Why do Greek Orthodox venerate icons and Roman Catholic statues?

This question is quite nicely phrased on a couple points of view. Before going on let me mention that the Eastern Orthodox Church generally venerate icons. But in the West, Roman Catholics tend to venerate statues. I would like to point out that Eastern Rite Catholics do as the Eastern Orthodox do and venerate icons.

  The seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787) justified the veneration of icons of Christ, his mother and the angels and saints. The ultimate justification of images is God's incarnation in Christ: by taking a human body and nature, God made himself visible and material. The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone. Christian veneration of images is not idolatrous, sacrilegious because the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype, meaning to the person portrayed in the image. Images are mere things in themselves, but they are leading us on to God incarnate. The "bowing down" has a variety of meanings: in some cultures people like you and me bow before each other. Therefore it is important to know what the "bowing down" means. In the Catholic Church "bowing down" is contrasted to genuflection (kneeling). Generally, the latter indicates worship (God), the former is a lesser act on honoring somebody, i.e. Mary or a saint. - Veneration of Icons and Religious Images

Part of the reason why the East incorporated the veneration of  icons instead of statues is tradition and part is that the use of icons predated the veneration of statues in the West. Let us not forget that in the East, an icon is read.

  An icon (from Greek εἰκών eikōn "image") is a religious work of art, most commonly a painting, from Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism. More broadly the term is used in a wide number of contexts for an image, picture, or representation; it is a sign or likeness that stands for an object by signifying or representing it either concretely or by analogy, as in semiotics; by extension, icon is also used, particularly in modern culture, in the general sense of symbol — i.e. a name, face, picture, edifice or even a person readily recognized as having some well-known significance or embodying certain qualities: one thing, an image or depiction, that represents something else of greater significance through literal or figurative meaning, usually associated with religious, cultural, political, or economic standing.

  In Eastern Christianity and other icon-painting Christian traditions, the icon is generally a flat panel painting depicting a holy being or object such as Jesus, Mary, saints, angels, or the cross. Icons may also be cast in metal, carved in stone, embroidered on cloth, painted on wood, done in mosaic or fresco work, printed on paper or metal, etc. Creating free-standing, three-dimensional sculptures of holy figures was resisted by Christians for many centuries, out of the belief that daimones inhabited pagan sculptures, and also to make a clear distinction between Christian and pagan art. To this day, in obedience to the commandment not to make "graven images", Orthodox icons may never be more than three-quarter bas relief. Comparable images from Western Christianity are generally not described as "icons", although "iconic" may be used to describe a static style of devotional image.

  After adoption of Christianity as the only permissible Roman state religion under Theodosius I, Christian art began to change not only in quality and sophistication, but also in nature. This was in no small part due to Christians being free for the first time to express their faith openly without persecution from the state, in addition to the faith spreading to the non-poor segments of society. Paintings of martyrs and their feats began to appear, and early writers commented on their lifelike effect, one of the elements a few Christian writers criticized in pagan art — the ability to imitate life. The writers mostly criticized pagan works of art for pointing to false gods, thus encouraging idolatry. Statues in the round were avoided as being too close to the principal artistic focus of pagan cult practices, as they have continued to be (with some small-scale exceptions) throughout the history of Eastern Christianity.
  Nilus of Sinai, in his Letter to Heliodorus Silentiarius, records a miracle in which St. Plato of Ankyra appeared to a Christian in a dream. The Saint was recognized because the young man had often seen his portrait. This recognition of a religious apparition from likeness to an image was also a characteristic of pagan pious accounts of appearances of gods to humans, and was a regular topos in hagiography. One critical recipient of a vision from Saint Demetrius of Thessaloniki apparently specified that the saint resembled the "more ancient" images of him - presumably the seventh century mosaics still in Hagios Demetrios. Another, an African bishop, had been rescued from Arab slavery by a young soldier called Demetrios, who told him to go to his house in Thessaloniki. Having discovered that most young soldiers in the city seemed to be called Demetrios, he gave up and went to the largest church in the city, to find his rescuer on the wall. - Eastern Orthodox and Catholic teaching about Icons

We can see the in the earlier centuries of the Church icons were the ordinary means of Christians expressing themselves in sacred art. The use of statues in the West is a later development in the use of Christian art.

  The use of icons and symbols in Christian worship

  Early Christian art used symbolic and allegorical images mainly, partly no doubt to avoid drawing attention during the persecution of early Christians in the Roman Empire. In the Catacombs of Rome Jesus was represented indirectly by pictogram symbols such as the Ichthys (fish), peacock, Lamb of God, or an anchor (the Labarum or Chi-Rho was a later development). Later, personified symbols were used, including Jonah, whose three days in the belly of the whale pre-figured the interval between Christ's death and Resurrection, Daniel in the lion's den, or Orpheus charming the animals.

  The image of "The Good Shepherd", a beardless youth in pastoral scenes collecting sheep, was the most common of these images, and was probably not understood as a portrait of the historical Jesus. The depiction of Jesus already from the 3rd century included images very similar to what became the traditional image of Jesus, with a longish face and long straight hair. As the Church increased in size and popularity, the need to educate illiterate converts led to the use of pictures which portrayed biblical stories, along with images of saints, angels, prophets, and the Cross (though only portrayed in a bejewelled, glorified state).

  After the end of persecution, and the adoption of Christianity by Constantine, large churches were built and from the start decorated with elaborate images of Jesus and saints in mosaic. Small carved reliefs were also found on sarcophagi like the Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus. However large monumental sculpture of religious subjects was not produced, and in Byzantine art and Eastern Orthodox art it is avoided to the current day. It only reappeared in Carolingian art, among peoples who had no memory of pagan religious statues.

  Paintings of Old Testament scenes are found in Jewish catacombs of the same period, and the heavily painted walls of Dura Europos Synagogue in Syria. Catholic and Orthodox historians affirm, on the basis of these archeological finds in the Catacombs, that the veneration of icons and relics had begun well before Constantine I. - Religious images in Christian theology

As we can see, the West started to develop it's own form of tradition with the use of statues after the Church gained Her freedom from the Roman persecutions. Traditions are never still, but are living and always expanding.

The East chose icons and the West chose statues a few centuries later, due to historical events that fell into place.


The question requires a negative to be proved.

This is always difficult viz 'How did Luther not think ... etc. ? and the question is doubly difficult as we are asked to comment on 'how' Luther 'did not think'.

I'm not sure I can even begin to compose an article on 'how' Luther 'did not think'.

But I did find an extensive article on what Luther did think and, in particular, on what he thought about the text in question :

Posted by Pastor Kurthagen on Daughter Of Zion - WordPress

  Martin Luther offers useful commentary on 1 Cor 7:14, a difficult passage:
  14. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

  This is spoken in the Hebrew way and according to the manner of St. Paul, to the effect that all things are holy to him who is holy. Thus he says in Titus 1:15: “To the pure all things are pure”; or in Romans 8:28: “We know that in everything God works for good with those who love Him,” which is to say: A Christian spouse may not be divorced but can live with a non-Christian mate and even conceive and raise non-Christian children. The reason is this: if the non-Christian spouse does not prevent the Christian mate from leading a Christian life, then faith is such a mighty thing that no hurt will come from living with a non-Christian; it will make no difference whether he associates with religious or irreligious people, for even death, that most terrible thing of all, is still a holy thing for a Christian.

  Faith can use all things for its purpose, whether good or bad, except unbelief and its fruits. For these are directly contrary to faith and do not permit faith to remain; those things that do permit faith to remain are themselves rendered harmless by faith, are made pure, holy, useful, and salutary, so that the believer may live with them and keep them without danger. If this were not so, no Christian could live, for he is forced to live among evil and non-Christian people. But if he does not follow them but puts them to good use, he may live with or among them to the end that they may gain piety and become Christians.

  To a Christian, therefore, the entire world is holiness, purity, utility, and piety. Contrariwise, to a non-Christian the whole world is unholiness, impurity, uselessness, and destruction—even God with all His goodness, as Ps. 18:26–27 says to God: “With the pure Thou dost show Thyself pure; and with the crooked Thou dost show Thyself perverse.” Why is this? Because the pure, that is, the believers, can use all things in a holy and blessed way to sanctify and purify themselves. But the unholy and the unbelievers sin, profane, and pollute themselves incessantly in all things. For they cannot use anything in a right, godly, and blessed way, so that it might serve their own salvation.

