Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

silly dupe..Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I hope that this is not the entire thrust of the discussion here because I don't think the Bible's reliability is central to the question raised by the OP. In fact, asserting unreliability in this way suggests that the questioner does not really care about the OP's question.What is being asked here is whether there are Bible verses that support specific doctrine. If the Bible is inconsistent on that doctrine, that would be of interest, but a general denial that the Bible is often correct would seem beside the point. After all, this is not the science section.

Faith, There is quite a bit to go through. The question I would have is how should the discussion move from here? Someone, and I'm not saying it should be you or that it should be Alter2Ego, preferably someone who has a well defined take on Trinity or not Trinity probably should take a first step at providing an argument in their own words.I know that Alter2Ego is a hostile audience, but this seems like an open invitation to spread the good Word. Surely that's not something a Christian finds easy to resist. This part of your request seems unfair though. Alter2Ego is saying that the Bible does not support the Trinity doctrine. If that is right, then there may well not be any verses to cite. Edited by NoNukes, : address looking for contrary verses.

Well, since you asked...It looks like purpledawn is taking a lead on this. I'd be more inclined to respond to her than to someone with no "skin" in the game. GDR and purpledawn also seem more willing to pick up on things without requiring a lot of exposition on your part. Maybe Alter2Ego will pick up on the idea of doing some homework if he/she is serious about the discussion.Or just give your own favorite arguments.Just suggestions.I don't have a well formed take on this issue. The churches I have attended have all been critical of denominations that rejected the Trinity, but I've always considered other aspects of Christianity to be more vital. If I had some doubts whether someone who claimed to be Christian was not, I don't think that persons views on the Trinity would be among the top ten things I'd investigate.But I am interested in the topic.

That's one way this thread can work. It's also a way that the thread can reach nearly 100 posts with very little being discussed.You are the thread proposer, and you are acknowledging that you find the verses that Faith cites wanting. So why wait to counter punch? Why is the onus on everyone else to drive your thread? Why don't you present an argument that the verses generally used to defend the Trinity do not do so.I don't think any of us believe that you are completely ignorant of the usual arguments. Purpledawn is at least presenting some arguments. Otherwise, perhaps it's nearly time to ask Percy to pipe us out.

The above sound like excuses. I don't see anything wrong with advocating your position, and doing so would not be preaching. And you are not obligated to address every verse or every possible position.The web is littered with attacks and defenses of Trinity doctrine. It would seem that a reader would better served with ignoring this thread and simply looking at those sources.

I think a review of the thread would show a number of posts by me with arguments backing up my position to which you have never responded.And I appreciate your characterization of my statements of your buffoonery as "informing". Thank you. I did not tell you to address Faith's source. And perhaps if you were not focused on your own navel, you might have noticed that I also suggested to Faith that her approach was not the best. I instead suggested that you already know the major arguments for the Trinity and that you might give us some indication of your arguments against those.Your reading comprehension is off the hook today.

GDR,I have a comment question about your citing of these verses.

quote:

---

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

---

Faith has said that the important point here is Jesus' Divinity. These verses certainly speak to the divinity of the son of man, but are they supported of the doctrine of Trinity. These verses speak of the Ancient One giving authority to the son of man. They don't imply that Jesus is One with the Ancient One.The Trinity as I understand it involves a real separation of three entities that are also one in some way. The verses in the Bible that talk about the relationship between separate entities are very explicit and I would expect that Christians in general would have no problem with them, and that most Christians would have no problem with the Divinity of Christ. These concepts are common between Trinitarians and at least some non-Trinitarians.On the other hand, the verses that refer to a single underlying God who is all three aspects generally seem far less clear. I'll pick one verse that may or may not be representative:

quote:

---

Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

---

This is interpreted as saying that Jesus is God, but is that the best interpretation?

These are fairly difficult questions to answer with a yes or no. To question three, I'd have to answer yes with some qualification. Jesus' life did continue after it "ended" which is a strange thing to happen, and something that should not be obscured simply because you have requested a one word answer.The answer to the second question is that yes Christ did continue to exist during those three days. I Peter 3:18-19 tells of Jesus preaching to "the spirits in prison" during that period.Further, I think you stretch the dictionary definition f eternal to the breaking point. Dictionaries are not perfect and it makes little sense to ask if something is eternal over a three day period? At most Jesus life might be said to have stopped at the cross, but since Jesus was alive after that event, we cannot say that his life ended at that point.Your questions is thought provoking, but what you are really asking is whether Jesus death and subsequent resurrection prove that Jesus was just a man. I think the answer to that question is self evident.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think you are forgetting the 'No True Scottsman' argument. If you disagree with Faith regarding the Trinity or anything else she holds to be doctrinal then you aren't a Christian.Now let's take the poll among the people who Faith accepts as being Christians, a group which overlaps only partially with the group of people who accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, repent of their sins, and who try to follow Christ's example, and you'll find 100% agreement.

Nicely said. But I wonder if even this statement can make the slightest impact. Yes, but what kind of 'Hell' does this verse describe. It's a place that would have been the abode of the spirits of Abraham, Moses, and David. Of all of the righteous men of the Old Testament, only Elijah is said to have escaped going there.

Rigthly so, because I mixed up the scriptures. The Old Testament guys (good and bad) all went to 'sheol' when they died. Elijah is the only one I am aware of who is described as being lifted up to heaven at the end of his earthly life without ever being dead or buried.

Faith has given you her answer.Regarding the Apostle's Creed, I am not convinced that all of it is essential. Let's recall that there were several centuries of Christians before the Creed just as there were centuries of Christians before there was an inerrant or a any other kind of Bible. That does not make the post ressurection scriptures of no importance. The described experiences of actually operating a church and of a converted man trying to follow Christ's teachings are extremely valuable.Neither am I convinced that the Apostle's Creed alone is sufficient. In fact, I am convinced otherwise. The Apostle's Creed is an important affirmation of belief and nothing more.My position is that the more modern is the added doctrine the more skeptical Christians should be that the doctrine is essential or even Bible based. Yes the Catholic Church did add a bunch of stuff of I find dubious and the Reformers did peel some of that away. But the reformers also added more dubious stuff themselves.One definition of 'essential' is what beliefs and actions must you lack for Jesus to respond 'I never knew you' in response to your cries of Lord, Lord. There is no doubt in my mind that Faith's list both overstates and leaves off elements of these essentials. The Apostle's Creed is not complete in that regard, but it is harder to make the case that it overstates in a significant way.As far as the Trinity is concerned, my belief is that you have only to do what Matthew 28:18-20 instructs Christians to do.

quote:

---

Jesus drew near and said to them, "I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And I will be with you always, to the end of the age."

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Objective does not imply correctness or a consensus about correctness, merely a consensus about what the standard predicts. Objective implies that everyone applying the standard would reach similar results. I think Faith's criteria do meet that definition. She's excluded many Christians from the polls. Yes. I agree with this. Only true Scotsmen even get ballots.

Do YEC's agree with the scientific standards for carbon dating? Is that question even relevant to whether those standards are objective?It is not necessary that standard be accepted or correct for the standard to be objective. If a Muslim and a ringo applied Faith's standard, then given enough facts they would largely agree on who met the standard and who did not. That's the only consensus that objectivity requires.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.