Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

Is Pope Francis Laying The Groundwork For A One World Religion?Does Pope Francis intend to help the global elite achieve their goal of uniting all of the religions of the world under a single banner? Will he be instrumental in establishing a single global religion for the glorious new age that the global elite believe is coming? After he was elected, the cover of Time Magazine declared Pope Francis to be the New World Pope, and since his election Pope Francis has made it abundantly clear that he is going to make ecumenical outreach a top priority. He has spoken of his determination to continue on the path of ecumenical dialogue, and he has already held a number of very high profile ecumenical meetings. Not only has he worked hard to reach out to leaders from various Christian traditions, he has also made it a point to try to acknowledge the mutual bonds that he feels with all other religions. For example, in one recent address he made it a point to say that he believes that Muslims worship and pray to the one God that he also worships. This all roads lead to the same God philosophy is a hallmark of the one world religion that the global elite have been slowly building toward for decades. The global elite know that even with a one world economy and a one world government, humanity will never be truly united until there is a single global religion. Unfortunately, this one world religion that they are seeking to establish is diametrically opposed to the Christianity that we find in the Bible. By throwing out Biblical truth for the sake of friendship between men and women of different religious traditions, is Pope Francis fundamentally betraying the faith that he claims to represent?If there is going to be a one world religion, there will have to be a bond formed between Roman Catholicism and Islam. They are the two largest religious traditions on the planet, and so any truly global religion would definitely require the participation of both of them.That is one reason why what Pope Francis has already had to say about Islam is so noteworthy. The following comes from remarks that he made during his very first ecumenical meeting

So, what are the essentials of Christian belief? Do they look anything like the Apostle's Creed?

It is clear that the scribe who wrote 2nd Kings had one political viewpoint and the writer of Hosea had another.

(2.) What is the ground of this controversy: I will revenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, the blood which Jehu shed at Jezreel, when by commission from God and in obedience to his command, he utterly destroyed the house of Ahab, and all that were in alliance with it, with all the worshippers of Baal. God approved of what he did (2 Ki. 10:30): Thou has done well in executing that which is right in my eyes; and yet here God will avenge that blood upon the house of Jehu, when the time has expired during which it was promised that his family should reign, even to the fourth generation. But how comes the same action to be both rewarded and punished? Very justly; the matter of it was good; it was the execution of a righteous sentence passed upon the house of Ahab, and, as such, it was rewarded; but Jehu did it not in a right manner; he aimed at his own advancement, not at the glory of God, and mingled his own resentments with the execution of God’s justice. He did it with a malice against the sinners, but not with any antipathy to the sin; for he kept up the worship of the golden calves, and took no heed to walk in the law of God, 2 Ki. 10:31. And therefore when the measure of the iniquity of his house was full, and God came to reckon with them, the first article in the account is (and, being first, it is put for all the rest) for the blood of the house of Ahab, here called the blood of Jezreel. Thus when the house of Baasha was rooted out it was because he did like the house of Jeroboam, and because he killed him, 1 Ki. 16:7. Note, Those that are entrusted with the administration of justice are concerned to see to it that they do it from a right principle and with a right intention, and that they do not themselves live in those sins which they punish in others, lest even their just executions should be reckoned for, another day, as little less than murders.

1. God pronounced that to be right which he had done. It is justly questionable whether he did it from a good principle and whether he did not take some false steps in the doing of it; and yet (says God), Thou hast done well in executing that which is right in my eyes. The extirpating of idolaters and idolatry was a thing right in God’s eyes, for it is an iniquity he visits as surely and severely as any: it was according to all that was in his heart, all he desired, all he designed. Jehu went through with his work. 2. God promised him a reward, that his children of the fourth generation from him should sit upon the throne of Israel. This was more than what took place in any of the dignities or royal families of that kingdom; of the house of Ahab there were indeed four kings, Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, and Joram, but the last two were brothers, so that it reached but to the third generation, and that whole family continued but about forty-five years in all, whereas Jehu’s continued in four, besides himself, and in all about 120 years. Note, No services done for God shall go unrewarded.II. Jehu’s carelessness in what he was further to do. By this it appeared that his heart was not right with God, that he was partial in his reformation. 1. He did not put away all the evil. He departed from the sins of Ahab, but not from the sins of Jeroboamdiscarded Baal, but adhered to the calves. The worship of Baal was indeed the greater evil, and more heinous in the sight of God, but the worship of the calves was a great evil, and true conversion is not only from gross sin, but from all sinnot only from false gods, but from false worships. The worship of Baal weakened and diminished Israel, and made them beholden to the Sidonians, and therefore he could easily part with that; but the worship of the calves was a politic idolatry, was begun and kept up for reasons of state, to prevent the return of the ten tribes to the house of David, and therefore Jehu clave to that. True conversion is not only from wasteful sins, but from gainful sinsnot only from those sins that are destructive to the secular interest, but from those that support and befriend it, in forsaking which is the great trial whether we can deny ourselves and trust God. 2. He put away evil, but he did not mind that which was good (v. 31): He took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of Israel. He abolished the worship of Baal, but did not keep up the worship of God, nor walk in his law. He had shown great care and zeal for the rooting out of a false religion; but in the true religion, (1.) He showed no care, took no heed, lived at large, was not at all solicitous to please God and to do his duty, took no heed to the scriptures, to the prophets, to his own conscience, but walked at all adventures...

To you, maybe "sola scriptura" is an essential of Christianity. But to many people, such as Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists, the essentials of Christianity would look like this:

It is not off topic IMHO. The questions in the OP relate to hell and the trinity and understood from the Bible. In order to understand the answers we have to determine how we are to understand the Bible in general. in order to even have the discussion.

The Bible makes it quite clear that Jesus existed from at least the beginning of time (see John 1), but not in the flesh. Then the "Word was made flesh". So his existence is not coincident with his existence in the flesh. Between the crucifixion and the resurrection, he went on existing, as the Bible makes clear in 1 Peter 3:18: "being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit". He still existed for that period, but was not incarnate. There can be no doubt about that from the scriptures, and you are just messing around with words to obscure what is quite clear to anyone who can be bothered to read the Bible.

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.

It's not clear that the Bible authors had the same rather subtle concept of eternity that was developed by later theologians. I don't say they didn't, but I would be hard put to it to prove it from texts that I can recall right now.However, what we can take away from John 1 is that it definitely has Jesus existing though not being in the flesh. If he was alive before he was born in the flesh, there's no problem with him being dead in the flesh but alive in spirit, as 1 Peter says.

Exd 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

1. A name that denotes what he is in himself (v. 14): I am that I am. This explains his name Jehovah, and signifies, (1.) That he is self-existent; he has his being of himself, and has no dependence upon any other: the greatest and best man in the world must say, By the grace of God I am what I am; but God says absolutelyand it is more than any creature, man or angel, can sayI am that I am. Being self-existent, he cannot but be self-sufficient, and therefore all-sufficient, and the inexhaustible fountain of being and bliss. (2.) That he is eternal and unchangeable, and always the same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever; he will be what he will be and what he is; see Rev. 1:8. (3.) That we cannot by searching find him out. This is such a name as checks all bold and curious enquiries concerning God, and in effect says, Ask not after my name, seeing it is secret, Jdg. 13:18; Prov. 30:4. Do we ask what is God? Let it suffice us to know that he is what he is, what he ever was, and ever will be.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Hbr 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Hbr 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Deu 33:27 The eternal God [is thy] refuge, and underneath [are] the everlasting arms:

1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, worlda) ancient time, long time (of past)b) (of future)
1) for ever, always
2) continuous existence, perpetual
3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity