Did God create the serpent in the Garden of Eden?

Unequivocally YES.

One does not need to delve into the garden account or unravel whether it was a talking snake or a manifestation of Satan or any of that in order to say for certain that God created it. Everything outside the person of God himself was created by him. This includes every physical object and creature in the universe, the universe itself, angels, and any other spiritual beings that exist. If it exists and is not God, God created it.

if ( THING && THING !== GOD ) { Assert(THING.creator == GOD) }

  Colossians 1:16 (ESV)
  For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

So did God make the snake? Yes he did.

Why would he create something that would contend with himself?

Remember that Satan himself is nothing but a fallen angel, originally created by God but as an angel of light. It is in this sense that Martin Luther is quoted as having said:

  Satan is God's satan.

I think this is a good reminder not to give credit for any power or authority he does not have. Nothing he is or does is done outside the sphere of God's sovereignty and in due time God will reign him in and show his works for the lies that they are.

Why God would create some being and give it free will (man) or the power/choice to rebel against him (angels) is an intricate topic. Perhaps he knew the best way to demonstrate his authority and power was to have some stage on which it could be demonstrated. Perhaps because having creatures that serve you as robots that have no other option does not satisfy an intrinsic need to be honored.

See also: Does God need our praise and glory?


Is there a need for Christians to believe in Christianity at all, if they don't believe in Resurrection and Salvation through Christ alone?

This is going to be a rather vague answer, mainly because even within the 'extreme liberal Christians' that you describe there is a huge range of belief. This answer is going to do no more than skim the surface of them.

In the UK, one of the best-known 'liberal Christians' is David Jenkins, former Bishop of Durham. Jenkins famously gave an interview, just before his consecration, in which he said that God would not have arranged a virgin birth, and that the resurrection was not a literal, physical event. This got him a lot of flak from traditional Christians, who believed he had abandoned the Christian faith. However in subsequent interviews it became clear that Jenkins was much closer to orthodoxy than first appeared. He did not deny the resurrection - he simply believed it was a spiritual event, rather than physical, and not any less real for that. He did not deny the existence of God, or that Jesus was his Son, or even the possibility of miracles. Jenkins has always described himself as Christian, and while his theology may be different from many, he certainly follows what he believes to be Christian truth. He is far from alone in these views.

At another point on the spectrum is Don Cupitt, who famously held the post of Dean of Emmanuel College Cambridge while denying the existence of God. ('Dean' is a religious post at Cambridge collleges, requiring one to be a priest of the Church of England). Cupitt's position is that modern knowledge has disproved the objective existence of God, and that Christian teaching is simply a recipe for a better way of living. He has stated that belief in God is good (even though God does not exist) because it leads to Christian practices. As Wikipedia puts it:

  Cupitt sometimes describes himself as Christian non-realist, by which he means that he follows certain spiritual practices and attempts to live by ethical standards traditionally associated with Christianity but without believing in the actual existence of the underlying metaphysical entities (such as "Christ" and "God")

In the US the best-known of the liberal wing is John Shelby Spong. Spong appears to fall into a similar camp as David Jenkins. While appearing to deny the literal physicality of the resurrection, he nonetheless affirms - extremely vehemently - the reality of it. He would deny the Bible's infallibility, but would affirm that through it you can discover the truth of a God of Love and a resurrected Jesus.

If there is a common thread here, it is that the people described here hold to what they believes is the underlying truth about God, Jesus and Christianity and for the most part are following the Jesus they believe in.


According to Pentecostal doctrine why is a Catholic Christening not a valid Baptism?

There are two common Pentecostal doctrines that are at play here:

1. Pentecostal beliefs on Water Baptism

Firstly the general belief with regard to (water) Baptism is that it is for believers only; this is called credobaptism (or just believer's baptism) and is a belief that almost all Pentecostals hold in common with Baptists. It means that any form of infant baptism (not just Catholic christening) would be regarded as an invalid "baptism". They may also emphasize the form of the baptism as well, with full immersion being required for a valid baptism.

2. Pentecostal belief on Baptism in the Holy Spirit

The defining belief of Pentecostals (ie their distinguishing belief from other evangelicals etc; their raison d'etre) is their teaching that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is an important experience in the life of a believer that is subsequent to their regenerative salvation (new birth) and is also distinct from water baptism (although it is possible for them to occur simultaneously); this is also known as the doctrine of subsequence. According to this doctrine, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is received by faith for the purpose of empowerment to witness for Christ (who has already been received as Lord and Saviour) and may occur before (eg household of Cornelius) or after water baptism (eg early Ephesian believers). Pentecostals most commonly believe that the sign of having received the baptism of the Holy Spirit is
"speaking in tongues" (a human or heavenly language that has not been learned naturally).

The above applies for the majority of Pentecostal denominations, but a notable exception are Oneness Pentecostals who have some quite disctinct beliefs:

  The majority of Pentecostals do not view baptism as essential for salvation, and likewise, most Pentecostals are Trinitarian and use the traditional Trinitarian baptismal formula. However, Oneness Pentecostals view baptism as an essential and necessary part of the salvation experience and, as non-Trinitarians, reject the use of the traditional baptismal formula. - wikipedia/Pentecostalism


Do some Christian churches worship the saints and/or angels?

Key to answering this question is that no mainstream Christian denomination thinks they are actually worshipping any person other than the Triune Godhead - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

From the outside, however, accusations are often made in this regard.

To the uninitiated, veneration of the Saints can look like worship.
To the uninitiated, the use of icons can look like idolatry.
To the uninitiated, requesting the assistance of angels, Mary, or whatever blessed Saint can look like praying to someone other than God.
To the uninitiated, repeating the Lord's Prayer or the 23rd Psalm can look like the invocation of a talisman against evil.

And, in practice, the distinction may not actually be there for the person doing it. Some Catholics actually believe they are praying to Mary. Some Orthodox think they are worshipping their icons. And some evangelicals may believe that the Lord's Prayer is somehow "holier" than every other.

The point, however, is not to judge a theology by its worst adherents, but by its best.  Any doctrine can be perverted, any good thing used for evil.

In 2 Kings 18:4, we read of what happened to the bronze serpent that God had instructed Moses to build after God had sent a plague of vipers to attack the Children of Israel in the desert.  Speaking hundreds of years after the fact, the Bible records that Hezekiah:

  .. removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it.

That people had turned an artifact of God into a device of worship does not speak to the evil of a thing - only to the evil of those who practice idolatry at all.  Idolatry - the worship of something or someone other than the true God - is a sin.  And when "veneration" slips into worship, it is wrong.

But simple respect is not always worship.  The question is, at their best, what are these things supposed to do.

In all cases, these objects, people, or beings are supposed to be intermediators to point the worshipper to Christ - a laudable goal.  People need concrete things.  But people are also prone, as Romans 1 says to worship the creation rather than the creator.

  25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. ... 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done

Thus, in short, the ultimate answer to "Why do people worship these things" is because man is evil. Man twists and perverts. He loves darkness rather than light.

Sure is a good thing we know a God who can fix that, if we're willing to learn differently.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that some people will live eternally on earth?

Jehovah's Witnesses draw the belief of living forever on Earth for a few reasons.

The first of which was God's original purpose for mankind when he placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. While this original purpose has been postponed by sin and Satan's challenge to God's sovereignty, it is still God's will for mankind.

  Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.”
  —Genesis 1:28

  For this is what Jehovah says,
  The Creator of the heavens, the true God,
  The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it,
  Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited:
  “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.
  —Isaiah 45:18

  9 Remember the former things of long ago,
  That I am God, and there is no other.
  I am God, and there is no one like me.
  10 From the beginning I foretell the outcome,
  And from long ago the things that have not yet been done.
  I say, ‘My decision will stand,
  And I will do whatever I please.’
  11 I am calling a bird of prey from the sunrise,
  From a distant land the man to carry out my decision.
  I have spoken, and I will bring it about.
  I have purposed it, and I will also carry it out.
  —Isaiah 46:9-11

Psalm 37 tells us of a time when the righteous ones will possess the earth forever.

  9 For evil men will be done away with,
  But those hoping in Jehovah will possess the earth.
  10 Just a little while longer, and the wicked will be no more;
  You will look at where they were,
  And they will not be there.
  11 But the meek will possess the earth,
  And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.
  —Psalm 37:9-11

  The righteous will possess the earth,
  And they will live forever on it.
  —Psalm 37:29

Finally, Revelation 21 tells us that "death will be no more." Since death has never existed in heaven, this must refer to the earth.

  3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”
  —Revelation 21:3, 4

(For a complete article, there's "What Is God's Purpose For the Earth?")


Are other flood legends relevant to Christians?

Relevant? Yes. Universally viewed as supportive? No.

Scholars disagree on this. Some use those other accounts to lend credence to the Biblical account. Other scholars say that it is evidence that the author of Genesis stole from those accounts to make up the flood. Either way, it is a relevant discussion without universal agreement.

(In my personal opinion I think the other accounts give the Biblical account credibility)


Why is the Book of Enoch not regarded as canonical?

Short Answer: The Book of Enoch is not Scripture.  As such, the Holy Spirit did not lead the church to include it in the canon of Scripture.

The Controversy

Jude 1:14-15 says this:

  It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

This quote from Enoch is not contained in the Bible, which has led many to wonder where Jude got this information.

In 1956, during the excavation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a book called "1 Enoch" (a.k.a. The Book of Enoch) was discovered.  (NOTE: The excavation uncovered a variety of texts, many of which were not Scriptural.)

Enoch 1:9 says this:

  And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy [all] the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works [of their ungodliness] which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners [have spoken] against Him.

Clearly this is very similar to Jude 1:14-15.  The question is: Why?

Was Jude quoting The Book of Enoch?

If so, does this mean the Book of Enoch should be considered Scripture?

Were The Book of Enoch and Jude both quoting from an earlier text (i.e. the actual account of Enoch)?
Was the author of The Book of Enoch actually quoting from Jude to make their book look more credible?

What we don't know is when The Book of Enoch was written, who the author was, or what Jude was quoting.  :)  (The best I can tell, the Biblical figure Enoch was not the author, but rather, someone who lived closer to the time of Christ, or possibly even after, based on some of the references.)  There are many arguments on all sides of this debate, but the real question in the back of many Christian minds is:

Is it Scripture?

Is this the Holy-Spirit inspired word of God?  This is where we can pretty confidently say "no".  If it were Scripture, we would expect it to be free of false doctrine.  What we find instead is that false doctrine is one of the most prevalent themes in the book!

Taking a cursory look at the text up through Chapter 59, I found the following false doctrines.  (I may be off on one here or there, but it should be sufficient to get my point across.)

1:1  Implies restoration during tribulation - not congruent with scriptures.
1:8  In conflict with the doctrine that peace was made at the cross.  Also, in the last days tribulation will increase for the righteous - this "verse" seems to dispute that.
2:2-3  Appears to contradict 2 Pet 3:3-7
5:4  Is an admonition to some unknown party - this is very irregular relative to the scriptures (i.e. authentic ancient writings by God-fearing Jews)
6:3  Semjaza seems to be listed as the leader of the angels, which is not scriptural
6:3,8  None of these angels are mentioned in the Bible
8:1  Azazel isn't even listed in 6:8 as one of the angels that fornicated with women
8:3  Araqiel and Shamsiel aren't listed in 6:8 either
10:2  Enoch allegedly wrote about Noah, even though the Bible teaches that Enoch was taken up to heaven years before Noah was born.
10:4-6,12  Implies angels can be bound & hid in holes under rocks.  This is contrary to scripture.
10:8  Ascribes all the sin of the fallen angels to one named Azazel - not scriptural.
10:15-11:2  Seems to imply that permanent restoration took place after the flood - clearly not true.  It seems the true author of this book confused scriptures pertaining to the future restoration.
13:5-6,14:4-5,7  Implies fallen angels can't talk to God - this contradicts Job.  Also implies that angels were repentant, but weren't received back by God - very strange doctrine.
14  Gives a very strange description of Heaven that conflicts with many scriptures
15:8-10  Very strange doctrine about "evil spirits" proceeding from unredeemable giants
17-18,21,23  Gives a very strange description of the earth & universe which is clearly not true.  Also alludes to the ancient model of astronomy that held that there were 7 stars (the closest planets) which burned like the sun (they don't.)
19:3  Discredits all other prophecy about the consumation of the ages.
20  Lists strange angels not in scripture, and incorrectly assigns the roles of Michael (the warrior) and Gabriel (the messenger)
21:7-10  Seems to contradict Biblical descriptions of the present & final judgement places for the fallen angels
22  Contradicts the Biblical descriptions of past, present & future dwelling places for the righteous who die
32:2-6  Seems to imply the Garden of Eden was still in existance after the Flood
33:1-2  Says Heaven rests on a foundation that is at the Eastern edge of the earth
33:3  He claims he counted the stars & individually mapped them, which is impossible scripturally (& scientifically)
34  Says the winds come out of a "portal" at the Northern edge of the earth
36:3  Says the stars come out of portals at the Eastern edge of the earth & move West
38:5-6  Contradicts Daniel & other prophecies about the Mellinial Reign
39:1-2  Very strange implications here about the "seed" of angels dwelling with men at the end... this contradicts the scriptures
40:7  Talks about the "Satans" - plural, different than the Bible, who gives that name to only one fallen angel.  Also, implies Satan can't stand in God's presence, contrary to Job.
40:9  Once again mixes up the roles of the 2 Archangels & adds more names in.  Michael's role in scripture is related to conquoring nations & fighting spiritual wars, while Gabriel's relates to bringing messages & visions to people.
41:1-2  Says the Kingdom of God is divided - it's not & can't be scripturally.  Also describes sinners being repelled from a mansion, which is also not scriptural, unless you look at a parable Jesus told, which was not intended to be literal.
41:4-5  Says the sun, moon, winds, etc. are stored in chambers & released at appointed times.
41:6-7  Implies the sun & moon move opposite of each other
43:1-3,44  Very weird model of the nature of stars & lightning
47:4  Says God requires the blood of the saints... very strange
51:1  Says Sheol & Hell will give back to the earth, which isn't scriptural - also Hell is a NT term, not OT
51:2  Disputes the Biblical doctrine that we are chosen.  (We don't have to wait until Christ's return to be chosen.)  This isn't scriptural.
General:  Seems to imply Enoch came back down to earth after being taken up to Heaven, which is not scriptural.

Summary

I think Paul's words are very pertinent here:

  As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.


Yes, it appears from the description that Jeremiah was not completely honest with the officials. They probably were asking about Jeremiah's prophecies, and he did not tell them what they wanted to know. Whether this is technically lying depends on exactly what questions were asked and exactly what answers Jeremiah gave, but it's pretty clear that Jeremiah gave them a misleading impression at the least.

Now let's look at the circumstances. The 'officials' are enforcers of an occupying power (Babylon) which has conquered Israel, and they are trying to kill Jeremiah, whose only crime is speaking the word of the Lord. To insist that you must tell the truth to them at all times in those circumstances is the equivalent of insisting that a French Christian in the 1940s always tell the truth when the Nazis ask if there are Jews hidden in their house. Some would say that is exactly what they should do, but not everyone would.

We also have to remember that not everything that is done in the Bible is a perfect example. The people in the Bible are real, and they make mistakes and commit sins - even the ones that have the favour of God. Even if we conclude that Jeremiah did lie, and that the circumstances don't excuse it, that does not mean that lying is OK.


What is the reason for the absence of the Cross as a symbol in the LDS Church?

This question was answered directly by Gordon B. Hinckley, who was the most recent president of the church before the current one.  In an article in 2005, he wrote:

  “I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian
  colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and
  at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and
  imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross
  is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration
  of the Living Christ.”

An when asked what then is the symbol of the LDS, he said:

  the lives of our people must become the most meaningful
  expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our
  worship.

I know this site prefers explanations over quotations, but there really isn't much more that can be added to that.


Where was Jesus from his age 12 to 33?

From age 12 to 30 he was in Nazareth. And from age 30 to 33 he was in and around Jerusalem. Where else? And no, he was not in India.

Why does scripture not mention this period in Jesus' life?

Because scriptures are not biographies of Christ. Their intention and purpose was different. They wanted to record the story of salvation. And from a Christian perspective, by divine providence, the hidden life of Christ (age 12 to 30) is not necessary for that.

India as a hub of knowledge

If assuming that Jesus traveled to gain knowledge, rather than India, a more convenient and feasible destination would be Rome. Rome was connected by road to Jerusalem and by extension to Nazareth too. Think about the dangers of crossing all those countries to reach India. Also, India was not a single country at that time. A host of kingdoms ruled over India in those days. (All of this is under the assumption of ignoring Jerusalem, which was the center for Jewish studies, and the assumption that Jesus needed to travel to gain knowledge, which he never preached about or talked about in his later years.)

Other problems with this hypothesis

There are many other problems in this hypothesis. Some of them are:

There is absolutely no concrete evidence. Absolutely none!! Those people who claim that he went to India say that there are scrolls hidden deep in some monastery. But that is not evidence. It is just fables. Anyone could claim anything like this. These are not mentioned in any reliable sources, nor can they be verified at all.
Being a devout Jew, Jesus would not have studied in a polytheistic religion. If he had, at least it should have been reflected in his teaching, which it is not.
We know from his public life that just like every other devout Jew, Jesus made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem every year. The last recorded event of Jesus' childhood was a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. From this we can reasonably assume that he made the pilgrimage during his hidden life too. Even a single trip to and from India that time would be extremely dangerous and difficult no matter what the means of transportation. Also, the trip would be very costly, and Jesus' family was poor.
Jesus was known in his community as a carpenter, since it was a Jewish tradition for young boys to learn their father's trade. His parables were even influenced by his job. He told of building a house on a rock as opposed to sand (Matthew 7:24-27). This is a great indication that Jesus has spent his adolescent years in his own community.
There are numerous passages in the Bible stating that people recognized him and refused to believe in him because he was just a carpenter and they knew him too well to accept him. This implies that Jesus was very well known in his community, which would not have been possible if he had been in India for most of his life. (See Matthew 2:23; 13:54-56; Luke 2:51-52; 4:22.)
Why did Jesus not talk about India to his disciples? None of the early records mention such a journey. The Jewish leaders did not like Jesus. So when they condemned him, they would certainly have said that he had learned heretical things in a foreign land. They knew who he was, and the people knew who he was. So this going to India hypothesis does not hold water.

