In this section you can write a comment with any question you may have about Christianity, and we, within our capabilities, will give you an answer.
If you are a Catholic but need clarification, if you are a Protestant and you think you must correct a Catholic error, if you are an agnostic who has not give up in your search for the truth, or if you are simply a Christian but have questions or want to dig deeper, do not be afraid and ask.
When Thomas saw Jesus and still doubted, Jesus did not just reproach him for his lack of faith; he took his hand and asked him to put his finger into his wound. This is how faith problems are resolved, addressing them directly instead of trying to ignore it for fear of losing faith… or discovering it.
Leave your question below (it will be published after review):
Please maintain a respectful tone; offensive comments or those in all caps will be ignored. We appreciate it if you indicate your religion or denomination to help us better focus our response.
previous users’ questions
-
Did the early church believe that children had original sin?
LikeLike
-
The early Church’s understanding of original sin, particularly as it relates to children, developed over time. The idea that all humans inherit original sin from Adam, and that this sin is washed away in baptism, became a core part of Christian doctrine since the beginning. However, the nuances of how early Christians viewed children and original eventually went through some discussion. Here’s an overview:
- New Testament Foundations
The New Testament establishes the effects of Adam’s sin on all humanity in passages like Romas 5:12-21. No exception is ever made for children.
Jesus’ command to baptize all nations (including children) in Matthew 28:19-20 and his statement in John 3:5 that “no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit” supports the necessity of baptism for salvation, including for infants. -
Early Church Fathers
– Ignatius of Antioch (d. ~110) and Irenaeus of Lyons (d. ~202) emphasized humanity’s fall in Adam and the need for Christ’s redemption but did not develop a detailed doctrine of inherited sin in infants.
– Origen (d. 254) affirmed that even infants were in need of baptism for purification. What’s more, he wrote, “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants” (Commentary on Romans 5:9).
– Tertullian (d. ~225) recognized the practice of infant baptism but was hesitant about its necessity, reflecting varying opinions emerging in the early Church.- St. Augustine and the Doctrine of Original Sin
St. Augustine (354–430) formalized the doctrine of original sin, arguing that all humans inherit guilt and a sinful nature from Adam. This was reinforced by his debates with the Pelagians, who denied original sin and the need for infant baptism. Augustine emphasized that even infants, though they had committed no personal sins, carried the stain of original sin and needed baptism to be cleansed.
Councils and Doctrinal Confirmation
The Council of Carthage (418) condemned Pelagianism and affirmed the necessity of baptism for infants due to original sin.
The Council of Trent (1545-1563) later reaffirmed the doctrine, declaring that original sin is transmitted to all descendants of Adam.
SummaryThe early Church did not immediately articulate the fully developed doctrine of original sin, but the seeds of this belief were clearly present from the beginning:
We know that baptism, even of infants, was practiced universally at least by the 3rd century, suggesting an understanding that children were affected by sin in some way.
By the 5th century, Augustine’s theology clarified the Church’s stance: children inherit original sin and require baptism for salvation. This belief has remained a cornerstone of Catholic doctrine and is shared, with variations, by many other Christian traditions.
The absence of explicit discussion about original sin in children and their need for baptism before 254 A.D. should not be interpreted as evidence that the early Christians did not hold this belief. Rather, it is more reasonable to assume that they did not feel the need to address the case of children separately, as there was no perception that children were an exception to the general human condition. When early Christian teachings, beginning with St. Paul, emphasized that all are born with Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12-21), it was understood to apply universally—to children, women, the elderly, converts, pagans, and even shoemakers. Explicit references to children only began to emerge when questions about their specific status arose, as evidenced by Tertullian’s hesitation regarding infant baptism. From this point onward, figures like Origen addressed the issue directly, and by the Council of Carthage in 418, any lingering doubts were resolved with the affirmation that children are not a special case and are equally in need of baptism for the remission of original sin.
LikeLike
- New Testament Foundations
-
-
How can we be sure that what we know as the writings of the early church fathers are real or that they have not been tampered with to say things that they did not originally say?
LikeLike
-
This is an excellent and important question, especially for those interested in historical theology and the authenticity of early Christian writings. The integrity and authenticity of the writings of the Church Fathers are generally supported by a combination of historical, textual, and scholarly evidence. Here’s how we can be reasonably sure of their authenticity:
- Manuscript Evidence
Surviving Copies: Many writings of the Church Fathers survive in multiple manuscripts, often from different regions and times. Scholars compare these manuscripts (a process called textual criticism) to reconstruct the original text and identify any alterations.
Consistency: The consistency of these texts across various manuscripts strengthens confidence that the writings are authentic and not significantly altered. -
Historical Citations
Early Christian writers often quoted or referenced other Church Fathers. For instance, later Fathers like Jerome or Augustine quoted earlier ones like Irenaeus or Clement of Rome. These citations serve as a form of cross-verification for the authenticity of earlier writings.
Non-Christian sources also occasionally mention or respond to the writings of the Fathers, providing further external attestation. -
Contextual Integrity
The content of these writings often aligns with what we know about the theological, cultural, and historical context of their time. Significant tampering would likely introduce inconsistencies or anachronisms that would be noticeable to scholars. -
Preservation by Diverse Communities
The writings of the Church Fathers were preserved not by a single group but by a wide range of Christian communities across different regions (e.g., Roman, Greek, Syrian, and Coptic churches). This makes widespread tampering unlikely because it would have required coordinated changes across diverse and often independent groups. -
Use in Early Councils
Many of the writings were used as authoritative sources in early ecumenical councils (e.g., Nicaea, Constantinople). The fact that these councils relied on the writings indicates their acceptance as genuine at that time. -
Textual Criticism and Scholarship
Modern scholars employ rigorous methods to assess the authenticity of texts. They analyze language, style, theology, and historical references to ensure that writings are consistent with the purported author’s known works and era.
Forgeries or later additions (such as the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals) are often detectable through these methods. -
Challenges to Tampering
The Church Fathers often engaged in public disputes, not only with heretics but also among themselves. A tampered or fabricated text would likely have been challenged or contradicted by contemporaries.
Once their works were widely disseminated, altering all copies would have been nearly impossible without being detected. -
Forgery Detection
Scholars have identified some spurious writings attributed to the Fathers (e.g., certain apocryphal works or later forgeries like the Donation of Constantine). The ability to detect these suggests that tampering or forgery is not undetectable and that the bulk of writings have passed critical scrutiny. -
Early Translation Evidence
Many Church Fathers’ works were translated into other languages (e.g., Latin, Syriac, Coptic) shortly after being written. These translations provide an additional layer for comparing and verifying the original text’s integrity. -
Faith in Divine Providence
From a faith perspective, many Christians believe that God has providentially preserved the teachings of the Church through the writings of the Fathers. While this belief cannot be proven empirically, it has historically motivated careful preservation of texts.
Conclusion
While no historical text is entirely immune to human error or occasional tampering, the writings of the Church Fathers have undergone extensive scholarly scrutiny. The combination of manuscript evidence, historical citations, textual criticism, and widespread use across diverse communities provides strong assurance of their authenticity and integrity.LikeLike
- Manuscript Evidence
-
-
What does it mean that Jesus was born under the law (Galatians 4:4)?
LikeLike
-
A short answer to that question is: “born under the law” means he was a practicing Jew. A long answer is this:
In Galatians 4:4, Paul writes: “But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law” (NKJV). The phrase “born under the law” carries deep theological significance and can be understood in the following ways:
- Subject to the Mosaic Law
Jesus was born into a Jewish context and thus was subject to the Mosaic Law, the covenant that governed Israel’s relationship with God. This means He followed the commandments, rituals, and ordinances of the Law (e.g., circumcision, observance of festivals). By being “under the law,” Jesus fully entered into the human condition as one of God’s people under the covenant obligations. -
To Fulfill the Law
Jesus’ life under the law was not merely a submission to its demands, but a fulfillment of its purpose. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus states, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.” His perfect obedience and sinless life met the Law’s requirements, accomplishing what no one else could. -
To Redeem Those Under the Law
The broader context of Galatians 4:4-5 reads: “to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.” By being born under the law, Jesus identified with humanity’s burden of living under its requirements and penalties. His death on the cross satisfied the demands of the law, freeing those who trust in Him from its curse (Galatians 3:13). -
To Transition to the New Covenant
Jesus’ relationship to the law also marked a turning point from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. His life, death, and resurrection inaugurated a new era in which righteousness is obtained not through the works of the law but through faith in Him (Romans 3:21-22). Being born under the law enabled Him to complete and transcend it, ushering in a new relationship between God and humanity.
