“We are all fundamentally good ... the heart itself is good,” says Pope Francis

originally posted by: Topcraft
a reply to: randomuser2034

Ok, let me try to keep this very simple.

With that sentiment in mind and addressing everyone here. Be wary of these types:
“Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20,21)

And be cautious not to fall into this trap:

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

These "teachers" like to throw a lot of dirt at those exposing their modus operandi, dirt that appears to tickle your ears demonstrated by the nature and content of your commentary.

2 Peter 2:1-3

However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. 2 Furthermore, many will follow their brazen conduct,* [Or “their acts of shameless conduct.”] and because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. 3 Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words. But their judgment, decided long ago, is not moving slowly, and their destruction is not sleeping.

1 Peter 4:4

They are puzzled that you do not continue running with them in the same decadent course of debauchery, so they speak abusively of you.

“You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said: ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” (Matthew 15:7-9) (for example: Trinity Doctrine, A False Teaching Of Man, Council of Nicaea; all Bible quotations in that video are from the KJV)

Romans 10:13-15

13 For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” 14 However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? 15 How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!”

2 Corinthians 4:3-9

If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination* [Or “light.”] of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through. 5 For we are preaching, not about ourselves, but about Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God is the one who said: “Let the light shine out of darkness,” and he has shone on our hearts to illuminate them with the glorious knowledge of God by the face of Christ.

7 However, we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the power beyond what is normal may be God’s and not from us. 8 We are hard-pressed in every way, but not cramped beyond movement; we are perplexed, but not absolutely with no way out;* [Or possibly, “but not left in despair.”] we are persecuted, but not abandoned; we are knocked down, but not destroyed.

John 8:42-47

Jesus said to them: “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I have not come of my own initiative, but that One sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot listen to* [Or “accept.”] my word. 44 You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie. 45 Because I, on the other hand, tell you the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Who of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why is it that you do not believe me? 47 The one who is from God listens to the sayings of God. This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God.” (mind you, earlier in that conversation Jesus already explained that everything he says or teaches, is based on what his God and Father has told and taught him to say and teach, so that's why Jesus is saying it like that in verse 47, not because he's implying he is God. After all, that interpretation would also contradict what he says in 42, which you do not understand for now. For the same reason Jesus explains in verse 44. Even though he's being very clear here that someone else sent him, namely God, "that One", and not three-in-one.)

Matthew 13:13-15

That is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations; for looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, nor do they get the sense of it. 14 And the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled in their case. It says: ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see. 15 For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them.’

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

“Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;” “We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. For although by now* [Lit., “in view of the time.”] you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* [Or “their perceptive powers.”] trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Col 2:8; Hebrews 5:11-14)

“However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron.” (1 Timothy 4:1,2).

The Apologists—Christian Defenders or Would-Be Philosophers?

...

“Christianity” Becomes a Philosophy

The philosopher Celsus mockingly described Christians as “labourers, shoemakers, farmers, the most uninformed and clownish of men.” This mockery was too much for the apologists to bear. They determined to win over public opinion by resorting to a new tactic. Once rejected, worldly wisdom was now used in the service of the “Christian” cause. Clement of Alexandria, for example, saw philosophy as “true theology.” Justin, though claiming to reject pagan philosophy, was the first to use philosophical language and concepts to express “Christian” ideas, considering this type of philosophy “to be safe and profitable.”

From this point on, the strategy was, not to oppose philosophy, but to make supposed Christian thought a philosophy higher than that of the pagans. “On some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching,” wrote Justin. Adorned with its new philosophical finery, “Christian” thought now claimed the dignity of old age. The apologists pointed out that Christian books were far older than those of the Greeks and that the prophets of the Bible lived earlier than Greek philosophers. Certain apologists even concluded that the philosophers copied from the prophets. Plato was made out to be a disciple of Moses!

Christianity Distorted

This new strategy led to a mixture of Christianity and pagan philosophy. Comparisons were made between Greek gods and Bible characters. Jesus was compared to Perseus; and Mary’s conception to that of Perseus’ mother, Danaë, who was said to be also a virgin.

Certain teachings were greatly modified. For example, in the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” Christians, he said, received the word in the person of Christ himself. However, logos in the sense of reason is found in every man, including pagans. Thus, he concluded, those who live in harmony with reason are Christians, even those who claimed or were thought to be atheists, like Socrates and others.

Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma.* [For further information on Tertullian’s beliefs, see The Paradox of Tertullian]

The word “soul” appears over 850 times in the Bible, including more than 100 times in its Greek form. It basically refers to mortal, living creatures, either human or animal. (1 Corinthians 15:45; James 5:20; Revelation 16:3) The apologists, however, twisted this Bible teaching by linking it with Plato’s philosophy that the soul is separate from the body, invisible and immortal. Minucius Felix even asserted that belief in the resurrection had its early beginnings in Pythagoras’ teaching of the transmigration of the soul. How far Greek influence had led them from the teachings of the Bible!

...

Keep in mind that my previous comment is more for everyone else here than for the one I'm responding to (more quoting than responding). At the moment, or for the moment, Topcraft, nugget1 and FlyInTheOintment "cannot listen" (John 8:43) for the reasons explained by Jesus in John 8:44, 47, Matt 13:13-15, and by Paul at 2 Tim 4:3,4 and Heb 5:11 (all quoted in the comment).

“Obstinate men and uncircumcised in hearts and ears, you are always resisting the holy spirit; as your forefathers did, so you do.” (Acts 7:51)

“A man who stiffens his neck* [Or “who remains stubborn.”] after much reproof will suddenly be broken beyond healing.” (Proverbs 29:1)

John 8:54,55 (Jesus in the same conversation with those he was talking to in the earlier quoted 8:42-47, after they asked him: “Who do you claim to be?”)

54 Jesus answered: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, the one who you say is your God. 55 Yet you have not known him, but I know him. And if I said I do not know him, I would be like you, a liar. But I do know him and am observing his word.

For the moment, those 2 verses are also very applicable to Topcraft and FlyInTheOintment. Notice that Jesus again refers to his God and Father as “the one who”, and not three-in-one (as per the doctrine of the Trinity). This text is also quoted from the KJV in the video I linked twice entitled: "Trinity Doctrine, A False Teaching Of Man, Council of Nicaea".

It's not surprising that this is the case (for now) for Topcraft, nugget1 (minus John 8:54) and FlyInTheOintment, after all:

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death. . . . A worthless man digs up what is bad [whereislogic: like digging up dirt about a specific group of people or an individual, then throwing it in the way explained next >]; his speech is like a scorching fire. [like a politician throwing dirt at his opponent, religious teachers in Christendom are no stranger to this modus operandi (and neither is nugget1 and those he takes his arguments or 'dirt to throw' from). And their victims pick up and copy the behaviour, their conditioned pride and haughtiness being a huge factor in this. And because the dirt they hear 'tickles their ears' as described at 2 Tim 4:3,4, so they don't care if it's actually true or not. It works. See that link about propaganda and especially the sections "Lies, Lies!", "Making Generalizations", "Name-Calling" and "Playing on the Emotions". Also see this article about prejudice.] A troublemaker* [Or “A schemer.”] causes dissension, and a slanderer separates close friends. A violent man entices his neighbor and leads him in the wrong way.” (Proverbs 16:25,27-29) (so that all falls under "playing on the emotions", and some useful tactics are to use lies, generalizations, name-calling and slander, other tactics involve scoff, ridicule and promoting prejudice; the list continues, as do the Bible verses that explain how this works.)

Proverbs 30:12

There is a generation that is pure in its own eyes

But has not been cleansed from its filth.* [Lit., “excrement.”]

The videos address this filth/excrement/crap/BS-arguments (including those against the NWT). Here are 2 more (concerning John 1:1):

More information on the doctrine of the Trinity:

Is the Trinity Doctrine in the Bible?

Should You Believe in the Trinity?

The following links are all from the same brochure (a brochure that is also defended on the DefendingYHWH youtube channel that I've been using some videos from, against those who have attacked it on youtube and spread various lies and twisted arguments about, I'll embed an example at the end of this comment):

Should You Believe It?
How Is the Trinity Explained?
Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?
How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop? (my 2nd comment in this thread also addresses this point with a quotation from, among others, the New Catholic Encyclopedia itself. This is a more detailed version.)
What Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus?
Is God Always Superior to Jesus?
The Holy Spirit—God’s Active Force
What About Trinity “Proof Texts”? (Cardinal John O’Connor stated about the Trinity: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” Why is the Trinity so difficult to understand? The Illustrated Bible Dictionary gives one reason. Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: “It is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible.” Because the Trinity is “not a biblical doctrine,” Trinitarians have been desperately looking for Bible texts​—even twisting them—​to find support for their teaching.)
Worship God on His Terms

And a bit more of a summary:

Trinity (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

Trinitarians (the laity, and to some extent also the clergy) generally do not respond to or adequately explain any of these scriptures used to show that the Trinity doctrine is a doctrine of men (also not the responses to their so-called “Proof Texts”, such as John 1:1, and then we're especially talking about the clergy, scholars and the "teachers" mentioned at 2 Tim 4:3,4 and 2 Peter 2:1). More specifically, those men described at 1 Timothy 4:1,2 (and those spirits guiding them mentioned in verse 1).

