As all interpretation questions, I remain open-minded to contrary interpretations.

I wanted to get back to you on your comment. The Greek used is "ἑβδομηκοντάκις" which can be interpreted as "seventy times seven" or "seventy-seven" times. The New American Bible uses the latter interpretation and footnotes that this is an oblique reference to similar language in Genesis 4:24. Following is text from the Greek Lexicon and is cited below:

ἑβδομηκοντάκις  adverb; seventy times; ἑ. ἑπτά in MT 18.22 may be seventy times seven (490), but more probably seventy-seven times (77), as in Genesis 4.24.  ἑβδομηκοντάκις, AB, ἑβδομηκοντάκις.  Friberg, T., Friberg, B., & Miller, N. F. (2000). Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker's Greek New Testament library (125). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Accordingly, although both translations appear to be acceptable, I believe the translation should remain as is.  However, I remain open-minded to more comments or authority on why the change to the text in ONE should be revised.  Please let me know any additional authority for making a change.  If you click on our "Help Us Edit" page, you will see the current revision queue.  We want our readers to really get involved and let us know their thoughts.

As all interpretation questions, I remain open-minded to contrary interpretations.

The circumstances that you mention are not in the source scriptural texts and, therefore, cannot be included in ONE.  The stories of Jesus falling three times and (Saint) Veronica wiping Jesus' face are not told within any of the Gospels. 

This is a great question, and I admit to you that, when you asked the question, I had to go back to ONE myself, and to the source texts, to verify that there was no omission in the text of ONE.  I make this admission openly because I am completely Catholic educated from grade school through law school, and, even having written ONE, I still need to verify the textual sources against the indoctrinization that is the result of evolution from the source text.  The point fascinates me.

Because ONE unifies the text of the Gospels, clarity and focus are brought to the study of Jesus, and the reader is able to separate what is contained in the text versus what has been developed socially over the centuries.  A detailed explanation of the different "Stations of the Cross" is on Wikipedia at  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stations_of_the_cross.

Thank you for this question.

To me, this is a fascinating study! 

As an initial point, please check the testimonials at http://www.ougpress.com/storefront/web/t-ONE_testimonials.aspx.  We have really received great reviews from readers. 

Having said that, I will analyze the reviews a bit. ONE was only released on December 1, 2006, but I will describe my understanding the demographic so far. Generally, I believe that there are three categories of readers:

• Casual readers (non-clergy)
• Devout, careful readers (non-clergy)
• Clergy

As to the third category, clergy, there are many sub-categories, since "clergy" is somewhat difficult to define, since it includes various denominations that have different levels of dogmatic constraint.

Let me address these, one at a time.

First, the "casual readers." Casual readers have provided stunning reviews, particularly, because the casual readers tend to be the persons who are and do not want to be scholars, and may have never had the opportunity to read the Gospels.  Interestingly, there are many Catholics who have commented that they have been taught about the bible, but never really were directed or otherwise inspired to read it. These readers have been brought closer to the teachings of Jesus through ONE.  I say, "If you read ONE, you have read the Gospel of Jesus."  I believe that statement.  It is a joy for me when the "regular person" reads ONE, and comes closer to the wise teachings of Jesus.  For the most part, the feedback I have received is that these readers read ONE as a novel and, if at all, only minimally use the Unification Index for source referencing.

The comment from casual readers tends to be, "I never read the Gospels before, and I am amazed how easy ONE is to read.  I am surprised by how many sayings I've heard come from Jesus.  Now, when I go to church, I actually recognize the Gospel reading."

Second, the "devout, careful readers." These readers are the persons who have really helped with the Help Us Edit ONE program. These persons have been a tremendous resource.  The readers in this category have also provided stunning reviews.  The difference is that some of these persons give their compliments wrapped with questions, such as the one concerning Tatian, Divorce or Forgiveness.  What is so special about this group is how nice a group of people it has been.  My experience has been that the people in this group are very thankful for the book and enjoy using it.  At the same time, the people in this group desire to know more with an open mind and frame questions and challenges in a very respectful and open-minded manner.  Such as even Jesus needed help carrying his cross, so do I need this group to help me continue to improve ONE through deepened review.  Where ONE may bring the casual reader to Jesus because of the ease and manner of the text, I cannot say that ONE brings the devout reader to Jesus; the devout reader is already there.  For these readers, ONE provides a new resource and new perspective that allows honing of their understanding, because of the ease of text and the Unification Index.  For the most part, these readers use ONE as a study tool, with consistent use of the Unification Index.