Theological Implication
By being “born under the law,” Jesus fully entered into the human condition, shared in the burdens of humanity’s covenantal obligations, and provided a path of redemption for all who were enslaved to the law’s requirements and the penalty of sin. This highlights His role as both fully human and fully divine, perfectly suited to mediate between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5).LikeLike
- Subject to the Mosaic Law
-
-
Is there evidence that the Hebrew exodus actually happened?
LikeLike
-
Many people now say that the Exodus (some time between 13th and 15 century B.C.) is a myth and never existed, since only the Israelites talk about it, Egyptian records ignore it and archeology can’t prove it.
When discussing events from such ancient times, it is normal for even significant occurrences to leave little to no trace, or at best, for us to find a text or inscription referencing them. In the case of the Exodus, we have a detailed text recounting the event, and dismissing it simply because it comes from the Bible is not logical. The Bible, while primarily a religious document, also preserves a wealth of historical information and serves as the principal source of knowledge for much of the ancient Near East. A nomadic group’s migration through the desert would typically leave no archaeological trace, especially more than 3,000 years later, as they neither settled nor used stone to build. Additionally, the escape of a powerless, enslaved population would not have drawn the interest of chroniclers in neighboring nations; no one could have predicted that this wandering desert tribe would one day become significant.
As for Egyptian records, if the episode was as humiliating as described, it is understandable that they would choose not to preserve it for posterity or might alter the details to make the defeat appear honorable. For instance, the Battle of Kadesh (circa 1274 BCE) between Pharaoh Ramesses II and the Hittites ended in a stalemate, but Egyptian inscriptions portray it as a glorious victory for Ramesses. This demonstrates how ancient rulers often reshaped historical events to serve political interests. Similarly, Egyptian chronicles might have either omitted the Exodus entirely or reframed it as an expulsion of unwanted Asiatics, rather than an escape orchestrated by divine intervention.”
That said, the biblical narrative of these events is not written with purely historical intentions. It is an epic that marks the birth of the Hebrew nation and, as such, contains subjective interpretations, possible exaggerations, and symbolic elements. Yet, this does not undermine the core truth that God delivered His people from slavery in Egypt. When nations fabricate mythical origins, they typically produce stories like the Aeneid, where a hero is guided by the gods—not an origin as humbling as being a nation of slaves delivered by God, who nonetheless repeatedly failed so badly that He forbade them from entering the Promised Land. Instead, only their children would inherit it, and even then, only after centuries of struggle, toil, and bloodshed. If you were to invent your history, you would create a glorious narrative to highlight the greatness of your race or nation.
Having said this, while we lack clear archaeological or textual records of the Exodus outside the Bible, we do have historical contexts that are compatible with what the Exodus teaches. Here are some examples:
- The Merneptah Stele (circa 1208 BC) mentions “Israel” in Canaan.
Evidence exists of Canaanite populations migrating or being displaced from the area. -
In the second millennium BC, there is evidence of Semitic peoples settled in Egypt, some of whom were driven out of Egypt at various times. (If the Exodus is historically correct, Egyptian chronicles would likely prefer to describe the Israelites as having been expelled rather than escaping through the power of God.)
At Tell el-Daba, the remains of the city of Avaris have been discovered in the Nile Delta region, near Memphis. This city was primarily inhabited by Asiatics, meaning Semites. For the Egyptians, all the peoples of the Near and Middle East were classified as “Asiatics,” so they did not specify which specific groups were involved. Archaeological evidence suggests that at least some of these inhabitants came from Canaan, meaning it could have been a city inhabited by Hebrews or Hebrews mixed with other “Asiatic” peoples. It is important to remember that the Israelites had not yet formed a nation or distinct culture, so their cultural traits (such as constructions, burials, art, pottery, etc.) could identify them as Asiatics but not specifically as Israelites. -
The Brooklyn Papyrus mentions Semitic peoples who served as laborers, including slave populations or forced workers, which aligns with the depiction of enslaved Israelites in Egypt.