  In the same way children are also holy, even though they are neither baptized nor Christians. They are not holy in themselves (St. Paul is not discussing this holiness here) but are holy to you, so that your own holiness may associate with them and raise them without profaning you, just as though they were holy things. St. Paul also wants to convey this: If a Christian spouse should have grown children with a non-Christian mate (as often happened in those days) and the children should not want to be baptized or become Christians, then, inasmuch as no one should be forced to believe but only willingly be drawn by God through His Gospel, the father and mother should not abandon the children or withdraw or fail in their motherly or fatherly duties, as though they could thereby sin and pollute themselves in unbelieving children; rather they should guide and care bodily for these children as though they were the holiest of Christians. For they are not impure or unholy, Paul says; that is, your faith can demonstrate itself in them and thus remain pure and holy.

  So it should be done now and at all times. Where children do not want to accept the Gospel, one should not therefore leave them or send them away but care for them and support them like the best of all Christians, commending their faith to God, so long as they are obedient and upright in all other things having to do with outward living. For parents can and should resist and punish outward evil acts and works. But nobody can resist and punish unbelief and an inwardly evil nature except God alone. Thus this text of St. Paul’s also concerns us and strengthens us, making all things holy and pure to the believer.


Are the gospels enough to convince one of the divinity of Christ?

The answers to your previous question establish that even Jesus considered Thomas' standards too high. But what's the right standard?
John actually answers this question for us in his gospel. He provides the incident with Thomas, presumably to raise exactly the questions you have raised. However, there is an extra sentence missing from the account you presented in your question.

Then Jesus told [Thomas], “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. John 20:29-31 (emphasis mine)

John shows us that Thomas was demanding too much evidence, but John believes he has provided just the right amount of evidence to enable belief. In fact, so much so, that he didn't include many miracles that he could have done.
Luke says much the same thing in his gospel.

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1-4 (emphasis mine)

Often in a scientific paper, the author will comment "further research is needed" to show that they, the expert, believe their evidence is not sufficient. A doctor may call for a second opinion. The gospel writers make no such claim, and believe that they, the experts, have recorded exactly what they need to in order to allow for genuine belief.


Who could have watched the veil of the temple tear when Jesus died?

The Holy of Holies, or the Most Holy Place, was separated from the outter room (the Holy Place) by the veil. Only the High Priest could go beyond the veil into the Most Holy Place, but other priests could enter the Holy Place. Thus any priest at the Temple would have been able to see it.

The non-priest Levites may have also been able to enter the Holy Place (they were originally charged with tearing down and setting up the Tabernacle in the wilderness)

So any number of people could have seen it. Even if they weren't immediately present, it would have been known within a day (if crucified Friday as many believe) or within a few days (if crucified on wed. as others argue). It would have been found within the week at the latest.

Obviously the two events couldn't be watched simultaneously, so there is no doubt some interpretation/correlation being done by Mark and others between these two events. Mind, the veil ripping in half would be no small event.

Holy of Holies (Wikipedia)


On what grounds was Arius refuted at the First Council of Nicaea?

The records of the 1st Ecumenical Council do not, I believe, include the discourse that preceded the condemnation against Arius and his followers.

We do know, however, that Athanasius of Alexandria was key in the condemnation.  He had written extensively against Arianism in his Four Discourses Against the Arians.  We can assume, I think, that many or all of the arguments from this document were brought to bear at the Council and/or that most of the Council members were familiar with them, even though the document itself seems to have been written after the council. I do not think it would be misstating things to say that the 1st Ecumenical Council was essentially an endorsement by the whole Church of a previous deposition of Arius by the bishop Alexander within the See of Alexandria.

I provided a link to Athanasius' document above, which you see is quite comprehensive and detailed, with several sections devoted to exegesis of the New Testament Scriptures, contrasting what was understood to be the Orthodox interpretation with that of the Arians.  An outline of the arguments against Arius is:

The Sonship of Christ is eternal
The Sonship of Christ is not like earthly Sonship
The personality of the Son is co-eternal with the Father

As you will see in the discourses, Athanasius was quite thorough.  On each point, he considered the Arian's argument, and then considered and refuted the Arian's interpretation of each Scriptural "proof text" offered.


Why did John Newton oppose Handel's Messiah?

Newton did indeed have issues with Handel's Messiah, so much so that in 1784–85 he gave a series of 50 sermons at his own church (St. Mary Woolnoth) in response to the oratorio being played at Westminster Abbey as part of a commemoration festival of Handel's 100th birthday.  His stated goal was to preach on the Scriptural passages found in the lyrics of the Messiah, though he also found ample opportunity to further his critique of the oratorio and its performance.
The complete collection of fifty sermons is available online in a number of formats, such as in this one-volume collection of Newton's works.  Thankfully, there are also helpful summaries of the sermons – one by Robert Manson Myers, "Fifty Sermons on Handel's Messiah" (Harvard Theological Review, October 1946) and David W. Music, "John Newton's Sermons on Handel's Messiah" (American Organist, August 2003).
Dr. Music summarizes Newton's objections as follows:

The music of Messiah, though majestic and greatly admired, deflects attention from the scriptural text upon which it is based;
The audience that gathered to hear Messiah came for the wrong reasons; and
The place of its performance was inappropriate.

Messiah distracts from Scripture
One of Newton's concerns was that the impressive music of the Messiah drowned out any chance of valuing the actual words:

It is to be feared, that [...] many persons, who have received pleasure from the music of the Messiah, have neither found, nor expected, nor desired to find, any comfort from the words. (Sermon 1)

He asks those who have heard the Messiah to consider if they were "only captivated by the music," and treated the "great truths of God" found in the lyrics as "if they had no meaning" (Sermon 2).  To Newton, the power of the words was being ignored because of the effect of the music:

The music of the Messiah is but an ornament of the words, which have a very weighty sense.  This sense no music can explain, and when rightly understood, will have such an effect as no music can produce. (Sermon 3)

Messiah's audience
We know from contemporary observers, besides Newton, that the Handel Commemoration at Westminster Abbey was a frenzy—Myers describes the "frank worldliness of a brilliant scene," and the inability of church officials to control the audience (218). This fueled Newton's cricism of the event, and particularly those who attended it.  They treated "the sufferings of the Son of God" as an "amusement" (Sermon 22); they would hear of "his passion and his kingdom" as a part of "musical entertainment, but upon no other occasion" (Sermon 11).
Newton draws an analogy between the Messiah's audience and a group being tried for high treason.  A guilty verdict is inevitable, but instead of seeking mercy from the king, they are "wholly taken up with contriving methods of amusing themselves" so as to maintain "as much chearfulness as possible."  Their preferred form of entertainment is music, and they especially like a work that describes their trial, judge, and sentence, and even, upon its receipt, incorporates the wording of the offer of pardon sent by the king.  "The fearful doom awaiting them [...] is sung for their diversion"; they focus on their entertainment and take no step toward accepting the king's mercy. (Sermon 4)
The seriousness of the subject of the Messiah makes its use as a "fashionable amusement" even worse:

If the far greater part of the people who frequent the Oratorio, are evidently unaffected by the Redeemer's love, and uninfluenced by his commands, I am afriad, it is no better, than a profanation of the name and truths of God, a crucifying the Son of God afresh. (Sermon 50)

The place of performance
Newton also objected to the Handel Commemoration taking place at Westminster Abbey, in part because audiences considered performances of the Messiah to be "equally acceptable, whether performed in a church or in the theatre" (Sermon 50).  But especially egregious was that praise of Handel was allowed to supersede praise of God in worship services:

Mr. Handel [...] has been commemorated and praised, many years after his death, in a place professedly devoted to the praise and worship of God; yes (if I am not misinformed), the stated worship of God in that place was suspended for a considerable time, that it might be duly prepared for the commemoration of Mr. Handel. (Sermon 4)

Summary
Kevin Twit is thus more or less correct; Newton did indeed object to Messiah, and certainly would not have allowed it to be played in his church (though it's not clear that that was ever proposed).  Still, Newton was not so much concerned with the "musical style" of Messiah as with the way it diverted attention from and made entertainment out of the Gospel.