I consider myself part of this group, not being a member of clergy.  I read ONE myself, with a finger at the Unification Index, and I constantly flip back and forth because I enjoy reviewing the text in relation to determining the unification sources.

The comment from the devout, careful readers tends to be, "This is a great work, why did you do xyz?" or "I have really enjoyed ONE with my study group; however, there may be an editing issue with xyz."  The comment regarding Forgiveness is an excellent representative example of this group.  Careful and critically analytical, yet polite, appreciative and open-minded.

Third, the "clergy."  This is the really interesting group to me.  Let me say that many Eucharistic ministers and church ushers, etc., (actually, these are part of the second group) have purchased ONE and provided great feedback, often with, "I will give a copy to my priest/pastor."  And, we have also had significant sales to educational institutions, some religious.  However, we have the least amount of public feedback from this group.  One would think that ONE would be most publicly embraced by this group even more than the second group.  But, in fact, we have received almost no public feedback, even though I've had many readers say they've given ONE to their priests, and, in fact, I gave two copies to a priest at my own parish with no feedback.  I will not say I am surprised or not surprised, but I will say that I find it interesting and intriguing.

Now, I suppose, I thought that it might be that the clergy does not like the book, and they are being polite to not tell me so (although I am an attorney, so I can take it).  But, I cannot say that is probable because, in fact, I have received too much positive feedback from the devout, careful reader group.  This group may not be clergy, but they are very very smart people, and well-educated in the scriptures.  In fact, careful, devout readers of the Gospels accounts for the most repeat purchases of ONE.

Time will tell how the feedback comes from institutional clergy, since the book was only released 75 days ago at the time of this writing.  It may be that clergy takes longer to form an opinion.  But, the reason may be as simple as this: it is a no-win situation for clergy to comment.  If a certain priest loves ONE, and says so, it may conflict with the priest's institutional dogma, causing conflict.  If a certain priest criticizes ONE, then I will need to debate the point and to defend the work, causing conflict.  It might be that silence is the best policy for institutional clergy. 

For example, if clergy takes issue with the unification of the two superficially conflicting stories of Mary Magdalene at the tomb, I would simply reply, "Show me the unified text endorsed by your religious institution."  If the clergy should say that every person must read all four Gospels, and unify the text in their mind, I would say, "Your rule defeats itself, because the weight of that requirement is more than everyone needs to bear." 

I think the comment from the clergy should be something like as I have admitted in the preface of ONE.  Something like, "The official position of the church is that it is the duty of every Christian to read and deeply study the source Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as well as all other portions of the Bible.  However, we have determined that ONE is a work of goodness, and we find that it is consistent with the teachings and goals of the church.  Accordingly, ONE is added to our suggested reading list as an endorsed work and as a tool for the further education of all Christians."

Thank you for your inquiry.  I explain this issue in my response on the question relating to Tatian's Diatessarion.  See Click here to see my response on Tatian's Diatessarion.

I have a question for Gregg Zegarelli. Could you please forward this question to him?  In the late 2nd century CE, Tatian composed the DIATESSARON (or Diatessarion), with the express goal of making “one” out of the “four” gospel accounts. How is this “goal” different from the account you created today?
 

Thank you for your inquiry. The goal may very well be the same, although the implementation appears to be quite different.

As an initial point, let me say that we understand that there are "harmonies of the Gospels" and there are "parallels of the Gospels," the former being general integrations and the latter placing the four texts in a columnar parallel.  These countless prior works are readily available, they are important and they certainly have their purpose.  However, ONE is different because it is a parallel within a harmony, and it has a completely new baseline post-unification index.

For example, there have been movies that attempt to harmonize the Gospels.  In other words, any work that integrates the various stories of Jesus from the multiple Gospels is a harmony to some degree.  For example, if a movie has both the washing of the apostles' feet and the "father forgive them they know not what they do" statement, that movie has harmonized the Gospels of John and Luke, since only each of those Gospels have the respective circumstances mentioned.  (That is, only John contains the description of the washing of feet, and only Luke contains the statement from Jesus on the cross.)  Mel Gibson's The Passion of The Christ is a harmony.

Also, there are many great works that place parallel passages next to each other, so the reader can see how, for example, Matthew and Mark each describe the miracle of walking on water.  In my drafting of ONE, I, myself, used parallels as tools at times--although use of parallels was not part of my usual methodology of drafting.

But, ONE is truly different because it is a complete textual integration remaining faithful to original text.  Usually harmonies lose authority in the harmonizing process, and parallels are not easy to read.  And, neither provide a definitive unified citation reference.  ONE provides a unified baseline of reference for deepened study and religious study groups.

