Does 1 Corinthians 8:6 prove Unitarianism?

You ask how is 1 Corinthians 8:6

  yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

to be understood with Trinitarian theology? In particular, you state "Paul is saying that the one being of God is shared only by the Father." Trinitarians have never seen 1 Corinthians 8:6 that way. They have focused on the unity of the Father and the Son, the Logos, in their action in creation. What was shocking to both the Jewish and pagan converts was not that Paul placed the Father and the Son/Logos on equal level but that he identified the Logos with the man Jesus Christ.  Trinitarians do not understand 1 Corinthians 8:6 as separating the Father from the Son, but rather believe that Paul is placing the Lord Jesus Christ on equal footing with the one God, the Father by identifying Him with the Logos.

The Nicene Creed

You asked

  how can we as Trinitarians reconcile the fact that "there is one God, the Father" with the doctrine of the trinity

There is no need to reconcile it with Trinitarian theology since it is the correct expression of Trinitarian theology. In particular the Church Fathers gathered at Nicaea for the First Ecumenical Council felt this was the most appropriate way to refer to the Father and the Son. Notice the how the original 325 version of the Nicene Creed lines up with 1 Corinthians 8:6:

    1 Corinthians 8:6               Nicene Creed (325)
There is one God, the Father    We believe in one God, the Father Almighty
of whom are all things          Maker of all things visible and invisible.
and we for Him
and one Lord Jesus Christ       And in one Lord Jesus Christ
                                the Son of God,
                                begotten of the Father
                                the only-begotten
                                that is, of the essence of the Father,
                                God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God,
                                begotten, not made,
                                being of one substance with the Father
through whom are all things,    By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth
and through whom we live.
                                Who for us men, and for our salvation,
                                came down and was incarnate and was made man.
                                He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven
                                From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
                                And in the Holy Ghost.

While the Nicene Fathers apparently felt that words of 1 Corinthians 8:6 accurately stated their position, they did find in necessary to clarify the relationship between the Father and the Son. Why? Because the Arians presented this same verse as a proof text. They asserted, somewhat like your question implies, that only the Father is God and that Christ something else, something lesser, a Lord. But this in no way implies that they held a Unitarian understanding of 1 Corinthians 8:6. Arius and his followers believed that Christ was God as well. Arius himself wrote in a letter to his fellow Arian Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia:

  But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that He does not derive His subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. [Emphasis mine]

Both the Arian and the Nicene Christians believed that 1 Corinthians 8:6 taught that Christ is God -- certainly not a Unitarian interpretation. The Nicene Trinitarians made many arguments as to why the Son is of the essence of the Father, of one substance with the Father, but we will focus on the ones that address 1 Corinthians 8:6. The positions of the Trinitarians as they address Arianism will illustrate that they did not even consider a Unitarian understanding of 1 Corinthians 8:6 to be possible.

Countering Arianism

John Chrysostrom

John Chrysostrom lived shortly after the Council of Nicaea. In his 20th Homily on Corinthians (I recommend you read the entire homily) he writes about 1 Corinthians 8:6

  "yet to us there is One God, the Father." In the first instance [1 Corinthians 8:4] having expressed it without the word "Father," and said, "there is no God but one," he now adds this also, when he had utterly cast out the others. Next, he adduces what indeed is the greatest token of divinity; "of Whom are all things." For this implies also that those others are not gods. For it is said, "Let the gods who made not the heaven and the earth perish. [Jeremiah 10:11]"

So Chrysostrom has established that creatio ex nihilo is the 'is the greatest token of divinity', and he goes on to apply that to the Son:

  And in regard to Christ again, we must conceive of this in like manner. For through Him the race of men was both produced out of nothing into existence, and returned from error to truth. So that as to the phrase "of Whom" it is not to be understood apart from Christ. For of Him, through Christ, were we created.

Chrysostrom understands this verse to mean that Father's action in creation (of Whom) 'is the greatest token of divinity' and can not be separated from Christ's participation (through whom) in the act of creation. This unequivocally places Christ at the same level as the Father and rules out either a Unitarian or Arian interpretation.

You state

  Let's propose that only Jesus is the lord of the Christians (and not God The Father)

There is no basis for this in the text and is not consistent with Trinitarian tradition. As if anticipating your question by some 1600 years Chrysostrom points out that if you say that 1 Corinthians 8:6 applies the word God to the Father only and exclude the Son, then you must exclude the one God, the Father from being Lord. Chrysostrom dismisses such an idea out of hand as it is obvious to him that the One God is Lord:

  And this is not all, but there is another remark to make: that if you say, "Because it is said 'One God,' therefore the word God doth not apply to the Son" observe that the same holds of the Son also. For the Son also is called "One Lord," yet we do not maintain that therefore the term Lord applies to Him alone. So then, the same force which the expression "One" has, applied to the Son, it has also, applied to the Father. And as the Father is not thrust out from being the Lord, in the same sense as the Son is the Lord, because He, the Son, is spoken of as one Lord; so neither does it cast out the Son from being God, in the same sense as the Father is God, because the Father is styled One God.

Gregory of Nyssa

Gregory of Nyssa also lived shortly after Nicea. In the treatise Against Eunomius Gregory argued against an the Anomoeanism/Eunomians lead by Eunomius. They professed an extreme version of Arianism (beyond what Arius taugh) that taught that Christ was neither of the same substance (homoousia) as the Father (the Nicene position) nor a similar substance (homoiousia) as the Father (the neo/semi-Arian position) Like Chrysostrom, Gregory argues that the Son is fully separate from the creation in the same way that Father is and cites 1 Corinthians 8:6 as proof:

  And let no one think it unreasonable that the creature should be set in opposition to God, but have regard to the prophets and to the Apostles. For the prophet says in the person of the Father, "My Hand made all these things" [Isaiah 66:2]  meaning by "Hand," in his dark saying, the power of the Only-begotten. Now the Apostle says that all things are of the Father, and that all things are by the Son,[1 Corinthians 8:6] and the prophetic spirit in a way agrees with the Apostolic teaching, which itself also is given through the Spirit. For in the one passage, the prophet, when he says that all things are the work of the Hand of Him Who is over all, sets forth the nature of those things which have come into being in its relation to Him Who made them, while He Who made them is God over all, Who has the Hand, and by It makes all things. And again, in the other passage, the Apostle makes the same division of entities, making all things depend upon their productive cause, yet not reckoning in the number of "all things" that which produces them: so that we are hereby taught the difference of nature between the created and the uncreated, and it is shown that, in its own nature, that which makes is one thing and that which is produced is another.

Thus the Trinitarians saw 1 Corinthians 8:6 teaching that the one God, the Father, and the One Lord Jesus Christ to be united in substance because their action in creation. Though they made these arguments against the Arians, they apply equally as well, if not more so, to Unitarians. And this was not unique to the Christians of the Nicene era. The line of thought goes back well before them.

Ante-Nicene Examples.

Athenagoras of Athens

Athenagoras was born around AD 133 He wrote A Plea for the Christians to the Roman emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus to explain and defend Christianity. In trying to prove the reasonableness of Christianity, Athenagoras [argues that the Father and the Son are one] in a manner similar to Chrysostrom and Gregory. He does not directly cite 1 Corinthians 8:6 as there would be no reason to expect the emperors to be familiar with it, but he may be alluding to it.

  That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being—I have sufficiently demonstrated. I say "His Logos", for we acknowledge also a Son of God... But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason of the Father is the Son of God.

Athenagoras argues that Son is the Logos of the Father and one with the Father because of their action in creation. This foreshadows the later arguments of the Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers.

Justin Martyr

Justin was born around AD 100. He wrote Dialogue with Trypho a long treatise (but worth reading in full) dedicated to showing the superiority of Christianity to Judaism. It is presented as a discussion between Justin and and a Jew named Trypho. Trypho is said to have studied under Corinthus the Socratic in Argos, but now mainly lives in Corinth. In the 61st chapter, Justin writes

  "I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled.

Now, the Trinitarian might object to the Son being called the Holy Spirit, but that is not relevant to why Justin's comments are important. Justin asserts the unity of the Logos/Son with the Father. Further, he expects a Jew educated in Greek philosophy (and living in Corinth) to be familiar with and even accept this idea. That is, both Hellenized Jews and educated Greeks of the time would be familiar with the concept of the Logos being from God, but also God, and God/Father's partner in creation. And this idea was not foreign to Hellenized Jews.

Philo of Alexandria

Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew who was roughly a contemporary of Christ, wrote of the Logos, identifying it with the image of God (Compare with Colossians 1:15 and John 1:3),

  Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made

I should like to have more time to expand on this, but what should be apparent by now is that not just Trinitarians but Greeks and Hellenized Jews (or at least some of them) were familiar with and accepting of the concept that the Logos was God and by whom God made all things yet without sacrificing the unity of God. Where Christianity becomes scandalous is when it identifies the Logos, which is of God and is God, with the man Jesus.

But what about Paul?