There is a similar theory called the Swoon hypothesis, which claims that Jesus went to India after his death but before the ascension. Covering this would be beyond the scope of the question, but Wikipedia does a decent job of explaining the problems with it.


What does the Bible teach about "fire" in the phrase "Hell fire"?

There is a view known as annihilationism which regards the final penalty as complete extinction of being.  In this view the "fire," if literal, devours the impenitent, thus bringing about their everlasting destruction, or if symbolic stands for that annihilation itself.

A good reference along these lines is the book by Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment published by iUniverse.com, Inc.: Lincoln, NE (2001) in which he states on page 428:

  "Eternal fire" is certainly not a temporary punishment which holds any promise of restoration, but it fits very well the idea of everlasting extinction such as befell the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, as Genesis describes, the rest of the Old Testament reminds, Jesus warns and Jude plainly says.  The phrase argues against restorationism but not against conditionalism.

  "Unquenchable fire" is usually taken to mean perpetual pain, and it might mean that - if we had no Old Testament prophets to explain the language.  There it clearly signifies a divine judgment which cannot be stopped or slowed down until its destruction is complete.

As mentioned in one of the suggestions, perhaps it would be more profitable to elicit a response from those who hold this view.


In Acts 25:10 Paul appeals to Caesar. What aspect of Roman law/citizenship was he invoking?

SUMMARY
It was provocatio, not amplius.  The latter was used by Felix to delay judgment.  From R.C. Sproul's 2010 commentary on Acts page 392 on Acts 24:22:

Here Felix invoked the Roman principle known as amplius, the formal delay or reservation of a final judgment.  Paul was not convicted in front of Felix, but Felix delayed a final decision on the matter and ordered that Paul be bound over to prison to await further examination by Lysias and then a final decision by Felix.

Appeal to Caesar WAS indeed part of a Roman Citizen's right, affirmed by a later law Lex Iulia de vi publica et privata promulgated in Augustus' reign before the birth of Jesus and was still in effect by the time of Paul.  See IV. Excursus: The Appeal under the early Emperors chapter of the 2010 book The Trial of St. Paul: A Juridical Exegesis of the Second Half of the Acts.  Quote from page 146:

... Indeed the right to appeal was re-affirmed by the promulgation in Augustus' reign of the Lex Iulia de vi publica et privata.  This law basically forbade an official holding the imperium to bind, torture, or kill a Roman citizen who had appealed to Rome.  The importance of the Lex Iulia de vi publica et privata lay in the fact that from the date of its promulgation "the Roman citizen was protected throughout the Roman Empire from the capital jurisdiction and violent coercitio of provincial governors.  ...

DETAILS
There is a very well researched article (with scholarly citations), The “Judicial Adventures” of Paul the Apostle, that shows how Luke used precise legal and Roman government terminologies contemporaneous with the middle 3rd of the 1st century, which indirectly bolsters the traditional dating of the book of Acts, because in less than 50 years the process changed.
The article covers ALL of Paul's entanglement with Roman law in the book of Acts and explained 1) how he acquired and used his citizenship for his advantage, 2) how different Roman cities have variations in judicial avenues because of local vs. empire rule, 3) how different types of governorship were in place, along with the scope of their authority, 4) how the whole city could be punished if they mistreat a Roman citizen, 5) the precise type of Roman law applicable to Paul's case in which he appealed to Caesar, but most importantly how it turns out that some scholar attributes to the Book of Acts the only surviving "court transcript" of a provocatio (appeal to the emperor) proceeding of that era before the process changed.
Some quotes from the article:

Privileges of Citizenship
The closest modern analogy that we can draw to the privileges of Roman citizenship might be the English under the British Raj20 or Americans abroad during the ﬁrst half of the Twentieth Century. Perhaps chiefest among their rights were those in the judicial sphere, especially the right provocatio, or appeal to the emperor. About two decades before the birth of Christ, Rome passed a law, the lex de ui publica, which

forbade any magistrate to kill, scourge, chain, torture, or even sentence a Roman citizen who had announced his intention to appeal, or prevent him from going to Rome to lodge his appeal there within a ﬁxed time.21

The only known statutory exception to this rule deals with citizens who were in military service. Over such troops (as well as all others) governors and generals held the ius gladii, the power of execution; it was considered necessary for military discipline.22
...
The Trial Before Festus (Acts 24:27-25:12)
Paul’s trial before Festus is interesting literarily as well as legally. Up to this point we have compared Luke’s accounts against known and little-known history. Now the tables are turned and Luke becomes a legal benchmark of sorts. As legal scholar A. H. M. Jones sees it, Paul’s trial before Festus is “the only account we possess of a provocatio…” (emphasis mine).49 That is, while others write of the process generally, or mention cases wherein provocatio was employed, we have no “court transcripts” other than Luke’s to show the “nuts and bolts” of the procedure.
The three elements of the extra ordinem session are present even more clearly here, for Festus’ consilium is mentioned by name in Acts 25:12.50 The circumstance that triggers Paul’s appeal to Caesar’s tribunal lies just beneath the surface of our English text. Festus is torn between two things: on the one hand, simple justice (Luke points out that the Jews brought charges “which they could not prove,” v. 7); and on the other, political expediency — as the new governor, he “wished to do the Jews a favor” (v. 9). Bruce believes that back of this was the implication that Festus “might treat the Sanhedrin as his consilium”51 if the venue moved to Jerusalem. Thus, while perhaps winning Festus a “political honeymoon,” it would hardly have been an even-handed affair. Hence, after over two years of conﬁnement, Paul appeals to Rome.
Luke’s record of the fact that Paul chose to appeal helps to date his work and sources, for less than ﬁfty years later the process had changed. As Bruce states it:

By the beginning of the second century a.d. it evidently became the regular practice for citizens in the provinces, charged with offenses not covered by statute law, to be sent to Rome almost automatically, without having to take the initiative in appealing to Caesar.52

Once again, the record of Paul’s “judicial adventures” is on target.
Endnotes:
2. Mark Black, “Paul and Roman Law in Acts”, Restoration Quarterly: Studies in Christian Scholarship, (1981) 209.
4. A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, (Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI, 1963) 1. I am indebted to Sherwin-White for the phrase “Judicial Adventures” which inspired this article's title.
9. Francis Lyall, “Roman Law in the Writings of Paul — Aliens and Citizens”, The Evangelical Quarterly, (48) 12.
20. Lyall, “Roman Law”, 10. This paints quite a picture for those with some familiarity with British India!
21. F. F. Bruce, New Testament History, (Doubleday & Company, Inc: New York, 1969) 358
22. Black. “Paul and Roman Law in Acts”, 211. It should be noted that the point is still debated. C. E. Brand, a U.S. Army military lawyer, in his book Roman Military Law, points out that the dispute is fueled by a coin inscription and how it is interpreted. Brand does not ﬁnd the idea of a condemned soldier’s right to provocatio very logical — or appealing. See especially pp. 67-68. Still, he feels that a citizen-soldier’s rights were valid when involved in non-military judicial disputes.
49. A. H. M. Jones, The Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic and Principate, (Rowman and Littleﬁeld Publishers: Totowa, NJ, 1972) 101. Curiously, after making this statement, Jones goes on to say that it “is unfortunately very confused, and one is led to suspect that neither Paul nor his biographer understood the legal position…”! If it is our only example, as he insists, how does he know that Paul and Luke were “confused”?!
50. And knowing of the existence and necessity of the consilium, we are not likely to confuse it with the other “council” mentioned in Acts 4:15 and 24:20, when it clearly refers to the Sanhedrin's council.
51. Bruce, History, 357.
52. Bruce, History, 358.


Why is Pontius Pilate blamed for killing Jesus in the Apostles' Creed?

Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski in his book, The Apostles's Creed: and its Early Christian Context, argues that Pilate was specifically mentioned primarily in order to argue for and defend the humanity and real death of Jesus.
He first emphasizes the historical importance of Pilate to Christianity:

Certainly the Scriptural detail that Jesus of Nazareth was executed under the rule of Pontius Pilate is one of the definite facts of Christianity.  His role in early Christian apologetics and also in the creeds is to bring very important historical credence.

For example, Ignatius includes Pilate's role while defending the truth of Christ's suffering:

Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. (Epistle to the Trallians, 9)

Similarly, Irenaeus mentions Pilate while defending the historicity of the crucifixion in The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 74, and Ashwin-Siejkowski summarizes Irenaeus's use of him:

In all his accounts Pontius Pilate is a recognisable evident sign of Christ's time on earth.