Now, if you review the ONE Unification Index on the website, you will see samples of the clause by clause integration.  Each and every clause in ONE is referenced back to its derivative source; every clause of all four Gospels is reconciled into ONE. In this way, the ONE text is both simplified and maintains scholarly authority; this is what makes ONE unique. The Unification Index also provides a foundation for meaningful debate and challenge to the integrity of the unification task.  Also, the re-indexing of the unified text permits an entirely new baseline for comparison and discussion.

So, having said that, throughout time, many have attempted to harmonize and parallelize the Gospels, but not like ONE.  ONE has authority and is easy to read.  Usually authority of reference is lost for ease of text, or ease of text lost for authority of reference.  But, not in ONE. 

That is why ONE has received such positive feedback.  The goal is to learn the teachings of Jesus, and thereby apply those teaching in daily life.  ONE gets the reader to the goal more effectively and efficiently.  That is why I say that, if you are a scholar, you must read all four Gospels separately in scholarly fashion and dissect and integrate them yourself (and you can and should use ONE as a reference during that process).  However, if you are not a scholar, and you do not want to be a scholar, then ONE (I truly believe) is the most effective and efficient way for you to read and learn the teachings of Jesus.

Back to Tatian.  Tatian's work appears to be significantly different in implementation. The entry text in ONE (derived from John and Luke) is very different than in Tatian's work. Whether ONE is better or worse than Tatian, I suppose, depends upon the reader's purpose. I can tell you that we are grateful to be getting kind testimonials from our readers, who include both scholars and casual readers. I have very deep respect for the task undertaken by Tatian, because I cannot even imagine the difficulty of attempting the task without the use of computer technology.  The integration of text and tracking of clauses into the Unification Index was not part of Tatian's work. 

Again, it is one task to harmonize the Gospels, it is a completely different level of effort to track that process and create a Unification Index so that the reader can reference the text back to the source Gospels.  It is the Unification Index that gives new power to the reader.

First, I will say that my personal belief was not necessarily part of the mechanical task of unifying the text.  However, as the author of ONE, it is reasonable to conclude that I have contemplated deeply such things as the nature of religion, so I will address the question briefly.  (I do really mean briefly, since I certainly do not intend this to be detailed work of philosophy or religious analysis; although it may be that we make simple truths more complex than necessary.)

Having said that, I will break down the parts of religions that are generally common among them (such as I can see them), so that we can think about them a bit more clearly.  I believe the breakdown is rather logical and straight-forward, although we may often fail to analyze such things with proper attention.

1.  "Abstract Issues," such as the nature of the soul.  Such issues cannot be evidenced with empirical data.  (I will leave that issue somewhat as it is, in that I will not debate the really existential point such as, "Can the cup you hold ultimately be proved by empirical evidence...ultimately?"  That is too existential for the purpose here, and I will hold with the basic point that debating who is correct as to the nature of the soul is quite a distinct type of question from determining who is correct in an argument over whether a living human being can bleed.)

2.  "Concrete Issues," such as the rules for interacting socially in the "earthy" world.  That is, rules regarding living within a human social existence. 

3.  "Mixed Issues," such as ritual.  That is, ritual actually taking place in the "earthly" world for the purpose of accomplishing the satisfaction of the abstract beliefs in No. 1, above.  For example, the slaughter of a sheep as a sacrifice to God.  This is something in the "earthly world" that has significance for the "spiritual world" and/or afterlife, but is not per se a requirement of core human social interaction.  The ritual itself may have an impact on social interaction (such as a group dancing around a fire), but it is not an ultimate goal per se.  Fasting and prayer are within this category.  The ultimate goal is that something be performed in this life that has a believed impact on a future life.

Thus, to me, it appears that religions generally consist of a combination of abstract beliefs, concrete rules of social interaction/activity, and mixed rules of activity for the purpose of fulfilling the abstract belief.  With that as a foundation, I will think about them with you. 

First, Concrete Issues—the easiest analytical category.  It would seem for the Atheist, that only No. 2 is applicable: Concrete Issues.  This would necessarily be true since, without divinity or "God" as part of the formula, life is defined by the scope of earthly activity.  An Atheist may or may not contradict the rules established by various religions in their respective concrete rules.  An Atheist may be a personally or socially "good" person or a "bad" person, as anyone might be.  Let us stay true to the category, though, and not bleed the point into the "mixed" issues category.  For example, if a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, Hindu and believer in Confucianism all act with love toward their neighbor in this life (although they have differences as to the after-life/Abstract Issues), there is absolutely no difference between them within the scope as to this discrete category.  Based upon action in this earthly world alone, without the ascribing of religious dogma or beliefs, there is, in this and similar examples, no basis for a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, Hindu and/or believer in Confucianism to conduct war for causes under this category.  This is true, by definition, and anyone who debates this point confuses or bleeds categories.  That is, within the discrete scope of social interaction, there is no Concrete Issues basis to smack a person who kisses you because they do not share a belief as to the Abstract Issues.

