No. I am saying I don’t know.
It’s all for our sake, not God’s. God, being God, can do whatever he wants. As I said many times already, I don’t know what was “required” or what God “had to do”, if he had to do anything at all. I know that for our sake God became a man, for our sake, he suffered and died, for our sake, he rose from the dead.
To be fair (to myself 
), I didn’t critique the content of the link; but I am familiar with Sabellianism/Modalism, so I didn’t feel that critiquing the post itself was out of line.
If we’re going to accept evidence like that then this thread wouldn’t have even been started - back before it became “catholocism - T or F?” it was about whether miracles were convincing to atheists. If “it’s not possible” is enough to disprove a miracle, well…
Documents written much later claim that the Apostles claim it happened - and they also claimed that gobs of other people saw all this going on. Wouldn’t it have been a bit remarkable at the time, to the wider populace?
Seriously, one of the biggest strikes against the whole bible is that back then, the miracles were awesome. And yet people forgot them as quickly as if they’d been stage magic. Almost enough to make a person believe that the “miracles” were less impressive in person.
If you’re familiar with how the Catholic church gradually got its act together over the course of hundreds of years, how can you claim that it has been teaching the same thing for 2000 years?
I have gone to the wiki page you linked, as well as the wiki for Sabellianism.
I’m not really sure what you’re trying to prove. The fact that Sabellius (and his mentor) were denounced as heterodox a full century before Nicea is good evidence that the Church’s teaching re: the Trinity is historically consistent.
Clearly God can do what he wants. But we didn’t sacrifice - God or Jesus did. And why can’t God forgive us for our sakes without any sacrifice? Requiring sincere atonement, or even confession, that makes sense. But not his sacrifice.
If nobody immediately after the resurrection was claiming that it happened, then where did Mark, Luke, and Paul get their information from? Was the Acts completely fabricated?
But Jesus, being human, is “we/us”. God still forgave in the OT, look at the Psalms, “a contrite heart you will not despise”.
It may have been, but it’s more likely that it’s got parts that were basically factual, and other parts that are as factual as George Washington’s cheery tree. Memories of precise conversations and wordings (like “I am”) are more likely to have been derived from the tall tale side of oral tradition than the “this is the bit that survived the game of telephone” tradition.
And the more miraculous the event is -and the less consistently described the event is- the more likely it is to be a pious fable. People tell pious fables now; surely they told them then, and back then there wasn’t as much concern about dividing fables from facts.
As for the supposed resurrection itself, I’ve long thought that if you’re a devoted follower of an itinerant priest who just suddenly up and got executed, you might not take it well and wish that it hadn’t happened. Couple that with people’s tendency to still see Elvis, and the fact that people love an exciting/dramatic/inspiring story…
In reading the page on the trinity, it appears that part of the disagreement that permeates this tread may or may not be based on an unshared definition of the word “God”.
According to that link, under trinitarianism there are three distinct persons: The Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost. Collectively they form a committee known as “God”.
When everyone else refers to “God”, they’re referring to that dude known as “The Father”. The one who isn’t Jesus, didn’t go to earth, didn’t die for anybody’s sins, is the one who will judge people, and is the one that Jesus referred to as ‘God’.
Putting aside the pointless confusion of calling the committed of three separate persons “God” too, if we follow this interpretation of the trinity, we no longer have the foolishness of God sacrificing himself to himself in obedience to himself in order to convince himself to be more merciful to people that he want to be more merciful to than he does. And it would be really helpful if we dispensed with that nonsense.
So answer me this - in your interpretation of the situation, are the Father and Jesus distinct beings? Which one went to earth? Which one didn’t?
YUou mean, if I had gotten drafted I could have told them Jesus would go in my place because he is us?
However, I have to agree that this is kind of how Christianity has dine it for 2000 years. UYou can do any nasty stuff you want because Jesus was good and sacrificed. If there is a teaching about being virtuous, it certainly hasn’t taken.
Where did those who described the Nativity get their information from? Same place, probably.
See, this is where you lose us. How was the resurrection “for our sake”? It negates the “sacrifice”.
You still haven’t answered my question.
What is hell like?
[quote=“begbert2, post:610, topic:821639”]
Putting aside the pointless confusion of calling the committed of three separate persons “God” too, if we follow this interpretation of the trinity, we no longer have the foolishness of God sacrificing himself to himself in obedience to himself in order to convince himself to be more merciful to people that he want to be more merciful to than he does. And it would be really helpful if we dispensed with that nonsense.[ / QUOTE ]
Now you’re getting it
[quote=“begbert2, post:610, topic:821639”]
So answer me this - in your interpretation of the situation, are the Father and Jesus distinct beings? Which one went to earth? Which one didn’t?[ / QUOTE ]
Keeping in mind that I fully defer to the Catholic interpretation in all things theological (so if I’m out of sync with it I will gladly defer), yes I think it’s accurate to say that the Father and Jesus are distinct, yet they are of the same substance, Jesus possessing the fullness of God within himself. Jesus distinctly came to earth while the Father didn’t. Because of the dynamics of the Trinity (which are fully admitted to be mysterious), you can refer to the Father and the Son as being distinct persons, yet they are in perfect union at the same time.
As an aside, I found a good summary here: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/sabellianism
No. He is “we/us” in the sense that you used the term. We are all human, but still unique individuals, obviously.
No, that’s not Catholicism. Sounds more like Lutheranism.
Does it? How so? His suffering and death were real. The resurrection served multiple purposes. It both validated Jesus’ claims of divinity, and foreshadowed/made real the promise of our own resurrection at the last day.
How should I know, I haven’t been there. I’m sure it’s not pleasant.
But the Bible tells you what it’s like. And your church - you know, the people interpreting the Bible for you - spent centuries telling you what it’s like. What does your Bible and Church tell you it’s like?
There are lots of things you can’t know directly, but you fervently believe it in anyway because that’s what the Bible/Church say you have to believe, no?
Plausible scenario:
Not plausible scenario:
Much more plausible scenario:
Case in point: The book of Matthew claims that hundreds of dead people climbed out of their graves and walked around on the same day Jesus did. Allegedly, thousands of people witnessed this miracle. Not one of them wrote it down. No contemporary historian wrote about hundreds of zombies wandering around. No contemporary historian ever wrote about hundreds of people claiming to have seen hundreds of zombies. No contemporary historian even wrote about one lunatic telling tall tales about hundreds of zombies. No one refutes the story either, because there is no story to refute (not yet). Decades later, after all the alleged witnesses are conveniently dead, some anonymous author wrote down this tall tale and signed Matthew’s name to it. The most likely explanation for these facts is that the story is fiction.
I’m reminded of a story I read in the 1970s about a man who, in the 1800s, allegedly convinced the city of New York to pay him millions of dollars to disconnect the island of Manhattan from the mainland, turn it around, and reattach it. Funny thing is, there’s absolutely no mention of this hoax in the newspapers from the time when it was supposedly perpetrated. Turns out the first time the hoax was mentioned in print was shortly after the alleged prankster died. Conclusion: the story about the hoax is itself a hoax. It’s a lie told by one of his surviving relatives, embellishing upon his penchant for pulling stunts. This particular stunt is fictional. But the story was compelling enough to make its way into a book I read which claimed the story was true.
If it can happen in 19th century New York, it can certainly happen in 1st century Palestine.