
will find this statement in a discussion about "Particular
Judgment":

  1023 Those who die in God's grace and friendship and are perfectly
  purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for
  they "see him as he is," face to face:

  1025 To live in heaven is "to be with Christ." the elect live "in
  Christ," but they retain, or rather find, their true identity, their
  own name.

From the Vatican II council, Lumen Gentium, 16 we find:

  Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall
  the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from
  whom Christ was born according to the flesh.  On account of their
  fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent > of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of > salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour
  wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who
  through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His
  Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their
  deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of
  conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for
  salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet
  arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to
  live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is
  looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows
  that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may
  finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have
  become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God
  for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.  Or some
  there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed
  to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure
  the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord,
  "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions
  with care and attention.

To put that all together:

There is a general principle in Christianity (which includes the RCC) that God's grace is required to get into Heaven.
The usual path to God's grace is via Christ.  (The general case for
Christian denominations, not just the RCC as explained in CCC 1987-2029 cited abpve).
The Catechism states that if you die in God's grace and friendship,
you'll meet Christ in Heaven.  (This opens the door for Lumen Gentium's point, or comes from it, as LG was written before the current catechism was published).
Lumen Gentium allows that some other people are expected to be in friendship with God and even in His grace.  Even so, it was via Christ's agency that the path to heaven is even open.  That makes all salvation through Christ, in the larger sense.
The Church has a duty to get as many people as can be to receive Christ and take that general path toward God's grace.

Without turning this into a nine page long post, the Church teaches (as do most Christians I have engaged on this topic) that forming a relationship with Christ is the direct path to being open to receiving God's grace.  I've had that point explained to me by a variety of clergy and lay people in the Roman Catholic faith, as well a Methodists and Episcopals ... just off the top of my head.  There have been others.  This core point underwrites the longer discussion in the Catechism (CCC 1026) about Christ opening the way to Heaven.


Term that means to commit a sin when you know it is a sin?

If a person sins and commits a trespass against the LORD by lying to his neighbor about what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or about a pledge, or about a robbery, or if he has extorted from his neighbor, Leviticus 6:2 NKJV

I know it has been brought up already, but here’s a verse for “trespass” that seems clear that the sin was intentional.


What is the "homogenous unit principle" of church growth?

Dr. Donald McGavran's definition of a homogeneous unit is "a section of society in which all members have some characteristic in common."

In plainer terms, a homogeneous unit is a group of people that have ethnic, linguistic, social, educational, or vocational similarities.

In terms of a church congregation, ethnic, social, and educational commonalities are the most important.

People feel more comfortable when they feel they are part of a group.  I suspect that people are comfortable in a church where they don't have to cross racial, linguistic or class barriers.  In my county in the United States, there are white United Methodist Churches and there are black United Methodist Churches.  I attend a white church.  I've visited a couple of the black churches as a lay leader, but I'm more comfortable worshiping in a white church.

The invention of the automobile allowed people to ignore geography (parish) and worship in a church they feel more comfortable in (social, educational).

The principle of homogeneous units describes what almost anyone can observe.  People like to gather as tribes, and feel part of the group (in).  Unfortunately, there are also people outside the tribe (out).  Part of Christ's message was to accept all people into one tribe.  That part of the message is lost on some Christians.

Some of the information in this post came from The Pasadena Consultation - Homogeneous Unit Principle.


What is the role of a "Methodist lay pastor"?

In the United Methodist Church, a lay pastor is a church member who has received training and can assist with preaching and care ministries, but does not have a formal seminary education.

The lay pastor can perform most of the duties of ordained ministers:

  The certified lay minister shall preach the Word, provide a care ministry to the congregation, assist in program leadership, and be a witness in the community for the growth, missional and connectional thrust of The United Methodist Church as part of a ministry team with the supervision and support of a clergy person.

However, lay pastors cannot lead Holy Communion unless they receive special ordination to do so.


Offering Indulgences to the Poor souls in Purgatory

A soul in purgatory is a soul in purgatory. No where does the Church define that an indulgence for particular soul in purgatory has to be named in order to receive an indulgence when we meet the requirements on their behalf. Thus the faithful may apply an indulgence to a particular member of their family, any soul in purgatory or even for the poorest soul in purgatory.

There are more ways to relieve the sufferings of the souls in purgatory than obtaining an indulgence in order to release them from their pains. Obtaining an indulgence for them is very common, especially during November. I was taught in the seminary that when we pray for a particular soul in purgatory and that that soul is no longer in need of our prayers that God will apply the merits to another soul in need. Prayer is never in vain.

  Visit a Cemetery

  An indulgence, applicable only to the Souls in Purgatory, is granted to the faithful, who devoutly visit a cemetery and pray for the departed. The indulgence is plenary each day from the 1st to the 8th of November; on other days of the year it is partial. Besides benefiting the Holy Souls, visiting a cemetery is a healthy reminder of our own mortality, realizing that we too will pass from this life to the next. - 5 Ways to pray for the Holy Souls in Purgatory

If the faithful can only gain one plenary indulgence for themselves once a day, it stands to reasons that a plenary indulgence for the faithful departed be applied to one soul also. The Church has a long standing tradition of offering Gregorian Masses for the souls in purgatory. These Masses are said for a particular soul (one) in purgatory which at the conclusion of the last Gregorian Mass that soul would be released from their sufferings in purgatory.

  Gregorian Masses

  During the 6th century, a deceased monk from St. Andrew’s Monastery in Rome (founded by St. Gregory) reportedly appeared to a friend and requested that 30 Masses be said to release his soul from purgatory. After the Masses were completed, the monk appeared again to declare he had entered heaven. Since that time, Catholics have continued the tradition of celebrating 30 consecutive Masses for one person to free his or her soul from purgatory. - Gregorian Masses

How can we obtain in indulgence?

  What is a plenary indulgence? It is the remission before God of all the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven. It can be obtained by those properly disposed under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church. The indulgence may be applied to the living or the dead.

  The plenary indulgence can be gained according to the following norms:

  1) A plenary indulgence can be gained only once a day.

  2) After worthily celebrating sacramental confession, each member of the faithful can receive the gift of the plenary indulgence during a suitable time, even daily.

  3) The sacrament of penance and the Eucharist must be accompanied by prayer for the intentions of the Roman Pontiff and also by acts of charity and penance.

  4) Participation in the Eucharist should take place on the same day as the prescribed works are performed. - How to Gain the Jubilee Indulgence


What does Reformed Protestantism teach regarding 'spirit and soul and body' (I Thessalonians 5:23)

The majority position in Reformed theology is that man has two substantial natures – a material body and an immaterial soul – and that the words "soul" and "spirit" are best understood as both referring to the immaterial soul.  Berkhof (Systematic Theology, 2.1.2) summarizes the biblical evidence this way:

Trichotomists seek support in the fact that the Bible, as they see it, recognizes two constituent parts of human nature in addition to the lower or material element, namely, the soul (Heb., nephesh; Greek, psuche) and the spirit (Heb., ruach; Greek, pneuma). But the fact that these terms are used with great frequency in Scripture does not warrant the conclusion that they designate component parts rather than different aspects of human nature. A careful study of Scripture clearly shows that it uses the words interchangeably. Both terms denote the higher or spiritual element in man, but contemplate it from different points of view.

