Is man's ability to reason properly a gift by the Holy Spirit?

Most every church recognizes that every good thing is a gift of God, including our reason, but I do not think any denomination assigns the ability to properly reason as a unique ‘gift of the Holy Spirit.  However to reason properly about Christ by faith many churches think can't be done without the enablement of the Spirit. assume by ‘properly’ you mean those There are gifts of the Spirit that are given to the church that make use of proper reason such as the gift of ‘wisdom’ and ‘knowledge’ (1 Cor. 12:8).  The main idea behind these gifts is that 'different' people have been given different ones.  Since all men have reason and by faith can reason properly, it can’t be then a special gift. Pure ability to reason is logically is a natural gift and it is likely, among those without faith, that none excels as high as the Devil, for his powers of reason and knowledge of the external form of religion no man could pretend.

 So gifts like Teaching, or having wisdom and knowledge naturally relate to our reason and one who has an ‘unusual ability’ by the working of the Spirit, might have a kind of unusual ability to reason about Christ, displaying unusual knowledge or wisdom concerning him and his work.  But as already mentioned these are not recognized as a ‘gift of the Spirit' by any denomination as far as I know.  A person may be said to have his reason ‘on fire’ and under an ‘anointing’ yet this is not with respect to his ability to reason directly.

In fact, what has often marked out spiritual gift is that despite the natural weaknesses of certain men, even without strong powers of reason, people animated by the Holy Spirit have been able to convincingly present the claims of the gospel with extraordinary gifts. In the case of the Apostles who were ‘fisherman’ and who subsequently turned the world over with the gospel, the power of God at work in those real 'unnatural gifts' that he gave them, was seen, in contrast to their power of reason, or natural learning.

I think these and other reasons has kept any church from attributing reason to a gift of the Spirit, just as good-looks, strength and wealth are also not proper gifts.


Are people who "think a lot about" God, Jesus, right and wrong more likely to go to heaven?

"Thinking a lot about God" does not get one into heaven.  Evidence:  John 3:16 says to believe in God's son is the condition for eternal life. Ephesians 2:8-9 says that faith, not works (which would include "thinking"), is the means through which one is saved.  Heaven: no.

Two bible passages can answer the question of whether "a lot" of devotion to the Lord earns one a special place, any merits with God. In  Matthew 20:1-16, the vineyard workers who showed up at the last hour get same wages as those who worked all day.  In Luke 15:11-32, the older son (who was a good boy all his life) is rebuked for his anger at the Father's love for the prodigal son.


What are the theological roots of "my testimony" in evangelism?

I would suggest the answer is found in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. There, Paul shared the gospel in various ways, such as popular culture (Acts 17:23, the unknown god) and local poetry (17:28).

Then later he gave his personal testimony to the Jews of how Christ saved him and gave him a new purpose in life (22:1ff). Later he was taken and put in a cell, and there the Lord appeared and indicated that He was pleased with Paul's testimony of Him in Jerusalem. What's curious to me is that Jesus did not mention all the other cities in which he had preached. It was in Jerusalem before the Jews that he gave his testimony.

After that we find him giving his testimony again in 26:12 before Agrippa. Perhaps he had put two and two together and saw that reciting his personal encounter was more significant to the Lord, so he used that approach with Agrippa. Unfortunately, the book of Acts closes soon with no more mention about this approach. He was mainly a teacher and to the end taught from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, and how people must repent for the kingdom of God.

I know you wanted examples from the church fathers on, but these few examples (and an example or two from the epistles) should be taken into account as probable origins of bearing one's personal testimony. After all, we do draw instruction from the Word of God. Paul gave his testimony without giving up teaching; he found a place for both.


The short answer is yes, oil was expensive. It was used in ceremonies both because it was often perfumed to have a pleasing aroma and because the financial sacrifice was an act of humility.

You mentioned several good examples, but I figured I would offer you one more: Elisha providing for a widow (2 Kings 4:1-7). In this scenario, Elisha is able to provide the woman with enough oil that she can pay off all her late husband's debts, and she and her sons are able to live on the rest.

Now, this passage doesn't explicitly state that oil was expensive, but a little common sense will tell us it can't have been cheap. Elisha sends the woman's sons for empty vessels, and not too few, so he was clearly preparing to give her a large volume of oil, but it's fair to guess that the number ended up being in the 20-50 range (obviously just an estimate) as opposed to in the hundreds or thousands. For that amount of oil to be enough to pay off debts and set multiple people up for life means that oil had value, far more than it does today (imagine how much olive oil you'd need to hoard to be set for life).


A most definite no.

Satan does not have the power to create; only God does. Theologians for centuries have been using the phrase ex nihilo to describe God's creative activities. That saying is fine as far as it goes, but I suggest that a better expression than "God created all things out of nothing" is

  God created all things out of the fullness of his being.

If God is who the Bible says he is, then he is eternal, having no beginning and no end. He is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. In other words there never was (nor will there ever be) a "time" when God did not exist.
For all eternity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit enjoyed the perfect communion of love, as only the Triune God could.

Time, on the other hand, is a creation of God. Christians and non-Christians alike have difficulty conceiving of a "time" when all there was, was God, but according to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, time and eternity did not coexist until God created time and space by fiat, which we read about in Genesis, Chapters 1 and 2. Much later in God's revelation, he made clear that after Adam's fall, God would one day make all things new, and that in newness they would remain forever, as they originally were intended.

Jesus had an interesting "take" on his relation to eternity. In a famous confrontation with his critics, Jesus said,

  Before Abraham was born, I am (John 8:58).

Whether Jesus was claiming here to be the Great I AM of Exodus 3:14 is perhaps immaterial in the context of this question. What is clear is that Jesus was claiming to have been alive eternally, and no one but God is eternal. Ergo, Jesus was claiming divinity.

As for the devil (aka Satan, aka Beelzebub, aka Mephistopheles), even he had a beginning and at one time was perhaps the epitome of all angelic beings; that is, until he was filled with pride and determined to be "like" God Most High, whereupon God cast him out of heaven. One day God will consign him to the place prepared for him and those who joined him in their rebellion against God.

God's image bearers, too, can live eternally, according to Jesus' words in John Chapter 3 and elsewhere, but each image bearer began his or her life in time and space. Eternal life, however, is a gift of God, just as the gift of salvation is purely a gift of God's grace and not of works (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Satan does, however, have the temporary ability to kill, steal, and destroy what God has created, just as the sheep stealer enters the sheepfold belonging to someone else and helps himself (see the Gospel of John, Chapter 10). Satan's days are numbered however. His attempts to destroy what God is building on earth, the quintessence of which is his holy catholic (i.e., universal) church  comprised of all true Christians, will one day come to an end, when God wages the ultimate battle in which Satan will be defeated forever.

In conclusion, I've thought for a long time about why God in Genesis began his creative work on the planet we call Earth when it was "without form and void [, with] darkness covering the face of the deep." One possibility is that Satan and his minions, once they were excommunicated from heaven forever, deliberately despoiled what God had created, and so God, who makes all things new (and not all new things) re-created what Satan had destroyed. This re-creation presages,  perhaps, what God will do when evil is defeated once and for all, since the promise in Revelation is that he will destroy the corrupted heavens and earth and create a new heavens and a new earth in which only righteousness dwells.


When omniscient God had a plan for Jesus, why did God think of killing everyone?

There really isn't any contradiction between the two Scriptures, their divergence is simply a small look at God.

God is shown in the Old Testament as the God of second chances, and in the New Testament as the God of grace.

In the Old Testament what we see is God continuously  allowing mankind the opportunity to repent and return to the God of creation; and in the New Testament what we find is God in his final frustration reducing the penalty for sin to acceptance of substitutionary sacrifice.

In the books of Exodus and Leviticus and to a certain extent the book of Deuteronomy; we find God giving the Nation of Israel an opportunity for redemption through substitutionary sacrifice. Even though God did extend that redemption, to the Nation of Israel we see that the physical adherence to that system was more than weak humanity would sustain.

All that we need to know about how history and God's plan is covered in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of Luke:

  Luke 20:9 through 16 KJV  Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time. 10  And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty. 11  And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. 12  And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. 13  Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him. 14  But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. 15  So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? 16  He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.

Let's take a look at what Jesus explained in relation to your question;

  Genesis 6:7 NKJV  And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

This Scripture is revisited in:

  Luke 20:13  Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him. 14  But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. 15  So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? 16  He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.

And if we consider:

  Genesis 6:8 KJV  But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

What we find is that that is exactly what God did He destroyed the evil mankind which he had created and gave the World to another in the person of Noah and his posterity.