If we ignore the ignore what Trinitarians have taught on the matter and the cultural context of the time (probably not a good idea, either of them), what can we see just from the epistles? When Paul wrote,

  yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

did he intend separate the Father from the Son? Paul opens the 1 Corinthians placing the Father and the Son on the same level:

  To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. [1 Corinthians 1:2-3 NKJV]

Paul places the Father and Christ side-by-side and presents them as both being the source of grace and peace. (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians ... the open the same way) He states that the saints are to call on the name of Jesus Christ. Paul, the Pharisee of Pharisees, is familiar with Joel 2:32 (He quotes it in Romans 10:13):

  And it shall come to pass
  That whoever calls on the name of the Lord
  Shall be saved.
  For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance,
  As the Lord has said,
  Among the remnant whom the Lord calls.

Either Paul is being rather sloppy with the Lord's name or he intends to place his readers in the mindset that the Lord Jesus Christ is to be identified with if not identical to the Lord God of Israel.

Given this, it is difficult to believe Paul intends to separate the Father and the Son and place them on separate levels in 1 Corinthians 8:6 why describing them in parallel terms.

Conclusion

Paul knows that his audience is familiar with concept of the Logos. In 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul brings up the Logos implicitly by saying "through whom are all things" and expects that they will understand the the Lord is of God and is God. And if Paul had left it as this,  "the Father, of whom are all things, ... and one Logos, through whom are all things," you could read it as a Unitarian text. However, Paul goes further. He places the Lord Jesus Christ in the role of the Logos, making the man Jesus of God and God. This can not be read in a Unitarian manner.

Afterthoughts

You ask

  (One BEING of God shared by Three distinct PERSONS) Is the term God used here for a being or a person?

One Being of God shared by Three Persons is not quite the Trinitarian formula. I wonder if you are are using 'being' here similar to 'human being'.

There is, per the Nicene Creed, one God, the Father. The Son and the Spirit are of the same essence/substance/being with the Father because the Father is the source of their essence/substance/being, the Son begotten and the Spirit proceeding. This could easily lead to the another question about the Monarchy of the Father.

You state

  I don't see how we can argue that the one Lord here is meant to be understood as "one YHWH" (See the idea that Paul expanded Deutronomy 6:4 in 1 Corinthians 8:6) because it is clear that Paul is drawing a line between the the lords/gods from 1 Corinthians 8:5 and we can't say that 1 Corinthians 8:5 should be understood as "many YHWH's and many gods".

It is not clear that Paul draws a line or parallel between verse 5 and 6. Rather, he could be drawing a contradiction. The pagans have many false gods and  lords. We have One True God and Lord and they are one. If Paul is drawing a parallel and separating God the Father from the Lord, then he is teaching outright ditheism. In verse 5, he makes no distinction between god and lords, only saying they have many false gods and lords. Have you read Bauckham's God Crucified: Monotheism & Christology in the New Testament? He addresses this fully.


How do Christians understand the omniscience of God in relation to the Uncertainty Principle?

To date, every test science has been able to make has been done on the created universe1. It is not possible to run the tests on the person or being of the creator directly. Thus what we know about God we derive from what He reveals to us2. His creation still tells us something about Him, but they are deductions from nature. Nature itself is not God3 and God is not bound to the rules of nature. On the contrary, rather than God existing somewhere inside the created universe and thus being bound to it's rules, the created universe exists IN him and thus is bound to obey the rules that He sets for it4. Likewise all things continue in Him and he upholds those laws as He sees fit, every second5.

  Hebrews 11:3 (ESV) By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

  Romans 1:20 (ESV) For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

  Romans 1:25 (ESV) ...they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

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

  Colossians 1:17 (ESV) And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.


Did the early church teach the person of God the Word changed in the incarnation?

Did the early church teaches the person of God the Word changed in the incarnation?

St. Irenaeus and St.Athansius said it clearly and it is also cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

  460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

  79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.

  80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.

According to early Christianity did the person of God the Word change in the incarnation?

The Word or Logos the Second Person of the Holy Trinity existed in eternity as a "Spirit", and St.John stated in the gospel what is the changes that occured;

  John 1:14 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

  And the Word became flesh[a]
      and made his dwelling among us,
      and we saw his glory,
      the glory as of the Father’s only Son,
      full of grace and truth.

  Footnotes:
  1:14 Flesh: the whole person, used probably against docetic tendencies (cf. 1 Jn 4:2; 2 Jn 7). Made his dwelling: literally, “pitched his tent/tabernacle.” Cf. the tabernacle or tent of meeting that was the place of God’s presence among his people (Ex 25:8–9). The incarnate Word is the new mode of God’s presence among his people. The Greek verb has the same consonants as the Aramaic word for God’s presence (Shekinah). Glory: God’s visible manifestation of majesty in power, which once filled the tabernacle (Ex 40:34) and the temple (1 Kgs 8:10–11, 27), is now centered in Jesus. Only Son: Greek, monogenēs, but see note on Jn 1:18. Grace and truth: these words may represent two Old Testament terms describing Yahweh in covenant relationship with Israel (cf. Ex 34:6), thus God’s “love” and “fidelity.” The Word shares Yahweh’s covenant qualities.

Is it considered mutability in the person that change?

  "Mutable"adjective

  liable or subject to change or alteration.

  given to changing; constantly changing; fickle or inconstant:

If you refer "mutability" in the Divine Nature or Essence of God the Son, then it is clearly wrong, as God the Son being "co-substantial" with the Father is immutable.

But, if you refer the "mutability" to the created human soul of Christ the Second Person of the Trinity, then the word "mutability" can be relate to the word "assumed human nature", because the Person of Jesus Christ was change from solely "Spirit or Divine" into a "God-Man", fully God and fully man.

  III. TRUE GOD AND TRUE MAN

  464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

  During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.

  465 The first heresies denied not so much Christ's divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic Docetism). From apostolic times the Christian faith has insisted on the true incarnation of God's Son "come in the flesh".87 But already in the third century, the Church in a council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. The first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is "begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father", and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God "came to be from things that were not" and that he was "from another substance" than that of the Father.88


Do exorcisms need to be performed in a particular language?

The short answer is no.

It may be true that the Devil and his agents hate the use of Latin within the Roman Rite, but an exorcism may be performed in another [vernacular] language as well.

For example a Catholic priest of the Greek Rite is quite free to use the "Rituale" of their particular rite. This applies to all liturgical languages (such as Greek or Ukrainian) of all other rites which possess a "Rituale" according to their liturgical rite.

The language used in an exorcism does not need to be understood by the victim of possession to be efficacious. Generally speaking, very few possessed persons understand Latin.

Prior to Vatican Council II, all exorcisms in the Roman Rite were in Latin. This not so much true any more, although many exorcists still use the Rituale Romanum in Latin for exorcism. The Devil hates Latin.

  The first official English-language translation of the ritual book “Exorcisms and Related Supplications” is available from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

  Distribution of “Exorcisms and Related Supplications” is limited to bishops, though exorcists, other clergy, scholars and seminary professors also can obtain a copy with the permission of a bishop.

  Having it available now in English “should make it easier for a bishop to find a priest who can help him with this ministry,” said Fr. Andrew Menke, executive director of the USCCB’s Secretariat of Divine Worship.

  “Given that there’s less facility in Latin than there used to be, even among priests, it opens the door to more priests to do this. Until now, not only did the priest have to be wise and holy, but he also had to have strong facility in Latin,” Fr. Menke told Catholic News Service.

  “It makes it easier for a priest who might otherwise be a good exorcist but who would be intimidated by a requirement to use a Latin text. Having it available in the vernacular means he can concentrate on prayer and on the ritual, without needing to worry about working in another language,” he explained.

  The translation is from the rite that was revised following the Second Vatican Council. It was promulgated in Latin in 1999 and then slightly amended in 2004. The revised text draws from rituals used by the Catholic Church for centuries.

  The USCCB approved the English translation at its 2014 fall general assembly. The Vatican gave its “recognitio,” or approval, of the translation earlier this year. - US bishops publish English-language translation of exorcism ritual

The Church has now approved the 1999 Rituale Romanum in a number of other vernacular languages.

  The traditional Rite of Exorcism can be said also in Slovenian and Croatian. The two vernacular translations of the Rituale Romanum were printed in 1932 (slo) and 1929 (cro). Benedict XV gave permission for the use of vernacular Rituale for all the dioceses of the then existing Kingdom of Yugoslavia. - Mohor Fortunat


What is the biblical basis for praying to Jesus, as opposed to praying to God in the name of Jesus?

An Example from the first Christian Martyr
Most certainly the earliest Christians prayed to Jesus, as He Himself taught us to do (He explicitly "[does not mean He will] ask the Father for you," Jn 16:26 but that "[He Himself] will do it" 14:13-14; cf. 5:23).
The words on the lips of the deacon and first Christian martyr, Stephen, as he was being stoned to death were (Acts 7:59b W&H 1881):

Κύριε Ἰησοῦ, δέξαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου!
Lord Jesus, recieve my spirit!

