Why is God on Sarah's side when she asked Abraham to cast out Hagar and Ishmael? The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking,  and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”
The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son.  But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.” (Genesis 21:8-13, NIV)

According to Genesis 21:12 you can see that God is on Sarah's side to send Hagar and Ishmael away. Is it to realize his promises? We all know that God's plan works sometimes strange.
Can somebody maybe elaborate on this please? Because I can't completely understand why God would do something like this.

Plenty of Blame to Go Around

In the drama which unfolds in Genesis 21, there is certainly plenty of blame to go around. If you tend to root for the underdogs, who in this case are Hagar and Ishmael, your heart goes out to them. Abraham had every right to be upset with his wife Sarah for her obvious harshness and indifference toward Hagar ("that slave woman," as Sarah referred to her) and her son Ishmael, whom Sarah had caught either mocking her son Isaac or playing with him as if he were on equal footing with the child of promise, which he was not (Genesis 17:19, NET footnote 17).

Abraham (and Sarah, for that matter) was certainly reaping what he had sown. He had inadvisably listened to his wife in the matter of having a son by Hagar, Sarah's  Egyptian maid/slave, and the conflict which ensued was both unnecessary and obviously preventable. As the young people say nowadays, however, "it is what it is."

Sarah was equally to blame for her insistence that Abraham have a son by Hagar (not that Abraham needed that much persuading to have sex with an attractive woman who was probably much, much younger than Sarah!). Had both she and Abraham listened--really listened--to the promise God had made to them in Genesis 17:19 and 18:10, they would not have been in the pickle in which they found themselves in Genesis 21.

Ya' Reaps What Ya' Sows

In the matter of reaping and sowing (see Galatians 6:7-8), there is bound to be unpleasant fallout. God was not, as you suggest, "on Sarah's side" in the matter of Hagar and Ishmael. In a sense, Sarah was behaving quite naturally, since she was guarding zealously the rights and privileges accruing to her son by virtue of his status as the heir apparent. You can rest assured that Abraham expressed his outrage to his wife Sarah for being so heartless and unfair.

God calmed Abraham down, however, and assured him that Hagar and his beloved firstborn had a bright future ahead of them (Genesis 21:13). Moreover, God came to their rescue when Hagar, despairing of her life, cried in God's hearing, and he repeated to her the promise he had made to Abraham that Hagar's son would become a great nation one day (v.18).

And Now, From God's Perspective . . .

Notice I italicized the word his in my last paragraph. I did so because while Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn, God did not consider him Abraham's firstborn! In fact, in Genesis 22, here is what God said to Abraham:

  "'Abraham . . . take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I will tell you'" (excerpted from vv.1-2, with my emphasis).

From God's perspective (which should have been Abraham's perspective too), Isaac was Abraham's only son. After all, God had promised Abraham and Sarah a son in their old age. Sarah and Abraham, however, had wavered in faith by taking matters into their own hands in an attempt to "help God." God, of course, needed no helping hand in doing what to them had seemed impossible (see Genesis 18:14).

Appearances Can Be . . . Deceiving

In conclusion, while God may appear to have sided with Sarah, in reality he did not. He graciously gave the child of Sarah's handmaid a bright future by first saving him from a certain death in the wilderness, and then by allowing Ishmael to grow into a skilled hunter who eventually married "one of his own" (an Egyptian) and become a father many times over.

As Sir Walter Scott said (Marmion, 1808), "What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." In the affair of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar and Ishmael, there may not have been an intent to deceive, but there was certainly an attempt to perform an "end run" around God. We reap what we sow, and our tangled web is of our own making!
Regardless, God still has the last word!

Why God appears to be on Sarah's side, is because of the plan God had "before the foundation/creation of the earth" (Bible quote). God planned to send Jesus and Jesus agreed, and God, because He is "all knowing, seeing the end before the beginning" (Bible quote) He had a plan for how to bring Jesus to the earth, and this He planned to do through Abraham's seed through Isaac, which is what alone made Isaac special.

God also had a plan to use the Jewish people, the nation of Israel to show Himself, His Holiness, His laws, etc. through His interaction with them. This was not because they were more special, holy, or anything than any other people group, God just decided to use them to interact with, to show Himself to the people of the earth.

Because Ishmael and Hagar posed a threat to this in some way, God asked Abraham to back Sarah up, and separate from Hagar and Ishmael.

Recall that Isaac was a miracle of God baby, and God Himself said that this was God's plan to give this miracle son to Abraham. Abraham and Sarah's own failed plan was to bring a son for Abraham into the earth through Abraham and Hagar's union.

This was not approved by God and was outside of His plan.

God took care of Hagar and Ishmael with promises which He kept and also provision and protection, as they were separated from Abraham and Sarah.

God never instituted marriage to be between more than one man and one woman, shown in Genesis in the garden when God provided ONE wife for Adam and brought her to him.

Two wives in the house make a very unhappy home life and unhappy husband, as Abraham quickly found out.

God was not against Hagar and Ishmael, and Abraham loved them both as well. The second wife arrangement was an error on Abraham's and Sarah's part where Sarah urged Abraham to bring about God's plan using his own improvisation, which God did not approve of or ask him to do.

Abraham and Sarah sinned and their sin ended up hurting Hagar and Ishmael, which, I believe, to this day, the descendants of Ishmael and Hagar still feel a rejection and resentment over this ancient event, which I would call the sins of Abraham and Sarah.

Sin always does some damage and ends up hurting someone, which is why God hates it.


If flesh & blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God how did the Lord Jesus show His "hands and feet" after the resurrection? As blood and flesh can't inherit the Kingdom of God, how could the Lord Jesus be resurrected with same blood and flesh? I mean He showed his hands and feet to the disciples in Luke 24:39. Or is that meaning He was in flesh and blood only 40 days earthly living after his resurrection?

Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” (Luke 24:39, NIV)
I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. (1 Corinthians 15:50, NIV)

What is the meaning of "the perishable inherit the imperishable"? Or will we be resurrected with the same body and flesh?

Man  in  his  present  state  is  mortal,  and  corruptable and  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God.

1 Corinthians 15;53
For   this  corruptable  must  put  on  incorruption,  and  this  mortal  must  put  on  immortality.

Philippians 3;21
Who  shall  change  our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  according  to  the  working  whereby  he  is  able  to  subdue  all  things  unto  himself.

Blood is the key, flesh with blood will not enter the Kingdom of God, wherein flesh and bones will enter the Kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 1:50 flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Old Testament Commands regarding blood:

Genesis 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Leviticus 17:11-14 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

So the life of the believer is in the blood of Christ not in our mortal blood.


Calvinism: How does Limited Atonement Work in View of the Universality of Christ's Work? Issues, Etc. has a post on Lutheranism vs. Calvinism. I'm more or less in total agreement with the pastor on the first two of the five Calvinistic points. However, he loses me when talking about limited atonement.

At 29:37 in the audio, he begins to tell a story about a friend from seminary who was a Calvinist, and this Calvinist's need for assurance of absolution following a grievous sin. The pastor goes on to explain from 31:40 - 32:46 that because Christ has taken the form of man, that he represents all men. Every sin has been paid for, for every man. Obviously a Calvinist would disagree with taking the atonement to this extent.

In the scriptures, Christ was spoken of as the last Adam, a title which confers universality (in the same way that the first Adam did). They also say that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). How is it that if Christ is the last Adam and is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world that we still speak in terms of particular redemption and also limits as to who the atonement covers?

Edit:
As an example of what I'm asking, please consider John Owen's argument for Limited Atonement that if Christ has paid for the sins of all people and some still end up paying for their sins in Hell, then we have two realities that appear unthinkable:

Christ's precious, perfect blood was shed in vain for some people.
God's justice was satisfied in Christ, and now he's also executing his justice on those in hell. How can this be justice, then?

These points make the case for Limited Atonement in the Calvinistic sense, but it seems to stand in opposition to the scriptures I cited above. It makes the 2nd Adam less effectual than the first and it means that Christ is not the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2 leaves no room for a "potential" propitiation. So how does Limited Atonement harmonize with scriptures such as these?

Note: At this point in time, I would call myself a Calvinist. I've done so for about 10 years. I'm not new to this, but I'm not as willing to accept the "L" in "TULIP" any longer on ground of logical proceedings that seem to contradict scripture. Thus, I'm seeking to learn what I may be missing.

Both versions of the atonement here considered are limited -- Calvinists limit it in scope (or recipients), while non-Calvinists limit it in power (or efficacy). It's not a matter of whether it is limited, but rather how it is limited.

  In the scriptures, Christ was spoken of as the last Adam, a title
  which confers universality (in the same way that the first Adam did).

Is that a valid inference from the title? One way to think of it is in terms of the "tree of salvation" imagery in Romans 11:1-24. God had a chosen people, a subset of humanity, and Gentiles were added into that tree, while some of the natural branches were broken off and excluded from the tree. Only those in the tree are saved. Note here how the scope is explicitly limited.

