 Efrain Alvarado says: St. Cyprian (c. 250AD) - "God is one and Christ in one, and one is His Church, and the faith is one, and His people welded together by the glue of concord into a solid unity of body. Unity cannot be rent asunder, nor can the one body of the Church, through the division of its structure, be divided into separate pieces." (On the Unity of the Church, 23) Tertullian (c. 197AD) - "We are a society with a single religious feeling, a single unity of discipline, a single bond of hope," (Apology 39, 1) St. Hilary (c. 4th century) - "In the Scriptures our people are shown to be made one, so that just as many grains collected into one and ground and mingled together, make one loaf, so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we know there is one holy, in which our whole company is joined and united" (Treatise 62, 13) So, what's the deal with the "trinity"? Is it like a three headed thing? Three heads but one body? 1 John 5:7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. 1. In the one divine nature, there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 2. No one of the persons is either of the others, each is wholly Himself. 3. The Father is GOD, the Son is GOD, the Holy Spirit is GOD. 4. They are not three GODS but one GOD. They are distinct but are NOT separate. Where one is, all are. 5. The Holy Trinity, one GOD, and three divine persons, functions in an individual yet collective way. Are you aware that #3 contradicts #2? And #4? "They are distinct but are NOT separate? Where one is, all are?" So why did Jesus pray, and to who(m) was he praying? And why did he ask his other self why he forsook himself? And why would he have to sacrifice himself to himself in order to save us from himself? If they are "one" they don't seem to communicate very well. Oye Efrain.... Last time somebody tried that, the whole of Europe went up in flames. Time to let bygones be bygones. If you would like a succinct answer to the Trinty: http://www.secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/trinity.htm. The divine nature of God, who is a charitable God, is one who chose to to be revealed to our finite minds as three persons. This is a basic fundamental truth for Christianity since our God reaches out to us and is not inactive who seeks only worship and decides to damn those who don't. By the Trinity, God is approachable to everyone of us and uses the three persons to do His will. Jesus was praying to the Father. Through prayer, a human communicates with God which is what Jesus taught and examplified for us. It is the nature of God to perfectly communicate within the three ... Jesus the perfect sacrifice, died for us so that we may be able to recieve eternal life. As firstborn human to the next life, he opened the gateway for us so that we too may live.How does a god, killing himself, save us? Isn't he supposed to be omnipowerful? Why doesn't he just dispense with the gore? He's saving us from HIMSELF already. Do you "personally" have to kill yourself in order to forgive someone? I mean, when you really think about these things, you have to wonder... Maybe that's why it's so dependent on faith. Excellent questions. First off Jesus did not kill himself he was crucified by men. Secondly, we are not able to enter heaven on our own accord since we ourselves are not gods. Every human sins (moral evil, a privation of form or order or due measure. Evil therefore is implies a deficiency in perfection.) and in order for us to be with God in the afterlife, we have to be free from sin. Jesus who is both God and man was the perfect sacrifice to amend us to Him and His death was just that. At the same time how can God be omnipotent and still die? Well it was His will that we all might be saved and by His death He acomplished this since God is love and loves us. The only way to forgive som... First off Jesus did not kill himself he was crucified by men.Uh, did he (or did he not) sacrifice HIMSELF (that is, knowingly on earth for the purpose of dying in order to save humankind)? HOW it was done is irrelevant. Had he jumped off a cliff, would you blame the ground? "Secondly, we are not able to enter heaven on our own accord since we ourselves are not gods."Sure we can. When genesis was described, heaven was above the firmament (let's call it clouds). We've gone far beyond that into space. (No biblical heaven there.) (No firmament either!) "Jesus who is both God and man was the perfect sacrifice to amend... Merry Christmas Lucky! Christ came into this world knowing well what was to take place. While on earth, He poclaimed and lived the Good News which was a directive for mankind to understand His will for us. He did this knowingly about all that He had to suffer as a man. Yet He persevered because there is no greater love than to give up ones life for his friends. So to answer your question through the evil of men, Jesus was killed and did not kill Himself and this fact is relevant because it is a prime