Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

Three is a magic number. So are twelve and forty. If Jesus had had eleven disciples that followed him every day and one guy brought his cousin to the Last Supper, they'd still be called The Twelve. If God had four aspects, they'd arbitrarily shoehorn two of them together and the Trinity would be Father, Son and Miscellaneous.In numerology, the number of items is more important than the items themselves.

English is a funny language, isn't it? In French, "of" and "from" are the same word but in English they're quite different. Readings "of' the Bible would suggest that you read the whole thing but readings "from" the Bible could mean that you read one verse forty times.By saying that you "haven't seen" any hint of the Trinity, you're shooting yourself in the foot. You could be cherry-picking what you don't see the same way you accuse the trinitarians of cherry-picking what they do see.To be honest, you do know what the hints at a Trinity are, don't you? You do see the evidence, don't you? You just don't agree with the interpretation.

Maybe you don't realize it but to those of us who are not Christians there isn't much difference between the various brands that call themselves Christians. It's like arguing whether Bigfoot is a blonde or a brunette.As far as we, the majority, are concerned, if the Catholics call themselves Christians, they're Christians. The "historically true" definition is less important than the working definition.

You're confusing "the" description with your description. The only useful description of a Christian is "somebody who calls himself a Christian" - just like the only useful description of George is "somebody who calls himself George". Your position is the exact opposite of objective. Objectivity implies consensus. You're usuing a thoroughly subjective interpretation of the Bible in an attempt to exclude most people from the poll. You're trying to win the election by only allowing people who agree with you to vote.

Do Muslims and Buddhists agree with Faith's standard?

It's relevant if the standard itself isn't objective. My whole point is that Faith's standard isn't objective. If everybody applies the same rules they will get the same answer but if the rules are wrong the answer will still be wrong.In matters of belief, it isn't possible to have an objective standard. There's no way of testing what somebody believes. The only evidence we have is their profession of belief.Hence, the only way to tell if somebody is a "true Christian" is if he says he is. The only "required" belief in Christianity is the belief that you're a Christian.

Sure. And we can apply creationist standards to get the same results that creationists are getting. I don't think it's very useful to equate internal consistency with objectivity.

Life and existence are not the same thing. Of course a dead body exists. On the other hand, if it "comes back to life", it isn't really dead.

A dead body is not alive and vice versa. Sometimes the line between dead and alive is a bit fuzzy. Then, by that definition there's no such thing as an eternal person. See above. The process of dying can sometimes be reversed in its early stages but the state of death is not undoable. No. The process of dying may have begun but was not completed. The state of death marks the point of no return in the dying process. See above. There's no such thing as an "eternal person". The inevitablity of death negates the possibility of eternal life.

Even according to your own definition, the phrase "dead for three days" has no meaning. Dead is dead. There is no time limit. The only qualification is "previously alive". You have the dictionary claiming one thing and the Bible claiming another. You can't draw a mathematically certain conclusion from that. Yes, there is some fuzziness. Either Jesus wasn't dead in the first place or he wasn't alive later. There is no option in your own definition for "dead and then alive again". Your own definition says no such thing. It says "existing" through all time, not "living" through all time. Jesus existed as a living being and then as a dead being. His existence may or may not be eternal. His life was not. You're looking for logic where there is none. You might as well ask why the Big Bad Wolf disguised himself as Granny instead of just eating Little Red Riding Hood without all the rigamarole. The only "reason" is that's what the story says.The only reason Jesus "had to be resurrected after three days" was to supposedly fulfill a prophecy. There's no theological reason for it.Edited by ringo, : Spellng.

Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No?It's dishonest to demand a yes or no answer when neither of them is correct. What's the point of asking a question like that? Of course it says what it says. Do you think I'm going to waste my time confirming a tautology? Yes, black is black. Yes, white is white.My replies are to the direction you're going. Pardon me if I'm getting ahead of you. You ask people dishonest leading questions in the hope of furthering your own argument, not to get their viewpoint. That's more akin to preaching than discussion. If you're really interested in discussing the topic, you'll give some consideration to the alternate viewpoints being presented.Now, I pointed out that your own definitions don't support your argument. Do you have any defense?