  1st Peter 1:19 and 20 KJV  But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20  Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Since in your question you have acknowledged God's omniscience I will forego that explanation, even though it is cogent to the rest of this explanation.

God knew exactly how each person would react throughout time when He began creating the Universe, and in his great love salvaged a small part of his creation through the cross.

  Revelation 21:1 and 2 KJV  And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2  And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

And the final part of God's plan appears in:

  Revelation 21:3 KJV  And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

The implication of the comparison above is that:

  John 3:14 through 17 KJV  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15  That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

This is the consensus of the serious Bible students with which I have had the pleasure of associating over the years.

Hope this helps.


Not exactly the answer you are looking for, but Paul clearly understands humanity to be functionally atheistic, if not in practice. From Romans 1:

  18 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. 21 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.

In practice, to be a-theistic in the ancient world was to invite destruction upon the whole community. In Rome, in particular, for example, legally they didn't care which god you worshipped, as long as you worshipped one. I don't have the quote handy, but I remember David Bell in Many Mansions making the case that atheism was like "poor hygenie or a public health hazard," meaning that impiety would invite needless retribution from someone, so if everybody was worshipping what they thought, at the least the "true gods," would forgive them.


What influence did Greco-Roman philosophy have on the doctrine of "creatio ex nihilo"?

It appears that there are a great number of similarities between the teachings of the secular Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo Judaeus of Alexandrea, a follower of stoicism and the teachings outlined in John (particularly John 1).

Stoicism

In response to Plato's explorations of whether abstract qualities (Such as justice and wisdom) have an independent existence (and his argument that these things do not truly "exist" by appealing to his Theory of Forms), Stoicism taught that these things did exist materially and in a corporeal form or "substance" (οὐσία).

  According to the Stoics, the universe is a material, reasoning substance, known as God or Nature, which the Stoics divided into two classes, the active and the passive. The passive substance is matter, which "lies sluggish, a substance ready for any use, but sure to remain unemployed if no one sets it in motion." The active substance, which can be called Fate, or Universal Reason (Logos), is an intelligent aether or primordial fire, which acts on the passive matter:

    The universe itself is God and the universal outpouring of its soul; it is this same world's guiding principle, operating in mind and reason, together with the common nature of things and the totality that embraces all existence; then the foreordained might and necessity of the future; then fire and the principle of aether; then those elements whose natural state is one of flux and transition, such as water, earth, and air; then the sun, the moon, the stars; and the universal existence in which all things are contained.

  — Chrysippus, in Cicero, De Natura Deorum, i. 39

Stoicism also taught that

  everything that exists depends on two first principles which can be neither created nor destroyed: matter, which is passive and inert, and the logos, or divine reason, which is active and organizing. The 3rd-century B.C. Stoic Chrysippus regarded pneuma as the vehicle of logos in structuring matter, both in animals and in the physical world. Pneuma in its purest form can thus be difficult to distinguish from logos or the "constructive fire" (pur technikon)

Philo's take

Perhaps by studying stoicism and noticing the Septuagint's use of pneuma (πνεῦμα),

  ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος καὶ σκότος ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύσσου καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος

this led Philo to conclude that the πνεῦμα θεοῦ (pneuma theou - Spirit of God) was the Logos (The Reason, thought or word for the formation of the universe.)

In his writings, Philo

  ...used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God". Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated".

  Plato's Theory of Forms was located within the Logos, but the Logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world. In particular, the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was identified with the Logos by Philo, who also said that the Logos was God's instrument in the creation of the universe.

Relationship to Plato

Obviously, Philo believed that the Logos created and was manifest vis-à-vis Plato's theory of forms, but the connections run much deeper. For example, Zeno, the founder of Stoicism studied under the platonists Xenocrates and Polemon at the Platonic Academy.

But most importantly, the genesis (pun intended) of the doctrine of Creato ex nihilo can be seen in how Philo interacts with Plato's work and the purpose and nature of Philo's works - two works in particluar - Philo's  Quaestiones (or "Inquiries") and his Νόμων Ἱερῶν Ἀλληγορίαι - "Legum Allegoriæ," ( or "allegorical commentary") - both of which deal significantly or completely with interpretation of Genesis from Philo's Stoic perspective. In doing so, philo is attempting to sythesize Judaism and Stoicism

In another work, De Opificio Mundi (On Creation), Philo articulates the first known instance of creatio ex nihilo among the philosophers saying

  Moses says also; "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth:" taking the beginning to be, not as some men think, that which is according to time; for before the world time had no existence, but was created either simultaneously with it, or after it;

  ...

  In the first place therefore, from the model of the world, perceptible only by intellect, the Creator made an incorporeal heaven, and an invisible earth, and the form of air and of empty space: the former of which he called darkness, because the air is black by nature; and the other he called the abyss, for empty space is very deep and yawning with immense width. Then he created the incorporeal substance of water and of air, and above all he spread light, being the seventh thing made; and this again was incorporeal, and a model of the sun, perceptible only to intellect, and of all the lightgiving stars, which are destined to stand together in heaven.

  And air and light he considered worthy of the pre-eminence. For the one he called the breath of God, because it is air, which is the most life-giving of things, and of life the causer is God

So in other word, God created the pneuma which was then used by the Logos to create.

Of these descriptions, Dr. Austryn Wolfson, the foremost scholar on Philo's works wrote that

  all such expressions merely mean to convey the idea that God brought the world “out of non-existence into existence.”

Dr. David Runia, the penultimate authority on Philo agrees saying on pg 454 of "Philo of Alexandria and The 'Timaeus' of Plato"

  this view is in the final analysis a metaphysicalaly refined variant of the creatio ex nihilo thesis. Although Matter would be only indirectly created by God, it is still the result of divine activity.

And the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy claims that

  Before Philo there was no explicit theory of creation ex nihilo ever postulated in Jewish or Greek traditions.

Conclusion

From the writings of Philo, we can see three things. First, From the statement that,

  taking the beginning to be, not as some men think

Clearly, scholars believe "some men" is referring to Plato and to Jewish thought and Philo was responding to this and creating a different way to view Genesis.

Secondly, Philo is attempting to synthesize Jewish thought and Hellinistic Philosophy which indicates that Jewish Scholarship, like Plato, regarded matter as having always existed.

It seems then, that John 1, in claiming that

  In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God" John was affirming the teachings of Philo and attempting to Join the Stoics philosophical dialogue. John goes on to affirm this Cosmogony, saying

  He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

But then John takes it a step further and refines Philo's teachings saying not just that the Logos was with God at the beginning but that "The Logos WAS God" and that

  He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

  ...

  The Logos became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

And of course, according to John that was Jesus and the embodiment of these abstract qualities did exist corporeally - in Jesus. So while it may seem that Jews did not understand Genesis 1 to speak of creatio ex nihilo, John did understand Genesis 1 this way. Ironically however, inasmuch as these doctrines echo the teachings of Philo's Legum Allegoriæ, this Makes John 1 the Allegorical reading of Genesis and the historic Jewish understanding (which differed according to Philo) and the associated cosmology the literal reading of Genesis.

Authors note: In mousing over a few of the inline citations, you will find that several reference other stack exchange questions - for example a discussion about the firstborn of God or the Theory of Forms. These links provide good background and foundation for this question, and I think as you begin to explore these you will get a fuller picture of how Hellenistic Philosophy intersects with New Testament theology. It will be well worth your time.


Does the Bible make a distinction between Christian and secular love?

Taking a simple definition of love as 'desiring actual good for someone because you care for their actual happiness', we can see that love arising from faith, is different in nature to secular love.    Here are some of the differences:

Faith brings light and knowledge upon what is actual good, therefore it produces the desire of true good for others. Secular love may seek evil for others, through ignorance, although accompanied by human affection. For example, a wife might not want her husband to go to church and worship God (which is for his actual good) because in her ignorance she denies the value of it. She loves him and would rather that he stay home to his personal harm.
Faith produces love for God by believing in his love for us. Therefore the love that springs from faith, seeks to enjoy the highest good (God) and out of that spring, seeks good for men. Human love has self as it's goal, or at least just a few humans under the title friends and family, which is in many ways just an extension of our self-identity.  Although human affection can make someone care deeply for another and be attended with many sacrifices, like a Mother over her infant, there is no higher spiritual motive and spring lifting those emotions onto a higher ground, having a higher object that arouses them, namely the glory and goodness of God.
The love produced by faith endures and can't be defeated.  Human love often fails. Two people deeply in love hate one another a few years later.  Christian love continues and endures as it is accompanied with holiness and so can't be smothered forever in anger, jealousy, ambition, greed, etc. Rather in suffering and loss it often flutters with more peace, patience and inhuman endurance, growing more and more gracious as it lives under the awe of God's glory.
Love arising from faith is a fruit of a spiritual life by the direct working of the Holy Spirit in those whose hearts are filled with him.  Therefore there is a spiritual loving influence that animates human affections within a Christian so that the fragrance of Christ is an accompanying aroma into the love of a Christian.  The spiritual element is a communion with God whereby his divine loving nature brings the heat of his light into our emotions, so that our deepest yearnings become loving desires that are inexpressible even as our own sinful nature opposes that inward yearning of love.  Human love has no additional sense of a spiritual holy realm diffusing it's life into ours.  Human love is often mixed with the unholiest of passions and appetites within hearts driven about by their lusts like wild animals.
Christian love causes actions not just sentiments. And this from faith, not mere self righteousness and a desire for the respect and love of others.