What is the LDS (Mormon) position on eschatology?

The chronology adopted by Latter-day Saint interpreters (and heavily grounded in LDS scripture) most closely approaches what you would call mid- or post-tribulationist.  (That terminology is not current in Mormonism, in any case, nor is rapture:  LDS prefer to say "those caught up to meet Christ", which is closely tied in with the return of the city of Zion, and talk also of the trials and wickedness of the last days without attaching a specific phrase to the suffering.)
D&C 88 is a good source for the LDS doctrine on the last days, among others:

For not many days hence and the earth shall tremble and reel to and fro as a drunken man; and the sun shall hide his face, and shall refuse to give light; and the moon shall be bathed in blood; and the stars shall become exceedingly angry, and shall cast themselves down as a fig that falleth from off a fig tree.
[more Revelation-type disasters]
And there shall be silence in heaven for the space of half an hour; and immediately after shall the curtain of heaven be unfolded, as a scroll is unfolded after it is rolled up, and the face of the Lord shall be unveiled;
And the saints that are upon the earth, who are alive, shall be quickened and be caught up to meet him.

This is followed, in this chronology, by the sounding of other trumps, presumably analogous to those of Revelation (although this is not explicit in the text).  One distinction that is made is that as Jesus Christ returns with the City of Zion, the faithful are caught up to meet him, and together they return to the earth (rather than ascending to heaven).  This is preliminary to the millennial reign of Jesus Christ over the whole earth, as a key theme of Mormonism is the sanctification and elevation of this earth to celestial status, rather than relegating it to destruction.
There are a lot of popular LDS books which discuss hypothetical timelines, but officially there is no clear position taken on the order of events in the last days---only that prophecy will be fulfilled.  Other major LDS sources on the last days are D&C 45, 101, 133, and Joseph Smith's translation/version of Matthew in the Pearl of Great Price.  The Book of Mormon is conspicuously silent on this point, if I recall correctly, with the exception of few messianic Isaiah quotations and the confirmation that a Second Coming is to be expected.  The Gospel Principles manual chapters 43 and 44 are a good place to look for more information as well.


When someone converts to Christianity and is "reborn in Christ," is it the body or the soul that is reborn, or both?

As asked, your question will receive many answers, most of them will be personal opinions. I will not undertake to answer your question as asked.
I will however, give you the scriptures concerning this subject as I know them. You may use them for your research in seeking truth. I also would like to suggest that you seek consultation with your Pastor or other trusted Christian.
Those Scriptures from the King James  version are as follows:

Matthew 11:28  Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Matthew  11:29  Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Matthew 10:28  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.

Matthew  16:25  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Matthew _7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew _7:24  Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Matthew_7:26  And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

John_15:15  Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

Matthew  7:16  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Matthew  7:17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

Matthew  7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Matthew  7:19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Matthew  7:20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

You will also find that some good commentaries will help in understanding not only these, but any other Scriptures.
There are several Bible study aids available for free downloads on the internet, I have found them very helpful. Two fine ones that I use are e-sword and the Word. Both are free and have the ability to download many Bible versions, commentaries, and many other useful things such as maps, and etc.
Good luck in your studies, they are invaluable to new Christians as well as elder Christians.


Which version of the Gospels do the authors of the Philokalia refer to?

It is almost impossible that the writers of The Philokalia consulted exactly the same Gospel manuscripts.  It is a collection of writings from over 20 different authors spanning almost 1,000 years from different locations around the Mediterranean and Middle East.

For example: Isaiah the Solitary lived in Gaza in the 5th century; John Cassian lived in Gaul in the 4th and 5th centuries; John of Damascus in Syria in the 8th century; Gregory Palamas in Greece and Constantinople in the 14th century.

The 1904 Patriarchal Text mentioned in the comments was compiled from a number of disparate Greek texts and lectionaries that had been in use over the last two millennium.  It does not claim itself to be any kind of "original text".  In content it ends up being closest to the Majority Text.


According to LDS teaching, Does God have a God?

We don't know the details, and it's possible we will never know in this life.
We know that (1) God was like us (a literal spiritual father-child relationship), and (2) that we can be become like him (heirs of all that he has, and joint-heirs with Christ). Beyond that, little else is known about the exaltation of God.
The notion that God had a Father does have certain symmetry to it, but it isn't discussed in the scriptures.

But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you...
And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.
Moses 1:35-36

In fact, in the very same King Follett discourse you quoted -- which is probably the most detailed description on God's exaltation -- Joseph Smith says:

When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world.


What is the LDS position on changing doctrine

According to the Neal A Maxwell Institute, a dedicated LDS apologetic organization within BYU, this is not a problem.

  Some may see change in teachings and practices as an inconsistency or
  weakness, but to Latter-day Saints change is a sign of the very
  foundation of strength upon which the Church of Jesus Christ of
  Latter-day Saints is built—that God is always (yesterday, today, and
  forever) willing to reveal his will to his people if they are willing
  to listen and obey. Although the eternal saving principles of God's
  plan of salvation for his children do not change, the revelation of
  those principles and their application—to whom, when, where, how
  much—varies to meet a myriad of mortal circumstances and God's
  purposes and timetable.

  Members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ believe that there are
  many great and important things yet to be revealed (see Articles of
  Faith 1:9); this indicates that our past and current understanding of
  things is incomplete and may need adjustment.

In other words, changing doctrine is not evidence that their "Truth" is wrong, just that it's incomplete:  God hasn't yet revealed everything to us.

The official position held by the author at the Maxwell Institute is, in effect "We don't argue that our teachings have changed.  We simply accept that our knowledge is limited, and we're doing the best we can with what's been revealed to us.  As God reveals more, we may have to adjust our understanding.  God doesn't change.  Our understanding of God does."

This is in perfect harmony with the idea of continuing revelation that is accepted within the LDS Church.  It's not a problem at all.


Do reformed theologians call "God the Father" Jehovah?

Jehovah is an English rendition of the proper name of God from the Hebrew Bible, also rendered "Yahweh" or YHWH, which means I AM and is referred to as "The Tetragrammaton". It isn't specific to Jehovah's Witnesses, and can be found in many older English translations of the Bible.

In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) the doctrine of the Trinity isn't really formulated (Jews would say it isn't there at all) so there is no concept that the name for "God" applies to only one person of the Trinity. It is usually thought that the name(s) refer to "God as a whole".

Jesus in fact equates himself with Yahweh (Jehovah) when he says "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58).


Translation / bibles / composition bible LXX - Masoretic?

Every Bible translation has a target audience and a translation principle. No single translation can satisfy everyone. Modern English translations usually prioritize Masoretic over LXX but they will have footnotes indicating when the two differ.  Each Bible will have Introduction specifying in detail which critical edition of Greek & Hebrew text they use, how literal / dynamic the translation, and some conventions they use for the names of God, for example.  That is how they do their "proper job".

If you prefer LXX there are specialized LXX translations that recently came out such as NETS.

If you are into comparing variants of manuscript, you usually need to go with Greek edition and consult the accompanying Apparatus such as this one.

There maybe Greek / Hebrew edition Bible that have variants side by side.  But a much easier and flexible approach, the one that scholars are using, is to use powerful scholarly software such as Logos that allows you to turn on / off several layers to interspersed Greek/Hebrew with English (or other languages), or display parallel manuscript / translations side by side.


Given that God is able to do as he wishes, the question is more whether sinners can be around God. The text is pretty clear that God permits Satan into his presence so he can show the faithfulness of his servant, Job.

Throughout the scriptures and in other places we find that God can 'reveal' himself or be 'in the presence of' sinners in some fashion; and that he is able to mediate that experience to allow communication. If this was not so, there would be no faith at all!

In Orthodox theology, what is at stake is not God being able to be around sinners, but the experience of sinners in the presence of God. Hence, we see it does not tell us in the text what Satan's experience of being around God was, but we can only assume it was not pleasant.


How does "Evangelii Gaudium” pose a new perspective on capitalism?

