When was the acronym ACTS first used to refer to components of prayer?

1883.  The earliest printed example I have found specifically referring to the acronym ACTS is from a serial story by "Marion Harland" (Mary Virginia Terhune) that was printed in an August 8, 1883 publication of the periodical The Continent:

  Our Mr. Burgess once informed a youthful theologue in my hearing that "the monosyllable 'ACTS' formed an excellent epitomical guide in the composition of the principal prayer offered in public worship.  This should begin with Adoration, proceed to Confession, rise into Thanksgiving and close with Supplication."

Mr. Burgess here is the name of the pastor in the story, and apparently not a historical figure.  However, the author's husband was a Presbyterian minister, Edward Payson Terhune, so if the acronym was not original to her, it's possible that she picked it up from him.

Earlier authors referred to the same four elements in the same sequence, but did not mention an acronym.  For example, the Principles of Christian Philosophy (1836) includes:

  Generally speaking, prayer may be arranged under the heads of adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and supplication.

These four components, however, were recognized long before this, but not always in the same order, and sometimes tantalizingly close to an unrelated use of the word "acts."  For example, The Evangelical Magazine, in 1807, printed:

  Many ministers whom I have attended, have seemed forgetful of the nature and design of social worship, so as to fail of introducing those acts of adoration, confession, supplication, and thanksgiving, which constitute the principal parts of prayer.

The online dictionary of Christianese provides some other early examples, but nothing as early as the ones I've provided here.  Still, I wouldn't be surprised if an example earlier than 1883 is out there somewhere.


In what sense is the bible is "clear"/perspicuous?

This is probably a "no win" situation attempting to answer such a question and this will, in no way, be considered a comprehensive answer for such a simple question that has been so complicated by so many people with so many varying agendas.
Many years ago, one of my Bible professors stated that the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible.  In the nearly 40 years past since then, I have found this to be, "a faithful saying".
That being said, I would like to address this question initially with what God has to say about it:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Rom. 1:18-20)

Now this passage is referring to 'natural revelation' and not particularly to Scripture but can certainly be construed as establishing a pattern.  If His eternal power and divine nature which can be "clearly seen" through  His creation, is it such a leap to consider that it is equally clear through His word, His divine revelation? The questioner is questioning the how "clear" the Bible actually is.  Peter asserts, " We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it..." (2 Peter 1:19).  He also asserts, " Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20).

Let's take a moment to consider the "Romans Road to Salvation" (the first part of which has already been noted), as an example, to gauge a level of clarity:

"For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23), "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 6:23), "But God demonstrates His love toward us, in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom. 5:8) and "That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom. 10:9,10).

Now one may dispute this, but these verses are pretty clear in their message.  There are certainly passages which are somewhat more ambiguous.  Here is one that has puzzled me for many years, "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." (Gen. 6:4).  In this case the ambiguity is not so much in the text but in the questions it raises.

Now, in light of my initial statement, consider this:  " For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen."

Based on this information and years of experience, I feel comfortable making the following statements as to the clarity of the Bible.

The message of the Bible is clear.
Many verses in the Bible are not so clear.
God Himself has stated that there are those who purposely exchange "the truth about God for a lie...)
When someone says, "The Bible is clear on this topic.", the legitimacy of that statement would depend greatly on the topic.
Though the Bible is clear in its message, the continual efforts of those who would 'put a lie in its place' or interpret it to their own benefit have confused many.
I would not want to be one of the culprits referred to in verse 5.


Christianity holds that Jesus is unique in being the incarnation of God; there is no other occasion on which God himself became fully human, lived, died, and rose again in order to save us. (This is not to deny that there have been other occasions before and since when God has revealed himself to humans in some way.) This is clear from the New Testament witness, which uniformly presents Jesus as the one, not one of many. It is also consistent with the historical understanding of the church, as expressed in the great creeds and the surviving writings of significant early figures.
Let's suppose, however, regarding the problem of "what about those who have never heard of Jesus", that there are several historical figures who are as good as Jesus. But then we still have a problem: what about the people who've never heard of Jesus or Buddha or Lao Tzu? In order to achieve total coverage, we would have to posit a large number of divine manifestations, in every time period and every geographic area. The observed spatiotemporal distribution of Great Moral Teachers doesn't seem to match the theory. And even so, we have to answer "what about very young children?", "what about people with severe mental disabilities?", and so on.
The larger problem is clarity about just what these multiple instantiations of God are for - what are they there to do? The selection of Buddha and Lao Tzu as candidates suggests that some kind of moral instruction is the answer. However, Christian ideas about salvation are linked to the person and work of Jesus - not only his teaching, but his life, death, and resurrection. These events do not need to be repeated:

"For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year after year with blood that is not his own; for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Hebrews 9:24-26, NRSV)
"We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God." (Romans 6:9-10, NRSV)
"Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God." (1 Peter 3:18, NRSV)

Moral behaviour is part of the story, but it is not the whole story. It is certainly not sufficient, on its own, to reconcile us to God and one another. It is God who redeems us.
Many people have had the idea that even though nobody comes to God except through Jesus, this may happen even when those people do not know about Jesus. Some related answers from this site:

What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus?
What happens to non-believers or believers of other religions after death?
Can an atheist go to heaven?
Is an intellectual comprehension of the gospel by the earthly mind required for salvation?
What does the Roman Catholic church teach about those who die having never heard of Christ?


Has the Catholic church ever voiced its view on the possibility of aliens' existence?

The Roman Catholic Church has made no claims about the existence—or lack thereof—of extraterrestrial lifeforms, preferring instead to let astrobiologists and other members of the scientific community make that determination.
However, a number of Vatican astronomers over the years have theorized about the existence of such beings. Most notable among them is Father Jose Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory, who spoke to the L'Osservatore Romano (the Vatican newspaper of record) in 2008:

Father Funes said it was difficult to exclude the possibility that other intelligent life exists in the universe, and he noted that one field of astronomy is now actively seeking "biomarkers" in spectrum analysis of other stars and planets.

He even speculated that extraterrestrials might not bear the mark of original sin:

Asked about implications that the discovery of alien life might pose for Christian redemption, Father Funes cited the Gospel parable of the shepherd who left his flock of 99 sheep in order to search for the one that was lost.
"We who belong to the human race could really be that lost sheep, the sinners who need a pastor," he said.
"God became man in Jesus in order to save us. So if there are also other intelligent beings, it's not a given that they need redemption. They might have remained in full friendship with their creator," he said.

In 2009, when the Church hosted a conference to discuss astrobiology, Funes spoke out again:

"The questions of life's origins and of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe are very suitable and deserve serious consideration," said the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, an astronomer and director of the Vatican Observatory.

Another Vatican scientist at the same conference, Brother Guy Consolmagno, speculated even further:

He said he was "comfortable" with the idea of alien life and asked if he would baptise an alien, he replied, "Only if they asked."
"I'd be delighted if we found life elsewhere and delighted if we found intelligent life elsewhere," he said.
"But the odds of us finding it, of it being intelligent and us being able to communicate with it - when you add them up it's probably not a practical question.
"God is bigger than just humanity. God is also the god of angels."
He said the characteristics synonymous with having a soul - intelligence, free will, freedom to love and freedom to make decisions - may not be unique to humans.
"Any entity – no matter how many tentacles it has – has a soul," he said.
However machines were unlikely to be smart or human enough to have souls.

As they are under the employ of the Church, it's likely what they have said is at least nihil obstat, but definitely not dogmata.


Why do Mormons/LDS refer to God as "Heavenly Father" rather than "Our Heavenly Father"?

It's not significant. It could have to do with anything from how they're raised, to how they prefer to speak, to language and dialect, to setting, or to anything else. Mormons will say both "Our Heavenly Father" and "Heavenly Father" interchangeably.


Why did Mary need to remain a virgin during pregnancy according to those who deny the perpetual virginity doctrine?

Ever-virgin dogma is the belief that Mary was a virgin during pregnancy, during birth, and after Christ's birth in her marriage to Joseph.

Whether one submits to this Papal dogma or is someone who believes that Christ was born normally or Mary/Joseph had sex and children sometime after His birth, they both, indeed all Christians, believe the prophecy that the virgin would conceive and bear a son.

  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.  Isaiah 7:14

The virgin will CONCEIVE (get pregnant) and the virgin will BEAR (bring forth, travail, deliver).  Two-pronged prophecy:  Conceive and give birth as a virgin.

IOW, even the same question posed for a Catholic answer was given Isaiah 7:14.