On each of the points I have raised I could add many biblical quotes but I did not want to create a thesis paper here, I had a feeling you are just looking for some overall concepts to divide the two.  But to leave a couple verses that illuminate principles above a bit let me just leave a few:

Even as a believer human love is not that great:

  If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (NIV, Matthew 7:11)

Human affection can go quite far, but still be secretly selfish based love:

  If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 13:3)

The Spirit produces Christian love:

  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, etc. (NIV, Galatians 5:22)

Before we were Christian we actually all hated one another because we did not desire eternal salvation for anyone, nor did we desire the only great and good life in God:

  At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. (NIV, Titus 3:3)

One could go on on on separating love produced by the Spirit and mere human affection, but I am sure we can start to see the diference.


What is the difference between AME and AME Zion Churches

According to Wikipedia, the AME-Zion denomination originated among African American Methodists in New York, and the AME denomination originated among African American Methodists around Philadelphia, both around 1800. Otherwise the histories of the two bodies are similar, and in 2012, they agreed to enter full communion with each other, and other Methodist bodies.


Who is "Samuel" in the story of Saul, Samuel, and the Medium?

This is a very tricky set of verses to interpret. Some think it is the Devil taunting Saul, but others think God used the very vices that Saul sought in his guilt to reprove him and prophecy against him.

I prefer the second option, that is this apparition is not of the Devil, but quite contrary to the woman’s satanic powers God used the occasion to overwhelm Saul so that wherever Saul turned God’s frown would follow him as a horrid curse.

To wonder whether Samuel appeared objectively or by a vision, I would lean towards merely a vision because his soul appears to have come out of the earth in the vision.  Naturally there was a belief that holy disembodied souls lived in heaven and if the vision was meant to be assumed as objective, the real soul of Samuel would probably have come from the sky down to the earth as that would have been more in keeping with how Enoch, Elijah and Jesus left the earth.

Addition

Contrary to what one might think today there were some Jewish beliefs before Christ of the soul going to paradise, or the Bosom of Abraham. The Sadducess did not probably hold this view but Jesus mentioning the Bosom of Abraham was probably in line with some of the views held in the traditios of the Pharisees.  In any case the famous Jewish historian says:

  the carrying up of the soul of the righteous by Angels is certainly in accordance with Jewish teaching, though stripped of all legendary details, such as about the number and the greetings of the Angels. (Alfred Edersheim Life and Times of Jesus, P858)

As another sample, in the Hebrew writings of the Maccabess we have similar ideas in accordance with the jokes that people have today about Peter meeting us at the pearly gates:

  For if we so die, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob will welcome us, and all the fathers will praise us. (4 Maccabees 13:17)

Although it may be difficult to prove when the Hebrews started to beleive in paradise as recording in ancient rabbinic literature, there seems to be logical grounds for assuming very early on. It is plausable that before Isaac was born Abraham had faith that his soul would go to his ancestors when his body was burried. His belief that God could raise Isaac from the dead is described in the New Tetament as the reason why he was willing to kill him.

  You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. (NIV Genesis 15:15)


Which temple is being referred to in Acts 2:46?

The temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.

Acts 2 records how Holy Spirit was poured down on the Day of Pentecost (v 1-4). And then Peter addressed the crowd who were amazed and confused what was going on. Most of them were Jews who came to Jerusalem for the Pentecost festival (v 5). Following Peter's sermon, 3000 were baptized that day (v 41). From verse 42, the writer recorded the activities of the first believers. They devoted to the apostles’ teaching (v 42), they shared everything (v 44) and they met together in the temple courts everyday (v 46).

Acts 2 is no doubt before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Hence, it refers to the Temple in Jerusalem and none other.

What were they doing in the Temple courts? Meeting together and preaching about Jesus Christ as we see in the immediate next chapter, Acts 3, where Peter and John healed a lame man who was begging at the temple gate.

  Acts 3:11 (NIV) While the man held on to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and came running to them in the place called
  Solomon’s Colonnade.

The believers  used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade, which was  on the eastern side of the temple.

  Acts 5:12 (NIV) The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s
  Colonnade

You can see the picture of how the temple at that time looked like here in Wikipedia.


In context, the hymn is saying the 'fortunate fault' brought about the greater good, salvation from Jesus.

It traces its idea back to Augustine, who wrote:

  For God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist. (Enchiridion 8)


What is an overview of methods used by Christian churches to discipline their members?

Across denominational lines, the range of practical actions to discipline members can include:

Confrontation. To some people, simply pointing out that they are doing something wrong is received as a form of discipline - it can certainly be humbling when this happens. This may be done by a peer or even one in a subordinate relationship, but is more typically done by those who have some form of pastoral duty-of-care.
(The act of) Penance. Although penance is not exclusively a Catholic term, the particulars of imposed discipline post-confession as part of the wider Catholic sacrament of penance can be a little unique and vary from saying a certain number of prayers, to reading a portion of scripture, or practicing a particular form of self-denial, or performing a particular act of service or kindness to someone (source).
(Mandated) Counselling. Although most churches will have avenues for their members to voluntarily receive counsel geared towards assisting them to overcome various problems; if their "problem" is one that affects a wider group, they may be "strongly encouraged" (ie do this or face alternative consequences) or even formally required to receive counselling regarding the issue.
(Temporary) Suspension from serving official and/or volunteer ministry duties.
Public Admonition. Rarely used, a significant escalation over private confrontation.
Withholding the Sacrament (of the Eucharist / Communion).
Demotion (loss of title) or dismissal (from a particular role).
Excommunication / disfellowshipping.


What was the justification of morality in Puritan Antinomianism?

From the theopedia article you refer to:

Antinomianism ... is a pejorative term for the teaching that Christians are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality. Few, if any, would explicitly call themselves "antinomian," hence, it is usually a charge leveled by one group against an opposing group. (emphasis added)

and:

Calvinists have also drawn charges of antinomianism. In the history of American Puritanism, Roger Williams was accused of antinomian teachings by the Puritan leadership of New England.
Theological charges of antinomianism typically imply that the opponent's doctrine leads to various sorts of licentiousness, and imply that the antinomian chooses his theology in order to further a career of dissipation. The conspicuous austerity of life among surviving groups of Anabaptists or Calvinists suggests that these accusations are mostly for rhetorical effect. (emphasis added)

In the particular example cited of Roger Williams, he was a separatist and had a different conception of religious liberty than many of his contempories, however, an unqualified charge of 'antinomianism' against him is not well supported: His efforts to secure a charter for the colony on Rhode Island and to serve as it's governor there demonstrate clearly that he did believe in civil law and civil authorities.
In summary, the answer to:

Was this term merely a pejorative adjective for people who disagreed with the established religious authority, like legalism?

Is Yes.
This renders your other questions somewhat moot, as well as being based on either a false or confused premise:  Protestants in general, including the Puritans, do not believe in justification by the law. They believe that the law was given to restrain wickedness, convict of sin and lead men to a knowledge of their need for a saviour. Disagreements about the right use of the law stem more from arguments over whether it has an ongoing utility in the spiritual life of a believer (eg in regards to gaining assurance of salvation, as a guide during the process of sanctification etc.) rather than whether it has any role in society at large and it's application towards Christians as citizens.


What is the Catholic view on frozen embryos

Starting with the second question, the Magisterial teaching of the Church likewise finds both decisions to be bad

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”
Dignitatas Personae - 19

And for the first question, I don't believe it's documented that a couple (or individual) receives a latae sententiae excommunication (automatic excommunication) for procuring IVF, but there is a good case to make for it on grounds that it is tantamount to abortion, which does receive that.


Why can't Jesus periodically visit Earth?