Hence, I don't think universality is properly applied to Christ in this way. There is an analogy to Adam, but not an identical role in every respect. He is the federal head or representative only those who belong to him (John 10, the locus classicus for the Calvinist view of the atonement, though there are others).

I'm no theologian, and my answer is probably not complete or rigorous by any means.

Christ's sacrifice was and remains sufficient to atone for everyone's sin. I don't think limited atonement denies that. It is only efficient for the elect. This is tantamount to saying that the sacrifice could save everybody from any sin, but there are people who won't accept Jesus and be saved.

Atonement is limited not because Jesus's sacrifice was insufficient. It is limited because not all people will receive it. If a room full of people are dying of thirst, and I start handing out free bottles of water, and you choose not to drink it and die, it's not because my water wouldn't have saved you, it's because you made a bad decision.

TL;DR: Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all, efficient for the elect.


Can a mentally ill person who takes medication regularly be a Catholic priest? If a person is mentally ill but his mental illness is controlled by medication and he feels God is and was calling him earnestly for the last forty years of his life to become a priest, can he become a Catholic Diocesan priest?

Will his mental illness be a barrier between him and his priesthood?

Can a mentally ill person who takes medication regularly be a Catholic priest?

The short answer is possibly.

While Canon Law seems to indicate that it is not possible, it also allows for dispensations in this matter.

Please remember that mental health issues come in a large variety of forms. Anxiety and depression are not the same thing as being insane. Being insane is not a grave as being criminally insane.

  Irregularities and other Impediments

  Can. 1040 Those affected by any impediment, whether perpetual, which is called an irregularity, or simple, are prevented from receiving orders. The only impediments incurred, however, are those contained in the following canons.

  Can. 1041 The following are irregular for receiving orders:

  1/ a person who labors under some form of amentia or other psychic illness due to which, after experts have been consulted, he is judged unqualified to fulfill the ministry properly;

  2/ a person who has committed the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism;

  3/ a person who has attempted marriage, even only civilly, while either impeded personally from entering marriage by a matrimonial bond, sacred orders, or a public perpetual vow of chastity, or with a woman bound by a valid marriage or restricted by the same type of vow;

  4/ a person who has committed voluntary homicide or procured a completed abortion and all those who positively cooperated in either;

  5/ a person who has mutilated himself or another gravely and maliciously or who has attempted suicide;

  6/ a person who has placed an act of orders reserved to those in the order of episcopate or presbyterate while either lacking that order or prohibited from its exercise by some declared or imposed canonical penalty.

Thus we might conclude that a person with some form of mental illness may be barred from by ordained, Rome will allow one to petition the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities for a dispensation. Thus even Rome recognizes the the vast variations in mental health issues. In any case it is always most prudent to talk these matter over with competent authorities, rather than common strangers over the internet.

True that an individual suffering from some from of mental health issue must be examined carefully to see if the underlined conditions make him a suitable candidate for ordination or not. This is ultimately a question that this response can not truely answer on behalf of the Catholic hierarchy because each case must be examined on its own merits and such decisions would not be publicly announced. Exemptions could be made by Rome.

For dispensations, here is what Canon Law has to say:

  Can. 1047 §1. Dispensation from all irregularities is reserved to the Apostolic See alone if the fact on which they are based has been brought to the judicial forum.

  §2. Dispensation from the following irregularities and impediments to receive orders is also reserved to the Apostolic See:

  1/ irregularities from the public delicts mentioned in can. 1041, nn. 2 and 3;

  2/ the irregularity from the delict mentioned in can. 1041, n. 4, whether public or occult;

  3/ the impediment mentioned in can. 1042, n. 1.

  §3. Dispensation in public cases from the irregularities from exercising an order received mentioned in can. 1041, n. 3, and even in occult cases from the irregularities mentioned in can. 1041, n. 4 is also reserved to the Apostolic See.

  §4. An ordinary is able to dispense from irregularities and impediments not reserved to the Holy See.

Although Canon 1047 does  not implicitly mention a direct petition for a dispensation is allowed for these cases of mental heath issues that are not listed in Canon 1041; it does so in dealing with issues other than “amentia or other psychic illness due to which, after experts have been consulted, he is judged unqualified to fulfill the ministry properly”. Then yes, an dispensation is quite possible.

[1983 Code] Can. 1041 The following are irregular for receiving orders:
1/ a person who labors under some form of amentia or other psychic illness due to which, after experts have been consulted, he is judged unqualified to fulfill the ministry properly;

The canonist Dom Augustine, commenting on the related 1917 Code can. 984 3° ("Epileptics, the insame and possesed, who are now or have formely been in this condition" are "Irregular in consequence of a defect"), writes:

If they have become afflicted after ordination and recovered their health, the Ordinary [local bishop] may permit them again to exercise the orders they had received.


Is Mary omniscient (by participation, not by nature)? I'm mainly interested in an Orthodox or Catholic response. Although any protestant denomination which has a high Mariology is welcome to answer (eg Anglocatholics, high church Lutherans). If your denomination teaches that Mary "was just an ordinary women" then this question isn't for you: please don't bother answering.

Mary is seen as the supreme and perfect example of theosis (to use an Orthodox term). She is said to have maximum justification, maximum sanctification, maximum glorification. She experiences the beatific vision to the maximal extent possible for a created human being. She is as full of God's grace as it is possible to be. Fr Sergius Bulgakov once said that to look at Mary is to look at the Holy Spirit, for she is the most perfect and direct manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit, almost like a second incarnation (but don't worry, he didn't actually go that far and call her a second incarnation).

It is common Catholic teaching that Mary is "Mediatrix of all graces", which means that all the gifts of God to us also pass through her. My understanding of this doctrine is that Mary is up in heaven constantly praying for us, and that her will is so perfectly aligned with the will of Christ that she only prays for things which God desires, and therefore every one of her prayers is directly answered. Therefore, every single grace that God sends to us is also associated with a prayer from Mary, as she is always praying for God's will to be done exactly as it actually gets done.

Part of theosis is that you become God by participation in the divine nature, while remaining human in essence. Presumably by becoming God by participation you also adopt some of the divine attributes. It seems to me that Mary would share in God's omniscience because she is perfectly divinized and able to pray continuously for exactly those things and everything which God himself desires ("all Graces"). But to do this it would seem that she needs to know everything that God knows, so that she can pray accordingly (otherwise it would be possible for her to pray in a way which is not in accord with God's will due to her ignorance and therefore she would be imperfect and not the mediatrix of all graces)

Does all this mean that Mary participates in God's omniscience?

Whether Mary has no share in the Omniscience of God
Objection 1 it would seem that Our Lady partakes in God's divine nature by the singular fact that prayers addressed to her are proven efficacious time and again;

... pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
... Despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me.
... Pray for us, oh Holy Mother of God; that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Prayers for the recited in liturgies for the saints saints are usually asked to be heard "In Jesus' Name".
Objection 2 furthermore, it is necessary to be present to the one to whom we are addressing prayers

Through his Word, God speaks to man. By words, mental or vocal, our prayer takes flesh. Yet it is most important that the heart should be present to him to whom we are speaking in prayer: "Whether or not our prayer is heard depends not on the number of words, but on the fervor of our souls."
CCC 2700

If your prayers are addressed to Mary, then you must request her presence in the communion of saints. If you recite the "Hail Mary" as a mental prayer, then she must be able to listen to our thoughts.
Objection 3 Mary, is the Channel of Grace (i.e. Mediatrix of all Graces) therefore, she has a share in all divine plans because all grace flows from the source through her.  Therefore Grace flows into our souls through unseen powers that she must be a party to.  Because these powers are invisible and unrestrained, we must refer to them as omniscient.
On the contrary,  Mary's glory is not in being omniscient, or sharing in any of the mighty attributes of God alone.

The Mother of God was above the angels as regards the dignity to which she was chosen by God.
Summa Theologica - 3rd part, Question 30, Article 2, Reply to Objection 2

I answer that even being greater than the angels does not necessarily put her closer to the infinite power of God; just the closest to the infinite power of God.  If we see the Holy Spirit in her, it is because she best reflects the Holy Spirit.

the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" (typus) of the Church.
CCC 967

She is a model for the Church because of this, if she were omniscient, she would cease to be a model and become an idol.
Reply to Objection 1 Prayers to Mary are unique because of her "singular cooperation with the action of the Holy Spirit".

Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus' mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and to her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope.
CCC 2679

This isn't participation in God's omniscience, it is still asking for her intercessory prayers.  But it is on an very intimate level. We trust implicitly that prayers addressed to Our Lady will find favor with God; and it is through the grace of God that this is done.
Reply to Objection 2 clearly if this were true of Mary, it would be true of all the Saints in Heaven who are the subject of intercessory prayer and is the general case of Objection 1 ignoring the fact that prayers to other saints are often done "In Jesus Name" 1..  Ipso Facto, prayers addressed to Mary are a special case - but does it require omniscience to read thoughts?
No, for this is a charism given to the saint by God as evidenced by St. Pio's ability as a confessor to read hearts.

