Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
I am a Christian and have the deepest respect for God's inspired Word, the Judeo-Christian Bible. I invite fellow Christians to participate in the questions for discussion. Two of the most basic teachings in Christendom are as follows: 1. THE TRINITY
The teaching that God is split up into three individual persons that are combined into one "Godhead" (Father, Son, and holy ghost/holy spirit). All three of these persons are said to be CO-EQUAL (meaning they have the same power) and CO-ETERNAL (meaning they have always existed at the same time and none of them can die). 2. HELLFIRE
The teaching that God will burn a person's soul in everlasting hellfire for committing wicked deeds. In other words, God will supposedly punish people forever in fiery flames of hell--despite the fact the crimes the persons committed were only done during the persons' brief human lifespan. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Are there scriptures in the Bible to support the teachings of Trinity and hellfire? If so, present the scriptures by giving Bible book, chapter, and verse and also explain why you believe the scripture you present is talking about Trinity or literal hellfire. 2. Why are these teachings found in pagan/false religions that never worshipped the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible? For instance there were pagan trinities at least 200 years before Jesus came to the earth as a human. A. In the 2nd century B.C.E. (two centuries before Christ came to the earth), Egypt had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Horus, (2) Osiris, and (3) Isis. B. Likewise, in the 2nd century B.C.E. (two centuries before Christ came to the earth), Babylon had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Ishtar, (2) Sin, and (3) Shamash. C. In fact, during the 1st century AD when Jesus was on earth, Palmyra, which was an ancient city in Syria, had a triune god which consisted of (1) moon god, (2) Lord of Heavens, and (3) sun god. 3. If the Trinity and hellfire are Bible teachings, why is it that Jesus and his apostles who followed him around never taught anyone about the Trinity and literal hellfire? 4. How is it that both the Trinity and hellfire teachings did not become "Christian" teachings until the Roman Catholics copied both of them from pagan/false religions--AFTER the resurrected Jesus Christ returned to heaven? 5. If hell is a place of literal fiery torment, how is it that the Bible says Jesus went to hell for the entire three days that he was dead?"He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that HIS SOUL WAS NOT LEFT IN HELL, neither his flesh did see corruption." (Acts 2:31--King James Version) 6. If hell is a place of literal torment, why is it that the word "hell" also means "Sheol" and "Hades" and "the grave"? 7. Does the Bible teach that humans have an immortal soul that survives the death of the person so that the soul can then be burned in eternal flames? If so, please present scriptures to this effect to prove it. 8. Are the words "Trinity" and "Godhead" in the Bible? If so, were those words part of the original writings?

LARNI:
I think the best answer is that the Bible (the only document that we can rely on for information about God/Jesus) is unreliable. ALTER2EGO:
I disagree that the Bible is unreliable. In fact, from my study of the Bible, I have found it to be quite the opposite. But since you are making the claim, perhaps you could present a few examples by identifying various scriptures and explaining why they are evidence that the Bible is "unreliable." Be sure and provide Bible book, chapter, and verse along with your explanation.

quote:

---

LARNI:
If every living thing was dead (apart from 14 of the clean and 2 of the unclean animals) there would be a genetic bottle neck for every species around 4600 years ago.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- LARNI:
So let me see if I understand your question. Are you saying there were a total 16 animals on Noah's ark? I don't quite get what you are speculating.
*****

quote:

---

STILE:
Are you inviting anyone else?
I am not a Christian. But I have some questions. Don't feel like you have to answer them if you don't want to, though.

---

ALTER2EGO:
Anyone can participate in the discussion. I specifically invited Christians because trinity and hellfire are the central doctrines within most of the 41,000 or so denominations within Christendom.

quote:

---

OMNIVOROUS:
Hi, Alter2Ego--welcome to EvC!

---

ALTER2EGO -to- OMNIVOROUS:
Thank you for the welcome.

quote:

---

OMNIVOROUS:
I cannot address your topic, since I am not a Christian. I'm mostly interested in science and stick to the science/secular sections.

​

Here, on the religion side of the forum, science is not welcome; on the science side, the religiously faithful never ever respond to issues of science with declarations of faith.