He then discusses the way these "different points of view" are expressed:

The main Scriptural distinction is as follows: the word "spirit" designates the spiritual element in man as the principle of life and action which controls the body; while the word "soul" denominates the same element as the subject of action in man, and is therefore often used for the personal pronoun in the Old Testament [...]. In several instances it, more specifically, designates the inner life as the seat of the affections.

With respect to "soul and spirit" proof texts, he points out that other passages, like Matthew 22:37, name even more things (like heart and mind), but this doesn't prove that each is a separate substance. On 1 Thessalonians 5:23 in particular, he writes:

In I Thess. 5:23 the apostle simply desires to strengthen the statement, "And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly," by an epexigetical statement, in which the different aspects of man's existence are summed up, and in which he feels perfectly free to mention soul and spirit alongside of each other, because the Bible distinguishes between the two. He cannot very well have thought of them as two different substances here, because he speaks elsewhere of man as consisting of two parts, Rom. 8:10; I Cor. 5:5; 7:34; II Cor. 7:1; Eph. 2:3; Col. 2:5

And on Hebrews 4:12:

Heb. 4:12 should not be taken to mean that the word of God, penetrating to the inner man, makes a separation between his soul and his spirit, which would naturally imply that these two are different substances; but simply as declaring that it brings about a separation in both between the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Charles Hodge also defends the dual nature of man (ST, 2.2.1), and on these passages he writes:

When Paul says to the Thessalonians, “I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians v. 23). he only uses a periphrasis for the whole man. [...] Again, when in Heb. iv. 12, the Apostle says that the word of God pierces so as to penetrate soul and spirit, and the joints and marrow, he does not assume that soul and spirit are different substances. The joints and marrow are not different substances. They are both material; they are different forms of the same substance; and so soul and spirit are one and the same substance under different aspects or relations. (2.2.2)

Reformed Baptist Wayne Grudem makes similar arguments in his Systematic Theology, chapter 23.  He sees Paul "piling up synonyms for emphasis" in 1 Thessalonians 5, and that the author of Hebrews is using multiple terms to describe the "deep inward parts of our being that are not hidden from the penetrating power of the Word of God."
Some, like John Frame, tend more toward monism than the preceding authors, saying that each of the three terms (spirit, soul, and body) "refers to the whole person from a particular perspective." With this understanding, the use of these terms in 1 Thessalonians and Hebrews is explained as follows:

Biblical writers multiply such terms so as to describe the completeness and fullness of human nature.  These passages do not make precise distinctions between the terms—certainly not precise enough to define metaphysical components of human existence.  Scripture typically uses "spirit" and "soul" interchangeably. (ST, 801)

Summary
In Reformed theology, the most common view is that man has two natures – body and soul.  If "spirit" and "soul" are distinguished, they are seen to be aspects of a single nature that are used to emphasize different aspects of the single immaterial part of man.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that the Lord Jesus Christ DOES have blood in his incorruptible body?

For the verse that you're referencing, it says that Jesus has flesh and bones. He was born as a human. In this portion of Luke, Jesus had just died and was dead for 3 days. On this day, Sunday, he was resurrected back to (human) life. The stone in front of his tomb was rolled away, and the body in the tomb was no longer there because he is alive and left the tomb.

Using the previous verses for context, the verse that you are quoting is related to the previous verses (Luke 24:37-38) when he appears to the disciples and the disciples, "were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost." (NIV).

Jesus is asking why are they frightened as if they saw a ghost? Because in fact, Jesus wasn't a ghost, he was a resurrected human with flesh and bones.

With regards to the dichotomy of the life in the flesh being in the blood vs. Jesus not having any blood post resurrection, after ressurrection the body is transformed. If you look at 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, it says there there are 2 bodies. The natural body (sown) and the spiritual body (raised).

  42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown
  is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor,
  it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
  44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Therefore, after the body is resurrected, the body doesn't actually have "blood" anymore. The body is changed into a completely different body. And so the rule of "blood supporting life in the flesh" no longer applies because we are working with 2 different types of flesh, albeit flesh that can be touched.


To "once saved always saved" advocates, what does it mean that church leaders "keep watch over our souls"?

Because although Christians cannot lose their salvation, they can still appear before the Lord in shame rather than in confidence (1 John 2:28). The good shepherds who watch over the flock want them to enter into the best the Lord has for them, and not be "scarcely saved" (1 Peter 4:17-18). Not all Christians will inherit a crown and rule with Christ; that belongs to the worthy.

So the verse is about obeying the leaders so that they'll be able to give a good testimony of your conduct at the judgment seat of Christ. It appears that the Lord will weigh their words, so let them say you obeyed and not resisted, or it will go bad for you.

For instance, if you look at 2 Peter 1:5-11, we see that continuing in sanctification leads to an abundant entrance into the kingdom. Verse 8 begins with "For if," making it conditional. Otherwise we are shortsighted and are not dealing with sin. God makes a difference, but saves both Christians.


When/why did the [N]RSV become a "Catholic" Bible instead of a "Protestant" Bible?

The reason that many of them are considered "Catholic" is probably because there is now a "Catholic Edition" of the RSV and the NRSV. Both of these are gaining traction over the NAB if only because of the superiority of the translation.

The major difference between Catholic and Standard RSV is that the Deuterocanon is placed in the standard Catholic order and there are a number of small word changes (most notably "brethren" for "brother").


Introduction to Greek Texts; Byzantine vs. Alexandrian

The above resources are indeed excellent surveys of the issues surrounding textual criticism of the bible. A couple of extra points are worth noting:
(1) The question asks about the textual history of the Bible. The Greek manuscript families relate specifically to the New Testament. If the question includes the Old Testament that would need to be looked at as a separate question.
(2) It is true that modern translations give greater weight to the Alexandrian family of texts. But a more accurate description would be to say that modern translations use an eclectic text. The leading scholarly Greek NT text is that published by the United Bible Societies. This text is the best current scholarly recreation of the original text. It is based on the study of many manuscripts, lectionaries, commentaries and ancient translations. Where there are variant readings the translators make their best call on a case by case basis as to which reading is right.  The resources already mentioned in the above comments will set out the principles involved. No one manuscript source is considered perfectly reliable, so the UBS Greek text will not match any specific manuscript or family of manuscripts.
(3) As regards the text used by particular translations, the introduction to most modern translations will include a statement on which text they have used and why. For instance the 2011 edition of the NIV includes these paragraphs:

For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text as published in the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica, has been used throughout. The Masoretic Text tradition contains marginal notations that offer variant readings. These have sometimes been followed instead of the text itself. Because such instances involve variants within the Masoretic tradition, they have not been indicated in the textual notes. In a few cases, words in the basic consonantal text have been divided differently than in the Masoretic Text. Such cases are usually indicated in the textual footnotes. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain biblical texts that represent an earlier stage of the transmission of the Hebrew text. They have been consulted, as have been the Samaritan Pentateuch and the ancient scribal traditions concerning deliberate textual changes. The translators also consulted the more important early versions — the Greek Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, and for the Psalms, the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the scribal traditions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of textual criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading. In rare cases, the committee has emended the Hebrew text where it appears to have become corrupted at an even earlier stage of its transmission. These departures from the Masoretic Text are also indicated in the textual footnotes. Sometimes the vowel indicators (which are later additions to the basic consonantal text) found in the Masoretic Text did not, in the judgment of the committee, represent the correct vowels for the original text. Accordingly, some words have been read with a different set of vowels. These instances are usually not indicated in the footnotes.
The Greek text used in translating the New Testament is an eclectic one, based on the latest editions of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. The committee has made its choices among the variant readings in accordance with widely accepted principles of New Testament textual criticism. Footnotes call attention to places where uncertainty remains. 2


Why do Protestants not refer to Mary by the title "Mother of God"?

