Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

[Drich]

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 Constantine"a 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 "Christian" dogma until 381 C.E.--more than 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene. Also keep in mind that the idea of trinity was the philosophy of apostate "Christianized" Romans who later came to be known as Roman Catholics. But most important, keep in mind that the ROMANS who executed Jesus--prior to adopting Christianity as the state religion--had 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.

Ahhh Mormon.

If you are Mormon then why do you claim the title of Christian? Doesn't your prophet superceed the words of Christ?

---

The trinitarian doctrine is a teaching or compilation of scripture that identifies God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. While the word it self has nothing to do with bible passages the core message is firmly rooted in scripture. It's kinda like calling The Prayer Jesus taught us in Luke 11 the Lord's prayer. The bible Does not say it is the Lord's prayer, it is just a 'religious/doctrinal' identification of a scriptural teaching. Just because the bible does not specifically say it is the Lord's Prayer does not mean the Lord did not teach us to pray this prayer.

Hell Fire. Is Real and Scripture tells us it is eternal, and that it was stoked specifically for lucifer and his followers, meaning demons (not for us.) Although Hell fire may be eternal it does not mean our souls will be or rather the very delicate nature that defines our sanity (or makes us who we are) is garanteed. We all have our breaking points, once our grip or controled over our minds is gone/consumed by the present torment, and prospect of eternal Hell fire, then 'we' cease to be. Meaning even if some part of us is in Hell for eternity 'we' (our consciousness) will be consumed. That is what is referred to as the second death.

My turn to ask a question are you J/W or Mormon?

Mark 9:48 and Isa 66:24 (Where the fire is never quenched and the worm will not die.)

Again - sorry - but the BIBLE is not a source of truth - so to claim that hell is real is equivalent to claiming that the earth is a flat circle - as the bible says

The word "scripture" simply means a writing or story - and the bible is clearly a bunch of fairy tales - religious MYTH and LEGEND - and does not even IMPLY truth - since most of it is not

As far as the Trinity - it is a creation of the catholic church and has no reality - since their god has no proven reality as well. Passages from the bible itself contradict the teaching about the trinity - clearly.

If this is true for you then what is the point of discussion with me?

If your 'goto' is to discount the bible then know you have forfeit the conversation with a biblically based Christian. I have no other choice but to shake the dust from my feet and move on to someone elses.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ahhh Mormon.

If you are Mormon then why do you claim the title of Christian? Doesn't your prophet superceed the words of Christ?

About as much as your godman supercedes the words of the god you would lay claim to (while the original owners stare at you wondering how you managed to fuck it up so dramatically). There's no difference between you and a mormon on that count Drich.
(and to be specific, the "how much" is precisely 0, as there were never any gods in this hilarious little daisy chain of idiocy in the first place - each successive wave claiming legitimacy and authority by means of an older, illegitimate, inauthoritative claim)

[LastPoet]

Ahhh Mormon.

If you are Mormon then why do you claim the title of Christian? Doesn't your prophet superceed the words of Christ?

I don't think A2E is mormon, rather, a jehova's withness Drich.

Not saying its an improvement of somekind

[Drich]

[quote='A_Nony_Mouse' pid='434012' dateline='1366553146']
[quote]That is obfuscation. It is crap.

Greek philosophers held a person was composed of body, mind, soul and spirit.[/quote]do you have a point of reference for this assertion? I looked it up and could not find that this ideology started with the greeks.

[quote] The Greeks gods had bodies. The Christian god supposedly has none. Without a body there is only Mind, Soul and (holy) Spirit. [/quote]
ah, no.
God the son had a Body. God the Spirit and God the Father two very distinct and seperate personages of God do not have a physical form.

[quote]The "son" crap comes from imagining the gospel use of FATHER had a different meaning from the usage in the Our Father. In other words it is all a desperate attempt to hide the Greek origin of the three out of four idea.[/quote]

-or it could be that Christ is the Son of God as He claims in these examples: http://bible.org/question/does-jesus-fac...t-infer-it

[quote]The official spokesrats for the vast majority of Christians, the Vatican, does not teach the idea of that kind of hell. That kind of hell was invented by Dante.[/quote]Two things: 1) What position are you refering to? and 2) When the the Roman Catholic Church become the authority on biblical Christianity? (The guy who wears the big hat makes rules and decrees that superceed scripture.)