As we saw at the beginning, those who deny the historicity of the Exodus base their argument on the fact that only the Israelites speak of it. However, if we apply that as proof that a story has been invented, most of what we know about ancient history would have to be discarded. For example, almost everything we know about Egypt only appears in Egyptian chronicles, and yet those accounts are considered more or less reliable. However, when the only source is the Bible, some claim that a fact is only reliable if it is also found in texts from other nations. This approach rejects biblical books as sources of information due to religious prejudice, not scientific reasons. Israel was a politically insignificant people until the establishment of the Kingdom of David, so it is understandable that before that time no nation paid much attention to them, apart from a few scattered mentions. For a Hittite of the time, ignoring what happens in Egypt would be difficult, but ignoring what happens with a group of tribes in Canaan (living among many other tribes and peoples) would be almost inevitable. It is only in retrospect that we understand the importance those events had for others.
In summary, there is plenty of historical evidence, but no one will explicitly talk about the people of Israel before Israel existed. For the Egyptians, all those tribes were simply Asiatics with their peculiar customs and religions, and they grouped them all together. So, even if we had a text referencing the Israelites, we might not even realize it is referring to them.
LikeLike
- The Merneptah Stele (circa 1208 BC) mentions “Israel” in Canaan.
-
-
The Bible says that the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ are united and inseparable?
LikeLike
-
Yes, the Bible supports the teaching that the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ are united and inseparable, a doctrine known as the Hypostatic Union. This is articulated in Scripture and affirmed by Church councils, particularly the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.
Here are some key biblical passages that underpin this doctrine:
- The Word Became Flesh (John 1:14)
“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
This verse shows that the eternal Word (the Second Person of the Trinity) took on human nature, fully uniting it to His divine nature. -
Jesus as True God and True Man
Colossians 2:9: “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
This indicates that the fullness of divine nature resides in Christ, even as He exists bodily as a man.
1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
This shows Christ’s human nature as integral to His role as mediator while also presupposing His divinity. -
Jesus Acting as Both God and Man
Mark 4:39: Jesus calms the storm, demonstrating His divine authority over nature.
John 11:35: Jesus weeps at the tomb of Lazarus, showing His genuine human emotions.
These actions illustrate that both natures are active and inseparable in the person of Christ. -
United Yet Distinct Natures
Philippians 2:6-8: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.”
This passage reflects Christ’s divine nature (equality with God) and human nature (taking the form of a servant), united in one person. -
Jesus’ Unchanging Personhood
Hebrews 13:8: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.”
While His human nature began at the Incarnation, His divine nature is eternal, and these natures remain united and inseparable.
Theological Understanding:
The Hypostatic Union teaches that:
Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.
These two natures are distinct but united in one Person (the Second Person of the Trinity).
This union is eternal and inseparable, meaning that Jesus will remain both God and man forever.Conclusion:
The Bible does not use the term “Hypostatic Union,” but it reveals the truths on which this doctrine is based. The divine and human natures of Christ are united in one Person without confusion, change, division, or separation, as taught by Scripture and upheld by the Church.LikeLike
- The Word Became Flesh (John 1:14)
-
-
I have two questions
Do the souls of the dead go directly to heaven or are they asleep awaiting the Resurrection?
soul and spirit are the same?
LikeLike
-
- Do the souls of the dead go directly to heaven, or are they asleep awaiting the Resurrection?
The Bible, and the Church (early and present) often use the verb “sleep” as a soft metaphor for death, but not in a literal sense.
The souls of the dead do not “sleep.” After death, each soul undergoes the particular judgment and goes to one of three states:Heaven: For those who die in grace and are perfectly purified.
Purgatory: For those who die in grace but require purification before entering heaven.
Hell: For those who die in mortal sin without repentance.
This is based on passages such as:Luke 23:43: “Today you will be with me in paradise,” spoken to the good thief.
Philippians 1:23: “I desire to depart and be with Christ,” expressing the hope of being with God immediately after death.
The body, however, remains awaiting the final Resurrection, when it will be reunited with the soul at the universal judgment.2- Are the Soul and Spirit the Same?
The human being is composed of soul and body, forming an indivisible unity, like two sides of a coin: different in function but inseparable in essence. While soul and body are distinct, they do not form two independent entities; rather, the soul is the vital principle that gives form to the body.At death, this unity is temporarily broken:
– The soul (immortal) remains alive, awaiting the resurrection of the body at the Final Judgment.