The Catholic social teaching on the subject of capitalism has been consistently promulgated by all of the last three popes in office. As always, the substance stays the same, although the tone and writing styles may or may not.
In his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II reflected on socialism and capitalism in light of the recent fall of the Soviet Union. Although he acknowledged that profit has a “legitimate role” in the function of a business and that “the Marxist solution” to economic inequality had failed, he also spoke of the “inadequacies of capitalism” and said that profit is the not the only indicator that a business is doing well. The human dignity of workers matter too, and if capitalism is left unchecked it becomes “ruthless” and leads to “inhuman exploitation.”
Pope Francis's words are consistent with John Paul's:

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used
and then discarded. We have created a “throw away” culture which is
now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression,
but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to
be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer
society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no
longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the
outcast, the “leftovers”.

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down
theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free
market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and
inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed
by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those
wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the
prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To
sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for
that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost
without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling
compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain,
and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s
responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we
are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the
meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere
spectacle; they fail to move us.  Evangelii Gaudium

Benedict did a great job of handing down the torch against radical, unbridled capitalism in his 2009 encyclical:

But the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the
importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market
economy, not only because it belongs within a broader social and
political context, but also because of the wider network of relations
within which it operates. In fact, if the market is governed solely by the
principle of the equivalence in value of exchanged goods, it cannot
produce the social cohesion that it requires in order to function well.
CARITAS IN VERITATE

If you pay close attention you see that the differences "perceived" do not stem from the actual words of the pope, but from the media and how its spun by them. The liberal media like to jump on Francis' side because he wears his heart on his sleeve, whereas Benedict was shunned as ultra-conservative, not because he taught anything different, but because he wanted to return to some of the liturgical traditions that pre-date Vatican II. At the same time we see radical conservatives like Rush attacking Francis who very strongly exhorts Christian leaders and laypeople to wake up and pay attention to this 30 year old teaching on the social injustices of rampant capitalistic endeavors.
This is a very volatile subject that is one spark away from igniting a politico-religious debate...so I'm going to stop here.


What role does The Word have in The Trinity?

Welcome, and thanks for your question.

The Apostle John made clear that the Word is indeed the Son. In the first chapter of his gospel, he frames the narrative to follow as the story of the Word of God becoming a man, Jesus Christ. Here are some verses from that text:

  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. ... 9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. ... 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. ... 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

So, when used in a trinitarian sense, the "Word" or "Logos" of God is synonymous with "the Son", each being interpreted to mean the person Jesus Christ.


Are Catholic Trunk-or-Treat parties considered Halloween or All-Saint's-Day parties?
In one sense, they are simply considered parties! However that does not paint the whole picture.
Halloween party festivities are generally not endorsed by the Catholic Church. There is no religious feast day celebrating it.
Up until 1955, the Church’s Liturgical Calendar for the 31st of October celebrated the day as the Vigil of All Saints. That meant purple vestments and generally also was kept as fast day. That sounds like a far cry from a trick or treating party.

In 1955, Pope Pius XII reduced the number to 7, suppressing the vigils of the Immaculate Conception, Epiphany, and All Saints and all vigils of apostles except that of Saints Peter and Paul. In the 1950s Pope Pius XII instituted a reform of the Easter Vigil, first on an experimental basis, then making it obligatory in 1955. Among other changes, he changed the hour of the service from Holy Saturday morning to after sunset in the following night, thus restoring it to something like the original meaning of a Christian vigil service. - Vigil

The whole idea of Halloween parties being considered All Saints Parties will ultimately depend on the local tradition of one’s particular parish living according to Catholic values, that includes the trunk-or-treat parties: some could be considered All Saints Parties , while other are not.

Move over trick or treat, there's a new gig in town and it's called trunk or treat. Originally started by church groups with the aim of providing a safer environment for trick-or-treaters on Halloween, trunk or treat involves a community coming together in a parking lot, either on the 31st or shortly before, so that children can trick-or-treat out of the decorated trunks of their cars.
If trunk-or-treating hasn't hit your town yet, odds are it soon will because the door-to-door alternative is gaining in popularity, owing in part to the convenience inherent in condensing a large volume of candy into a small area (read: less walking), but mostly for the opportunity it affords holiday decor enthusiasts, to get creative with their trunks.
Like anything, however, trunk or treat has its detractors. I for one, feel a little uneasy about this threat to good old-fashioned trick-or-treating. - Trunk Or Treat: New Tradition Could Change Halloween As We Know It

If a particular Catholic community were to hold a trunk-or-treat party and insist that costume wearers should be dressed as saints, then yes that particular party could be considered an All Saints Vigil Party! That means no costumes of devils, demons, witches or the like.
The parish next to my own actually has done this for a few years now. Only saints permitted in and St. Peter is holding the keys to the parking lot!
Another parish community of All Saints has been holding a “Halloween Party” for decades now in their auditorium that has been based on Catholic values. Once again only appropriate saints costumes are allowed in.
In the end, a trunk-or-treat party would only be considered an All Saint Party if it actually sticks to some very basic guidelines, otherwise it just your average happy-go-lucky Halloween Party!
To think that the Church truly endorses the whole concept of Halloween is nonsense, as there is actually nothing in the liturgy to consider it a genuine Catholic festivity.


Are there tenets of Rastafarianism that run counter to Baptist theology?

When it comes down to it the rastafari have derived many things from christianity and judaeism. Some of the major points that make Rastafari diverse from your christian faith (exclluding calling haile selassie God) is that Rastafari often take up the Nazarite vow hence the dread locks, the Rastafari terminalogy such as, "I and I", "jah Rastafari"...etc., also its very important,to mention the extreme importance that, Rastas put upon marijuana and the huge role it plays in there faith and rituals, and the fact of the afrocentrism rastas perpetuate hold certain aspects of there faith, for instance many rastas believe themselves and african americans to be among the lost tribes of Israel, they refer to a book called the kaebra negaust as sacred account of King solomon forming a special bond with ethiopia by bearing a son from the ethiopian queen and creating a Solomonic dynasty after the prince took the throne of his mother.

Do these above mentioned things conflict with baptist christian practice? That will always be based upon opinion.


Is Jeremiah 10:2-5 referring to a Christmas Tree?

Why do we celebrate Xmas with a tree? Or at all for that matter?

We can celebrate Christmas with a tree because the Bible does not prohibit it. Jer. 10 does not refer to the practice of celebrating Christmas and decorating a Christmas tree. Rather, it refers to the heathens (idolaters) cutting a tree out of the forest, making a wooden idol (a god), and then decorating it.

Compare:

Jer. 10:5

  They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good. (KJV)

Nobody would think a tree speaks, moves, does evil, or does good. But the heathens did believe their idols had such powers.

Jer. 10:11

  Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. (KJV)

Jer. 10:14

  Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them. (KJV)

We celebrate Christmas to commemorate the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, even if we are not certain of the exact date he was born.


Do protestants believe that the New Testament is the final covenant?

Article VI of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England, which is accepted by most of the Anglican Communion, provides in part,  that

  HOLY Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. ...

Lutherans hold to the same viewpoint.


Can someone help me cite Luther's explanation of faith alone to Catholics

The text you are referring to does not exist in the form you have quoted.  Rather what you have is a combination of some sentences from a lengthy letter by Luther in response to peevish criticisms that some Catholic sophists were making on Luther’s translation of the Bible into German. Luther seems to be in a ‘bad mood’ about it all, as He had used so much work doing something that his critics were unwilling to even try, and yet had to face their endless criticisms on subjects they knew little about (i.e. the German language) This does tend to make those that actually understand what they are talking about frustrated. Yet Luther’s anger does not seem completely excusable.
Note: I put in bold some of the fragments collected in your quote.
Here is a quote earlier in the letters showing why He is frustrated:

There is a saying, “He who builds along the road has many masters.”10 That is the way it is with me too. Those who have never even been able to speak properly, to say nothing of translating, have all at once become my masters and I must be the pupil of them all. If I were to have asked them how to put into German the first two words of Matthew’s Gospel, Liber Generationis,11 none of them would have been able to say Quack!12 And now they sit in judgment on my whole work! Fine fellows!
That is the way it was with St. Jerome too when he translated the Bible. Everybody was his master. He was the only one who was totally incompetent. And people who were not worthy to clean his shoes criticized the good man’s work.13 It takes a great deal of patience to do a good thing publicly, for the world always wants to be Master Know-it-all.14 It must always be putting the bit under the horse’s tail,15 criticizing everything but doing nothing itself. That is its nature; it cannot get away from it.