To this task he brought an advantage that few confessors have, the ability to read hearts. Padre Pio's charism enabled him to know when someone was being deceitful in confession or simply had forgotten a serious sin, perhaps through lack of an adequate examination of conscience. In such cases he was able to tel the penitent exactly what they did and when, as well as any relevant circumstances.
EWTN - Padre Pio - Confessor

And no one claimed that Padre Pio could read all souls - just those who came to him in the confessional.  Therefore it doesn't require Omniscience (which is total) to read a soul or hear thoughts.
Reply to Objection 3  again, drawing on the previous answer, Mary as the Mediatrix of all Graces, if proclaimed as the Fifth Marian Dogma might fit in as a 5th charism of Our Lady defined by the Church.  Being the Mother of God and having a Virgin Birth didn't make her Omnipotent; Her Assumption did not make her Omnipresent;  Her Coronation as Queen of Heaven and Earth only confirmed her Benevolence, but did not make her Omnibenevolent. Therefore there is no reason to believe that her role as Mediatrix would make her Omniscient.
However, the confirmation of the would be a great step forward in opening our hearts to God's omnipotence

The fifth Marian dogma would certainly improve the world situation through the prayers of Mary to her divine Son.
...
It will make Catholics realize that just as Mary, through the merits of Jesus Christ, has become co-redemptrix, mediatrix of all graces and advocate for the whole human race, we too share in Mary’s threefold roles for the salvation of humankind.
Zenit Daily Dispatch - Interview With Syro-Malabar Cardinal Vithayathil

1. St. Thomas would have probably posited these in an alternate order

Is Mary omniscient (by participation, not by nature)?

Answer:

The direct answer is, if we embraced the "quasi-incarnation" teaching of St.Kolbe then the "omniscient power of Mary is by virtue of the profound mystical union of Mary & the Holy Spirit.The Holy Spirit is fully & perfectly acting in Mary's surrendered "freewill". The "union of wills" is in perfection.

For a complete answer on "quasi-incarnation" please see my answered link;

Is "quasi-incarnation" been attributed to mystical union of the Holy Spirit and Mary?

Mary is "omniscient" by participation, She merited the Sevenfold Gifts of the Holy Spirit "At the Foot of the Cross" (Co-Redemptrix). and the fullness of this gifts was poured At the Upper Room.

Mary was anointed and became the Mother of the Church, and this title was proclaimed by Pope Paul VI and recently elevated by Pope Francis into a Feast for all Catholics faithfuls to celebrates.(CCC963)

  963 Since the Virgin Mary's role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer. . . . She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ' . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."502 "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church.

Mary although a mere creature like, a lowly handmaid as She sees herself was formed by the Holy Spirit into a new creature, a fitting holy vessel for the Logos. She became the First Tabernacle of God, and the Church Father's teaches Mary is the "New Ark of the Covenant".

Explanation

Our bodies can become the Temple of the Holy Spirit as scriptures teaches us;

  The Temple of the Holy Spirit

  "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body.(1Corinthian6-19-20)

Possessing the Holy Spirit will make you Omniscient, but the question is how?

The key is in the Book of Wisdom;

  "For the spirit of the Lord fills the world, is all-embracing, and knows whatever is said."(Wisdom 1:7)

The Sevenfold Gifts of the Holy Spirit thru the offering of Mary's "Sorrowful & Immaculate Heart" united to the Sacred Heart of Jesus redemptive mission merited all the gifts won by Christ. As St.Louis De MOntfort teaches all the graces won by Christ is channeled or was given to Mary, the Mother of the Church to dispense according to Her Motherly mediation. Mary Mediatrix of All Graces. (CCC969)

  969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."

How can this be true?  Jesus the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity was carried in Her most pure womb.

"The Highest Heavens cannot contain God whom you carried in her womb" (Book of Kings)

The Sorrowful & Immaculate Heart of Mary being depicted as Seven Sorrows corresponds to Seven Pillars. The Immaculate Heart of Mary is the Door on which the Holy Spirit enters. (St.Louis De Montfort "True Devotion to Mary)

Mary gave Her "flesh & blood" to the Logos, and Her Immaculate Heart is intimately united to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  The Holy Eucharist "transfigured" the Immaculate body of the Blessed Virgin Mary into a "glorified body" that transcends time & space like the resurrected body of Jesus. (Our Lady of the Pillar Apparition).

  CCC1000 This "how" exceeds our imagination and understanding; it is accessible only to faith. Yet our participation in the Eucharist already gives us a foretaste of Christ's transfiguration of our bodies:

  Just as bread that comes from the earth, after God's blessing has been invoked upon it, is no longer ordinary bread, but Eucharist, formed of two things, the one earthly and the other heavenly: so too our bodies, which partake of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possess the hope of resurrection

Mary gave and thru Her Sorrows merited to "house" the Wisdom emanating from the Throne of God. She is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. She "enflesh' the Holy Spirit. St. Maximillian Kolbe describes the mystical union of Mary & the Holy Spirit as "possessed', meaning Her thoughts, words & actions are fully animated by the Holy Spirit.

Mary's First fiat At Annunciation is for Man's Redemption and Her Second fiat at the Foot of the Cross - "Woman,behold your son" - is for Man's Salvation.

Mary fully embraces the Divine Will of the Father in the Salvation of Man.

The Most Holy Trinity fully resides in Her being.
This is clealry manifested in the Annunciation.

Mary accepted first the Will of the Father.

The Holy Spirit Overshadowed Her.

Then the Logos was formed in Her Womb.

Fully embracing the Trinitarian Life makes Her partaker of the omniscient power of the Most Holy Trinity by following the Will of the Father and living the abiding presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Mary is Co-Redemptrix,Advocate & Mediatrix of all Graces (Pending Fifth Dogma)


Per Ecclesiastes 7:16, Does the Bible want me to sin? From Ecclesiastes 7:16,

  Do not be overrighteous,
     neither be overwise—
     why destroy yourself?

So, why does the Bible say, "don't be too righteous"?  Encouraging one to be moderate in their righteousness... Doesn't that seem a bit out of place?

One possible interpretation is that it is warning against legalism - the type of "over righteousness" that the Pharisees were known for.  Not exactly a true righteousness, as seen from God's perspective, but a self perceived righteousness derived from a "holier-than-thou" attitude.

The Werner Bible Commentary puts it like:

  One who is overly righteous or righteous to an excess insists on the letter of the law, failing to take into consideration human limitations and the need for compassion and understanding. Such a person is quick to make a major issue about minor matters, insisting on strict adherence to certain procedures, rules, or practices even when doing so would prevent one from being helpful and kind to those in genuine need.

A bit farther down, in verse 20, it goes on to say:

  Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins. Ecclesiastes 7:20 (NIV)

This is something that the Pharisees did not seem grasp, and righteousness through their own "over righteousness" was something that the Pharisees saw as attainable, or already attained.

We were never meant to be perfect because Jesus Christ wants us to be completely dependent on him. We we not meant to sin constantly and constantly do that because we would never enter into God's Kingdom. We would all never enter into God's Kingdom because of not repenting and changing from sinning to doing righteousness.

Holy Bible quotes:

  I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
  John 15:5

  Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
  Acts 4:12

  For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life. But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead.
  2 Corinthians 1:8-9

  And the same time there arose no small stir about that way.
  Acts 19:23

  Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
  Jeremiah 17:5

  Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
  Ephesians 5:20

Quotes from the book called 'Jesus Calling, Enjoying Peace In His Present, 365 Day Devotional' by Sarah Young is:

  May 10

  DO NOT RESIST OR RUN from the difficulties in your life. These problems are not random mistakes; they are hand-tailored blessings designed for your benefit and growth. Embrace all the circumstances that I allow in your life, trusting Me to bring good out of them. View problems as opportunities to rely on more fully on Me.

  When you start to feel stressed, let those feelings alert you to your need of Me. Thus, your needs become doorways to deep dependence on Me and increasing intimacy between us. Although self-sufficiency is acclaimed in the world, reliance on Me produces abundant living in My kingdom. Thank Me for the difficulties in your life, since they provide protection from the idolatry of self reliance.

  John 15:5; 2 Corinthians 1:8-9; Ephesians 5:20

The above quotes is where I got those scriptures from that I typed before the quoted scripture from the Jesus Calling book I copied from. And the other bible scriptures not from the quotes from the Jesus Calling book are the references I got from the ones in the Jesus Calling book. The references for those scriptures were taken from the Holy Bible itself.


Biblical basis for God's egalitarian love What is the biblical basis for the idea that God loves everyone equally? Equally meaning he doesn't love someone more or less than anyone else?

I am not aware of a verse that says explicitly that "God loves everyone equally". In fact, there are some verses to suggest that some are loved more than others, which is not your question so will be neglected1, but there are several that indicate that God indeed loves all people.

The first is probably the most quoted Bible verse of all time:

  For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
  John 3:16 (NASB)

That verse stresses that God loved the world, which colloquially means everyone. Additionally, the love is so great that the greatest gift of all, eternal life, is offered to everyone. Now there's not a direct statement of "love equality" in John 3, but there is a good case to be made that God loves everyone greatly.