In case you don't understand any Greek, 'Lord' appears in the vocative form here (Κύριε kyr·i·e), meaning He is speaking directly to Jesus, who at this point, of course, is in heaven (Acts 7:55).
An Example from the Most Prolific Apostle in the New Testament
St. Paul, the loyal servant of the Lord, besought the Lord Jesus that this affliction ("thorn in the side") from Satan would not plague him any more (2 Cor 12:8):

ὑπὲρ τούτου τρὶς τὸν κύριον παρεκάλεσα ἵνα ἀποστῇ ἀπ' ἐμοῦ
For this did I thrice beseech the Lord, that he might remove it from me,

However, the Lord elects to have St. Paul endure this suffering for His sake, and by His grace (12:9):

καὶ εἴρηκέν μοι Ἀρκεῖ σοι ἡ χάρις μου· ἡ γὰρ δύναμις ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ τελεῖται. Ἥδιστα οὖν μᾶλλον καυχήσομαι ἐν ταῖς ἀσθενείαις, ἵνα ἐπισκηνώσῃ ἐπ' ἐμὲ ἡ δύναμις τοῦ χριστοῦ
but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you: for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, will I rather boast in my weakness, so that the power of Christ might rest on me.

See also 1 Thessalonians 3:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17; Colossians 3:17 etc.
St. John the Apostle Prays the Last Prayer Recorded in the New Testament
The last petition to anyone in the New Testament is to the Lord Jesus directly:

Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα Ναί· ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν· ἔρχου, κύριε Ἰησοῦ
Thus says he that bears witness to these things: I am coming soon. (Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!)

Again, the vocative form of κύριος (Lord) is used, meaning John is speaking directly to Jesus, not expressing his desire that Jesus come to others reading: 'may the Lord Jesus come.'

There are of course other examples, but Jesus' own teaching suffices for this truth that we are to ask Him anything, and He will do it, not merely ask the Father for us. He explicitly rules out that interpretation of His answering prayer.

Bibliography
 https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/jesus-is-god/can-we-pray-to-jesus/


How did the practice of soliciting the prayers of dead saints originate?

A cursory search of the Internet brought me this list of quotations from various patristic sources.
Summarized from this article: On the Intercession and Invocation of the Saints.

Righteous Job the Long-Suffering (1000 – 300 BC)
If there shall be an angel speaking for him . . . He shall have mercy
on him, and shall say: Deliver him, that he may not go down to
corruption" (Job xxxiii, 23).
Book of Tobit (~ 200 – 100 BC)
When thou didst pray with tears… I [Archangel Raphael] offered thy
prayer to the Lord. (Tobit xii, 12)
St. John the Evangelist (+101)
And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden
censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer
of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before
the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the
saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel. (Apoc.,
viii, 3, 4)
St. Cyprian of Carthage (+258), writing to Pope Cornelius of Rome
Let us be mutually mindful of each other, let us ever pray for each
other, and if one of us shall, by the speediness of the Divine
vouchsafement, depart hence first, let our love continue in the
presence of the Lord, let not prayer for our brethren and sisters
cease in the presence of the mercy of the Father.[iv]
St. Hilary of Poitiers (+368)
To those who would fain stand, neither the guardianship of saints nor
the defences of angels are wanting.[v]
St. Ephraim the Syrian (+373)
Remember me, ye heirs of God, ye brethren of Christ, supplicate the
Saviour earnestly for me, that I may be freed though Christ from him
that fights against me day by day.[vi]
Ye victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the
God and Saviour; ye who have boldness of speech towards the Lord
Himself; ye saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men,
full of sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and
enlighten the hearts of all of us that so we may love him.[vii]
St. Athanasius the Great, Patriarch of Alexandria (+373)
Christ became man that men might become gods[viii]
“In one of his letters, St. Basil [the Great] explicitly writes that
he accepts the intercession of the apostles, prophets and martyrs, and
he seeks their prayers to God. (Letter 360) Then, speaking about the
Forty Martyrs, who suffered martyrdom for Christ, he emphasizes that
they are common friends of the human race, strong ambassadors and
collaborators in fervent prayers. (Chapter 8)
“St. Gregory of Nyssa asks St. Theodore the Martyr …to fervently pray
to our Common King, our God, for the country and the people (Encomium
to Martyr Theodore).
“The same language is used by St. Gregory the Theologian in his
encomium to St. Cyprian. St. John Chrysostom says that we should seek
the intercession and the fervent prayers of the saints, because they
have special "boldness" (parresia), before God. (Gen. 44: 2 and
Encomium to Julian, Iuventinus and Maximinus, 3).”[ix]
St. Basil the Great, of Caesarea in Asia Minor (+379)
According to the blameless faith of the Christians which we have
obtained from God, I confess and agree that I believe in one God the
Father Almighty; God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost; I
adore and worship one God, the Three. I confess to the economy of the
Son in the flesh, and that the holy Mary, who gave birth to Him
according to the flesh, was Mother of God. I acknowledge also the holy
apostles, prophets, and martyrs; and I invoke them to supplication to
God, that through them, that is, through their mediation, the merciful
God may be propitious to me, and that a ransom may be made and given
me for my sins. Wherefore also I honour and kiss the features of their
images, inasmuch as they have been handed down from the holy apostles,
and are not forbidden, but are in all our churches.[x]
We beseech you, O most holy martyrs, who cheerfully suffered torments
and death for his love, and are now more familiarly united to him,
that you intercede with God for us slothful and wretched sinners, that
he bestow on us the grace of Christ, by which we may be enlightened
and enabled to love him.[xi]
O holy choir! O sacred band! O unbroken host of warriors! O common
guardians of the human race! Ye gracious sharers of our cares! Ye
co-operators in our prayer! Most powerful intercessors![xii] Liturgy
of St. Basil the Great
By the command of Thine only-begotten Son we communicate with the
memory of Thy saints . . . by whose prayers and supplications have
mercy upon us all, and deliver us for the sake of Thy holy name which
is invoked upon us.[xiii]
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (+386)
We then commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us,
first, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that God, by their
prayers and intercessions, may receive our petitions.[xiv]
St. Gregory the Theologian, Patriarch of Constantinople; of Nazianzus in Asia Minor (+389)
Mayest thou [Cyprian] look down from above propitiously upon us, and
guide our word and life; and shepherd [or shepherd with me] this
sacred flock . . . gladdening us with a more perfect and clear
illumination of the Holy Trinity, before Which thou standest.[xv]
St. Gregory of Nyssa in Lower Armenia (+395-400)
...I wish to commemorate one person who spoke of their noble testimony
because I am close to Ibora, the village and resting place of these
forty martyrs' remains. Here the Romans keep a register of soldiers,
one of whom was a guard ordered by his commander to protect against
invasions, a practice common to soldiers in such remote areas. This
man suffered from an injured foot which was later amputated. Being in
the martyrs' resting place, he earnestly beseeched God and the
intercession of the saints. One night there appeared a man of
venerable appearance in the company of others who said, "Oh soldier,
do you want to be healed [J.167] of your infirmity? Give me your foot
that I may touch it." When he awoke from the dream, his foot was
completely healed. Once he awoke from this vision, his foot was
restored to health. He roused the other sleeping men because he was
immediately cured and made whole. This men then began to proclaim the
miracle performed by the martyrs and acknowledged the kindness
bestowed by these fellow soldiers…. We who freely and boldly enter
paradise are strengthened by the [martyrs'] intercession through a
noble confession in our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever
and ever. Amen.[xvii]
Do thou, [St. Ephraim the Syrian] that art standing at the Divine
altar, and art ministering with angels to the life-giving and most
Holy Trinity, bear us all in remembrance, petitioning for us the
remission of sins, and the fruition of an everlasting kingdom.[xviii]
St. Ambrose of Milan (+397)
May Peter, who wept so efficaciously for himself, weep for us and turn
towards us Christ's benignant countenance.[xix]
St. Jerome, b. Dalmatia, d. Palestine (+419)
If the Apostles and Martyrs, while still in the body, can pray for
others, at a time when they must still be anxious for themselves, how
much more after their crowns, victories, and triumphs are won! One
man, Moses, obtains from God pardon for six hundred thousand men in
arms; and Stephen, the imitator of the Lord, and the first martyr in
Christ, begs forgiveness for his persecutors; and shall their power be
less after having begun to be with Christ? The Apostle Paul declares
that two hundred three score and sixteen souls, sailing with him, were
freely given him; and, after he is dissolved and has begun to be with
Christ, shall he close his lips, and not be able to utter a word in
behalf of those who throughout the whole world believed at his
preaching of the Gospel? And shall the living dog Vigilantius be
better than that dead lion?[xx]
St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople; b. Antioch, Syria (+407)
When thou perceivest that God is chastening thee, fly not to His
enemies . . . but to His friends, the martyrs, the saints, and those
who were pleasing to Him, and who have great power [parresian,
"boldness of speech"].[xxi]
He that wears the purple, laying aside his pomp, stands begging of the
saints to be his patrons with God; and he that wears the diadem begs
the Tent-maker and the Fisherman as patrons, even though they be
dead.[xxii]
St. Augustine of Hippo, in North Africa (+430)
At the Lord's table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that
we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that
they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps.[xxiii]

One would expect the Masoretic Old Testament to have little support for prayer requests to the dead, as opposed to prayer requests for the dead, since (is this correct?) the notion of resurrection was a later introduction to Judaism in preparation for the coming of Christ. Indeed, the Psalmist declares

For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks? (Psalm 6:5)

and

Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead? shall the dead arise and praise thee? Selah.
Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction?
Shall thy wonders be known in the dark? and thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?
(Psalm 88:10-12)

Indeed death held illimitable dominion over all, even the righteous, before the glorious victory of our Lord Jesus. But now even (or especially) Christian children spit upon death as upon a miscreant pilloried, or better, a great foe vanquished and made impotent. Death is now (among other things) an entrance into new life, life in Christ.
I suspect the main basis for this practice is that "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." After doing the work of God (viz. liturgy, specifically communing) at the tombs of the martyrs (or today, celebrating the liturgy upon the relics of saints), it is not farfetched to give death the finger by submitting prayer requests to these "dead," now made alive in Christ Jesus (presuming they've made it there). Indeed, the revelation of John tells us that departed saints continue to pray; it is then not farfetched to hope that they might hear our petitions and pray for what we ask. Indeed, now that they are truly baptized with the baptism with which He has been baptized, it's that much more easy to ask them to intercede for us than it is to ask those still in the flesh to pray for us. Petitioning the saints comes from knowledge in the Spirit that they will know what we ask, and pray for us accordingly.
Assuredly, however, a more detailed and specifically history/archaeology-based answer to your question would be more appropriate than such speculation. I hope the list above is helpful.
This all represents my understanding of the practice of veneration of and petitioning to the saints who have died, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian.