– The body (mortal) decomposes but will be restored in a glorious and immortal form at the end of time (1 Corinthians 15:42-44). This does not mean that the same physical molecules of the original body will be reused, but rather that the body will be transformed into a spiritual and glorified state.This dual vision is not dualistic (we are not a soul temporarily “wearing” a body), as the soul and body are destined to reunite to form the complete person according to God’s plan.
Difference Between Soul and Spirit
- The Soul
The soul is the vital principle of all living beings. In humans, it is a rational soul, designed to be immortal and capable of relating to God. This sets the human soul apart from the souls of animals and plants, which are mortal and lack the capacity for transcendence.
The Catechism teaches that the soul animates the body, making it a unique and personal living being (CCC 362-365).
It is the seat of reason, will, and emotions, constituting the identity of the person.- The Spirit
The spirit is not a third separate component but rather a dimension of the human soul that allows it to commune with God. It refers to the soul’s capacity to transcend the material world and open itself to a relationship with the divine.
– Hebrews 4:12 mentions the “division between soul and spirit” to highlight different aspects of the person, not to suggest separate entities.
– Thus, the spirit is the “divine orientation” of the human soul, something unique to humans and angels.
SummaryThe human being is a unity of soul and body. The soul, immortal and rational, is the vital principle that animates the body and makes it a unique living being, while the spirit describes the soul’s special capacity to relate to God. They are not separate components but aspects of the same human reality.
LikeLike
-
-
What is the oldest evidence of Christians asking the saints in heaven for their intercession?
LikeLike
-
The practice of Christians asking the saints in heaven for their intercession can be traced back to the early Church. The oldest evidence comes from both written texts and archaeological findings, indicating that this practice was an integral part of early Christian piety.
We assume you are not asking for biblical evidence, but extra-biblical, so that is what we will talk about.
Key Early Evidence
- The Martyrdom of Polycarp (c. 156-170 AD)
This text describes how the Church of Smyrna venerated the relics of St. Polycarp, a martyr, as “more precious than gold.” While it does not explicitly record prayers to St. Polycarp, it reflects the early Christian belief in the sanctity and intercessory power of martyrs.
Martyrdom of Polycarp, Chapter 17, indicates the respect and connection early Christians felt towards those who had gone to heaven. -
Early Christian Inscriptions (3rd Century)
Inscriptions in Roman catacombs, such as the Catacomb of Priscilla, contain phrases like “Pray for us” addressed to the departed. This provides clear evidence of early Christians asking for the intercession of the deceased, particularly martyrs.
Example: Inscriptions such as “Peter and Paul, pray for us” reveal the practice of seeking the intercession of saints. -
Origen (c. 185-253 AD)
Origen, an early Church Father, acknowledged the belief that the saints and angels intercede for us. He wrote: “Angels and souls of the righteous… pray with us and for us.” (De Oratione, Chapter 11).
This indicates that the idea of intercession by heavenly beings was already part of Christian theological understanding. -
St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 210-258 AD)
St. Cyprian, in his writings, implies that martyrs intercede for the faithful. He exhorts those facing martyrdom to remember the Church after their death, saying, “Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. On both sides [of life and death], let us always pray for one another.” (Epistle 56:5). -
Archaeological Evidence from the 3rd and 4th Centuries
Frescoes and inscriptions in catacombs frequently depict scenes of martyrs and saints being venerated, with petitions for their prayers written nearby. -
The Liturgy of the Saints (Late 4th Century)
By the 4th century, formal liturgical prayers explicitly invoking the saints became part of Christian worship. This is evident in the Liturgy of St. Basil and the Liturgy of St. James, where the saints are directly invoked for intercession.
Conclusion
The oldest evidence of Christians asking the saints in heaven for their intercession dates to at least the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as seen in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, catacomb inscriptions, and writings of Church Fathers like Origen and Cyprian (that doesn’t mean it didn’t exist in the 1st century too, but we have no records, and Christian extra-biblical records are scarce in the 1st century so it is no wonder). By the 4th century, this practice was well-established in Christian theology and liturgy, rooted in the belief that the saints, being alive in Christ, could intercede for the faithful on earth.LikeLike
- The Martyrdom of Polycarp (c. 156-170 AD)
-
-
When Jesus prayed to God the Father, was he praying to himself?
