From an Evangelical perspective, why didn't the resurrected Jesus appear to those who doubted that He was the promised Messiah?

Resurrected "Jesus"

Jesus said this about his enemies

I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts.
I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.
John 5:42-43

In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. "
John 3:3

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:44

Put simply unless God makes people born again they cannot recognise Him as He is.  So it is not a question of proof but spiritual rebirth.  If Jesus had appeared to the pharisees they would have just believed he was a ghost or a con man and tried to kill him.

When Peter a few months after Jesus rose again said plainly who Jesus was
"It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed."
Acts 4:10

Their response was
"What are we going to do with these men?" they asked. "Everybody living in Jerusalem knows they have done an outstanding miracle, and we cannot deny it.
But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn these men to speak no longer to anyone in this name."
Acts 4:16-17

The question was not, wow, Jesus was the Son of God, but the people will believe these peoples message because of this miracle that looks outstanding, so we cannot stand against it, though we disagree with it completely.

If Jesus had stood before them it would have been no different.
When stephen said something similar a year later they responded like this

At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him.
Acts 7:57-58

They knew Jesus, they knew they had killed an innocent man, who said He would rise again, and His followers, timid empty people, now appeared with boldness and great skill before them declaring His resurrection and performing miracles by Jesus's power, yet they hated them.

Either they accepted the truth or they had to fight for survival, because only force would stop this movement.  They chose to fight and rebel against God.

http://cerebralfaith.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/why-didnt-jesus-appear-to-pilate-and.html

http://evidenceforchristianity.org/when-jesus-resurrection-happened-why-did-he-appear-to-his-apostles-first-why-did-he-not-appear-to-the-pharisees-teachers-of-the-law-r/

http://www.apologeticsinthechurch.com/objections-to-the-resurrection/why-didnt-jesus-appear-to-the-whole-world

above are three articles that are providing their perspective on this subject.


Why do the Evangelists Matthew, Mark and John not give narrative account of the Ascension?

Why do Matthew, Mark and John not give narrative account of the Ascension?

The challenge question of the day! The Catholic Encyclopedia states that St. Luke is not the only Evangelist to speak about the Ascension of Our Lord. There is no need for all the Evangelists to make an account on the Ascension of Jesus into heaven when, for the faithful, it is an accepted truth.

St. Luke, it may be noted did not witness the Ascension and thus he certainly thought it was quite important to mention in his Gospel.

  The elevation of Christ into heaven by His own power in presence of His disciples the fortieth day after His Resurrection. It is narrated in Mark 16:19, Luke 24:51, and in the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.

  Although the place of the Ascension is not distinctly stated, it would appear from the Acts that it was Mount Olivet. Since after the Ascension the disciples are described as returning to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, within a Sabbath day's journey. Tradition has consecrated this site as the Mount of Ascension and Christian piety has memorialized the event by erecting over the site a basilica. St. Helena built the first memorial, which was destroyed by the Persians in 614, rebuilt in the eighth century, to be destroyed again, but rebuilt a second time by the crusaders. This the Moslems also destroyed, leaving only the octagonal structure which encloses the stone said to bear the imprint of the feet of Christ, that is now used as an oratory.

  Not only is the fact of the Ascension related in the passages of Scripture cited above, but it is also elsewhere predicted and spoken of as an established fact. Thus, in John 6:63, Christ asks the Jews: "If then you shall see the son of Man ascend up where He was before?" and 20:17, He says to Mary Magdalen: "Do not touch Me, for I am not yet ascended to My Father, but go to My brethren, and say to them: I ascend to My Father and to your Father, to My God and to your God." Again, in Ephesians 4:8-10, and in Timothy 3:16, the Ascension of Christ is spoken of as an accepted fact.

  The language used by the Evangelists to describe the Ascension must be interpreted according to usage. To say that He was taken up or that He ascended, does not necessarily imply that they locate heaven directly above the earth; no more than the words "sitteth on the right hand of God" mean that this is His actual posture. In disappearing from their view "He was raised up and a cloud received Him out of their sight" (Acts 1:9), and entering into glory He dwells with the Father in the honour and power denoted by the scripture phrase.

For any more reasoning on this from a Catholic perspective, we will have to wait and ask the Evangelists when we see them in heaven! Anything else is simply an opinion, even from a Catholic point of view.


What's the biblical basis for non-believer's ability to do good?

The Bible recognises the good that King Cyrus of Persia did for the Jews, historically. Not just in allowing them to return to Judah, but in funding the considerable cost of rebuilding the Jerusalem temple. For example, Isaiah 41:2 refers to Cyrus as the righteous man from the east, and Isaiah 44:28-45:4 waxes lyrical:

  That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron: And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

Of course, non-believers do not feel the need for biblical recognition that they can perform good deeds with good intent.


How does one reconcile the changelessness of God with Jesus' incarnation?

This might be a hard one for us temporal creatures to get our head around, and it actually isn't just the incarnation that poses this problem. Viewed from a temporal perspective, we could just as well say: "Before creation, God wasn't a creator - after creation, he became one. How can this be consistent with the idea of God's immutability?"

The only logical solution to such dilemmas consistent with scripture that I am aware of is that God transcends time itself (ie God's eternity is timeless not everlasting time). From God's perspective in the eternal now, He has always been an incarnated God-man and will always be one. Change (not just in this matter, but in any respect) is something that only occurs within the temporal universe above which, God is transcendent:

  Concepts of eternity have developed in a way that is, as a matter of fact, closely connected to the development of the concept of God in Western thought, beginning with ancient Greek philosophers; particularly to the idea of God's relation to time, the idea of divine perfection, and the Creator-creature distinction. Eternity as timelessness, and eternity as everlastingness, have been distinguished. Following the work of Boethius and Augustine of Hippo divine timelessness became the dominant view. - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [emphasis added]


Was the matter of whether the Christians who had renounced their faith under torture should be accepted back considered in the First Council?

Short answer
In the pre-Nicaean era, lapsi referred to those who renounced their faith under persecution by Roman authorities.  During the
AD 250 Decian persecution most who lapsed were not tortured, but were required to sacrifice in a court proceeding.  See the wikipedia article Lapsi for the 5 ways of how they lapsed.  Valerian persecution was harsher, ordering bishops to death and senators to lose their title and properties if they would not apostasize.  After about 40 year respite, the most severe persecution happened under Emperor Diocletian in AD 303-306 which included razing churches, burning scriptures, imprisonment of all bishops and priests, and involving torture if they didn't apostasize by offering sacrifice willingly.
With most who didn't lapse died under torture / execution, it makes sense that the AD 325 council didn't specifically use the category of torture as a criteria for accepting back those who lapsed, but instead decreed how to variously deal with different groups of people who lapsed.  About the schismatic groups, they are NOT those who lapsed but in fact those who refused reconciliation with the lapsed.
Here is a summary of how the council dealt with the lapsed:

Canon 8: Allow the separatist clergy & bishops (started AD 250) called the Cathari or the Novationists, who refused forgiveness to those who lapsed during persecution, to re-join the apostolic church provided they accepted those who lapsed
Canon 10: To depose any in the clerical rank who has lapsed
Canon 11: Penance for those who repent after having "fallen without compulsion, without the spoiling of their property, without danger or the like" (many were communicants)
Canon 13: Lenience for the lapsed who are dying
Canon 14: Penance for lapsed catechumens
Synodal Letter to the Church of Alexandria: Disciplined the separatist leader (Meletius) of the "Church of Martyrs, a group of fanatical confessors, who thought that their privileges as sufferers for the faith were not sufficiently recognized by the Church", thus indirectly giving leniency to the lapsed.  See also the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Meletius of Lycopolis.

Reading between the lines, since they dealt mercifully with different groups of people who lapsed, including those who lapsed "without compulsion" (see Canon 11), they must have accepted back those who lapsed under torture, possibly with lesser penance.
Longer answer
The authoritative documents from the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) which consists of:

The Profession of Faith
Canons
Letter of the Synod in Nicaea to the Egyptians

can be read below:

here (source: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series Vol 14, ed. Philip Schaff) or
here (source: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils ed. Norman P. Tanner)
here (only the Canons portion, but has helpful commentaries)

Another resource is from the 1983 book The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology by Leo Donald Davis, SJ, who wrote the book to fill a lacuna of integrated history + theology of the councils when he taught his students at Weston School of Theology.  He said that the official minutes of the sessions have not survived.  What follows are his explanation of the canons.