Second, as to Abstract Issues, assuming that Abstract Issues do no touch upon Concrete Issues (and, therefore, by definition, are not part of Mixed Issues), the rules of any religion appear to be academic.  If you say the soul is black and I say the soul is white, being an Abstract Issue, neither of us have any earthly evidentiary foundation for our beliefs, and neither of us have any evidence to refute the other.  If you say the afterlife is white light, and I say the afterlife is a new perfect physical world, even assuming our human minds can contemplate the nature of the God and the afterlife, neither of us can prove our point.  To debate such issues may or may not be rational to some extent, but it is inherently futile.  If someone should argue, "My abstract ideas are better than your abstract ideas, because my book of words says so" it begs the question. 

Now, let me state it a bit differently, so it is clear where it appears that a superficial analysis goes wrong: Words that embody Abstract Issues cannot thereby convert those Abstract Issues into Concrete Issues.  The first time I had a discussion with a friend stating this point, my friend responded, "But my beliefs are true because the Bible says so; I have proof right here in this Bible in the words of our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Savior."  So I will say it again, words (oral or written) cannot make Abstract Issues into Concrete Issues.  If someone believes that Jesus' statements of the Abstract Issues are true, that is what the person believes.  If someone believes that Moses' or Muhammad's statements of the Abstract Issues are true, that is what the person believes.  However, there is no reason for a Christian, for example, to fight with a Jew or Muslim over the statements of Abstract Issues because there is no earthly proof for the earthly debate.  Accordingly, the earthly debate is ultimately futile.  And, therefore, the debate over the relative merits of Abstract Issues is, by definition, academic.

Third, as to Mixed Issues, the analysis is somewhat derivative, since Mixed Issues are a combination of earthly acts for the purpose of divine favor or afterlife qualification.

Irrespective of "why" a religion inspires a worldly action, all or most religions have a rule set for living in the real world.  For example, harmonious and peaceful co-existence with other living things, such as it can be done within the context of the cycle of life and environment.  If we remove "why" someone acts righteously, it is the analysis contained for Concrete Issues, since a Christian may love because Jesus says so, and an Atheist may love because it is proper for controlled social interaction.

For example, take the Ten Commandments (aka, the "Decalogue"): Honor your father and mother, do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not lie, do not covet; all of which are precise commands on social activity in the world in which we exist.  These rules are naturally and self-evidently positive in our social environment, with or without the spiritual or divine implications.

The Ten Commandments (aka, the "Decalogue"):

An Atheist and member of any religion can equally follow the social rules in six of the Ten Commandments, and, therefore, are Concrete Issues.  The first four of the Ten Commandments are mixed issues because they are believed to be directives of what to do on earth as a command from the divine.  

As to Mixed Issues, I will sub-divide into: 1) actions purely for sake of the spirit and with no material social goal; and 2) those which have a dual purpose, that is both a spiritual and social function.  For example, the slaughtering of a sheep for no purpose other than as a sacrifice would be the first category, as is the act of praying (a physical personal act with no necessary social function); or, the second category, for example, the "sign of peace" in a church ceremony, that requires an interactive social symbol of peace in a spiritual context, or the first four of the Ten Commandments.

Now, as to the first sub-category, such as praying (or doing so facing a certain direction), I have no basis to judge, because the activity is purely a personal act, with purely personal implications, based purely upon the person's belief as to Abstract Issues.  If a person's religion requires requires prayer during the day, or facing a certain direction, so be it.  Generally speaking, it is an act without social impact.  How am I to judge my brother or sister's peaceful activities?

As to the second sub-category, I will merely analyze it within the category for Concrete Issues, without regard to the purpose or "why" that act occurs for comparative religious analysis.  If a religion requires that a person kiss me or slap me, I can assess that act as a Concrete Issue, so I defer back to the discussion on that category.

Therefore, my analysis of persons and comparative religions reduces to what people actually do, or the "fruits of their labor" as Jesus taught.  You come to know a people by their respective actions.   ONE: 631.  Love is impotent in the abstract.  Although it might superficially seem to be ironic, I believe that I am commanded to forget the institutional religious belief of others.  All conversion is to love, not to institutional religion.  Shall we forget that, in Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan, the first person to pass the injured man was a priest?   ONE: 1038.  His point, of course, was not any disregard for those many good persons who are devoted to God as their sole life's purpose, but a reproach for hypocritical action.  The point is further made by Jesus in his Parable of the Two Sons: one son said he would do his father's will, yet did not; the other son said he would not do his father's will yet did.  ONE: 2061.  Deeds ultimately control. 