John 16:

  7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

I have heard it said that Jesus going away physically allows for God to be spiritually with everyone.  One can imagine the "scandal" if Jesus were only to visit a few people in bodily form, once in a while. Wouldn't it be a bummer if your spouse said, "Jesus stopped by before you got home from work and gave me a big hug: I really needed it."


What is a Christian's justification for a legal prohibition of homosexual marriage?

From Romans 1, we understand that homosexual activity is a result of a people who know God, but choose not to glorify Him as God. In other words, it is a symptom of a society that has rejected God.

From a theological point of view, a Christian could oppose gay marriage on the grounds that his government is, acting on his behalf, calling "evil good and good evil," directly rejecting the prescribed order. It is tantamount to the society as a whole rejecting God. As one who has a vested interest in not rejecting God, I do not want my government, acting on my behalf, endorsing that which I detest.

This is an active endorsement of a sin, as opposed to mere toleration as would be the case with merely allowing activities that are otherwise sinful.  Indeed, all of what is listed could be considered adiaphora - it is clearly not good stuff, and is actively discouraged amongst those who choose to follow "The Way," but there is no justification for legal compulsion to the contrary.  In contrast, a government explicitly deriving its power from the consent of the governed is making a explicit endorsement of the normative nature of same-sex relationships in declaring marriage "equal" to heterosexual relationships.

(For the non Christians, a quick disclaimer. I understand we live in a pluralistic society. I realize I would be "imposing my beliefs" on others with this argument. I am simply answering the question, not even taking a stand - though today's news did greatly sadden me. Please vote on the theological justification, do not impose your "tolerance" and pluralism on me. You will note, I am not calling for the pitchforks. I'm just choosing to exercise my rights as a citizen to voice my disapproval, and to show that contrary to what people say, it does affect me.  )

Additionally, a Christian would argue that marriage is an institution ordained by God, not a function of the state. When Jesus said, "for this reason a man shall leave his mother and cling to his wife," it is because that is the order which God prescribed. A Christian response would ask why the state gets to (re-)define that which God has defined and put together.

Fundamentally, the real question has less to do with homosexuality itself, and far more to do with the question of whether marriage is a secular or a theological institution. As one who sees marriage as predating governments, I tend to think its none of the government's business.


Differences between the "son of man" and "son of God"

Jesus is the Son of God. He is often called the son of man to tell people that He is the coming messiah that everyone needs. How can calling Him the son of man tell people he's the messiah? Enter  Daniel 7:13:

  “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

This was Old Testament prophecy from the prophet Daniel where he saw Jesus Christ, who came from the clouds of heaven like a "son of man".

People knew the Old Testament pretty well at the time, so when Jesus was referenced as the son of man, people immediately recollected Daniel's vision and connected the dots, placing Jesus as the messiah. Pretty cool, eh?


Are the word of faith/prosperity doctrines biblical?

For every passage that justifies a religious focus on the accumulation of wealth, there is another that presents the opposite, or example Mark 10:24-25 (copied in Matthew 19:23-24, Luke 18:24-25):

  Mark 10:24-25 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

The Bible often associates prosperity with wickedness; for example Psalm 73:3-9:

  Psalm 73:3-9: For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men. Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them as a garment. Their eyes stand out with fatness: they have more than heart could wish. They are corrupt, and speak wickedly concerning oppression: they speak loftily. They set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth.

An association of prosperity with wickedness may be unfair, but is also inconsistent with any claim that the Bible condemns as lacking faith, those who do not achieve prosperity.

I would more willingly accept the claims of prosperity theology if its advocates gave their own wealth to the poor, as Ananias was called upon to do in Acts 5.


From an LDS perspective, what is the difference between feeling the influence of the Holy Spirit and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit?

Joseph Smith taught:

  There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy
  Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which
  was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel,
  but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was
  baptized. Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy
  Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him.
  [See Acts 10:1–48.] Until he obeyed these ordinances and received the
  gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands, according to the
  order of God, he could not have healed the sick or commanded an evil
  spirit to come out of a man, and it obey him; for the spirits might
  say unto him, as they did to the sons of Sceva: ‘Paul we know and
  Jesus we know, but who are ye?’ [See Acts 19:13–15.]

History of the Church, 4:555; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on Mar. 20, 1842, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Wilford Woodruff.


According to Trinitarians, if Jesus was saying things that clearly made Him out to be God, why didn't Caiaphas mention it at Jesus' trial?

A simple statement, like “I am God” is unambiguous.  Had Jesus ever uttered those three words in front of witnesses while on earth, he would have been instantly stoned to death by outraged Jews who would not have held to the protocol of only the Roman government having the authority to put people to death – they would have done it behind the Roman’s backs. To the Jewish people, it is blasphemy for any human to claim to be God. So, because Jesus had to die as the Son of God the way the scriptures foretold (which ruled out being stoned to death), his actions spoke for him, until the time eventually came to speak clearly. His actions were such that he did things only God could do, (especially forgiving sins which no prophet prior to him had ever done) and it was those actions that rattled the religious leaders so much. They knew that the people could see how extraordinary Jesus was; that the people were listening to Jesus’ teaching; that many were following him.
There were witnesses to Jesus saying things like, “If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death”, and “If ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins”, and “the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father”, and much more like that. Yet at the time of trial before the Sanhedrin, those statements in and of themselves could not be made to equate with “I am God”. Of course, in light of Jesus’ resurrection they most certainly can! But you ask about his trial and Caiaphas not “mentioning” any clear statement of Jesus that made him out to be God. That is because Jesus never clearly said, “I am God.” Even when Jesus said that he existed before Abraham lived; “Before Abraham was, I Am” – and they tried to stone him to death for that – those five words fall short of a legal charge of the blasphemy of a man claiming to be God.
That is why false witnesses had to be listened to, because even though many of those religious leaders had heard astounding claims from Jesus’ own lips, they could not (legally speaking) amount to evidence that Jesus had publicly claimed to be God. He never did. And for good reason.
For a start, that could be misleading (according to Trinitarian understanding of the complexity of the one Being of God). There is more to the one Being of God than the Word incarnate, made flesh, walking amongst other men who beheld his glory, that of the only-begotten of the Father (John 1:1-14). Jesus knew that if they didn’t understand that complex truth, they would instantly claim grounds for stoning him to death, but he had to complete his mission on earth. “My time has not yet come” he said several times during that mission. But when his time DID come, he went for it, telling those who hatefully asked him if he was “the Christ, the Son of the Blessed”, he said, “I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14:61-64)
This led to instant cries of “Blasphemy!” and they all condemned him as guilty of death, according to Jewish law (not Roman law).
That is why Jesus held back openly stating his deity until that moment, when his time had come. Then the embarrassment of false witnesses and clashing testimonies could be swept aside by them. Jesus stating that he was also the Son of God, “the Son of the Blessed”, was too much for those who only thought him to be a man. Those who were prepared to accept that Jesus was a good man still knew the significance of him claiming to be the Son of God – which went way beyond mere humanity! Were it not true, it would have been blasphemy. They thought it was not true. But if it is true that Jesus is God incarnate, then it is blasphemy for people to deny that truth.


Sarah laughed at God and He did not mind

God did not punish Sarah because:

God promised to bless Sarah, not curse her.
Sarah and Abraham seem to have laughed in a sort of prophesy, because the name of their son would sound the same as the Hebrew word for laughter.
God is merciful! Directly after this He allows Abraham to ask Him, repeatedly, not to destroy Sodom if there are any righteous people there (first 50 righteous people, then 45, 40, 30, 20, 10) and each time God agrees to have mercy, if that many righteous people should be found.

There are three instances of laughter. Here are the the relevant passages, and the notes:

  Genesis 17
  17:16 I will bless her, and I will give you a son by her. Her also will I bless; she will give rise to nations, and rulers of peoples will issue from her. 17 Abraham fell face down and laughed* as he said to himself, “Can a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah give birth at ninety?” 18 So Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael could live in your favor!” 19 God replied: Even so, your wife Sarah is to bear you a son, and you shall call him Isaac. It is with him that I will maintain my covenant as an everlasting covenant and with his descendants after him.

  [17:17] Laughed: yishaq, which is also the Hebrew form of the name “Isaac”; similar explanations of the name are given in Gn 18:12 and 21:6.

  Genesis 18
  18:12
  So Sarah laughed* to herself and said, “Now that I am worn out and my husband is old, am I still to have sexual pleasure?”
  13
  But the LORD said to Abraham: “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really bear a child, old as I am?’
  14
  Is anything too marvelous for the LORD to do? At the appointed time, about this time next year, I will return to you, and Sarah will have a son.”
  15
  Sarah lied, saying, “I did not laugh,” because she was afraid. But he said, “Yes, you did.”