At its most basic level, Protestants believe Mary merely to be the earthly mother of Jesus - not the eternal mother of "God."  To imply that she had a role in creating that which is divine with Him seems an overreach. This is not to say that Jesus is not God, but Mary's role is as a vehicle for the incarnation, not the means by which the Godhood was made.  To believe otherwise would unnecessarily elevate her above mere mortals.

This is not imply she is not "blessed among women," nor that she was not the vessel through which God incarnated and dwelt among us. But to stress the motherhood of that which is God within Jesus (and no, I do not mean to imply a Nestorian, no-hypostatic union Jesus - he is fully God and fully Man) - that motherhood denotes a role in creation, and that is not possible.

That "Creation" would fly in the face of John 1:2, of course - for Jesus was not created.  Jesus was incarnated, meaning that his existence and personhood indwelt man, but was not created "by the will of man or by the flesh."  Motherhood denotes a much greater role in the creation of the child[1] than incarnation would suggest.

Finally, Calvin suggests that Mary's role as mother was only earthly:

  Opponents of the aforementioned view of Calvin's mariology point out that, in his writings, Calvin never explicitly refers to Mary as the 'Mother of God'. Moreover, Calvin's comments on Mary as the mother of Elizabeth's Lord, may be understood to mean that, in Calvin's view, Mary was mother of the Lord only while he was on earth. Proponents of this view have cited Calvin's commentary on John 19:26, from which it has been argued that Calvin considered the mother-son relationship between Mary and Jesus to have ceased at Jesus’ death. In this scheme, Christ, as he was dying on the cross, appointed his disciple John to take his place as Mary's son, so that he himself might henceforth take his rightful place at the Father's right hand in heaven.

Once John was beheld as "your son," Mary was now the mother of John, not Jesus.

Notes

I was about to say "she does contribute genetic material for example," when I realized that there is nothing to suggest she didn't.  That said, genetics were an unknown science at the time of the incarnation, and as such it is anachronistic to require a knowledge thereof when these titles were being decided.  The point is that Mary did not make God in the same way a mother "makes" her baby.
To be fair, Luther did call her mother of God, but the formulation seems much Roman Catholic as anything.


There is no discrepancy.
Greek syntax
First, in the genealogy encountered in the Gospel of Luke,1 the very syntax of the Greek text seems to argue against the notion that Joseph is the son of Heli.
Consider Num. 36:1 in the LXX. When the translator wished to state that Gilʿad (גִלְעָד) was the son of Makhir (מָכִיר), and Makhir was the son of Menashe (מְנַשֶּׁה), he translated this into Greek as «Γαλααδ υἱοῦ Μαχιρ υἱοῦ Μανασση». Notice that the Greek word υἱοῦ (“son of”) precedes the name of each father. So, it is understood as Gilʿad the son of Makhir, and Makhir the son of Menashe, i.e., A son of B, B son of C.
Another example is Num. 16:1. The idea is that Korach (קֹרַח) is the son of Yitzhar (יִצְהָר), and Yitzhar is the son of Kehat (קְהָת), and Kehat is the son of Levi (לֵוִי). The translator of the LXX expresses this in Greek as «Κορε υἱὸς Ισσααρ υἱοῦ Κααθ υἱοῦ Λευι». Again, the translator precedes each father in the genealogical series by a declension of the Greek word υἱός.
The problem is that a declension of υἱός does not precede the name of each father in Luke’s genealogy. In a genealogy, where there’s a series of names, this seems quite the anomaly. Certainly it’s not unusual to see υἱός absent before, say, a single father in a narrative.2 But, for it to be missing before every father in a genealogy, I know of no other examples.
A Rule, You Say?
When we see one name preceded by another in a genealogy, we tend to think that the preceding name is the son/daughter of the following name. Hence, when people read the following in Luke 3:24,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, KJV, 1769

they interpret it to mean that Matthat is the son of Levi, and Levi is the son of Melchi, and so forth, all the way until the end of Luke 3:38, which states,

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. KJV, 1769

and thus, it is believed that Adam is the son of God, since Adam precedes God in the genealogy. However, this rule is not absolutely true. Consider the example of Gen. 36:2:

2 Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; KJV, 1769

We must ask, “Who is the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite?” Based on the aforementioned rule, you might say, “It is Anah, since Anah precedes Zibeon in the genealogy. Therefore, Anah must be Zibeon’s daughter.” Such would be unequivocally wrong, for Anah is a male, not a female, and thus he could not be anyone’s daughter.3 So, the genealogy in Gen. 36:2 is actually stating that Aholibamah is the daughter of Anah (her father), and the same Aholibamah is also the daughter of Zibeon (Anah’s father4 and thus, Aholibamah’s grandfather).
Therefore, there is no reason to assume, especially in light of the absence of υἱοῦ before each father, that Luke is saying A is the son of B, B is the son of C, C is the son of D, and so forth. In other words, what reason is there for assuming that Luke is saying that Joseph is the son of Heli, or that Adam is the son of God? I have shown you using the example of Aholibamah that a name simply preceding another name in a genealogy is not evidence of such a rule.
If Joseph is not Heli’s son, Then Who Is?
I have demonstrated that it is absolutely normal for the daughter of a man to also be reckoned as the daughter of the same man’s father. Naturally, this would also apply to a man’s son. For example, Jesus is not only the son of David,5 but also the son of Abraham,6 even though neither were Jesus’ direct, biological father.
In Luke 3:23, it is written,

23 And Jesus himself was being about thirty years [old], being [the] son (as was supposed) of Yosef, of Eli,
ΚΓʹ καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ NA28

Let us consider the notion that Luke intentionally omitted υἱός from each father and only included it after Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) and before Joseph (Ἰωσὴφ). Again, it wasn’t normal for it to be omitted before each father in a genealogy. Either it is an anomaly, or Luke intended to do so. My belief is that Luke does not want us to understand Joseph as being the son of Heli, but Jesus as being the son of Heli, and Jesus being the son of:

Matthat
Levi
Melchi
Janna

all the way to...

Enos
Seth

and likewise, Jesus is the son of Adam, and Jesus (not Adam) is the son of God.7
The Nativity
Is Jesus the son of God? The books of the Bible unanimously declare him to be so. In fact, if we actually take a step back and read the narrative, one will see that it was Luke’s very intent to declare Jesus as the son of God, rather than Adam.
First, Luke begins his gospel describing the very nativity of our Lord Jesus. And, what does Luke tell us?
In Luke 1, it is written,

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. KJV, 1769
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: KJV, 1769
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. KJV, 1769

The angel says that Jesus will be “the Son of the Most High” (υἱὸς ὑψίστου) and “the Son of God” (υἱὸς θεοῦ) because ⇨ God the Father is Jesus’ actual father. To reiterate, Luke commences his gospel by demonstrating that Jesus is truly and literally the Son of God. But, he does not stop there.
In chapter 2, Luke describes the birth of the Lord Jesus.8 He writes that “Joseph and his mother marvelled...” (rather than “his father and mother”),9 and he writes that Jesus tells his mother, “...I must be about my Father’s business...”10
Baptism
Luke also emphasizes the fact that Jesus is the son of God during the baptism narrative in Luke 3.