As Henry Ford said, "The older I get, the more I watch what people do, and the less I listen to what they say."  I think this is a wise statement. 

I do not filter my love for others, nor others' love for me, by judging the source by academic Abstract Issues.  That yoke is too hard to carry, and that camel too large to swallow. 

Thank you for your question.

Thank you for your question.  I will state it briefly, although it has no bearing on my work with ONE.

I personally believe that the creator intended that there be a natural and worldly cycle of life.  An eco-system that human beings share in the natural environment with other animals.  I am personally reconciled with right to life while, at the same time, I believe in the consumption of meat and other things that were once alive: be it animal or vegetable.  I am personally reconciled that human beings are naturally omnivores (although I acknowledge that the Old Testament identifies that humans were vegetarians until the Great Flood, Genesis: 1:29-30; 9:2-7). 

To me, things rest upon intention and necessity.  To me, the fact that living things subsist upon other living things is the state of the creator's nature.  To me, that one living thing gives its life for the life of another living thing is natural.  It is intended.  For those who would debate the issue, I merely ask whether they can reproduce the body of their worldly humanity by the Spirit.  We give to Caesar what is Caesar's—and Jesus clearly paid the tax.  Living in the world requires worldly actions.  But, again, this is my personal view of the world, and, again, does not impact my work for ONE.

For example, it is by technology that we can start thinking about synthetics in place of animal skins for warmth.  For those who are philosophically opposed to wearing animal skins, I can only say that it is a convenient argument for the privileged of today and could not have been so from the beginning, such as, for example, the American Indians needed to take the life of animals for themselves to keep their human condition from extinction.  But, of course, the measurement and circumstances of necessity will evolve in time and change in the context.  And, there is a point of philosophy, and a point of real-world implementation, that need to be separately considered.

But, that said, I do not particularly find visiting zoos a pleasing experience, as I would not, myself, desire to be caged and viewed for pleasure.  I do not believe in hunting for sport without appurtenant necessity.  I do not believe in the memorializing of killed things as prided trophies.  If you need to hunt, then you must; if you need to kill, then you must.  I do not believe in stepping upon ants because we can do so without seemingly worldly consequence.  I do not believe in proud laughing at any time the life of a living thing is taken, be it animal or vegetable. 

I think the proper intention is to live and let live, and when the life of a living thing is necessarily taken, to simply say, "Thank you" and/or "I am sorry" as the context requires, with deepened appreciation for the cycle of life from which we all take and give. 

I do not profess at all that the above is the correct view of the world, only that it reconciles for me.  The closing in Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address may provide some additional insight into my basic view of necessity to take life and respect for life:

If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.

Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.  Abraham Lincoln.  March 4, 1865.

First, let me say that ONE is a unification of the Gospels.  It contains the wise teachings and deepened faith of Jesus, to which many people adhere at different points and degrees.  Whether it is a work of religion is for the beholder to take, but it is not for this author to give.  ONE is art, not science; readers will take from it what they will.  I do not think that there is much dispute that the teachings of Jesus are wise, but the concept of religion ironically seems to bring with it constraints of human tradition that seem to cause deepened strife in the world.  These traditions seems to filter some from others, and I am reminded of Jesus' statement, "[Y]ou strain out the gnat and swallow the camel!"  ONE: 2227.  Now, some may say that religion also brings great peace in the world, and, possibly, they are correct.  But, it may be that any such peace actually derives from the more essential loving and contentment in being loved that is a common denominator of many different religions.  (Does not human tradition in some religious institutions prevent women from leading the expression of love in ceremony of mutual devotion?)  So, in short, I think—and certainly hope—ONE is a work of goodness, but I cannot say it is a religious work.  It speaks for itself and is what it is.

Second, having said that, as to me, generally, I suppose people carry their respective belief systems differently.  Some keep it private and personal, and others shout it out.  I cannot say whether one way is correct or better than the other.  I am reminded of Jesus defending those who praised him by compulsion, when he said, “I tell you, if they keep silent, the stones will cry out!” ONE: 1993.  It works for such people, but, I cannot say that has been my way.  It might be that what I naturally say to others is a bit more subtle and non-denominational than customarily recognizable.