---

You said theists never respond to scientific issues with declarations of faith. So that equates to "theists respond to scientific issues with scientific arguments." Is that the point you were making?

quote:

---

LARNI:
As I hope you are now aware I was referring to the amount of unclean animals.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- LARNI:
Yes, I'm aware now that you were referring to all of the unclean animals and all of the clean ones.

quote:

---

LARNI:
Do you now concede my point about the genetic bottle neck? I appreciate that you don't want to address this (thanks for the tip, Purpledawn) and I will bow out when you respnd.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- LARNI:
What point was that? The one you failed to make? You presented speculations and failed to prove there were not sufficient "kinds" of animals on Noah's Ark to have resulted in every existing creature that has ever walked this earth.In my world, speculations amount to personal opinion. With all due respect, since everybody on this planet has an opinion, where did you get the idea your opinions are all that special?I am sure you and I will have ample opportunity to explore your hypothetical "bottle neck" when we start debating macroevolution myth, over in the science section of this forum.Thanks for the welcome, by the way.Edited by Alter2Ego, : No reason given.

quote:

---

FAITH:
The Trinity is not specifically named in the Bible but it is implicit in a huge array of scriptural references that together add up to the concept of One God in Three Persons. Here is An Outline Study Free Text Bible Commentaries - Blue Letter Bible of the relevant scriptures.

​

The affirmation that there is One God is the first reference in the outline for which he lists all the verses that apply.

​

Then the facts that the Father is God, that Jesus Christ is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, are also demonstrated from the scripture verses affirming the attributes of each as the attributes of God. All three are JEHOVAH God. Jesus Christ IS Jehovah God.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- FAITH:
Not once have I seen so much as a hint of trinity during my many readings from the Bible. But since you are making the claim that Trinity is "implicit in a huge array of scriptural references," I invite you to present six (6) of your best scriptural examples of this "implicit" teachingBTW: The weblink you provided is a typical example of "Elephant Hurling." I clicked on it and was confronted by a wall of text. Amidst the personal philosophy of the blog's author, there were splatterings of scriptures that the blogger did not even bother to quote. So there's no telling how he/she drew the conclusion that the various verses are with reference to trinity.FYI: Anyone can (1) cherry pick verses, (2) isolate a few words within each verse--while deliberately ignoring the context, and (3) proceed to tell people their personal philosophy. According to "cherry pickers," the out-of-context verses they present is proof positive that the Bible is saying what they claim it is saying. That's what the blogger did at the weblink you provided. When context (the surrounding words, verses, and chapters) is paid attention to, it soon becomes clear that the verses are not with reference to trinity.As I said, feel free to present about six verses of scripture that you consider your best examples of "implicit trinity in the Bible." Be sure and quote each verse and explain where you are seeing trinity. Also, please identify each quoted scripture with Bible book, chapter, and verse so that others can locate the verses in their own Bibles. Once we've resolved the first six verses, we will move on to another six of your choice.Edited by Alter2Ego, : No reason given.

quote:

---

FAITH:
The outline I linked is quite a standard presentation of the scriptures that underlie the concept of One God in Three Persons, which is the Christian Trinity.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- FAITH:
The "standard presentation" for trinity is to cherry pick a few words out of an entire verse, ignore the context, and then give personal interpretations of the out-of-context words. I mentioned that to you in my previous response; remember?

quote:

---

FAITH:
As Dr. A pointed out, the verses are immediately available to you by merely hovering over the Bible reference. It's a very handy feature of the Blue Letter Bible site.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- FAITH::
You don't get, do you? When presenting scriptures in support of questionable religious doctrines, the requirement is that the verse be quoted so that the words being focused on can be bolded or italicized for the benefit of others. Then a brief explanation should be given for why the verse means what the "cherry picker" is claiming it means. When I hover my mouse over the scriptures at the Trinitarian blog you sent me to, all I see is an ordinary quotation with nothing bolded. So I cannot tell which words were the focus of the Trinitarian blogger and why he/she concluded that the verses are proof of trinity.

quote:

