In 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul says: >"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (ESV) As someone who affirms the full divinity and sinlessness of Jesus, I’m trying to understand how He could be said to "become sin" without that implying any corruption in His nature or character.

From the website Catholic.Org comes this explanation of what is meant by the title Co-Redemptrix as applied to Mary, the Mother of Jesus: > In his helpful Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion, Deacon Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., Professor of Theology and Mariology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Steubenville, Ohio, offers a valuable explanation of this term. > "The title, "Co-redemptix," refers to Mary's unique participation with and under her Divine Son Jesus Christ, in the historic Redemption of humanity. The prefix, "Co," comes from the Latin "cum," which means "with." The title of Coredemptrix applied to the Mother of Jesus **never places Mary on a level of equality with Jesus Christ**, the divine Lord of all, in the saving process of humanity's Redemption. Rather, **it denotes Mary's singular and unique sharing with her Son in the saving work** of Redemption for the human family. The **Mother of Jesus participates in the redemptive work** of her Savior Son, who alone could reconcile humanity with the Father in his glorious divinity and humanity." Deacon Miravalle states: > "Mary uniquely **participated in the sacrifice of Jesus** on Calvary and in the acquisition of the graces of Redemption for humanity And Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical On the Mystical Body, confirmed that: > **Mary offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father**, together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and her motherly love, like a New Eve for all children of Adam. The apostle Paul, deeply concerned that the Corinthians were being deceived away from undiluted devotion to Christ, wrote: > I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. **But I am afraid that** as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, **your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ**. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. - 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 "Sincere and pure devotion to Christ" here in the ESV is sometimes rendered "simplicity towards Christ" (ASV), "simplicity that is in the Christ" (YLT) or "sincere [and pure] commitment to Christ" (NABRE). **Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate both contain "simplicity that is in Christ".** While some take the meaning to refer to an uncomplicated presentation of the Gospel message and some decry doctrinal teaching as muddying the "simple Gospel" the idea actually appears to refer not to some quality in Christ (although He exemplified simplicity as explained below towards the Father) or in the Gospel message itself but to us: > It is not simplicity *in* Christ, but *towards* Christ of which the Apostle is speaking; not a quality in *Him*, but a quality in *us towards Him*. - MacLaren's Expositions This seems well in keeping with the apostles concern that anything (in the immediate context, the teachings of the Judiezers) be received as an admixture to what Christ has done in redemption. MacLaren goes on further to describe the word picture intended in the Greek haplotēs (ἁπλότης): > To be ‘without a fold,’ which is the meaning of the Greek word and of its equivalent ‘simplicity,’ is, in one aspect, to be transparently honest and true, and in another to be out and out of a piece. There is no underside of the cloth, doubled up beneath the upper which shows, and running in the opposite direction; but all tends in one way. A man with no under-currents, no by-ends, who is down to the very roots what he looks, and all whose being is knit together and hurled in one direction, without reservation or back-drawing, that is the ‘simple’ man whom the Apostle means. Catholicism currently holds 4 Marian dogmas (from Wikipedia ): 1) Mother of God - 1st magisterial definition, Council of Ephesus, 431 AD 2) Perpetual Virginity - wikipedia has the 1st magisterial definition as (one of the?) Synod of Milan (345, 355, 389, 451, 860), but the University of Dayton lists the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553 3) Immaculate Conception - 1st magisterial definition, Pope Pius IX, 1854 4) Assumption in Heaven - 1st magisterial definition, Pope Pius XII, 1950 Of the four dogmas the latter two are relatively recent, at least in terms of their formal definition and acquisition of dogmatic status. An article in the National Catholic Register on Pope Francis' spontaneous remarks regarding the Marian title "co-redemptix" during a Dec. 12 2019 Vatican Mass explains the evolution of these latter two dogmatic statements as being the results of massive "people of God petition drives". This appears in the context of a current, worldwide, and century old "people of God petition drive" to introduce a fifth Marian Dogma, namely Mary's Spiritual Motherhood of All People: > The century-old international movement for a proposed fifth Marian dogma of Mary’s Spiritual Motherhood (**which necessarily includes her foundational roles as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces**) was started by the renowned Belgian cardinal, Cardinal Désiré Mercier, in 1915, and by 1918, Pope Benedict XV has received hundreds of other cardinal and bishop petitions for the solemn papal definition or “dogma” of Mary’s relationship with humanity as a “mother to us in the order of grace” as delineated by the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium, 61).But over the course of the last 100 years, it has especially been the holy People of God who, as an expression of the sensus fidelium, the common consensus of the faithful, have prayed and petitioned the various popes for this dogmatic crowning for Our Lady. Over the past 25 years, the People of God from over 170 countries have sent over 8 million petitions to the Holy See for this dogmatic crowning for Our Lady. This contemporary movement of the Christian faithful has constituted a massive worldwide “People of God petition drive” to recent pontiffs, which follows the Church precedent of the past petition drives from the laity that successfully led to the last two Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950). The following is from CRUX: Taking the Catholic Pulse : > ROME — Pope Francis appeared to flatly reject proposals in some theological circles to add “co-redemptrix” to the list of titles of the Virgin Mary, saying the mother of Jesus never took anything that belonged to her son, and calling the invention of new titles and dogmas “foolishness.” > > “She never wanted for herself something that was of her son,” Francis > said. “She never introduced herself as co-redemptrix. No. Disciple,” > he said, **meaning that Mary saw herself as a disciple of Jesus**. > > Mary, the pope insisted, “never stole for herself anything that was of > her son,” instead “serving him. Because she is mother. She gives > life.” > > “When they come to us with the story of declaring her this or making > that dogma, let’s not get lost in foolishness [in Spanish, tonteras],” > he said. How does the petitioning for a new Dogmatic definition, which necessarily includes the naming of Mary as "co-redemptix", to the highest levels of Roman Catholic authority, "grass-roots" style from the laity, exemplify and encourage simplicity and purity of commitment towards Christ (sole-mediator between God and man), especially when the current Pope appears to reject the notion, calling her a disciple?