This thought continues in Romans 5, 1 Timothy, and 2 Peter:

  But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
  Romans 5:8 (NASB)

  [God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
  1 Timothy 3:9 (NASB)

  The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
  2 Peter 3:9 (NASB)

It seems odd to suggest that God does not love anybody in light of these verses, however, it does not mean there is "love equality", however, when the love of God was the motivation to offer all people eternal life, we are talking about a love in which the minimum level is exceedingly great.

The perspective given on GotQuestions.org makes a distinction between merciful love, which extends to everyone and keeps God from annihilating everyone at the moment of sin, and covenant love, which extends to only Christians and brings the gift of eternal life for the condition of accepting Jesus. I find that the view is common among Christians.

See Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:2-3

Your question revolves around the law of love.

  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John
  3:16(NIV)

The above verse says, God loves everyone in this world, the saint and the sinner.

  He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only,
  but also for those of the whole world.

  1John 2:2 ISV

God loved so much everyone equally. Everyone commit sins, but not on the same level and same amount of sin. Everyone is different from human evaluation, but God died for the sins of whole world not only for some righteous.

  3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who
  desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

  1Timothy 2:3-4 ESV

This also implies God wants everyone to be saved through his love.

  He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on
  the righteous and the unrighteous.

  Matthew 5:38 ESV

Sunshine and Rain are not considered to be a negative events here, They are basic requirement for food. Jesus here portrays the God's undiscriminating love to all people. God doesn't love only the righteous, but everone equally.

For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?, says Matthew  5:46. This statement will become false, if his love towards us is not equal.


Why did Saul's sins lead to his rejection as King of Israel, but David's sins did not cost him his crown? I Samuel 15;10-12 tells us "The word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying, 'I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as King, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed my commandments'"

The New Testament tells us in Romans 11:29 that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. Is that a privilege only given to those under the New Covenant?

King David sinned by committing adultery and murder, yet it didn't cost him his crown; Saul's sin was to offer a sacrifice when it wasn't his place to, a sin of presumption. Was this a greater sin?

The difference between Saul and David was that one offered insincere repentance while the other expressed true repentance. In David's case, we have Psalm 51 as a window into his heart.

It is instructive to look at other Biblical leaders who sinned, and what happened afterwards.

Moses struck the rock in anger, and his punishment was that he would not live to enter the Promised Land. Moses accepted God's punishment and continued to serve. Though he did not enter the land, God's presence remained with him, and that was more precious to Moses than any material reward, showing his heart. See Exodus 33:

  14 The Lord replied, “My Presence will go with you, and I will give
  you rest.”

  15 Then Moses said to him, “If your Presence does not go with us, do
  not send us up from here. 16 How will anyone know that you are pleased
  with me and with your people unless you go with us? What else will
  distinguish me and your people from all the other people on the face
  of the earth?”

  17 And the Lord said to Moses, “I will do the very thing you have
  asked, because I am pleased with you and I know you by name.”

  18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”

Hezekiah, in pride, showed the emissary of Babylon the treasury of Judah. God pronounced judgment against him and told him that he would die. Hezekiah repented, and God mercifully extended his life fifteen years, but years later, all that wealth was plundered by foreign armies.
The last King before the Exile was Jehoiachin. Here is what Jeremiah had to say about him:

  24 “As surely as I live,” declares the Lord, “even if you,
  Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my
  right hand, I would still pull you off. 25 I will deliver you into the
  hands of those who want to kill you, those you fear—Nebuchadnezzar
  king of Babylon and the Babylonians.[d] 26 I will hurl you and the
  mother who gave you birth into another country, where neither of you
  was born, and there you both will die. 27 You will never come back to
  the land you long to return to.”

  28 Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot,
      an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out,
      cast into a land they do not know? 29 O land, land, land,
      hear the word of the Lord! 30 This is what the Lord says: “Record this man as if childless,
      a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper,
      none will sit on the throne of David
      or rule anymore in Judah.”

But what happened to this king? He did go into exile, but while there, he humbled himself before God and found favor in the court of the king of Babylon and his life was extended. He did have children, and though none sat on the throne, one descendant did become governor over Judah. This is what Haggai has to say about that man, Zerubbabel:

  20 The word of the Lord came to Haggai a second time on the
  twenty-fourth day of the month: 21 “Tell Zerubbabel governor of Judah
  that I am going to shake the heavens and the earth. 22 I will overturn
  royal thrones and shatter the power of the foreign kingdoms. I will
  overthrow chariots and their drivers; horses and their riders will
  fall, each by the sword of his brother.

  23 “‘On that day,’ declares the Lord Almighty, ‘I will take you, my
  servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will
  make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,’ declares the
  Lord Almighty.”

Numbered among his later descendants was Jesus Christ, the eternal king.

The pattern is that God's anger burns against a fallen leader and He pronounces a severe judgment, but if that leader's repentance is sincere, God walks back or delays part of the punishment. There is no guarantee that God's mercy will include retaining the title of kingship, as His purposes vary.

In Saul's case, what would true repentance have meant? Saul would have to acknowledge David as King and cede the throne willingly. That he would not do.

For a longer argument that defends the proposition that Saul's repentance was insincere, see https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/a-false-repentance/

This article refers to arguments made by Matthew Henry in his commentary, here summarized:

But Matthew Henry writes that “it is too evident that he only acts the part of a penitent, and is not one indeed.” To support his case, Henry notes, commenting on 1 Samuel 15:24-29:

Wrong audience. Saul makes his confession to Samuel only. He admits that he “ ‘transgressed the commandment of the Lord and [Samuel’s] words,’ ” but he asks only Samuel’s pardon, and that is not sufficient. He does not seem to grasp that Samuel was speaking for God, that his words were God’s.
Excuses. Saul excuses his fault, saying he feared the people and listened to them. But Henry notes that he never shrank before the people before.
Saving face. Saul is most interested in saving face. He asks Samuel to participate with him in a thanksgiving service and to honor him before the elders. He wants no one to know that God has rejected him as king.

The article goes on to show that by his words, Saul thought of God as Samuel's God, not his own, which is telling. He did not have a personal relationship.

Why did Saul's sins lead to his rejection as King of Israel, but David's sins did not cost him his crown?

ANSWER

The simplest answer is King Saul had offered a sacrifice or a burnt offering out of disobedience and therefore lose the trust of God and main trust of his people that they are following a Man of God

While King David did not lose the trust of God and did not defile a sacred offerings, and God had look upon his contrite heart seeking forgiveness and the desire to be cleanse of his sins. Truly, King David is a Man after God's heart".King David can still lead his people in following God.

EXPLANATION

In Catholic Faith, this is in parallel to offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. A priest offering Holy Sacrifice of the Mass not in accordance with the Canon of the Mass commits a sacrilege.

King Saul committed a sacrilegeous offering and it is an abomination to God, while King David committed a mortal sin against the Ten Commandment. Both of the two had acknowledged their sins and seek forgiveness, a contrite heart God will not despise.

But what is the difference why King Saul lost his crown while King David retain his crown?

In a secular world, this is commonly known as "losing moral ascendency".

How can King Saul men obey their King when he was a disobedient himself? God had given us an example that in the case of Lucifer, he lost his angelic position because of pride that lead to his disobedience.

King David committed and adultery, a mortal sin, but in the King's era, people accepted that a King can have many wives as he wish and so King David "moral ascendency" was not affected by his sins.

  The Heavenly Father is rich in mercy.(Ephesians2:4)

King David committed the sin of adultery but did not disobey God's Divine Law on sacred offerings.

King Saul defiled the Temple of God thru disobedience. The Temple of God is a dwelling place for the Spirit of God. We can relate this to Adam in the Garden of Eden, before his sin of disobedience he was able to talk to God, but after his fall he lost all of God's gifts and was cast out. But God's mercy & forgiveness was given to Adam & Eve, but the status of Adam as Ruler in the Garden was lost.

  "Obedience is better than sacrifice."(1Samuel15:22)


According to Acts 20:7, which day was the first day of the week? According to Acts 20:7,

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (KJV)
Ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων συνηγμένων τῶν μαθητῶν τοῦ κλάσαι ἄρτον ὁ Παῦλος διελέγετο αὐτοῖς μέλλων ἐξιέναι τῇ ἐπαύριον παρέτεινέν τε τὸν λόγον μέχρι μεσονυκτίου

early Christians used to assemble on the first day of the week. But, was this assembly on Saturday night, since Hebrew calendrical days were reckoned from sunset to sunset? Or could the Gregorian calendar have impacted the way this verse was translated since it was the standard calendrical system when the King James Version was published?

The Sabbath is the Lord's day, set apart each week for rest and worship. In Old Testament times, God's covenant people observed the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week because God rested on the seventh day when He had created the earth. After the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which occurred on the first day of the week, the Lord's disciples began observing the Sabbath on the first day of the week, Sunday (see Acts 20:7).

  original link to this info with more scriptural references to the sabbath day in christianity particularly in the LDS tradition [found on lds.org]

this is what I was taught and as someone who has been both Jewish and Christian this makes the most sense to me as an argument that holds water. Hope that helps!


