Why do people interpret "Lucifer" as being Satan in Isaiah 14? In almost every case I've heard Isaiah 14:12-15 quoted or preached about, I'm told that these are the words of Satan in his rebellion against God.

Isaiah 14:12-15 (KJV):

  12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
  morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
  nations! 13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into
  heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also
  upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14I
  will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most
  High. 15Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the
  pit.

For example, here.

Yet if you jump up to verse 4, it says

  That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and
  say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

and continues on through the previously cited verses.  So to me, a clear reading indicates that this it the Kind of Babylon saying in his heart,"I will ascend..."

I understand that the prophetical books are often open to interpretation, but I believe I'm missing something.  Why are these quotes attributed to Satan, when it appears that they're meant to be attributed to the king of Babylon?

It is commonly believed to be Satan.  "Lucifer", however, is a transliteration of the word in the Latin Vulgate.  So, basically, it's a transliteration of a translation.  Many more modern translations render the original word rather than following the traditional transliteration.

How you are fallen from heaven,    O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you
are cut down to the ground,    you who laid the nations low! (Isaiah 14:12, ESV)
quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes (Isaiah 14:12, Biblia Sacra Vulgata).

I think your original question (before it was edited) makes more sense. How do you ever know WHY "others" believe what they believe? Notwithstanding, I can only answer as to why I agree with you that the frequent interpretation of many people does not square with Scripture for the reasons you state, and many other reasons (although admittedly my own interpretation). Yet the reasons to reject the interpretations of the "theysayers" (as my wife would say) are sufficiently too numerous and profound to set them out in this answer.
Accordingly, as to this particular "other" (me), I can only point to the portion of a paper that I wrote specifically dealing with the issues you raised. I ran into the same problem that you did many years ago. Beginning on page 19 of that paper, under
"The Beast—the resurrected Lucifer—that eighth horn of Babylon, as extended", you will see that clear reading of the Scripture ties that king of Babylon--as extended-- to the eighth horn of Revelation at that future time of the resurrection of, and the judgment of antichrist. Of course, you have my welcoming invitation to read the paper from the beginning to be better prepared for this portion concerning Lucifer.
ADDENDUM BY EDIT TO PROVIDE "IN ANSWER REFERENCES":
According to the request of one of the site monitors, or one having authority do request such, I will copy and paste the following portion of my paper that I cited above for reference:

The Beast—the resurrected Lucifer—that eighth horn of Babylon, as extended

That is exactly what the Word of God clearly teaches about Lucifer—a man—who is somehow mysteriously and falsely depicted as being Satan by many religionists. Chapter 14 of Isaiah is not talking about Satan the fallen angel, but rather quite specifically about a “man” who will be cast out of his grave “like an abominable branch”—that vile wicked resurrected king of Babylon, extended—the beast of Daniel chapter two, extended.
This is not a history of the past as all the Lucifer-equals-Satan folks claim. This period of time only occurs when the captivity by the little horn of Daniel is finally brought to a sudden end—when the children of Israel are dwelling safely in their own land with Messiah as their king. Isaiah 14:1-3 is very specific concerning both who the LORD is speaking to, and the exact time when the future fulfilment of this prophecy will take place:

For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.

And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve, That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! (My emphasis)

This is not describing that historical event concerning the battle of the angels spoken of in Revelation 12:7-11   which tells about Satan and his angels actually having been cast out of heaven by Michael and his angels. This is clearly a prophecy of Isaiah setting the future specific time for the children of Israel to take up a certain proverb together with its chiding against that “wicked” king of Babylon, extended—that “wicked” little horn of Daniel, chapter seven.
This narrative is a resounding chiding that depicts Lucifer as a “feller”—a lumberjack —one who fells, or cuts down the trees of the nations—including all the fir trees and the cedars of Lebanon. Remember, trees are of the earth. Trees typify humanity. At that future time this “feller” will have already himself been cut down to the ground like a fallen tree. He himself, being only a man, has also been felled just like all those kings that he cut down, as we see in Isaiah 14:12:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (My emphasis)

Lucifer is also typified as the “son of the morning”—Venus—which is at its brightest just before the day star—the sun—arises. The day star is Jesus Christ who returns to earth to rule just at the time that Lucifer is at his height of power. The “man,” Lucifer never was in heaven. He will only say in his heart that he “will ascend” into heaven, as we find continuing in verses 13-14:

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

In verses 15-18, this “man” will have himself been brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? (My emphasis)

Verses 18-19 show that Lucifer will be a resurrected man who is cast out of his grave.

All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

This is not saying that Lucifer initially was “slain, thrust through with a sword.” Rather, he joins the remnant of those so slain, thrust through with a sword. Isaiah, verses 20-21 reveals the exact condition that we saw of the beast, along with the false prophet who will not be joined with those kings of the nations in burial when Christ defeats them.

Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. (My emphasis)

Satan is a spirit, not a man. Spirits have no carcass to be resurrected or to be trodden under feet. Satan is clearly never shown to be resurrected. But Lucifer and his false prophet, will be “cast alive” as resurrected “men” into the lake of fire. Notice that this “man” is called an “abominable branch,” but Jesus is that “man whose name is the BRANCH” (Zech. 6:12)  , that son of David (Isa 11:1)  , who is the “righteous Branch” (Jer. 23:5-6)  .
Those men who are named in the lineage of the “seed of the woman” especially that singular seed—Jesus Christ—became “mighty men of old, men of renown” . But this antichrist is called “the seed of evildoers” who “shall never be renowned.” Titus never had any sons to inherit his emperorship after he died and he will not have a son in his resurrection. Matthew 22:30 states:

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

No one has, or will inherit the kingdom of that “little horn.” Even though others of decreasing importance—such as his brother, Domitian—ruled briefly as lessor Roman emperors after Titus died, no one else has ever stood in the estate of Titus.  However, Titus will return to rule in his own world-order estate during the tribulation. He will also stand in the estate of that wounded world-order governmental body which is that head of the beast that was “wounded to death”.  That head that was wounded to death will at that time be resurrected—because its “deadly wound will be “healed” (Rev. 13:1-3).


Was the flood of Noah global or local? Genesis 7 and 8 describes the flood of Noah, and says in part:

  The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Genesis 7:18-21 NIV

"Common sense" seems to suggest this must have been a local flood (otherwise, where did all that water go?) but the text seems to indicate that it covered the entire earth.

Which was it, and why?

It's a global flood. There are several logical points why.

First, the gathering of all of the animals in the world would be useless, if the Flood was only a local flood. If the Flood was only local, not all of the animals would drown, and thus, bringing all the animals of the World on the ark would have been a useless act.

Secondly, if the Flood was only local, would all the people die? Obviously not. There'd be other people in the world that wouldn't have died besides Noah.

Thirdly, if the Flood was only local, why did Noah have to spend 100 years to build a massive ark, when all he had to do, was merely pack his bags and walk to some other place on Earth?  Consequently, why build a massive 400 ft. Ark, if it's only a local flood?

Lastly if the Flood was local then did God break his promise not to Flood the world again? Hasn’t the Mesopotamian Valley been flooded many times since Noah?

Now, the major problem that you posed, was that , where did all the water go?

Edit:, Due to Caleb's statement, I looked it up, and found this:

  Even if the glaciers and ice caps melted, the oceans would only rise some 70 m (230 ft), yet Mt Everest rises 8,848m (29,029 ft) above sea level.

  It may surprise you to learn that we don’t need any more water to cover the earth. There is already enough.

  The reason water doesn’t envelop the globe now is that the earth’s surface is uneven. The ocean basins sit low and the continents sit high. Some mountains are especially high and some ocean trenches are very deep, but these extremes do not account for a large percentage of the earth’s surface (see graph).

  If the earth’s surface were even, then there is enough water in the oceans to cover the globe to a depth of about 3 km.

  This suggests that, during the Flood, the ocean floor moved vertically relative to the continents, something mentioned in the Bible (Psalm 104:8 NASB).

  In the first half, the pre-Flood ocean basins rose and the pre-Flood continents eroded down until water covered everything.

  That does not mean the earth’s surface would have to be completely even. The ocean basins would have only had to rise enough for the water to cover everything.

  Then, in the second half of the Flood, other parts of the earth’s crust sank. The water flowed off our continents into new ocean basins. Movement of the earth’s crust at this time also pushed up new mountain ranges, including the one that is home to Mt Everest.1

  So where did all the water go? It is in the ocean.

Just for the reader, Psalm 104 : 6-8 states:

  Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

  7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

  8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

You make the assumption that there was a flood at all.

But maybe the flood is just a metaphor, a story. Which would lead to a different question: What does the story mean? It could be meant either way, without a real flood.

Since the ancient Jews didn't know the whole earth, how could they know whether the whole world was covered with water to begin with? Nobody knew Mt. Everest then, nobody in that region knew Japan, China, North or South America.

Without modern information technology, and without witnesses to ask later, it is impossible to know what was covered with water. But witnesses would be a contradiction to the idea that the whole earth population was killed.


In which year was Christ born? This question is a spin-off from On which date was Christ born?

There are differing views on the birth year of Christ, which also affect the dating of the resurrection (as we know Jesus's age on death). Which years are possible, and what are the arguments?