> And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, **Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.** - Acts 16:27-31 "What must I do to be saved?" is the question put to them. Isn't the Calvinist answer, "There is nothing that you can do ."? Paul and Silas answer, "Believe...and you will be saved.". Isn't the Calvinist answer, "You cannot believe unless God spiritually regenerates you first .". If Paul believed and taught Calvinism, why did he respond in a way that appears to give the jailer a decision to make? A background, related question would be, why, if Paul was Calvinist, did he expend effort in trying to persuade men? Persuade,in Koine Greek, means much the same as it does in modern English: cause (someone) to do or to believe something through reasoning or argument. How does Calvinism expound on this passage of Scripture and the notion of "persuading" men?

I cannot find in the New Testament an obligation on Christians to tithe 10% of their income. Instead I read that it is up the individual to decide: > [2 Corinthians 9:7 (NIV1984)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%209:7&version=NIV1984) > Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. Is there a church tradition established by the early church to encourage everyone to tithe 10%? What was the early church's view on tithing?

"Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold all things have become new." When or at what point did Jesus Christ become a new creation and why was it necessary for Him to become a new creation?

Having just asked this question of Roman Catholicism, which included a fairly lengthy attempt at defining the "simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3) from a biblical perspective and, in response to an immediate comment, I would like to ask this: According to Roman Catholicism, what is meant by this phrase "the simplicity that is in Christ" which Paul was concerned that the Corinthian minds were being corrupted from? > But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:3

We see St Paul writing at 2 Corinthians 12:7 (RSVCE): > And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. What exactly was St. Paul referring to here? Was he telling an idiom of his time in order to show that he was undergoing some painful medical condition? Or, was he referring to the temptations of flesh? Are there any authentic interpretations from the side of Catholic Church on the saying of St Paul?

We read: > “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, > you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. ***Be miserable > and mourn and weep***; let your laughter be ***turned into mourning*** and your > joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He > will exalt you.” ‭‭James‬ ‭4:8-10‬ ‭James seems to be getting at repentance without using the word μετανοέω (metanoeó). Not all passages of repentance in Scripture seem to imply “mourning”. **Q: According to Protestantism, is godly mourning(with tears) always required when repenting?** **NOTE**: James 4:8-10 seem to imply mourning alongside turning from bad behavior (cleanse your hands). Inserted major edits.