So again, the reason why Mary had to remain a virgin during her pregnancy was to fulfill scripture.

PS. This answer really has nothing to do with what came later that the Catholic dogma denies: that is, whether Mary/Joseph consummated their marriage or not (they did), whether Mary took a vow of chastity or not (she didn't), or even whether Jesus was born normally in the normal (human) way (He was).  So, try not to derail the same answer that a Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant would give.


Modern revelation. Is there Biblical evidence against it?

As I mentioned elsewhere, the concept of a closed canon of scripture, which goes hand-in-hand with the notion that "we already have all the revelation we need and therefore God will not have to send any new prophets to teach us" has always historically been connected with apostate groups.  It seems a bit inconsistent to think that something that has always been completely wrong with regards to the nature of God and the way He interacts with us would now be right, especially with as many times as we're told that God does not change.  (Psalms 102:27, Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8, for example.)

Also, not all revelation is what we typically think of as "prophecy," a prediction of events in the distant future. It was quite common for prophets to talk about current affairs with divine guidance, such as helping out kings in warfare, or even Jesus telling Peter where to go fishing that he could find an unexpected yield in various different cases.

Even if the great, sweeping events of the future have already been predicted and recorded, without revelation to guide us in current events we're at a severe disadvantage.  God's revelations to earlier patriarchs did not teach Noah to build the ark, nor did His words to Noah teach Moses how to lead Israel out of captivity and through the wilderness, and so on.

So no, I'm not aware of any scriptural evidence for the end of revelations and prophetic guidance, at least not before the end of the world, and we have a pretty clear pattern that contradicts the notion as well.


Does "no part of this world" mean no involvement in politics?

Christians throughout history have differing interpretations of how the faithful should approach civil governments. I would point you toward a seminal work addressing this topic called Christ and Culture by H. R. Niebuhr.

One position (Christ against culture), advocated by those like Mennonites, argues for total withdraw from the political sphere. Another position (Christ of Culture) sees politics as interwoven in salvation history and essential for Christian life.

Niebuhr goes on to list three other interpretations. Each, I would argue, are biblically viable and have strong places in the history of doctrine.

So, this is certainly an important question. And Christians of all traditions will answer it very differently. It is also a Biblical question. And Christians of all traditions will interpret the Bible differently as well.

As you study and make up your mind, please remember this is far from a clear-cut issue. Some of the answers already posted strike me as approaching an unhealthy, black-and-white dogmatism.


Did CS Lewis see 'pleasure' as being the purpose of our existence?

tl;dr> NO! For Lewis, Pleasure is temporary, Joy reminds us of what is to come
First and foremost, I should admit that if the canon ever gets re-opened, The Great Divorce is my vote for book #67.  :)
That said, C.S. Lewis has a very definite idea in mind when he says "Infinite Joy".  In The Weight of Glory he writes:

“It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.

Contrast this with mere "pleasure" when Lewis writes in Chapter 9:

"Then is no one lost through the undignified vices, Sir? Through mere sensuality?"
"Some are, no doubt. The sensualist, I'll allow ye, begins by pursuing a real pleasure, though a small one. His sin is the less. But the time comes on when, though the pleasure becomes less and less and the craving fiercer and fiercer, and though he knows that joy can never come that way, yet he prefers to joy the mere fondling of unappeasable lust and would not have it taken from him. He'd fight to the death to keep it. He'd like well to be able to scratch: but even when he can scratch no more he'd rather itch than not."

Joy is the end - the purpose - of what God designed us to be.  He sees joy as an "echo of heaven" which "works its way backwards into our memories."  In other words, it is a reminder of the things that are to come.
As he says in The Weight of Glory (again):

The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing. These things—the beauty, the memory of our own past—are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshippers. For they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune we have not heard, news from a country we have never yet visited.

This idea - that joy is an echo of heaven is more thoroughly developed here, and is often referred to as Sehnsucht.


What does Liberate 2014/Tullian mean by 'One Way Love'?

From the introduction to Tullian's book:

The unintended consequence of this push [for a more radical expression of Christianity], however, is that if we're not careful, we
can give people the impression that Christianity is first and foremost
about the sacrifice we make for Jesus rather than the sacrifice Jesus
made for us; our performance for him rather than his performance for
us; our obedience for him rather than his obedience for us. The hub of
Christianity is not "do something for Jesus." The hub of
Christianity is "Jesus has done everything for you."
...
Our relationships, our careers, our institutions also run on the
principle of "I'll do X for you, if you do Y for me." Everything in
our world demands two-way love. Everything's conditional. If you love
me, only then will I love you. If you give to me, only then will I
serve you. This conditionality plagues us at every turn and keeps us
enslaved to fear, reservation, and insecurity.

Thus, "one-way love" means unconditional love. Love that doesn't demand reciprocity. Their aim is to show the unconditionality of God's grace.
In the video at your link, Elyse Fitzpatrick says:

You don't have to worry anymore about whether or not you're loved. You're loved, so you can love now because you've been loved.

This could almost itself be a paraphrase of 1 John 4:19. The idea, however, as Caleb said in the comments, is that "the instigator in the equation was God and his love and we only reciprocate because he initiated."
Here are some more comments from Tullian Tchividjian about 1 John 4:19:

The law can inform us of our sin but it cannot transform the sinner. It can show us what love for God and others looks like, but only love can produce love for God and others (1 John 4:19).

I can only truly love others when I've first been overwhelmed by a satisfying Love from outside myself [1 John 4:19].

God's love for us does not depend on our love for God. Our love for God depends on God's love for us. (See 1 John 4:19)


Is there any reference to Abraham building a house of worship? Where is Bakkah?

There is no reference to Abraham building a house of worship in the book of Genesis.

The only things that it is recorded that Abraham built were four altars to YHWH. He built two different altars in chapter 12, one in chapter 13, and another in chapter 22.

There is no record of Abraham ever building a dwelling (he is believed to have lived in tents), or a house of worship for God. The first record of God recieving a physical location in which he was to be worshiped was the Tabernacle in Exodus, and he did not have a building until the Temple was built during the time of Solomon.

Islam believes that Bakkah was the place where God provided water for Hagar and Ishmael, recorded in chapter 21 of Genesis. However, this is not a significant location for most Christians (that I am aware of), and Ishmael is not a significant figure in Christianity.


How is the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary celebrated within the domestic church, that is, within the Catholic family?

Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have many traditions and customs surrounding the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, body and soul into heaven. The domestic church, that is to say the family, like the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph practices its Christian faith in such ways as to continuously deepen their belief in their holy religion. As a family there are many traditions at their disposal, if they so desire to follow them. Obviously the recitation of the rosary as a family would be a wholesome start. Years ago, we would pray the rosary along with the Pope John Paul II via a cassette tape. Then there would be the saying of a novena in preparation of this feast.

The Catholic Church has always professed her belief that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven by a unique privilege from God. In 1950, Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary into heaven, without touching the question as to whether Mary actually died or not. This ecclesiastical event, provoked a new Mass to be written up in the Roman Rite (Signum Magmum) for the feast. In the Ambroisan Rite of Milan the traditional liturgical color of black for this feast was changed to white (or gold).

Today there are over 30 countries in which hold this feast (August 15) as a public holiday. Mother's day is observed on this day in Costa Rica and Belgium. The Armenian Church blesses grapes on this feast. In the Roman Ritual, there is a blessing for fruits and herbs which is reserved explicitly for the Feast of the Assumption. In many localities of Europe, families bring fruit to their local parishes to be blessed by the pastor. Others celebrate this day by joining into various procession held in Mary's honor.

In Austria and France priests still preform the "Blessing of the Alps", Not only are the mountains blessed, but also meadows and farms. In some places, the "Blessing of the Sea" is done today, such as in some ports in Italy and Portugal. Finally, there are several traditional food stuffs that are served in families on this day around the world. See Wikipedia's article on the Assumption of Mary.

As I have already mentioned above, Pope Pius XII introduced a new Mass of the Assumption when it was proclaimed a doctrine of the Catholic Church. The domestic church as a family listen to the Propers of the Mass Signum Magnum on YouTube on the glorious Feast of Mary's Assumption: Assumption 15th August (Fontgombault Abbey)

  Armenians, the faithful bring the first grapes from their vineyards to church on Assumption Day to have them solemnly blessed by the priest. Before breakfast the father distributes them to his family. No one would dream of tasting the new harvest before consuming the first blessed grapes on Our Lady's Day.

  In Sicily people keep a partial or total abstinence from fruit during the first two weeks of August (La Quindicina) in honor of the Blessed Virgin. On the feast day itself they have all kinds of fruit blessed in church and serve them at dinner. They also present each other with baskets of fruit on Assumption Day.