What is the corruption Mormons believe will infect their church before the second coming?

This part of this revelation speaks about 2 things: Darkness and corruption and Vengeance.  This part of section 112 is not taking about corruption in the church today, it's talking about the state of the world when the church was organized. It is not a prophecy about the spreading of corruption in the church, rather the coming of judgement to the world.

Darkness and Corruption

Regarding the darkness and corruption, Joseph Fielding Smith clarified this as referring to the spiritual darkness and corruption that existed at the time of the revelation:

  "This proclamation should cause us even in this day serious
  reflection. If darkness covered the earth in 1837, surely it has
  deepened in its blackness since that day. If that was a day of
  wickedness, and the Lord in several revelations testified to this
  fact, then it is even more so today." [Church History and Modern
  Revelation, 2:74]

We know that after the death of Christ, the apostles and the church were persecuted and killed to the point where there would be a "famine of the word," Amos 8:11, see Preach My Gospel. This loss of spiritual light, and the revelation from the living prophets left a void of which God declared,

  "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those
  professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their
  lips, but their hearts are far from me" JSH 1:19

Vengeance

Without the fullness of the law, however, the Lord does not hold men accountable,

  "He will judge them, not according to what they have not, but
  according to what they have" Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith Ch. 35

So when the Lord speaks of vengeance going forth from his house, it refers to the restoration of the gospel in this dispensation:

  "...it is a dispensation in which the Gospel has been revealed from
  heaven, the servants of God called to labor in the vineyard for the
  last time, and in which the Lord intends to
  pour out great and terrible judgments upon the nations of the wicked
  after they have been warned by the sound of the everlasting
  Gospel." - [Latter-Day Judgments. Discourse by Elder Orson Pratt,
  delivered in the 13th Ward Assembly Rooms, Salt Lake City, Sunday
  Afternoon, January 26, 1873.]

Naturally, the first to receive these judgements would begin with the first to reject the restored gospel:

  25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go
  forth, saith the Lord;

  26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to
  know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in
  the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

This behavior matches the definition of personal apostasy: "turning away from the Church and ultimately denying the faith.." Teachings of President Brigham Young

  What do the scriptures and/or Church leaders suggest is the
  corruption the Lord is speaking about?

Elder Claudio D. Zivic in a talk titled Avoiding Personal Apostasy, mentioned a few things that this could include (though surely not exhaustive):

When a person commits serious sin but does not repent
Conflicts between Church members, which includes being offended by leaders and other members.
Faultfinding, including beginning to think one could make better decisions than our leaders
Assuming authority one does not possess or when one seeks revelation for a stewardship outside of their sphere of responsibility


Did Jesus defend himself at his trial?
The biblical answer is No. Jesus was silent during the hour of trial and not uttered a word that would appear trying to defend himself. Remember Jesus came into this world exactly to offer His life as a victim to atone for the sins of all mankind.
The phrase you cited as "My kingdom is not of this world", is not an effective defense but Jesus was clearing to Pontius Pilate his wrong understanding about His Kingship but in no way defending Himself. Jesus just made it clear to Pontius Pilate the His Kingdom is not the earthly kingdom that he knew and is serving. Jesus is not like Caezar, so there's no threat that he is planning to overthrow Caezar, and so Pilate had seen no threat and find him innocent of the charges of rebellion.
OTHER QUESTION:
Despite this, a popular belief in Christianity is that Jesus did not defend himself and was in fact deliberately trying to get himself killed. This raises some questions for me:
1.How is this belief reconciled with the aforementioned scene in John?
Jesus did not deliberately trying to get killed himself, Jesus is following the Will of God written in Genesis1:1. The mystery Hebrew word is "Bereshit".
"The Son of the Almighty God willingly offered His life to die on the Cross to poured out the merciful graces of God to atone for the sins of mankind." Mercy and Graces is the meaning of the "Way of the Cross" as shown in the image below. And Mercy & Graces is the means God had given us to restore back Divine Life in us that will lead us to follow the path towards salvation to enter God's Kingdom..

Gratia et Misirecordia or Graces and Mercies. This last vision of Sis, Lucia depicted the visual image of the Hebrew word "Bereshit" written in Genesis1:1.
Jesus offering Himself as the "victim" must die "At the Foot of the Cross", if he is deiberately trying to get killed He will not reach Calvalry. And if Jesus died before reaching the Foot of the Cross, then how can He pour out "the blood & water which gushed forth from His side as a fountain of mercy for us". (Sr.Faustina diary").

If Jesus was trying to get himself killed, what would his motivation be? One suggestion I've heard it's that he was trying to fulfill OT prophecy about the Messiah humbling himself and remaining silent when accused. Another proposed motivation is that Jesus was trying to be wrongfully punished to allow God to forgive sin. What is the evidence that Jesus was psychologically motivated this way? Are there any other more plausible motivations?

The answer can be found in Jesus own words; Jesus knew His mission and He knew that He must follow the Will of God in the salvation of man written in Genesis1:1, it's called the "Way of the Cross".

"For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me."(John6:38)

3.Wouldn't Jesus trying to get himself killed conflict with the claim that he was obedient unto death? I.e it would seem to eliminate death as a cost of his obedience because the cost is self inflicted.
Jesus were not trying to get himself killed, but putting His complete trust in His Father's Will by being obedient even unto death, even death on the Cross.
Lastly, to answer your final question;
An alternative theory I am exploring is that Jesus did not want to die, and did attempt to defend himself to a morally permissable degree which would render him not responsible for his death, i.e he was killed by circumstances beyond his control. Are there any defences of this theory, either in church history of by contemporary scholars?
The alternative theory was not found in the gospel of Christ as Jesus words is very clear saying that He is the Good Shepherd in John10:11-18

11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

In closing, Jesus did not tried to deliberately allowed his executioners to killed Him, because as He said it clearly;

"No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again."

The executioners no matter how cruel they are they cannot take away the life of Jesus the "Author of Life", but Jesus words highlighted His Redemptive MIssion by saying "This command I received from my Father". Jesus is following the Commandment or the Will of God up to His last breathe.

"...Then Jesus called out in a loud voice, “Father, into Your hands I commit My Spirit.” And when He had said this, He breathed His last." (Luke23:46)

Jesus had shown "At the Foot of the Cross" that although He had suffered ignominiously from the hands of his executioners, Jesus is very much in control when He is going to breathe His last. Jesus is in control of His death, and no one take away His life but He freely lay it down to all of us to Redeem all mankind.


What is the understanding of "an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him"?

Different translations describe the spirit in different ways:

NIV, KJV, NASB, ISV - Evil
ESV - Harmful
NLT - Tormenting
YLT - Spirit of Sadness

However all these translations agree that this Spirit was sent from the Lord. So to stay with your question, how could a loving God send an evil spirit to torment?

He could for the very same reasons he sent a worldwide flood: it was His divine way to deal with the sin of that time, of that moment. Saul was rebelling and this was his de facto punishment.

Dave Miller, Apologetics Press:

  As Keil and Delitzsch maintained: “This demon is called ‘an evil spirit (coming) from Jehovah,’ because Jehovah had sent it as a punishment” (1976, 2:170). John W. Haley added: “And he has a punitive purpose in granting this permission. He uses evil to chastise evil” (1977, p. 142). Of course, the reader needs to be aware of the fact that the term for “evil” is a broad term that need not refer to spiritual wickedness. In fact, it often refers to physical harm or painful hardship (e.g., Genesis 19:19; 2 Samuel 17:14). source

Habakkuk had this very same question for God when it was clear that God was allowing the wicked nation of Babylon to punish Judah. God responded with this:

  Habakkuk 1:5 ESV Look among the nations, and see; wonder and be astounded. For I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told.

...and then gave Habakkuk his rebuke for Babylon:

  Habakkuk 2:8 ESV Because you have plundered many nations, all the remnant of the peoples shall plunder you, for the blood of man and violence to the earth, to cities and all who dwell in them.

Basically, God's great plans extend beyond the painful moment. God had a plan to rescue Judah from Babylon/Persia just like God had a plan for Saul in sending the evil spirit, even though neither made sense at the time. If you continue reading the chapter in 2 Samuel you'll see that it is through this evil spirit that Saul has his first encounter with his royal successor, David.