One theory:
It's not the easiest thing to follow, but The Star of Bethlehem has a very interesting hypothesis on the subject.  The information is all there, especially in footnotes, but unfortunately it's not presented very clearly on the site itself... they want you to get the video.* The upshot is that the date is most likely 3BC, and maybe 2BC.
You get around the Herod problem because of a recent study that found a typesetting error made in 1544 for the manuscripts used to date Herod's death. It is now believed he died in 1BC, rather than 4BC:

The Bible recounts that Herod learned of the Messiah's birth from astronomers who had seen the Star of Bethlehem. He tried to kill the child, so, obviously, the Bible records that Herod was alive at Jesus' birth. Remember that this mattered to Kepler, because historians of his time apparently inferred from Josephus' history that Herod died in 4 BC (9). Necessarily, Kepler assumed Christ was born before that date, perhaps 5 BC or earlier...
But modern scholarship has deepened our understanding of Josephus' manuscripts. A recent study was made of the earliest manuscripts of Josephus' writings held by the British Library in London, and the American Library of Congress. It revealed a surprise that allows us to target our mathematical telescopes better than could Kepler (10). It turns out that a ... printer typesetting the manuscript of Josephus' Antiquities messed up in the year 1544. Every single Josephus manuscript in these libraries dating from before 1544 supports the inference that Herod passed in 1 BC.  Strong recent scholarship confirms that date (11).

* As a side note, the video is well worth your time. It's just a shame that they charge for it; this is something that would be good to see spread more widely.

I believe that Jesus is born at the year 7 B.C. because it is revealed:

   122:8.1All that night Mary was restless so that neither of them slept much. By the break of day the pangs of childbirth were well in evidence, and at noon, August 21, 7 B.C., with the help and kind ministrations of women fellow travelers, Mary was delivered of a male child. Jesus of Nazareth was born into the world, was wrapped in the clothes which Mary had brought along for such a possible contingency, and laid in a near-by manger.

Reference:
https://truthbook.com/jesus/mary-mother-of-jesus/events-of-jesus-birth


How can Paul having been alive apart from the Law reconcile with the doctrine of original sin? How can Paul's having been alive apart from the Law, reconcile with the doctrine of original sin?

  Romans 7:9 NASB--I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;

For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Paul means that

Before he heard the law he thought he was OK, fine, alive.  But when he heard the law he realized he was not OK, not fine, but spiritually dead. Or
He means that when he heard the law all it did was stir up sin in him, for "the strength of sin is the law" (1 Corinthians 15:56).  And the law does this because with its demands it just irritates us and increases our rebelliousness.

1.
The law is like a mirror. I thought my face was perfectly clean, but when I looked into the mirror I saw I was filthy.  So when I see the law of God I realize I am spiritually sick, even dead.

2.
Also the law stirs up sin.  It happens like this:  I hear God's standard and it is very high and I realize that no matter how hard I try I am going to fail: so I get angry against God, I resent Him and His laws, and I realize, or maybe I don't realize it, but I actually hate Him more than ever.

Also, I prefer sin to holiness, and I resent that God is against the things I like.  So what do I say?  I will sin against God to spite him to his face. "In for a penny,in for a pound", I might as well go to Hell for stealing a million as for stealing a pound, I will sin all the more; I will silence my conscience by sinning and sinning, I will ignore my conscience over and over until it no longer screams at me, or if it does, until I can no longer hear it.

The trouble with the law is that it can tell you what is the right thing to do, but it doesn't and cannot offer you any help to do it.  It is only a signpost on the road, it isn't an engine with a tank full of fuel.

Furthermore, like all laws, it really shouts loudest when we do the wrong thing; it doesn't pour out congratulations when we do the right thing: when we do the right thing the law says "You know very well you should have done that anyway, that is the least anyone expected of you; you only did your duty"; and when we do the wrong thing it says "You're finished!  Boy, are you in big trouble now, or what?!"

When Christian went to "The House of Interpretter" in the book, Pilgrim's Progress, Christian was shown someone who was sweeping in a room, but all that was being achieved was making a huge cloud of dust... the floor was not being cleaned because all the dust would settle again, in fact the one sweeping was just making things worse, working to no effect.  Once the dust had settled again someone came and sprinkled a little water on the floor, and after that the floor was swept again: this time the dust was nicely swept up.  The first picture is the law working in isolation from grace; the second picture is grace and law working together, the soul is cleansed.

Once I know I am freely and fully forgiven by the free grace of God believing all my sins are paid for by Jesus Christ dying and taking their full punishment then the law can no longer condemn: and now I want to please God by keeping, as much as I can, His law.  Now within me is an inner power to keep his law, not perfectly, but in a measure never before possible, I am sincere in my desire to draw near to God, to grow in grace and holiness.  But it isn't me, its the grace of God in me. Its no longer I who do it but Christ who lives in me.

I believe the only time Paul was ever “alive apart from the law” was when he was a saved man, or born again. That is the simplest reading of it. He just explain at the beginning of Ch 7 our (the believer’s) new relationship to the law. In that comparison, the only time the wife was apart from the law was when she married another. She died in Christ, at that moment she died to the law as well. Therefore the only time a jewish Paul was alive apart from the law was after he was saved...


How is Lutheran apostolic succession conferred? I noticed in a comment that Lutherans have apostolic succession I figured this was a purely Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox thing is there a comparable Sacrament of Holy Orders in the Lutheran world?