  [18:12] Sarah laughed: a play on the verb “laugh,” which prefigures the name of Isaac; see note on 17:17.

  Genesis 21
  21:5
  Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.
  6
  Sarah then said, “God has given me cause to laugh,* and all who hear of it will laugh with me.

  [21:6] Laugh: for the third time (cf. 17:17 and 18:12) there is laughter, playing on the similarity in Hebrew between the pronunciation of the name Isaac and words associated with laughter.


In Christ's time, who possessed the written word?

Well, obviously, many of the specifics are simply unknowable, but written texts were obviously kept and transmitted by various religious communities in antiquity. One particularly anachronistic component to your question, however, is the notion that the scriptures or Bible were "a" scroll. You simply couldn't fit several long texts (e.g. the entirety of the Torah) on a single scroll in antiquity. In fact, this is the traditional reason that we give for why the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles were split into two parts, namely, that only half of each would reasonably fit on a single scroll.

The oldest material evidence we have for this fact comes from the scrolls found near Qumran (commonly referred ot as the Dead Sea Scrolls). Not a lot is known about the settlement there, but most scholars suspect that it was made up of Essenes, or some other sectarian group. Anyhow, the thing to note is that these folks kept many, many scrolls—biblical and otherwise, but each book was (generally) on its own roll.

This brings me to my final bit: scrolls (and most long-format texts) were expensive to make and to copy. It is reasonable, therefore, to suspect that in most cases biblical scrolls would have been prohibitively expensive for most individuals. More likely Torah instruction happened orally in cases where texts were not available. Plus most people couldn't read, anyway.


Does any church denomination believe it possible to go one moment without sinning?

Most Wesleyan/Holiness denominations teach that it is at least theoretically possible. This would include Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, and the Salvation Army, as well as most churches that have "holiness" in their name.
This doctrine is known as Christian Perfection or Entire Sanctification (depending on the denomination) and was outlined by John Wesley in a sermon titled Christian Perfection. Wesley later wrote a book, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection.
Essentially, the teaching is this. God expects us to give up our own desires and live for him alone:

1 Peter 4:1-2
Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same intention (for whoever has suffered in the flesh has finished with sin), so as to live for the rest of your earthly life no longer by human desires but by the will of God.

It is God at work within us that enables us to do this:

Philippians 2:12-13
Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
1 John 5:18
We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

If God works in us and protects us and enables us to stop sinning, then all we have to do is give up our own willfulness and let God take control.
In theory it's that simple, but in practice it is far from easy. The Apostle Paul struggled:

Romans 7:19-23
For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

After preaching Christ for many years, Paul wrote from prison that this perfection was still in the future:

Philippians 3:12-14
Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

And even Jesus was tempted to follow his own (human) will rather than God's:

Matthew 26:39
And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."

So God's expectation is that we don't sin any longer. God has promised to protect us and work in us to accomplish this, and with God all things are possible. Therefore, theoretical perfection is possible. Just don't ask me for examples of people who have actually achieved it.


What is the significance of the four laws given to early Christians who were not ethnically Jews?

The prohibition from eating the meat of strangled animals is essentially the same thing as the prohibition from eating blood.  If an animal was strangled, that means its blood was not drained from its body.  Therefore, eating the meat of strangled animals was another method of consuming their blood.  The Mosaic Law outlawed the consumption of blood.

Lev. 17:10-11 (NASB)  And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.  For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.
Deut. 12:16 (NASB)  Only you shall not eat the blood; you are to pour it out on the ground like water.
Deut. 12:23 (NASB)  Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.

Since eating blood was so detestable to the Jews, and presumably associated with pagan rituals, the Apostles felt that it was important for the gentile Christians to abstain from eating blood, even though they were not following the rest of the Mosaic Law.  By doing so, they would not cause offense to Jews and weaker brethren.

1 Cor. 10:23-33 (NASB)  All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; for the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains. If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?  Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.

Some people take this command further and believe that, even today, it is a sin for Christians to eat blood.  They believe that, since God outlawed the consumption of blood prior to the Mosaic Law, it is a general moral law which applies to all people for all time, not just those subject to the Mosaic Covenant.

Gen. 9:4-5 (NASB) Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man.


What is the "fideism" rejected by the Catholic Church?

Problematic fideism in Catholicism occurs when faith is exalted at the expense of reason. That is, when faith involves or requires irrationality. Doctrines such as the Trinity are beyond reason and accessible only to faith, but they do not entail a transgression of reason.  This can also occur in a lesser mode when appeals to faith downplay or undermine the role of reason.  For example, John Paul II warns against privileging faith in scripture over the rationality of tradition and the Magisterium:

  There are also signs of a resurgence of fideism, which fails to recognize the importance of rational knowledge and philosophical discourse for the understanding of faith, indeed for the very possibility of belief in God. One currently widespread symptom of this fideistic tendency is a “biblicism” which tends to make the reading and exegesis of Sacred Scripture the sole criterion of truth. In consequence, the word of God is identified with Sacred Scripture alone, thus eliminating the doctrine of the Church which the Second Vatican Council stressed quite specifically. Having recalled that the word of God is present in both Scripture and Tradition,73 the Constitution Dei Verbum continues emphatically: “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture comprise a single sacred deposit of the word of God entrusted to the Church. Embracing this deposit and united with their pastors, the People of God remain always faithful to the teaching of the Apostles”.74 Scripture, therefore, is not the Church's sole point of reference. The “supreme rule of her faith” 75 derives from the unity which the Spirit has created between Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church in a reciprocity which means that none of the three can survive without the others.76

  Fides et Ratio, 55

John Paul II goes some way towards defining fideism when he quotes Dei Filius of the First Vatican Council.  As noted above, problematic fideism is not the belief in the superiority of faith, but rather the belief that there can be a true divergence between faith and reason which results in a contradiction between the truths of faith and the truths of reason:

  “Even if faith is superior to reason there can never be a true divergence between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals the mysteries and bestows the gift of faith has also placed in the human spirit the light of reason. This God could not deny himself, nor could the truth ever contradict the truth”.65

  Fides et Ratio, 53


What is the earliest point in history where the cross icon started showing up on artifacts related to Christianity?

Wikipedia says:

  However, the cross symbol was already associated with Christians in the 2nd century, as is indicated in the anti-Christian arguments cited in the Octavius[6] of Minucius Felix,


Does Bible say anywhere that if a woman was raped, she needs to marry the one who raped her?

Here is an answer extracted and expanded from my article, Is Sex Before Marriage Forbidden in the Bible?

If a man raped a woman who was pledged to be married, he was subject to the death penalty, while the woman was not to be punished at all:

  But if the man meets the engaged woman in the open country, and the
  man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her
  shall die. You shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman
  has not committed an offense punishable by death, because this case is
  like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor. Since he
  found her in the open country, the engaged woman may have cried for
  help, but there was no one to rescue her. (Deuteronomy 22:25–27).

What if the woman was neither married nor pledged to be married?

In that society, it was assumed that an unmarried woman (who wasn't a prostitute) would not allow a man to have sex with her, because the consequences for her would be catastrophic. So if an unmarried man did have sex with an unmarried woman, unless there was some proof otherwise, it was considered rape, and the man was to be punished for it—but not by the death penalty:

  If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies
  with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her
  shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and
  she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be
  permitted to divorce her as long as he lives. (Deuteronomy 22:28–29)

In other words, the man was subject to a large fine payable to the woman's father (which was basically a bride price) and to the ancient Hebrew equivalent of a shotgun wedding, from which he could not escape through divorce.

So it could be said that "the woman needs to marry the one who raped her," but that's not how it is framed in the Bible. Rather, the rapist was required to marry the woman.

This was based on a very different social order than exists in the West today. In ancient times, an unmarried woman who was not a virgin was subject to the death penalty if she married and it was discovered that she was not a virgin (see Deuteronomy 22:13-21).

The requirement that a rapist marry the woman he raped if she was not married or engaged to be married, as horrible as it seems by today's standards, was actually intended as a protection of the woman. It required the man who took her virginity to become her husband, and thus make her an honorable woman in the eyes of society, as well as requiring him to support her and her children for the rest of his life. It deprived him of the right he would otherwise have, under the law of Moses, to divorce her if he found her displeasing.


How do denominations that ordain women at the same time justify not ordaining homosexuals?

There's really nothing comparable between the two issues: no one thinks that being a woman is sinful, but many Christian denominations think that all sex outside of heterosexual marriage is sinful.