If we assume that the testimony of Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 is veridical, it would seem very counterintuitive (to me) that experiences of heavenly visitations would never happen again. On the contrary, I would expect more of such experiences to happen to people from time to time. > I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, **I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord**. 2 **I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.** 3 **And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows—** 4 **and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter**. 5 On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses— 6 though if I should wish to boast, I would not be a fool, for I would be speaking the truth; but I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me. 7 **So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations**, **a thorn was given me in the flesh**, **a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited**. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. [2 Corinthians 12:1-10 ESV] Are there modern cases (1900 - present) of heavenly visitations *a la* Paul (2 Cor 12:1-10) that are recognized and endorsed by a denomination? ____ Closely related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83049/50422

Inspired by an [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/87282/50422) to a [related question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/87271/50422) , I would like to ask: What are *the signs of a true apostle* according to Latter-day Saints? **Note**: I'm borrowing the expression "the signs of a true apostle" from 2 Corinthians 12:11-12 (ESV): > 11 I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing. 12 **The signs of a true apostle** were performed among you with utmost patience, **with signs and wonders and mighty works**. ____ Mirror question on BH.SE: [What are the signs of a true apostle? 2 Corinthians 12:12](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/71677/38524) ____ More general question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/86686/how-do-believers-in-modern-day-apostles-interpret-2-corinthians-1211-12

2 Corinthians 12:11-12 (ESV): > 11 I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing. 12 **The signs of a true apostle** were performed among you with utmost patience, **with signs and wonders and mighty works**. Acts 14:3-4 (ESV): > 3 So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, **granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands**. 4 But the people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews and some with **the apostles**. It is a well-known fact that the LDS Church has a [Quorum of the Twelve Apostles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum_of_the_Twelve_Apostles_(LDS_Church)) . Do Latter-day Saints expect miracles to authenticate their callings, as 2 Corinthians 12:12 and Acts 14:3-4 seem to suggest? ____ Related: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86686/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84590/50422

2 Corinthians 12:11-12: > 11 I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing. 12 **The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works**. [ESV] > 11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. 12 **Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds**. [KJV] Do believers in modern-day apostles believe that *signs, wonders and mighty deeds* must accompany true apostles? How do believers in modern-day apostles interpret this passage? **Note**: for those interested in knowing whether there are any contemporary churches that believe in modern-day apostles, please see: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84590/50422 ____ Related question on BH.SE: - [Is 2 Corinthians 12:12 binding for all true apostles throughout history?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/70881/38524) Related C.SE questions: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86171/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86181/50422

I'm not asking about a justification or an attack on Pascal's Wager. I'm just curious how/if Blaise Pascal, being an intelligent and analytical fellow, reconciled his famous gambit with 2 Corinthians 9:7 and Psalm 50 in which we are effectively instructed not to give out of compulsion? I presume many here are more versed in his writings than I am. **UPDATE:** To expand a bit on what discrepancy I see, Pascal deduced that belief was a logical choice based on the risk of infinite loss. Yet a "faith" predicated on fear of loss is hardly the sort which interests God.
I paraphrase the verses referenced that God doesn't want "risk averse" faith.
Indeed, Kierkegaard seems to come by the **opposite** approach as Pascal: that faith does and should involve chosen risks.

There are passages that appear to establish an identity between God and his Spirit: > 24 **God is spirit**, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” [John 4:24, ESV] > 17 Now **the Lord is the Spirit**, and where **the Spirit of the Lord** is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from **the Lord who is the Spirit**. [2 Corinthians 3:17-18, ESV] However, other passages appear to make a distinction between the two, as if God and his Spirit were different beings. The passage that is most clear in this regard, in my opinion, is 1 Corinthians 2:10-13: > 10 these things **God has revealed to us through the Spirit**. For **the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God**. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also **no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God**. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but **the Spirit who is from God**, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. [1 Corinthians 2:10-13, ESV] So, on the one hand, God is Spirit, but on the other hand, God has a Spirit. Does this mean that God is Spirit and has a Spirit simultaneously? Is there any difference between God and his Spirit? How can we make sense of all this?

My girlfriend is a JW and I am pentecostal, 2 days ago she was in her meeting and the presenter said that according to 2 corinthians 6:14 "Be ye no unequally yokes together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? KJV. A Jehovah witness shouldn't be married to anyone who isn't a JW. My point to her was the bible did not say at all that JW shouldn't marry a different christians, it talked about the unrighteous and both of us are righteous persons who have a deep desire for Jehovah. So my question is, do you think that God will be ok if we get married because according to scripture we are both equally believers.