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America embraces apostolic succession.  This has been true since Called to Common Mission, an agreement of full communion with the Episcopal Church of the USA, took effect a decade ago. When our bishops are installed (only pastors are ordained) a bishop who holds apostolic succession (often an Episcopal bishop) is present.

Agreeing to this was not simple, because North American Lutherans have long rejected it. But the churchwide assembly accepted the argument that full communion was more important than staying divided from the Episcopalians over this.

Lutherans have NEVER believed in the TRIFOLD "Office of the Keys", that is: that there is indeed a "spiritual distinction" in the rankings of the Priest, Deacon, and Bishop, from an Ordination perspective..   That there is but ONE office of ministry called "Pastor", and so all that is needed for Holy Orders - which like Confirmation, is a solemn rite, not a Sacrament - is another Ordained Minister of the Word to declare them (should they be found worthy) not in sacrament become, but in duty hold, the Authority of the "Office of the Keys" (which is Christ himself) and all of the Priestly powers thereof (such as the consecration of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, the preaching office of the scriptures, and the 'In Persona Christi' for the Sacrament of Absolution)..

However, (not a doctrine) the ranks of Deacon, Parish Pastor (parish priest), and Bishop have all been retained for the sake of organization, THOUGH WE DON'T AND NEVER WILL ACCEPT THE NECESSITY FOR AN EPISCOPATE - as this contradicts our teaching in Sola Scriptura, that Bishops and Councils must always submit to the inspired Scriptures as HIGHEST AUTHORITY.


If God is beyond our comprehension how can we comprehend what he wants? According to many christian practitioners one of their most famous answers to a lot of questions in that "God is above our understanding" or another similar answer.

If this is true then how can we comprehend what god wants from us? The bible is written by many people who aren't God, so how can we base anything off of mere mortals who cannot comprehend such a supreme being?

PS Please no cryptic responses

If by "comprehension" you mean "completely understanding God," then, yes, God is not comprehensible. But if by "comprehension" you mean "knowing God," then, no. God's existence and divinity are knowable to unaided human reason and even demonstrable:

  Rom. 1:20: For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they [the unbelieving Romans] are inexcusable [for not knowing God].

We also know what God wants for us:

  1 Thess. 4:3: For this is the will of God, your sanctification

After understanding, with compelling coherence, some teachings for which multiple interpretations have been given, albeit with lesser coherence, and some even out of context, I have come to the conclusion that it's almost impossible to know what God requires of us without supernatural help.
After all, we are separated from the original information by several millenia and even geographically, and when we often misunderstand ongoing conversations because of semantics and idiosyncrasies, imagine the possibilities of missing the meaning in these extreme situations.
Fortunately, understanding the difficulties presented, Christ taught exactly that - the need for supernatural help. The Ancient Near East, being an agrarian society, used terms like grain, seed, fruit, bread, etc. extensively, mostly to denote riches, and in the case of the Bible, teachings:

Luke 11:1 It happened that while Jesus was praying in a certain place, after He had finished, one of His disciples said to Him, “Lord, teach us to pray just as John also taught his disciples.”  2 And He said to them, “When you pray, say:   'Father, hallowed be Your name.  Your kingdom come.  3  ‘Give us each day our daily bread. 4  ‘And forgive us our sins,  For we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.  And lead us not into temptation.’”  5 Then He said to them, “Suppose one of you has a friend, and goes to him at midnight and says to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves; 6 for a friend of mine has come to me from a journey, and I have nothing to set before him’; 7 and from inside he answers and says, ‘Do not bother me; the door has already been shut and my children and I are in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.’ 8 “I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will get up and give him as much as he needs.  9  “So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 “For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened. 11 “Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? 12 “Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he? 13 “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”

Now to come to the specific question of how to comprehend what God requires from us.
Applying the method I mentioned, when I ask God for bread, enlightenment, this is how He answers:
God wants us to be blessings to the world, through learning how to be that blessing. When we are baptised in the name of Christ, we know that we will receive the Holy Spirit, necessary for learning the Way. When we receive the Holy Spirit, we will be taught that picking up a cross, every day,  leads to being resurrected, every day. How does the Holy Spirit teach this? By displaying God's great work in saving.
Remember, when Israel committed to stop serving selfish interests, and start serving God through selflessness, God immediately created situations where dangerous conditions came up, and He then saved from those conditions. Conditions like food and water shortages. His miracles in the wilderness were performed to build up faith in Israel, just as they did when they were performed in Egypt.
This is exactly how God taught Abraham faith, when He was exposed to risk to his life, on account of Sarah. Although he lied, it didn't take him out of danger, and his rescue was clearly through God's help.
These situations teach two things, lessons Abraham learnt, but Israel did not. Abraham intuited that God required him to trust him to be saved from danger. Second, these rescues were connected to the promise that the world would be blessed through him and his descendants. They were situations in which the great works of God would be displayed, so that those witnessing them would be motivated to serve God, like Abraham served God. You see similar parallels in the great works God empowered Moses and Christ with.