Some people of strong devotion openly profess it pervasively in their lives and wear clothing denoting their devotions and position.  This apparently works for those who do so.  I cannot find any absolute authority from Jesus to wear such denotations, although I could argue he implied not to do so.  ONE: 912.  In any case, I do not adorn with such professions; I suppose that makes me, "normal."  Clearly, we see from Jesus himself that people will ultimately be recognized by their deeds, not their clothing.  So, for me, it is enough to try to do good works within the failures of my limitations and weaknesses.  Some people bow their heads at any public dining, and that works them, but I personally think that a simple mental "thank you" without a blink of the eyes is enough.  I have never been able to completely clear my own conscience that such actions are either for others to see or an imposing push of faith onto others, so I avoid the question.  I am also reminded of Jesus' teaching, "But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret." ONE: 550.  I respectfully presume others are doing the same.  (Of course, this is certainly distinct from a situation, for example, where there is a known shared tradition in a group for those who are drawn to do so.) 

Even in starting this document, it is a passive work responding to those who ask me questions, and for those who are interested to read the responses.  I believe that ONE is an interesting project and should be discussed for those interested to do so.  But, it is without imposition.  There is a fundamental difference in movement between a push and a pull.  If I recall, Eisenhower said, "Put a string on a table.  Push it from behind.  It bunches up and goes nowhere.  Now, pull it from the front.  It nicely makes forward progress."  Even if I would speak at all, I think it should be without imposition to others, particularly if grounded upon the unprovable presumptions of correctness regarding Abstract Ideas.  I am glad to speak mutually quietly about such things with those who deeply enjoy the iteration of mutual conversation and study.  I can be devoutly faithful without pushing it upon others; I will be judged later as to whether I have breached some duty to do otherwise.  But, I think that, if we listen, we will hear a whisper.

Third, about the drafting process of ONE, only my wife knew I was working on "a book" by observing the effort (even she without knowing the subject-matter) and none of my other family nor my close friends had any idea.  What good is talking about intentions?  Deeds will speak for themselves, as they are, after having been performed. 

Fourth, I am reminded Jesus' statement that he came eating and drinking and people said, "Look, [Jesus] is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners." ONE: 1021.  Jesus apparently knew how to have a good time.  So do I.  Certainly, so do I. 

Thank you for the question, since this is a personal question, I will preface again that my personal belief does not impact my technical unification of the Gospels in ONE.  I will be forever in my life learning as a student.  And, for the reasons I mention throughout this blog, I have a deepened respect for other opinions, and reverence for all religions of love and goodness.  I think there is a splendidly elegant statement in the Preface to the New Testament in the New American Bible: "In all these areas the present translation attempts to display a sensitivity appropriate to the present state of the questions under discussion, which are not yet resolved and in regard to which it is impossible to please everyone, since intelligent and sincere participants in the debate hold mutually contradictory views." 

Having prefaced, I will address your question:
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The answer to the question is, "Yes." 

I note that you only asked part of the question, and so I only answered so much.  Until another day, I ask you the following: Are the generations of truly good and righteous men and women, prophets and wise persons, including Moses, for example, who prayed to Jesus' God of Abraham, completely saved at judgment, or are they in some lesser state of potential salvation merely because they pre-dated Jesus and they were not Christians?  Do they lack absolute and complete salvation?

Thank you for the question, since this is a personal question, I will preface again that my personal belief does not impact my technical unification of the Gospels in ONE.  I will be forever in my life learning as a student.  And, for the reasons I mention throughout this blog, I have a deepened respect for other opinions, and reverence for all religions of love and goodness.  I think there is a splendidly elegant statement in the Preface to the New Testament in the New American Bible: "In all these areas the present translation attempts to display a sensitivity appropriate to the present state of the questions under discussion, which are not yet resolved and in regard to which it is impossible to please everyone, since intelligent and sincere participants in the debate hold mutually contradictory views." 

Having prefaced, I will address your question:
-------------------------------------------------------------------

First, let me start be creating a foundation to help think about your request:

As a general rule, anyone who departs from the constraints of particular dogma is a "heretic."  The Oxford English Dictionary defines "heresy" as, "Theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox."  More specifically, the analysis of heresy is a somewhat complex question, depending upon the point at issue, the nature of the contradiction and the adherence by the believer.

But, let us stay on the general concept to make the point.  "Heresy" is such a strong word.  But, in truth, no one who truly believes is or can be a heretic from their own perspective. 

By definition, all heresy is a judgment from one person or group upon another.  It is, by definition, a proclamation from an external source.

And what scary imagery!  Do we not see a traditional cleric pounding his stick pointing to an accused saying, "You are excommunicated, and your soul is condemned to hell"? 