  From early centuries the Feast of the Assumption was a day of great religious processions. This popular custom seems to have started with the ancient Roman practice, which Pope Sergius I (701) inaugurated, of having liturgical prayer-processions (litaniae) on the major feasts of Mary. In many places of central Europe, also in Spain, France, Italy, and South America, such processions are held. In Austria the faithful, led by the priest, walk through the fields and meadows imploring God's blessing upon the harvest with prayer and hymns. - Catholic Activity: Assumption Day


What proportion of Christians worldwide identify as Christian for social/cultural reasons rather than religious conviction?

It would be difficult to come up with a specific percentage.

Those who call themselves Christian for financial or social advantage usually do so when Christianity is an ascendency. Like when Christianity was made official in the Roman empire in the fourth century and in America during the 19th and 20th centuries. In Europe during the middle ages you may have seen some pretend Christians not necessarily for advantage but survival because there would be penalties for trying to live as a non-Christian.

There have always been Christians (or any other religion) that are of that religion for what might be called familial inertial reasons. Legacy or heritage members of a religion would be hard to distinguish until that religion became persecuted and they took advantage of the opportunity to leave the religion.

The reaction of Christians to a world hostile to them was described by Jesus;

  Luke 9:26  For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of
  him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own
  glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.

Whatever the percentage is today it would be shrinking because it is starting to become a disadvantage to be a Christian.


In the Catholic Church, what makes something illicit vs. invalid?

The illicitness and the validity of Sacraments are canonical terms used to describe the effectiveness of the sacrament.

Illicit means, roughly, “illegal”.  In the case of a Sacrament, it means performed in a way that is not permitted by the rules or laws of the Church. (But the sacrament did happen). The term Illicit can also be used to refer to actions not done in accordance with the established norms.

Invalid means the Sacrament didn’t happen at all. There is some defect in matter, form or intention. Question of validity occurs only for a Sacrament.

In the example you have pointed out, in giving a homily, there is no question of validity as there is no Sacrament. But it is illicit because it is against the established norms of the Church.

Examples:

Licit and valid: Mass performed by a priest in Good standing with the diocese.

Illicit but valid: Mass performed by an excommunicated priest Or priestly ordination of men without papal approval.

Invalid: Mass performed without proper form, matter or intention. Or an attempt at priestly ordination of women. Please note that all invalid sacraments are Illicit.

More generic example: If you steal money from a bank the money is illicit. If you print your own money the money is invalid.

In a different perspective, in an invalid sacrament Jesus is not present. But in a illicit (but valid) sacrament Jesus is present, but he is not happy about that.


Is it necessary to be a Christian to be saved?

Acts 4:12

  Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

Likewise:
John 14:6

  Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Biblically speaking there is no other way for salvation to occur. Even Jesus asked the Father in Mark 14:36 , if there was any way that he would not have to suffer, to please take that path. There was no other way, and so "For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him, shall not parish but have everlasting life. For God sent not His son into the world to condemn the world. But that the World may be saved through Him."


Was there a period in the history when all who believed in Christ allowed infant baptism?

Believer's baptism (aka. credo-baptism) was revived by the Anabaptists on January 21, 1525, when Conrad Grebel baptized George Blaurock. These Anabaptists believed that only believer's baptism was legitimate and effective. There is no agreement on when believer's baptism ceased to be practiced in early Christianity. It continued to be widespread through at least the 4th century. Between early Christianity and the Anabaptists, virtually all Christians practiced infant baptism.

There have been efforts by Baptist and Anabaptist historians to draw connections between Anabaptists and earlier pre-Reformation groups. These connections are generally based on sociological and spiritual similarities, not direct influence or succession. One form of this historiography is Baptist successionism, which claims an unbroken chain of groups who were adhered to Anabaptist-like faith and practice in the face of an evil/wayward dominant Catholic majority. This narrative has been spread especially by the influential Anabaptist Martyrs Mirror (1660) and the Plymouth Brethren The Pilgrim Church (1931). Many such works are historically dubious and are prone to the confirmation bias of finding what they are looking for.

It is difficult to prove the negative claim that no one practiced adult baptism in a given era. However, if you want to find an era without believer's baptism, I'd read one of those and look for the time when they have the weakest case in demonstrating their claimed predecessors practiced believer's baptism.

As a side note, I would presume that practitioners of infant baptism in most eras baptized adult converts.


Reasoning can take you a long way.  Just look at this community.  Being a part of the StackExchange network, a good percentage of the members (including myself) come from a highly technical, scientific background, and would likely revolt at the thought of rationality being incompatible with Christian faith.

The problem is that reasoning is only a process.  It's a tool, and like any useful tool, it's susceptible to the golden hammer fallacy, particularly when one fails to realize that the reasoning process does not (and provably can not) provide any foundation to start reasoning from.

Reasoning is the process of taking information and drawing useful conclusions from it through the application of rational rules.  As such, it can only ever be as good as the information you start with.  For an illustrative demonstration of the significance of this fact, take a look at late medieval science sometime.  Stuff like phlogiston theory (an explanation of how fire works in the absence of atomic theory and an understanding of oxygen) or retrograde motion (an explanation for peculiarities observed in the orbits of our neighbors in the solar system, based on a geocentric model instead of a heliocentric one.)

The people who studied this stuff did a lot of very interesting experiments, which were valid according to the scientific method, to try to figure out how things really work.  But because they began with incorrect assumptions, they reached bad conclusions.  Reasoning was useless in these cases; what was needed was better data.  (And indeed, when better data became available, scientists were able to reason out more accurate theories pretty quickly, and the old ones became obsolete.)

This is where faith comes in.  God has given us everything we need to have a reason to believe that he exists, but he stops short of providing absolute and universal proof because that would interfere with the development of our faith, and salvation comes only through faith. (The reason why it's only through faith that we can be saved is a matter for another question, and not everyone agrees on the details, but the fact that it's necessary is nearly universally accepted as Christian doctrine AFAIK.)  So your parents and friends are right, to a point.  You can't find God through reason alone.  But when you have achieved a foundation of faith, it's certainly possible to use reason to strengthen your faith, or to figure out how to deal with problems in our lives when no obvious, explicit solution is given in the scriptures.

God has revealed his existence, his plan for us, and the rules that we need to live by in order to find happiness in this life and salvation after this life, through his prophets and apostles.  This information has been recorded in the scriptures, to preserve it for later generations, like us.  If we can exercise our faith enough to accept this, it gives us a solid foundation to start reasoning from when it comes to many important aspects of our lives.  For example, we're told that Paul made a habit of using the scriptures which the Jews had already accepted to reason with them and help them find faith in Christ, (Acts 17: 1-3, see also Acts 18,) and that the resurrected Lord did the same with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. (Luke 24: 13-25)

So no, there's nothing wrong with using reason to increase your faith.  But it cannot establish your faith, and it should not be the only thing you allow to guide you.  There are times when we reach the limits of what we know, and reason becomes useless.  In those cases, it's necessary to simply let God's word serve as a lamp unto our feet, lighting
our path one step at a time, and walk by faith, not by sight.  Having both principles available to you will make you stronger than having to rely on only one or the other, particularly if you can learn when the appropriate time to apply each of them is.


Are there example writings of general refutation from Jesus' time?

I have never heard of any contemporary account that directly refutes the gospel story, and it is unlikely that a refutation of the gospels was ever written. Although we can never know, it is unlikely that the pagans were at all concerned, or threatened, by the emergence of what they still regarded as a new strand of Judaism. The Jews were, at that very time, preoccupied with the events of the First Roman-Jewish War and its aftermath, including the loss of the temple, the inability to sacrifice to God, the disbandment of the priesthood, and the future direction of the faith.

Philo of Alexandria, who was an early contemporary of Jesus, wrote about all the Jewish sects and movements that he knew of, but never mentions Jesus. That does not mean the gospels are not historical, just that news of Jesus never reached Philo in Egypt.

Josephus wrote about Jewish history late in the first century, but he seems either unaware of or uninterested in the gospel story. His brief mention of Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum is clearly second hand and appears to have been heavily redacted by later Christians.

Of course, even if a meaningful refutation had ever been written, we could expect it to have been destroyed along with the pagan and gnostic documents that were burnt during the Christian rampages of the fourth and fifth centuries. Even gnostic Christian books were not spared, with the Nag Hammadi library, sealed and buried in the Egyptian desert to avoid the destruction of these sacred book, as silent testimony to the thoroughness of the sanctioned destruction of literature that did not meet official approval in the fifth century.