Later on in the letter He really starts to fume. This is where some of your sentences came from.

But to return to the matter in hand! If your papist wants to make so much fuss about the word sola (alone) tell him this, “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says that a papist and an ass are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic jubeo; sit pro ratione voluntas.21 We are not going to be the pupils and disciples of the papists, but their masters and judges. For once, we too are going to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and as St. Paul boasts over against his mad raving saints [II Cor. 11:21ff.], so I shall boast over against these asses of mine. Are they doctors? So am I. Are they learned? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they dialecticians? So am I. Are they lecturers? So am I. Do they write books? So do I.
I will go further with my boasting. I can expound psalms and prophets;
they cannot. I can translate; they cannot. I can read the Holy
Scriptures; they cannot. I can pray; they cannot. And, to come down to
their level, I can use their own dialectics22 and philosophy better
than all of them put together; and besides I know for sure that none of
them understands their Aristotle.23 If there is a single one among them
all who correctly understands one proemium [preface] or chapter in
Aristotle, I’ll eat my hat.24 I am not saying too much, for I have been
trained and practiced from my youth up in all their science and am well
aware how deep and broad it is. They are very well aware, too, that I
can do everything they can. Yet these incurable fellows treat me as
though I were a stranger to their field, who had just arrived this
morning for the first time and had never before either seen or heard
what they teach and know. So brilliantly do they parade about with
their science, teaching me what I outgrew25 twenty years ago, that to
all their blatting and shouting I have to sing, with the harlot, “I
have known for seven years that horseshoe-nails are iron.”26
Let this be the answer to your first question. And please give these
asses no other and no further answer to their useless braying27 about
the word sola than simply this, “Luther will have it so, and says that
he is a doctor above all the doctors of the whole papacy.” It shall
stay at that! Henceforth I shall simply hold them in contempt, and have
them held in contempt, so long as they are the kind of people—I should
say, asses—that they are. There are shameless nincompoops among them
who have never learned their own art of sophistry—like Dr. Schmidt28
and Doctor Snotty-Nose,29 and their likes—and who set themselves
against me in this matter, which transcends not only sophistry, but (as
St. Paul says [I Cor. 1:19–25]), all the world’s wisdom and understand
understanding as well. Truly an ass need not sing much; he is already
well known anyway by his ears.30

Although Luther did not really have to explain himself, he decides to anyway later in the letter:

To you and to our people, however, I shall show why I chose to use the word sola—though in Romans 3[:28] it was not sola, but solum or tantum that I used,31 so sharply do the asses look at my text! Nevertheless I have used sola fide elsewhere,32 and I want both: solum and sola. I have constantly tried, in translating, to produce a pure and clear German, and it has often happened that for two or three or four weeks we have searched and inquired for a single word and sometimes not found it even then. In translating Job,33 Master Philip,34 Aurogallus,35 and I labored so, that sometimes we scarcely handled three lines in four days. Now that it is translated and finished, everybody can read and criticize it. One now runs his eyes over three or four pages and does not stumble once—without realizing what boulders and clods had once lain there where he now goes along as over a smoothly-planed board. We had to sweat and toil there before we got those boulders and clods out of the way, so that one could go along so nicely. The plowing goes well when the field is cleared.36 But rooting out the woods and stumps, and getting the field ready—this is a job nobody wants. There is no such thing as earning the world’s thanks. Even God himself can earn no thanks, with the sun, indeed with heaven and earth, or with his own Son’s death. It simply is and remains world, in the devil’s name, because it just will not be anything else.
Here, in Romans 3[:28], I knew very well that the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text; the papists did not have to teach me that. It is a fact that these four letters s o l a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate.37 At the same time they do not see that it conveys the sense of the text; it belongs there if the translation is to be clear and vigorous. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had undertaken to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our German language that in speaking of two things, one of which is affirmed and the other denied, we use the word solum (allein)38 along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say, “The farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; “No, really I have now nicht money, but allein grain”; “I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk”; “Did you allein write it, and nicht read it over?” There are innumerable cases of this kind in daily use.
In all these phrases, this is the German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German language to add the word allein in order that the word nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words “kein money” do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, word nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words “kein money” do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “The farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word allein helps the word kein so much that it becomes a complete, clear German expression.

Finally later on the typical Luther mentions what really matters to him, the gospel. After all the reason why his critics were squabbling peevishly over a word is that they hated the grace of God that Luther offered to sinners. They wanted faith plus works, not free grace apart from works, like the Apostle Paul argues. There opposition of this word, in Luther’s view was not about words but about their opposition to Paul and Christ. So He argues against this anti-gospel stance as he always did. This was the heart of the reformation and Luther was its leader:

Tell me, further: What is the work by which we lay hold of Christ’s death and resurrection? It cannot be any external work, but only the eternal faith that is in the heart. Faith alone, indeed, all alone, without any works, lays hold of this death and resurrection when it is preached by the gospel. Why then this raging and raving, this making of heretics and burning them at the stake, when the matter itself at its very core is so clear and proves that faith alone lays hold of Christ’s death and resurrection, without any works, and that his death and resurrection  [alone] are our life and our righteousness? Since, then, the fact itself is so obvious—that faith alone conveys, grasps, and imparts this life and righteousness—why should we not also say so? It is no heresy that faith alone lays hold on Christ, and gives life; and yet it must be heresy, if anyone mentions it. Are they not mad, foolish, and nonsensical? They admit that the thing is right, but brand the saying of it as wrong, though nothing can be both right and wrong at the same time.
Moreover I am not the only one, or even the first, to say that faith alone justifies. Ambrose said it before me, and Augustine and many others. And if a man is going to read St. Paul and understand him, he will have to say the same thing; he can say nothing else. Paul’s words are too strong; they admit of no works, none at all. Now if it is not a work, then it must be faith alone. What a fine, constructive, and inoffensive doctrine that would be, if people were taught that they could be saved by works, as well as faith! That would be as much as to say that it is not Christ’s death alone that takes away our sins, but that our works too have something to do with it. That would be a fine honor honoring of Christ’s death, to say that it is helped by our works, and that whatever it does our works can do too—so that we are his equal in strength and goodness! This is the very devil; he can never quit abusing the blood of Christ.
The matter itself in its very core, then, demands that we say, “Faith
alone justifies.” And the nature of our German language also teaches us
to express it that way. I have in addition the precedent of the holy
fathers. And the danger of the people also compels it, so that they may
not continue to hang upon works and wander away from faith and lose
Christ, especially in these days, for they have been accustomed to
works so long they have to be torn away from them by force. For these
reasons it is not only right but also highly necessary to speak it out
as plainly and fully as possible, “Faith alone saves, without works.” I
am only sorry that I did not also add the words alle and aller, and
say, “without any works of any laws,” so that it would have been
expressed with perfect clarity. Therefore it will stay in my New
Testament, and though all the papal asses go stark raving mad they
shall not take it from me. (Luther’s Works, Volume 35, Page 182 - 198)


Is it possible not to be contented in heaven?

There are a number of different questions here, and though they are all related, they could probably make multiple good questions. That being said, I'll try to answer them. One thing to note is that we know very little concrete facts about heaven, so most of this is simply inferred from Scripture.

  Is it possible that after reaching heaven, you find yourself discontented? Like what if the things that make you happy are not there?

This is a very popular question (just look at the number of google results), but I would say that the answer is bound up in the answer to the first question of the Westminister Shorter Catechism: What is the chief end of man?

The answer, Man's Chief End is to glorify God and enjoy him forever sums up the answer to your question nicely. If the purpose of our existence is to glorify God and Enjoy him forever (See 1 Cor. 10:31, Psalm 73:24-26), then we need nothing else in Heaven. Indeed, in heaven we will worship God, and as such our chief purpose will be fulfilled, therefore, we will be satisfied. Additionally, you could look at it from the perspective that since discontentment is sin (basis found in the Tenth commandment), and there is no sin in heaven, then there will be no discontentment in heaven. (for the broad answer of "What will we do in heaven", see here).