Since there is only one God who is not formed then how can the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is a created god?

You have unintentionally, I suggest, created a straw man argument by overlooking the usage of the word before, as found in the passage you cite from Isaiah 43.
Jehovahs Witnesses do not believe Jesus was a god who was created before Jehovah existed. They believe Jesus was created after Jehovah God already existed. In other words, Jesus Christ was the first of Jehovah's created beings.
The Isaiah passage is therefore not an issue with Jehovahs Witnesses. To them, there were no gods in existence before Jehovah because only Jehovah is eternal. No god can be in existence (or can be "formed," the word used in Isaiah 43) before an eternal being. In fact, Isaiah's use of the word formed implies that gods are products of human craftsmen that are meant to be representations of beings/gods who have no existence. (See Jeremiah 10:8-10.)
In conclusion, to the best of my knowledge, Jehovah's Witnesses do not see a contradiction in Isaiah 43:11, which reads, "Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me." I also assume that Jehovah's Witnesses, along with other bible-believing denominations, would define a biblical "god" or "gods" as non-existent beings whom idolaters worship in defiant ignorance.
ADDENDUM
And yes, the word god is used in at least one other way in Scripture, and that is as a name for God's nemesis, Satan. In 2 Corinthians 4, Paul refers to him as "the god of this world," though the argument could be made that the god of this world can be summed up in the words "Man is the measure of all things" (Protagoras of Abdera, l.c. 485-415 BCE). In other words, the god of this world involves self worship, and the engines of this worship are the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (see 1 John 2:16 NIV).


What is the biblical basis for the priesthood of all believers?

This doctrine was made evident from several passages:

Jesus is the only mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5).

Therefore, priests as mediators is against this biblical passage.
We are called a holy people, a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9)
Jesus blood has made us into priests and kings (Revelation 5:10)
The apostles were not supposed to be regarded as leaders, but as servants (1 Corinthians 4:1)

They were the foundation of the church because they were: entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed (1 Corinthians 4:1), not because they were given special authority

Other passages that support the idea of the universal priesthood:
Exodus 19:5, Revelations 1:4-6, and other passages in the book of Hebrews.

Wikipedia is a good source for more information.


Why have Ministers and Preachers stopped preaching on Hell?

My answer? Churches nowadays are unfortunately often focused on quantity. "We have X churchgoers" or "Our denomination has X followers". They preach in order to get more people to attend and come back for the next seremon.

Preaching about "controversal" subjects loses followers, as we can clearly see from the Gospel itself - John 6 from 53 on, where Jesus talks about eating flesh and drinking blood, which resulted in 66 "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." By the way, Jesus was not about quantity - his reaction was in 67 "Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?"

You can also recount the fate of John the Baptist. He preached to Herod about his unethical sexual relationships, and where did it got him?

I'm from Russia, and we had a similar case recently. A priest Daniel Sysoev http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Sysoyev (arcticle is short, if you want to know more, better read its russian version through google translator, since it's got more content).

He preached very radically and with disregard towards how people will take his word or be offended by it. He was not shy to speak about hell, and how muslims and atheists and gay people will suffer eternal damnation if they do not repent, he was not shy to state boldly that Christianity is the only true religion, and the only one that leads to salvation, he was not shy to state that God does punish sinners. He made huge missionary effort, he converted many muslims to Christianity.

What happened to him in the end? He was assasinated, shot in the chest in his own church building by a radical muslim. Many people regard him as a martyr.

I think this answers your question very well. Preaching about controversal subjects is hard, and requires a certain degree of selfishness. And gets you in trouble.

PS:
Finally, Hell is a hard subject to talk about because it has so many meanings entwined and attached to it. The term may very well be misunderstood by the modern society as some sort of prison for sinners, made by God to punish them, which it is not. So it may be a good idea to explain the concept without using the word.


When did Peter become the first Pope, according to Roman Catholic doctrine?

The birth of the Church was at Pentecost and Peter was definitely present and immediately made his presence felt as the vicar of Christ on Earth subsequent to the descent of the Holy Spirit on him and the other apostles and Our Lady in the upper room.

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them,
Acts 2:14 NABRE

But, the Pope, is the Bishop of Rome and after Peter's marvelous martyrdom, St. Linus was chosen as the next leader.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.
St. Irenaeus - Against Heresies 3.1.3

and after him came Cletus and Clement etc... until Francis and the collapse of humanity as we know it.
Oh, but I'm getting ahead of myself and so are you in this question.
I think the best sense to read some of what Jesus says to Peter is in the anagogical (eternal) sense.  Jesus even talks about Peter's death before it happens. There's no reason to think He's not also going to talk about his ministry before it happens. And after Peter's death, a lot of sacred scripture would have very little meaning if it didn't also apply in a very real sense to today and until the (imminent) end of the world.
So, I think you're right on all the points you make about when Peter's ministry begins.  When you want to call him Pope is up to you.  If you're talking about when he was able to proclaim Ex Cathedra, keep in mind he didn't have a chair to proclaim from.  And beyond that, even today, it's the Pope or the Pope in Communion with the Bishops, who make infallible magisterial teachings.
So, back then, Peter, Clement, John and James the less (as well as any other Apostles and Bishops in town) could have gotten together to figure out what to do with all the power they'd been given by Christ and all the trouble they were given by the emperors.


According to Protestantism, why are fallen angels motivated to attack Christians?

From a Protestant perspective, the biblical explanation for why why fallen angels are motivated to attack Christians is simple. Their motivation stems from knowing that their time is short, and they face judgment.

  1 Peter 5:8 says: “Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.”

  2 Peter 2:4 says: “God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment”.

  1 Corinthians 6:2-3 says “the saints will judge the world” and “we will judge angels”.

Other Bible verses teach that the fallen angels will be judged by God (Isaiah 24:21-22; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6; Revelation 21:10).

That’s why they are hell-bent on attacking God’s people, even though their efforts are futile.

The Bible tells us that the angels were created before the earth (Job 38:4-7) and that Satan fell before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden (Genesis 3:1-14).  At some later point, he was cast out of heaven.

  Isaiah 14:12-15: “How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How are you cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations! For you have said in your heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet you shall be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.”

Jesus said, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:18), and in Revelation Satan is seen as “a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth” (Revelation 9:1).  Since Satan is referred to as a star which fell or was cast down to earth  and Revelation 12:4 says a third of the stars were cast out with him, then the suggestion is that the stars in Revelation chapter 12 refer to fallen angels, fully one third of the heavenly host.

Revelation 12:17 describes how the dragon was enraged and went off to make war against “those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.”  Later, Satan is bound and thrown into the Abyss for the duration of the millennial reign of Christ on earth.  He is then released for a short while to make a final assault on God’s people before being thrown into the lake of burning sulphur, to be tormented day and night for ever and ever (Revelation 20:1-10).

Satan and all who follow him are not ignorant of what the Bible says about their final end.  That is why they are enraged and why, even at the end of the millennial reign of Christ, when Satan is released for a short time, they will wage war against God’s people.  Their motivation is hatred for God, for Christ Jesus and for all who follow Him.  What caused it was that initial rebellion against God, aspiring to overthrow God – see Isaiah 15:12-15 as quoted above.

I found an article from the Jewish Encyclopedia about The Book of Adam (by Louis Ginzberg) which starts out by saying “The Talmud says nothing about the existence of a Book of Adam...”  It continues:

  After God had created man, He ordered all the angels to prostrate themselves before Adam, but Satan rebelled against God's command, despite the direct bidding of Michael "to worship the image of YHW."

However, that does not answer your question as to what motivates the fallen angels to attack Christians.  After all, this apocryphal book does not concern itself with Christianity.  It concludes by suggesting the apocryphas of Mosis and the Vita are based on the Hebrew or Aramaic Book of Adam and that the latter belongs to the midrashic literature, as many of its allusions can only be explained by the Midrash.  Source: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/759-adam-book-of

I pay no heed to those extra-biblical sources that suggest God told all the angels to bow down and worship Adam.  Why would God tell his created angels to worship a created human when the Shema makes it very clear that God alone is to be worshipped?  Jesus himself quoted from Deuteronomy 6:4 (in Mark 12:28-30).  Hebrews 1:9 commands all God’s angels to worship his Son, not Adam.  Hmmm, I can feel a question coming on.....


How do Protestants in general respond to these points concerning them?

Preface, this is a Protestant response. I'm not arguing the validity of it, or any claims here, just answering the question.

the short Protestant response would be "Meh".

A general Protestant response to each point would be:

1) Where in Scripture does it say there would be any such thing as  Apostolic succession? The New Testament speaks of several Churches, planted by various Apostles. Not one central Church descended from Peter.  The idea of Apostolic succession is an invention of Churches added on after-the-fact.

2) That's right, too. Show me in  Scripture, not in some Church's teaching where these man-made ordinances are meant for that purpose? I seem to remember the indwelling if the Holy Spirit in Acts as being in response to faith and repentance, not to a ritual.

3) Since the first two questions are based on arguably false assumptions, the conclusion in the third is equally questionable.

If you expand this to include the LDS the answer is very different.  They believe the Apostolic line was broken, and was restored with Joseph Smith, so the Catholics and Orthodox recognize an invalid Apostolic line. And they'd say the Catholics and Orthodox hve the ordinances wrong, and are missing the critical Temple Ordinances.