LikeLike
-
No, when Jesus prayed to God the Father, He was not praying to Himself. This question arises from the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which teaches that God is one in essence but exists in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Understanding this helps clarify why Jesus’ prayers to the Father were not self-directed but a part of the relationship within the Trinity.
Key Points to Consider:
The Distinction of Persons in the Trinity:The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons who share the same divine essence. They are not separate beings, but they are not identical to one another as persons. This means that Jesus, as the Son, is distinct from the Father and is able to communicate with Him.
Jesus’ Dual Nature:In Christian theology, Jesus has two natures: divine and human. This is known as the hypostatic union.
As the eternal Son of God, Jesus shares fully in the divine nature and is equal with the Father.
As a human being, Jesus lived in complete dependence on the Father, modeling for humanity what it means to rely on God in prayer and obedience.
Jesus’ Example of Prayer:In His human nature, Jesus prayed to the Father to show His relationship with the Father and to demonstrate to humanity how to depend on God in all things.
For example, in John 11:41-42, Jesus thanks the Father for hearing Him before raising Lazarus, showing both His communication with the Father and His purpose in glorifying God.
In His agony in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39), Jesus prayed to the Father, expressing His human will while submitting to the divine will.
Theological Implications:Jesus’ prayers highlight the intimate relationship within the Trinity, particularly the loving communion between the Father and the Son.
They also affirm the reality of His human experience, including dependence, submission, and trust in the Father.
Not Praying to Himself:When Jesus prayed, it was not a conversation with Himself but with the Father, who is a distinct person within the Trinity. This relational dynamic is essential to understanding the Christian doctrine of God.
Conclusion:
Jesus’ prayers to the Father were a reflection of the distinct relationship between the persons of the Trinity and a demonstration of His human reliance on God. This does not mean He was praying to Himself, but rather that He was engaging in the eternal communion and relationship between the Father and the Son. This mystery underscores the depth and beauty of the Trinitarian nature of God.LikeLike
-
Isn’t the Trinity polytheism?
LikeLike
-
No, the doctrine of the Trinity is not polytheism. It is the belief in one God in three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who are consubstantial, co-eternal, and perfectly united. While the Trinity may seem paradoxical, it is a cornerstone of Christian theology and distinctly different from polytheism, which entails belief in multiple, separate gods. Here’s a concise explanation:
- Unity of God
Christianity affirms the existence of one God (Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one”).
The three persons of the Trinity share the same divine essence (or substance), meaning they are not three separate gods but one God. - Distinction Without Division
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct in their relations and roles (e.g., the Father generates, the Son is begotten, and the Spirit proceeds), but they are not divided in their essence.
Each person of the Trinity fully possesses the one divine nature, rather than dividing it into parts. - Key Difference from Polytheism
Polytheism involves belief in multiple gods with separate wills, powers, and often competing interests (e.g., in Greek or Roman mythology).
The Trinity, in contrast, describes one God with a single will, perfectly unified in essence and purpose. -
Biblical Basis
The Trinity is rooted in Scripture:
Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
John 10:30: Jesus says, “I and the Father are one.”
2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” -
Analogies (While Imperfect)
The Trinity is a profound mystery, and while no analogy can fully capture its depth, some examples can help illustrate the concept of unity with distinction:
-
The Sun: The sun produces light and heat while being a single star. The light illuminates, the heat warms, and the sun itself remains the source. These are distinct aspects of the sun but inseparably part of the same entity.
-
A Human Person: A single individual possesses a mind, will, and spirit. These aspects are distinct in function, yet they form a unified whole. You cannot separate them without losing the person.
-
A Coin: A coin has two sides, such as heads and tails. The sides may look very different, with distinct engravings or properties, but they are inseparable parts of the one coin. For example:
If you scratch the tail side, you are not scratching the head side, but you are scratching the coin anyway, not just a part of it.
Heads and tails have unique characteristics, yet neither exists independently of the coin. This analogy reflects the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct yet inseparably united as one God. Just as heads and tails are not two separate coins but two inseparable aspects of one, the Trinity is not three gods but one God in three persons.To clarify, the term “persons” in the Trinity does not mean “people” as if they were separate individuals. It refers to the distinct ways the one God exists: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three beings, but three eternal relations within the same divine essence.
These analogies help to illustrate the unity and distinction within the Trinity but are limited and cannot fully capture the mystery.