The wording "suffered under Pontius Pilate" was of significant importance to Irenaeus and others as they disputed Docetism, which held that the human form of Jesus was merely an illusion, and that he did not actually suffer.  Similarly, Justin Martyr's apologetics emphasize Pontius Pilate in order to not only prove the historicity of the crucifixion, but to demonstrate that Christ fulfilled the prophecies of Scripture (e.g., First Apology, 35).
Another early father, Tertullian, took Pilate's importance even further.  He suggests that Pilate was already secretly a Christian, and that, as the secular authority, he "represents God's law and order":

To Tertullian, the emperor is the instrument of God who enforces the law as well as guaranteeing the stability of the state.  The emperor punishes crime and protects the rights of his subject. [...] Pontius Pilate was much more for Tertullian than a private person accidentally attached to the credal formula.

It's worth noting that the current wording of the Apostles' Creed developed over centuries, and that the earliest versions of it, by Irenaeus and Tertullian, mentioned Pilate. (For more on this, see Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, p53)
Summary
Ashwin-Siejkowski summarizes:

Early Christian literature [...] was very attached to, later even attracted to, the character known as Pontius Pilate.  This attachment was neither nostalgic nor marginal, as the Roman governor provided proto-orthodox Christianity with great arguments against the Docetic, then Gnostic, Jewish and pagan opponents.   Certainly Pontius Pilate in the Creeds, including the Apostles' Creed, remains as a sign of the ancient theological debate, which aimed to prove the real human nature of the Saviour, not laughing, but rather suffering Redeemer.

Compared to Judas Iscariot and the Pharisees, we can see that mentioning Pilate makes for a much stronger historical case for the crucifixion, and, at least for Tertullian, emphasizes the secular authority's role (and therefore God's role) in Christ's crucifixion.

Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski, The Apostles's Creed: and its Early Christian Context, pages 47–55.  Italics in quotes are in the original.


Why does the bible never specifically condemn premarital sex?

The reason premarital sex is not mentioned specifically is because engaging in sex was what consummated a marriage. In essence, the first time a couple engage in sex, they are married.

  If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
  -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (KJV)

This is the case with virgins who are not betrothed. Betrothal, on the other hand, is considered to be legal marriage in every respect, waiting only for its consummation by sexual union.

  Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Joseph was compelled to "put away" Mary, because the evidence as he initially saw it suggested his wife had committed adultery.

Additional Comments

Paul, like every religious Jew who cared about righteousness, understood that Leviticus 18 was the yardstick against which all sexual activity was to be measured:

Leviticus 18

If you aren't in the green circle, says God, then the land will eventually spew you out "when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;"

God is a nation builder, and best practice in regard to sexual union is essential in order to achieve it.

Chapter 7 of 1st Corinthians is Paul's attempt to deal with various questions that had been put to him by the Church at Corinth, and the very first issue he addresses is immediately relevant to the concerns of the OP.

  It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
  -- 1 Corinthians 7:2

Paul is advocating celibacy, which he elaborates on later, but he understands that not everyone is like himself. So, here he suggests: if you desire to touch a woman/man, then find yourself a wife/husband in order to avoid fornication.

In Paul's theology -- if you're having sex and are not of the "one flesh" mindset, then you're a fornicator or an adulterer. He couldn't be any clearer.

Conclusion

In our modern culture, sex is much less about having children than it is about pursuing pleasure. This clearly wasn't true of the Jewish culture as we have it depicted in the Bible, where sex was mostly about building families.

The underpinning principle in regard to sex is found right back at the beginning of the biblical narrative:

  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
  -- Genesis 2:24 (KJV)

This "one flesh" union can only happen ONE TIME.


Does the Bible say anything about what demons *are*?

The concept of fallen angels is based on the following scriptures.

  MATTHEW 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand,
  Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the
  devil and his angels:

  Luke 10:17-18 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord,
  even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto
  them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

  Jude 1:6 (KJV) And the angels which kept not their first estate, but
  left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains
  under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

  Revelation 12:8-10 (KJV) And there was war in heaven: Michael and his
  angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his
  angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in
  heaven.  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called
  the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out
  into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Regarding the belief that you become an angel when you die, the following scriptures come to mind.

  Romans 8:16-17 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that
  we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God,
  and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we
  may be also glorified together.

If we are joint heirs with Christ, then one day we shall be like him.

  I John  3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet
  appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we
  shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

After his resurrection He was made "better than the angels". If we are to be like Him, then we also will be "better than the angels".

  HEBREWS 1:4-5 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by
  inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which
  of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I
  begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be
  to me a Son?

The idea that we would become angels (either 'good' or 'fallen') when we die originated from a misinterpretation of Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25.

  Matthew 22:30 (KJV) For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor
  are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

  MARK 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry,
  nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

The context of these verses is the subject of marriage. Angels do not have wedding ceremonies, and neither will we in heaven. Using these verses as the basis for the belief that we will one day be angels is a bit of a stretch.


The OED gives this as the earliest English usage of the term "triune":

  1605   T. Tymme tr. J. Du Chesne Pract. Chymicall & Hermeticall Physicke ii. ii. 108   It hath pleased the omnipotent Creator to..showe himself a Unitrine or Triune.

According to the Index Thomisticus, triunus (or any of its forms) is not found in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, so the Latin term triunus is probably more recent than the 13th century.


Who are innocent people according to Bible?

A word search for Innocent reveals many examples to help us with a definition. The Bible clearly tells us that we are sinners worthy of condemnation (Romans 3:19-23), so innocence as used in the Bible is relative to one's actions in the society, just as it is in normal usage.

The innocent obey the laws and are fair to their neighbors, so when they are preyed upon by the unscrupulous, they are identified as "innocent" because they themselves did not initiate the evil brought upon them:

  Deuteronomy 27:25 - Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an
  innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Also, it seems that they are innocent because the evil done against them violated the Lord's will, and the violence upon them was unjustified by the perpetrators:

  2 Kings 21:16 -  Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till
  he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; beside his sin
  wherewith he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the
  sight of the Lord.

  Exodus 23:7 - Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and
  righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

The innocent also have a strong moral sense, and take action against the wrong, as we see in this parallelism with "upright" and "innocent":

  Job 17:8 - Upright men shall be astonied at this, and the innocent
  shall stir up himself against the hypocrite.


Is it a sin to do "works" for the sake of "rewards" in heaven?

I would have to say No.

Jesus said in Matthew 6:20 (NIV):

  But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Here, he indicates that you should work towards heavenly treasures.

Furthermore, he encouraged here, in Matthew 19:21 (NIV)

  Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

If you read the entire passage, the motivation for the rich man was to attain eternal life: “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” (Matthew 19:16).  The motivation was clearly selfish and self motivated.  However, Jesus did not respond saying that the motivation was wrong, but merely that his acts needed to be changed in order to gain treasures in heaven.

It's pretty clear that Jesus wants us to work towards heavenly treasures.

As sidran32 pointed out, while works will get you treasures in heaven, they will not provide salvation.  Of course, that's not what you asked, though, is it?


Why did Virgin Mary call herself the servant of the Lord?

She calls herself a "handmaid" (ancilla, δούλη) in Luke 1:38 and in her Magnificat canticle (Luke 1:48) because she is very humble.
Fr. Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., commentates Luke 1:38:

Mark the humility, modesty, and resignation of the Virgin, for though saluted by the angel as Mother of God, she calls herself His handmaid, not His mother; handmaid by nature, mother by grace. Pet. Dam. (Serm. 3 de Nativ. Virg.) And S. Bernard (Serm. in Apoc. 12) says, “A great sign: deservedly is she made mistress of all who declared herself servant of all.”

and

Ver. 48.—For He hath regarded, &c. S. Augustine (super Magnificat) says, “This is the grace of her exultation, that He hath regarded the low estate of His handmaiden: it is as if she said, because I exult in His grace, therefore my exultation is from Him; and because I love His gifts on account of Himself, therefore I exult in Him. S. Bernard (Serm. 57 in Cant.) says, “God regards the earth and causes it to tremble; He regards Mary and infuses grace. He hath regarded, she says, the lowliness of His handmaiden, for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. These are not the words of one lamenting or fearing, but of one rejoicing. Hence He says to her, Arise quickly, my love, my dove, my fair one, and come away.”
Lowliness, or low estate. Vulgate, humilitatem; Greek, ταπείνωσιν. Humility here properly means lowliness of estate, not the virtue of humility as opposed to pride, for this is called ταπεινοφροσύνη; for humility alone among virtues is ignorant of itself; and he who boasts of his humility is proud, not humble.
Secondly, however, by humility may be understood the virtue itself of humility; for on account of this God had regard to the Blessed Virgin, and chose her for His mother; for a humble person recognises his virtues as being the gifts of God; wherefore among them he sees also his own humility, but he ascribes it not to his own strength, but to the grace which he had received from God.
As, therefore, the Blessed Virgin here recognises her election to be the Mother of God (which was a far greater thing), so likewise she recognises that she was fittingly adorned for so great a dignity by her humility, virginity, and other virtues which had been imparted to her by God. For a humble person recognises his own low estate, his misery, his poverty, yea, even his own nothingness, and ascribes all that he is and has to God, Whose he is, and says with the Psalmist, Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy Name give the glory.
Listen to S. Augustine (Serm. 2 de Assump.), “O true humility which hath borne God to men, hath given life to mortals, made new heavens, and a pure earth, and given liberty to the souls of men. The humility of Mary was made the heavenly ladder by which God came down to earth. For what does regarded mean but approved? For many seem in the sight of men to be humble, but their humility is not regarded by the Lord. For if they were truly humble, then they would not wish to be praised by men, and their spirit would not rejoice in the world but in God.” And S. Chrysostom (Hom. 2 in Ps. 50) says, “The greatest sacrifice or all is humility, for the same man who by sinning has separated himself from God, subjects himself to Him by humility, when he is converted to penitence.” And lastly S. Bernard says, “It is humility which truth begets for us, and it has not heat, and it is humility which love forms and inflames. The latter consists in affection, the former in knowledge: by the former we learn that we are nothing, and we learn it from ourselves and our own weakness; by the latter we tread underfoot the glory of the world, and we learn it from Him Who emptied Himself, and Who, when men sought to make Him a king, fled; but when He was sought for reproaches and for the Cross, He did not flee, but offered Himself willingly.” The Blessed Virgin had both these (humility and love) in an eminent and heroic degree.