Matthew 27:38-54, Mark 15:27-39, Luke 23:35-49, and John 19:23-34 describe the crucifixion and the people present and name some of them. These passages from the four canonical gospels, however, give different accounts of the number of people present and their names. Putting these accounts together, the following names can be found (or inferred):

Mary (Mariam), mother of Jesus.
Mary Magdalene
Joseph of Arimathea; probably a secret Judean disciple of The Messiah.
"the disciple whom Jesus loved", James; though his identity still a subject of considerable debate.
Nicodemus; probably also a secret Judean disciple
Salome
Mary of Clopas
Simon of Cyrene

Not named but inferred:

The centurion, (Longinus; the name is found in the pseudepigraphal Gospel of Nicodemus that was appended to the apocryphal Acts of Pilate).
Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest.
Annas, a high priest before whom Jesus is brought.

The rest are unnamed nor can be named: various kinds of crowds.

As for the forgiveness passage, its authenticity is disputed, as detailed in the NET notes.


What year did the Hebrew nation with Joshua cross the Jordan river into the promised land?

The dates for these events, as with most biblical chronological estimates, are debated. Scholars cited in this answer date the crossing of the Jordan at 1406 BCE, 1260 BCE, or 1451 BCE, and the first year of Jubilee to be immediately after or some time soon after those respective dates.
Here is a (lightly edited) elucidation on the method of the calculation of the date of 1406 BCE from The Pattern of Prophecy:

We know this [date of 1406 BCE] from a key chronological marker recorded in the book of Kings. The year Solomon began to build the Temple is given both in terms of the exodus from Egypt as well as the year of Solomon’s reign:
1 Kings 6:1  And it came to pass in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.
It was established in Thiele’s Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings that the fourth year of Solomon corresponds to 966 BCE.  Therefore the date of the Exodus must be 480 years prior to 966 BCE, or 1446 BCE. Since the Crossing of the Jordan took place 40 years later, that dates it to 1406 BCE.

This commenter on the Seder Olam, a traditional Rabbinic text of chronology, disagrees with that date. He also gives a date of 1268 BCE for the first year of Jubilee. Bracketed comment's are this author's, and the text has been reformatted:

When did these counts start? The Biblical text states: When you come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the Lord. This means that the first cycle to be counted was when they will come into the land and this first count was a Sabbatical year. This first Sabbatical took place when the first tribes took possession of their inheritance, East from the Jordan River, when Moses was still alive. He gave that territory to the tribes of Reuven, Gad and half of the tribe of Manasseh (Numbers 32:33). This took place before the death of Aaron (Numbers 33:38-39) in Hebrew year 2494 [1266 BCE].
After the conquest, the land of Canaan was also divided and given as inheritance to the other tribes. The final inheritance was given to Caleb from the tribe of Judah after he made a plea to Joshua: Caleb was then 85 years old. He must have made his plea just after the end of the first Jubilee, so that a count of 50 years will be fully available to him and his tribe. Therefore the First Jubilee was counted when Caleb was 84 years old. This was in Hebrew year 2500. And the first Sabbatical year was counted 8 years earlier (1 year as the Jubilee year + 7 years for a full Sabbatical cycle), therefore this was in Hebrew year 2500-8= 2492. This indeed was at a time when Aaron was still alive and he performed the first celebrated Sabbatical year. But both he and Moses died before they could celebrate the first Jubilee year in 2500 [which corresponds to 1260 BCE].

In a more Scholarly approach in his book Old Testament Chronology: A Return to the Basics (pdf), Dr. Floyd Nolan Jones gives yet a different date for the crossing of the Jordan supported by previous scholars, and also identifies the first year of Jubilee as 1395 BCE (parenthetical notes are Jones'):

The year Moses died and Joshua entered the land was long ago determined by Ussher, Bishop Loyd, Nicholas Toinard, William Wiston, and now independently confirmed by this author [Jones] as 1451 BC. However, the year of Jubilee did not have to do with merely being in the land but  with its actual possession and cultivation (Lev. 25).
After seven years of conflict with the Canaanites, the wars ended at the close of 1445 BC (c. April 1451 - 1445 = 7 years inclusive). From the base camp at Gilgal, Joshua then gave the tribes of Judah and Joseph their portions. Early in 1444, the tabernacle was moved to Shiloh. The rest of the land west of the Jordan was then divided among the remaining seven tribes, and the men from the two-and-a-half tribes east of the Jordan returned home.
Until this, Israel had lived off of the crops of the Canaanites, volunteer crops and supplies from the eastern two-and-a-half tribes (Josh. 24:13). Israel's tillage thus began in 1444. Hence, fom this year are reckoned the Sabbatic and Jubilee years (1444- 49 = 1395 BC, the first Jubilee. See p. 289 ff).


Jesus would have spoken Aramaic which is descended from Hebrew, but is not the same language.

This is evidenced by the fact that in the few places where Jesus words are left untranslated, he is speaking in Aramaic—Abba, father. And Talitha cum (Daughter arise)

Also, whether or not Matthew is the first gospel is a matter of some debate. The Greisbach hypothesis, for example, suggests that Mark is the first Gospel, from which Matthew and Luke drew in order to flesh out their accounts. If Mark is the first Gospel, then its main witness, Peter, would probably have spoken to Mark in Aramaic.

Many manuscripts of the time would be dictated to an emaneusis—a scribe who would listen and then write. Since Aramaic was such a limited language, it is not altogether unlikely that the emaneusis would have listened to what was said by the author, but written it down in Greek. Greek was the lingua Franca of the old world, even if not the language that people spoke. It would be akin to English today.

An analogy might be as if you were an obscure Swedish band in the 70s, but then you had an idea for a song you wanted to get out to the whole world. Your thinking process would be in Swedish, a few drafts might even be in Swedish, but the translation would be so early that everybody would have thought of it in English.

So too with Koine Greek. The area may have spoken Aramaic, but the world spoke Greek. As such, you'd use Greek.


According to Catholic Teaching, what is sinning against the Holy Spirit?

"Augustine says . . .

  (Enchiridion lxxxiii) that 'he who dies in a state of obstinacy is
  guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost,' and (De Verb. Dom., Serm.
  lxxi) that 'impenitence is a sin against the Holy Ghost,' and (De
  Serm. Dom. in Monte xxii), that 'to resist fraternal goodness with the
  brands of envy is to sin against the Holy Ghost,' and in his book De
  unico Baptismo (De Bap. contra Donat. vi, 35) he says that 'a man who
  spurns the truth, is either envious of his brethren to whom the truth
  is revealed, or ungrateful to God, by Whose inspiration the Church is
  taught,' and therefore, seemingly, sins against the Holy Ghost" (ST
  2b:14:2, Sed Contra).

Pope John Paul II writes:

  "Against the background of what has been said so far, certain other
  words of Jesus, shocking and disturbing ones, become easier to
  understand. . . . They are reported for us by the Synoptics in
  connection with a particular sin which is called 'blasphemy against
  the Holy Spirit.' . . . Why is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
  unforgivable? How should this blasphemy be understood? Saint Thomas
  Aquinas replies that it is a question of a sin that is 'unforgivable
  by its very nature, insofar as it excludes the elements through which
  the forgiveness of sin takes place' (ST 2b:14:3). According to such an
  exegesis, 'blasphemy' does not properly consist in offending against
  the Holy Spirit in words; it consists rather in the refusal to accept
  the salvation which God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working
  through the power of the Cross. If man rejects the 'convincing
  concerning sin' which comes from the Holy Spirit and which has the
  power to save, he also rejects the 'coming' of the Counsellor . . . If
  Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven
  either in this life or in the next, it is because this
  'non-forgiveness' is linked, as to its cause, to 'non-repentance', in
  other words to the radical refusal to be converted. . . . Blasphemy
  against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who
  claims to have a 'right' to persist in evil—in any sin at all . . .
  [T]he Church constantly implores with the greatest fervor that there
  will be no increase in the world of the sin that the Gospel calls
  'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.' Rather, she prays that it will
  decrease in human souls" (Encyclical Letter Dominum et Vivificantem
  ["The Lord and Giver of Life"] 46-47).

You can read more on this subject here: THE UNFORGIVABLE SIN, James Akin | EWTN.

Summary

The sins that appear here are:

Obstinacy in sin.
Final impenitence.
Rejecting salvation.
Envy at another's spiritual good.

  cf. CCC 1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will
  be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be
  forgiven." There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who
  deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the
  forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.
  Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

  cf. PENNY CATECHISM 326 Which are the six sins against the Holy
  Spirit?

  The six sins against the Holy Spirit are:

  Presumption
  Despair
  Resisting the known truth
  Envy of another's spiritual good
  Obstinacy in sin
  Final impenitence


"God Bubble" - Who teaches/believes such a concept and what is the basic teaching behind the concept?

As a Pentecostal of long-standing, mixing with people from various Charismatic backgrounds over the last 25 years, my own experience is of never hearing or reading that phrase used in such a way prior to your citation. On checking a few search results, it looks like it might derived from something like this:

Bubble With Father God - Teresa Liebscher

  In the final chapter of the book of Job, God indicates that Job has spoken what is honest and correct about Him. What does a right and honest relationship with God look like? Teresa Liebscher answers that question, and gives you tools to maintain His presence around you like a bubble. It’s His very presence that has a profound effect on not only you but everyone around you!