...

"Six other canons dealing with the dignity of the clergy:

...
Canon 10 enjoined the deposition from clerical ranks of anyone who had denied his faith, whether he had been ordained in ignorance of this fact or not.
...

"Four other canons dealt with the reconciliation of those who had lapsed from  the faith during the recent persecutions and with their public penance.

Canon 11 provided that those who fell away from the faith without having been threatened must repent and then spend two years among those who could only hear, not participate in the liturgy, seven years among those required to kneel before their fellow Christians on Sundays to beg forgiveness — two classes two classes which with the catechumens were compelled to leave the liturgy before the beginning of the Canon — and for an additional two years continue to remain during the whole liturgy but without receiving the Eucharist.
...
According to canon 13, the lapsed who were dying were allowed to receive the Eucharist, but if they recovered, they were to attend the liturgy only.
In canon 14, catechumens who had lapsed were ordered to remain among the hearers of the liturgy for three years and then take their places as catechumens once again. Severe as these measures were, they were more moderate than any previous synodal decrees, especially in providing that the
lapsed when dying could receive the Eucharist.

"Two canons dealt with the more difficult problem of the readmission
to the Church of schismatics and heretics.

...
Since the Novatianists, who
broke with the Church over the question of penance from 251 on,
differed only in discipline and not in doctrine, they were treated with
great moderation. After having received the imposition of hands and
professed in writing that they would follow the decrees of the Church
and in particular that they would communicate with the twice married
and the reconciled lapsed (two classes of sinners which as Novatianists
they shunned), they might be restored to the clergy at the rank they held
as Novatianists. However, in places where there was a Catholic bishop,
the reconciled Novatianist bishop was to be made only a chorepiscopus,
a rural auxiliary bishop, so that no city would have two bishops.
...

"In a separate declaration,

the Council dealt with the Meletian schism
in Egypt which grew out of the attempt of the priest Meletius to exercise
episcopal functions while the bishop Peter of Alexandria was imprisoned
during the persecution of Diocletian. Since Meletius too had been
imprisoned in the quarries of Egypt, he used his prestige as a confessor
of the faith to put himself at the head of the Church of Martyrs, a group
of fanatical confessors, who thought that their privileges as sufferers for
the faith were not sufficiently recognized by the Church. By 325
Meletius’ church numbered some twenty-eight bishops. Overriding
Alexander of Alexandria’s apprehensions, the Council promised the
Meletians that their ordinations would be recognized when they
returned to the Church, on condition that their bishops cease exercising their functions in favor of those consecrated by Alexander. Meletius
himself was ordered to withdraw to Lycopolis, content himself with his
title of bishop and discontinue further ordinations.


I believe that God has not given us an answer to this question as it might lead to a form of idolatry.  I remember standing in the Princeton Cemetery at the foot of Jonathan Edward's grave (he is one of my heros of the faith) and thinking, my goodness, this is where that godly man's bones rest until the resurrection.  I was so tempted to worship the place I was standing in because of it's proximity to a bunch of dead bones?!?!  It was a strange feeling, and it was basically a temptation to idolatrous worship.

Now, how much more tempted might we be to worship a hunk or rock which we knew to be the location of that most glorious of events, the resurrection?  I believe God has not told us this so that we are not tempted to worship the place.


How did Oneness Pentecostalism spread and grow during the 20th century?

I found an article that gives an overview of how the United Pentecostal Church emerged in 1945, although it does not comment on any sort of mission strategy that might or might not have been employed.  However, some information may be better than no information, and perhaps others may be able to provide specific information to your very specific questions.

The United Pentecostal Church is a Oneness Pentecostal denomination that was formed in 1945 when the Pentecostal Church Incorporated and the Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ merged. Their website says that they “grew from 521 churches in 1945” to “4,243 churches and daughter works in 2010.” The United Pentecostal Church claims to be “among the fastest growing church organizations since it was formed in 1945.” Because United Pentecostal Churches are normally congregational in government, there can be some differences among individual churches. As a self-governing church body, each congregation elects its own pastors and leaders. The denomination’s headquarters is in Hazelwood, Missouri.
The roots of the United Pentecostal Church and what is known as “Oneness Pentecostalism” can be traced back to the early days of the Pentecostal Movement, which began in the early 1900s in Topeka, Kansas, based on the teachings of Charles Parham. In 1906 the Pentecostal Movement gained popularity during the Azuza Street Revival led by William Seymour. While it was rejected by mainline Christian denominations, the movement continued to grow and its followers began to form their own Pentecostal organizations or denominations. One of the first was the Assemblies of God, which was formed around 1914.
The teaching that became the basis for Oneness Pentecostalism can be traced back to a Pentecostal camp meeting held in Arroyo Seco, California, either in late 1913 or early 1914. While at the meeting, a Pentecostal pastor named John Scheppe had what he believed was a divine revelation from God. As he meditated that night, he believed God revealed to him that baptism must be done in the “name of Jesus only” and not in the name of “the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Like most cult leaders, his revelation and “new doctrine” did not come as the result of the careful study of Scripture but instead was based on a subjective revelation he believed to be from God. Soon after, several other Assembly of God pastors began teaching this “new revelation” that would become the basis for Oneness Pentecostalism and “Jesus name only baptism.”
As the new “movement” gained followers, it caused a division in the newly formed Assembly of God organization. Recognizing the unbiblical nature of this teaching, the Assemblies of God rejected this unbiblical doctrine and affirmed the biblical doctrine of the Trinity at its Fourth General Council in October 1916. This led to the Assembly of God banning approximately 150 pastors from the denomination, those who had been teaching this unbiblical doctrine. A few months later several Oneness Pentecostal pastors met in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, and started their own organization known as the General Assembly of the Apostolic Assemblies. That was the beginning of the Oneness Pentecostal movement and eventually in 1945 two of the many Oneness Pentecostal organizations merged to form the United Pentecostal Church. https://www.gotquestions.org/United-Pentecostal-Church.html

As for the Assemblies of God denomination, here is a partial quote from another article:

The Assemblies of God is one of the largest Pentecostal denominations, with 57 million adherents worldwide. It was organized in 1914 to promote unity and doctrinal stability among groups that had been influenced by the Pentecostal revivals of the early 1900s, revivals which were the result of a desire to see an increase in God's power in churches and individuals. Many people spent long hours in prayer, seeking a fresh infusion of the Spirit. Following the teachings of Charles Parham, these people were expecting speaking in tongues as an evidence of the Holy Spirit's baptism. The first popularly acknowledged revival was at Azusa Street in Los Angeles, 1906-1909. From that movement, several churches were formed, and in April 1914, meetings were held in Hot Springs, Arkansas, which led to the formation of the Assemblies of God. Eudorus Bell, formerly a Southern Baptist preacher, was appointed as the first chairman of the denomination.   https://www.gotquestions.org/Assemblies-of-God.html

I have no information on how the Oneness Pentecostal movement goes about evangelising except to comment on earlier revivals that received a lot of publicity, some of it negative.


According to the Catholic Tradition, Are People in Heaven Waiting for Other People to Die?

Since Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition, yes, people who have gone to heaven are waiting for the rest of the body of Christ to be filled up:

Revelation 6:9-10 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?  11 And white robes were given to every one of them one; and it was said to them, that they should rest for a little time, till their fellow servants, and their brethren, who are to be slain, even as they, should be filled up.


What are the meaning of and the biblical basis for the practice of pleading the blood of Jesus in prayer?

Questions:

What do Christians mean when they plead the blood of Jesus in prayer? Is there a canonical definition of the phrase? What do they expect will happen when they say it?

What is the biblical basis? Are there scriptural examples in which an apostle or a disciple pleaded the blood of Jesus for protection or any other purpose?

KB: I have heard Christians plead the blood of Jesus or the blood of the Lamb in prayer. In common usage, it's fairly simple. People seem to use this phrase to mean they are praying sincerely and in the name of Jesus. I am not disparaging anyone who prays with this phrase, just pointing out what I believe is the thought behind use of this phrase.
As used in the Bible this phrase certainly does have to do with spiritual warfare as we can see in this passage below.
Revelation 12:10-11 NIV:

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation
and the power
and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down. 11 They triumphed over him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.