Now, let me expand the scenario.  In fact, the person judged to be a heretic performed no bad deeds at all, but the person is condemned for not sharing in the beliefs of the cleric accuser's dogma.  That is, the accused is so judged for not similarly believing in the Abstract Ideas of the cleric.  Now, remember, the heretic in my example has performed no bad deeds (Concrete Issues), and, let us say, in fact, the person was Mother Theresa's assistant and fully assisted her in her life-mission of actually helping ease the pain of many others throughout the world. 

I suppose the accused can take the cleric's judgment of heresy in two ways: 1) the accused is insecure in his or her belief, and, therefore, to some extent, accepts the cleric's judgment with burden and guilt; or 2) the accused, being a true believer in his or her own dogma, and being therefore without insecurity or fear, naturally repels the accusation as powerless.  To the true believer, no other person's judgment is material.  And, I could take the example to the sublimely ridiculous where the accused argues back, "No, you're excommunicated from my church, and maybe it's your soul that's in trouble" to which the cleric responds, "No, you," and the accused back again, "No, you!"  Okay, let us say in my example, Mother Theresa's assistant was a person of sublime goodness, but a Lutheran as to belief in Abstract Ideas.

Second, having said that, I am reminded of a situation.  A close friend of mine is good person, deeply "religious" and devout; she is a true a student of the scriptures.  But, she is not a member of the Roman Catholic church.  In fact, she is a non-denominational Christian.  In friendly bantering (I somewhat presumptuously call it "friendly"...), I asked her if she believed in the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church's exclusive leadership and dogmatic infallibility, to which she responded, "No."  So, for analytical discussion reasons (not judgment), I indicated that she might be within the definition of a heretic as a protestant, as was Martin Luther, and, she was offended.  She had never thought about it; therefore, she never thought of herself potentially as such.  And, certainly, the great protestant Martin Luther—who desired only to reform a church back to its essence—was claimed to be a heretic.  His heresy was not regarding deeds but over Abstract Ideas; that is, his heresy was not over deeds, but over dogma.

Now, I suppose that I could create a Venn Diagram of the various religious (and possibly philosophical) dogmas to determine who is a heretic of whom, but it is not for me to judge.  Moreover, as I stated in my reflection on Comparative Religions, I merely watch what other people do as a concrete social question because that is the correct concrete worldly context.

Third, and finally, it is clear to me that love and heresy cannot co-exist.  I am reminded that Abraham Lincoln said he would join any church that had love as its only requirement for membership, and I think he was a wise man of deepened faith.  No person who loves and does good deeds can be a heretic.  Truly, that is the end of the discussion for me, although I explain this in some detail in my reflection on Comparative Religions.

If any of the "protestant" or other religions believe in woman celebrating a ceremony of love or "priests" taking part in the human joy of marriage, that seems wonderful to me.  We need all the devotion that we can get from fathers and mothers themselves as examples for our children, and, so, those seem consistent with the goal.

I am comfortable with my beliefs, although I certainly respect that my personal reconciliations may not work for others.  As for me, I find no heresy in Jews, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Athiests or anyone who loves and does good deeds.  To me, those who judge so make human life far too hard, and the yoke is supposed to be easy and burden light.  Separation of the wheat from the chaff is the separation of those who love and do good deeds and those who do not.  Nothing more or less.

So, my training may be called Roman Catholic, but, as Mahatma (Mohandas) Gandhi said, when asked whether he was a Hindu, replied: "Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew."  And, I think Gandhi was a wise man of deepened spiritual faith. 

Thank you for the question.

Thank you for the question, since this is a personal question, I will preface again that my personal belief does not impact my technical unification of the Gospels in ONE.  I will be forever in my life learning as a student.  And, for the reasons I mention throughout this blog, I have a deepened respect for other opinions, and reverence for all religions of love and goodness.  I think there is a splendidly elegant statement in the Preface to the New Testament in the New American Bible: "In all these areas the present translation attempts to display a sensitivity appropriate to the present state of the questions under discussion, which are not yet resolved and in regard to which it is impossible to please everyone, since intelligent and sincere participants in the debate hold mutually contradictory views." 

Having prefaced, I will address your question:
-------------------------------------------------------------------

No, and No.  

Original Sin is not, in my opinion, taught by Jesus, although it is certainly part of the Catholic catechism.  Others have different opinions of this point and stretch to indicate that Jesus implied it.  But, I think Jesus was expressly clear on all points he intended.