Can people speak in tongues today? The Bible refers to people speaking in tongues--most notably at Pentecost. Is this something that legitimately happens today?

I've been in church services where speaking in tongues has happened, but it always seems weird and creepy, and those doing it seem like kooks. How can I know if this is legitimate, or if I'm right in thinking it's strange?

Random babbling isn't "speaking in tongues" as the Apostles did on the Day of Pentecost.  The Apostles preached, and everyone present heard the message in their native language.  This is the purpose of speaking in tongues: to facilitate communication.  In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul warns very strongly about speaking in tongues simply for its own sake, since it doesn't accomplish any useful purpose.

As for modern occurrences, I've heard plenty of stories of missionaries and other preachers in situations where they did not possess sufficient language skills in the language of the people being taught gaining the temporary ability to express themselves clearly when it was necessary.  I don't have any references to cite right at the moment, but yes, it does still happen today.

Flimsy wrote:

The Bible refers to people speaking in tongues--most notably at Pentecost. Is this something that legitimately happens today?

Paul says when he was a child he spoke like a child.  He was comparing tongues use to young church use.

1 Corinthians 13:9-10 NET For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.

Flimsy wrote:

I've been in church services where speaking in tongues has happened, but it always seems weird and creepy, and those doing it seem like kooks. How can I know if this is legitimate, or if I'm right in thinking it's strange?

Everyone is kind and nonjudgmental,  and would not like to criticize a practice adopted in other churches.  I believe that is about right.  Those who follow Christ must search for truth.  It's a requirement :

Luke 11:13 NET If you then, although you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

Young churches are ministered to by God:

Luke 22:35 NET Then Jesus said to them, “When I sent you out with no money bag, or traveler’s bag, or sandals, you didn’t lack anything, did you?” They replied, “Nothing.”

Jesus's faith provided teaching and supplies. The perfected church, the mature church will manifest it's own faith.  To reach maturity,  they must sell even their most precious possessions :

Luke 22:36 NET He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.

Much sacrifice is involved in transmitting the word of God :

2 Corinthians 4:12 NET As a result, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you.
John 15:13 NET No one has greater love than this – that one lays down his life for his friends.
1 Corinthians 13:11-13 NET But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.
John 14:12 NET I tell you the solemn truth, the person who believes in me will perform the miraculous deeds that I am doing, and will perform greater deeds than these, because I am going to the Father.

Teaching mature doctrine requires great effort,  risk and love,  since there could be rejection,  even when the text supports your view. Death in us,  life for the objectors.


Were the Jews expecting the Messiah to suffer at all? When Jesus spoke about his future suffering it did not seem to register properly.

For example:

  (Matthew 16:22)
  Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

This raises the question: Did the Jews push the suffering of the servant Messiah (Isaiah 53) to the background of their mind, or was there no expectation that Messiah would suffer at all?

It does seem that the Jews hadn't understood that the Messiah would have to suffer, or that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 was the Messiah. Apart from the verse you have quoted, there are other verses which suggest that the Jews didn't understand this.

They understood that the Christ would be the "King of Israel" (Matthew 15:32), they knew that he would be the one to govern the people of Israel (Matthew 2:6), but they didn't understand that his kingship was not of this world (John 18:36). They expected a political Messiah, one who would save them from their enemies in this world, not one who would "save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). This is why, King Herod was troubled and all Jerusalem with him (Matthew 2:3), for he thought that the Christ would come and take his political throne from him.

Even after having the knowledge that he was indeed the Christ (Matthew 16:16), Peter rebuked him for saying that he would have to suffer. Even after he actually suffered and died, two of his disciples seemed to have no clue what was happening and Jesus said to them,

"O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" (Luke 24:25-26)

And then Jesus had to interpret the scriptures for them, to show them all the things in the scriptures about the Christ (Luke 24:27).

So it does seem that to the Jews, it wasn't plain and clear from the scriptures that the Messiah had to suffer and in fact the evidence shows that they were expecting him to rule like a political king and not undergo suffering.

First, you must define the term "the messiah". What criteria make one "the messiah"? Is the fact that there are billions of people who call him "the messiah" enough to make one a messiah?

I hope you understand that these criteria should be well defined before the days of Jesus. You don't want your criteria to sound like "If he looks like Jesus, he is probably the messiah - hence Jesus is the messiah. QED."

So for example verses that talk about "casting lots for somebody's clothes" are not a prophecy about the messiah, since if this event really happened in Jesus life (doubtful, since there are older versions of the gospels without that story, which shows that somebody tried to fabricate a "prophecy" - but let's assume it did happen) - still, 100 years before Jesus, nobody who would read that verse would say it's something that MUST happen to "the messiah" - there's nothing in that verse that actually points to "the messiah". To say that it's a messianic prophecy means that it's valid for one to say that all those many verses that Jesus did not have something similar to them happen in his life - are actually messianic prophecies that Jesus failed to fulfill.... otherwise you are clearly choosing your "messianic prophecies" post factum, according to one criterion: did it (apparently) happen in Jesus' life or not....

To answer your question: no, the Jews were not expecting the messiah to suffer, because there is not one verse in the Hebrew Bible that says that that man would suffer.

There are passages in the Hebrew Bible that talk about suffering individuals, or suffering groups of people.

There are passages in the Hebrew Bible that talk about what people later started calling "the messiah".

But all those passages never overlap. When Christians say that passages of the former category talk about the messiah, they do so on faith alone - it's not in the text at all (read those texts for yourself!) - and many times it's clearly against the text and the context.

If you carefully read the passages of the latter type - you'd see that they are not actually concerned with the man himself, but with the age that he ushers, the changes he brings. That man himself is regarded as just a tool of God. The man himself is not to be worshiped - on the contrary, many of the passages show that that man would regard God as his ruler, and would be obedient to him. God obedient to himself?!? I would say that those who missed that point are the ones who misunderstood the text, not the Jews.


Why were some words omitted in Luke 18: 24 in Catholic editions of NT? We see different kinds of presentation of Luke 18: 23-24 concerning the rich man wanting to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. For instance we read ....

"  But when he heard this, he became sad; for he was very rich.  Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!" (NRSVCE)

"  When he heard this he became very sorrowful, for he was very rich. When Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!" ( Modern English Version)

I wish to know what the content of Verse 24  available in the original was, and why the words 'when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful' were omitted in the NRSVCE .

The phrase is missing from some important Greek manuscripts, including the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus.

According to its introduction, the NRSV-CE is based on

the most recent edition of the Greek New Testament, prepared by an interconfessional and international committee and published by the United Bible Societies (1966; 3rd ed. corrected, 1983; information concerning changes to be introduced into the critical apparatus of the forthcoming 4th edition was available to the Committee).

The UBS3 text is equivalent to the Nestle-Aland 26th edition "Critical Text".  This Greek text reads, for Luke 18:24:

Ἰδὼν δὲ αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς [περίλυπον γενόμενον] εἶπεν, Πῶς δυσκόλως οἱ τὰ χρήματα ἔχοντες εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ εἰσπορεύονται·

As you can see, the phrase corresponding to became sorrowful - περίλυπον γενόμενον - is enclosed in square brackets.  Metzger's Textual Commentary explains here:

On the one hand, the excellent attestation for the shorter text (א B L f 1 1241 al) and the variety of positions of περίλυπον γενόμενον suggest that the words were introduced by copyists, perhaps from ver. 23 (περίλυπος ἐγενήθη). On the other hand, since Luke’s penchant of repeating a word or phrase in adjacent passages may have operated here, a majority of the Committee did not feel at liberty to omit the phrase entirely, but enclosed it within square brackets.

It would appear that the NRSV-CE translators and editors opted to exclude the bracketed Greek in this case.
This is not necessarily an innovation.  The phrase was also excluded from the NRSV, RSV, and RSV-CE, which are based on the same Greek text:

NRSV

Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!

RSV, RSV-CE

Jesus looking at him said, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!

The Modern English Version is based, as is the King James Version, on the 16th century Textus Receptus Greek text.  This text doesn't have any kind of annotation (e.g. square brackets) to indicate the certainty of the text.  It also has a slightly different word order at the end of the verse, but this is more or less irrelevant to the English translation:

ἰδὼν δὲ αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς περίλυπον γενόμενον εἶπε, Πῶς δυσκόλως οἱ τὰ χρήματα ἔχοντες εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ.

Basically, there are two types of bible translations, equivalent (formal equivalence)  and dynamic.  The two are not similar.

Equivalent tries to be literal, translating texts with a higher degree of equivalence as word for word.  There would be fewer added words or subtracted words.  The literal meaning would be more duplicated.

Dynamic would be less literal, trying to give more readability to the translation.

So, it's not like one "left out" words necessarily, but rather, what style of translation was used?

KJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, YLT, and others are more literal.

NLT, Good News, and others are more dynamic.

One key to keep in mind is not to build a doctrine on a dynamic translation.