---

FAITH:
I understand it can be overwhelming to be given so much material at once, but this really IS how the Trinity is proved from scripture. It requires the presentation of the many verses on which it is based to get across just how biblical it is, and it IS a thoroughly BIBLICAL concept, derived wholly from the Bible and not a manmade tradition in any way.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- FAITH:
I don't take people seriously when they "elephant hurl" aka present walls of text with what they claim is evidence. Especially since they never bother to explain why each piece of their "evidence" is legitimate. They simply load it all up in one post or at a web blog, with no intention of defending their cherry picked verses (trinity) or the "scientific evidence" (evolution) they claim is in their post. Then they fill up the rest of the screen with their personal philosophy.FYI: People usually "elephant hurl" so they can go unchallenged. They know most people will not devote the amount of time required to rebut all of their false evidence, including the long-winded monologue/personal philosophy that is frequently part and parcel of the wall of text. So, no, I am not overwhelmed by the Trinitarian blog you provided earlier. Dismissive is more like it.Truth be told, If trinity were really a Bible teaching, nobody would need to take that long to explain it by posting page after page of their personal opinion at a web blog. But since you claim everything at the third-party, Trinitarian blog is proof of trinity, and since the third-party author of the Trinitarian blog is not part of this community and not here to defend his/her cherry picked verses, you will have to do it for them, as follows:1. Select the most convincing verses from among those at the Trinitarian blog and defend them in sets of six (6) by quoting each verse in its entirety.2. bold the words you are focusing on within each of the quoted verses so that the rest of us can see the words you are focusing on, and so we can see the relationship of the bolded words to the context (the surrounding words, verses, and chapters).3. Explain why the bolded words mean what you believe they mean.Considering how many out-of-context verses are on that Trinitarian blog, you've got your work cut out.I will watch for your first six verses of scriptures.

quote:

---

FAITH:
But when someone gives you many verses in support of the Trinity you find your JW training letting you down and that gets you mad and you have to blame it on me. And you misrepresent the argument as cherry picking and mere personal opinion.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- FAITH:
Unlike you, I am not impressed by "many verses" that are claimed to support a man-made doctrine, especially when the person who introduced the verses (the Trinitarian blogger and you) has not bothered to "defend" the verses aka explain the reason why the verses mean what they believe the verses are saying as follows:(1) The entire verse should be quoted.(2) The portions being focused on within the verse should be bolded, italicized, or colorized for the benefit of those who are observing.(3) An explanation should be given for the reason why the bolded words within the verse mean what the person is claiming they mean.

quote:

---

FAITH:
Sorry, it is reasoning from the scriptures that is valid support for the Trinity. Even Dr. Adequate said it was more or less convincing to him and if that's the case you haven't a leg to stand on, as getting him to agree with me about anything has a probability of something like When Hell Freezes Over. In fact I'm sure I must have hallucinated his saying that and I'll wake up any moment, jolted awake by one of his mean barbs.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- FAITH:
I agree with you that one must reason on the scriptures. But that is not what you are doing at this point. You are simply agreeing with what a third party said at a Trinitarian blog. In effect, you are allowing an absentee blogger to do your arguing for you. I cannot ask him/her to defend the verses aka give the reason why the verses prove trinity, because the person is unknown. So you are next in line. After all, you are the one who brought that person's argument here by posting the weblink to their blog. As you see it, when someone gives many verses in support of the Trinity, the person should go unchallenged. Then you turn around and tell me about "reasoning on the scriptures"the same scriptures you are now refusing to explain.

quote:

---

What on earth is the matter with you? The verses are available to be read if you click on each reference, and they are self-explanatory under each heading. He explains at the top of each list what aspect of the Trinity it is intended to demonstrate. If you think a particular verse does not demonstrate the point he claims it makes, then you should explain why it doesn't.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- FAITH:
For the third and last time: whenever I hover my mouse over the links for each scripture at the Trinitarian blog, all I'm seeing is an ordinary quotation with no mention of anything resembling trinity. The fact that other people have read those same scriptures and do not see trinity leads to one single conclusion: The Trinitarian blogger is telling everybody his/her personal philosophy.I asked you three different times to show the rest of us where you are seeing trinity in at least six of the cherry picked verses from the Trinitarian blog. Each time I ask you to do so, you come back with the same wash, rinse, and repeat, summarized below: "Just go to the Trinitarian website and look at all the scriptures posted there. Read the verses, and you will see what I and the Trinitarian author are seeing. If all else fails, read the Trinitarian author's personal interpretation. If he/she says the verses prove trinity, then it must be so. In fact, the sheer volume of scriptures posted there is proof of trinity." I heard that three times in a row. Back and forth we've been going on thatand then around in circles. So, guess what? Since you are not willing to defend the supposed "trinity" verses, I'm moving on. I will remain "moved on" until you start explaining why your "trinity" scriptures are saying what you believe they are saying.Edited by Alter2Ego, : No reason given.