21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Of course, it was God the Father who declared to Jesus, “You are My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” Then, just one verse later, Luke begins the genealogy. Again, looking at the big picture, one can see that Luke’s very intent was to describe Jesus as being God’s son. This is accomplished in the narratives of the nativity, baptism, and finally, the genealogy (Luke 1–3).
Not only does Luke focus on Jesus being God’s son, but he also focuses especially on Mary. On the other hand, if you read Matthew’s narrative, he focuses especially on Joseph. Hence, we need to understand that Luke’s genealogy is of Mary, and that Jesus is the son of God (not Adam). Accordingly, Jesus is Heli’s son, because Heli is his grandfather (Mary’s father).
This may be corroborated by the Jerusalem Talmud which speaks (albeit in a vile and derogatory manner, as can be expected) of a מרים ברת עלי (“Miryam, daughter of Eli”).11
In his commentary on Luke 3:23, John Lightfoot wrote,12

Joseph is not here called the son of Heli, but Jesus is so: for the word Jesus must be understood, and must be always added in the reader’s mind to every race in this genealogy, after this manner: “Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, and so the son of Heli, and of Matthat, yea and, at length, the son of Adam, and the Son of God.” For it was very little the business of the evangelist either to draw Joseph’s pedigree from Adam, or, indeed, to shew that Adam was the son of God: which not only sounds something harshly, but in this place very enormously, I may almost add, blasphemously too.
For when St. Luke, verse 22, had made a voice from heaven, declaring that Jesus was the Son of God, do we think the same evangelist would, in the same breath, pronounce Adam ‘the son of God’ too? So that this very thing teacheth us what the evangelist propounded to himself in the framing of this genealogy; which was to shew that this Jesus, who had newly received that great testimony from heaven, “This is my Son,” was the very same that had been promised to Adam by the seed of the woman.
And for this reason hath he drawn his pedigree on the mother’s side, who was the daughter of Heli, and this too as high as Adam, to whom this Jesus was promised. In the close of the genealogy, he teacheth in what sense the former part of it should be taken; viz. that Jesus, not Joseph, should be called the son of Heli, and consequently, that the same Jesus, not Adam, should be called the Son of God. Indeed, in every link of this chain this still should be understood, “Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi”; and so of the rest...

Jesus is descended from David via his mother Mary, who was of the tribe of Judah and thus physically descended from David. This fulfills God’s promise to David that the fruit of his loins would reign on his throne forever. Jesus cannot actually inherit the throne from his mother. Tribal status, and thus the right to the Davidic throne, is actually passed paternally. So, how then does Jesus inherit the throne of David? Adoption, in the same way that Christians inherit our throne and reign with Jesus.13

References
Lightfoot, John. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations. Trans. Gandell, Robert. Vol. 3. Oxford: UP of Oxford, 1859.
Footnotes
1 Luke 3:23–38
2 cp. Luke 6:15. However, he includes the definite article τὸν which is shorthand for τὸν υἱὸν.
3 cp. Gen. 36:24
4 ibid.
5 cp. Matt. 1:1
6 ibid.
7 Luke 3:38
8 Luke 2:7
9 Luke 2:33
10 Luke 2:49
11 Tractate Chaggiga, Chapter 2, Folio 11a, Halakha 2, Gemara; cp. Lightfoot, p. 55
12 p. 54
13 Rom. 8:15–17


Are there Christians who believe Jesus was an ideology and not a person?

There certainly are people and movements who believe that, in several variations. The most significant ones are typified by the book The Pagan Christ, by Tom Harpur, a former Anglican priest. In the book he claims to identify many similarities between the stories of Jesus and ancient myths, especially Egyptian ones, and concludes that the early church leaders fabricated a literal and human Jesus based on those myths. Harpur based his work largely on that of Alvin Boyd Kuhn, who was in turn influenced by Gerald Massey.

The ideas of Harpur and his predecessors has garnered a lot of attention, much of it from people more anxious to disprove Christianity than to find the 'true version' of it. However, there are very few who would follow his teachings as an ideology, and even fewer who do so would call themselves Christian. The ideas of this movement have been widely criticised (most would say 'refuted') not just by Christian theologians, but also by Egyptologists and other students of ancient religions.


What is the nature of the "Communion of the Saints"?

From a reformed background the communion of the Saints is a mystical union every believer has with one another due to our common union in Christ.  This does not necessarily imply we are actually 'experiencing others' that we have never met.  It means we are all united in Christ as a new creation just as all humanity was once united in Adam.  By being members of the same mystical body, we share the same nature and life, which is communion with God.

  that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.  (1 John 1:3, ESV)

Simply put, the communion of the Saints is the church.  Not visible, but invisible.  The invisible church refers to those persons who are redeemed, regenerate and spiritually united with Christ by sincere faith.  It is not dependant upon a denomination, building or sacrament. Faith alone unites a person into Christ as members of his body.

  For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. (Ephesians 2:18-21, ESV)

Of course the church, or Christ's body includes those in heaven and on earth. We are all mystically joined into one body with the same desire, love, hopes etc. by the same Spirit.


Is the Virgin Mary ever referred to as "the Holy Table" (ἡ ἁγία ἡ τράπεζα)?

Part of the Litany of the Holy Name of Mary:

  Mary, house of God, pray for us
  Mary, sanctuary of the Lord, pray for us
  Mary, altar of the Divinity, pray for us
  Mary, Virgin Mother, pray for us
  Mary, embracing your Infant God, pray for us

The Holy Table would be the altar. Calling the altar the Holy Table is mostly an Eastern Catholic and Orthodox thing. You might look up something like the History of the Christian Altar to help decide which translation is best, or see if he uses a different word for altar.


Can people who don’t believe, yet don’t not believe in Jesus Christ, still make it into heaven if they’re a good person?

I'm going to ignore the very wishy-washy "don't not believe" bit for a moment to just address "Can people who don’t believe [...] still make it into heaven if they’re a good person?". And the answer to that is:
No
No one is a "good person". No one (Romans 3:10-12). "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). You will not gain Heaven through works: "no one comes to the Father except through [Jesus]" (John 14:6).
I realize there are probably some folks that consider themselves Christian out there that will disagree, but IMO, the Bible is pretty clear on this subject. We are saved by grace alone.
All have sinned. All are born sinful, and are incapable of saving themselves... and yet, Christ died for all sin, no matter how heinous, and this is a free gift.
If you stop and think about it, this is also an excellent logical argument for Christianity being true. Christianity is, as far as I know, the only religion in which you can do absolutely nothing to "earn" salvation, and in which salvation has already been earned for you, and by God himself! This is contrary to Man's logic, which is why in every religion created by Man, one must do something to be saved. That makes sense to us, but "the word of the cross is folly to [unbelievers]" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
I might also add that those who believe in Sola Gratia consider it fundamental to Christian doctrine. Why? If you think about it, to deny Sola Gratia is to deny Christ. In order to say that "being good" is necessary for salvation, you must say either that Christ's death was insufficient, which is to lessen God, or worse, unnecessary. The theme of the entire scripture is that Christ, both true Man and true God, came not merely to be a good example, but to bring Salvation. If, therefore, you deny that Christ's death was necessary, you might want to seriously consider why you call yourself Christian. If you deny that it was sufficient, you call Him a liar, because on the cross he tells us "it is finished" (John 19:30; another possible translation is "it is accomplished"). Not "I've done my part, now it's up to you". Christ Himself tells us clearly that his death is sufficient.
Moreover, why in Heaven would you want to believe in anything else? If you believe you must do something to "earn" Salvation, how can you ever know that you have done so? What a horrifying thought! Thanks be to God that we need do no such thing!