6- God Is Love
The Bible explicitly states that “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16), not merely that He has or feels love as one of His attributes. This means that love is God’s very essence. However, for God to be eternal love, He must have been love even before creating anything.Love, by its nature, requires a relationship—it cannot exist in isolation. If a being existed alone for all eternity, without someone else to love, then it could not be defined as love; at best, it could only be self-focused, which would resemble egoism rather than true love.
The doctrine of the Trinity resolves this: within the one God, there are three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who have existed eternally in a perfect relationship of love. The Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father, and the Holy Spirit is often described as the bond of love between them. This eternal exchange of love makes God truly and inherently love, even before creation.
By contrast, a non-Trinitarian deity, such as the Islamic conception of Allah, cannot be defined as love in His essence because He exists in eternal isolation. Such a god might choose to love His creation, but that would not make Him love in His being, since love would depend on the existence of something outside Himself.
This understanding highlights why only the Trinitarian God of Christianity can fully and consistently be called love. It is not just an attribute of God—it is who He is.
Conclusion
The Trinity is monotheistic, not polytheistic. It affirms one God in three persons, distinguished by their relations but united in their essence. This mystery reflects a depth of unity and diversity that transcends human comprehension, but it is fundamentally different from the concept of multiple gods in polytheism.LikeLike
- Unity of God
-
-
Is it true that Pope Francis will allow an LGBT pilgrimage for the Jubilee 2025?
LikeLike
-
Yes, Pope Francis has permitted an event organized by LGBT Catholics to be included in the official calendar for the 2025 Jubilee. The Italian group “La Tenda di Gionata” is scheduled to hold a pilgrimage in September 2025, featuring a prayer vigil at a local parish in Rome, followed by a visit to St. Peter’s Basilica. While this event is listed among the Jubilee activities, Vatican officials have clarified that its inclusion does not imply official sponsorship by the Church.
LikeLike
-
As of today, the event has been dropped from the official program of the Vatican. It will take place as a private pilgrimage but is not officially sanctioned anymore.
LikeLike
In what year was the Protoevangelium of James written?
LikeLike
-
The Protoevangelium of James (also known as the Infancy Gospel of James) is generally dated to the mid-2nd century, around 150–200 AD. This estimate is based on internal evidence and the historical context in which it likely emerged, rather than a specific, definitive record.
Key Points Supporting This Dating:
Theological Context: The text reflects a developing interest in the early life of Mary and the nativity of Jesus, themes that became prominent in the 2nd century as Christians sought to fill in details not covered by the canonical Gospels.
External References: The Protoevangelium is referenced by early Christian authors, such as Origen (died c. 253 AD), indicating that it was already in circulation by the early 3rd century.
Historical Considerations: Its focus on Mary’s perpetual virginity and other Marian doctrines aligns with theological debates and developments of the 2nd century.
Although it is not part of the canonical New Testament and is considered apocryphal, the Protoevangelium of James significantly influenced Christian tradition, particularly in its depiction of Mary’s early life and the nativity story.LikeLike
-
looked like what?
LikeLike
-
Most certainly not. Based on the historical and cultural context, it is highly probable that the Hebrew artisans who crafted the cherubim for the Ark of the Covenant used Egyptian artistic models, as they had just come out of Egypt where they had lived for centuries. In Egypt, celestial beings and protective deities were often represented in anthropomorphic forms (human-like), or as hybrids combining human and animal features.
By the time of the Exodus (typically dated to the 13th-12th century BC), Egyptian art predominantly depicted deities in anthropomorphic or hybrid forms, with beings like the goddess Isis or Neftis frequently shown as winged protectors. The artisans would likely have drawn inspiration from such figures, leading to the conclusion that the cherubim were likely envisioned as human-like figures with wings, serving a protective role similar to these Egyptian depictions.
Regarding their Features:
Wings: The Bible specifically mentions the cherubim’s wings, so wings are an undisputed feature. Based on Egyptian models, the cherubim likely had two or four wings.Head and Body:
Their heads could have been human or even animal-like, reflecting later visions of cherubim seen in Ezekiel (multiple faces, including human, lion, ox, and eagle) or Isaiah (seraphim with six wings). However, these prophetic visions came centuries later, so they may not directly influence the cherubim of the Ark.