Barbara Geller says in 'Epilogue', published in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, page 427, that by the end of the fourth century, both anti-pagan and anti-Jewish legislation would serve as licences for the increasing number of acts of vandalism and violent destruction directed against pagan and Jewish places of worship carried out by Christian mobs, often at the instigation of the local clergy.  Helen Ellerbe says in The Dark Side of Christian History, page 46, the Church burnt enormous amounts of literature.  She says Christians burnt down the library of Alexandria in 391, with its 700,000 rolls - although the number of scrolls may already have been substantially reduced by early fires dating back to the time of Julius Caesar. The destruction of books was random, with books on science, mathematics and engineering joining those on philosophy and religion. On page 44, Ellerbe says that in some cases the Christian church's burning of books and repression of intellectual pursuit set humanity back as much as two millennia in its scientific understanding.


Do most Advent Christians hold to eternal security?

I know this is late but I will try to answer.  No, there is no predominant belief among Advent Christian Churches as to perseverance of the saints.  This is strange because even though the majority of the pastors attended the same college, taught by the same professors, it never really filtered to the churches they served right out of college.  Now that the college has been gone since 1986, the next generation of church members now under the discipleship of those pastors from their college do believe it, it's probably most likely those congregations do believe it now.

Also, it is probably more predominant in the NE than in the SE of the country.


Where in the Bible does Jesus refute that He is just a prophet?

Many places Bible tells us contrastingly that Jesus is not just a prophet.

Matt. 11:9-11

  What did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: ‘Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’ “I tell you the truth, among those born of women, no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is.

Here we find Jesus giving the highest honour to John the Baptist and that John is more than a prophet. This would mean that Jesus makes Himself smaller than John, which cannot be. Since John was someone who was more than a prophet, it only shows that Jesus was not just a prophet or someone more than that BUT someone much greater than that.

Then again in Matt. 13.17 Jesus says:

Matt. 13:17

  For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Here Jesus shows that He is greater than all the prophets and righteous man, who longed to see His day.

Another place Jesus seeks to know what His disciples' view of Himself and in the process acknowledges that  He is not just a prophet by giving His affirmation to what Peter says.

Matt. 16:13-17

  When Jesus came to the area of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They answered, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”  And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!

As per writings of all the previous prophets, no prophets was prophesised to come from Galilee

John: 7:52

  They replied, “You aren’t from Galilee too, are you? Investigate carefully and you will see that no prophet comes from Galilee!”

In His conversation with Judeans, Jesus declares who He is:

John 8:53-58

  You aren’t greater than our father Abraham who died, are you? And the prophets died too! Who do you claim to be?” Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory is worthless. The one who glorifies me is my Father, about whom you people say, ‘He is our God.’ Yet you do not know him, but I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him, and I obey his teaching. Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.” Then the Judeans replied, “You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”


What is the difference of the 10 commandments from other Biblical laws?

From a Baptistic perspective, there is very little difference between the 10 commandments and the other 603 rules and regulations of the Torah.  Note: I'm specifically not addressing the extent to which the law of Moses still applies, as it is well covered elsewhere

While the 10 commandments are a succinct guide to right behavior, their popularity really only stems from that point.  Taking a step back, most of the other Torahic Law deals with ceremonial functions - and if its choice between remembering "Don't Steal" and whether one needs to present a bull offering or a grain offering, which one would you promote?  Likewise, the priest needs to know what's leprosy and what not, but "Don't commit adultery" has a much wider applicability.

A cursory reading of Leviticus will show that the bulk of the Torah concerns not how a person should act, but rather what kinds of offerings and atonements should be made to resolve things.  Sure, there's the ScapeGoat, Baldness, rules about what does and does not constitute incest - but there's actually far less about personal behavior even in "the Law" than you might expect.

Indeed, when Jesus was asked, what is the most important, he didn't say "the 10 commandments."  Rather,

  Matt 22:34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

  37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

His answer reflects several established Talmudic traditions:

The Schema (Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One) is the primary law.  Everything else stems from it.
The 10 Commandments themselves divide neatly into two categories:

the first 4 (in Protestant numbering) are about how you love God (No other Gods, idols, No Blasphemy, Sabbath)
the other 6 are about how you love others (Don't steal, lie, kill, cheat on your spouse, covet)

What Jesus did was to emphasize the fact that love undergirds all of this.


How do "Sola Fide" adherents reconcile with the three aspects of faith?

The apparent contradiction stems from a misunderstanding of "works," and specifically of what Paul wrote about them.  Two passages in particular tend to cause a lot of confusion:

  Romans 10:9

  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
  believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
  shalt be saved.

  Ephesians 2: 8-9

  8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

  9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Some people have taken this to mean that salvation comes by some simple act of claiming faith and that after this, the person is saved and salvation is not affected by a person's works.  This is a very bad notion, because of what you get when you take it to its logical conclusion: "I have free license to sin because I'm saved and what I do doesn't matter!"

This isn't a hypothetical problem, either.  Here's what Richard Hill, an 18th century Wesleyan theologian, had to say on the subject:

  "God sees no sin in believers whatever sin they commit... adultery, incest and murder shall, upon the whole, make me holier on earth and merrier in heaven."

This notion is in direct contradiction to the words of the Savior, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, where he taught that not only do sinful actions put us in spiritual danger, but also sinful thoughts.  Of particular interest are his words at the conclusion of the sermon:

  Matthew 7: 21-23

  21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

  22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

  23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

In verses 22 and 23, the Savior reaffirms that works of righteousness do not bring salvation if the person's heart is not in the right place and they do not truly know Jesus, but in verse 21, we see what appears to be a direct contradiction of Romans 10: 9.

James 2, which has already been quoted, states that faith without works is dead and cannot bring salvation.  Peter warned his readers about misinterpreting Paul and wresting the scriptures to their own destruction.  And John, in Revelation, makes it clear that in the resurrection we will all be judged according to our works.

So here we have Jesus himself, and also Peter, James and John, the three most trusted of his apostles, all contradicting the simplistic notion of salvation by faith alone and without works.  Faced with this, we must either condemn Paul as a heretic, or seek an alternate interpretation, and I don't particularly think Paul was a heretic.

Let's look at Romans 10: 9 first.  Remember that he was writing to Roman Christians, subject to Roman law, which wasn't all that favorable to Christianity at that point, to put it mildly.  Being willing to confess belief in Christ with your lips was no simple thing the way it is today; it was exposing yourself to persecution and possibly even death simply for the sake of your religion. That's quite a difficult thing to do, even for someone with a lot of faith!

Then we have the passage from Ephesians, where Paul states that salvation comes from faith and the grace of God, and "not of works, lest any man should boast."  Reading the context makes it clear that the works he is talking about are the works of the Law of Moses, through which Jews could find a focus for their faith and obtain salvation before it was fulfilled in Christ.  The explanation in verse 9 can be understood in that context by reading Luke 18:

  Luke 18: 9-14

  9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

  10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

  11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee,
  that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or
  even as this publican.

  12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

  13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as
  his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be
  merciful to me a sinner.

  14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than
  the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he
  that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

There were those in Jewish society then, as there have always been and still are in every civilization, who boasted of their piety and outward good works and thought that what they did made them better than others.  Paul is making it clear that that attitude will score you zero points with the Lord, that even with good works and acts of righteousness, you are still a sinner and nothing you do can undo your past.  Only through God's grace can you find forgiveness for your sins.

So we see that good works do not bring salvation in and of themselves, but also that professions of faith that are not backed up with actual righteous living "is dead, being alone," as James put it.  Fiducia is a principle that bridges the gap, basically equivalent to the Savior's exhortation, "if you love me, keep my commandments," or James's explanation that we show our faith by our works.  A person with true faith will not simply sit around believing that they believe, but will go out and live the Gospel, doing good works out of love for God and love for their fellow men and striving to come always a little bit closer to fulfilling the ultimate commandment, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)


According to the Anglican Church, did the prophets in Old Testament have a concept of life after death?

The thirty-nine articles are an Anglican doctrinal standard.

The Old Testament is dealt with in Article Seven. It specifically  denounces the view that .the old Fathers (i.e. the Old Testament folks) looked only for transitory promises. It asserts  that in both the Old and New Testaments everlasting life is offered to mankind.

  The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.

Anglican doctrine then appears to run counter to your understanding of yesterday's sermon.

However it is very widely understood in Christianity  that God  revealed His plans through the prophets and, since they lived at different times, this happened gradually. Those in earlier times had a lesser picture than those of later times.