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:The fabricated term "Godhead" goes hand in hand with the false trinity teaching that officially became the central doctrine of the "Christianized" Romans in the 4th century C.E. (The Christianized Romans later came to be known as the Roman Catholic Church.) The teaching of trinity that survives today began to be formalized in 325 CE/AD at the Council of Nicaea. On that occasion, about 300 Catholic bishops met with Roman Emperor Constantinea non-Christian who was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding Constantine's role in the formulation of the Trinity, the Encyclopedia Britannica states: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed... the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, [that Christ was] 'of one substance with the Father.' "Keep in mind that Jesus died, was resurrected, and returned to heaven in 33 C.E. and that this idea that would later evolve into the trinity did not officially become Roman Catholic dogma until 381 C.E.more than 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene. Also keep in mind that the ROMANS who executed Jesusprior to adopting Christianity as the state religionhad a long history of polytheism (worship of many gods). It was therefore a simple matter for the Christianized Romans aka Roman Catholics to graft various pagan/false teachings into their version of Christianity. One such teaching became the "Christian" version of trinity or worship of a triune/triad (three-in-one) god.

quote:

---

PURPLEDAWN:

​

Since Alter2Ego has no counter argument to present concerning the Trinity, I'm going in. Sorry Faith.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- PURPLEDAWN:
I don't see that there is anything to counter-argue against. Faith presented a third-party, Trinitarian blog that is not part of this forum. The third-party source spent the entire time telling people his/her personal philosophy, with verses of scriptures tossed in as support for the blogger's philosophy.I am familiar with all of the verses from the Trinitarian blog. When I read them, I don't see anything resembling trinity because I pay attention to the context (the surrounding words, verses, and chapters). That's why I asked Faith three separate and distinct times to "defend" the verses from the Trinitarian blog by: (1) quoting at least six of them; (2) bolding the words she is focusing on within each of the verses; and (3) explain to the rest of us why she has concluded that the bolded sections of the verses mean trinity. She refused to do that.Since Faith is unwilling, perhaps someone else can quote a couple verses that they believe is proof that trinity is in the Bible, and then follow the steps that I asked above in showing the rest of us where he/or she is getting the idea of trinity from the verses. I will then present a counter-argument for why the verses are not with reference to trinity.

quote:

---

FAITH:
That is bogus history. The Roman Catholic Church did not begin until 606 AD with the declaring of the Bishop of Rome to be head of all the churches and it was downhill from there. Before that the Church was still the apostolic Church and the Councils represented apostolic thought. Constantine certainly represents a move in the wrong direction but the decisions of the Council were not the decisions of Constantine but of the assembled Christian leaders based on scripture.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- FAITH:
I believe I made it clear that the Christianized Romans later became known as Roman Catholics, meaning they were not called Roman Catholics at the time they dreamed up trinity, as follows:

quote:

---

The fabricated term "Godhead" goes hand in hand with the false trinity teaching that officially became the central doctrine of the "Christianized" Romans in the 4th century C.E. (The Christianized Romans later came to be known as the Roman Catholic Church.) The teaching of trinity that survives today began to be formalized in 325 CE/AD at the Council of Nicaea. On that occasion, about 300 Catholic bishops met with Roman Emperor Constantinea non-Christian who was not baptized until he lay dying.

---

In other words, the Roman Catholic Church evolved from the Christianized Romans--the same Romans who formalized the false trinity dogma in the 4th century AD--more than 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene.

quote:

---

FAITH:
Take a look at the discussion of the Arian heresy Phat linked. The argument is Bible-based. And so is the argument I provided in Message 20.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- FAITH:
I'm not interested in weblinks to third-party sources. You should briefly quote the relevant portion here from the "Arian heresy link," and then explain in your own words why it is proof of trinity by quoting scriptures from the Judeo-Christian Bible to back up your argument.Your modus Operandi is to send people to third-party sources so that the third-party source can do your arguing for you. You tried that with me already, and it didn't work. When I asked you to defend the verses from your third-party Trinitarian blog, you refused.