  Is it possible to go to hell after deciding you don't like heaven?

The Westminster Larger Catechism, question 86 - What is the communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after death?, states:

  The communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after death, is, in that their souls are then made perfect in holiness, and received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies, which even in death continue united to Christ, and rest in their graves as in their beds, till at the last day they be again united to their souls. Whereas the souls of the wicked are at their death cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, and their bodies kept in their graves, as in their prisons, till the resurrection and judgment of the great day.

The key thing to note here is that their souls are then made perfect in holiness. As I note later, if their souls are holy, why would they want to leave the presence of the supremely holy God?

The only people I think that might argue this would be those who argue you can lose your salvation, and I think even most of them would say that once you are in heaven, you are there to stay. But your question was not if you could get kicked out of heaven, rather if you could voluntarily leave. This is tied into your third question:

  Do we still have free will?

That depends on how you define free will. I am from a Calvinist theological background, and so I would say a resounding yes. Here's why, and I'll give an example to explain it:

Many find the concept of free will impossible to reconcile with the concept of predestination. But tied into this is the concept of Irresistible Grace. That is, when God calls you, it is so good you cannot resist the pull. Think of a wonderful chocolate cake (or some other delicious food). When you smell it, when it is sitting right in front of you, in a sense it is irresistible to you in that you will eat it because it is so good. God is so much better, so that when he offers himself to us, we are irresistibly drawn to him because of his infinite goodness. The same applies in heaven. We will have free will, but our eyes are opened to God's goodness, and as such we freely make the choice to worship him. As such, we would not want to leave heaven, and we would be completely content. (if you reject the Calvinistic argument I make, the rest of the argument I believe still holds)


What is the biblical basis for free will?

Although the Bible does contain a certain amount of direct, doctrinal teaching, much of its teaching comes in the form of stories. In the Old Testament, there are the various narratives of people and nations and their actions, both good and bad. In the New Testament, there is the story of the life of Jesus and of the people who surround him, who do things both good and bad. And much of Jesus' own teaching is in the form of parables, or stories, rather than direct doctrinal style teaching.
We should therefore not expect the Bible to present a theological discourse on free will. Rather, the biblical basis for free will is found largely in the various stories and how they unfold.
Explicit and semi-explicit statements of freedom of choice in the Bible
Having said that, there is at least one passage that explicitly presents humankind as having a choice between good and evil:

See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.
This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Deuteronomy 30:15–20, italics added)

In this passage, God gives the Children of Israel (long after the Fall) an explicit choice between good and evil, asking them to choose life.
Somewhat less explicitly, in the Book of Revelation:

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me. (Revelation 3:20)

This passage clearly implies freedom on the part of the human being either to open the door and let the Lord in or not to open the door and leave the Lord outside. This statement occurs in the New Testament, in the final book of the Bible, almost as far after the Fall as the Bible story goes.
Stories in which people are presented as having choice and free will
There are other passages in the Bible that can be read as saying that people have a choice between good and evil, or what is the same, a choice between accepting and following God and not accepting and following God.
However, the most extensive biblical basis for free will comes in the narrative itself. In many stories in the Bible, God gives a direction or a commandment, and the people to whom it is given choose not to follow it. The fact that in these stories God does not prevent people from acting against God's will illustrates the principle that people do have real choice and free will.
Of course, in many stories in the Bible God gives instructions or commandments, and the people to whom they are given do follow them. This supports the principle that it is up to the human beings whether or not to act according to God's will.
Here are some of the stories throughout the Bible in which God gives instructions or commandments and people choose not to obey them:
Adam and Eve
In Genesis 2 we read:

Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. . . .
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” (Genesis 2:8–9, 15–17)

Here God places in the Garden of Eden two trees, one of which he says the people he has created may eat from, and the other of which he says they are not to eat from. Clearly, God is giving Adam (and later) Eve, free will and a choice, or God would not have put these two trees in the Garden.
And yet, in the very next chapter, first Eve, then Adam, eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil knowing that God has told them not to. Eve and Adam, not to mention the serpent, then reap the consequences of their choice to disobey God. In this story, told in Genesis 3, God does not prevent Adam and Eve from eating from the forbidden tree. Clearly they are free to do so. And then they must live with the results of their choice.
This, of course, led to the Fall of Humankind.
And yet, even after the Fall, in the Bible story human beings continue to be given a choice between good and evil actions, and to reap the benefits or to experience the negative consequences of their choices, without God intervening to prevent them from making the wrong choice.
Cain
In fact, the very next such story involves Adam and Eve's firstborn son Cain. You can read the full story in Genesis 4:1–16. Here is the most relevant excerpt:

Then the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it."
Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. (Genesis 4:6–8)

In the story Cain is angry because God has accepted the offering of his brother Abel but not his own offering. God remonstrates with Cain, telling him to overcome the sin that is crouching at his door. But Cain does not listen to God, and instead yields to that sin and kills his brother Abel out of jealousy.
God did not prevent Cain from doing this. Cain was free to carry out his choice to yield to his jealousy and anger even after God pleaded with him not to do so. And Cain had to live with the consequences of his evil choice, as narrated in the rest of the story.
The Children of Israel at Mt. Sinai
Moving on to the book of Exodus, the Children of Israel heard God's own voice proclaiming the Ten Commandments from Mt. Sinai, among which was the commandment not to worship idols. The Deuteronomy version concludes the giving of the Ten Commandments by saying:

These words the Lord spoke with a loud voice to your whole assembly at the mountain, out of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, and he added no more. (Deuteronomy 5:22)

So it is clear that the people heard God himself telling them not to worship idols.
And yet, during the forty days that Moses was then up on the mountain receiving additional laws and commandments from God, we read:

When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered around Aaron, and said to him, "Come, make gods for us, who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him."
Aaron said to them, "Take off the gold rings that are on the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me." So all the people took off the gold rings from their ears, and brought them to Aaron. He took the gold from them, formed it in a mold, and cast an image of a calf.
Then they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!"
When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation and said, "Tomorrow shall be a festival to the Lord." They rose early the next day, and offered burnt offerings and brought sacrifices of well-being; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to revel. (Exodus 32:1–6)

In other words, in less than a month and a half from the time that the people heard God's own voice booming the Ten Commandments from the mountain, they broke the commandments against having no other God before him, against making and worshiping idols, and probably several other commandments as well.
Once again, God did not prevent them from doing so. They remained free to break God's commandments, but then had to take the consequences of their actions, as narrated in the rest of Exodus 32.
Solomon and his wives
Moving on to the time of the kings of Israel, King Solomon, son of King David, also violated several of God's commandments, specifically, in taking foreign wives and in building shrines to their gods, as we read in 1 Kings:

King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord; he did not follow the Lord completely, as David his father had done.
On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites. He did the same for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods. (1 Kings 11:1–8)

Even though Solomon, who was the king of all Israel, was clearly and flagrantly breaking God's explicit commandments, God did not prevent Solomon from doing so. Rather, God pronounced the consequences of Solomon's actions in the next series of verses: 1 Kings 11:9–13. These consequences were that Solomon's son would have most of the kingdom taken away from him, tarnishing and diminishing Solomon's legacy.
The crucifixion of Jesus
In the New Testament, a prime example of human free will is in the fact that the Jewish religious leaders of the day were allowed to sentence Jesus to death, and that the Romans were allowed to carry out that sentence by crucifying Jesus.
God did not prevent this, but allowed human beings to crucify the Son of God. Yes, this was also part of God's plan. And yet, the people who crucified Jesus were acting for their own reasons, out of their own choice, in order to preserve (as they thought) their own power and position.
However, before that happened, Jesus had already presented sin and repentance as a choice in many of his teachings and parables. Here are just two examples:
If a member of the church sins against you

If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:15–18)