So, while it is  true that in some ways the people in  Old Testament times knew more than we do: their knowledge of the Book of Jasher being an example; it is also true that in some ways we know more than they did. Our knowledge of Jesus Christ is an example.

As the start of the Epistle to the Hebrews begins:

  God, who at sundry times and in diverse manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son

Thus, having less knowledge, they arguably needed more faith.


Quote about judging "a man by his post" from the City of God, according to Alain de Botton

The Ox lists honoring a man (as opposed to God) as one of his objections to honoring those in places of dignity , but I don't know what he's talking about in book 10 of City of God maybe someone else can find it.
But here's what Aquinas says about it in the Summa

Objection 1.
It seems that it does not belong to observance to pay worship and honor to persons in positions of dignity. For according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei x), we are said to worship those persons whom we hold in honor, so that worship and honor would seem to be the same. Therefore it is unfitting to define observance as paying worship and honor to persons in positions of dignity.

and then

Reply to Objection 1.
Worship includes not only honor, but also whatever other suitable actions are connected with the relations between man and man.

Persons of dignity, would be those who "have a post". So, somewhere in there Augustine probably said that it's not right to judge a person by their post.

I hope this helps, but if you've actually read all of City of God, you'll probably know more about it than me with my perfunctory google site search of NewAdvent.org for all things Augustine that pop up on this site.


Which groups believe that Jesus is a Created Being?

There are several denominations who believe that Jesus is a created being.  Jehovah’s Witnesses are probably the most vocal in their belief that Jesus, in his pre-mortal existence, was created by Jehovah God as the mighty spirit creature known in heaven as Michael the archangel.  It was the spirit of Michael who entered into the child born to Mary and who became known as Jesus.  [1]
Another group who believe that Jesus is a created being are Latter Day Saints (Mormons).  However, they differ from every other group because they also say the God Elohim, the literal parent of a spirit son called Jehovah (who then had to come to earth to be born as Jesus), was originally a man.  [2]
Way out on a limb is the Unification Church (Moonies) who say Jesus is a finite separate being, the offspring of Zechariah and Mary.  Since this group is considered to be a cult I do not propose to say any more about them, other than to refer to the book below. [3]
Source [1] chapter 8; [2] chapter 10; [3] chapter 17: ‘World Religions and Cults – Counterfeits of Christianity – Volume 1’ edited by Bodie Hodge & Roger Patterson, published 2015.
The clue as to what ‘umbrella’ best covers groups that say Jesus is a created being is ‘Unitarianism’:

Whereas Trinitarianism teaches that God is three in one (triune), Unitarianism teaches that God is simply one (unity). Unitarianism rejects the doctrines of the Trinity and the deity of Christ.  Unitarianism should also be distinguished from Modalism, which is also non-Trinitarian. Modalism teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of existence for the One God. Modalism is found today in the United Pentecostal Church. While both Modalism and Unitarianism are non-Trinitarian, Modalists affirm the deity of Christ. Unitarians teach that Jesus was an inspired man, a great teacher, and an example to follow but certainly not God.
Unitarianism began to flourish in various parts of Europe. Gradually, a number of individual ministers in the Church of England embraced Unitarianism, and, later, Unitarian societies were formed. These beliefs also spread to many Congregational churches in New England in the 18th century. Harvard College, which had been founded for the training of Calvinist ministers, swung to Unitarianism with the election of a Unitarian minister to the Hollis Chair of Divinity in 1805.  https://www.gotquestions.org/unitarianism.html

Unitarianism rejects the deity of Christ and claim he is finite, with a beginning.  They believe that God is One Being and that Jesus is not the eternal Son of God.  Probably the best known is the Unitarian Universalist Church.

Unitarian thought and Universal thought were merged together during the late eighteenth-century in America during the Age of Reason...   To the Unitarian Universalist, Jesus was a good moral teacher, but nothing more. He is not considered to be divine, and every miracle associated with Him is rejected as being outside of human reason.   https://www.gotquestions.org/unitarian-universalism.html

Then there is Biblical Unitarianism:

Biblical Unitarians deny the Trinity, teaching that God is one being (hence the word Unitarian in their name). Jesus, according to Biblical Unitarianism, is not the eternal Son of God; rather, He was created by God in the womb of Mary. Jesus was later exalted by God and given authority over creation, making Him like God, but He remains a finite, separate being with a beginning. ... Organizations that fall under the category of Biblical Unitarianism include the Church of God General Conference (CoGGC) and the Christadelphians. https://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-Unitarianism.html
Regarding the deity of Christ, Christadelphianism teaches that Jesus was more than a man, but less than God. According to A. Hayward, in Great News for the World, p. 41, Jesus was a created being with “strength of character to right some of the most appalling wrongs of his time.” Christadelphians teach that Jesus had a sinful nature and he, too, needed salvation from sin, that he was not pre-existent and did not come into existence until he was born in Bethlehem.  https://www.gotquestions.org/Christadelphianism.html

I’m still searching for other groups that say Jesus is a created being, but I think that’s enough for now!
EDIT: I’m not sure if the Cooneyites, or Two by Two’s, believe Jesus was created prior to coming to earth, but from the research I conducted on this group, they appear to deny the divinity of Jesus:

The Two by Twos are anti-Trinitarian. The Holy Spirit is perceived as an attitude or force from God. Jesus is a fully human figure who came to earth to establish a way of ministry and salvation, but He is not God Himself. The Two by Twos believe that Jesus overcame His own flesh. Great stress is laid upon following the example of Jesus but less emphasis on Jesus as Savior—Jesus’ life is more important than His death.  https://www.gotquestions.org/Two-by-Twos-Cooneyites.html

It is also noteworthy that Muslims deny that Jesus pre-existed before he was born.  However, I took the original intent of this question to refer to Christian denominations.


How is Lutheran apostolic succession conferred?

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America embraces apostolic succession.  This has been true since Called to Common Mission, an agreement of full communion with the Episcopal Church of the USA, took effect a decade ago. When our bishops are installed (only pastors are ordained) a bishop who holds apostolic succession (often an Episcopal bishop) is present.

Agreeing to this was not simple, because North American Lutherans have long rejected it. But the churchwide assembly accepted the argument that full communion was more important than staying divided from the Episcopalians over this.


How do Jehovah Witnesses explain the anger of Caiphas?

Here are the reasons given in a 2006 Watchtower article:

”The Sanhedrin saw Jesus as a threat to the authority of the religious establishment and to public order, for which Pilate held them responsible. Any popular movement that the Romans might interpret as seditious could provoke their intervention in Jewish affairs—something that the Sanhedrin wanted to avoid at all costs.
Although unable to deny that Jesus performed powerful works, Caiaphas did not exercise faith but sought to maintain his prestige and authority. How could he acknowledge the raising of Lazarus? As a Sadducee, Caiaphas did not believe in the resurrection!—Acts 23:8.
One murder, however, was not enough to attain Caiaphas’ evil ends. “The chief priests now took counsel to kill Lazarus also, because on account of him many of the Jews were . . . putting faith in Jesus.”—John 12:10, 11.
The high priest knew the opinions of his fellow conspirators regarding any self-proclaimed Messiah. So he demanded to know whether Jesus claimed that title. Jesus responded that his accusers would see him “sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” In a show of piety, “the high priest ripped his outer garments, saying: ‘He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses?’” The Sanhedrin agreed that Jesus deserved to die.—Matthew 26:64-66.
As high priest, Caiaphas could have helped fellow Jews to accept the Messiah, but lust for power caused him to condemn Jesus."

I could find no reference in the article that Caiaphas was furious with Jesus because Jesus claimed divinity, that Jesus was equal to his Father in heaven. They say the blasphemy was claiming to be the Messiah.
This is entirely in keeping with the theology of Jehovah's Witnesses - they say Jehovah created Jesus as a spirit creature who is known in heaven as Michael the archangel.  They say they believe Jesus was divine, but deny Jesus was the pre-mortal Word of God who was with God in the beginning and who is God.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20060115/The-High-Priest-Who-Condemned-Jesus/#?insight[search_id]=83d6a072-7ffc-477e-94d3-194b4e6fc386&insight[search_result_index]=1


How do Jehovah Witnesses come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is a force?

There are multiple supporting reasons Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Spirit is a force, rather than a person. Some are circumstantial in nature; others are more direct.

Definition This is a natural meaning of "spirit". Is the spirit of happiness a thinking entity? No. It's "the activating or essential principle influencing a person" (Merriam-Webster). Likewise, the spirit of God is the force, or activating principle, of God.