When we look the passages which give the criteria for church leaders such as 1 Timothy 3 we see several distinct criteria:

being above reproach
a husband of one wife
self controlled and not a drunk
hospitable
able to teach
not violent or greedy
takes care of his own house
not a recent convert
well regarded in the community

Some of these are inherently vague - an elder is not to be a recent convert, but Paul doesn't specify what "recent" means. Some people might think that five years is still too young a Christian, others think that only one or two is acceptable. Others would take the principle more generally, and say that the time a person has been a Christian doesn't matter, but how spiritually mature they are does.

Similarly, the requirement that they're the husband of one wife is contentious. Does it just prohibit polygamous husbands? What about divorced husbands? What about single men?

It's clear that Paul assumes the elders will be men. But is that an assumption we can do away with, or is that an essential part of the role description? Christians disagree greatly over that question. Some churches will not appoint women to be elders/ministers/priests, others will. Both sides have good arguments.

But what is indisputable is that the candidate's moral character cannot be ignored. I only listed some of the prohibitions in 1 Timothy 3, Paul gives more! No one who is in unrepentant sin is qualified to lead a church. If a church thinks that homosexual sex is sinful then they can refuse to ordain people in homosexual relationships while ordaining women without being inconsistent in the slightest.


What is the cross in the mantra "carry your own cross"?

I believe that we can get a definitive answer on this from the Apostle Paul. He spoke of the Cross as the summation of Christ and His Mission to redeem man.

He stated that the Message of the Cross is the Power and Wisdom of God to those who are saved (1 Cor 1:18, 23), and emphatically stated that he would not preach or know anything other than "Christ and Him Crucified" (1 Cor 2:2). He taught in many places that the very life we have as Christians stems from being planted together with Christ in His Death (Gal 2:20, Romans 6:6). If we compare what Paul says about the Wisdom of God from 1 Cor 1:23 and Eph 3:9-10, we see that he is wrapping up in the term "Cross" the entire, eternal mission of Christ. We can confirm that with Phil 2:8-9. So, when we are to take up His Cross, the Cross, our Cross, being that we are planted together with Him in the likeness of His Death, it means to take up His Redemptive Mission. We are to "seek first the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness" (Matt 6:33) (also flows from Calvary [Rom 3-4]). We are to live by faith in His Blood (Rom 3:25). We are to look to Calvary.

Since Grace flows through faith (Eph 2:8-9), and Satan knows that in order for him to remove us from the Grace of God, he must destroy our faith, he knows that he must eliminate our faith in the Atoning Work of Christ that reconciles us to God. Therefore, with believing properly comes a struggle of faith... a good fight of the faith. (1 Tim 6:12). This struggle (fight, literally "agony") to keep one's faith off of self (the world, the flesh, and the devil all fight against this faith) and unto Christ is what it means to "take up one's Cross". It means to carry the Cross in your faith, which will allow Grace (Eph 2:8-9), which will allow the Holy Spirit to conform us into the Image of Christ  (Rom 8:29, 2 Cor 3:18), which will enable us to build the Kingdom of God in Resurrection Power (Acts 2:8; Romans 6:5).


What do Quakers believe about war and serving in the military?

Quakers are considered one of the "peace churches" who oppose war of any kind, and typically refuse to participate in it. However they are also not a denomination which expects everyone in it to do exactly what the church says. See this article for more information. The biblical basis for pacifism is discussed here.

I believe that some Quakers have indeed served in the military as medics. I've never heard of one serving as a chaplain.


Marriages that are blessed (convalidated) and Holy Communion

The short answer is “yes”: as far as the marriage is concerned, there no problem whatsoever. The Catholic party may freely receive Communion. (The non-Catholic party may not; see Code of Canon Law, Can. 884.)

The Church makes no distinction whatsoever between marriages contracted in the “ordinary” way and those contracted by convalidation.

Hence, with the usual conditions (the person who wishes to receive Communion should not be conscious of having committed a mortal sin since his last confession), there is no restriction of any kind on receiving Communion.

As the Code of Canon Law puts it,

  Any baptized person not prohibited by law [which includes practically any Catholic in good standing] can and must be admitted to holy communion (Can.  912).

(For an overview of what convalidation is, see the Code of Canon Law 1156-1160.)


How does the Hebrew Roots movement handle Paul's statements which imply Christians should not be enslaved to the Jewish Law?

From what I gather, there are degrees of Hebrew Roots teaching.

Some believe in salvation 100% by the atoning work of Christ, while some believe in a combination of Christ's works and your works.

Some believe the Trinity is a pagan invention, while some understand Christ is the Son of God.

They tend to believe that even though you may be saved by grace, it is a sin to not follow Torah, including feasts, Sabbath, foods, etc.  They understand that Christ followed Torah and so should His followers.

So to the specific passage, they tend to believe it is misunderstood or mistranslated.  They cite the numerous other Pauline comments about the law.

Generally speaking, Hebrew Roots disavows the oral teachings, but instead focus on the written word (Torah).


Intelligent design - Creationism by a different name?

There are young earth creationists and old earth creationists. Young earth creationists tend to literally translate the opening chapters of Genesis as a literal 6 day creation cycle and an earth approximately 10,000 years old.

Old earth creationists will generally meld evolutionary theory with with looser interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis.

Both creationist beliefs state the spiritual source is the God of the Bible.

Intelligent design advocates don't specify where everything started or who started it. They just say there's a point at which matter must have begun and before that there's something non-physical that must be the source. Also, they'll argue that the order we observe in nature speaks to something will intelligence directing evolutionary or creationary forces.

In a way you could say Creationism is a sub-set of Intelligent Design, and Young earth/Old earth creationist are the two primary sub-sets of creationism.


Does the phrase "in good standing" have a definition in Catholicism?

It's not a term used in canon law.
Canonist Charles Augustine, O.S.B., uses the the phrase "good standing" in his commentary on canon law, but it doesn't appear anywhere in the code of canon law itself.
The OED defines "to be in good standing with" as "to stand well with, be in favour with". Thus, a Catholic in good standing is one who is not excommunicated and practices the faith.


What does Sinclair Ferguson (a reformed theologian) mean by a 'new identity'?

I'm not aware of the specific lectures you are referring to, but I have listened to / read a fair amount of his work. I imagine Sinclair Ferguson would be thinking along these lines:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: the old has gone, the new is here! (2 Corinthians 5:17)

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)

The point is that coming to Christ is the most significant thing that can happen to someone - Jesus likens it to being "born again" (John 3:3).
This is how Paul describes the Christian life:

You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. (Ephesians 4:22-24)

It's significant enough that we can talk about an "old self" and a "new self". Of course the word 'identity' isn't used - that's a more modern construct - but I think the concept is there.
I should add that it's not being given a new identity doesn't mean a totally new identity in the sense that it's alien to us: rather, it's the restoration of an identity which sin had distorted and defiled. In Christ we become the people who God designed us to be.
Without wishing to put words in Dr Ferguson's mouth, I think he is probably meaning something like that!


According to Reformed Theology how can we saved by Grace 'Alone' and Faith 'Alone'?

These two slogans were used to explain two major disagreements Protestants had with what the Catholic Church was teaching, and yes, they are designed to work together! They don't compete, they are alone in their own respective fields.

Sola Fide refers to the belief that works are not a means or prerequisite for salvation. People are declared to be justified (righteous) purely on the basis of trusting God to fulfil his promise to save us through the gracious act of Jesus taking the hit for us on the cross. This was the major defining belief of the Protestant reformation.

Sola Gratia refers to the belief that nothing a person does contributes to their salvation. From God's perspective no person has ever merited any component of their salvation - salvation is purely a gift (grace) from God. There is a lot of overlap between this and Sola Fide. But it means that the game never changes. Once you're saved you still live on the basis of grace and faith. The good works Christians do will never be anything other than graces from God. I've also heard that it is a kind of summary of the other Solas: Our faith is a gift from God, not something we produce ourselves. Christ Alone means we come to God purely through Jesus, with no human mediators. Grace Alone means that Jesus was never obligated to do anything, especially not come to the earth and die - every action of God is a gift. Similarly God was never obligated to reveal himself to us through scripture - the Bible is a gift.

The two work together, and many Protestants will say that we are saved "by grace through faith", exactly what your verse from Ephesians says.


What's the difference between judging God and questioning God?

Yes. In questioning God, we are admitting that his knowledge and wisdom is superior to ours:

“Why are you doing this?”
“This doesn’t make sense to me.”
“When will you rescue me from this situation?”

Whereas to judge him would be to assume that our knowledge and wisdom is superior:

“You are wrong to do this.”
“You’ve forgotten about ....”

It's a very thin line, but there is a line.