[Minimalist]

From Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities pages 251-2

This is not to say, however, that proto-orthodox Christians were absolutely successful in producing a consensus on every important point of faith and practice. Indeed, as soon as the major theological issues of the second and third centuries were more or less resolved, others appeared to take their place. The battles fought in later centuries were no less harsh, and the polemic against “false teachers” was no less vitriolic. Quite the contrary, as the options narrowed, the debates intensified.


 

To take one example: Once proto-orthodoxy had established that Christ was both human and divine, the relationship between his humanity and divinity still needed to be resolved. How could Christ be both a man and God? Was it that Christ had a human body but that his human soul was replaced by a soul that was divine? If so, then how was he “fully” human? Or was it that the incarnate Christ was two separate persons, one divine and one human? If that were the case, would that not mean he was half divine and half human, rather than fully both? Or was it that he was one solitary person, but that within that person he had two natures, one fully divine and one fully human? Or does he have just one nature, that is at one and the same time both fully divine and fully
human? All of these options were proposed and hotly debated over the course of the fourth and fifth centuries.

Quite a useful little book - especially for blind xtians who think their shit was handed down "from god" instead of massaged by men!

[A_Nony_Mouse]

[quote='A_Nony_Mouse' pid='434012' dateline='1366553146']

That is obfuscation. It is crap.

Greek philosophers held a person was composed of body, mind, soul and spirit.

do you have a point of reference for this assertion? I looked it up and could not find that this ideology started with the greeks.

The Greeks gods had bodies. The Christian god supposedly has none. Without a body there is only Mind, Soul and (holy) Spirit.

ah, no.
God the son had a Body. God the Spirit and God the Father two very distinct and seperate personages of God do not have a physical form.

You are an unusual Christian to be claiming your god is flesh and blood like the rest of us. Are you certain you want to run with that?

[quote]The "son" crap comes from imagining the gospel use of FATHER had a different meaning from the usage in the Our Father. In other words it is all a desperate attempt to hide the Greek origin of the three out of four idea.

-or it could be that Christ is the Son of God as He claims in these examples: http://bible.org/question/does-jesus-fac...t-infer-it[/quote]

I point the special meaning for father by the trinitarians and you reply with special meaning for son used by trinitarians. Why am I not impressed? If you have something specific which might pass the giggle test please post it. I assure you anything from anonymous sources by people of unknown character and motivation like the gospel writers does not pass the giggle test.

John the Baptist said the same thing (John 1:34).
Nathanael said it (John 1:49).
Martha believed it (John 11:27).
The centurion said so (Matthew 27:54).

Given the mountain of assumptions without evidence one has to make about whomever wrote the gospels (ALL 46 of them not just these 4) to have them citing unknown persons of unknown character and unknown motivation, piles giggle on top of giggle.

To add to that hallucinations
The angel told Mary her child would be the Son of God (Luke 1:35).
The demons called Jesus the Son of God (Matthew 8:29; Luke 4:41; Mark 3:11).
is to make one roll on the floor with laughter.

But then to admit
The Gospel of John was written to convince the reader that Jesus was the Son of God (John 20:31).
that the purpose is to deceive even the earth trembles with spasms of hysterical laughter and the skies do darken with the tears of laughter that cannot be stopped.

Having run that metaphor into the ground

15 He said to them, “And who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the anointed [the Christ], the Son of the living God [as we are all sons of OUR Father].”

Leaving anointed untranslated from the Greek, christus, is simply an omission to lie to the ignorant.

17 And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!” (Matthew 16:15-17).

As he said when asked how to pray, OUR Father, which makes legitimate MY father.

[quote]The official spokesrats for the vast majority of Christians, the Vatican, does not teach the idea of that kind of hell. That kind of hell was invented by Dante.

Two things: 1) What position are you refering to? and
2) When the the Roman Catholic Church become the authority on biblical Christianity? (The guy who wears the big hat makes rules and decrees that superceed scripture.)
[/quote]

2) When did Dante who immortalized all the invented things not found in any gospel or any epistle? Revelation is either literal or metaphor. You do not get to pick and choose.