Another use is in Revelation 7:14 NIV

And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great
tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the
blood of the Lamb.

I do not know of any Biblical example of someone praying by the blood of the Lamb. The phrase is used in various ways in the Bible as shown above, but it is not used Biblically in prayer as far as I know.


Is there a doctrine that God grants revelation in layers?

Picking up on the comment by @curiousdannii, progressive revelation within the Bible itself is widely accepted among Christian denominations.

The Bible contains many indications of it, though most supporting passages quoted in Christian articles explaining the idea are found in the New Testament. See What Is Progressive Revelation? by Don Stewart for a solid presentation of the idea and its biblical basis from a fairly representative Christian perspective.

Progressive revelation beyond the Bible, called "continuous revelation," is more controversial among Christians, and is rejected by many mainstream Christian denominations. However, the LDS church believes that the Book of Mormon is a written revelation from God subsequent to the Bible, and some Christian groups, such as Quakers, Pentecostals, and Charismatics believe that God gives personal revelations to believers through the Holy Spirit.


What were the Jehovah's Witness arguments against doing the Nazi salute?

As you state (emphasis mine):

  the reasoning against these smaller acts of loyalty to the "state" or ruler, such as the Nazi salute

Jehovah's Witnesses are only loyal to Gods Kingdom, as Jesus said himself (John 18:36):

  My Kingdom is no part of this world. If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from this source.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not take part in this world's politics and they don't 'take their sides' in conflicts. They don't declare their loyalty to any other government then Gods Kingdom, no matter how small.

Jehovah's Witnesses have "deep respect" (1 Peter 3:14) for the government and their officials, and they listen to them as long as they don't ask us to disobey Gods laws.

Related required reading from the site of Jehovah's Witnesses on Political Neutrality.


Why did the Catholic Church rule out meat?

The ancient fasting practices ruled out not only meat, but  fish and many other foods as well, depending on the occasion.  In some cases, they ruled out any food whatsoever.
The Didache, a 1st century Christian document, shows that the earliest Christians fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays, though it does not describe exactly what practices were followed.  It probably meant complete abstention from food.
The most detailed history of Christian fasting in antiquity comes, I think, from the Church historian Socrates of Constantinople (c 380-439).  He is the first to describe, I think, the practice of abstaining from specific foods during Christian fasts.  Describing the various Lenten fasts practiced throughout the Church (e.g. three weeks in Rome, six weeks in Greece and Alexandria), he describes the various practices:

One can see also a disagreement about the manner of abstinence from food, as well as about the number of days. Some wholly abstain from things that have life: others feed on fish only of all living creatures: many together with fish, eat fowl also, saying that according to Moses, these were likewise made out of the waters. Some abstain from eggs, and all kinds of fruits: others partake of dry bread only; still others eat not even this: while others having fasted till the ninth hour, afterwards take any sort of food without distinction.  And among various nations there are other usages, for which innumerable reasons are assigned. Since however no one can produce a written command as an authority, it is evident that the apostles left each one to his own free will in the matter, to the end that each might
perform what is good not by constraint or necessity. Such is the difference in the churches on the subject of fasts.  (Ecclesiastical History, V.XXII).

Your question regarded "in the early days of the Catholic Church".  I don't know if you had the pre-Schism period in mind or not, but the above provides a synopsis up to the 5th century.  In any case, it doesn't seem that the fasting practices within the Church arose because of any heavy investment by the Roman Church.  The western Roman Empire was in the process of collapsing during the latter times described by Socrates.
The See of Rome would not acquire any sort of political or commercial power until after the ascent of Charlemagne in the 9th century.  Even then, I think it is ingenuous to propose that Roman Christians fasted due to commercial interests of their See.  Fasting in the east and the west was rooted in Apostolic tradition, nothing else.

Excursus on 1 Timothy 4:3
1 Timothy 4:1ff is often held up as a sort of condemnation of the Roman Catholic Church (in fact, it would also serve to condemn the Eastern Orthodox Church as well, but those doing the condemning usually have their hands full enough just attacking the Catholic Church and/or are only vaguely familiar with the Orthodox Church).  The passage is translated in the King James Bible (i.e. the same King James Bible that originally included the Deuterocanon) as:

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

It is curious that this particular passage regarding commanding to abstain from meats is taken quite literally, yet a passage from the preceding chapter that declares the Church to be the pillar and foundation of truth tends to go unnoticed (1 Timothy 3:15).
There are two points with regard to 1 Timothy 4:3 that are worth noting.

First, the Greek phrase is ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων in the Textus Receptus, the Nestle-Aland Critical Text, and the Patriarchal Text of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  The word βρῶμα actually means any and all solid food, not simply animal flesh.  With the sole exception of Matthew 14:15 (victuals), βρῶμα is translated as "meat" in the 1611 King James Bible, as in the earlier Tyndale (1536) and Geneva (1557-1560) Bibles, which is consistent with the usage of the term dating back to Old English.  It is the first definition of the word given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (6th ed.):

I 1 Food; nourishment for people or animals; esp. solid food, as opp. to drink.  Now arch. & dial. OE

Many of those who follow the King James Bible allow themselves to be misled by imposing modern meanings on words that meant something different at the time the translation was completed.  Meat is a relatively benign example (atonement is more insipid). Most, but still not all, understand that "meat" meant food in the King James Bible, as is reflected in succeeding Protestant translations:

NKJV

... forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods ...

ESV

... who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods ...

NIV

They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods ...

The second point, having now correctly interpreted what the Greek means, is that Paul's objection in 1 Timothy 4:3 is not that people abstain from food (ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων), but they do so for the wrong reason: namely that they reject food because they see it as evil and not as something good that is provided by God - a prevailing gnostic tendency of the time.  Irenaeus writes on this in Against Heresies I.XXIV and elsewhere.
The proper understanding of 1 Timothy 4:1ff is explained by the Romanian Orthodox Elder Cleopas in The Truth of Our Faith (pp. 146-147 - a very good book; I highly recommend it):

Some are convinced that we should eat of all foods, at all times, without discretion.  They say that we should cast off all the restrictions of the fast and make wide the road to the belly.  However, we have a teaching from our Saviour Christ that the demons are not cast out except by prayer and fasting (Mat 17:21).  His holy disciples and Apostles ministered to the Lord with fasting, as it is written: As they ministered to the Lord and fasted ... and again, And when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away (Acts 13:1-4).  The great Apostle Paul did not set aside the work of fasting even in the midst of his trials: in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in sleeplessness, in fasting ... (2 Cor 6:5).
Thus, whom should Christians obey? Our Saviour Christ and His holy Apostles or he who subverts and distorts the meaning of Scripture?  (2 Pet 3:16-17).  The passage, which came to you in your thoughts [1 Tim 4:3-8], does not assert the abolition of fasting.  From a similar misreading of this passage sprang the delusion of the ancient heretics, the so-called Gnostics.  The Gnostics forbade marriage and the eating of meat.  These prohibitions they kept not in short stretches of time, as we do during the periods of the fast, but they perpetually forbade marriage, so as not to propagate "matter", while meat they considered to be unclean.


Do all believers receive the Holy Spirit at conversion but only a few are filled with the Holy Spirit post conversion?

To answer this question I will examine the following verses - most of which were quoted by the OP.

Eph 1:13, 4:30 - And in Him, having heard and believed the word of truth—the gospel of your salvation—you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit ... And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Thus, all people who experience a genuine conversion to Christ receive in some form, the gift of the Holy Spirit

Rom 8:9 - You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

This confirms the above point that it is impossible to be a Christian without the gift of the Holy Spirit.  This is further confirmed by other references such as Gal 5:22 where we need the Holy Spirit to produce the fruit of the Spirit and John 16:13 tells us we need the Spirit to even know Jesus.
Now compare two texts in Acts:

Acts 2:3, 4 - They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

... and ...