What's the point of the second commandment?

The First Commandment covers who to worship, but the Second Commandment covers how.

Often when the Israelites worshiped idols they were actually trying to worship Yahweh[citation needed] and were going about it all wrong. In the Second Commandment, God was giving a clear explanation on what kind of worship was acceptable, and idolatrous worship was out.

From a reformed protestant point of view, I understand this to be forbidding prayer to or worship of images of God or Jesus.

Neil Postman, author of Amusing Ourselves to Death (and also Jewish, I believe) comments:

  I wondered...why the God of these people would have included
  instructions on how they were to symbolize, or not symbolize, their
  experience. It is a strange injunction to include as part of an
  ethical system unless its author assumed a connection between forms
  of human communication and the quality of a culture. We may hazard a
  guess that a people who are being asked to embrace an abstract,
  universal deity would be rendered unfit to do so by the habit of
  drawing pictures or making statues or depicting their ideas in any
  concrete, iconographic forms. The God of the Jews was to exist in the
  Word and through the Word, an unprecedented conception required the
  highest order of abstract thinking.

While Postman is using this as example of how different media affect their cultures, it's interesting to think about it in light of the New Testament and Paul's statements about faith and sight.

  For we walk by faith, not by sight. - 2. Cor. 5:7

and also

  For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at
  all. Who hopes for what they already have? - Romans 8:24

The idea seems to be that we are to walk by faith, trusting in the Word of God and not in the tangible images we might construct. We are to worship God by faith, not by sight.


The Book of Esther's legitimacy as part of the canon of Christian scripture  has been the subject of debate because there is no direct reference to God. The compilation of the original Bible is largely obscured in history (e.g. the Song of Solomon has been likewise disputed because of its romantic content), but Esther may have been included because of its rich demonstration of Christian values such as loyalty, courage, faith, and fasting (and by implication, prayer).
Even though God is never directly mentioned in the book, His Providence is distinctly evidenced in the deliverance of the Jews in the face of great opposition and terrible odds. It is a witness of God's mindfulness of His people, His recognition of their faith, and His direct intervention in their lives despite His indirect presence among them. In fact, the refrain of mention of His name emphasizes this contrast: that even though God isn't directly with us (as it would seem), His hand is still mighty on behalf of His faithful, and thus, is actually with us.

This answer by Warren suggests that Esther prefigures Mary, a significant example of faith and virtue.

Embedded in Esther 4:13-16 is the confidence in a sure deliverance by Providence:  whether by Esther's house or by some other means, the Jews would be delivered. So while the historical accuracy of Esther is debated here or there, I for one personally love the book because of the inspiring display of virtues, and the profound example of faith by fasting, courage/loyalty, and patriotism.


What are non-ordained lay person powers?

What are non-ordained lay person’s powers?

Seeing that this is essentially quite a broad topic, this answer is being made into a community wiki response answer.

Everyone who desires may add to the list. No one will receive points to this, not even myself.

Lay persons may have the following ordinary privileges or positions within the Catholic Church:

Servers at the altar
Readers at Mass
Lay missionary
In modern times, ushers and readers are considered lay liturgical ministers
Catechists who teach Catholic Christian doctrine

Lay persons in modern times fulfill various positions due to circumstances that present themselves in our modern times, with ecclesiastical approval, such as:

Eucharist Ministers due to lack of priests

In times of necessity or in a genuine emergency or in extreme circumstances, a lay person may also do the following:

Baptize someone in an emergency (near death)
Baptize when no clergy is present in a region or country due to persecution and clergy or expelled from the area as in the persecution in Japan from 1614-1864.
Perform Catholic marriages when no catholic clergy is in the region or country (due to some possible persecution). This actually happened during a persecution in Japan from from 1614-1864.
Interpreters for a priest during confessions from one language into another. Such lay person’s actions carry the same obligations as a priest to guard to seal of confession forever.
Reading the Gospel and preaching in Catholic Churches and distribution of Holy Communion on Sundays in parishes, where there is a genuine lack of Catholic clergy to fulfill this need. This is not so uncommon in the “far north of Canada.” Lay persons are specially trained for this ministry. (The Sunday obligation in diverse regions is often transferred to another day due to particular circumstances and with Ecclesiastical approval.) This is common in the Diocese of Whitehorse (Yukon) for example.
Instituted Acolytes may function in the office of a Subdeacons (Extraordinary Form of the Mass) under certain conditions (lack of subdeacons). They shall however be denied the maniple. - Rome, June 7, 1997. Thus instituted acolytes of the Ordinary Form of the Mass may serve as subdeacons in Extraordinary Form of the Mass.


What is the difference between evangelizing and proselytizing?

Evangelism is Christian proselytizing

To proselytize means to attempt to convert a person from one religion to another. To evangelize means to proselytize for Christianity.


Did anyone try to convert Catholics on the Isle of Man to Protestantism?

Since 1399 the Isle of Man has been a possession of the English (now British) crown.  In 1458 a bull of Pope Calixtus III transferred the Isle of Man (known as the diocese of Sodor and Man) from the ecclesiastical province of Trondheim in Norway to the ecclesiastical province of York in England.  By the time of Henry VIII, therefore, the Isle of Man was politically subject to the King of England and ecclesiastically subject to an English Archbishop. When England declared itself free from the Pope in 1534  this break applied, as a matter of course, to the Isle of Man also. When reforms of worship and doctrine were introduced in England, they were implemented throughout the provinces of  Canterbury and York, including the Isle of Man.

What this means it that the Reformation in the Isle of Man was not the result of any instigator, preacher or reformer on the Isle of Man itself,  but moved in tandem with the English Reformation.  As England became Protestant so did the Isle of Man.

As far as the ordinary Manx people were concerned the services of the church which had once been in Latin, a language they did not understand, were now conducted in English, a language they also did not understand. It has been conjectured that this led to a slow understanding and acceptance among the general population of Protestant beliefs and doctrines. The Clergy of the Church of England Database says:

  The impact of the Reformation was necessarily modified by the curious
  circumstances of the see. Writing in the 1890s, A. W. Moore was struck
  by what he regarded as the slow impact of Reformation principles,
  which he in part attributed to the fact that an English liturgy was
  not necessarily any more accessible than a Latin one to the
  Manx-speaking population.

John Phillips was appointed Archdeacon of Man in 1587, and became Bishop of Sodor and Man in 1605, a post he held until his death in 1633.  He devised a new alphabet to represent the sounds in the Manx language and translated the Book of Common Prayer (the English liturgy) into Manx in 1610. This was never printed but was  copied  by hand.  It was the first time the Manx language had been written down.

The first printed book in the Manx language was printed in 1707. This was "The Principles and Duties of Christianity",  written by Thomas Wilson who was Bishop of Sodor and Man for 58 years from 1697 to 1755. The translation of the Bible was begun by him and completed by the Manx clergy, led by his successor, Mark Hiddesley. It was printed in 1773. The slow progress in publishing a Manx Bible was in part due to the fact that the minority of the population who were educated enough to read  at all could do so in English. The majority, who spoke and understood only Manx, could not read.

Since before the Reformation the diocese of Sodor and Man has consisted solely of the Isle of Man and neighbouring small islands. Sodor originally referred to the Hebrides and is retained in the diocesan name for historical reasons only. The Isle of Man is not part of England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales or the United Kingdom. It is however part of the Church of England. The Bishop of Sodor and Man is appointed by the Queen, acing on the ultimate recommendation of the UK Prime Minister. He cannot sit in the UK House of Lords but is an ex officio member of the 11-strong upper house of Tynwald, the Manx parliament.


Are those that enter into a marriage that is later annulled required to do any penance?

No.

The idea of annulment aka declaration of nullity is that the marriage is void ab initio. It's not dissolved, it has never existed (Catechism 1629).