PS There is a third category of bible that would be termed more parochial or to a degree in the dynamic category; that is, translated with specific doctrines predetermined.  The translation follows the doctrine, rather than the other way around.  An example of this would be the JW bible.  Of course, they may argue the KJV was translated this way.  In this case, one might look at historical facts to help guide one's usage.


How do Wesleyan theologians define omnibenevolence? The term omnibenevolance is not used in my quarter of Protestantism, and after reading the Wikipedia article it is entirely unclear to me what the term means and how it relates to the God of Christianity. I quote:

  The word "omnibenevolence" may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, or any number of other qualities, depending on precisely how "good" is understood. As such, there is little agreement over how an "omnibenevolent" being would behave.

After stating that the term is basically meaningless, it goes on to note that the attribute is considered by some to be a "an essential foundation in traditional Christianity", then calls out a specific group as depending on this attribute for their other ideas about God's character.

  Theologians in the Wesleyan Christian tradition argue that omnibenevolence is God's primary attribute.

My question is two-fold.

First, is this claim about it being a primary-attribute true or those quotes a poor representation of 'traditional' Christianity?
Secondly, how is this attribute defined in light of the common usage of the word being so ambiguous?

Answers may be specific to the Wesleyan tradition or delineated as belonging to any other tradition that holds this as an important attribute.

As I understand it, this needs to be taken in the context of Arminian/Calvinist debate. Calvin held that God's primary attribute was his sovereignty. All other attributes of God, including his love, must be understood in light of his sovereignty. From this idea springs the entire TULIP paradigm.

Arminius (and Wesley following him) disagreed and held that God's primary attribute was his goodness. All other attributes of God, including his sovereignty, must be understood in light of his goodness. Because God is perfectly good, he can never sin or cause anyone to sin.

This led Arminius and Wesley to reject the "U" ("Unconditional election") of TULIP on the grounds that it implies God is the author of sin. That, in turn, caused them to reject the "I" ("Irresistible grace") because if God doesn't foreordain people to hell, there must be a way for people to reject God's grace and separate themselves from God.

In short, to the extend that Arminian/Wesleyan theology differs from Calvinist teaching, it is due to being grounded in the belief that God's primary attribute is his goodness rather than his sovereignty.

The all encompassing goodness of GOD and his desire to lavish good things on all people is a very important tenet of Christianity, despite the fact that omnibenevolence is a word that has been used less and less since the Wesleyan movement used it.  However, the goodness of GOD is certainly a tenet of "traditional" Christianity, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the Wesleys all hold that GOD is inherently Good.

This is a paragraph way down on the wikipedia page for "omnibenevolence."

"Theologians in the Wesleyan Christian tradition (see Thomas Jay Oord) argue that omnibenevolence is God's primary attribute. As such, God's other attributes should be understood in light of omnibenevolence."

So, for Wesleyans, all of God's attributes flow out of His goodness.  But the truth might be that the love, goodness, and holiness of GOD are so intermingled that it could be difficult to separate them and to define which receives pre-eminence.

For a very very good book on this subject check out Church Dogmatics Vol 2 Section 1 by Karl Barth, he addresses this area of theology with so much depth that it would be hard to copy and paste it here.

However, the difficulty of the word has less to do with the word and more to do with individuals' understanding of what it means that GOD is good.  But I would rest upon the statement that Jesus makes in Matthew 7:11 (ESV),

  If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your
  children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good
  things to those who ask him!

That God is good is a very important aspect of the Christian faith, but it must always be held in tension with the fact that we, as humans, do not know how to accurately discern what is "good" in every situation.

In many ways the Wesleyan movement was dead on accurate and orthodox, and in the sense of how the Wesleyans view the goodness of GOD they are only echoing what has been said for thousands of years,

GOD IS GOOD, ALL THE TIME; ALL THE TIME, GOD IS GOOD.

I hope this helps!


Is there a biblical basis for God's omnipotence or have we mistaken 'symbolism'? 'Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."'

There are many quotes of this kind in the Bible- but how do we know the above (and others like it) aren't just hyperbole and descriptive? He might mean a 'great many' things. How do these quotes justify a belief that god truly can do anything He wishes?
Or does a belief in this version of God arise from elsewhere?

Answers will of necessity be in regard to the Translation quoted.

From the King James translation; There are several Scriptures which tell us that God is Omnipotent, Not the least of which is creation itself.

Then the first time God brought rain upon the Earth He caused a flood which Killed all life except Those animals he saved and those eight people aboard the Ark.

Beyond that we see God parting the red sea, for Israel, and drowning Pharaoh's Army in it.

God stopped the Rain for three years, at the behest of Elijah.

He also caused wood soaked with massive amounts of water to burn when he sent fire from Heaven.

He took Elijah to Heaven in a whirlwind as Elisha watched.

He caused Elisha's mule to talk.

He caused the sun to retreat 10 hours.

And that is a few of the passages covered in only in the Old Testament.

So let's look at Jesus in the New Testament.

  Matthew 9:6  But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

Jesus not only claimed to have the power of God but he also demonstrated it, in that passage.

  Matthew 28:18  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

In the above passage Jesus is telling us His power is given to him by the Father.

  Mark 14:62  And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Here Jesus is telling us that one day we will see him sitting next to the Father who is Power.

  Luke 1:35  And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Here we find the Angel Gabriel telling Mary that It is God's power that will cause her to become pregnant yet remain a virgin.

I could go on citing Scriptures from both the Old and New Testaments attesting to God's omnipotence, but either you believe that the Bible is true or you do not, but in answer as to whether there is Biblical backup for God's omnipotence the answer is a resounding yes!

Is there a biblical basis for God's omnipotence or have we mistaken 'symbolism'?

I see no consistent basis in the Bible for God's omnipotence, but some evidence to the contrary. On that basis, I say we have mistaken 'symbolism'.

The first creation story,  Genesis 1:1-2:4a, widely attributed to the Priestly Source does attribute omnipotence to El Shaddai (God Almighty) and God simply speaks things into existence. This is biblical evidence of omnipotence, but this is not a motif we see consistently throughout the Bible.

Looking at the often-overlooked creation story in Genesis 2:4b-25, we find that God does not create living things out of nothing. In Genesis 2:7: "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground ...", then in Genesis 2:19: " And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam..." Finally, in verse 22, God made Eve out of a rib taken from Adam: "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."   God was supremely powerful in that he could create life, but nevertheless aware that there were limits to his power, because he had to fashion living things out of existing matter.  There  is no suggestion in this creation story (widely attributed to the Yahwist) that God created the world.

The contrast between the apparent omnipotence of God in the first and his apparent lack of omnipotence  in the second, along with other differences in the two accounts, suggests that these should not be read literally but symbolically.

Even the Flood story is at least suggestive of limits to God's powers. An omnipotent God could have destroyed the unrighteous humans without risking damage to the environment, but the God of Genesis had to bring down rain to achieve the destruction he intended.

In Isaiah 46:10, God says he will do everything he wishes, but this is not a biblical claim to omnipotence, only that what God wishes to do he can achieve. Mark 10:27 (Matthew 19:26, Luke 18:27) does say, "... for with God all things are possible," but this is in the context of salvation, not of performing feats of great power.


Why was Esther not sinning when she broke the law and approached the king? Here's the text in question:

  Esther 4:15–16 (ESV)15 Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai, 16 “Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my young women will also fast as you do. Then I will go to the king, though it is against the law, and if I perish, I perish.”

The commentators I have read on this passage are unanimous in praising Esther for being willing to sacrifice herself for the sake of her people.  However, they do not attempt to reconcile this praise with their statements on obedience to earthly authority.  For example, the New Bible Commentary (1970) says regarding Romans 13:

  [E]very Christian has the duty [...] to obey lawful authority so far as such obedience does not conflict with God's law or Christ's authority.

Classic examples of permissible disobedience include Acts 5:29 and Daniel 3, where followers of God are ordered to do something in direct opposition to God's law, so they disobey.  That's not Esther's situation, apparently putting her action at odds with the common interpretation of Romans 13 and similar passages.

I am looking for any Christian commentator (regardless of background) who, while affirming the infallibility of the Bible, directly addresses this apparent conflict without resorting to a "the ends justifies the means" argument.  That is, I want a commentator who either

argues that Esther sinned on the basis of Romans 13, and should not have done what she did
argues that Esther did not sin, because the king and/or the law in question are not the sort of things referred to in Romans 13

A few verses earlier, Esther states the law as such,”…any man or woman who approaches the king in the inner court without being summoned the king has but one law: that they be put to death unless the king extends the gold scepter to them and spares their lives.”  Under these circumstances, it is no stretch to say that the king, who had ultimate authority, is the judge who determines whether or not the law has been broken and punishment is meted out.  If the king had decided that she was guilty, she would have paid the penalty instantly.  On the other hand, if he extends the scepter (as he did) he is saying, “I accept her presence, the law is not compromised.”
There have been many instances where man has taken measures into his own hands to accomplish God’s work.  This was not at God’s prompting.  Mordecai’s admonition to Esther can be construed as God’s prompting and God, in keeping with his character (which He always does), would never instruct someone to sin.
I don’t know if this satisfies your question, but the way I see it we have a reasonable explanation backed up by an immutable fact.
One might also posit that we are instructed to do right or, perhaps more appropriately, Right, as in right according to God, not the local Constabulary, “Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason.”) Rom 13:3, 4.  A secular comparison might be federal law can trump local law.