Acts 4:31 - After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

Now by placing these two verse side by side we see that many of the same people (the apostles plus others) were present on both occasions.  In both cases the description includes the idea of being "filled with the Holy Spirit" and miraculous things occurred.  This does NOT mean that the apostles were emptied of the Holy Spirit between these two events; rather, it simply means that "filled with the Holy Spirit" appears to be a Hebraism for an occasion where the power of the Holy Spirit is displayed as His discretion.
Thus, while the apostles received the gift of the Holy Spirit in the upper room in Acts 1, they were "Filled with the Holy Spirit" on other occasions which means that the Holy Spirit decided to use these people to work miracles such as heal the sick, speak in tongues or whatever in a significant way.
UPDATE
In several places such as Acts 8:14-17, 19:6, etc we see instances of groups or people receiving the gift of the spirit for the first time.  The disciples received the Holy Spirit when it was given by Jesus in John 20:22.  In subsequent instances such as Acts 2:3, 4, 4:8, 31, etc, we have a simple record that the disciples were filled or were full of the Spirit - a state that was constant with the faithful (eg apostles) after they received the Spirit.


How to pray for a corrupt government involved in drug trafficking?

The Bible tells Christians to pray for those in positions of authority.  Such authorities include government officials (international, national, and local) and pastors, church elders, school boards, school principals, employers, and the like.  There is an underlying principle behind this:

  Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God (Romans 13:1).

This applies even when the authorities are cruel, unjust and persecute God’s people.  Even when the Israelites were in exile, God told them to pray for their Babylonian captors:

  Seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper (Jeremiah 29:7).

Here is an important Bible verse about such prayers:

  I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:1-4).

When those in authority are obeying the will of God, it is easier to “live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Timothy 2:2). But when evil men are in authority, our prayers for them are just as needed, as illustrated by William Tyndale’s last words as he was being burned at the stake:

  “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.”

When Christians pray for God’s will to be done on earth as it is done in heaven, that prayer should include Governments, rulers and those in authority.  God will deal with those who go against His will and they will answer to Him for their deeds.  Our part is to lead peaceful and godly lives so that we are pleasing to God.


How do we make sure that we are on the rightful religion/path?

Yah, I think this is going to be a rather subjective question, but I will take a brief stab at it:

I think the answer to this question comes down to the doctrine of sin.  If you accept the notion of a conscience, then I believe every honest person will admit to doing things they know they shouldn't (i.e. that are against their conscience).  Furthermore, I believe they will also admit that there are things they do wrong over and over again, even though they wish they would stop doing it.  If they won't admit this about their own life, surely they can look out at others and see this at play.  Just drop by your nearest AA meeting or youth counseling office.

If they are willing to look to religion to explain this phenomenon, the biblical doctrine of sin is amazingly accurate and powerful in describing this human experience.  Once the doctrine of sin is understood and accepted, it seems natural to look to the Bible for explanations to related doctrines such as corruption and death.  That, naturally should lead you to the doctrine of hell, damnation, and ultimately salvation through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yes, I know that was quick.

Ok, now the obligatory: you can never know for sure like you can be sure that your car battery is dead.  God didn't design it to work like that.

  We live by faith, not by sight (2 Cor 5:7)

Someone can kick and scream and complain about the injustice and lack of intellectual honesty in that position (if they are so inclined), but if we are going to be people of Christ, we must be people of His Word and it says we must live by faith in this life.

Some people argue that seeing is believing.  What they don't realize is that many people saw the works of Christ and rejected him anyway.  Even some of his disciples saw him after the resurrection and they doubted instead of worshiping him (Matt 28:17).

If you are concerned about the authenticity of Christianity, here is my advice: seriously study it, with a humble and prayerful attitude, asking God to give you clarity of understanding and faith.  Hopefully, we will then be able to say with Peter to Christ:

  Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God. (John 6:68,69)

Furthermore, if you doubt, take your doubt to the Lord.  Be honest with Him about it and ask him to give you faith.  You will not be disappointed if you seek him:

  for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him (Heb 11:6)


What is the "Hell's Best Kept Secret" teaching that's circulating in various Evangelical Churches?

The Hell's Best Secret teaching is essentially a denouncement on what Ray Comfort calls "the modern Gospel", and a teaching on what he considers the proper use of Mosaic Law to prepare the heart for the Gospel.

Early on in the message, he speaks of a certain denomination's evangelism efforts during what they called "the decade of Harvest":

  Let me make it more real for you. In 1991, in the first year of the
  decade of harvest, a major denomination in the U.S. was able to obtain
  294,000 decisions for Christ. That is, in one year, this major
  denomination of 11,500 churches was able to obtain 294,000 decisions
  for Christ. Unfortunately, they could only find 14,000 in fellowship,
  which means they couldn’t account for 280,000 of their decisions, and
  this is normal, modern evangelical results

According to Comfort, based on Church records that he's had access to, something like 80%-90% of those who have "been saved" later fall away.  He blames this on the methods used to get people to come to Christ.

The "Modern Gospel" as he calls it, is one of life enhancement.  Sinners are promised that God can heal their broken marriage, fix their drug problems, alcohol problems, and so forth.  The "Modern Gospel" is, according to Comfort, a misguided attempt to make Christianity appealing by showing how much better the Christian life is than that of the unsaved.

He uses an illustration of a man on an airplane, who is given a parachute and is told that it would improve his flight, to illustrate how foolish this is.

Comfort argues:

  Now listen to what the modern gospel says. It says, “Put on the Lord
  Jesus Christ. He’ll give you love, joy, peace, fulfillment, and
  lasting happiness.” In other words, “Jesus will improve your flight.”
  So the sinner responds, and in an experimental fashion, puts on the
  Savior to see if the claims are true. And what does he get? The
  promised temptation, tribulation, and persecution. The other
  passengers mock him. So what does he do? He takes  off the Lord Jesus
  Christ, he’s offended for the word’s sake (Mark 4:17), he’s
  disillusioned and somewhat embittered, and quite rightly so. He was
  promised peace, joy, love, fulfillment, and lasting happiness, and all
  he got were trials and humiliation. His bitterness is directed toward
  those who gave him the so-called “good news”. His  latter end becomes
  worse than the first: another inoculated and bitter backslider.

The rest of the teaching expands on the proper use of the Law, particularly the The pedagogical use (although he doesn't use that term in the teaching), which is to show sinners what sin is, to show them that they are, indeed, sinners, and show them their need of a Savior, and allow repentance.  Without the Law, He argues (as does the Apostle Paul), sinners don't even know what sin is.  How can they repent, if they don't know what sin is?

The teaching contains a section in which he illustrates using the Ten Commandments on an unrepentant sinner to show them their sinful nature in it's true light.

  I say, “Ah, do you think you’ve kept the ten commandments?” He says,
  “Ah, yeah…pretty much.” I say, “Let’s go through them. Ever told a
  lie?” He says, “Ah, yeah…yeah, one or two.” I say, “What does that
  make you?” He says, “A sinner.” I say, “No, no. Specifically, what
  does it make you?” He says, “Well, man, I’m not a liar.”  I say, “How
  many lies, then, do you have to tell to be a liar? Ten and a bell
  rings and ‘ppppbbbbtttt’ across your forehead? Isn’t it true if you
  tell one lie, it makes you a liar?” He says, “Yeah…I guess you’re
  right.” I say, “Have you ever stolen something?” He says, “No.” I say,
  “Come on; you’ve just admitted to me you’re a liar.” I say, “Ever
  stolen something, even if its small?” and he says, “Yeah.” I say,
  “What does that make you?” He says, “A thief.” I say, “Jesus said, ‘If
  you look at a woman and lust after her, you commit adultery with her
  in your heart’ (Mat. 5:28).

  Ever done that?” He says, “Yeah, plenty of times.” “Then from your own
  admission, you’re a lying, thieving, adulterer at heart, and you have
  to face God on judgment day; and we’ve only looked at three of the ten
  commandments. There’s another seven with their cannons pointed at you.
  Have you used God’s name in vain?” “Yeah…I’ve been trying to stop.”
  “You know what you’re doing? Instead of using a four-letter filth word
  beginning with ‘s’ to express disgust, you’re using God’s name in its
  place. That’s called blasphemy; and the Bible says, ‘Every idle word a
  man speaks he’ll give account thereofon the day of judgment’ (Mat.
  12:36). ‘The Lord will not old him guiltless who takes his name in
  vain’ (Ex. 20:7). The Bible says if you hate someone, you are a
  murderer (1 John 3:15).”

The main point of the teaching is that instead of using promises of a better life to lure sinners to accepting Christ, we need to use God's law to show them their need for Christ, and drive them to the Savior.

As for the influence it's had in recent years:

While it's debatable whether Comfort's message is true, and it's not universally accepted, there's no denying that it has been widely accepted, and influential.

I personally first heard of the teaching at a Baptist Church, where a member gave me a cassette version of the audio teaching.  I have since been presented with it from members of Assembly of God, Evangelical Free, and Independent Bible Churches.  It's a teaching that's steadily gaining acceptance in a wide variety of denominations, although I've never seen it endorsed officially by any organization.

A few years back, Kirk Cameron (the actor) joined him in trying to spread the teaching, and as a result of Kirk's celebrity, the teaching has become even more popular.

The teaching has had influence in a number of well-known Christian movies, such as the Left Behind movies, Fireproof, and Courageous.  In each of these movies, at least one character is seen using the same basic "have you ever told a lie" use of the law to speak to an unsaved person.

They've also been both on the radio and on Christian TV - with the Way of the Master radio, and The Way of the Master television show, and I've even heard the message preached on the ultra-conservative VCY America radio.


Why is "being created" considered an imperfection?

Being created doesn't affect perfection as much as impassability. The doctrine of impassability states that God cannot change- that he is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If God (or Jesus) were created then he has changed - he went from not existing to existing.

The tie in between perfection and impassability is this: if God changes, then it sets up a situation where God is not perfect. If he changed, he would, it is assumed, move to being 'perfect' from a state that was necessarily 'less than perfect.' That previous state, adherents of impassability maintain, is inconsistent with the nature of God's perfection, hence it cannot be.


Did the gospels really copy from each other?

Yes, although not quite the way you put it.

It is agreed by pretty much all Bible scholars that there is some degree of interdependence between the gospels. This is based on the fact that many of the stories in the gospels are told in a very similar way. Exactly what depended on what is the subject of much debate, and more information can be found on Wikipedia and Catholic Answers. This belief is very old, with Augustine laying down one of the most widely believed dependencies.

Some of the beliefs of dependency include:

Augustinian view: Matthew written first; with Mark using Matthew, and Luke using Matthew and Mark
Q source Matthew and Mark used a now lost source called "Q". Luke used both Matthew and Mark
Markan priority Mark was written first, with Matthew using both Mark and an unknown source
Four-source Mark and three unknown sources were written first, which the other gospels drew on.

It's worth pointing out that the interdependency has never been seen as in any way invalidating the gospels as sources. Any thorough modern biographer would also make use of other documents about their subject, and the parallel passages can be seen as evidence of the thoroughness and accuracy of the gospel writers. it's worth noting that all the gospels also contain some material found in no other gospel. Clearly none of the gospels was composed simply by copying other gospels. The wording differences are great enough to rule that out. Nor does it rule out the idea that the writers were eyewitnesses of at least some of the events themselves.

In answer to your final point, the only evidence for this is from analysis of the gospels themselves, though that includes the dating of manuscripts of the gospels and fragments of the gospels. None of the hypothesised sources such as Q has been definitively identified.


Why do the Seventh Day Adventists consider the Sabbath to begin on Friday at sunset?

Seventh Day Adventism is what is known as a restorationist movement. This term is a references to their belief that something fundamental was corrupted or lost in Christianity and that their beliefs have unique insight to restore what was lost to the way it was supposed to me.

In the case of this question, they belief that the vast majority of Christianity from New Testament times on downward erred in their belief that the proper day to worship God changed after the resurrection. Throughout the Old Testament God's people always used the 7th day of the week (Saturday) as described in Genesis as the day set apart for the sabbath. Jews to this day continue that tradition.

Christians on the other hand believe that a change occurred when Christ was raised from the dead that in an senses sanctified that day, which happened to be the 1st day of the week (Sunday). Starting even in the pages of the New Testament you will find believers regularly meeting for worship, prayer, study of the Word, and sacraments on the 1st day of the week. Not a lot of explanation is given, everybody seems to just take it for granted that this was right and proper.

The SDA argument is that even these early Christians erred and that no direct mandate was given that would supersede the creation mandate for the 7th day (Saturday). They believe most of NT Christianity (and the 1900 some years since) was corrupted until their own prophet Ellen G. White set the record straight.

In the case of SDA, they have many beliefs that are different from mainstream Christianity besides just their meeting on the 7th day rather than the 1st. Similar 19th century revelations that "set the record straight" and (in their view) fix corrupted beliefs involve dietary restrictions (also from the Old Testament, discounting the revelations given to Peter about all foods being clean), and not believing in an eternal hell at all.


Why is Jesus never portrayed as a child or as a teenager?

Surely the main reason Christ is very rarely depicted in this way is simply because there is so little source material for Jesus as a child or young man (I've omitted "teenager" simply because I'm not convinced this was even a concept in classical times).

Our primary source for the life of Jesus is the gospels, and by chapter count, 95.2% of the gospel narrative is focused entirely on times when Jesus is a grown man. The gospels of Mark and John don't even have Jesus' birth or childhood.

If we're feeling generous to Jesus' young-boyhood, we can assign the remaining 5% as such - 3.3% Jesus' birth or prior, 1.5% Jesus as a young boy. Bear in mind though, that my 1.5% includes Matthew 2 (The visit of the wise men). My understanding is that this took place when Jesus was a young boy, although culturally we tend to tell this as part of the Nativity story, and people often assume he was a baby. If this assumption were correct, then all of a sudden Jesus' boyhood only occupies 0.3% of the gospels, with Jesus birth and prior occupying 4.5%.

The only verses in the Bible which are explicitly anything to do with Jesus' boyhood are Luke 2:41-55, the story of "The Boy Jesus in the Temple". There are no other primary sources still available to us which give an actual depiction of what Jesus was like as a child. Given that most of the traditional art around Jesus is focused around some sort of material in the primary source, it seems pretty unreasonable to expect that there would be anything like the same number of paintings of Jesus as a child/young adult, than there are of Jesus as an adult/baby.

To get the statistics above, I used the following figures:

Chapters which refer to Jesus as a grown man: 85

(Matt 3 - 28, Mark 1 - 16, Luke 3 - 24, John 1 - 21)
some of these don't explicitly refer to Jesus as a grown man, they are simply after the chapters which finish referring to Jesus as a child. You could possibly have a fourth category of "chapters which don't refer to Jesus at all", but this wouldn't take anything away from the point that chapters in which Jesus is described as a child are a tiny minority.

Chapters which refer to Jesus as an infant or prior to Jesus' birth (Wise men visited in Jesus' childhood): 2.75

(Matt 1, Luke 1-2:40)

Chapters which refer to Jesus as a child (Wise men visited in Jesus' childhood): 1.25

(Matt 2, Luke 2:41-55)

Chapters which refer to Jesus as an infant or prior to Jesus' birth (Wise men visited in Jesus' infancy/standard nativity story): 3.75

(Matt 1-2, Luke 1-2:40)

Chapters which refer to Jesus as a child (standard nativity - these are the only verses which explicitly describe Jesus as a child): 0.25

(Luke 2:41-55)


What is Paul meaning of "husband" and "married to another" in Romans 7:1-6

The meaning of the words you ask about are the obvious ones. 'Husband' means the person a woman is married to and 'another' means a man who is not her husband.

So verses 2 and 3 mean

  If a woman is married to a man, then she and that man are legally married for as long as he lives, and she is not allowed to marry someone else while he is alive. But is he dies, then she is allowed to marry someone else.

Paul is using this situation as an analogy to say that while the Jews were legally bound to the Law, the death of Jesus ends that bond, just as the death of the husband ends a marriage.


What, specifically, if anything, is heterodox about LDS eschatology?

I apologize that this answer is missing sufficient links to scripture or church leaders.  It's late and I'm out of time.  However, nearly all of these subjects have been treated in detail here on Christianity.SE.  If anyone happens to know of an appropriate answer that can be linked to the statements below, please do.  Thanks!

The inspiration of scripture (Book of Mormon notwithstanding)

What's orthodox? We absolutely believe in the inspiration of scripture.
What's heterodox? We do not believe that scripture is perfect.  "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly" (Article of Faith #8).  This is one of the reasons we need (and believe we have) living prophets today.

The substitutionary atonement of Christ (his divinity notwithstanding)

This is complex because there are multiple substitutionary atonment theories.  The closest match to the LDS belief is the satisfaction and penal substitution theory.  However, because there are multiple theories and no consensus1 I think it's difficult to claim anybody is "orthodox."  (See Article of Faith #3.)

The literal bodily return of Christ

What's orthodox? We absolutely believe in the literal bodily return of Jesus Christ.
What's heterodox? Our view of the last days and Second Coming are very different from most Christian churches.  For example, we believe in what other denominations call "the rapture" but we believe it will happen at the moment of Christ's descent.  We do not believe in a "tribulation" as other denominations define it.  Describing the differences would be a very long response.

The literal resurrection of all men

What's orthodox? We absolutely believe in a literal resurrection.  (2 Nephi 9:22-23.)
What's heterodox? You know, there may not be anything heterodox about this belief.

The future judgment of all men

What's orthodox? We absolutely believe in the future judgement of all people.  (Article of Faith #2.)
What's heterodox? Many denominations appear to believe that the grace of Jesus Christ trumps justice and judgement.  I have a copy of a pamphlet handed out in an airport 30 years ago by one small sect that actually taught that if we take any action to repent we are denying the grace of Christ and will be judged unworthy of His grace.  We specifically believe that the grace of Christ is a gift only after all that we can do — but if we do little or nothing, little or nothing is all the reward we will receive.  We take Christ literally when He commands us to obey.  A specific example is some denominations believing that baptism isn't a saving ordinance.  For example, we take Jesus at His word when He taught in Mark 16:16 that those who both believe and are baptized will be saved, making baptism (from the LDS perspective) a saving ordinance.

Eternal existence in heaven and hell

What's orthodox? We absolutely believe in the eternal nature of heaven and hell.
What's heterodox? We believe that what most Christian religions call "heaven and hell" are the pre-judgement holding area (which we call the "spirit world") where the spirits of just people made perfect reside in "heaven" (spirit paradise) and everyone else is in "hell" (spirit prison).  Because judgement removes people from this condition and places them in what we see as a much more complex post-judgement view (the Celestial kingdom, the Terrestrial kingdom, the Telestial kingdom, and Outer Darkness where Lucifer,2 his followers, and the sons/daughters of perdition will be).  Therfore, you can look at the distinction between "heaven" and "hell" in either of two ways: (a) the presence of the Father is heaven (celestial kingdom, everything else is hell) or (b) Any reward of glory is heaven (outer darkness is hell, everything else is heaven).  Why the two perceptions are both valid is, once again, a lengthy discussion.

1 Unless you consider the sheer size of Catholocism being a represetative consensus.  However, despite having a clear majority in terms of membership (think "U.S. House of Representatives"), I suspect most denominations would prefer to have their voices heard (think "U.S. Senate").

2 We believe Lucifer, his followers, and all angels are human beings, the children of our Heavenly Father.  Lucifer and his followers will be denied physical bodies on Earth and therefore cannot be resurrected.  Angels are either the children of the Father who have not yet been born to the Earth or resurrected beings.


Both spellings have come into English from the same origin but via different routes.

"Hallelujah" is from the Hebrew via the Greek transliteration and is close to the original Hebrew
"Alleluia" is from the Hebrew via the Latin.

Both transliterations began with the Hebrew.  The original Hebrew word means to "Praise the LORD/YHWH"


Why do Anglicans kneel when Catholics would stand?

Liturgical practice

As regards the Catholic Church, the Mass that is now in common use—the Mass promulgated in 1970, sometimes referred to as the “Ordinary Form”—prescribes kneeling only during the Eucharistic Prayer, during which (in accord with Catholic belief) the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

The faithful kneel at the so-called epiclesis (that is, the invocation of the Holy Spirit, asking Him to transform the gifts of bread and wine), and rise just before the priest says Mysterium fidei (“The mystery of faith”).

At the beginning of the Mass, however, the faithful are already standing, and they remain standing until the end of the collect, or opening prayer, at which time they sit to listen to the readings.

All of the instructions can found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). See especially number 43.

Note that in many English-speaking countries, the faithful kneel from the end of the Sanctus (the Holy, Holy Holy), until either the Mysterium fidei or after the great Amen (that is, the end of the Eucharistic Prayer). The edition of the GIRM cited is for the United States and explains this latter practice. In the United States, in most dioceses the faithful also kneel for the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God).

(See the GIRM in Latin for the universal norms.)

As regards the Anglican liturgy, it is largely derived from the Catholic Roman Rite, but it developed long before the Mass that was promulgated in 1970, and so retains elements of the pre-1970 Mass (or “Extraordinary Form,” as it is called nowadays). Since the pre-1970 Mass does not prescibe specific liturgical postures for the faithful, those who adapted the Mass for the Anglican Book of Common Prayer made slightly different decisions as to where the kneeling should be. (See, for example, a parish communion guide from 1940.)

Theological meaning

In the Catholic Church (specifically in the Western Church, because the symbolism in the Eastern Churches is different), kneeling represents profound respect and especially adoration. In the context of the liturgy (both the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours) it is limited to the key moments in which God is worshipped; at Mass, the consecration and (in the United States) at the “Lamb of God.” Standing is already a posture of respect and prayer—which is why it prevails during most of the Mass—but kneeling is reserved for the most intense moments of adoration. That is why, for example, kneeling would not be appropriate during the priest’s presidential prayers (of which the opening prayer, or collect, is one). (There is an excellent short overview of the different postures at Mass by Fr. Edward McNamara, L.C.)

Why do the Anglicans kneel during their opening prayer? I expect that there are fundamentally two reasons (although I would invite a member of the Church of England to expand on this answer). One is that, as I mentioned, the Anglican liturgy is adapted largely from the older pre-1970 Mass, in which it was common (but not exactly mandated) for the faithful to kneel during nearly the entire Mass. The other is that those who composed the Book of Common Prayer had mostly a Protestant outlook: specifically, they tended to reject the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist, as well as the doctrine of Transubstantiation (the transformation of the bread and wine into Jesus). Hence, it was logical that they should place less emphasis than Catholics do on the consecration of the Eucharist—they simply did not think of the Consecration as a more “intense” moment of adoration, the way Catholics would.


How does the New Testament define a Christian and a non-Christian, a brother in Christ and not a brother in Christ?

Nowhere in the New Testanment is there a clear, condensed definition of a Christian or a Brother in Christ. The definition is written throughout the new testament. But there are a few things which are stated that make it fairly clear. A Christian can be defined as someone who:

Accepts Jesus Christ as the son of God and their Lord and Savior.
Accepts and follows the Bible, as it's the infallible Word of God.
Has faith and trusts God with all his heart.
Loves the Lord.
Bears fruit (produces positive results)


Where did the hierarchical designations of priest, cardinal, bishop, and pope come from in the Catholic church?

Actually cardinals, bishops and pope, all hold one and the same degree of Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. All of them are bishops.

Pope: Bishop of Rome is called Pope. As the bishop of Rome he is considered to be first amongst equals.Supremacy of Popes Pope just means Father/Papa

Cardinals: They are special bishopssee note 1 chosen by the Pope to help him in his work. Most important work of a cardinal is to chose the next pope. Contrary to popular belief, Cardinals are not the bosses of other bishops, as the Pope is not the boss of all Catholics. Catholics believe that a Bishop receives his authority from God not from pope. To be more specific Cardinal is NOT ecclesiastical posts. That is, Unlike a bishop when elevated as a Cardinal one does not gain any special spiritual privileges. The word Cardinal is based on the Latin cardo (hinge), meaning "principal" or "chief". The term was applied in this sense as early as the ninth century to the important priests of the diocese of Rome. Still today all cardinals are given charge of a Church in Rome.

Now the difference between a bishop and a priest, can be understood in terms of Jewish Priesthood. Bishops are a special type of priests called High Priests, just like in a Jewish tradition. Catholics do believe in the priesthood of all believers. The Catholic Church believes in three different types of priestsref:

The priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5–9);
The ordained priesthood (Acts 14:23, Romans 15:16, Titus 1:5); and
The high priesthood of Jesus (Hebrews 3:1).