Is it permissible for a Catholic to pray the Salat?

No, it is forbidden for Catholics to engage in communicatio in sacris (joining others in false worship, e.g., worshipping Islam's false god Allah, who is not the Holy Trinity):

  1917 Canon 1258 §1 It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred [rites] of non-Catholics.

cf. Dom Augustine's A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law on '17 Can. 1258

This law is expressed in the 1983 code, in the section "Delicts against religion and the unity of the Church," as:

  1983 Can. 1365 A person guilty of prohibited participation in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris) is to be punished with a just penalty.

cf. this commentary on '83 Can. 1365


The best way to find this estimate is to take known historical dates and work backwards from there using dates and durations in the Bible.

The Mesha Stele has been dated to about 840-850 BCE, and seems to pretty clearly describe the time of Omri.  If we assume it was written when the events happened, not long afterwards, we can use it to work backwards.  Omri's reign began in the 31st year of Asa and lasted twelve years, which means that Asa's reign began around 870-890.  Previously, Rehoboam ruled for 17 and Abijah for three.  Although the transition is not entirely clear to me, the prior ruler was apparently Solomon for 40 years.  In his fourth year, he started to build the temple, which was 480 years after leaving Egypt.  So that takes us back 20+36+480 = 536 years further, to 1406-1426 BCE as the dates for the exodus.

Now we come to a difficult stretch because there are, to my knowledge, no clear chronological links between Moses and, say, Joseph.  Moses' grandfather Kehat was with Jacob on the way into Egypt, and if you add up all the ages that's a maximum of 350 years (actually surely less, since Kehat was not an infant), but it's not clear what the minimum was.  The most direct statement is Genesis 15:13, which puts four hundred years between Abraham's offspring and the exodus.  Since the phrase is "in a land that is not theirs", and Ishmael and Isaac did not start off owning the land, it seems that the most harmonious interpretation is that this was 400 years from Ishmael's birth.  We find that Abraham was 86 years old at the time.  The 400 years probably didn't end until after wandering in the wilderness for 40 years, so that's 360 years from Ishmael's birth to the exodus.

Therefore, according to historical and Biblical evidence, Abraham was born somewhere in the range of 1852-1872 BCE and died 175 years later (1677-1697).  If the 400 years are accounted for differently, these dates could change significantly.

For what it's worth, other people have studied the matter and come up with different timelines; it's complicated by the lack of accurately-dated historical evidence for events prior to David upon which to anchor the timeline.

(Beware of lots of little edits to fix up small mathematical errors and other details.)


Why did God banish Adam and Eve for eating fruit?

You've missed exactly what Adam and Eve missed - the tree of Life. There it was in the midst of the garden.

And there it was - the Word of Life - 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it.'

It isn't food. You can't digest it. Partake of it and you will die.

But another (created) spirit drew near. (For they had not taken of the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden. They had not partaken of the Word of Life which said 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it'.)

And Eve hearkened and ate. And Eve gave to Adam to eat.

And in that very day, they died.

This is about human nature. It is a matter of how humanity is to Live. Adam was made a living soul and he lived and breathed. But there was a Tree of Life in the midst which he needed. And he did not partake of it.

He chose to seek sustenance from another direction. From knowledge. Rather than partake of Life, he chose knowledge. Which assumes his own ability to see aright and to do aright what he sees.

Rather than to partake of Life itself.

He wishes to be independent of the Deity (in whom is Life) who made him.

Chooses to hearken to a created spirit, encouraged by a created woman.

And he dies.

And he is banished from the garden, for he has failed in his humanity to rise to the purpose of the Creator who made humanity for a purpose.

This is profoundly and fundamentally spiritual.

It's not about physical fruit.


How did Rahab speak the language spoken by Joshua’s spies

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived in Canaan before the Hebrew people moved to Egypt.

Moses lived for forty years in Midian before he led the people into the desert.

During the wandering in the desert, the Hebrew people frequently fought the neighboring peoples.

All these interactions provided opportunities for some of the Hebrew people to learn Canaanite languages.


Has the Catholic Church ever opposed interracial marriage?

The answer, in essence, is “no.”

In principle, there is no obstacle to the marriage of any baptized Catholic man to any baptized Catholic woman, regardless of race.

This is a principle at least as old as St. Paul:

  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:27-28).

Evidently, St. Paul is addressing baptized Jews and Greeks here, and Baptism removes all of the barriers to communion that man commonly places: race, social status, and sex.

(Since the O.P. mentions the homosexual marriage issue, please note that St. Paul is by no means downplaying the complementarity of the sexes in this passage; he is simply saying that neither men nor women are prevented from enjoying full communion in Christ. All too often—especially in the ancient world—women have endured a status as second-class citizens; St. Paul is saying that there are no second-class citizens in the Church.)

I was unable to find any official Church document that addresses the issue of interracial marriage directly, but Canon Law places no restriction whatsoever on race (neither the current code nor the older code issued in 1917).

There have doubtless been individual parishes that have refused marriages to interracial couples, but in general the Church has never refused such marriages.

Regarding interracial marriage as an argument for homosexual marriage: it is true that many states in the Jim Crow era prohibited interracial marriage (what the Catholic Church would call civil marriage, which is simply the legal contract established by spouses, not the Sacrament of Matrimony). Doubtless many Christian denominations followed suit (however, not the Catholic Church as a body).

However, it is a logical fallacy—a classic non sequitur—to deduce from this fact that therefore opposition to same-sex marriage is based on prejudices similar to those of the Jim Crow era.

In reality, “race” is an artificial concept that has no true basis in human nature. (It is true that human beings from different ethnic origins often have slightly different external characteristics, but these differences are quite superficial.) On the other hand, the complementarity of the sexes is indeed based on reality. Hence, there is no comparison between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage.


In general, in the Protestant branch, who can baptize a new believer?

The Scriptures make no restriction on who can baptize another person.  In the Great Commission of Matthew 28, Jesus tells His disciples to make disciples, to baptize them and to teach them obedience.  It is very plausible to presume, then, that the one who disciples is the one who has the right to baptize and teach obedience as well.  Yet, individuals can play different roles in this.

So, some Protestant denominations may restrict the privilege to pastors, but when they do so, it is likely not based on clear prohibitions of Scripture.  Many Protestant denominations reject the idea of a clergy class and a laity class, so what a pastor can do, others who are not pastors can also do (except when it comes to legal issues like performing weddings).

  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”  Matthew 28:19-20 NAS


Is Leviticus 14 describing a cure for leprosy?

Matthew Henry Explains this passage with the following in his Commentary:

  Some make the slain bird to typify Christ dying for our sins, and the living bird Christ rising again for our justification. The dipping of the living bird in the blood of the slain bird intimated that the merit of Christ's death was that which made his resurrection effectual for our justification. He took his blood with him into the holy place, and there appeared a lamb as it had been slain. The cedar, scarlet wool, and hyssop, must all be dipped in the blood; for the word and ordinances, and all the operations of the Spirit, receive their efficacy for our cleansing from the blood of Christ.

Note that if you read the entire passage you will see that this is a cleansing ceremony after someone previously diagnosed with leprosy had been pronounced free of the disease:

Leviticus 14:3 (NIV) (emphasis mine)

  3 The priest is to go outside the camp and examine them. If they have been healed of their defiling skin disease,

Thus this is not a cure, but a purification ritual following a cure. As Henry says some people see this as pointing to the cleansing blood of Christ.


The context of the New Testament is the primarily the Old Testament.
Everything else is secondary.
Jesus Christ studied and lived according to the Old Testament. Jesus said in Matthew 4: 19, 'Follow me . . .'
No Christian can get away from those words.
What Jesus attacked was not the Old Testament but interpretation of the law especially by the Pharisees.
There are modern 'Pharisees' as well.
(It sounds as if you are being bullied. Don't stand for it. Study, think, and judge for yourself. It is your soul.)


How can we understand the SDA interpretation of Daniel 9:26?

Seventh Day Adventist Robert Wood gives this information on Daniel 9:26.

  The “threescore and two weeks” or 434 literal years, also mentioned in the previous verse, begins after the “seven weeks” or 49 years mentioned in verse 25 which brings us to the same date, 27 A.D.[57] when Christ was anointed by baptism. Sometime after that date, Jesus would be “cut off,[58] but not for himself . . .” meaning: “He died the just for the unjust, . . . Tho innocent and undeserving of punishment, our Substitute and Surety was brought under the curse and condemnation that should have been ours.”[59]

  Now, as we look back retrospectively on what happened, the same “people[60] of the prince” who were instrumental in Christ’s crucifixion in 31 A.D. also came and destroyed “the city and the sanctuary” in 70. A.D. by what Gabriel called an overwhelming “flood,” a great, irresistible army of Rome, represented by the “dreadful,” devouring, breaking, stamping “fourth beast” of Daniel 7:7, 19, 23. It was the most guilty of all “the transgressors” of Daniel 8:23 who had not yet “come to the full.” This all happened, we can suppose, mid shaft of the “legs of iron” in Daniel 2:33.