I've heard a smattering of Bethel teaching over the last decade, but I don't recall ever hearing anything from Teresa Liebscher before; neither do I recall any of their other teachers using the phrase. However I have heard a couple of iterations of their teaching on the manifest presence of God, and although the term itself is novel, I think I can see where it's coming from.

In summary, I'd say the particular usage here is most likely the individual concerned's derived usage of teaching they've received about the manifest presence of God.


According to the Catholic Church, what happens to a person who is in the process of learning about Catholicism, if that person dies?

Catechism of The Catholic Church has direct Answer for your question:

  For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament (CCC 1259).

Such a baptism is called Baptism of desire. But for this to be valid, their conversion should be accompanied by internal act of perfect love and contrition by which their soul is cleansed of all sin.

It is also to be noted that the ordinary magisterium of the Church has openly taught the three-fold Baptism (water, desire and blood) since the earliest days of the Church, and never has this teaching ever been condemned by the Catholic Church.


According to Roman Catholic doctrine, why does Mary refer to God as her Savior if she was born without sin?

Credit to H3br3wHamm3r81 who actually found this link.

According to Catholic Answers, it was because of God's salvation that she was able to be born sinless and remain sinless.

Paraphrasing, God saved her pre-emptively, preventing (or perhaps keeping/preserving) her from sinning in the first place, something no human could do without God's protective saving power.  In other words, in Catholic doctrine, she was sinless, but only through the Grace of God.  Without the Grace of God and His keeping power, she could not have remained sinless.

Excerpt:

  The Catholic Answer

  Not a few Protestants are surprised to discover the Catholic Church
  actually agrees that Mary was "saved." Indeed, Mary needed a savior!
  However, Mary was "saved" from sin in a most sublime manner. She was
  given the grace to be "saved" completely from sin so that she never
  committed even the slightest transgression. Protestants tend to
  emphasize God’s "salvation" almost exclusively to the forgiveness of
  sins actually committed. However, Sacred Scripture indicates that
  salvation can also refer to man being protected from sinning before
  the fact:


What is the Catholic understanding of the first sin committed by Adam and Eve?

Sexual intercourse was not a sin at all (for Adam and Eve in the context of their marriage).  In fact, God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply:

  "And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and
  multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the
  fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every
  living thing that moves on the earth."  Genesis 1:28 ESV

While having sexual intercourse was not a direct command, it most certainly was an indirect command.  You can't be fruitful and multiply without it, unless God was merely encouraging them to garden and do arithmetic.

So, the original sin was eating of the fruit in direct violation of God's command.  However, it could be suggested that pride preceded that, because for them to defy God's command they had to exalt themselves as the authority over their own lives.  Pride would have been a sin of the heart whereas eating of the fruit was a sin of deed.


What is the earliest systematic New Testament commentary?

Origen's commentaries do indeed appear to be the earliest surviving line-by-line, self-contained biblical commentaries.  This becomes evident when we examine his closest competitors.  We'll look first at Greek-speaking authors, and then at Latin.
Greek
About a hundred years before Origen's commentaries were written, Papias of Hierapolis wrote a lengthy work entitled Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord.  Sadly, virtually all of it has been lost, making its contents a matter of some scholarly dispute.  It's likely, though, that the work was primarily a setting down of the oral tradition that Papias knew, and not a systematic exegesis of one or more of the gospels.
Another prolific 2nd-century Greek author was Irenaeus, and in his work Against Heresies he regularly appeals to Scripture to point out the errors of his opponents.  Particularly in Book 4 and Book 5 he focuses his efforts on interpreting the sayings of Jesus and the epistles of Paul, but again, not in a systematic fashion.
Next we turn to the School of Alexandria, out of which came Origen.  Two masters preceded him, Pantænus and Clement of Alexandria.  Of the former no works survive, and none of Clement's surviving works meet our criteria.  But Eusebius speaks of eight volumes by him, called Outlines, that may have been commentaries:

There are another eight volumes of his Outlines, in which he names Pantaenus as his teacher and explains his interpretations of Scripture as well as the traditional (6.13.2, Maier translation)
In the Outlines he has given brief explanations of all the canonical Scriptures, including even the disputed writings. (6.14.1)

But since none of these exist today, we are left to conclude that Origen's commentaries are the earliest we have in Greek.
Latin
Paul J. Griffiths helpfully summarizes the early history of commentaries in Latin:

The first surviving self-contained commentaries on biblical books to have been composed in Latin were by Victorinus of Petrovium (d. 304), who was active in what is today Slovenia [...].  A little earlier in Roman Africa, portions of various polemical works by Tertullian were composed in commentarial form (for example, the fourth book of the Adversus Marcionem, on Luke [...]), even though Tertullian composed no works whose sole purpose is commentary on a particular biblical book. (Religious Reading, 151)

Victorinus of Petrovium died fifty years after Origen, but Tertullian was Origen's contemporary.  And indeed, in Book 4 of Against Marcion, Tertullian works through the Gospel of Luke systematically but polemically.  He wrote this about AD 208, which is around the time that Origen began to produce his commentaries.
Summary
The evidence outlined here indeed suggests that Origen's commentaries are the earliest surviving systematic and self-contained examples of New Testament commentaries.  Earlier commentaries may have been written, but have since been lost.  And though Tertullian wrote what we might fairly consider commentaries, such as one of the Gospel of Luke, they formed parts of his polemical writings, and in any case are dated to roughly the same time as Origen's.


Were the councils of the 4th and 5th centuries primarily to deal with Apocryphal writings?

I'm not sure which specific councils you're referring to, but for the sake of this answer I'll assume it's the first four ecumenical councils. The Apocryphal writings were not the primary focus of these councils; doctrinal concerns were (the Trinitarian and Christological heresies). Here is a brief summary of these councils:

Nicaea I (325 CE): Summoned primarily to deal with the Arian heresy, clarifying the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. A creed was developed that became the basis of the later Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The date of Pascha (Easter) was also fixed at this council.
Constantinople I (381 CE): Arianism and semi-Arianism were still problems for the Church, so the full Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was formulated to refute these heresies (and some others such as those of Sabellius, Apollinarus, and Macedonius) and to clarify the relationship of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity.
Ephesus I (431 CE): This council condemned Nestorianism and Pelagianism. Jesus Christ was defined as the Incarnate Word of God and the Virgin Mary as the Theotokos.
Chalcedon I (451 CE): This council condemned the heresy of Monophysitism and clarified Jesus Christ as perfect God and perfect man in one person (ὑπόστασις, hypostasis), which is referred to as the Hypostatic Union.

Concerning the Apocryphal writings, many early Christians considered them to be scripture due to their inclusion in the Septuagint, with the notable exception of Jerome. The lists of books considered "canonical" by many groups today were drawn up very early (fourth century and onward), so there was little dispute (with the exception of the Apocryphal works) when official canons were drawn up in the 16th and 17th centuries.1

So in response to your question, the answer is no, the councils of the 4th and 5th centuries did not primarily deal with Apocryphal writings.

1 cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon


There are these three other biblical names with the short u or /ʌ/ sound ( and all has a beautiful meaning):

Uzziel

Uriah

Uriel


What is the distinction between ordinance types in the LDS church?

Priesthood ordinances are any ordinances performed by the Priesthood authority. Temple ordinances are only those ordinances performed in the temples. All ordinances are performed by the authority of the Priesthood, though, so I think the phrase "priesthood ordinances" is just used for emphasis or clarity. Either that, or "priesthood ordinances" might also refer to those ordinances directly involving the priesthood, such as conferring it to another man or ordaining to a particular office.

In the general sense, temple ordinances are a subset of priesthood ordinances.

There are many ordinances in the LDS Church performed by this authority, here are a few:

Baptism
Laying on of hands to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost (known as "confirmation")
Laying on of hands to confer the priesthood
Temple ordinances, which includes, among several, endowments and sealings (eternal marriages)
The Sacrament (administered every Sunday in church)
Consecrating oil used for...
...laying on of hands to bless the sick and afflicted
Giving blessings of comfort/counsel
Setting apart church members for their respective callings in the Church, including missionaries
Dedicating/consecrating buildings
Dedicating graves
Giving new babies in the church a name and a blessing (like a typical Christening in other churches)
Patriarchal blessings

This may naturally lead to the question, are there any ordinances performed not by the priesthood? No, not in the LDS Church. Maybe the word has different meanings elsewhere, but most commonly among the Latter-day Saints, it is a term referring directly to exercising the priesthood authority.

From lds.org:

  "Priesthood is the authority and the power which God has granted to men on earth to act for Him. When priesthood authority is exercised properly, priesthood bearers do what He would do if He were present."

  —President Boyd K. Packer

Here is a more comprehensive summary of the most common ordinances in the LDS church.


Why is Lust a sin in Matthew, but praised in Proverbs?