Catholic Encyclopedia explains the hierarchical position of the presbyterate as follows:

  The relation of the priest to the bishop and deacon may be briefly explained by stating that he is, as it were, the middle term between the two, being hierarchically the subordinate of the bishop and the superior of the deacon (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXVI, can. vi). While the pre-eminence of the bishop over the priest consists mainly in his power of ordination, that of the priest over the deacon is based on his power of consecrating and absolving (cf. Council of Trent, loc. cit., cap. iv; can. i and vii).ref

Notes:

There have been lay cardinals in the past, and some cardinals have chose not to get consecrated as bishop due to their old age.
The point I want to make clear is that the difference is only in the name for cardinals, bishops and popes. Of-course they have different temporal powers suitable to their rank, but nothing spiritual.


According to the Bible, does sin give Satan 'Legal Access' to your life in any sense?

I believe that Christians have developed this conviction from the passage in Ephesians 4:27 which in the NIV translation says, "and do not give the devil a foothold."

Therefore taking this passage some believe that if you allow any sin in your life you are giving the devil a foothold or, as someone else might put it, "legal access" to your life.

Matthew Henry states in his commentary on Ephesians a similar belief, "We give place to the devil, when the first motions of sin are not grievous to our souls; when we consent to them; and when we repeat an evil deed. This teaches that as sin, if yielded unto, lets in the devil upon us, we are to resist it, keeping from all appearance of evil."


I have some question about joining the Catholic Church

Not being a Roman Catholic I do not know all the answers.  However, I was in my late 20s when I considered joining the Catholic church because my fiancee was (and still is) Roman Catholic.  I did not go through with it (at the time) only because we ended up not getting married.  I am certain that the Pope right down to the local priest would be more than happy to have you join their flock, as would any denomination, regardless of age.

As far as RCIA the only requirements that I am aware of is that you are presently not Roman Catholic, and you are above the age of infant baptism.


As a Catholic, am I obliged to believe in visions and saints?

The Church distinguishes between two ways God has spoken to the world: the "public revelation" beginning with the Old Testament prophets and culminating in the life of Jesus, and the "private revelations" of miracles, visions, etc., which have been given to various individuals throughout history since then.

You are only obliged to believe in the public revelation.  CCC paragraphs 65-66 read:

  65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the
  prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."
  Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect and
  unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no
  other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others,
  commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

    In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he
    spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more
    to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he
    has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any
    person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be
    guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not
    fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for
    some other novelty. There will be no further Revelation

  66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and
  definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public
  revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our
  Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it
  has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith
  gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the
  centuries.

So not only are you not required to believe in any subsequent visions, you are warned not to go looking for them out of a desire for novelty.  Since revelation is already complete, then any new (apparent) revelation that contradicts prior teachings is certainly false.

However...

  67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private"
  revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of
  the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It
  is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive
  Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of
  history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium
  knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever
  constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Some of the claims of miracles, apparitions of Mary, and the like, are almost certainly true.  Guadalupe, Lourdes, and Fatima come to mind.  None of these were sent to change the faith or add new teachings, but each did serve an important role at a certain place and time in history. (Guadalupe, for example, was very important in converting the New World to Christianity.)

There are probably also many claims of miracles and visions that are exaggerated or false.  Even some of the saints may be little more than legends.  You are free to decide for yourself which of those claims are credible and which are not.

The bottom line, though, is that none of these "private revelations" actually change the teachings of the church, so whether you accept them or not, your faith still rests firmly on the teachings given to the Apostles by Jesus in the first century, and no "update" is expected until He comes again.


Is a baptized but not confirmed Catholic really a Catholic?

Short answer: Yes, that is incorrect, because baptism in the Catholic Church makes you Catholic

CCC 1213

  Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to
  life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which
  gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed
  from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are
  incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism
  is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."

From CCC 1227

  The baptized have "put on Christ." Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is
  a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies.

From the Nicene Creed:
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

The ideal path to receiving sacraments of initiation

The Easy answer is for children/minors: you are a Catholic when
baptized

Baptism received by a child or infant receives is the full sacrament of Baptism.  (It's not a kid's meal, it's the full serving).  During further faith formation the child is catechized and typically receives the sacraments of penance and reconciliation, and then receives the Eucharist around the age of reason (about 7 years old).  While the eventual goal is to continue catechizing and confirm the child they approach adulthood, the minor is not a partially Catholic.  Baptism has taken care of that.  (CCC 1227)
For Adult Entering the Faith (ideal case)

The restoration of the Catechumenate and the institution of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults combines the reception of all three sacraments into one rite (Baptism, Eucharist, and Confirmation) sacraments of initiation, CCC 1212-1419 typically at the Easter Vigil mass.  (Canon Law allows for other methods of reception at the discretion of the local ordinary/bishop).

  Can.  881 It is desirable to celebrate the sacrament of confirmation
  in a church and during Mass; for a just and reasonable cause, however,
  it can be celebrated outside Mass and in any worthy place.

When this ideal path to entering into the Catholic communion is followed, the question never arises.

What about the less than ideal path, which is where your question is coming from?

First off, let's take a look at confirmation.  What is confirmation?

  Can.  879 The sacrament of confirmation strengthens the baptized
  and obliges them more firmly to be witnesses of Christ by word and
  deed and to spread and defend the faith. It imprints a character,
  enriches by the gift of the Holy Spirit the baptized continuing on the
  path of Christian initiation, and binds them more perfectly to the
  Church.

Even from the canon law perspective, the person is recognized as being in the Church (being Catholic) through Baptism; Confirmation "binds them more perfectly."

The Church does not penalize any of the faithful who were baptized as children, but who for one reason or another were not confirmed.  (CCC 1227 as above: one baptism).  What the church, both laity and clergy, are called to do is to encourage those baptized, but not yet confirmed, to undertake further faith formation and catechisis and then receive the sacrament of confirmation.  (CCC 1306-1311)

  1306 Every baptized person not yet confirmed can and should receive
  the sacrament of Confirmation. Since Baptism, Confirmation, and
  Eucharist form a unity, it follows that "the faithful are obliged to
  receive this sacrament at the appropriate time," for without
  Confirmation and Eucharist, Baptism is certainly valid and
  efficacious, but Christian initiation remains incomplete.

Bottom Line: even when Confirmation is delayed, the baptized Catholic is still Catholic.

More on the "ideal" case

  Christian Initiation

  1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been
  accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This
  journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential
  elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word,
  acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith,
  Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to
  Eucharistic communion.

  1230 This initiation has varied greatly through the centuries
  according to circumstances. In the first centuries of the Church,
  Christian initiation saw considerable development. A long period of
  catechumenate included a series of preparatory rites, which were
  liturgical landmarks along the path of catechumenal preparation and
  culminated in the celebration of the sacraments of Christian
  initiation.

  1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament
  is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the
  preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By
  its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal
  catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism,
  but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal
  growth. The catechism has its proper place here.

  1232 The second Vatican Council restored for the Latin Church "the
  catechumenate for adults, comprising several distinct steps." The
  rites for these stages are to be found in the Rite of Christian
  Initiation of Adults (RCIA). The Council also gives permission that:
  "In mission countries, in addition to what is furnished by the
  Christian tradition, those elements of initiation rites may be
  admitted which are already in use among some peoples insofar as they
  can be adapted to the Christian ritual."

  1233 Today in all the rites, Latin and Eastern, the Christian
  initiation of adults begins with their entry into the catechumenate
  and reaches its culmination in a single celebration of the three
  sacraments of initiation: Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist.
  In the Eastern rites the Christian initiation of infants also begins
  with Baptism followed immediately by Confirmation and the Eucharist,
  while in the Roman rite it is followed by years of catechesis before
  being completed later by Confirmation and the Eucharist, the summit of
  their Christian initiation.


What is Church of England's doctrine on unbaptised dead infants and how was it formed?

The Church of England is a wide-ranging denomination, and different parts of it hold different view on the nature of baptism. Many members prefer to delay baptism of children until they are old enough to decide for themselves. Others will see baptism as purely symbolic. I would be confident in asserting that there is no universally held opinion about the salvation of infants.

In your question you make a false assumption about the logic of the Church's statement on unbaptized infants. Stating that 'salvation [does] not depend upon whether or not the child has been baptized.' is not to state that all infants are saved. Salvation may depend on other facts, such as the faith of the parents, or on their intention to baptize (even if not carried out).