To more directly address some of the points you raise:

I’m a good person.

You are not a good person. (I'm not a good person. Your pastor is not a good person. No one is a good person.) You are a sinner in need of Christ's forgiveness, and thanks be to God that he forgives you!

I don’t not believe it him, but I can’t say I’m a whole-hearted believer.
I’m sent to hell for simply not being 100% sure?

Be careful here, because this may be verging into works righteousness... and thank God for that! If salvation were dependent on our having absolute faith, I'm pretty sure we'd all be doomed. "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24)
I guess this is what you mean by "don't not believe". Your boyfriend might be more Christian than he realizes. How does one not obtain Grace? Well, one can obviously not know it is available (here we could get sidetracked into a whole other debate of the eternal fate of those that never heard of Christ), or one can reject the gift. Feeling uncertain is natural; I believe there are very few, if an, Christians who have not felt doubt on at least some occasions. For most, it is a constant struggle, but take comfort knowing that salvation is a gift that does not depend on anything you can do. On your own, you cannot even accept this gift, but it is the Spirit working through you which calls us to faith. Therefore, do not despair, neither let your heart be troubled, when the adversary and your own fallen nature causes you to doubt. Instead, I would commend you and your boyfriend to remain in the Church and in the Word. Surround yourselves with others that you may know God's love and know that you are not alone in your struggles.

You also had some interesting thoughts on the nature of heaven that aren't really on topic. I would encourage you to ask a separate question!


St. Thomas Aquinas explains that verse in his commentary on St. John's Gospel ch. 6 (my emphasis):

  The power of this food is seen in the fact that it does not perish. In this respect we should point out that material things are likenesses of spiritual things, since they are caused and produced by them; and consequently they resemble spiritual things in some way. Now just as the body is sustained by food, so that which sustains the spirit is called its food, whatever it might be. The food that sustains the body is perishable, since it is converted into the nature of the body; but the food that sustains the spirit is not perishable, because it is not converted into the spirit; rather, the spirit is converted into its food. Hence Augustine says in his Confessions: “I am the food of the great; grow and you will eat me. But you will not change me into yourself, as you do bodily food, but you will be changed into me.”

Related:

Summa Theologica III q. 77 a. 4: "Whether the sacramental species can be corrupted [i.e., decompose]?"

cf. this answer to this question regarding the nutritional aspect of Holy Eucharist


Must a Christian accept the Bible to be infallible and/or inerrant?

[Note: this answer was posted *before* the question was edited and refers to two questions that were in the original, paraphrased here: (1) what does the Bible itself say on the subject and (2) must someone accept that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in order to be considered a Christian]

Some people take the warning at the end of Revelation to apply to the whole Bible, and interpret it as saying "this is complete and correct" - in other words, inerrant.

Revelation 22:18-19 (NIV):

  I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If
  anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues
  described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book
  of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life
  and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Regarding your second question, people define "Christian" in many different ways. Often that does include a requirement to accept the Bible or at the very least to acknowledge its authority - in fact I think that's probably true in the majority of cases, but I'm not aware of any firm statistics to back that up.

My own view is that it's healthy for everyone to question their own beliefs from time to time and certainly Christians with questions and queries about Biblical content are no less Christians. Christianity is first and foremost about a relationship with God, and while an understanding and acceptance of scripture is very important it is secondary to that relationship.


Why did the mid-early church consider the Gospel of Matthew to be reliable?

Below is my answer to the original question: "What are the arguments for Matthew's canonicity that don't appeal to Matthean authorship or the authority of the church?"  I have leaving it as is, because it is still valid answer to that part of the question (and good information), although not all of it makes sense as a reply to the edited question.

First, I think it is important to emphasize that no church leader or set of leaders sat down one day and decided that X was in and Y was out.  Instead it was decided over time by the Church (fellowship of all believers) through use of some sources and disuse of others. Early leaders, of course, had some influence over what entered the canon, but no single person, congregation, or group of people decided this.
We have some extant writings about what criteria were used to decide matters.  For example, Tertullian, writing in objection to Marcion (Contra Marcion, Book 4, Ch 5), says that his followers "subvert [the gospel] by shameless tampering" and says

Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms against heretics for the faith of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers, and that authority of churches which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on.

Various factors enter into the criteria recorded by various Church fathers:

is the document internally consistent,
is it teaching orthodoxy,
was it accepted by early churches,
and Apostolic authorship is seen as key.

This can be seen, for example, in the dismissal of an elder who confessed to writing The Acts of Paul and Thecla (Tertullian, On Baptism, Ch 17), despite the work being perfectly orthodox. In short, there was no such thing as a "pious fraud" who was accepted by the church. If the early Church believed Matthew was not written by Matthew, it would have never been accepted. You cannot separate the two ideas.
Turning specifically to Matthew, it was the most quoted NT work during the first two centuries and was rejected by no known group, heretical or orthodox, except for Marcion (who rejected all but his own edited versions of Paul's letters and Luke). If any work can be considered canonical by the early church, it is Matthew.  It was not accepted because of the testimony of Papias (and just because he is the first extant witness of Matthean authorship, does not mean he was the first), but rather was universally viewed as coming from Matthew the apostle.
I would strongly caution against rejecting a work because of "difficulties".  Of course if you remove any gospel, the number of apparent contradictions will decrease.  However, minor contradictions show the reliability of text, not the opposite.  Real eyewitness testimony is marked by such differences; faked or non-independent accounts are not.  I would also be very cautious about accepting pseudographical claims lightly.  The case lies on a few far from certain facts and stand contrary to every source in antiquity.  I cannot go into detail here (ask another question if you like), but suffice it to say that the burden of proof should lie with those claiming pseudography (due to the frequent and early testimony to the contrary and the demonstrated disdain for the practice) and the case has not been proven.
In summary, to answer your question: besides apostolic authorship and church authority, canonicity can be argued on early and frequent use, the acceptance by early believers, internal consistency, and the orthodoxy of Matthew. However, in the views of the early Church, apostolic authorship is also essential.


What did Jesus quote Psalm 22: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

He was quoting David in Psalm 22.  But nevertheless, Jesus must have felt these words Himself. What it was like for the Son of God to experience "Hell", or separation from God, we can not begin to imagine.

We can only speculate that Jesus, when He uttered those words, felt God had abandoned Him in a real way, not a symbolic way. Jesus truly felt separated from God, and that was far worse than even the pain and suffering on the Cross.


Starting with v11, this is the rider on the White Horse of Revelation 19.  This is clearly Jesus, in His glorified state, doing warfare on the Earth.