Exodus 4:1Then Moses said, “What if they will not believe me or listen to what I say? For they may say, ‘The LORD has not appeared to you.’” 2The LORD said to him, “What is that in your hand?” And he said, “A staff.” 3Then He said, “Throw it on the ground.” So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it. 4But the LORD said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand and grasp it by its tail”—so he stretched out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand— 5“that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.”
John 9:1As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. 2And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” 3Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

So when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as an offering, Abraham thought that the event was just another opportunity to display God's great work, believing that God would raise his son back from the dead.

Hebrews 11:19He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.

Conclusion
Baptism is induction into a course of comprehending what God requires of us, to become blessings to the world, a fulfilment of the promise to us, descendants of Abraham through faith in God. We are baptised into Christ, drink from the Rock, eat the same spiritual food, which will build up our faith in God, belief He will rescue. This was meant for the children, not for dogs, but faith makes us children of Abraham, like the syro-Phoenician woman. As for Israel, if the works done in her had been done in Sidon and Tyre, they would have turned to follow God, so her unbelief was great. After tasting the bread from heaven, if we do not believe in God's Way, and obey, when we hear God's voice to pick up our crosses, no other way is left to be saved.
We see that this conclusion was reached by being enlightened in a supernatural way, because seeing this motif buried in the forest of other motifs of Scripture would be impossible, if using any other method.
All Scriptural references from the NASB.


What is the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven? I did a search and saw that the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" appears exclusively in the Gospel according to Matthew.  However, the phrase "Kingdom of God" appears a few times in Matthew, but is also quite prevalent in Mark and Luke.  It also appears twice in John 3, several times in Acts and Paul's letters.

Clarence Larkin has a diagram that seems to distinguish between the two kingdoms somehow as well:

What, then, is the difference or distinction between these two kingdoms?

The idea of a kingdom in the biblical sense is not just a sphere under the royal power of a monarch, but a living supra terrestrial life of which God sits on a throne as a redeemer, priest, prophet, judge and king. All in this sphere are redeemed by his blood and born into this invisible realm by faith.  Jehovah in Christ is their God, master and royal Lord.  Christ is that single person who possesses everything under his rule and so he is filled with royal glory.

The idea of God's kingdom is related to those images found in David and promised in Messiah, but it is God himself in his divinity that is the root of the definition:

And they were calling to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.” At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.  “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.” (Isaiah 6:3-5, NIV)

As far as the term 'kingdom of God' verses 'kingdom of heaven' there is no difference. Mathew wrote primarily to a Jewish audience that preferred to avoid the term God, as it was taboo to speak his holy name. However, the other evangelists seem to prefer 'kingdom of God' as Gentiles would more easily understand the Messianic aspect from that term, rather then revert to their own philosophical notions of 'heaven'.

Because we now know (*) that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke  were substantially based on Mark's Gospel, and because  the Gospels of Matthew and Luke have additional material in common, believed to have come from the hypothetical 'Q' document, we can compare the three gospels and look for passages where other gospels use 'kingdom of God' where Matthew uses 'kingdom of heaven'. If such passages exist, they will point to there being no material difference between the two terms, with the choice of 'kingdom of heaven' simply being a stylistic difference.
One parallel in which Mark was the original for the passage in Matthew is Matthew 13:11, which uses 'kingdom of heaven', while the original in Mark 4:11 uses 'kingdom of God':

Matthew 13:11: He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mark 4:11: And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

One parallel in which Matthew and Luke have similar passages, from the 'Q' document (where minor differences in wording exist, most scholars believe Luke is closer to the original in Q):

Matthew 5:3: Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 6:20:  And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

Examples such as these show that the author of Matthew chose to use 'kingdom of heaven' even when copying a passage that used the term 'kingdom of God'.
However, sometimes our author chose to use 'kingdom of God', in line with his sources, for example:

Matthew 19:24: And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mark 10:25: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

(*) John Dominic Crossan, in The Birth of Christianity, page 110-111, speaks of a massive consensus among scholars in favour of Markan priority. He says there is a smaller, but still substantial majorityof scholars who believe that the hypothetical 'Q' document was the source of other material on which Matthew and Luke agree.


What did Jesus mean when he said ‘Go and sin no more’ if sinlessness is impossible? I came across these two instances in the New Testament when Jesus told someone to "sin no more."

  John 13:15 Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place. Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well!  Sin no more,  that nothing worse may happen to you.” The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him.

The second instance is in the account of the woman taken in the act of adultery.

  John 10:11 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

From the standpoint of sinlessness being impossible, what exactly did Jesus mean by saying this?

When you look at Jesus' command in light of the whole law, and other instances where He said similar things (such as "be ye as perfect as your father in heaven"), you realize that while this is a command, it's really just a repetition of all the previous commands given by God over thousands of years.  Jesus' command is just a reaffirmation of what God has been commanding us since the beginning of time - or at least of the law.