example how men do evil to God himself. We preach Christ crucified because it is an example for His love for us. His human self suffered for our sake, yet ones physical well being is secondar... Merry Christmas to you too; and thank you! "Christ came into this world knowing well what was to take place. ... So to answer your question through the evil of men, Jesus was killed..."Right, like I said. Suicide. Isn't it suicide if a man dies from jumping off a cliff on purpose, knowing what will result? But that's not important. What is important is the concept of vicarious atonement. The crimes of the guilty cannot be atoned by killing the innocent any more than the virtues of the innocent can be gained by the guilty by killing the innocent. This is the concept of the "scapegoat" practice of the pagans. It is at once immoral and barbaric. Again, do you "... Suicide is generally carried out due to despair. The death of Jesus was not such. To die for someone else out of charity is totally on the other side of the spectrum. That being said, His death is recognized by His believers as an ultimate act of love which He accepted willingly. This is of the upmost importance for the Christian. The very act of sacrifice is to offer something to God. Sacrifice is seen as a good by God. It is right to offer a sacrifice to God, done in charity because one gives up something to please God. Now the death of Jesus on the cross is just that done for the redemption of those who have a change of heart. Your conection between the sacrifce of Christ and paganism ... So basically you're saying that god is stupid. He has to change to a man so others could kill him brutally, in order to save us from his own brutality (hell), but only if we believe that he actually did this? And you're saying that he values evil bastards who brutalize others (Popes, clerics, fanatic fundamentalists, etc.) over the kindness and thoughtful saints that don't believe the Jesus story? You're saying, "its okay that he has his facts wrong in Genesis (its not a science book) because he is "Truth"? And you're saying, "its okay he has the morality of a 1st century barbarian, he's the god of love?" You know... I could go on and on. But at some point you might be brave enough ... Your out of line in your in reasoning. It makes me think of a certain saying of Jesus along the lines of not throwing pearls among a certain kind of animal. Anyways, God came on earth as man in order to teach, show, and live as an example for what He desires for us which ultimately means eternal life with Him. Clearly His death is a stumbling block for you. It would do you good to realize that there is more to His life on earth than just His death. God and evil cannot co-exist. God does not value evil but only what is good. Not all who call on His name will be saved because God hates hipocrisy. At the same time God desires all men to be saved but not all will accept wholeheartedly. Again... Your out of line in your in reasoning. It makes me think of a certain saying of Jesus along the lines of not throwing pearls among a certain kind of animal.Out of line in my reasoning? Do you actually think a god would forgive a particular sin of yours, if you slit the throat of an innocent animal in your back yard and held it up for the god to...do something with it? Do you actually believe that? Tell me something Efrain: since everything you said above was only platitudes, with nothing to do with reality, I would like to know "how do you distinguish reality from the "make believe?" For example: "His goodness is perfect and endures forever in all times." S... Very interesting how you avoid my own questions and instead ask plenty other non sensible, out of line questions. You say my comments are full of platitudes but you yourself offer no viable alternative to God, which I honestly think you have none. Your comments are insipid and show the lack of your search for intelectual honesty, assuming you do have that desire. I have proof in my own life that God exists from personal revelation when I did not believe not unlike yourself. I have a personal realtionship with God and can assure you that what I have is not mere teachings from men. It is God in me that reveals the truth, the way, and the light. You speak and criticize what you don't unders... First, let me apologize, I meant no insult to YOU personally, but I did mean to challenged the intelligence of what you claim to be a god. That is, the intelligence of the god. If you believe that this god is intelligent but requires the brutal death of an innocent (animal or man) to atone the wrongs of the guilty, then it is only MY OWN moral character and intelligence that view this as barbaric and ignorant. You may view this as lofty, intelligent, and divine. You say my comments are full of platitudes but you yourself offer no viable alternative to God, which I honestly think you have none.Correct. I seek only the truth. Alternatives to gods are not re... In