A primary breakdown of the basic level of symbolism could be expressed as follows:

The rider is clearly Jesus.
His White Horse would symbolize victory and triumph, as well as purity and righteousness (based on the color white--you can research Biblical meanings of colors, as well as the Biblical meaning of horses).
The eyes burning with fire could be interpreted as judgment, fury, wrath, holiness (in terms of an all-consuming fire), as well as other takes.  The general sense is that what He look at, He burns with the fire of His gaze.  Consider the Proverbs, which says that the King winnows evil with his eyes.  He actually divides good and evil as one separates wheat and chaff.  For further analysis, you could study 'fire' throughout the Scriptures with a concordance.
The NIV says "many crowns".  He is the King of Kings, the King of all Kings, and Ephesians says He has greater dominion than anyone else, both now and forever, and hence, the crowns symbolize his royalty and rule, just as any crown would any king.  He has 'many', because He is ruler of all.
He has a name written that no one knows but Himself.  This speaks of His authority, and also parallels to the Ephesians 1 name, better than any that can be given in this age and the next.  Names speak of authority, which is why people pray "in Jesus' name".
He is in a white robe, which elsewhere in Revelation symbolizes righteous deeds or acts.  All the Lord's dealings are righteous.  Garments speak of acts, and the whiteness, cleanness, and unspottedness speaks of sinlessness, in general.
It is dipped in blood.  This is the blood of His enemies which He is slaying.  This, on His white robe here, symbolizes His righteousness in executing His wrath.  This does not take away from their sinlessness.
His Name is the Word of God.  He is the Logos of John 1:1.  Again, clearly Jesus.
The armies of heaven also follow Him on similar white horses and white robes, with the same general meaning.
The sword coming out of His mouth would be the Word of God, as the Ephesians 6 calls the Sword of the Spirit the Word of God.  This is a metaphor throughout the New Testament (Hebrews 4:12, for example).
He is there ruling.
He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God, again, the reason for the blood on His robes.  Winepresses usually left people with very purple or red feet and clothes.  This "wine", however, is the blood of his enemies, as before.  Searching Biblical encyclopedias on winepresses could be beneficial, as well as End Times commentaries on the winepress of God's wrath.

These are all the basic symbolisms, although they may vary from tradition to tradition.  Most, if not all, are based within somewhere from the Word, and most, but not all, would have similar interpretations, without getting into any of the deeper meaning of the actually events taking place here.


How do Catholics view the role of conscience in determing morals?

In order to answer this question, it is necessary to understand precisely what is meant by “conscience” and its relationship to human acts (that is, those actions that can be qualified as morally right or wrong).

The Church, generally taking its cue from Medieval Scholasticism (see, e.g., Summa theologiae [S.Th.], Ia, q. 79, a. 13), defines the conscience in these terms:

  Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1778; see also no. 1796. The number goes on to describe some of the properties of the conscience, but this is the actual definition. For a more detailed overview, see Veritatis Splendor [VS] 57-61.)

Some clarification of terminology is in order. The human intellect (according to the most common model used in Catholic philosophy) is fundamentally capable of two kinds of acts: apprehension, by which a person knows what sort of thing something is (see Sentencia De anima [SdA], iii, lc. 11, no. 746); and judgment (sometimes called composition and division), by which a person comes to know that what he has apprehended actually exists (or not) in reality (SdA, iii, lc. 11, no. 747).

For example, upon seeing a pine tree (say), a person will understand first what sort of thing it is (namely, a pine tree), and then with a second action will see that it does, in fact, exist in reality. (These actions can occur simultaneously in time, but the apprehension is logically prior to the judgment.)

Hence, when the Catechism says that conscience is a judgment, it means that it is an act of the human intellect of the second kind: it affirms (or denies) the existence of something in reality. The existence of what? Of the moral rightness (or wrongness) of a past, present, or future action.

In other words, it affirms, “This particular action that I propose to do (or am doing now, or have done in the past) is right (or wrong).” Or more specifically, “This action that I am about to do (or this action that I am refraining from doing) is obligatory (or prohibited) for me.”

The habits of the intellect that help the conscience

How does the intellect arrive at this judgment? As with any other use of the intellect, it uses its prior knowledge to make an inference.

The intellect cannot make this judgment (at least, not make it correctly), however, without the help of three habits, or stable dispositions:

The synderesis, or the habit that grants us knowledge of the first and highest moral principles: for example, the principle by which we know that we are obligated to choose the good and avoid evil. This habit is universal to all men, without exception, because it is present in every moral action whatsoever (even if the person chooses to act evilly—i.e, he sins; he can only sin if he knows that he is choosing something evil at the expense of the good). (See S.Th. Ia, q. 79, a. 12; also CCC 1780.)
What could be called moral science (“science” in the classical sense), or moral knowledge, by which we come to know (through personal reflection, the help of society, and—especially for Catholics—the help of the Church) the general principles by which we are to guide our actions. For example, moral science teaches us that human life is always to be respected; that sexual relations are reserved for marriage alone; and so forth. (This, as we will see, is what constitutes the formation of conscience; see CCC 1783-1785.)
Prudence, or moral wisdom, which is the habit that helps us apply the general principles to particular situations. (For example, it is prudence that helps a police officer to decide whether, in this situation, using lethal force is licit and still in keeping with the general principle that human life is always to be respected; also, it is prudence that helps a person decide that watching this particular movie, say, would be detrimental to the practice of chastity.) (See CCC 1806; also, also S.Th. IIa-IIae, qq. 46-47 on prudence.)

If these habits have been formed correctly, then they remain with us, even when the intellect is not is use (e.g., when we are sleeping). Whenever the intellect makes a judgment about a particular human action (past, preset or future), we call that conscience. Naturally, it will make much better judgments if it has properly formed moral science and prudence.

The erroneous conscience

The problem is that our intellect does not always judge correctly: we can be mistaken. For instance, if I see a tree at a large distance, I might mistake it for a pine tree, whereas it is really a spruce.

In a similar way, a person might think that a particular action is morally acceptable, when in fact it is morally wrong, and vice-versa. In this case, we are dealing with what is called an erroneous conscience. (See CCC 1790-1794.)

This helps us to make the following observations:

Man is absolutely obligated to follow the dictates of his conscience, even if it is erroneous. In other words, if he honestly thinks that action x is obligatory for him, then he must do action x; if he thinks that action y is prohibited, then he must not do y. (See CCC 1790.)
There is an objective moral order that transcends the subjective order. In other words, whether I think something is right or wrong does not affect whether in actual fact it is right or wrong.
Man has a grave duty to form his conscience, so as to avoid discrepancies between what he thinks is right and wrong, and what actually is so. Even though the person is not morally guilty for following an erroneous conscience, he will still experience the evil effects of doing actions that are objectively evil. “Forming one’s conscience” means honing two of the habits that I mentioned earlier: moral science, and prudence. (See CCC 1783-1785.)
General moral principles admit of no exceptions; the concrete applications of those principles often do. (See CCC 1787.) For instance, human life is always to be respected; there are, however, situations in which the best that can be done is the limitation of evil (e.g., self-defense; see CCC 2263).

Conscience and the marital act (regarding the O.P.’s question)

À propos to the O.P.’s question: that sexual relations are reserved for marriage alone is a general moral principle. (See CCC 2348-2350.) Hence, it admits of no exceptions whatsoever. (I.e., all of the actions mentioned in CCC 2351-2356 are intrinsically immoral; see also VS 67 regarding intrinsically immoral actions.) A person might conceivably be mistaken about that principle, and hence commit no sin when he violates it, but in that case his conscience would be erroneous, and he would still suffer the consequences of his objectively evil actions.

The idea that the conscience might “overrule” a general moral principle, especially one taught and affirmed by the Catholic Church, is, therefore, absurd. Someone who is mistaken about a moral principle might escape being culpable for his actions, but it would not make his actions right.