In a sense, it appears that God is commanding the impossible.  And one wonders why he would do that.  What does he expect to get from all this commanding.  Well, the truth is that the Law, while good, was never intended to be a guide for how to live one's life.  It's purpose is to convict of sin, "that the whole world might become guilty before him".  Why would he do this?  Because the Law of God is not a guide for living life.  it is not a list of things that you MUST do, it is a list of things that you do NOT do, and in not doing them you have become guilty before God.  The purpose of the Law, again, is not lifestyle guide, but schoolmaster - leading man to the cross of Christ.

Because the plan of salvation depends on the works of Jesus Christ, not man.  Man cannot even contribute to this work, for, "if you will build me an alter, you shall do it with uncarved stone (untouched by man), for in the moment that you lift up your tool upon my altar, you have polluted it."

This plan of salvation makes it possible for men to come to God through Christ, but the condition is that you must first be found guilty, in order to take advantage of the court's mercy (Christ).

Jesus' command to "go and sin no more" is simply a reaffirmation that "God is Holy, and Man is Sinful,... flee the wrath to come".  That once you trust Him for salvation, you will always, and must always continue to trust Him and His work done on your behalf, not in your own works.

do not be the generation of them that are wise in their own eyes. You do not want to prove that you know better than God, do you? I'm sure you do not want to go there. Exodus 32:33 says "Whosoever
hath sinned against me, him will
I blot out of my book ." The Word of God can NEVER be changed, " The Lord perfectly knew what He was saying, I MEAN HOW COULD YOU EVER DOUBT THAT!!!! " Proverbs 11:23 says "Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished" so if you really want to go to heaven, throw away that satanic ideology because sin CAN NEVER enter there. "If you cling to sin till death,
When you draw your latest breath,
You will sink in dark despair
To the regions of the lost,
Thus to prove at awful cost,
Sin can never enter there."- Charles W. Naylor. 1 John 3:9 says "Whosoever is born of God doth
not commit sin; for his seed
remaineth in him: and he cannot
sin, because he is born of God." From Genesis to Revelation the Lord rejects sin, i pray you will not be found to be an enemy of God. In Hebrews 9, the Bible says
"13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats,
and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling
the unclean, sanctifieth to the
purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of
Christ, who through the eternal
Spirit offered himself without spot to
God, purge your conscience from
dead works to serve the living God?
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself
often, as the high priest entereth
into the holy place every year with
blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered
since the foundation of the world:
but now once in the end of the
world hath he appeared to put away
sin by the sacrifice of himself.
28 So Christ was once offered to bear
the sins of many; and unto them
that look for him shall he appear the
second time without sin unto
salvation."
Note the BIBLE clearly states that He has come(appeared) to PUT AWAY SIN by the sacrifice of Himself. Surely the blood of the second Personality in the Trinity is potent enough to set you free from sin and should not (i mean NEVER) be compared to the blood or bulls and calves which were "a shadow of things to come".

MY CONCLUSION (More like the BIBLE'S CONCLUSION):
It sure is possible to live without sin. How? Repent of your sins, be sorry for commiting them, totally turn away from all sin and ask Jesus Christ to forgive, cleanse, make you a new creature and a sheep in His fold. Ask Him to come into your heart, to be your LORD and Saviour, to grant you the grace never to go back to sin anymore and make up your mind never to go back to sin anymore. God bless you.


How do Calvinists go from "X is Sinful" to "X is unable to accept Christ on his own?" I was recently reviewing Piper's TULIP notes. I'm also aware of What is the Biblical Basis for Total Depravity

Here, however, is something that I no longer understand. How do Calvinists jump

from: "X is sinful"
to: "X is incapable of believing in Christ"

It seems like we need one of two intermediate steps:

A. "X is sinful" -> "everything X does is sin" -> "X is incapable of believing in Christ" or

B. "X is sinful" , "no one with sin can accept Christ" -> "X is incapable of believing in Christ"

I don't see biblical scripture for the intermediate steps for either (A) or (B). How do Calvinists make this work? [I'm really looking for Biblical verses, rather than Edwards's Freedom of the Will or Luther's Bondage of the Will]

Question:

What is the intermediate step?

You have it right: "X is sinful" -> "everything X does is sin" -> "X is incapable of believing in Christ without the additional work of the Holy Spirit" --> is the basic belief held by Calvinism. One of the best explanations of the doctrine of original sin is by Jonathan Edwards, entitled ‘without surprise’, ‘The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended; Evidences of its Truth Produced.’ Here he argues, among other things, the imputation of guilt on infants as displayed in the flood and in Sodom and Gomorrah.

In a nutshell I have found many classic authors, including Luther, Owen and Edwards, often start by using this verse to say that anybody born of ‘flesh’ is only ‘flesh’.

  That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (ESV John 3:6)

In other words anyone born in the sinful nature is in ‘entirely sinful.’ This means they can’t do anything good but are totally depraved.