---

From Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities pages 251-2

This is not to say, however, that proto-orthodox Christians were absolutely successful in producing a consensus on every important point of faith and practice. Indeed, as soon as the major theological issues of the second and third centuries were more or less resolved, others appeared to take their place. The battles fought in later centuries were no less harsh, and the polemic against “false teachers” was no less vitriolic. Quite the contrary, as the options narrowed, the debates intensified.

To take one example: Once proto-orthodoxy had established that Christ was both human and divine, the relationship between his humanity and divinity still needed to be resolved. How could Christ be both a man and God? Was it that Christ had a human body but that his human soul was replaced by a soul that was divine? If so, then how was he “fully” human? Or was it that the incarnate Christ was two separate persons, one divine and one human? If that were the case, would that not mean he was half divine and half human, rather than fully both? Or was it that he was one solitary person, but that within that person he had two natures, one fully divine and one fully human? Or does he have just one nature, that is at one and the same time both fully divine and fully
human? All of these options were proposed and hotly debated over the course of the fourth and fifth centuries.

Quite a useful little book - especially for blind xtians who think their shit was handed down "from god" instead of massaged by men!

Myself I don't see why Ehrman gets all the play but let me suggest an easier way.

Dig out all the official creeds like apostles' creed. Mark each distinct assertion of belief. For each of them there were Christians teaching something else. The creeds were the required teachings to be a member of the Byzantine church and to gain the benefits and protections of Byzantium and not be eradicated by Byzantium.

The amusing thing is the creeds do not cover all of the variations rather only the ones that became powerful enough to need a council to deny.

[Minimalist]

Myself I don't see why Ehrman gets all the play but let me suggest an easier way.

Because, much like Neil De Grasse Tyson or Israel Finkelstein, he takes a field which is impenetrable to most layman and attempts to explain things in terms a layman can understand.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Myself I don't see why Ehrman gets all the play but let me suggest an easier way.

Because, much like Neil De Grasse Tyson or Israel Finkelstein, he takes a field which is impenetrable to most layman and attempts to explain things in terms a layman can understand.

But he is just a modest variant on a true believer.

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- DRICH:
Please present scriptures that show hellfire torment is literal.

ALTER2EGO -to- DRICH:
Be sure and present scriptures that indicate "the very delicate nature that defines our sanity will be eternal." Also, I would like to see scriptures that indicate: "even if some part of us is in Hell for eternity 'we' (our consciousness) will be consumed."


QUESTION #1 to DRICH: If the "the very delicate nature that defines our sanity" is supposedly eternal, does that mean you believe part of us will still be conscious after we have physically died? YES or NO?

You have listed yourself as a Christian, Are you ashamed of your faith? Why else wouldn't you answer my very direct question? (Are you a mormon or a jehovah witness?) I will not be answering any of your questions until you answer mine. Qui pro quoe Clarice, Qui pro quoe.

ALTER2EGO -to- DRICH:
My religious affiliation has nothing whatever to do with your inability to produce non-existent scriptures that prove your following beliefs:

1. Hellfire torment is literal

2. "the very delicate nature that defines our sanity will be eternal"

3. "even if some part of us is in Hell for eternity 'we' (our consciousness) will be consumed."

I figured you would look for an excuse to avoid attempting to prove the unprovable with scriptures from God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible. Sure enough, you are evading my questions regarding your fallacious claim that literal hellfire torment is a Bible teaching.

[Dionysius]

I vote traditions of men. I also marvel at the deceptiveness of certain strains of Christianity namely Jehovah's Witness to try and impose their view as the only correct way to interpret a book who's writings are millenia old.

What comprises the traditions of men? In short it comprised of a group of blind men vainly imaging what the light is. A popular approach is to demonize everyone while posturing itself as the only correct way to truth. This is the tradition of men.

If we remove all of the fanciful imagery and mystifying language we are basically presented with the annals of a group of people fighting for survival in a harsh, chaotic social environment. An effort to morally remove ones self from most behaviors which make men beasts.