What might confuse people is that the application of those principles is seldom easy. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions (as we saw above in the example of self-defense). It tends to be easier, however, to apply negative precepts, such as “you shall not commit adultery,” since these effectively delineate the point beyond which it is not possible to respect the general principles involved.

For instance, a married couple clearly cannot have sexual relations outside of their marriage (not even with a partner through an attempted civil marriage); conversely, an unmarried person clearly cannot engage in sexual relations at all. That much involves no discernment at all.

However, whether today, here and now, a couple should engage in the marital act is a much more complex issue. Within a marriage, the marital act is, of course, generally licit—indeed holy and encouraged. But there could be situations that make it unadvisable, or even illicit (e.g., if one of the spouses is very ill or in pain, or if pregnancy would be dangerous or unduly burdensome). In those situations, careful discernment is warranted.


The evidence supports the conclusion that the Wolfius referred  to by John Owen, Vicar of Thrussington, in his footnotes to Calvin's Commentary is Johann Christoph Wolf (1683-1739); and that the references made  are to his book  "Curae philologicae et criticae in Novum Testamentum".

This is a copy.

He studied at Wittenburg and amassed a library of some 25,000 volumes, becoming one of the foremost scholars of his age.

The Translators Preface to John Owen's volume, paragraph 12 refers to "Wolfius"  as being active in the last century, that is in the 1700s. This seems to rule out Calvin's contemporary. The other Wolfius mentioned, Christian, was an Enlightenment philosopher, rather than a specialist in the development of languages.

Footnote 187 cites Wolfius as quoting Greek authors as using the word in connection with, amongst other things the joining together of a dismembered limb. This Wolfius in his commentary on this verse quotes Antonius (i.e. Marcus Aurelias) Book 8 chapter 34. That chapter refers to dismembered limbs. He also quotes the tenth book of Plato's Legabus.

There are at least 24 references to Wolfius in Owen's footnotes to Calvin's Commentary on Romans. These relate to the translation of the Greek. In some there are specific references to Greek or Jewish literature. Here are some:

Footnote 164, in relation to chapter 5 verse 12, refers to a quote from Wolfius on Rabbi Moses Tranensis - this Moses is indeed mentioned in JCW's Curae  when dealing with that particular verse.

Footnote 197, on chapter 6 verse 17, refers to Wolfius mentioning A life of Pythagoras,  which is in JCW's Curae on that particular verse.

Footnote 254 on chapter 8, verse 15, says Wolfius quotes from the Talmud, and this is indeed to be found in JCW's Curae, on the verse in question.

Footnote 286 on chapter 9 vrse 3 quotes Wolfius referring to Photius. JCW's Curae indeed has such a reference for this very verse.

Footnote 459 quotes Wolfius as saying that Origen and Eusebius knew nothing of Paul going to Spain, and again this is indeed in JCW's Curae in reference to that particular verse.

All these corroborate that the Vicar of Thrussington, when referring to Wolfius, meant the Curae  Philologicae  et Criticae in Novum Testamentum by JC Wolf or Wolfius.


In Canada, is it true that when Mormons first arrived (1887) they weren't allowed to settle within 50km of Lethbridge?

It seems to be somewhat true that there was some hostility to the arrival of Mormons to the city of Lethbridge, Alberta!

Lethbridge became a town on November 29, 1890 and a city on May 6,1906.

  "The first permanent LDS residents of Lethbridge were encouraged to settle there by A. C. Magrath, the first mayor of the city." - Land of the Second Chance, page 146.

This however was not always the case.

  "Mormons who grew up in Lethbridge, at that time remember that there was some hostility towards them. At one time there was an effort by a women's group to keep Mormons from buying land within ten miles of the city. But this attempt was not successful, and relations began to improve as the townspeople came to know the Mormons." - Land of the Second Chance, page 147.


Where does the belief the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit come from?

Great question!
The short answer is that Paul made a general statement to this effect:

All Scripture is inspired by God -2 Timothy 3:16

The phrase "inspired by God" is literally translated as "God-breathed".  So the Bible is not merely a collection of wise men's writings, but is actually authored by God, through men, by the Spirit.
Now, on to more specific examples.
Prophecy

no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. -2 Peter 1:20-21

Clearly prophecy is the work of the Holy Spirit.  (Also see Jeremiah 1:1-9, 2 Samuel 23:2, Acts 3:18, and Hebrews 10:15-17.)
However, many people teach that "not all Scripture is prophecy", and they use the division of "Law, Psalms, and Prophets" to signify the three chunks of the Old Testament.
Psalms

“Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David..." -Acts 1:16
“For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his homestead be made desolate, and let no one dwell in it’; and, ‘Let another man take his office.’ -Acts 1:20

The two passages being quoted in verse 20 are Psalms 69:25 and Psalms 109:8.  Although these were "Psalms", clearly they were prophetic utterances by the Holy Spirit, which "had to be fulfilled."
The Psalms were the work of the Holy Spirit, and could also be considered "prophecy."  (See also Matthew 22:41-44.)
Law
We all know that the 10 Commandments were written by the very finger of God, but what about the rest of the Law?
Acts 3:22 and Acts 7:37 show that Moses, the writer of the Law, was also a Prophet!
We have a nice exposition of some "Law" stuff in Hebrews which shows clearly that the things written in the Law also carried the intent of the Holy Spirit:

Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle performing the divine worship, but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance. The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. -Hebrews 9:6-10

Gospels
All of Jesus words and His actions were authored by God, and Spirit-led.  But what about the records of them?

“These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.  -John 14:25-26

So yes, the Gospels are also Spirit-written.
Epistles
2 Peter 3:14-16 shows that the epistles are also part of Scripture.
Clearly given the event of Acts 2, explanations of the Spirit's ministry through us (1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12, Ephesians 4, etc.), and constant claims such as the following, it can be safely assumed that the New Testament Scriptures were also Spirit-written.

If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. -1 Corinthians 14:37

Summary
All Scripture is authored by God via the Holy Spirit.  A case can also be made that all Scripture is prophecy, which makes it even more clear that the Spirit was the instrument of God for authoring Scripture.  Beyond the generic statements, we have a number of specific examples which support this doctrine.


Did Jesus help drunk people in Cana to be even more drunk?

The story of turning real water into real wine (most scholars would argue that the wine was real) presumes the moderation of the wedding guests.

There is no more reason to think that the guests were drunk then there is reason to think that Jesus fed 5000 gluttons a huge amount of fish and bread.  On one hand the story clearly suggests that the guests at a respectable Jewish wedding were a little 'tipsy' (the Greek word can be a little tipsy, as it just means affected by the alcohol). If they were drunk they would not be able to judge the quality of wine being served afterwards, which was comparatively good. This is why wine tasters spit out the wine.

To balance the moderate influence of the wine at the wedding we should take note that the alcohol content of wine at the time of Christ is not like today. Wine today is much stronger then it used to be. Also wine was commonly mixed with water. This was even the practice of the paschal supper back then, mixing the red wine with warm water that is.

Possibly this fact of mixing wine with water will make it clearer that moderation is assumed in the story which makes most questions about it less relevant.