  So, the “in the year 70 AD . . . The Roman army, led by the future Emperor Titus, with Tiberious Julius Alexander as his second-in-command, besieged and conquered the city of Jerusalem” which “was the decisive event in the ‘First Jewish-Roman War’ followed by the fall of Masada in 73 AD.”[61]

  But, that was only the beginning of “a series of revolts by the Jews against the Roman Empire.” The second was the “Kitos War (115-117)” and the third is called the “Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135).”[62] Interestingly, the “Arch of Titus, depicting and celebrating the sack of Jerusalem and the Temple, still stands in Rome.”[63] But, in spite of the ongoing Jewish resistance even after the fall of Jerusalem, Gabriel predicted their revolts would be fruitless, observing that “desolations are determined” or decreed [64] in which their final destruction at “the end of the war” were inevitable.

Explore Daniel & Revelation


Can somebody summarize the different "branches" of Christianity to me, and explain why they exist in the first place?

The branches come from difference in opinion. Here is a diagram showing where Christianity diverged.

Image source

From the beginning Christianity diverged from Judaism1:

  where Christianity emphasizes correct belief (or orthodoxy), focusing on the New Covenant as mediated through Jesus Christ, as recorded in the New Testament. Judaism places emphasis on correct conduct (or orthopraxy), focusing on the Mosaic covenant, as recorded in the Torah and Talmud.2

As time went on further differences in opinion let to more denominations that fell under the umbrella of Christianity.

Great Schism of 1054 was when Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism split over3:

issues of the procession of the Holy Spirit
whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist
the Bishop of Rome's claim to universal jurisdiction
the place of the See of Constantinople in relation to the Pentarchy

Reformation began around 1517-15214

had varying causes and different backgrounds by various leaders (see Martin Luther, John Calvin) caused new denominations to emerge (Lutherism, Calvinism)

Restorationism attempted to re-establish Christianity in its original form and spans over many years5

The Second Great Awakening of 1790-1840 was protestant revival movement in America that caused new denominations to emerge (Adventism, Dispensationalism, Latter-Day Saint Movement)

This is not meant to be a comprehensive list but a brief summary showing where some denominations OP mentions come from see also

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christian#Split_of_early_Christianity_and_Judaism

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Judaism

3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism

4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation

5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism


Origin of the phrase

There are actually a number of texts that are labeled the "Nicene Creed".  The text produced by the 325 council does not include information about the kingdom at all.  Eusebius of Caesarea, who attended the council, wrote back to his congregation about the deliberations.  He reports an initial version of the creed that was used as a part of the baptism ceremony and the final version as issued by the council.  None of these versions include the phrase "whose Kingdom shall have no end".

The Nicene Creed received by the Eastern Orthodox Church has traditionally been associated with the Council of Constantinople in 381.  36 representatives of Macedonianism were turned away from the second ecumenical council because they would not affirm the Nicene Creed (presumably the 325 version).  The Council of Ephesus in 431 reaffirmed the faith established in Nicea, but seems to have had the 325 text in mind.  Further, it seems to have put an end to the writing of new creeds.  According to Wikipedia, the creed that included the phrase was not quoted until the fourth ecumenical council at Chalcedon in 451.

Philip Schaff commented on the origin of the phrase:

  This clause had already, so far as the meaning is concerned, been added to the Nicene Creed, years before, in correction of the heresy of Marcellus of Ancyra, of whose heresy a statement will be found in the notes on Canon I. of this Council.  One of the creeds of the Council of Antioch in Encæniis (a.d. 341) reads:  “and he sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead, and he remaineth God and King to all eternity.”

This may be confirmed by Athanasius (On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, II, 22) and Socrates Scholasticus (Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 10).  For the purposes of this answer, I will assume the phrase dates back to at least the 341 Synod of Antioch.

Does the phrase reject Chiliasm?

The nature of the Second Person of the Trinity was the primary focus of these councils since heresies in question (those of Arius and Nestorius) were related to the meaning of the titles "Son of God" and "Son of Man".  As far as I can tell, these heresies do not require a commitment to a particular eschatological theory.

If the phrase were added in response to Marcellus of Ancyra, who was accused of Sabellianism, the purpose would be to emphasize that Jesus would not return the Kingdom to the Father.  In particular, "[Jesus] remains God and King to all eternity" would contradict dynamic monarchianism, which holds that God transferred his kingly authority to Jesus only for a time.  Again, this view does not by necessity hold to a 1000-year reign; rather, it holds that God temporarily took on the persona of Jesus.

So the heresies the creeds were designed to contradict were not particularly millenarian.  In addition, the phrase ought not particularly bother the believer in chiliasm.  That's because unending Kingdom of Christ is said to come after the final judgement, which is not controversial.  Revelation 20-22 describes a millenium in which the martyrs of the Church reign with Christ followed by the final judgment followed by the new Jerusalem where the servants of the Lamb with reign with Him forever.  So the literal reading of Revelation meshes well with the phrase in the creed; the creed just leaves out some of the detail.

Did the fourth century church condemn Chiliasm?

The early church fathers are fairly well split on the issue:

Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian held views similar to the Jewish messianism of 1 Enoch, 2 Esdras, and 2 Baruch.
Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius, Jerome and Augustine preferred allegorical interpretations of apocalyptic literature.

However, the trend was from a more literal reading of the 1,000 years to a metaphorical reading.  Perhaps there was no need to condemn chiliasm as a heresy since there were few proponents of the idea by the time the councils had solidified the Trinitarian position.

I did find an odd text while researching the question.  During the 6th session, the Council of Chalcedon addressed the Emperor:

  May God save your kingdom.  [You] have put down the heretics, [you] have kept the faith.  May hatred be far removed from your empire, and may your kingdom endure for ever!

Summary

It seems likely that the phrase "whose Kingdom shall have no end" addresses concerns over the nature of Christ and the incarnation, just as most of the other phrases that accumulated in the creeds.  Chiliasm was losing favour by the 4th century, so it seems unlikely to have been targeted specifically by the creeds or councils.


Christianity and Usury from a Historical perspective

You point appears to be partly correct.  Jesus would not have endorsed usury, but that particular doctrinal point (given that most people Jesus taught at the time were already aware of OT law) may not have arisen due to common practice being in general accordance to the OT law.  There is a reasonable treatment from the Catholic Point of View in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Usury, the following points arise:

  The New Testament is silent on usury.
  Until the fourth century all that can be inferred from the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers is that it is contrary to mercy and humanity to demand interest from a poor and needy man..they simply protest against the exploitation of misfortune, and such transactions as, under the pretence of rendering > service to the borrower, really threw him into great distress."
  The 12th canon of the First Council of Carthage (345) and the 36th canon of the Council of Aix (789) have declared it to be reprehensible even for laymen to make money by lending at interest. The canonical laws of the Middle Ages absolutely forbade the practice.
  The {Eastern Orthodox}, at least since the sixteenth century, do not    consider the taking of interest on loans as intrinsically bad.
  For a long time civil law was in agreement with canon law; but as early as the sixteenth century, Germany allowed interest at 5 percent; in France, on the contrary, interest on loans was forbidden until the Decree of 2 and 3 October, 1789.
  The Holy See admits practically the lawfulness of interest on loans,    even for ecclesiastical property, though it has not
  promulgated any    doctrinal decree on the subject.


What is the biblical basis for the concept of "partial" or "imperfect" communion?

To say that an ecclesial body is in partial, or imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church is not to say that the members of these bodies are only partially "members of the body of Christ":

  [People] who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church—whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church—do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

(Unitatis Redintegratio, Chapter 1, Section 3; emphasis added)

Referral to "partial/imperfect communion" is thus referring not to "communion with Christ" but rather to "communion with the structure of the Catholic Church". What is it then that these people are missing?

  Our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life—that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.

(ibid.)

In other words, those who are baptized (with the same intent in, and understanding of, Baptism that the Church has) but are in another faith community are missing opportunities to believe in and to practice things which could be conducive to their salvation.

There can be no biblical basis for this "belief" (which is really not so much a belief as a standard of speech), since the fracture of the Church into these communities did not take place until well after biblical times.