Source references The Greek New Testament only uses the neuter gender when referring to the Holy Spirit: it, not he. Furthermore, there the Spirit is never called by a "personal" name. Both are unlike the personal, masculine references to Jehovah (God the Father) and Jesus (Son of God). Why the differences? Because the Spirit is a thing, not a person.

Man-made Trinity JWs believe Trinitarianism is the product of the human Council of Alexandria and the Council of Constantinople. This isn't a direct reason to believe the Spirit is abstract per se, but it is a reason to distrust the common interpretation of God, which for mainstream Christianity differs little from these flawed councils.

Nature The Spirit is often referred to as a substance.

I shall have to take away some of the spirit that is upon you and place it upon them.
Numbers 11:17
After that I will pour out my spirit on every sort of flesh, And your sons and your daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, And your young men will see visions.
Joel 2:28

When have you ever heard anyone being divided in parts amongst people or poured on them? It's more akin to a substance than a person.

Consistent with human "spirits" Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe humans have a literal spirit or soul independent of a physical body. Our spirit is our life(force), not a ghost. If you believe that human spirits are abstract, it's easier to believe that God's spirit is likewise abstract. See "Soul" and "Spirit" for reasons for this belief about human spirits.

In relation to the scriptures you mentioned, JWs will point out

Personification

True wisdom itself keeps crying out in the very street.
Proverbs 1:20
...your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground
Genesis 4:10

Neither Abel's blood as it lay on the ground nor wisdom in the street actually made any sounds. Nor were they any sense a "person".

There are dozens upon dozens of such personifications in the Bible, including the three you mentioned. Using them to imbue every abstract concept like these with life would be inappropriate.


Have cardinals ever been deprived of revenue or rations for taking too long to elect a pope?

Pope Clement IV died in November 1268. There were at the time 20 cardinals but one was away on crusade and never came back. The other 19 met in the Palace in Viterbo but could not agree who should be the next pope.

The magistrates at Viterbo locked the cardinals in the palace, reduced their diet to bread and water, and removed the roof.  It was joked that the removal of the roof might allow the Holy Ghost to get through to them.

Two cardinal died during the conclave. Eventually most were freed on the basis they agreed to delegate the choice of pope to a committee of six.

In September 1271, almost three years after the death of Clement, they finally settled on the future Gregory X. There was a further delay though, because after three years procrastination they ended up  choosing someone who was unable to take up the post immediately.  Gregory was away on crusade with Prince Edward of England, and was not even a priest when elected. It was not until March 1272 that he finally reached Rome and was crowned Pope.

This article describes the process in more detail.

It was the  methods employed at this conclave that gave the Council of Lyons their ideas.

The first papal conclave after the Council of Lyons was in January 1276. Whether because of the new rules, or otherwise, Pope Innocent V  was unanimously elected on the first ballot.  He died after only five moths. The next conclave lasted 10 days. The restrictions were rigorously enforced by Charles of Anjou, King of Sicily, in his capacity as Senator of Rome. He confined the cardinals so strictly, and cut their rations so drastically, that many cardinals were prostrated by the heat of the Roman Summer. After 11 days they elected Adrian (or Hadrian) V. Ref

Hadrian, noting the intolerable way they were treated,  immediately suspended  Gregory's rules. He survived the conclave by less than six weeks, dying without ever being ordained a priest. Some doubted the legitimacy of Hadrian's suspension of the rules, in the circumstances.  Nevertheless the cardinals refused to be conclaved  for the next election, but perhaps fearing what might happen, they  elected John XXI within a month.  He completely revoked Gregory's rules. The following May the roof of his new study, in Viterbo,  fell in on him, necessitating yet another election. Freed from the threat of confinement each cardinal had his own habitation in Viterbo. They met up regularly to vote  and then went back freely to their individual abodes. This went on for six moths before the local magistrates decided to lock them all in the town hall, bringing about the rapid election of Nicholas III.

Nicholas reigned nearly three years during which he made  his brother and two nephews cardinals. After the next election had produced no result after five months, the magistrates tried a new approach.  They arrested Nicholas's nephews accusing them of impeding the election.  This led, relatively quickly,  to the election of Martin IV. Outraged by what had happened the people of Rome would not allow Martin to set foot in their city at any point in his four year reign. The next pope, Honorius IV was elected within a week of Martin's death, before some cardinals had even been notified of the death.   Honorius reigned two years and one day, dying in April 1287.

The next election, 1287 to 1288 was the deadliest ever.  Six cardinals, out of sixteen died including four in four weeks   in late summer. The survivors fled Rome, except for one. When they returned in February they elected the one who had remained, who became Nicholas IV.   His death in 1292 led to a two year election process from which many cardinals, not being conclaved,   were frequently absent. After more than two years an octogenarian  hermit claimed he had a message from God that the cardinals would be punished for any further delay. They soon voted him in as Celestine V. He was regarded by many as totally incompetent, but he did reintroduce the rules on conclaves,  appoint twelve new cardinals, and resign, The conclave following his resignation, in which Celestine's appointees were a majority, elected Boniface VIII on the second day, which was Christmas Eve, 1294.

The next conclave, too, lasted only a day, but the one after, in 1304-1305 lasted 11 months. The cardinals however did not starve. As soon as they got together they voted that the conclave rules would not apply to them.

The last very long papal election  was 1314 to 1316. It began in Carpentras, but amid scenes of violent disorder the cardinals dispersed: some to Avignon, some to Valence, and some to Orange. There was no quorum anywhere. Eventually the Count of Poitiers, who became Philip V of  France, persuaded them to assemble in Lyons promising not to lock them up. After three more months  they were locked up, however,  and their diet restricted. After lasting   forty days of this they finally agreed  on  Pope John XXII.   Ref

The next few elections were conducted expeditiously and the rules were relaxed in 1351.

During the conclave of 1549 to 1550,  restrictions were imposed allowing only one course meals, but nothing was specified as to how much each course might consist of. An agent wrote:

  The cardinals are on the one-dish regimen. The dish consists of a couple of capons, a nice piece of veal, some salami,  a nice soup and anything you  want as long as it is boiled. That is in the morning. Then, in the evening, you can have anything you want as long as it is roasted. As well as some antipasti, a main course, some salad and a dessert. The more small-minded ones are complaining about the hardship. If things don't speed up we'll see how they react when it comes to bread and water.

It never did come to bread and water despite lasting over two months  This election was also known as the porous conclave with  numerous visitors coming and going including ambassadors  and what today we might call paparazzi, so  the cardinals might not have eaten it all themselves. Towards the end windows were blocked to reduce light and ventilation, and cardinals were ordered to bed at 10.30. which may have hastened the decision.Ref

One problem they didn't have was that faced by the cardinals in 1242. After a year of indecision the ten cardinals were confined in a room with a leaking  flat roof. It wasn't just rain they had to worry about. Also, there were guards urinating  on the roof.  A decision followed within a fortnight.

Even as recently as 1978, conditions in the conclave were hardly conducive to a prolonged   stay. Cubicles were erected in long corridors with ten cardinals assigned to each toilet. Cardinal Hume said the cots seemed to have come from a seminary for the very short.  Cardinals awoke to hear other elderly cardinals shuffling seventy yards along the corridor only to groan on  finding  their assigned convenience occupied.

Cardinal Siri complained of the August heat saying cardinals were dying of asphyxiation because all the widows were blacked shut, although the reason was security rather than discomfort. He rebelled and ordered them opened. Colour returned to the faces of the moribund. In past centuries his protestations would have been ignored.   Whether the conditions influenced the outcome or not,  the conclaves of August and October 1978 lasted only 2 and 3 days respectively. Ref

John Paul II ordered the conversion of a Vatican hospital into a guest house for visiting clergy,  and this was used for the conclaves of 2005 and 2013. Far from complaining of intolerable privations,  Pope Francis found the accommodation so suitable to him  that, after his election,  he declined  to move out. Eschewing the papal apartments,  he has lived there ever since.


What is LDS church view of a baptized member owning machine guns?

As far as I know, there is no moral objection to Church members owning weapons of any type. Self defense and the defense of one's family and freedom of religion are explicitly approved, and on occasion mandated, in both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants.
However, members are also instructed to obey the law of the land, so if there are legal restrictions on the number or types of weapons that may be privately owned, the members should observe them.* Unless their conduct becomes a criminal offense, it would not affect their church standing.

*This article for example talks about what one must do to legally own a machine gun in the USA.