Now, normally, this is caused by innocent things: for instance, if I pretend to be a priest and marry you and your sweetheart, the marriage can (and will) be annulled due to CCC 1630, which requires a priest for marriage at least between Catholics. Equally, if you happen to be too young for marriage. Or, actually, if you've got antecedent & perpetual impotence (Code of Canon Law Canon 1084§1).

Some situations are dodgier. Annulment per lig aka per causa ligamentes means you've tried to marry while already being married. That might be an oopsie!, in which case there is nothing wrong with it, you just need to clear your previous marriage. Or it might be intentional deceit, which does attract the need to confess and do penance.

Finally, there are the really nasty forms that cause nullity. Crimen is everyone's favourite one, which consists of you and your sweetheart conspiring to whack your current spouse so you can marry (actually, this is so whether you have had sex or not!). Quite obviously, there will be some penance involved in that case! Also, jail time.

The bottom line:

Some things you do to enter into an invalid marriage may be a sin,
but simply entering into a void marriage is not a sin in itself.
If it's a sin otherwise, it will, obviously, attract penance.
Knowledge is important, of course. Knowingly entering into a marriage you know
would be void, such as when you know you're impotent, is basically
fraudulent.


Do any Christian groups consider divorce sufficient cause for excommunication?

I can't speak for every Christian denomination, but in general, the answer to your first question is no. The answer to your second question is yes, with some qualifications.

My denomination is the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), and the following is a summary of this resource: Report of the Ad-Interim Committee on Divorce and Remarriage to the Twentieth General Assembly.

The reason divorce itself is not a sufficient reason for excommunication is that scripture allows for divorce in some instances. So church leadership must first determine whether the desired divorce would be valid (scriptural). If the reason for divorce is found to be valid, then it may be allowed and not result in church discipline.

If it is found not to be valid, and the church member continues to want a divorce, then church discipline ensues. If during the process of formal church discipline, the person demonstrates repentance by pursuing reconciliation with the spouse, then church discipline may end. If the person continues in the sin of desiring a non-scriptural divorce and follows through, they have broken their membership vows to the church and are demonstrating continued unfaithfulness to Christ, and are therefore subject to excommunication. This would result in the church treating this person as a non-Christian and pursuing them accordingly.

So repentance does make a difference. Re-marriage would most likely be determined on the validity of the divorce.


Is there a trend toward not capitalizing the word "Bible"?

Yes, there is a trend towards not capitalizing the words 'Bible' and 'Koran'. There is an extremely simple reason for this - bad grammar.

Both Bible and Koran (or Quran) are proper names, since they refer to specific books, and as such should be capitalized. This is nothing to do with belief in the validity of either book, or respect for them. The name 'Satan' is capitalized in correct English, just like 'Jesus' and 'Mohammed'.

The word 'bible' sometimes shows up in validly lowercase originally because it can be used as a general term for a holy book, or an authoritative reference book, as in "The Tanakh is the Jewish bible", or "Stroustrup's book is the bible for C++ programmers". The lowercase is correct in those instances. This tends to cause people not to capitalize the word everywhere, even when it refers to the specific book.

TLDR: 'Bible' is often written in lowercase for the same reasons that apostrophes are often used in plurals.


Based on the following scriptures, I would say the answer is no.

  Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left
  their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under
  darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

  MATTHEW 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand,
  Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the
  devil and his angels:


Did Martin Luther and Zwingli not consider each other brothers in Christ?

Definitely not.  Zwingli did offer a hand of brotherhood to Luther, but Luther refused it, telling Zwingli and the Swiss church "We cannot acknowledge you as brethren".

Roderick C. Meredith's history of the Reformation was recently serialized in Tomorrow's World magazine.  One section describes the final meeting between Luther and Zwingli, Martin Luther Unleashed:

THE FINAL MEETING OF LUTHER AND ZWINGLI

Schaff describes this meeting:

  On Monday morning he arranged another private conference between the
  Saxon and the Swiss Reformers. They met for the last time on earth.
  With tears in his eyes, Zwingli approached Luther, and held out the
  hand of brotherhood: but Luther declined it, saying again, “Yours is a
  different spirit from ours.” Zwingli thought that differences in
  non-essentials, with unity in essentials, did not forbid Christian
  brotherhood. “Let us,” he said, “confess our union in all things in
  which we agree; and, as for the rest, let us remember that we are
  brethren. There will never be peace in the churches if we cannot bear
  differences on secondary points.” Luther deemed the corporal presence
  a fundamental article, and construed Zwingli’s liberality into
  indifference to truth. “I am astonished,” he said, “that you wish to
  consider me as your brother. It shows clearly that you do not attach
  much importance to your doctrine.” Melanchthon looked upon the request
  of the Swiss as a strange inconsistency. Turning to the Swiss, the
  Wittenbergers said, “You do not belong to the communion of the
  Christian Church. We cannot acknowledge you as brethren.” They were
  willing, however, to include them in that universal charity which we
  owe to our enemies (Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church,
  Vol. VII. Hendrickson, 1996 (1888). pp. 644–645).

Thus we see that Luther parted from Zwingli, not in the feeling that the Swiss party was guided by the Holy Spirit, but that Zwingli was guided by a different “spirit” than himself. Indeed, there is ample testimony, even among Protestant writers, that the reformers did not have the “unity of the Spirit” that only God’s Spirit can bring.

Notice Plummer’s account of Zwingli’s desire to avoid this pathetic disagreement:

  But, there is no need to doubt his declaration that he had carefully
  avoided corresponding with Luther, because he says, “I desired to show
  to all men the uniformity of the Spirit of God, as manifested in the
  fact that we, who are so far apart, are in unison one with the other,
  yet without collusion.” They did not remain in unison, as all the
  world knows; and it is one of the many sad facts in the history of the
  Reformation that Luther declared Zwingli’s violent death to be a
  judgment on him for his eucharistic doctrine (Plummer, pp. 141–142).


Reason for drawing water at unusual time

It wasn't just convenient: according to John (verse 4) Jesus "had to" (dei') pass through Samaria. It was not geographically necessary, as He could have (like most Jews did unless they were in a hurry) gone around Samaria. When John uses dei' he is referring to God's will. Jesus passed through Samaria with the intention of speaking with this woman.

  Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here." The woman answered him, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true."
  (John 4:16-18)

She lived in a culture that followed strict laws concerning sexual purity, so it seems she would have been an outcast. Considering the Samaritans were rejected by Jews (John 4:9), she is an outcast among outcasts.


Normally, I prefer to author my own answer, but in this instance, Johnny Hart (of B.C. comic strip) nailed it so well, that I'm just going to repost his answer to this question.

For those who cannot see the image, it reads:

  Now, who can call "Good Friday" good?,
  A term too oft misunderstood,
  You who were bought by the blood of His cross
  You can call "Good Friday" good.

Update, based on the nature of the individual.

There was nothing "Good" about Good Friday for Jesus. He was humiliated, hurt, abandoned, and killed in horrible fashion.
But he willingly chose this for one simple reason - He loved humanity with his entire heart.  As such, he choose to suffer these "indignities" in order to give mankind what it sought.
In some fashion that theologians are still debating (Atonement? Satisfaction? Expiation? Christus Victor?), Jesus' death and subsequent resurrection gave us the ability to become heirs with God.

Whether this was some legal impediment or moral ability, we don't know, but we do know this: Prior to the Crucifixion, man was unable to stand before God. Afterwards, we had Jesus to stand in our place, that we could be reconciled to him. To me, that's about as good as it gets!


Did Joseph Smith create any secular writings?

Joseph Smith’s worldview was almost certainly influenced by his religious upbringing and the Second Great Awakening that swept through North America between 1795 and 1830.  When Joseph Smith was about 10 years of age his family moved to Palmyra in the State of New York.

  Joseph Smith was born on 23 December 1805 in Sharon, Vermont.  At that time, there was religious excitement, especially within the Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist denominations.  Around 1820, his mother, two brothers and one sister joined a Presbyterian church, but young Joseph was more partial towards Methodists.  However, he was very confused over their conflicting doctrines and the “war of words” at that time. Joseph Smith took himself off into the woods to pray, and there had a vision of a pillar of light which delivered him from the enemy of darkness that overwhelmed him.  Two personages appeared before him, one pointing to the other and saying “This is my Beloved Son.  Hear Him!”  Smith asked which sect he should join and was told they were all wrong and they were an abomination.  Smith believed that the powers of darkness had combined against him throughout his young life and that the two personages who rescued him were God the Father and Christ Jesus.  Source: ‘History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet’ (History of the Church, volume 1, Chapters 1-5)

Joseph Smith’s experiences are recorded in his book ‘Pearl of Great Price’.  Clearly, that is not a secular book.  Given how young he was when he had his first vision (around 15 years of age) and taking into account the dramatic changes that ensued, it seems highly unlikely that Smith wrote anything to do with philosophy or politics.  It is not as if he went to a secular place of higher education or mingled with “worldly” and non-religious people.  I would refer you to a Wikipedia article that gives information on the ‘Joseph Smith Papers Project’ – here is the introduction:

  The Joseph Smith Papers (or Joseph Smith Papers Project) is a project researching, collecting, and publishing all manuscripts and documents created by, or under the direction of, Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. The documents, which include transcriptions and annotations, have been published both online and in printed form. The project is sponsored by the Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), while the website and volumes are published under the department's imprint, the Church Historian's Press.  Source: The Joseph Smith Papers.