The idea of ‘flesh’ is derogatory as ‘human nature separated from God’. Even as a believer who has ‘both’ good and evil natures, as a result of the new birth, only a sinful disposition remains in that nature they first obtained through Adam.

  For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. (ESV Romans 7:18)

This is understood by all classical Calvinists (as far as I know) as a description of Paul ‘as a Christian’.

Edwards’ book which I referenced argues the case so very well. Unlike Owen who is difficult to read, I challenge anyone to read ‘even just a dozen pages’ of Edwards and they will quickly understand the concepts of original sin as 'originally taught' by the reformers.

I am not sure I see "sin" as even part of the equation.

John 6:44  No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

It seems pretty straightforward. No one can come to Jesus without the work of the Father.

X -> work of the Father -> belief in Christ


According to Catholic Church, what does it mean to worship God in spirit and truth? We see Jesus telling the Samaritan woman at Jn 4: 23-24 (NRSVCE) :

"But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him.   God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

See that Jesus repeats the phrase 'worship in spirit and truth', implying that he attaches much importance to it. Here, spirit and truth are components of a single integrated concept and are not separated from each other. While he explains ìn spirit 'by attributing it to the nature of God who is spirit, he does not elaborate the phrase `in truth'.  Of course, he says elsewhere: "I am the way, the truth and the life " (Jn 14:6).
We also see Jesus telling Pilate :

“You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

Though we see Pilate putting a question to Jesus on what truth is (Jn 18:38), he does not get an answer from Jesus; rather, he does not wait for one.
My question therefore is: How does the Catholic Church explain the term 'to worship in spirit and truth' as used by Jesus at Jn 4: 23-24?

According to Catholic Church, what does it mean to worship God ”in Spiritu et Veritate”?
These words are taken to the deep profound meanings of the vary essence and meaning of what prayer, adoration and union with God details in a faithful’s worship of God and all that pertains to the Divine realities while still in this life on earth.
I’ll try my best to explain what it mean to pray in spirit and truth!
To start with I will be basing my response on the works of two Catholic authors. Others exist, but these two will get my point out.
The first one is Fr. Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange OP, known by the nickname as Sacred Monster of Thomism. While at the Angelicum, in Rome from 1909 to 1960, he wrote his magnum opus, The Three Ages of the Interior Life (Les Trois Ages de la Vie Interieure) in 1938. This work shows us how to pray and advance towards union with God through prayer, meditation and those practices which are helpful in our spiritual life to attain perfection in a life of prayer. He masters he work with theological perspective due to his station in life. Perhaps the most famous of his students was the future Pope John Paul II, who was supervised by Garrigou-Lagrange for his doctoral research in the mid-1940s at the Angelicum, and whose encyclical Fides et Ratio is attributed to his training under the learned Dominican.
The second person I will employ to help us in understanding this concept is the Abbess Cécile Bruyère, OSB. Mother Cécile's spiritual thought and teaching, entirely inherited from Dom Guéranger but presented with the benefit of many years' experience in Benedictine life and meditation, is well summarised in her book La vie spirituelle et l'oraison, d'après la Sainte Ecriture et la tradition monastique (The Spiritual Life and Prayer: According to Holy Scripture and Monastic Tradition). In this work, she explains the primary importance of the liturgy in the religious life in developing the specific grace arising from the sacrament of baptism.
Both authors are explain how to attain union with God though genuine prayer or true worship. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange writes from a theological perspective, while Mother Cécile writes from a more practical and tradition point of view. The end result is the same: Attaining union with God through prayer.
The phrase to ”worship God in spirit and truth”, if in essence the manner of praying with our whole being to become in complete union with is spirit and in truth. Simply put it is a lifestyle of prayer based on genuine, deep and profound way of living in such a manner.
Some Catholic writer(s) have compared St Paul's vision of the ”third heaven” to the third or final stage or way of perfection.
This concept is not easy for many to understand. Many authors have written about the Ways of Perfection, For example, both Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and Mother Cécile used St. Paul's vision of 2 Corinthians 12:1-7 as a comparison to the unitive state of prayer.

Paul’s Vision and His Thorn
12 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.* 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6 Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say, 7 or because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.