How did Peter recognize Elijah and Moses?

Short Answer: We don't know.

Some possibilities:

There was some sort of heavenly announcement, similar to the voice of the Father at Jesus' baptism (reference)
Jesus explained it to them, as He was accustomed to having to do for them.  (Keep in mind that there is a lot of stuff that wasn't recorded in Scripture!) (reference)
They recognized it by divine illumination, similar to Peter's recognition of who Jesus really was (reference)
Prior to Peter referencing them by name, it says (in verse 3) that Jesus was talking with them.  Perhaps Jesus called them by name and Peter overheard.

My money is on the last one, since that's the only one that draws clues from the passage itself, but as I said, we really don't know for sure.


Do Anglicans believe the decision on the 66 book canon was infallible?

Disclaimer: this answer is based on my speculation from rudimentary knowledge of Anglicanism, but hopefully backed by sources.
TL;DR
No, because the canon has never being infallibly defined by the Church. Such definition requires a General Council, and to define truths that are held as such by all. No General Council (last one being in 680 AD) defined the canon. It follows that the decision of considering a particular canon is indeed the opinion of scholars/theologians.

Your question requires an understanding of what infallibility is according to Anglicanism. I found an excellent analysis of this in this book by the Anglican Bishop A.N. Littlejohn. It's a book from 1892, but still very insightful.
In essence, he states that the Catholic (i.e Universal) Church is infallible when it has declared in a General Council truths that had been accepted "always, everywhere and by all" (semper, ubique, et ab omnibus). Quoting in extenso from Chapter 1:

But whatever this authority in kind or in degree, in accordance with a fundamental rule of Catholic practice, it has always been exercised through General Councils. It is important, therefore, to have clear views not only of the authority itself, but also of the organ through which it has spoken. Now though in the strict sense of the terms general, universal, (Ecumenical are the same, yet the term (Ecumenical has been declared by usage to mean a General Council, lawful, approved, and received by all the Church." A council may be general without being lawful; to be general, all the bishops of the world should be summoned to it, and no one excluded save the heretical and ex- communicated. This rule was absolutely observed in none of the so-called General Councils, and only a minority of bishops sat in most of them. To be lawful and truly Oecumenical it is necessary that all that occurs should be done regularly (which was not the case with some of the General Councils), and that the Church at large should accept its decrees, as was done with those of the Councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon. That a General Council be accepted, it is not required that all the faithful individually considered acquiesce in its action. It suffices for the purpose that all branches of the Church do so in their corporate capacity. ... It has always been held that it is the duty of a Council to declare what has been the faith from the beginning, not to put forth new objects of belief. It might, on any given matter, develop implicit into explicit faith; but it was required to show that the matter so developed was a portion of the original deposit and revelation. But it is a fact, of which ecclesiastical history furnishes abundant evidence, that General Councils may err and sometimes have erred in things pertaining to God. "The inerrancy of a council can never be guaranteed at the moment. The value of a council is tested by its after reception by the Church."

Thus, for Anglicanism, only the four ecumenical councils listed above are regarded as infallible (according to Anglicanism, the last General Council was that of 680; see page 27 of book). It follows then that the 397 AD Council of Carthage, which (as guest37 said) was the first council to define the canon of the Bible (canon that included the apocrypha), is not considered infallible in Anglicanism (not the least because it was not a General Council). Neither of the four councils above defined the canon.
So, first conclusion is "the canon with apocrypha was not infallibly defined by the Church".
The second part of the argument follows through. The same author of the book above states:

The last undisputed General Council was held at the close of the seventh century (680). Is it true, then, that the Church's only duly accredited organ for defining and formulating truth has been in abeyance for 1200 years, or since the great schism between the East and West? If it be true, the consequences are not so grave as some would have us think. The suspended exercise of one form of the Church's authority does not involve the suspension of her authority in other forms. In spite of this she may still do her work as the ecclesia docens, and in various ways enjoy the benefits of the Spirit's guidance into all truth necessary to salvation; still it is, indeed, a startling fact that her plenary power for deciding controversies should have been for so many centuries powerless. What inward lesions and outward assaults may have come upon her, because of this dormant function only her own eternal Head can surely know. Certain it is that, while schism continues to do its will upon the torn body, the power of inerrancy inherent only in the united whole cannot be set in motion. All that has been decreed in any one of the hundred parts is liable to revision, and the guidance so freely promised to the Universal Episcopate must be greatly narrowed as to its present use.

It then follows that, for Anglicanism, the canon of the Bible has not been infallibly defined by the Church. This is all the more obvious from the very fact that infallibility requires acceptance semper, ubique, et ab omnibus. It is evident that such is not the case by the canon. Hence, it is not possible for the 66 book canon to be defined as infallible.
Beside this, the Anglican Church has its own position on the subject, which is however fallible. Articles II and III in Chapter I of the Westminster Confession of Faith states:

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.
III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings

In conclusion, and assuming the position by the Anglican Bishop in the book is that of the Anglican Church, the answer to your question is no. From here it follows that the decision of considering a particular canon is indeed the particular opinion of Anglican scholars/theologians.


In LDS church, what is the difference between formal probation, disfellowshipment, and excommunication

Probation is an action taken by a church leader or council that limits some privileges of church membership. Not all probation is negative; quite often, it is merely counsel to attend the temple more, read select scriptures, or pray more frequently and fervently. The only difference between informal and formal probation as far as I understand it is that formal probation occurs by a disciplinary council.

Disfellowshipment is a suspension of participation in church activities, callings, ordinances, etc. -- the public or "outward" things. Usually these individuals should still attend sacrament meetings. And, like probation, conditions of disfellowshipment may be positive.

Excommunication means the individual is no longer a member of the Church; this is actually quite rare.

In all of this, Church leaders remember that "the Lord sees weaknesses differently than He does rebellion. Whereas the Lord warns that unrepented rebellion will bring punishment, when the Lord speaks of weaknesses, it is always with mercy." -- Richard G. Scott


What is the origin of the Evil Eye in Christianity?

The so called "Evil Eye" is a classic example of spiritual syncretism. It's origin is neither Christian nor Muslim — yet the belief system that it stands for has through long proximity been partially assimilated by adherents to both of of those religions.

It goes several names, but for example in Turkey it is usually known as Nazar. It is simply a symbol, usually a concentric pattern of circles in blue and white, that is supposed to ward off evil spirits. The symbol is so universal in Turkey that it is almost impossible to avoid. Even as a Christian with no interest in having them around I am constantly finding the things floating around my house. They are printed on receipts, dropped as tokens into shopping bags and boxes, woven into clothing, left behind by wary guests, and generally come out of the woodwork like dust bunnies.

The Nazar or Evil Eye symbol is actually just the most visible of many Animistic beliefs. The use of this symbol is actually fundamentally incompatible with Islam, but the two beliefs are widely practiced side by side and people are generally unaware of the conflict of interest they pose to each other.

In addition to being incompatible with Islam, belief in the Evil Eye to ward off evil spirits is almost universally seen as incompatible with the core doctrines of Christianity (as are almost all other incarnations of Animism). If some of our trust for safety is placed in something other than Christ, that thing becomes an idol that detracts from our focus on our Savior. The one who is able to protect us from all evil Spirits is the one who Himself triumphed over them:

  Colossians 2:15 (ESV) He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.


The LDS interpret that scripture the same way we interpret these Book of Mormon Scriptures:

3 Nephi 11:27

27 And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold,
verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the
Father and I are one.
Mosiah 15:4

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of
earth.
3 Nephi 20:35

35 The Father hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the
nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of the
Father; and the Father and I are one.
3 Nephi 11:36

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will
bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and
the Holy Ghost are one.
Mormon 7:7

7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he
that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given
unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing
ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the
Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of
happiness which hath no end.

The Father sent His Son to help us to know, love, and obey our Father in Heaven. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are indeed separate and distinct beings, but they are perfectly united in purpose; to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
Christ said in John 6:38:

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will
of him that sent me.

In all that Jesus came to say and do, including and especially in His atoning suffering and sacrifice, He was showing us who and what God our Eternal Father is like, how completely devoted He is to His children in every age and nation. In word and in deed Jesus was trying to reveal and make personal to us the true nature of His Father, our Father in Heaven.1
By seeing how the Father is, we can learn how to experience pure joy. That is why Christ said that if you have seen him, you have seen the Father, because Christ lived a perfect life, he showed us what the Father was like, and how we could have joy.