As to me, I suppose that there are certainly at least two ways to get to a "faith" or a "belief": 1) we get there because we are inspired and drawn to it, or 2) we get there because we can rationalize it to some appropriate degree.  And, I suppose, those two ways are not mutually exclusive, and there can be a mix of both.  To the latter, I added, "to an appropriate degree," because I cannot say any human will ever be able to rationalize the "first cause" (that is, to rationalize how the first "something" was created from nothingness).

I would not be truthful if I said that I am inspired to believe in Original Sin.  But, in reality, I think I cannot believe it on faith, because it contradicts what I can rationalize.  Or, stated another way, I am unable to reconcile it to my satisfaction.  So far, anyway.

Now, I will digress and point out that it has been said that, if you need to prove faith, it ceases to be wonderful.  But, I will direct that speaker back to the great Saint Thomas Aquinas, a man of great philosophy and rationality.  So, let the speaker not pick and choose.  I will point out again: that which makes religious faith so beautiful to the beholder, is exactly that which makes it quite ugly to non-beholder.  This is where religious war begins, over the abstract ideas.  Thus, it is the contention of abstract ideas that ironically creates great strife in the real world.  If we can really find the truth, it will necessarily transcend all religious institutions of love and goodness.

I repeat the statement, so it is not overlooked: if we can really find the truth, it will necessarily transcend all religious institutions of love and goodness.

But, back to Original Sin.

I will probably be oversimplifying, but let me state the general premise of Original Sin:

Adam and Eve were created by God.  They were perfect and good.  They lived in the Garden of Eden, which was perfect.  But, God, although perfect, was apparently somewhat insecure about his creation, so he created a test: "all is yours, but do not eat that piece of fruit."  The Evil One (Satan) tricked Eve, and she and Adam, in an act of imperfection, then ate the forbidden fruit.  God became paternally angry and disappointed, and cast them from the Garden of Eden.  For the first time, they realized that they were naked, and they had shame.  Now, woman would have to bear children in pain.  Etc.

Now, when I start any discussion regarding Original Sin with someone, I usually ask if the person knows that there are two stories of the creation in Genesis: Gen 1:1, and at Gen 2:4/5, labeled respectively in the New American Bible as, "First Story of Creation" and "Second Story of Creation."  This is just a simple framing threshold question, but not important for the discussion to occur.

Then, I usually ask the other person to describe life in the Garden of Eden.  Were there stones?  Could Adam trip on a stone?  If he tripped, did he fall on the ground?  If he hit a stone, could he bleed?  If he could bleed, could he bleed to death?  Could the wound get infected?  What was the eco-system like?  Were the lions vegetarians?  If so, did they have big teeth?  If not, did the antelope they ate bleed?  Was not the strength given to the neck of the wolf to tear and pull flesh from another animal?  Were the sharks vegetarians, and did they not have rows of teeth?  These questions invariably bring the other person to say either that the questions were never considered, or that the person stopped thinking of it and relies on simple faith.

I accept that response, because, after all, we are discussing abstract points of faith.  However, as for me, I cannot get to a point where I can reconcile the state of that nature. I cannot reconcile it on principles of reality, nor can I reconcile it on principles of my fundamental faith in a just and good creator.  Certainly, there was no football in the Garden of Eden, or, at least, no meaningful football.  Perfection abhors the pain of losing.  In the Garden of Eden, no one could apparently drop the ball.  Academics aside, in fact, it is imperfection that is the sine qua non of all meaning in life.  Stated another way, it is exactly the relative degrees of imperfection from which all appreciation is the result.

Back again to the precise point.  I certainly believe that the creator is ultimately just, to whatever extent that the creator is a judge.  I certainly know that humans are bound to the weakness of their flesh, and are sometimes misguided in their thoughts, both reasons being the subject of a proper judge's judgment.

But, I will try to outline the premises of many Christians:

God is good, just and perfect.
God created Adam and Eve, perfect and innocent.
Adam and Eve, though perfect, were tricked or enticed and made a wrong decision.
God is omniscient, or all-knowing, but either did not see that wrong decision coming,
  -- or God did see that wrong decision coming but now needed to create a punishment.
God condemns Adam and Eve with many punishments, as well as their children not yet born.

(At this point, all humanity is burdened with, and guilty of, Original Sin.)

God is good, just and perfect.
By God's condemnation, a human baby is born guilty of Original Sin, even though never having lived with choice;
  -- that is, each child is condemned to pay the debt of the mother and father to the beginning of time.

But, because God is good, just and perfect, God wants to save humans from the guilt of Original Sin.
God sends his son, Jesus, in the form of a human to the world.
It is God's intention that, if Jesus is crucified, then God will lift the guilt of Original Sin from hu