The body was likely human, as this would align with Egyptian artistic norms for celestial or divine beings. Alternatively, they could have had some hybrid characteristics.Egyptian Sphinxes as a Model: The Egyptian sphinx (lion body, human head, sometimes winged) is another possible influence. Sphinxes were also guardians of sacred spaces in Egyptian culture, much like cherubim guarded the Ark. However, given the Israelites’ strong desire to avoid idolatry and the worship of animal-like figures, it seems unlikely they would use something as identifiable as a sphinx for a sacred being like a cherub.
Dismissing the Assyrian Influence:
The Assyrian model of winged bulls or lions (such as the Lamassu) is an improbable inspiration for the cherubim, as the Israelites at this time had no contact with Mesopotamian culture. Their artistic traditions were shaped almost entirely by Egypt, not by the Assyrian or Babylonian world.Most Probable Representation:
The most likely representation of the cherubim would be human-like figures with wings, either two or four. This would align with the Egyptian artistic tradition they knew while maintaining a distinct identity suitable for their worship of the true God. While hybrid or animal-like features cannot be ruled out completely, the human-with-wings model fits best both culturally and theologically.Conclusion:
The only features we can say with certainty about the cherubim are that they had wings, as described in the Bible. Everything else—whether they had human or animal faces, hybrid bodies, or purely anthropomorphic forms—is speculation based on probability. Given their Egyptian background, the Israelites most likely visualized the cherubim as winged human figures, avoiding any overt resemblance to Egyptian idols or symbols of idolatry.LikeLike
-
The word Cherub comes from the Akkadian kāribu which means bull.
LikeLike
-
The term “cherub” or “querub” (kərūḇ, in Hebrew כְּרוּב) originates from the Akkadian “kāribu” or “kurību”, which refers to an intercessory or celestial being. In Mesopotamian culture, these beings were depicted as protective figures in temples and palaces.
The confusion may arise because, in Mesopotamian iconography, some protective guardians were depicted in the form of bulls (among other shapes). This means that one could show an image of a stone bull and call it a “kāribu” in reference to its role as a guardian, not as a description of its form.
However, “kāribu” does not mean “bull” in Akkadian. The Akkadian word for “bull” is “alpû”.
LikeLike
Regarding your answer to Noursat’s question in this article you imply that the cherubs did have that appearance.
LikeLike
I was referring to the probable appearance of the cherubim on the Ark, considering the artistic influence prevailing on the Israelites at the time of Moses.
If you are curious about the real appearance of cherubs keep reading:
Cherubim, like all angels, are pure spirits and therefore have no physical form. If they wish to become visible to a human, they can take on various appearances—just as we see different angelic manifestations in the Bible.
Personally, I believe that when a spiritual being (such as an angel, Mary, Jesus, or a saint) chooses to appear to someone, they would naturally adopt a form that conveys something meaningful—such as beauty, power, or authority. More importantly, they would likely appear in a way that is understandable to the person seeing them.
For example, if a cherub were to appear to me, it would most likely take the form of a fiery, winged figure because that aligns with my own mental image, and I would recognize it instantly. However, if the same cherub were to appear to a Mesopotamian in 1000 BC, it might take the form of a winged lion with a human head, as that would be a familiar and recognizable image for that person.
This follows the same logic as Jesus appearing to someone and speaking their native language—if He appears to a Colombian, He would speak Spanish; if He appears to a Chinese person, He would speak Chinese. The form and elements of the vision adapt to be comprehensible to the one receiving it.
LikeLike
If Jesus Christ has the same divinity as God the Father, does that mean that Mary gave birth, breastfed and changed God the Father’s diapers?
LikeLike
-
Of course not, God the Father didn’t become incarnate, it was God the Son who did. Mary is the mother of God because Jesus (the Son) was God, but the Son is God but not the Father or the Spirit. This is not a very good example but I think it is good enough to understand the difference between God the Father and God the Son: My body is made up of my hand, my foot, my nose, my stomach, etc. If you hurt my hand you are hurting my body, if you hurt my foot you are hurting my body, but if you hurt my hand you are not hurting my foot, even though they are both my body. Likewise, if you give birth to the Son you are giving birth to God, but not to the Father.
LikeLike
Apologia 2.1 in English 
Leave a reply to syriacpatriarchate Cancel reply