Here Jesus tells us that if someone sins, we are to take various steps to get them to admit to it and change their ways. And yet, that person may or may not listen. And Jesus concludes by saying that whatever we bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever we loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. In the context of the teaching, he is saying that whatever choice we make here on earth, that choice will continue to be in effect in the afterlife.
The Parable of the Ten Minas
In the Parable of the Ten Minas as told in Luke 19:11–27 (a variation of this parable also occurs in Matthew 25:14–30), a nobleman entrusts ten of his servants with ten minas, telling them:

Put this money to work until I come back. (Luke 19:14)

The first two do as they are commanded, and make a tenfold or fivefold profit. The third, however, does not do as he is told:

Then another servant came and said, "Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow." (Luke 19:20–21)

Because he did not do what his master told him to do, he was punished by having the money confiscated from him instead of being rewarded by being put in charge of ten or five cities, as had happened to the first two servants, who had done what their master told them to do.
In this parable, the master, who is clearly a figure representing God, entrusts money to his servants, gives them a command, and then allows them to handle the money as they see fit. Those who handle it well as commanded are rewarded, and those who do not are punished.
And once again, the master, representing God, does not intervene to prevent them from acting contrary to his will, but rather gives them freedom to choose to obey or not to obey, and to reap the reward or the punishment for their actions.
Passages supporting the principle that all people have free will
Though none of these stories imply that free will is not available to any class of people, such as the evil vs. the good or the unredeemed vs. the redeemed, or Christians vs. non-Christians, there are several passages in the Bible that build an increasing case that all people have free will.
Ezekiel 18
In Ezekiel 18, God pronounces an end to the practice, common in many ancient cultures, including the Hebrew culture, of whole families being punished for the sins of the head of the household.
God then says that "the one who sins is the one who will die" (Ezekiel 18:4), establishing individual responsibility for a person's good or evil choices and behavior, and individual consequences for that behavior.
The chapter then goes into detail saying that if a man is righteous and does what is good, he will live. But if that man's son does what is evil and violent, that son will die for his sins. But if that man's son sees what his father has done, and instead does is good and right instead, he will live.
The chapter ends with these words:

Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, all of you according to your ways, says the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions; otherwise iniquity will be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, says the Lord God. Turn, then, and live. (Ezekiel 18:30–32)

In this chapter, God establishes individual responsibility for one's own sins or good behavior, and calls on people to repent from evil behavior and do what good instead, so that they may live instead of dying.
This is once again a clear presentation of a choice between good and evil on the part of the human being. And it rests that choice squarely on the shoulders of each individual human being.
The Sheep and the Goats
Turning to the New Testament, Jesus' final teaching in the Gospel of Matthew before the events of Holy Week is his account of the Sheep and the Goats, or the Judgment of the Nations, as told in Matthew 25:31–46. It opens with these words:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. (Matthew 25:31–33, italics added)

Note that Jesus states that all the nations, not any one specific nation or group, will be called before the Son of Man. He is speaking of a universal judgment on all people.
He then proceeds to say, in narrative form, that people who have done good things for him by doing good things for their fellow human beings who are in need will go to eternal life, but people who have not done good things for him by not doing good things for their fellow human beings who are in need will go to eternal punishment.
All of the preceding passages from the Bible show that whether or not we follow God's commandments and do good things for our fellow human beings is a choice on our part. This passage in the Gospels extends that principle to all the nations, meaning to everyone on earth.
God's Righteous Judgment
Finally, moving on to the Epistles, Romans 2:1–15 also speaks of the judgment that God will execute on all people. Within that passage Paul says:

For he will repay according to each one's deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. (Romans 2:6–11, italics added)

And immediately following this:

All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all. (Romans 2:12–16, italics added)

In this passage, Paul explicitly applies the final judgment to Jews, "Greeks" (pagan polytheists), and Gentiles, by which he likely means non-Jews and non-Christians, even though technically it means non-Jews. These general terms cover all the groups of people that existed in Paul's world. And he says that all of these classes of people will be judged for eternal life or for wrath and fury according to their righteous or unrighteous actions, and that this will be done by God, through Jesus Christ.
Paul, then, explicitly applies to all people what Jesus applied to "all the nations" in Matthew 25:31–46, as referenced above.
These passages, taken together with the others, provide the biblical basis for the belief that this freedom to choose between good and evil is not limited to particular groups such as the redeemed (however they are defined), but extends to people of all groups and all nations.
Summary and conclusion
Deuteronomy 30:15–20 states explicitly that God sets before us a choice between obeying or disobeying God. The same choice is strongly implied in Revelation 3:20, which says that Christ knocks on the door, and comes in only if we open the door for him.
There are also many stories in the Bible that provide examples of human beings both before and after the Fall being given choices between good and evil, and then experiencing the good or bad consequences of their choices and actions. The ones mentioned above are just a few among dozens, if not hundreds of such stories in the Bible. In these stories people sometimes choose the good path, and other times they choose the evil path.
Finally, among other passages that could be quoted, Ezekiel 18, Matthew 25:31–46, and Romans 2:1–16 establish individual responsibility for good and evil choices and actions, and extend the judgment and reward or punishment for those choices and actions to all the nations, including Jews, "Greeks," and Gentiles.
All of this provides a solid basis in the Bible for the belief that:

Humans are not predestined, but have the ability to make their own choices.
This applies to all groups, both the good and the evil, both the redeemed and the unredeemed.
Humans have this ability throughout time, both before and after the Fall.


Do Mormons believe in the Virgin birth taught in the Bible? (LDS)

Yes.  Latter-Day Saints believe in the Virgin birth.

Perhaps one random sample from an official LDS Church manual called The Life and Teaching of Jesus and His Apostles Instructors Manual (Which can be found here) will help.  It says the following:

  The Significance of the Virgin Birth (A Discussion and Chalkboard
  Diagram)

  The teacher might wish to point out that many people in the Christian
  world want to believe in Jesus, but only as a great human being, only
  as a great man. They feel uncomfortable about the concept of the
  miraculous, virgin birth. Yet if this is denied, all of the Atonement
  must be rejected as well. It was the inheritance that came from a
  mortal mother and a divine Father that made the Atonement possible.

The confusion may come where we believe that God is his Literal, physical father.  There is no doctrine as to how this occurred.  I know of no statements of God laying with Mary.  Only that God is His Father, and Mary is His mother.  Any speculation as to how that occurred is not doctrinal, nor is it taught.  Mary was still a Virgin at Christ's birth.

Was it artificial insemination? Was it a miraculous transformation of the egg to a complete set of chromosomes? Was His zygote somehow embedded in her via the Holy Spirit?  There is no doctrine, nor even official speculation as to how this may have occurred.  Frankly I am not really even aware of any non-official speculation as to the method within the LDS faith.

When the Journal of Discourses is used as a point of LDS doctrine, one must call it into question.  These talks were not recorded except in shorthand and notes, and reconstructed by an individual for profit.  They were not produced by the LDS Church, despite the talks being by official sources.  Significant portions were never even approved of by the speakers.

There is a whole line of research on this topic, and it is amazing what was left out and added to the talks based on the original shorthand texts.

That doesn't mean there isn't a lot of good in there, and things one can learn, but it does mean that one should probably look to LDS.org to get accurate doctrinal points rather than the JoD.

A great discussion on the JoD with modern understanding can  be found in this podcast episode.  It gives some scholarly direction as to how to look at the JoD.

Today current members may refer to the JoD, but it has been relegated to more of a curiosity and a tool than a source of doctrine.


What will happen to the Trinity when the Bride of Christ is revealed?

No, at least in the context of mainstream Nicene (including Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox) I don't think there is any teaching about this. The reason being simple: it is a non issue. The very idea of this is not based on a classic understanding of the Trinity at all and therefore is not a problem for normal Trinatarian theology.

The basic idea here is that God is ONE being. Never mind the person aspect of his nature for the moment, that is irrelevant to the difficulty you are posing. You have one being, then a separate entity and a relation between them. The one being (esp when that being is God!) doesn't fundamentally change in nature based on the state of relationships with other beings. It is what it is.

Now you can throw the three persons of the Trinity back in the equation, but nothing changes. They are still God and God still has a relationship with his chosen people, his bride.


Do 'Bible Christians' find paraphrasing the Bible distasteful?