other words you are insulting my intelligence. I think there are proper ways to challenge one's beliefs but criticisms and insults aren't the brightest ways of handling such situations. God does not require a single thing from us. God can just be God with or without us. The humilty shown by God to live among His people to establish a relationship with every single one of us is not an act of stupidity but one of mercy and love. To undermine the suffering of one's self for the sake of others is not at all barbaric. According to yourself and your superior "morals", those of us who believe in Christ are ignorant and savage. Tell me where did you obtain your morals? Since when does one hav... In other words you are insulting my intelligence. I think there are proper ways to challenge one's beliefs but criticisms and insults aren't the brightest ways of handling such situations.Efrain, if you're going to be insulted by my pointing out what " I " believe to be immoral and unintelligent about what " I " believe to be a make believe being, then how can you discuss this being with anyone who doesn't hold your thoughts already? If you feel insulted when I point out that you believe in a god that seeks the brutal death of the innocent in oder to forgive the guilty, then perhaps you are insulted by the supposed actions of your own god. Such actions would be immoral TO ... I am actually not insulted by your point of views but rather the manner that you depreciate one who has an opposite view of that of your own which is held by false asumptions. But no worries hopefully we both can learn through this dialogue. Now, I should point out that I am not at all insulted by the actions of God, on the contrary. For it is written: Hosea 6:6 and Matthew 9:13 "It is mercy that I desire, not sacrifice." We can now please God by performing several works of mercy which is broken down as follows: Corporal Works of Mercy: 1) to feed the hungry 2) to give drink to the thirsty 3) to clothe the naked 4) to give shelter to the shelterless 5) to visit the sick 6) to visit the im... The Bible is the true Word of God, it is the interpretation of some that is faulty.How does one know who's interpretation is right? Against what can it be checked? And, of course, if I ask how you know it's the word of a god, again... against what can your answer be checked? Another excellent question. There is and has been controversy on how to interpret the Scriptures, even among Christians themselves. Believers in Christ have been divided on this very issue for about 500 years now since the Protestant Reformation. They hold the doctrine that the Bible is the sole source of the revelation of God and that the Bible somehow interprets itself to the individual reader. They maintain that the Bible is perspicous in itself and that the true Christian is able to recieve these truths by their own interpretation. As for myself I do not agree with this view because the believer themselves are fallibe since we are not perfect. This doctrine leads to relative truth among ... Catholic and Orthodox Christians can interpret Scripture by the light of Tradition and vice versa. Since these two sources are from the same source, Jesus, they can not contradict each other and can definitely lead to greater understanding. Right now I should mention as it was stated in the previous post, that Jesus told His Apostles that He would be with them always, otherwise none of this would be possible. The way God accomplishes this is by the Holy Spirit who leads us all into truth. So Jesus did not come to earth merely to establish the Bible but to build His Church of which His teaching office, the Magisterium, is able to transmit Tradition and Scripture through the succesors of the... Catholic and Orthodox Christians can interpret Scripture by the light of Tradition and vice versa. Since these two sources are from the same source, Jesus, they can not contradict each other and can definitely lead to greater understanding.Let's not do tradition. We'd get into those "immorality from divine sources" problems again. This is the means by which I am able to determine whether my interpretation is correct or not. I have been gifted by God, not from my own account to lead me to believe in His Word.Against what can you check it? You say you've been gifted by god. Now, how can you check it? How do you know it's not self delusion from repetitive hypnosi... I was enjoying reading this until I came upon Pascal's Wager. I about spit my pop on the monitor. In short, Pascal’s Wager states that we have everything to gain (an eternity in heaven) and nothing to lose by believing in a god. On the other hand, disbelief can lead to a loss of heaven (i.e. hell). Pascal’s Wager assumes a person can will himself or herself into having faith. So atheists would have to pretend to believe. But according to most definitions of God, wouldn’t God know we were lying to hedge our bets? Would a god reward this? Part of Pascal’s Wager