Have any married couples been canonized at the same time?

Yes, Louis (1823-1894) & Zélie Martin (1831-1877), parents of St. Thérèse of Lisieux, were jointly canonized in October 2015.


Did God give Moses visions of History and the Tabernacle on Mount Sinai?

Most definitely. The passage makes it clear that the earthly sanctuary was modeled after another Sanctuary, the True Sanctuary made by the LORD Himself. This is what was shown to Moses in vision.

  Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a
  High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the
  Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true
  tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.

  Hebrews 8:1,2

  For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are
  priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy
  and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed
  when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you
  make all things according to the pattern shown you on the
  mountain.”[a] 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry,
  inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was
  established on better promises.

  Hebrews 8:4,6

Divine inspiration does not work in the way that God dictates word for word, as it is known that different authors had different writing styles. Nevertheless, they were all inspired by the Holy Spirit. Because Moses did not live in that time, a vision must have been shown to him in order for him to be able to write the Genesis account in such detail. Some also think that Moses was the author of the Book of Job.


The vicar will probably just invite you to come up to the lectern to read the Psalm.  If any words need to be said either directly before or after the reading, the vicar will deal with that.  In Protestant churches the reader might say words to the effect of "May God bless the reading of His Word" after the reading is finished.  That may not be deemed necessary at a funeral service, though.
I read from Ecclesiastes chapter 3 at my brother's funeral service, held in a very old and beautiful Church of England building.  It was an emotional experience and my main concern was to speak clearly and slowly, and to be heard.
Psalm 23 is a beautiful reading and I pray it will comfort you and everyone else there.


What is the biblical basis for the doctrine of Eternal Security?

Oh, how I dislike the expression "once saved always saved"!  It gives a wrong impression that if you just make some sort of “sinners prayer” and ask Jesus to accept you (like you’re doing Jesus a big favour), then you are saved.  Nothing else required.  Just pat yourself on the back and carry on.  Any such notion of “easy believism” is utterly false and misguided.
Let us be clear from the outset – salvation is a sovereign act of God whereby an unregenerate sinner is washed, renewed, and born again by the Holy Spirit:

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.  But when the kindness and love of God our Saviour appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.  He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:3-7).

Here are some Bible verses in support of the Christian assurance of salvation:

I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.  Before long, the world will not see me any more, but you will see me.  Because I live, you also will live.  On that day you will realise that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.  Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me.  He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him. (John 14:18-21)

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you.  And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.  But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.  And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. (Romans 8:9-11)

And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified. (Romans 8:30)

Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. (Romans 8:33-34)

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38–39

There are plenty other Bible verses that confirm the assurance born-again Christians have of their eternal salvation.  But no person who turns round and denies Christ Jesus as their Lord and Saviour can say they were ever born-again by the new, spiritual rebirth or that they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
I hope the Scriptures I've quoted show that there's more to being a Christian than simply making some sort of "sinners' prayer" and saying you will accept Christ Jesus.  Commitment is called for.  Obedience is called for.  A transformed life is called for.  You have to BELONG to Christ Jesus and follow Him, regardless of the price.
Once the believer has experienced this rebirth the Spirit that indwells them gives assurance of their salvation.  They can cry out, "Abba, Father", confident they have been adopted into God's family.  It's a done deal.
Edit: In answer to your comment, “can the done deal get undone along the way (theoretically)?” here is how it works.  Genuine repentance results in genuine forgiveness.  Once you get up off your knees and dry your eyes you are overwhelmed with the reality of God’s love.
Once God chooses the repentant believer (N.B. God does the choosing) he is justified, not by anything he does, but because God purposed it.  Is God about to change His mind and, further down the road say, “Woops, made a mistake with that one.  Better cross his name out of the Book of Life”?
The believer who has been reborn has been regenerated.  Is he to be un-regenerated because God got it wrong and didn’t know what was round the corner?  Where in the Bible does it say the new birth can be taken away?  Nowhere – so don’t bother looking.
John 3:15 says that whoever believes in Jesus Christ will "have eternal life."  Not, “might have eternal life” or “if you slip up that’s it – you’re history”.  If you believe in Christ today and have eternal life, but lose it tomorrow, then it was never "eternal" at all. Therefore, if the born-again believer loses their salvation, the promises of eternal life in the Bible would be a pack of lies.
Jesus made this promise to all believers who turn to Him in faith:

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.  For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John6:39-40).

No if’s, not but’s, no hidden default clauses, no traditions of men to follow, no man-made rules to adhere to.  God keeps it simple.  Humans complicate things in order to control and manipulate.
I’m not about to call God a liar.  He is faithful and true and we can depend upon His promises.  Bottom line is that God is Sovereign, and He draws us to Him.  End of.
Concluding Summary:
I have been saved – in the past – from the penalty of sin – by a crucified Saviour: “For in this hope we were saved" (Romans 8:24). “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Romans 2:8).
I am being saved – in the present – from the power of sin – by a living Saviour: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
I shall be saved – in the future – from the presence of sin – by a coming Saviour: "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!"  (Romans 5:9)


Are there any churches that do not accept the teachings of Paul?

There are several levels of "rejection" here.

First, if you mean outright removal from the canon, as in The Jefferson Bible, no large denominational body has done so that I am aware of.

Secondly, since Paul wrote half the New Testament, he is the source of many of our doctrinal writings about items from the nature of salvation to sexual ethics. On matters of salvation, for example, there are those who argue for a distinction between the "original" religion of Christianity and that which came about after Paul ruined it. The former being a nice religion about peace & justice, the latter being an exclusivist religion about avoiding hell in the afterlife.  An example is the "Christianity Before Paul"  views of James Tabor.  I don't know of any denomination who has fully embraced this view, although there surely are large numbers of pastors who would do so.

As far as sexual ethics go, Paul's writing in Romans 1 has been cited as the most authoritative biblical passage condemning (modern) homosexual practice.  Thus, much of the discussion in modern denominations has revolved around the applicability, authority, or even sinfulness of Paul's writings on the topic. One such place such debate over Paul's writings could be seen was in the debates that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America had over allowing non-celibate homosexual persons to serve as pastors leading up to a 2009 vote at its churchwide assembly.  Neverthelss, I have seen that even among those who explicitly reject Paul's view on sexuality, nearly all still find his writings on other topics, such as communion, to be authoritative.

Examples of rejecting Paul's writings in the ELCA's sexuality debate:
1) Presiding Bishop Hanson was quoted as saying that "we won't let six verses" determine our policy on anything.
2) One of the policy documents from the ELCA charged that "Paul's pre-suppositions are irrelevant."
3) At the plenary debate during the 2009 Churchwide Assembly, one speaker got up and told a story of one of his professors in seminary.  It went like this:

  "The professor took a large bible and threw it as hard as he could against the wall. Its bindings broke and pages went everywhere.  The professor said, 'This is how I feel about the bible."  Then the professor lovingly picked up the pieces, cradled them in his arms like a baby, and said, 'This is how I feel about the Word of God.'"

Making a big deal about the distinction between "the Word of God" and bible passages you want to throw against the wall is one way of downplaying the writings of Paul (Romans 1).


What is the evidence for the claim that Young Earth Creationism was the mainstream viewpoint in ancient times?

Note that none of this is to say that there weren't also evolutionary views in ancient times.  There were.  And that this isn't about whether the YEC view is true, it's about whether it was a belief that existed, as the primary belief among Christians (and in Judaism), long before the modern scientific views of origins.

I'd also like to point out that my comment on the other answer didn't say it was the primary view held by everyone.  Just that the view pre-dated modern scientific views.  It would be foolish to argue that a Biblical YEC view, based on the Genesis account was widely held by anyone outside Judaism or Christianity

The modern YEC view has several variants, but there are two main points on which YEC'ers agree, which can easily be shown to have been a common belief:  A young earth, and flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology)

Of course, the people that held this view didn't call it "young earth creationism".  They simply called it history.  People simply believed the Bible, and it wasn't until people came along to introduce modern ideas like uniformitarianism and an old earth, that the idea that the Bible might be wrong even occurred to Christians.

Case in point:  Charles Lyell's book "Principles of Geology" (available for online reading here in pdf form) is the book that introduced the idea of Uniformitariansim, and was one of the first scholarly book addressing geology from a "scientific" view.  In chapter three, he states:

  It had been the consistent belief of the Christian world, down to the
  period now under consideration, that the origin of the planet was not
  more than a few thousand years; and that since the creation deluge was
  the only great catastrophe by which considerable change had been
  wrought on the earth's surface.

It was simply common knowledge at the time that Christians believed in a young earth, and flood geology.