2 Corinthians 8:9 (ESV): > 9 For you know the grace of **our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor**, so that you by his poverty might become rich. A related question [When was Jesus rich? 2 Corinthian 8:9](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/60837/when-was-jesus-rich-2-corinthian-89) on Hermeneutics.SE shows that the verse is interpreted by many as indicative of Jesus' preincarnate existence, because --the argument goes-- Jesus was never rich in his mortal life, so the only reasonable option left is that he had to be rich before his incarnation. Of course, deniers of Jesus' preincarnate existence do not share this view. Therefore, I'd be very interested to know their thoughts on this passage. By the way, answerers to this question are welcome to post an answer to the question on the hermeneutics site too.

I was reading in 2 Corinthians 11: 13-15, > For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as > apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as > an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants > masquerades as servants of righteousness **Could these scriptures apply to the Church of today?**

There is a Catholic author who compared St Paul's vision of the third heaven to the third or final stage or way of perfection. I can remember reading it some years ago, but cannot recall it now. This concept is not easy for me to understand. Many authors have written about the Ways of Perfection, But I am looking for the one who 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. This link I hope, can get the idea of where I am coming from: On the Purgative, Illuminative and Unitive Stages of Spiritual Life, as seen in a Cartoon .

Following on from both of the two recent questions regarding the inheritance or transmission of 'original' or 'inbred' sin, from generation to generation, I am interested in the Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed view of how this sin *is dealt with* in the righteousness of God, in Christ. >For he hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. [2 Corinthians 5:21 KJV (italics removed)] I am aware that, on what, for the moment, I may call 'the fringes' of Reformed Protestantism (this is anecdotal, I cannot link) there is a view that this was a 'creative act of God'. They say he 'created' sin within Christ during crucifixion when Jesus offered himself as the Sin-bearer. This has significant implications, not the least of which is the fact that such a 'creative act' seems not to actually involve the sin of the world since it is the 'creation' of 'new' sin. > Behold the Lamb of God, which **taketh away the sin of the world**. [John 1:29, KJV] The verb used in the original is ποιέω (*poieo*) Strong 4160 which has a very broad spectrum of concept covering both of our English words 'make' and 'do'. It can be viewed, in its entire spectrum of meaning and usage, as 'effect' or 'effectively cause'. Thus God 'effected' sin in Christ at Golgotha. My understanding of this is that he, as God Almighty, saw it to be so. He viewed the sin of the world as being within the Christ. Thus, in the view of the Judge of all the world, it was contained : contained within Christ's humanity as he suffered. Thus when Jesus Christ died, sin was removed within himself, within his own humanity. Effectively, sin was destroyed in him, when he died, and was righteously removed from the world, *as to the liability of its having been introduced.* >... our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be **destroyed** [Romans 6:6, KJV] Is this (the effective causing of sin) the understanding of the generality of the Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed view? Or is what I have experienced, on the 'fringes' (the 'creation' of sin), the general view? Or is there another, generally held view altogether (among Trinitarian, Reformed, Protestantism) which I have not, here, covered? --------------------------- EDIT NOTE : I have deliberately removed the italics from the KJV quote of 2 Corinthians 5:21 - 'to be' [sic] as they are not in the Greek text and they change the meaning. 'Made' sin and 'made' *to be* sin are two different things conceptually. There is no copular verb in the text in that place, in the TR.

Peace, grace and blessings everyone! I’m new to this board. I look forward to everyone's answer. > For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being > saved and among those who are perishing;to the one an aroma from death > to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate > for these things? 2 Cor. 2:15-16 Now my focus is where it says “to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life” What I'd like to know and understand is whether the “death unto death” is a statement referring to those who are “perishing” or to those who are being “saved”? I may be in the minority, but I believe the "death unto death" is referring to those being "saved" and the "life unto life" to those who are perishing. I say that base these passages: > Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints. Psalm > 116:15 > > Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the > earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. > John 12:24 > > Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ > Jesus have been baptized into His death? Rom 6:3 > > For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses > his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. Luke 9:24 It seems to me that understanding our union and death in Christ is what brings "death unto death" which is indeed "precious in His sight" because I believe God wants us to understand that it takes a death to bring real life. The more that we know that nature of Adam was crucified and buried, the more we awaken to our union and oneness with God because of Christ For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.(1 Cor 15:22) And so to those who are then "perishing" (no knowledge or intimacy with God) the message of the cross and reconciliation can become "life unto life" once they believe and receive the free gift of salvation. If we believe that it pleases Him that the aroma of those in Christ who minister the message of love and grace brings"death unto death" to those who are "perishing", then I beleive it contradicts what God says to Ezekiel: > Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord > God...Ezk 18:23 Would love to hear what others think. Thanks!