states that you “lose nothing” by believing. By believing under these conditions, you’re acknowledging that you’re willing to acce... Oh yes we will go into Tradition as a means for the revelation of God. Instead of claiming something that isn't, back up your statement and explain yourself on how Sacred Tradition is "imorral" to your rightous standars. You asked how can the Bible can be checked to insure proper interpretation and as I stated before it is done along with Tradition. Before any of this can be believed it must be done with faith. I am not claiming some kind of superiority or trying to brag by any means but what I mean by being gifted is that the faith a Christian recieves is freely given to us by God. Not for anything we ourselves have done but by a true gift given in charity. It is not something me or anyon... Jesus himself desires us to be united in Him along with all the believers: John 17:11 Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. And John 17:21-23 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. Thus the title for my clip. ~~~ So while it is easy to say that the Bib... @ laceym Obviously Pascal's philosophical wager is to be seen as a basic tenet for unbelievers as an argument for God using reason. Surely it is not meant to be a fundamental cause of faith but rather a means to consider by the atheist or agnostic. This case for God can hopefully be built upon and cause some to inquire further. In context of his book "Pensees" one can not please God by lying but rather with a sincere heart. While the Christian believes in miracles, that which is supernatural, meaning out of order in the natural, it means to accept such as a mystery not because we fail to see evidence but rather because there is none. It doesn't mean to abandon evidence for judging reality.... Oh yes we will go into Tradition as a means for the revelation of God. Instead of claiming something that isn't, back up your statement and explain yourself on how Sacred Tradition is "imorral" to your rightous standars.The last time I did that, you got offended. But ok. You stated: Catholic and Orthodox Christians can interpret Scripture by the light of Tradition and vice versa. Since these two sources are from the same source, Jesus, they can not contradict each other and can definitely lead to greater understanding.There are many presuppositions here, but let's get to the heart of it. You suppose that Jesus taught a lineage (apostles) directly from himse... Now you asume too much. God desires all mankind to come to Him through Jesus because He is the perfect revelation of God.I assume too much?! Your god desires all mankind to come to him through Jesus because he is the perfect revelation of your god. If I choose your god, but your god doesn't exist and it is one of thousands of other gods, then I go to that god's version of hell. How to choose a god in 5 easy steps 1. Assemble a complete list of all the gods ever worshiped. Many of these are well documented, so the task shouldn't be too difficult. Google GOD. I'd estimate somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 gods, not counting all those minor ones. 2: List ... Let me put it this way, I would probably be doing you a disservice to assume that since your an Atheist in your beliefs then I should assume that you must be a Marxist, Humanistic, Materialist who is "immoral" because you have no conscience. Likewise your prejudice statements assuming Christians sacrifice goats or skin cats or whatever are out of line. Not because I am personally offended but because to depreciate someone just because they hold different views than yours is wrong in itself. Since I attempted to clear up your preconcieved notions regarding sacrifice by Christians as unfounded, I ask you again what in Tradition is immoral? Give me something concrete not a personal opinon. I... personal diary with them. Most information was passed down orally and given that only about less than 1% of the population actually believed in Jesus it probably was not worthwhile for the rest of the population to write about Him if they could. Given that you probably won't accept their testimony in the Bible, then I offer you other written acounts by non-believers: Josephus: http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html whose account you do not believe. Tacitus: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html Suetonius: http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/suetonius.htm Pliny the Younger: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/primary/pliny.ht... Efrain, The best evidence for Jesus being a fictional character is in the bible itself. It's called the easter challenge. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened. Since the gospels do not always give precis... @Efrain Since there is more than one person now engaging, please snip the portion your responses are to as reference, and also to whom it is directed. Sometimes I can't tell what your response is in reference to. I'll do that too. Thanks. Since I attempted to clear up your preconcieved notions regarding sacrifice by Christians as unfounded, I ask you again what in Tradition is immoral? Give me something concrete not a personal opinon.Sorry, I wasn't clear. I don't find Christians killing innocent people and animals in exchange for atonement, but the act of killing the innocent for the atonement of the guilty ITSELF, is the method of atonement BY YOUR GOD. If you believe t... @laceym The Easter challenge. I never heard of that. Maybe I'll give it shot myself. Thanks. Might be interesting. @ laceym 1) The one and only true God desires all mankind to know Him through Christ. There are no other gods therefore no other complete or perfect revelations of Him. There are certainly other means: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c1.htm#I paragraphs 31-35. But Jesus is the fullness truth. There are no other major religions who claim to have God dwell among them, so either Jesus was truly God or a madman. So if you want to decide on which religion to choose among the many, I offer you this one distinction. I am not saying that other religions do not have some aspects of truth i them, but it is just a shadow or figurement of the one true God. 1) If you are actually sincere in your se... @ laceym 2) Since you are a freethinker, and think you can leave no stone unturned, but actually have to rely on others free thoughts, I will do the same and meet your challenge with the work presented by somebody else: *The holy women carrying the spices previously prepared start out for the sepulchre before dawn, and reach it after sunrise; they are anxious about the heavy stone, but know nothing of the official guard of the sepulchre (Matthew 28:1-3; Mark 16:1-3; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). *The angel frightened the guards by his brightness, put them to flight, rolled away the stone, and seated himself not upon (ep autou), but above (epano autou) the stone (Matthew 28:2-4). *Mary Magda... continued *Mary Magdalen returns to the sepulchre, sees first two angels within, and then Jesus Himself (John 20:11-l6; Mark 16:9). *The two groups of pious women, who probably met on their return to the city, are favored with the sight of Christ arisen, who commissions them to tell His brethren that they will see him in Galilee (Matthew 28:8-10; Mark 16:8). *The holy women relate their experiences to the Apostles, but find no belief (Mark 16:10-11; Luke 24:9-11). *Jesus appears to the disciples, at Emmaus, and they return to Jerusalem; the Apostles appear to waver between doubt and belief (Mark 16:12-13; Luke 24:13-35). *Christ appears to Peter, and therefore Peter and John firmly beli... Sorry I butted in. I just couldn't believe Efrain trotted out Pascal's Wager and I had to respond. As for the Easter Challenge: I actually did it myself, unlike Efrain who's faith is too weak to take it up. I credit it with making me an atheist. Sorry I butted in.Never a problem. As for the Easter Challenge: I actually did it myself, unlike Efrain who's faith is too weak to take it up. I credit it with making me an atheist.Surprisingly many people become atheist by actually reading the bible. Most believers, on the other hand, have never actually read it, but have it read "to them" in church. The other believers usually have to constantly find "apologies". I think if most people knew what was in it and attributed to god, they'd immediately step back and say "this can't be right!" But the indoctrinated, the fundamental believers, usually in the face of all real life evidence are AFRAID to chall... @ AcesLucky 1) Actually I apologize for not taking for not taking your question regarding sacrifice for atonement by Christians seriously. I didn't believe you would actually think Christians sacrifice animals or humans for atonement. But I will agree on your comment that sacrifce in this sense is immoral. I will also mention that we as Christians do not beleive in sacrificiing others for atonement for sins, we never have and never will. If you are interested in the atonement of Christ for us then look here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm. I will point out again that it is written in the Old and New Testaments that God does not require sacrifice: Hosea 6:6 http://www.newadvent... @Efrain I will point out again that it is written in the Old and New Testaments that God does not require sacrifice..There are countless types of animal sacrifices dictated by your god for various sins and offerings. Here are just a couple: 1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock. Of the herd 3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer ... Sorry, that's Who wrote the bible and when. [ http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/bible.html ] There. That ought to do it.  @Efrain Here's another source I thought you might appreciate a bit more: Same title | ||||||||||