I don't think Esther was disobeying the law at all.

For instance, the law could be written like this:

"Anyone is allowed to come into the King's presence without his permission, but if the king doesn't approve of your coming you will be killed."

Esther took her chance with this law and survived.  But even if she had not been approved of by the king, it still would not have been actually disobeying the king,  (and certainly no sin).  As such, I cannot see this in any way a violation of Romans 13.


Joel 2: From Eden to Ruination? To what is this referring? Joel Chapter 2:1-2.

  1     Blow the trumpet in Zion;
      sound the alarm on my holy hill.

  Let all who live in the land tremble,
      for the day of the Lord is coming. It is close at hand— 2     a day of darkness and gloom,
      a day of clouds and blackness. Like dawn spreading across the mountains
      a large and mighty army comes, such as never was in ancient times
      nor ever will be in ages to come.

  3 Before them fire devours,
      behind them a flame blazes. Before them the land is like the garden of Eden,
      behind them, a desert waste—
      nothing escapes them.

I find this scripture utterly amazing. It seems to be a last-days related scripture, and yet we have nothing on this earth resembling "the garden of Eden".

No doubt this had an initial fulfilment. To what nation did this apply, and did they have Eden-like conditions?

How do you know how fabulous the Garden of Eden was? There's no description of it where it appears, and we have many places on earth that are just "heavenly" to stroll through.

I believe the phrase is being used the same way we use it today to describe beautiful scenery.

If the location of this destruction is in Israel (scholars are not unified in a position on its location), you can see its lush greenery in these photos:
https://www.google.com/search?q=greenery+in+israel&safe=active&client=firefox-a&hs=X3q&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=7ojnU7atOZTioATttYKoBg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoATgK&biw=1280&bih=566

So all that is beautiful in the land will be destroyed by a foreign invading army, which is left unspecified.

This is referring to the day of the LORD.  A warning and a call to repentance. Continuing in the chapter;

Joel 2;11  And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?

Joel 2;32  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverence, as the LORD has said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.


Reconcile God's sovereignty with Satan being the god of this world In Matthew 4:8-9 we read about the temptation of Christ by Satan:

  Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and
  showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said
  to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and
  worship me.”

In Christ's response, he did not challenge Satan's authority to make such a claim.

Taken together with 2 Cor 4:4 where Satan is described as "the god of this world" it seems we can conclude that Satan is the ruler of the world.

How can we reconcile this with God's sovereignty?

This is a great question and one I had to take a few minutes to think through. I am Catholic and I think I have an answer for you- though there may be several others, possibly better ones.

Remember that Satan was one of the most powerful angels when he rebelled, and that he did not get stripped of his nature when he Fell. That means that Satan is an incredibly powerful being who, as seen in the Bible, can exert his angelic power in the planes of existence that humans inhabit (that is to say, the world of spirit and the world of matter). This is probably the way that Satan planned to follow through on his offer of world domination to Jesus.

Also, notice Satan wants Jesus to worship him. This implies that this is something he desires not only from Jesus, but from all humanity. What Satan has been doing since his Fall is pretend to be God Almighty, and treat the world like his playground. If Satan demands worship, this probably isn't the first time he tried to get it. This would be in keeping with St. Paul's comment "the god of this world". Who is the god of this world? Whatever everybody is worshipping. Be that other fallen angels, man's own desires, etc; it all leads back to Satan and his own agenda.

When Jesus comes to Earth, He's coming here like a rightful Prince come to reclaim His Father's throne from the usurper, Satan. God is sovereign, but that doesn't mean others aren't pretending that isn't so.

In Revelation 11 it says:

  The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in
  heaven, which said: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom
  of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever.”

The "last trumpet" signals the end of history. This declaration makes it clear that Jesus has not yet accomplished full sovereign control over this world.

In Luke 19:

  While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable,
  because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom
  of God was going to appear at once. He said: “A man of noble birth
  went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to
  return."

Jesus then tells one version of the parable of the talents. Combine this with Luke 12:

  But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long
  time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both
  men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk...

The clear implication is that human nature is impatient. We want a good king now, and when he doesn't come right away we stop believing and begin to act abominably. Or we act like those in John 6 who use violence to advance their religion:

  After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say,
  “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Jesus,
  knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force,
  withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

There is no inconsistency in scripture. The conflict is in our hearts. We cannot conceive how a good and all-powerful God could possibly have planned things to go the way they have. However, he announced his plan in advance and is following it. We like having free will, we just don't like God to have it, too.

Response to a comment about how God choosing to not exercise full authority could be compassionate and loving:

The second coming is presented as a final act. Once Christ returns, there is no further possibility of a person changing their allegiance, hence the saved are saved and the lost, forever lost. In this case, God's patience promotes compassion and is a sincere expression of his love. He is giving each person more time to decide. As an illustration, we have the story of Methuselah in Genesis. According to standard conservative chronology, Methuselah died in the year of the flood as the oldest man ever. Some maintain his name means "When he dies, it will come". His name was a prophecy of the coming destruction. If God was more just than loving, then Methuselah would die a young man, so that judgment (part of God's exercise of authority) could come swiftly. But if God was loving to a great extreme, then he would prolong the life of Methuselah to give the world more time to change. Since Methuselah did live longer than any other human has, this is a proof of God's patience and love, and also evidence that he has placed a limit on how long things will go on without him intervening.

Ideas about Kenosis (which is tied to Philippians 2) are very confusing. See http://kenosis.info/index.shtml for one person's critique.

Concerning Satan. As a commenter observed, my answer failed to mention Satan. Clearly my mind was monumentally distracted. Tackling Satan's relationship with the whole world is a huge topic. Addressing his relationship with a single person is more manageable. In the book of Job, Satan asks for permission to test Job and God grants it, within prescribed limits. Satan wants to destroy Job, while God wants to purify him and prove his faith. This principle is also described in Romans 8:28:

  And we know that all things work together for good to them that love
  God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

It seems that it is possible for it to appear on the surface that Satan is in control, while underneath God's plans are being accomplished.


What is the theory that there is more than one "Satan" called, and what is its basis? I'm remembering back to a conversation that I had with an individual who was adamant about the fact that Satan was a made up Angel. That instead of Satan being a singular object, satan was actually the term for an angel.

He was claiming that there is more then one satan in existence and they did the bidding of God.

If you know what this theory is called or if there is any evidence being it, please let me know.

  Matthew 12:26 NKJV

  If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will
  his kingdom stand?

The Hebrew word satan means "accuser" or "adversary". It can be used in a general sense rather than as a proper noun. This does not mean that all occurrences of the word refer to a generic accuser. For example, Luke 10:18,

  I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven,

is clearly referring to a specific individual. But in 1 Kings 11:14,

  Then the Lord raised up against Solomon an adversary, Hadad the Edomite, from the royal line of Edom,

the English "adversary" is translating Hebrew "satan". Clearly Hadad is not the actual devil.

In the book of Job, "Satan" appears in heaven and is instructed by God to torment Job. This matches the idea that "satan" can be a job title of an angel, who works for God but whose task is to tempt people and cause suffering. In particular, such a "satan" is not opposed to God. In the Hebrew, it is actually "ha-Satan", "the satan" or "the accuser" (eg in Job 1:6).

Historically, Jewish ideas about Satan changed significantly during and after the Exile, perhaps due to their exposure to Babylonian mythology. The idea that Satan is in active rebellion against God is certainly much more prevalent after this time, whatever the cause. Previously, the dominant view was against an independent adversary, and in favour of God controlling everything, good or bad.

"Is there more than one 'Satan?'" Yes there is, and why...

The term Satan, like President, just means Leader [of Opposition], often rendered Accuser or Opponent. Jesus even called Peter (His Rock) a Satan once here:

  “Get behind me, Satan...you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men”.
  Mt. 16:22,23

Please never believe that any Satan ever works for God, the Lord outed all Satans mindsets as being ungodly [always]. The Satan of  Matthew 12:26 NKJV is a hypothetical one because you cannot have two Satans in the same rebellion. The Jews where accusing Jesus of being a Satan working for Lucifer.

  If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?

The Book of Revelation says Abbaddon is a leader of a separate kingdom of evil spirits (Locusts, neither Scorpion or Serpent) who is locked in the Abyss; Lucifer is in Hades - totally different places.

  The locusts had a king over them--the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is `Abaddon,'
  Rev 9:11

The Book of Enoch explains his name as Shemjaza the Chairman of the 200 dissenters in the separate rebellion from Lucifer's. Nothing in the Bible nor Enoch proves that these 200 dissenters were part of Lucifer's rebellion.