I don't believe there is a problem with paraphrasing the Bible in conversational, or even teaching use.  The important thing is that what is being paraphrased can be verified against the Bible.

A lot of a pastor's message is likely to be paraphrasing or expounding on a Bible verse.  There is nothing wrong with this, as long as it is being verified against the original Bible.

This is why there are so many different translations.  Why are there so many translations of the Bible?  There are a lot of ways to convey a message in English, and some may understand one method versus another better.  Even then, when using 1 or more translations as the verification, these translations can be further verified against the original Hebrew or Greek, such as with an interlinear Bible.

As far as it applies to this site, I think it'd be nice to provide the base scripture for any direct paraphrasing, either directly quoted or just as a link.  This would make it easier for those who are new to the Bible or who would like to read more into what you are saying to access the scripture.  For a comparison, would you ever expect to have a church leader teaching on the Bible without actually being able to reference it directly?


Meaning of Acts 10:34-35 according to Protestantism

In this specific section up until verse 43 Peter is speaking about Jesus' life and ministry.

The answer to the claim God is "no respecter of persons" but accepts the ones that fear Him and "worketh righteousness" is in verses 42 and 43

  And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believed in him shall receive remission of sins.

Peter concludes with an image of Jesus as the One appointed to judge humanity, yet makes it clear forgiveness and salvation are available to everyone who believes Him. God doesn't respect persons because they don't do His will, they are sinners and God is a just God. Nonetheless, those following Jesus receive "remission of sins" and a righteous status before God becoming "acceptable" to Him.


Why does the Quran mention Jesus Christ 25 times, but Mohammad only 5 times?

Mohammed is not cited in the Bible, obviously, because all books in the Bible predate him.
Jesus is named, according to this answer, well over 900 times.

How often they are cited in Quran and especially why is irrelevant here and you would better ask this question at Islam.SE where there are people familiar with Quran.


Was Antipas a person or is the word a symbolism for Christian?

Many Christian traditions believe Saint Antipas to be the Antipas referred to in the Book of Revelation (Revelation 2:13) as the "faithful martyr" of Pergamon, "where Satan dwells".

According to Christian tradition, John the Apostle ordained Antipas as bishop of Pergamon during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian. The traditional account goes on to say Antipas was martyred in ca. 92 AD by burning in a brazen bull-shaped altar used for casting out demons worshiped by the local population.


How to know whether God truly spoke to you?

Summary

The verses below tell you clearly what to do. Use logic and reason, consult with Christians wiser than you, and test this man's words. Praise God if he passes. Rebuke the man if he does not.

Modified from a previous answer of mine on testing prophets

The first thing I want to say is that if your wife is a Christian with a moderately strong faith you should tell her immediately. She should be your guide through this. That will be the extent of the personal advice I will give.

The Bible says a great deal about testing prophets and spirits. From your story, the man, whom you did not know, came up to you uninvited and told you information about yourself that he could not have known. I assume he also had a message for you of some sort, else what would be the point. He has performed an act of prophesy.

A similar situation from the Bible is when Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4. Jesus, using the give of prophecy, was able to know things about the woman and give her a message that she then likely told to the whole town (that message was that the messiah was here).

Now the following is from the Bible on how to test spirits and prophets. Much of this can be applied to your situation.

A spirit will confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.

  Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
  1 John 4

Although this verse says 'spirit' I think it is just as easily applied to prophets. Both are charged with speaking God's words.

This verse also not only says it is okay to test the spirits but implies that you should every time. You should be comfortable with the fact that this event has happened and even more comfortable that you are approaching it with a healthy amount of skepticism. Assuming you are a Christian, you are equipped to discern the divinity of this event, however, part of that equipping is consulting other Christians that you know. Proverbs 27:17

A person speaking by the spirit will claim Jesus is Lord

  3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:3

This is pretty straight forward. Did this person use any language that implies this? In the best case scenario you can question this person directly: "Is Jesus Christ the Lord of all?" He should be able to easily confess Christ is Lord and praise and worship Him with you. Since you were at a church that is a good sign, however, it would be best if you saw him worshiping or otherwise confessing the sovereignty of Christ.

A prophet will not contradict God's word

  20 Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. Isaiah 8:20

Praise God for giving us His word! Full of His wisdom! You have the Bible and can easily consult it concerning what this person told you. From your story, it seems like you are struggling with something, such as a difficult decision or perhaps how to reconcile a sin. The Bible has much to say on many topics. If there is anything that this person said that contradicts His Word, than I am afraid he was not speaking from the Spirit.

A prophet will not prove himself with wonders then ask you to worship other Gods

  If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. Deut 13:1-3

I very much doubt that occurred in your story, but just in case.

The predictions of a prophet must come to pass

  20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”
  21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed. Deut 18:20-22

These verses imply that an already proven prophet can later be unproven. This backs up 1 John's claim to test them every time and not just the first time. Apparently saying God said something that He did not is a capital offense, so you could argue that a prophet of ancient times was very slow to speak.

Now, if this person said anything about what will be, that must come true. There is no exception. If his would be predictions do not come true he was not speaking from the Spirit.

A true prophet will live a righteous life

  15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Matt 7:15-20

This will likely not help you much, but it is still worth noting. If you can learn something about his life and lifestyle then you can make a determination whether he was doing his best to live a Christian life.

Conclusion

This verses tell you clearly what to do. Use logic and reason, consult with Christians wiser than you, and test this man. Praise God if he passes. Rebuke the man if he does not.


Receiving the Holy Spirit after conversion Acts 8:14–17

I would not say that this answer explains away what could be a "2nd blessing", but it is the interpretive basis for that conclusion.  The answer lies in the hermeneutic "examples found in historic narrative are not necessarily normative for the Chruch".  Simply stated, just because it happened once does not mean it's supposed to happen that way every time.  The classic case of when this hermeneutic is ignored is the Appalachian Snake Handlers who think that because Paul was bit by a deadly viper, "however, shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm" (Acts 28:5) then all Believers should be able to do the same thing.  Unfortunately there has been as many as 120 confirmed deaths from snakebite in this group of people.

So, by applying this hermeneutic, the reader must agree that certainly Peter and John had to pray for and lay hands on this group of believers before the Holy Spirit came upon them, but is there any other evidence, particularly in the epistles, that would lead to the conclusion that the receiving of the Holy Spirit is only (or even usually) accomplished this way?

When we examine the rest of the New Testament, there doesn't appear to be much to support that.

For example, Paul wrote a lot of letters to the Church, explaining a lot of theology and giving a lot of instruction on how things are to be done.  There does not seem to be anything he wrote about a "2nd Blessing".  However, he did write "Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him" (Rom 8:9). So evidently, if you belong to Jesus then you have the Holy Spirit.

I trust that I am accurately stating the cessationists take on it.


What is Gideon's ephod, and why did he build it?

in early books of the bible, the ephod was a special piece of clothing that was made for Aaron the High priest to wear when he served the Lord (Exodus 28:5)

  “They shall take the gold, blue, purple, and scarlet thread, and the fine linen, 6 and they shall make the ephod of gold, blue, purple, and scarlet thread, and fine woven linen, artistically worked. 7

When I started to research this question, I realised that everyone pretty much agrees the ephod in Judges was not a clothing, like I had always thought!

So I cant tell you exactly what it was physically, but I can answer the 2nd part of your question and explain some significance.

It says in Judges 8:24

  4 Then Gideon said to them, “I would like to make a request of you, that each of you would give me the earrings from his plunder.” For they had golden earrings, because they were Ishmaelites.

This is extremely familiar scene. Think back to exodus as Moses goes up the mountain to get the 10 commandments. The people think he has been gone to long, and they ask Aaron the priest to make them an idol!

Exodus 32

  Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered together to Aaron, and said to him, “Come, make us gods that shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.”
  2 And Aaron said to them, “Break off the golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” 3 So all the people broke off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron. 4 And he received the gold from their hand, and he fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made a molded calf.

So the significance of the ephod in Judges, is that once again, God's people do not trust in him or give him glory for the things he has done for them, but they go astray and break his commandments by making for themselves idols and worshipping them.

Idol worship is a very very prominent theme of the Old Testament. and it was a problem the Israelites continually faced.