  Ample evidence is available to demonstrate that wine, though always fermented, was usually mixed with water in the classical and Hellenistic world. The wine was stored in large jugs called amphorae, from which the wine was poured through a strainer into a large mixing bowl call a krater. In the krater the wine was mixed with water. Then the drinking bowls or cups were filled.
  The amount of wine per volume varied. The mixture that represented the greatest amount of water to wine was 20 to 1, apparently because the wine was so strong (Homer, Odyssey 10. 208f).  Baker Encyclopedia
  of the Bible, p2147)


What kinds of Mormon missionaries are there?

I am currently an LDS missionary so lets see if I can answer your question.

Elders: Two young men typically from age 18 to 25. Some rare cases are older. They travel from door to door, and teach those who are willing to listen.
Sisters: Two young women from age 19 to 25 who also go door to door and teach.
Service missionaries: Usually people who aren't capable of serving as elders for a variety of reasons. They are given specific jobs to help out where they can with the temples and humanitarian services.
Senior couples: A man and a wife whose children are all moved out from home. They don't go door to door, but teach those who are willing to listen who are found by other means. Usually online requests, or requests by members to teach their friends.
Senior sisters: Single sisters that don't have a husband to be companions with. They serve together and do the same things as senior couples.
Internet missionaries: People who cannot typically serve full time missions for various reasons, so they work online. Usually on LDS.org where people can request to talk with missionaries online. Recently missionaries have begun working on facebook as well, and that is becoming part of regular missionary service as well.

I hope that answers your question. If I find any more types of missionaries I will add them on.


Where in the bible is Jesus referred to as Jesus bin Miriam?

(Mark 6:1-6)

1 He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” 5 And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6 And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching.

Edit: The phrase could be just spoken in Hebrew translation in the video; we shouldn't expect that the speaker believed that Mark was written in Aramaic or Hebrew. Some commentaries does mention that it is indeed pejorative to call someone like that. I don't know about any such aramaic original MSS discovered of Mark. You should search on http://www.csntm.org/ for such MSS evidence. Orthodox Jewish Bible which is a weird translation that adds so much Jewish and yiddish terms making it half english translation mentions that phrase; it is an unpopular bible version  --

  Mark 6:3 Is not this one the Naggar (Carpenter), Ben Miryam? The
  brother of Yaakov*, Yosef, Yehuda and Shimon? And, are not his achayot
  here with us? And they were taking offense at Rebbe, Melech
  HaMoshiach.


It's important to maintain an eternal perspective.  Enjoy your career, sure, but keep in mind that your career is over once you're dead, but eternity lasts forever.  As long as you keep your priorities straight and you're willing to give up your career if God's plan calls for you to do something different, you'll probably be all right.

Remember to keep Luke 18: 29-30 in mind:

  29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that
  hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for
  the kingdom of God's sake,

  30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in
  the world to come life everlasting.


Essenes' Beliefs in Comparison to Christianity

Unlike the other ancient Jewish sects, some think the Essenes were celibate (unmarried), that Jesus Himself may have been associated with them, and that the early Christians were defected Essenes. See p. 18 fn 5 of Dyan 1993 for references.


What is the significance of Bethlehem as the place of Jesus birth?

It is prophesied by Micah 5:2.

Perhaps you're wondering why Micah would prophesy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem in the first place.

Well, "Bethlehem" is from the Hebrew בית לחם (beit-lechem), which literally means "house of bread." The Messiah is the "bread of life" (John 6:35). I say, what better city for him to be born?

  And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst."


Are there any Trinitarian Protestant denominations that deny the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father?

The Churches of Christ appear to not espouse the doctrine of eternal Sonship;
however neither do the deny Christ's eternity or His divinity.

See "Eternal Sonship" on this Church of Christ's web page, and their about page identifying them as Church of Christ.

See "Jesus the Son of God Eternally?" Bullet "2. The Denial of Eternal Sonship" in a magazine published by Church of Christ, and their about page identifying them as Church of Christ

Adam Clark, a Methodist theologian, not representing the beliefs of His denomination, did not espouse the doctrine of eternal Sonship.

John MacArthur for a long time did not espouse the doctrine of eternal Sonship, but recanted his stance.

I found some others listed who do not espouse the doctrine of eternal Sonship.


What is the difference in doctrine between the Pentecostal church and the Assemblies of God church?

There isn't a difference, in the way you have phrased your question.

Rather, the difference is that Pentecostalism includes many denominations, one of which is the Assemblies of God church.

You can read more about Pentecostalism on Wikipedia, as well as Assemblies of God.  Of particular note, the second article says (emphasis added):

  The Assemblies of God (AG), is a group of over 140 autonomous but loosely associated national groupings of churches which together form the world's largest Pentecostal denomination.


Why don't Protestants engage in monasticism?

Luther and Calvin
Protestant negativity toward monasticism can be traced back to the Reformers, particularly Martin Luther.  Luther was himself a monk, and after his conversion, he became progressively more opposed to the practice.  In 1537, he wrote that monastic vows "must be absolutely abolished."  He also frequently and enthusiastically attacked monasticism in his writings and sermons.
Other reformers, like John Calvin, followed him.  Calvin devotes a large portion of Book 4, Chapter 13 of his Institutes to the question.  He speaks somewhat favorably of Augustine's depictions of early monasticism, but he widely criticizes the 16th-century version, saying that "no order of men is more polluted by all sorts of foul vices" (4.13.15) and using words like "abominable" and "pestilential" to describe monasticism and its errors (4.13.12).
Doctrinal Criticisms
A concise criticism of monasticism can be found in the Augsburg Confession, the primary confession of the Lutherans.  Article 27, On Monastic Vows, admits that the monasteries were once "profitable to the church," but lists a number of evils that had been introduced by Luther's time, such as:

Propensity toward ensnaring the weak and ignorant (5-8)
Elevation of the monastic vows to being meritorious in themselves (11)
Elevation of monasticism above other vocations (13)
Rejection of the command to marry (18-21)
Holding people to vows perpetually, without recourse, especially those entered into too early (27-33)

Thus, the confession concludes:

So many wicked opinions are inherent in the vows, namely, that they justify, that they constitute Christian perfection, that they keep the counsels and commandments, that they have works of supererogation. All these things, since they are false and empty, make vows null and void.

Calvin and Luther's objections to the practice follow along these same lines, and also include denunciations of the "idleness" of monastics (Calvin, 4.13.10).  Given these objections, and the enthusiastic criticism of the practice by these and other early Protestant leaders, it's not surprising that monasticism has not generally existed among Protestants.
Early Reaction
An example of early Protestant reaction against suspected monasticism can be found in a 1641 Puritan pamphlet entitled The Arminian Nunnery, written in relation to a small religious community called Little Gidding. The author's initial concerns include women "watching and praying all night," their "canonical hours," and the decorations of their chapel, all of which "strongly savour of Superstition and Popery."
These concerns were not assuaged by the fact that two of the women, thirty and thirty-two years of age, were virgins who had given themselves to fasting and prayer.  The author attacks this as "a contemplative idle life" that insinuates that other callings are not service to God.  He admits the point that the women "had made no Vows," but finds many vestiges of Catholicism worthy of criticism.
The Arminian Nunnery thus mirrors several of the criticisms mentioned above, particularly those of rejection of marriage, the elevation of monasticism above other professions, the concern over vows, and the idleness of monastics.
Modern Day
Some modern Protestant "monastic" communities exist, among Anglicans and more generally within Protestantism.  Notably, other than in the most conservative Anglican orders,  even these tend to avoid at least some of the issues raised in Augsburg, by relaxing or not requiring vows of celibacy, poverty, or obedience.