Significant numbers of Anglicans might well believe that God would not condemn an infant killed before they had a chance to understand and receive the message of salvation.


According to reformed theology, does reformed theology fall apart if one removes the doctrine of predestination?

I found this summary of reformed theology very helpful:
http://www.reformedreader.org/t.u.l.i.p.htm

Reformed theology emphasizes the doctrines of grace, best known by the acronym TULIP, though this does not correspond to the best possible names for the five doctrines.
...
U stands for unconditional election. An emphasis on election bothers many people, but the problem they feel is not actually with election; it is with depravity. If sinners are as helpless in their depravity as the Bible says they are, unable to know and unwilling to seek God, then the only way they could possibly be saved is for God to take the initiative to change and save them. This is what election means. It is God choosing to save those who, apart from His sovereign choice and subsequent action, certainly would perish.
...

As you can see, one of the "pillars" of reformed theology is Unconditional Election (aka predestination).  If you remove that pillar, I don't believe the theological system you have left could be fairly called "reformed."
For a more verbose introduction to reformed theology, see this series by R.C. Sproul:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what_is_reformed_theology/


Why did Jesus order the unclean spirits in the Multitude at the Seaside (Mark 3.7-12) to not make him known?

Reason 1: The test of whether a message is Jesus' message.
The Apostle John gave us this test:

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

God has sovereignly prevented demons from declaring this truth, as your reference to Mark 3 affirms. If He did not do so, the Apostle's test would fail, because demons could counterfeit messages from God by saying Jesus was God come in the flesh. It is a matter of a divine authentication protocol. (I am a software engineer.)
Indeed, many of the teachings labeled by the early church to be heresies were ones that denied that, or denied part of it.

Jesus seemed to come in the flesh, but it was an illusion; he was just a spirit.

Jesus came in the flesh, but only had a divine will, not a human will, too.

Jesus was human and special, but was created, not the eternal God.
And so on and so forth. The evil spirits keep trying to find new ways to almost affirm this truth and so deceive believers while packing it along with lies.

Reason 2: The Source of Jesus' power.
The Pharisees accused Jesus of working for Satan. Jesus had to make sure that there was a bright line that separated him and his message from that of the enemy.

22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute,
and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the
people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”
24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by
Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”
25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided
against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided
against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is
divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I
drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out?
So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of
God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon
you. (Matthew 12:22-28)

Jesus was not like the Sorceress Supreme in Doctor Strange, who tried to do good, yet by drawing her power from the Dark Dimension of Dormammu, imperiled the world. He had to make that clear. The demons seek to trick people by seeming to help Jesus, thereby tarnishing his message and reputation.


Is Christianity more friendly to its own Scripture translation than other religions? If so, why?

Mark 16:15 (NIV) He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach
  the gospel to all creation.

  Matthew 28:19 (NIV) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
  baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
  Holy Spirit,

God wants all nations and languages to know Jesus Christ.

  Acts 1:8 (NIV) But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes
  on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea
  and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

As per the words of Jesus Christ, the Gospel was first preached in Judea. After that, Philip preached the Gospel in Samaria. Latter, Paul became the main person to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, travelling as far as he could and end up in Rome, the center of the world at that time. The first century Christians spoke Aramaic and Greek, hence the New Testament was written mostly in Greek.

After 300 years, after persecuting the Christians for a long time, Rome finally became a Christian empire. Latin was the language of ancient Rome and hence was used for the language of sacred scripture. Till the 11th century, Christianity flourished mostly around Rome and Europe only and Latin was considered the sacred language. From the 15th century on wards, we see a great change. Reformations took place and many missionaries are sent to many parts of the world. This Missionary movement results in translation of Bible into different languages.

It is the will of God that the whole world should know Jesus Christ. The Gospel was already preached in Judea and Samaria. Now, it is our duty to fulfill the will of Jesus Christ that the Gospel should reach the ends of the world. Hence, translation of Bible in all languages is a necessity. For this reason, Christians tolerate translation of the Scripture unlike other religions.


2 John 1:9 — What does it mean to "continue in doctrine?" (Protestantism)

First, it might be necessary to establish what doctrine is to be continued in. That very epistle states clearly what doctrine is NOT meant – the Gnostic teaching that Jesus Christ had not come in the flesh. Verse 7 expressly warns all Christians that such a doctrine comes from a deceiver and an antichrist.

There are only 13 verses in this little epistle, and it appears to be simply warning Christians of the first century A.D. not to depart from, or to leave behind, the doctrine that Christ had come in the flesh, by accepting the opposite doctrine. Verse 10 states, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him ‘God speed’.”

The ‘this doctrine’ is the one Christians are to abide in, that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. Sticking to that truth will protect them from wandering off into another doctrine, a false teaching about Christ. The seriousness of this false doctrine is so clearly stated that any Christian accepting it would be viewed as having so gone beyond it as to have revolted against the truth of God and Christ, and would no longer be received into Christian homes, or given a blessing by them.

The Protestant study notes for the NIV translation of 2nd John make the point that,

  “During the first two centuries the gospel was taken from place to
  place by travelling evangelists and teachers. Believers customarily
  took these missionaries into their homes and gave them provisions for
  their journey when they left. Since Gnostic teachers also relied on
  this practice (see 3 John 5), 2 John was written to urge discernment
  in supporting travelling teachers; otherwise, someone might
  unintentionally contribute to the propagation of heresy rather than
  truth.”

I am a Protestant myself and entirely agree with that explanation.  It is also worth pointing out (from a Protestant point of view) that Jude’s little epistle, in verse 3, tells Christians of the first century to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints”. Past tense, note. And Hebrews 1:1-3 shows that, by then, God’s final word had been spoken, through Jesus Christ who had now returned to Heaven. These verses have long served as a warning to Protestants not to heed new doctrine (teachings) beyond what had already been received by the Christian Church by the end of the first century A.D.

Another word for doctrine of the apostles is ‘tradition’, by the way. It was only from the middle of the second century A.D. that the word 'tradition' came to mean something different from its use in the Christian Greek Scriptures (the New Testament). Whereas those scriptures recorded the tradition (teaching) of the apostles, later it began to mean the teachings of the early Church Fathers. At that period tradition gradually changed to mean the interpreting and unravelling of Scripture to stand over against Scripture, as expounded by the writings of the early Church Fathers. Obviously, the apostle John did not have that in mind when he wrote his 2nd epistle.

Summary: To ‘continue in doctrine’ means to believe such teachings, to keep them intact, without adding to or taking from them – preserving them as is.
To ‘go beyond’ such doctrine is to either inflate it with additional points, or to leave behind the Christian teaching due to having taken up new, un-Christian teaching.


Do any Protestant denominations practice meditative or contemplative prayer?

I am unaware of any protestant denominations that have a special focus on contemplative prayer, but I'm also unaware of any that outright ban it. In my experience it is practiced only by a minority of Protestants, and that they are spread throughout many denominations. Of course it is practiced only by a minority of Catholics too.

A good place to start is the book Celebration of Discipline, by Richard Foster. In many ways its the primary handbook for Protestants not just of contemplative prayer, but other 'neglected' (by Protestant) disciplines such as fasting and confession. It has sold over a million copies and was named by Christianity Today as one of the top ten books of the twentieth century.

The Ignatian Spiritual Exercises are also used by a significant minority of Protestants.


According to Roman Catholic Doctrine, what things have the power to decrease a person's time in purgatory?

There is no spreadsheet or calculator used to decide how long one is in purgatory. But there's no official take on the average sentence, time wise. According to the church, only God knows the exact amount of time a person must spend in purgatory before attaining a state of purity. It's assumed, however, that the severity of one's punishment will be directly proportional to the severity of the crime.

There are a few passages in the Catechism that talk about "decreasing time in purgatory:"

  1498    Through indulgences the faithful can obtain the remission of temporal punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the souls in Purgatory.

and

  1475    In the communion of saints, “a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. Between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things.”87 In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.

These are based on 2 Macc 12: 40-46:

  40 And they found under the coats of the slain, some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. 41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. 42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. 43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. 44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead), 45 and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

I heard a really good saint story about this, but I cannot seem to find it. I will edit once I do.