To further complicate matters Lucifer deploys diametrical opposition to counteract the Kingdom of God. So if God is a Holy Trinity, Lucifer wants to be an Unholy Trinity:

1.Satan the Opponent = Who is in Hades.
2.Satan the Accuser - Who is in the Lower Heaven.
3.Satan the Antichrist = Who rules on Earth.

The name of the first and last Antichrist spirit is Nimrod, I cannot pin down the identity of The Accuser just yet. So..

1.Lucifer Opponent Satan.
2.Nimrod Antichrist Satan. And
3.Abbaddon-Appolyon-Shemjazza Satan are three of four 'Satans' known to us today. But 3.Abbaddon-Appolyon-Shemjazza is not the same faction as Lucifer. As for your last question I can never accept that any of them work for God.


Why is Jesus often depicted with long hair if 1 Corinthians 11:14 says it is disgraceful? According to 1 Corinthians 11:14, it is disgraceful for men to have long hair:

  Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a
  disgrace for him?

Why, then, is Jesus often depicted with long hair?

Even if the premise that Christ had longer hair is true, it would not matter as that is not the point of this passage. If it is read in context i.e. read the chapter before and after, it is clear that Paul is talking about how Jewish customs and how even though they are no longer necessary due to Christ's sacrifice, they should still be observed if you are causing your brother to stumble:

  "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all for the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the Church of God"
  - 1 Corinthians 10: 31-32

Then he goes on in the start of Chapter 11 to talk about the custom of women covering their head to worship and men uncovering their head to worship and why that custom was in place: because angels needed to cover their head out of reverence to God. I'm not a Jewish custom expert but I do know that the point of this passage was not to show that it is disgraceful for men to have long hair but to show that you must respect the customs of the people you are around in church. This is shown by the ending phrase of that section:

  "If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice [of head covering], nor do the churches of God. - 1 Corintians 11:16

It is important to always read God's word in context as it was meant or else you run the danger of missing the point.

Hope this helps :)

It is important to remember that Jesus is God's Word in the flesh, thus an eternal being. Although He entered into human consciousness during a period in history, He did not live in that period alone. The Son of God was always present even before the foundations of the earth and forevermore. If Jesus were portrayed with a certain haircut, it would put Him in a period.  The portrait of Jesus cannot be presented with a hair-style or a haircut because He is an eternal being:  the same reason why angels always have long hair.


Did St. Augustine think sexual pleasure = concupiscence? Did St. Augustine think sexual pleasure and concupiscence are identical? If not, why do some people seem to think this? Concupiscence is simply a disorder in which the body rebels against the rational soul; this is something completely different from pleasure.

No, St. Augustine doesn't say concupiscence is identical with venereal pleasure.

Although it is true "concupiscence is disorder in which the body rebels against the rational soul," one prominent manifestation of this disorder (which is not identical to the disorder) is seeking pleasure against the dictates of reason, which is the sin of lust.

Unlike concupiscence, which is an evil, coital pleasure in itself is morally neutral (Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 31 q. 2 a. 3 co. // suppl. q. 49 a. 6 co.):

  pleasure in a good action is good, and in an evil action, evil; wherefore, as the marriage act is not evil in itself, neither will it be always a mortal sin to seek pleasure therein.[operationis bonae est delectatio bona, et malae mala. Unde cum actus matrimonialis non sit per se malus; nec quaerere delectationem erit peccatum mortale semper.]

However, referencing St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas seems not to distinguish concupiscence and venereal delectation (Summa Theologica II-II q. 153 a. 2 ad 2):

  That venereal concupiscence and pleasure (concupiscentia et delectatio venereorum) are not subject to the command and moderation of reason, is due to the punishment of the first sin, inasmuch as the reason, for rebelling against God, deserved that its body should rebel against it, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii, 13).

To answer your great question. I think the common beliefs and understanding of the teaching of St. Augustine on the nature of original sin plays an important role why "sexual pleasure" is equated to "concupiscence'.

But you pointed out that concupiscence is simply a disorder in which the body rebels against the rational soul; this is something completely different from pleasure.

Your definition of concupiscence as simply a disorder not subject to reason or intellect is real and scriptures passages attested to it, as St.Paul stated this in Romans 7:15

"I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do."

From St.Paul confession we can see that pleasure or goodness can only be in state of good order when one wills the things he wants.This is true for Christians striving for holiness.

But how about those people, who does not strive for holiness but simply weak to control the concupiscence, is sexual pleasure possible by succombing to concupiscence? The answer is resoundingly YES! because they simply give in to it without resisting and  desires it too, to satisfy sensual pleasures. In reality there's no incurred guilt or struggles in comparison to St.Paul.

If we go back to St. Augustine the concupiscence after the fall of man is defined as inclination to sin.

If one is by default or by fallen nature are inclined to desires sensual gratification outside of the control of the will then sexual pleasure can be equated to concupiscence.Because the body are inclined to it then concupiscence allows the bodily senses to satisfies it's pleasure. Eventhough the intellect sees it as a disorder not subject to will for those believer's striving for holiness.

As St. Augustine writes the following "
In a similar vein, Augustine notes that men did not have in their members the law of their own concupiscence warring against the law of their mind'' (Ibid. II.37; Fathers of the Church). But what is concupiscence for Augustine? He writes that concupiscence isthe law of sin which remains in the members of this body of death'' and that this evil ``remains in our flesh, not by reason of the nature in which man was created by God and wisdom'' (Ibid. II.4; Fathers of the Church). Thus Augustine claims that concupiscence is precisely this disordering of members, and that it is certainly not a property of the man in the state of original justice.

http://www.memoryhole.net/~chris/research/original_sin.html

In conclusion did St.Augustine think sexual pleasure and concupiscence are identical? If we based it on St.Augustine teaching on the nature of original sin and basing it on the behavior of the rational soul that does not strive for holiness sexual pleasure derived from concupiscence carries no guilt and conviction. Thus a rational soul enjoys fulfilling their sensual pleasures unless the grace of the Holy Spirit penetrates the soul to convict it. Then, satisfying sexual pleasures from concupiscence carries guilt and the disorder is exposed.God bless!


Which non LDS Christian denominations believe in baptism after death? The LDS Church believes that it is possible for individuals to be baptized after death (in particular, their descendants can be baptized on their behalf, and if they accept the covenant of baptism they will be able to gain its blessings).

Does any other Christian denomination believe that individuals will have a chance to be baptized after their death if they did not get baptized in life? (This does not necessarily have to be in the form of proxy baptisms, but perhaps after the resurrection, for example.)
 If so, which ones?

As far as I know, most other Christian churches either believe those that were not baptized by the time they die have lost the chance to go to heaven, or do not believe that baptism is necessary (or have no beliefs on the issue), except the LDS Church and the early Christian church.

I love your question and hope others take the time to respond. This is what I found:

Believe in Baptism for the Dead

Early Christian church - Baptisms performed until forbidden by Councils of Cathage in 397 AD (Tvedtnes). See 1 Cor 15:29
Early Judaism - Judas Maccabeus, high priest and commander, performed ordinances in behalf of the dead after the battle of Marisa in 163 BC (Tvedtnes)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Baptized by proxy to provide opportunity to deceased individual. Mentioned in the question.
Community of Christ - Previously done. Documents referencing practice removed in 1990 world conference.
New Apostolic Church and Old Apostolic Church - Baptized by proxy for unknown number of deceased persons.

Wikipedia

Do not believe in Baptism for the Dead

Catholic - Unbaptized individuals are saved through baptism of desire.
Lutherans and Anglicans - Believe in baptism of desire.
Baptists - Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is traditionally a part of membership, though policies vary (Baptists). Salvation comes from faith alone.

Wikipedia

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Baptism for the Dead

You can learn more about what we believe about Baptism for the Dead below:

ChurchOfJesusChrist.org: Baptisms for the dead
AskGramps.org: Is there scripture that supports baptism for the dead? - Not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Note: If you find out more about what other Christian denominations believed please feel free to edit!

In my personal experience, there is no active christian communities (outside of the LDS as stated in the question) that practice Baptism for the dead.

A correct understanding of baptism is that it does not in any way advance or secure ones salvation. Baptism is a form of WORKS. Works being "anything that you do" specificially relating to "good deeds".

IF you are counting on your works for salvation, you are missing the point of the cross.

  Ephesians 2:8-9New King James Version (NKJV)
  8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

There is no physical act that we can do to "be saved" that would amount to saving yourselves. This idea that "baptism saves" is called baptismal regeneration and is generally regarded as being very much in error.

As far as you mentioned "a chance to go to heaven after you die"
The bible teaches that

  Hebrews 9:27 King James Version (KJV)
  27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Some people have come up with ideas about things like purgatory, but none of these ideas are really found in scripture.

One famous example of baptism not being necessary for salvation, is the thief who died on the cross next to Jesus, Jesus said today you will be with me in heave, and obviously the man did not have time to be baptized on the cross.

However, i want to point out that baptism is still commanded by God, and as a response in faith in the desire to be obedient believes should definitely be baptized, it just doesnt equal a gaurenteed get out of jail free card.