Of course, the Biblical creation account wasn't the only creation theory held in ancient days.  Many other cultures had their own creation stories.  While it's not my avorite source, Wikipeda has a fine article tracing the history of creationism as far back as the 5th century BC.  Some excerpts:

  Early history

  David Sedley, in his book Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity,
  traces creationist thought to the presocratic thinkers Anaxagoras and
  Empedocles, in the 5th century BC.2 Sedley states that Anaxagoras
  was recognized by Plato as "the first overt champion of a creative
  cosmic intelligence. Anaxagoras theory was that the original state of
  the world was a roughly even mixture of all opposites, and that it was
  the effect of the action of nous (intelligence or mind) that led to
  the partial separation of such opposites, hot from cold, land from
  water, rarefied from dense.

and later...

  170 – Theophilus of Antioch wrote in defense of creation beliefs and a
  relatively young Earth:

  "There are not myriads of myriads of years, even though Plato said
  such a period had elapsed between the deluge and his own time, . . .
  The world is not uncreated nor is there spontaneous production of
  everything, as Pythagoras and the others have babbled; instead the
  world is created and is providentially governed by the God who made
  everything. And the whole period of time and the years can be
  demonstrated to those who wish to learn the truth. . . . The total
  number of years from the creation of the world is 5,695.29 ... If some
  period has escaped our notice, says 50 or 100 or even 200 years, at
  any rate it is not myriads, or thousands of years as it was for Plato
  . . . and the rest of those who wrote falsehoods. It may be that we do
  not know the exact total of all the years simply because the
  additional months and days are not recorded in the sacred books."[this
  quote needs a citation]

And as long as I've sunk to using Wikipeda, I may as well include their article to show the history of flood geology.

  The great flood in the history of geology

  Many early Christians, including Tertullian, Chrysostom and Augustine,
  believed that fossils were the remains of animals that were killed and
  buried during the brief duration of the Flood.[13] The geological
  peculiarity in northern Europe where much is covered by layers of loam
  and gravel as well as erratic boulders deposited hundreds of miles
  from their original sources furthered acceptance of the idea. Early
  geologists interpreted these features as the result of massive
  flooding (in the mid 19th century geologists accepted that they had
  been formed by ice age glaciations).[14] The global flood was
  associated with massive geographical upheavals, with old continents
  sinking and new ones rising, thus transforming ancient seabeds into
  mountain tops.[15][16]

  During the Age of Enlightenment, naturalists began proposing natural
  causes for the miracles recounted in the Bible. Naturalistic
  explanations for a global flood were posed by John Woodward, (1695),
  and Woodward’s student William Whiston, (1696).[17]

Finally, since Christianity sprang from Judaism, it seems appropriate to address what early Jewish belief was.

  Classical rabbinic teachings

  The vast majority of classical Rabbis believed that God created the
  world close to 6,000 years ago, and created Adam and Eve from clay.
  This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrash, Seder
  Olam[disambiguation needed], which was based on a literal reading of
  the Book of Genesis. It is attributed to the Tanna Yose ben Halafta,
  and covers history from the creation of the universe to the
  construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Although a literal
  approach is not always used when interpreting the Torah, there is a
  split over which parts are literal.


Does this scripture shed light on the humanity of the unborn child?

There can be no definitive answer on this. The easiest way is to compare all the different translations  and make your own conclusion, for yourself and not for others.

Examples: Ecclesiastes 11:5

  NIV - As you do not know the path of the wind,
  or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand
  the work of God, the Maker of all things.

  KJV - As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how
  the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou
  knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

  GW - Just as you don't know how the breath of life enters the
  limbs of a child within its mother's womb, you also don't understand
  how God, who made everything, works.


What is the essential argument in favor of the tripartite nature of man?

Your question is one with which I wrestled for several years before making these discoveries in Scripture and I hope that it will give you the answer you are seeking.

Genesis 1:26  and 27 King James Version

  26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

  27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So I researched the word image and it's true meaning. The original Hebrew word was:

צֶּלֶם

  tselem (tseh'-lem) n-m.

    a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance
    (hence) a representative figure, especially an idol
    [from an unused root meaning to shade]

    KJV: image, vain shew.

notice the translation Phantom. this word has no connection to any physical substance, and in this case must be talking about other properties other than Physical. That leaves us to deduce that it must refer to spiritual characteristics.

Also please note the word * likeness* in verse 26. the original word used was:

  dmuwth (dem-ooth') n-f.

    resemblance
    (concretely) model, shape
    (adverbially) like

    KJV: fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.

Since the word is used in its adverbial form it means like, and the word our makes it plural.

Actually in the interlinear Hebrew translation  the phrase 'in our image' was:

בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ

  bə•ṣal•mê•nū

  which literally translated means 'in our image.'

This leaves us to understand that it is in reference to Spiritual beings and it must refer to a multiplicity.

So how do we get from there to what the likeness to that multiplicity means regarding man.

We must go back to:
Genesis 2:7  KJV

  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

We need to begin with what is the breath of life.

Breath:
נְשָׁמָה

  nshamah (nesh-aw-maw') n-f.

    a puff, i.e. wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect. or (concretely) an animal

    KJV: blast, (that) breath(-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.

Life:
חַי

  chay (khah'-ee) adj.

    alive
    (hence) raw (flesh)
    fresh (plant, water, year), strong
    (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural) life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively

    KJV: + age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life(-time), live(-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.

It is imperative that we first understand that the noun here is nshamah or breath and chay alive is an adjective.

That 'God breathed  into his nostrils' means that God transferred from himself to man's nose his breath. The noteworthy point here is that since God is Eternal that of necessity requires that his breath is also eternal.

Why this is important lies in what is said next ' man became a living Soul.

The significance of that is that the Soul created by the breath of life is an eternal being.

The importance of that was given by Christ in:

Matthew 10:28  KJV

  And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

The true significance of that statement is that only God has the ability to destroy the soul.

So now we have covered the body and soul, but if we are to be in the image of the trinity we need a third part, and that third part is the Spirit.

So what is the Spirit, and how is it different from the soul? The Hebrew word is:

πνεῦμα

  pneuma (pnyoo`-mah) n.

    a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze
    (by analogy or figuratively) a spirit
    (humanly) the rational soul
    (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc.
    (superhumanly) an angel, demon
    (divinely) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy Spirit

    KJV: ghost, life, spirit(-ual, -ually), mind

According to the Hebrew it is the rational soul, or the vital principle, or mental disposition. So the Spirit and soul are inextricably joined and the Spirit is the composite of all the persons knowledge and personality.

These are the conclusions I have reached from my study of the Bible.


Jesus said no one had gone into heaven except the Son of Man, but what about Elijah?

The Greek text of John 3:13 states,

ΙΓʹ καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ TR, 1550

which may be translated as,

13 And no one ascended into heaven except he who descended out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.

There are some who believe that Jesus is speaking in John 3:13. Others believe that the author of the fourth gospel (who many assume to be a certain “John”) is speaking. However, identifying the speaker is not essential for the purpose of this discourse. Rather, we shall focus on the issue of the Lord Jesus Christ being the only one to ascend to heaven.
Those familiar with the Old Testament know that both Elijah the prophet and Enoch ascended to heaven before dying. Yet, John 3:13 states that no man ascended to heaven but the Son of Man, the Lord Jesus Christ. How, then, do we reconcile this supposed contradiction?
The Lord Jesus Christ ascended (ἀνέβη) to heaven and descended (κατέβη) out of heaven under his own power and volition. On the other hand, individuals such as Enoch and Elijah were taken or brought up to heaven by God.
Regarding Enoch, Gen. 5:24 states,

24 And Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.
כד וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ חֲנוֹךְ אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים וְאֵינֶנּוּ כִּי לָקַח אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים

Enoch, being a man, could not and did not ascend under his own power and volition. Rather, God took him into heaven.
Regarding Elijah, 2 Kings 2:1 states,

1 And it came to pass, when Yahveh caused Elijah to ascend to heaven in a whirlwind, that Elijah and Elisha went from Gilgal.
א וַיְהִי בְּהַעֲלוֹת יַהְוֶה אֶת אֵלִיָּהוּ בַּֽסְעָרָה הַשָּׁמָיִם וַיֵּלֶךְ אֵלִיָּהוּ וֶאֱלִישָׁע מִן הַגִּלְגָּל

The infinitive הַעֲלוֹת (haʿalot) is conjugated in binyan Hifʿil, and thus means “to cause to ascend (go up).”
Gesenius wrote,1

The Hebrew text literally states that Yahveh caused Elijah to ascend to heaven, or in more polished English, Yahveh brought/ took Elijah up into heaven. Like Enoch, Elijah could not and did not ascend under his own power and volition.
Thus we see that in both cases of Elijah and Enoch, these individuals were taken up into heaven by God and not under their own power or volition. On the contrary, the Lord Jesus Christ descended2 from heaven (upon his incarnation) and then later ascended to heaven (after his resurrection) under his own power and volition.

References
Gesenius, Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm. Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Trans. Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. London: Bagster, 1860.
Footnotes
1 p. 631
2 Furthermore, no mere man has ever descended from heaven. This is conclusive evidence of the supernatural nature (i.e., deity) of the Lord Jesus Christ.