3 Nephi 28:10

10 And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit
down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as
the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;

Note in the above scripture, "...ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father, and the Father and I are one."
Christ was speaking to three of his disciples when he spoke these words, he told them that they would be one with Him and the Father.
This was a sure promise that they would be Exalted, like Christ, and the Father. If we choose to live the life Christ showed us to live, the life he showed us was like unto what the Father would live, then we too can be Exalted, we too can be one with the Father and have a fulness of joy.

1 Jeffery R Holland, He That Hath Seen Me Hath Seen The Father, Ensign, 2003


What was the timeline of the reigns of David and Ishbaal?

Second Samuel takes up the narrative of accurate Bible history following the death of Saul, Israel’s first king, and carries it along to near the end of David’s 40-year reign. Thus, the period covered is from 1077 B.C.E. to about 1040 B.C.E. The fact that the book does not record David’s death is strong evidence that it was written about 1040 B.C.E., or just prior to his death.

At God’s direction, David and his men move their households to Hebron in the territory of Judah. Here the elders of the tribe come to anoint David as their king in 1077 B.C.E. following the death of Saul.

After the death of Saul and his other sons on the battlefield at Gilboa, Abner, a relative of Saul and the chief of his forces, took Ishbosheth, as a rival for the kingship over the nation, across the Jordan to Mahanaim, where he was installed as king over all the tribes except Judah, which recognized David as king. At the time Ishbosheth was 40 years old, and he is said to have reigned for two years. (2 Samuel 1:10 Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, was 40 years old when he became king over Israel, and he reigned for two years. The house of Judah, however, supported David.)

Since the Bible does not say exactly where this two-year reign fits in with the seven-and-a-half-year period when David ruled as king at Hebron, there is no way of resolving differences of opinion held by scholars on the point. However, it does seem more reasonable to think that Ishbosheth was made king shortly after the death of his father (rather than five years later), in which case there would have been a lapse of about five years between his assassination and David’s being installed as king over all Israel.—2Sa 2:8-11; 4:7; 5:4, 5.

There are periodic clashes between the two opposing forces, and Abner kills a brother of Joab. Finally, Abner defects to David’s camp. To David he takes Saul’s daughter Michal, for whom David long ago paid the marriage price. However, in revenge for the slaying of his brother, Joab finds an occasion for killing Abner. Soon thereafter Ishbosheth himself is murdered as he is “taking his noonday siesta.”—4:5.

Though he has already ruled as king in Judah for seven years and six months, David now becomes undisputed ruler, and representatives of the tribes anoint him as king over all Israel. This is his third anointing (1070 B.C.E.). One of David’s first acts as ruler of the entire kingdom is to capture the stronghold of Zion in Jerusalem.


Does the act of sex constitute marriage in God's eyes?

No, for a whole lot of reasons.

Old Testament Law says that a man who has sex with an unmarried woman has to marry her. That would be unnecessary if having sex made them married.
If that were the case, some teacher somewhere would be reminding people that they had to treat the people they had sex with as if they were wives.
Tamar has sex with Judah because he won't consent to give her to his son in marriage. After they have sex, there is no thought that they are married. Judah relents and allows Tamar to marry his son.
As pointed out elsewhere, fornication and adultery would both be non-existent events if the act of sex made you married.
David has sex with Bathsheba, and then later marries her. Also unnecessary if the sex made them married.

Having sex "makes you one flesh", and that is something that should be reserved for marriage.

As for Mark 10: "a man shall...be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh". That's two things that should happen, not one.


How do adherents of sola scriptura respond to "extra" biblical beliefs?

Scripture alone simply means that scripture is the sole rule of all things salvific.  It is not about defining the 66 books or more.  Nor is it about defining doctrines therefrom.  It is only about believing that scripture tells us all we need to know about faith and practice.

In determining doctrine (faith and practice), one looks to scripture alone.  We may read other books, consider what early writings reveal, and entertain the thoughts of pious people.  What we won't do is say, because Tradition (whatever that is) informs or a Pope pontificates about something, is to say that the something is on par with scripture in terms of being necessary to one's salvation.  Of the faith, for scripture alone, ([de fide][2]) is found only in scripture.

So, with that definition and clarification in mind, the fact that scripture identifies things not found previous in said scripture really doesn't say anything and has no bearing on sola scriptura.

They asked John the Baptist are you from God or man?  Paul references a poet.  In Acts God laid down a sheet for Peter, which was new.  The names of Jannes and Mambres weren't written in Exodus, but does knowing them impact doctrine?

The OP idea may be trying to suggest that since there is new information written in the NT that was not in the OT that this somehow supports the idea that other things like Tradition or Bulls not in scripture may have something that is necessary for one's salvation.  These things were somehow kept secret from apostles, from eyewitnesses that somehow became necessary centuries later to get to heaven.  This is a non sequitur; it doesn't follow.  There are all sorts of problems with Tradition, but that's a different question.


Should we honor our parents even if it leads us to sin?

Honor your parents? Yes absolutely.
Sin? No never.
What is trump? Don't sin!

However it should be noted that the trump card will never need to be used because on closer inspection these two things are never actually in conflict. If your parents ask you to murder your neighbor (clearly sin) it would be no honor to them if you obeyed. The same principle can be extrapolated back to "smaller" sins. While your parents own sinfulness might cloud their perspective on what is or is not honoring, ultimately you are trying to honor God through honoring your parents.

The commandment to honor our parents does not say that we must obey every edict they may give us. However it is also clear that obedience is on of the primary ways that we can show honor and respect. Obey in so far as you are not being asked to sin. If in doubt, honor your parents. If something comes up that you understand to be sin and can Biblically demonstrate how something would be dishonoring to God, decline in an honorable way!

If it's your family's tradition to cuss (or to be bank robbers) there is nothing in the commandment that mandates that you also pursue that lifestyle. You can still act honorably towards someone as your parent even if they reject you as a child because of your choice.

This is particularly evident in extreme cases. For example say your parents are Muslims. From their perspective that their offspring would believe in Jesus as God, go to a Christian church, pray, read the Bible and fellowship with other Christians is an unthinkable shame. In their mind nothing you do will be honoring as long as you persist in your beliefs. However is it really dishonoring them that you have chosen to follow the truth? Of course not. Can you still treat them respectfully and in an honorable way even if they reject you and ostricise you? Yes you can, and you should.

But it doesn't take an extreme case for to apply this principle. It starts being applicable when they ask you to come finish the dishes but you feel like you ought to finish that great post you're working on for a Christian Q&A site.

  1 Peter 3:14-17 (ESV)
  But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.


What were the early Christians officially persecuted for?

1. The Jews persecuted Christians for Blasphemy

From the perspective of the High Priest, the followers of the Way were violating the primary profession of the Jewish Faith:  "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One."

Jesus, in claiming to be God, was, according to the High Priest, blaspheming.  Those who followed him would, to the Jewish mind, have been guilty of bifurcating God - of making God out to be polytheistic - of being two.

The disciples specifically were charged with teaching in the name of this "heretic" and "blasphemer."  This had the effect of subverting the authority of the High Priest and causing social discord. And yes, sedition and insubordination are valid charges in a kingdom, regardless of whether or not they are in a democracy like ours today.  Acts 5 records this exchange:

  27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”

2. The Romans persecuted Christians for Atheism

For the Romans, however, the charge was different.  The Romans saw the Christians as being A-Theos (literally atheists) by denying the gods they grew up with, thus inviting destruction amongst everybody by their disbelief.  In rejecting the "gods" of their land, they had become 'godless Christians' and atheists. Unlike the Jews, who had special exemption from the requirement that they believe in "gods,"  the Christians, to the extent that they were not being Jews, were not privy to these exemptions, because the Christians had no historical basis on which to base their 'religio'.

As an example, Acts 19 shows this in practice.  To wit:

  23 About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. 24 A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in a lot of business for the craftsmen there. 25 He called them together, along with the workers in related trades, and said: “You know, my friends, that we receive a good income from this business. 26 And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all. 27 There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited; and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty.” 28 When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” 29 Soon the whole city was in an uproar.

Here you see the charge - 'he is saying our gods are no gods at all!' (and, incidentally, you're not very good for business either!)

3. The Jews persecuted the Christians by using Roman charges

Since the Jews had no law to put a man to death, the next best thing was to charge that these Jewish non-Jews (and the Gentiles that accompanied them) were not privy to the Jewish exemptions and were subject to the Roman penalties against Atheism.  As such, they just had to differentiate the Christians from the Jews in order to aid in their persecution.

Since the Christians held that there was no God but God the Father, incarnated through God the Son, they were subject to the invective of Rome by means of the Jews.