In Catholic thought the three stages (ways,state) of interior life or prayer are the purgative stage, the illuminative stage and the unitive stage.
In one’s spiritual journey, Catholic spirituality generally notes three basic “ways” or “stages” of the interior life (or spiritual life) through which the soul must pass that draws one into deeper union with God: the Purgative, the Illuminative, and the Unitive. Those who seek union with God must realize that such union, while always the gift of God, still requires a process, often painful, that must “pave the way” for that union. Look at it this way: If a box is filled with sand, it cannot be filled with gold. The lives must be cleaned, and then there is room enough for the gold of God’s presence.
The Purgative Way: The Purgative Way is the first stage in mental prayer, according to the teachings of the great Carmelite mystics St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. The soul’s chief concern in this stage of perfection is an awareness of its sins, sorrow for the past, and a desire to expiate the offenses against God.
The Purgative Stage: In this stage, our desires and affections must be “purged” of attractions to sin. The disorder caused by sin must be set aright by the Lord, for a disordered soul cannot perceive or appreciate well enough the glory and beauty of God. The distractions of the world must be diminished and wrongful passions, attachments, and evil inclinations must be subjugated so that we can more easily overcome temptations and preserve and exercise the virtue of charity. There is a focus, too, in this stage of uprooting the remnants and bad habits of former sins, perhaps through mortifications, the practice of austerity and simplicity, and the submitting of our will to be in conformity with the will of God. We seek to diminish and “purge” the attraction of wrongful or excessive pleasures. We also seek to diminish our natural shrinking from pain and to develop a repugnance to whatever is contrary to the will of God. The main virtue to be cultivated within this purgative stage is humility, which helps us be aware of our own weakness and our dependence on the grace of God.
The Illuminative Way: The Illuminative Way is the second stage between “purification” and “union” on the path to Christian perfection. Also called the “Way of the Proficients,” the main feature of the Illuminative Way is enlightenment of the mind in the ways of God and a clear understanding of His will in one’s own state of life. Most souls with not get passed this stage in their spirituality.
The Illuminative Stage: Those attaining this stage have made progress and have their passions better under control of the will, so that they more easily keep themselves from mortal sin, but they still do not easily avoid venial sins since they still take pleasure in earthly things and are distracted by various imaginations and desires, not all of which are necessarily unlawful, but which may get in the way of a deeper union with God. In this stage, the mind becomes more and more enlightened to spiritual things and the practice of virtue. Love is stronger and the soul seeks progress in the spiritual life and in all the virtues. But purgation is still somewhat incomplete, and the purification of the senses is not yet completed. There are also aridities, difficulties, and trials, sometimes more severe than in the past, and the need to endure suffering from temptations.
The Unitive Way: The Unitive Way is the third and final stage of Christian perfection, beyond the Purgative and Illuminative. Its principal feature is a more or less constant awareness of God’s presence, and a habitual disposition of conformity to the will of God. Although commonly regarded as the last stage in the spiritual life, it is recognized that the three traditional levels of progress in holiness are not necessarily chronological. They may be present, in greater or lesser degree, at any point during a person’s growth in holiness and sanctity.  This is an important point to remember.
The Unitive Stage: This is the way of those who have their minds detached from temporal things, such that they enjoy great peace, and are not agitated by various desires, nor are they moved to any great extent by sinful passion. Having been largely purged of these things, they have their minds fixed chiefly on God. It is called “unitive” since, at this stage, there is a “union” with God by love and the actual experience and exercise of that love.
It is at this final stage that those accustomed to be united to God receive those great mystic graces of interior allocations directly from Jesus and so on.
The graces expressed in such vivid light in  Mother Cécile‘s works are so easily understood that I personally can not imagine that she, herself had not attained this level of union with God. She had to have experienced the graces received in order to be able to explain a life of prayer In Spiritu et Veritate.

According to Catholic Church, what does it mean to worship God in spirit and truth?
The answer can be simply found in Mary's Canticle.

My soul magnifies the Lord, and
My Spirit rejoices in God my Saviour
For He has looked with favour on His lowly servant.

From this day all generations will call me blessed:
The Almighty has done great things for me,
And holy is His Name.
He has mercy on those who fear Him
In every generation.
He has shown the strength of His arm,
He has scattered the proud in their conceit.
He has cast down the mighty from their thrones,
And has lifted up the lowly.
He has filled the hungry with good things,
And the rich He has sent away empty.
He has come to the help of His servant Israel
For He has remembered His promise of mercy,
The promise He made to our fathers,
To Abraham and his children for ever.

In Mary's Canticle, She distinguished the soul from Spirit.
Mary not only knows the Truth, She bear in Her pure womb the Truth Himself, Jesus Christ.
We all need to follow the Will of the Father in our proper worship to God, and Mary had shown us how to do it. Following the Will of the Father is what Jesus teaches & embraced, and it is our path to enter and be accepted in the Kingdom of God. (Matthew7:21
First, we must unite our will in union with the Will of the Father. Mary's Fiat.
Second,Jesus must resides in our heart, as St.Augustine said, "Mary conceived first the Logos in her heart before She conceived Jesus in her womb." So, the Truth was already in Marys heart.
Third, we must be overshadowed or filled with the presence of the Holy Spirit.
If the Will of the Father, Jesus Christ the Truth, and the Holy Spirit filled our whole being, then we are now ready to say our own Canticle like what the Blessed Virgin Mary did.
The Canticle of Mary is worshipping and praising God in "Spirit and Truth", meaning the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are the one who are empowering the Blessed Virgin Mary to worship God the Father in fulfilling His Divine Will on earth at it is in Heaven.