The context of Matthew is adultery--relations with a woman who is not your wife.  The context of Proverbs is marriage--relations with the woman who is your wife.  The difference is quite substantial.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  Matthew 5:27-28 ESV
Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 As a loving hind and a graceful doe,
Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
Be exhilarated always with her love.  Proverbs 5:18-19 NAS

God actually created sexual intimacy to be fully enjoyed within the marriage relationship.  Adultery, however, is a corruption of that holiest of relationships which destroys intimacy.  Thus, it is strictly forbidden in both thought and deed, for our own good.
So, there is no contradiction at all.


Can a married woman enter heaven if she bears no children?

Yes she can

You're probably getting tripped up by this passage:

  1 Timothy 2:13-15 ESV For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Which, by itself and read without any context, does seem to imply that a woman needs to bear children to be "saved". But we should know better than to read passages without their surrounding context. Context is king ☺.

This idea that women need to bear children to be saved is, of course, totally contradictory to the rest of the new testament and any of Paul's other writings. Paul made great effort to emphasize the fact that it takes faith in Jesus Christ to make peace (i.e., get saved) with God.

  Romans 2:28 ESV For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
  Galatians 3:11 ESV Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”

So then what does the Timothy passage get at? Well, it's not totally clear, and when it's not clear you need to be open to reaching multiple valid conclusions (like this essay does). A popular viewpoint (and the one I take) is that Paul was speaking specifically about Eve--that Eve should save herself and everyone by eventually giving birth to the Christ.


What is the Biblical evidence that Jesus' mother was one of His disciples?

Luke records Mary's faith on the occasion of the Annunciation (Luke 1:26-56). Gabriel informs her (v35) that "the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God", and she replies (v38) "let it be done to me according to your word". When Elizabeth addresses her as "the mother of my Lord" (v43), Mary proclaims with the Magnificat (vv46-55), invoking her faith in "God my saviour", and her expectation of the fulfilment of God's promise. This would seem to demonstrate both knowledge and trust in the Messiah-hood of Jesus.

After the ascension of Jesus, Mary is recorded as praying together with the remaining apostles, in the upper room:

  Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away. When they had entered the city, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying, Peter, and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.  All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers. Acts 1:12-14

From this continuation of Luke's account, it is clear that Mary retained faith in Jesus following his resurrection. At this point, he's spent several weeks instructing the disciples, so she is participating in prayer with people who have seen and spoken with the risen Lord. She could not have been praying together with them, in this way, if she did not share in the same faith.

(All Biblical quotations are from the NRSV.)


Is there extrabiblical first-century documentation of sadducee theology?

Compared with the Pharisees, very little is known about the Sadducees in the Herodian period. The cause of this marked contrast is not hard to find, as Helen Bond points out in her book Caiaphas. In the upheavals that followed the two revolts against Roman rule (66-70 and 132-135), the Pharisees emerged as the winners and the Sadducees as the losers. There have been (in Bond’s words) “generations of Jewish scholars who understood Pharisees as the correct and trustworthy side of Judaism. … Unlike the Pharisees, however, the Sadducees have no modern successors with an interest in rehabilitating them. ... The Sadducees left no written records, and we are forced to rely instead on the negative parodies penned by their opponents.”


Is Eastern Orthodox Christianity against doing yoga or meditation?

I don't think there is any council-wide declaration about this, but most of the clergy will advise against such practices. To see why, we need to look into the traditional orthodox spirituality (hesychasm).

The Holy Fathers put a complete and definitive set of spiritual practices which include fasting, remembrance of death, remembrance of own sins, Jesus' prayer, reciting psalms, prostrations, sitting during some prayers, standing during others etc.

Orthodox Christianity strongly states that there is a strong bound between orthodoxy (correct faith) and orthopraxy (correct practices). As shown during the hesychast controversy these practices are really important and their results are not merely physical.

With this looking for the school of meditation and psycho-physical practices outside the orthodox tradition; from religious and spiritual traditions that have different than Christianity views on human salvation is unjustified.


Why is foot washing so uncommon nowadays

It seems that the washing of feet was somewhat more popular in the Early Church and even extended into several centuries afterwards.

St benedict of Nursia (480-543) in his Rule for Monks which covers all aspects of monastic life includes a chapter on the reception of guests.

Chapter 53 states that "the Abbot pour water on the hands of the guests; and both he and the whole community shall wash the feet of all the guests. After this washing let them say this verse: "We have received Thy mercy, O God, in the midst of Thy temple." Let great care and solicitude be shown particularly in the reception of the poor and of travelers, because it is in them that Christ is more especially received; for, as regards the rich, the very fear one has for them procures them honor."

At what point this custom fell into disuse is not known, but Dom Paul Delatte OSB the third abbot of Solesmes (1848-1937) in his Commentary on the Rule has this to say about the washing of feet:

  The Abbot shall pour water on the hands of guests and wash their
  feet. Because the Abbot holds the place of Christ in the monastery,
  therefore is this function reserved to him, recalling the condescension
  of Our Lord to His Apostles at the Last Supper and expressing Christian
  humility and charity. In ancient times, to pour water on the hand of
  those who were going to table was the act of a servant or disciple; 2
  with St. Martin 3 it became the act of a monk wishing to honour his
  guests ; and St. Benedict makes it a rule. This practice is still observed,
  and takes place at the door of the refectory when the guest is first led in.
  As to the washing of the feet, a regular element in the ritual of ancient
  hospitality, it no longer agrees with our Western manners and has long
  been suppressed; we must honour guests, not embarrass them.


What do immersionists believe it means to be buried with Christ through Baptism?

I can only answer for my denomination (Baptist), but it was used as a supporting scripture for Immersion. During baptism, pastors would often say

  Buried in the likeness of His death, raised in the likeness of His resurrection

or

  ...raised to walk in newness of life

The idea is that baptism is a the believer's public confession of faith. And the immersion itself is a symbol of Christ's burial and resurrection.


How does the Passover foreshadow the coming of Jesus as the Messiah?

In regards to Passover, Jesus is closely identified with the Passover lamb.

Exodus 12 gives the specific details on how to select the lamb and how it was to be used.

  3 Announce to the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of
  this month each family must choose a lamb or a young goat for a
  sacrifice, one animal for each household. ... 5 The animal you select
  must be a one-year-old male, either a sheep or a goat, with no
  defects. 6 Take special care of this chosen animal until the evening of the fourteenth day of this first month. Then the whole assembly of the community of Israel must slaughter their lamb or young goat at twilight. 7 They are to take some of the blood and smear it on the sides and top of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the animal. ... 13 But the blood on your doorposts will serve as a sign, marking the houses where you are staying. When I see the blood, I will pass over you. This plague of death will not touch you when I strike the land of Egypt.

A couple of key points here,

The lamb was to be without defects
The blood covered the doorposts and it was because of this blood that those within the home were saved from death.

Jesus as we know was/is perfect (without sin) in every way and it's because of his shed blood that we are saved as well.

In John 1:29 John the baptist makes this declaration about Jesus:

  The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The
  Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

And in 1 Peter 1:19-20

  It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of
  God. 20 God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but
  he has now revealed him to you in these last days

.


Has Numbers 19:11-12 been considered when discussing why Jesus rose on the third day?

I was wondering about that very thing myself just the other day, and now you have referenced it for me. When Jesus came to John to be baptized, as we know, John was incredulous and said "Lord! you come to baptized by me?!"

And Jesus said "it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15).

The Good News Bible says it like this, "in this way we shall do all that God requires". Many other versions saying "it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness".

Also to consider, is how His body "did not see corruption" as stated in Psalm 16:10 and quoted by both Peter, and later Paul, in the book of Acts.

Since His body did not see corruption, and doubly, being risen (but not yet ascended) His body was wholly new and only of life, therefor not 'unclean'. But God being a God of beauty through order, how logical to rise on the third day in the new glorified body, as a sort of cleansing (baptism) from the old one.


Ephesians 4:5 what does "One faith" mean?

When Paul refers to “one faith,” I think he is referring to “the faith” (i.e. Christianity) spoken of elsewhere (emphasis added):

  1 Corinthians 16:13 NASB
  Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.

  2 Corinthians 13:5 NASB
  Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?

  Galatians 1:23 NASB
  but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy."

  1 Timothy 4:1 NASB
  But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,

  Jude 1:3 NASB
  Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

“The faith” refers primarily to “faith in Jesus,” which is trust/belief in Jesus as Lord, one and only son of God, creator, etc., and all that such belief entails. Paul (and others) implicitly assert that there is only one faith, and that we should all be united in it.

  Ephesians 4:13 NASB
  until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.


Where was Jesus before the events of the New Testament?

It seems that the Second Person of the Trinity took on the name of Jesus when He entered into creation and was born of Mary.  Prior to this, He was with the Father and the Spirit.

When Jesus prays in John 17, He mentions the glory He had with the Father before the world began.

  And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with
  you before the world began.  John 17:5 NIV

Jesus, God the Son, certainly may have been the One who appeared in the Old Testament from time to time, walking in the garden with Adam and Eve, speaking to Abraham about the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah, the fourth Man in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, perhaps Melchizedek, the "angel" who wrestled with Jacob, etc.  However, He was not called Jesus until He was born into the world.

The receiving of the name "Jesus" identified the purpose for which God the Son entered into creation.  "Jesus" or "Yeshua" literally means "The Lord Saves".  So, Jesus was called "The Lord Saves", because He (the Lord) would, in fact, save His people from their sins.

  She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will
  save his people from their sins.”  Matthew 1:21 ESV