An easier way to tell a Christian from someone who merely claims to be a Christian though, is to check out their stance on military service.

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* [“We do not wage warfare.” Lit., “we are not doing military service.” ...; Lat., non . . . mi·li·ta'mus.] according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God;” (2 Cor 10:3-5)

“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” (The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, 1947, p. 333) “It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165 A.D. is exceedingly slight; . . . up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.” (The Early Church and the World, by C. J. Cadoux, 1955, pp. 275, 276) “In the second century, Christianity . . . had affirmed the incompatibility of military service with Christianity.” (A Short History of Rome, by G. Ferrero and C. Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382) “The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.” (Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125) “The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.” (The New World’s Foundations in the Old, by R. and W. M. West, 1929, p. 131) “The Christians . . . shrank from public office and military service.” (Editorial introduction to “Persecution of the Christians in Gaul, A.D. 177,” in The Great Events by Famous Historians, edited by R. Johnson, 1905, Vol. III, p. 246) “While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, Vol. I, p. 416.

The legal term for refusing military service is called "conscientious objection".

...

How Early Christians Measured Up: According to religion writer Jonathan Dymond, the early Christians “refused to engage in [war]; whatever were the consequences, whether reproach, or imprisonment, or death.” They chose to suffer rather than compromise their neutral stand. Their moral code also set them apart. Christians were told: “Because you do not continue running with them in this course to the same low sink of debauchery, they are puzzled and go on speaking abusively of you.” (1 Peter 4:4) Historian Will Durant wrote that Christians “were troubling the pleasure-mad pagan world with their piety and their decency.”

Who Fit the Pattern Today? Regarding Christian neutrality, the New Catholic Encyclopedia asserts: “Conscientious objection is morally indefensible.” An article in the Reformierte Presse states that a report by African Rights, a human rights organization, on the 1994 Rwandan genocide established the participation of all churches, “with the exception of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

...

Case closed. (and that was just one example, it happens again and again and again*)

Source: “No Part of the World”

*: coming back to that point, here's another example:

Part 21—1900 onward—Skirts Splattered With Blood (Religion’s Future in View of It’s Past; Awake!—1989)

...

Since 1914, two world wars and over a hundred smaller conflicts have spilled an ocean of blood. A century ago, French writer Guy de Maupassant said that “the egg from which wars are hatched” is patriotism, which he called “a kind of religion.” In fact, The Encyclopedia of Religion says that patriotism’s cousin, nationalism, “has become a dominant form of religion in the modern world, preempting a void left by the deterioration of traditional religious values.” (Italics ours.) By failing to promote true worship, false religion created the spiritual vacuum into which nationalism was able to pour.

Nowhere was this better illustrated than in Nazi Germany, whose citizens at the beginning of World War II claimed to be 94.4 percent Christian. Of all places, Germany​—birthplace of Protestantism and praised in 1914 by Pope Pius X as home of “the best Catholics in the world”—​should have represented the very best that Christendom had to offer.

Significantly, Catholic Adolf Hitler found readier support among Protestants than among Catholics. ...

...

The part Christendom played in both world wars led to a severe loss of prestige. As the Concise Dictionary of the Christian World Mission explains: “Non-Christians had before their eyes . . . the evident fact that nations with a thousand years of Christian teaching behind them had failed to control their passions and had set the whole world ablaze for the satisfaction of less than admirable ambitions.”

Of course, religiously motivated wars are nothing new. But in contrast with the past when nations of different religions warred with one another, the 20th century has increasingly found nations of the same religion locked in bitter conflict. The god of nationalism has clearly been able to manipulate the gods of religion. Thus, during World War II, while Catholics and Protestants in Great Britain and the United States were killing Catholics and Protestants in Italy and Germany, Buddhists in Japan were doing the same to their Buddhist brothers in southeast Asia.

Nevertheless, in view of its own bloodstained clothing, Christendom cannot self-righteously shake its finger at others. By advocating, supporting, and at times electing imperfect human governments, professed Christians and non-Christians alike must share responsibility for the blood these governments have shed.

But what kind of religion would put government above God and offer its own members as political sacrifices on the altar of the god of war?

“They Kept Spilling Innocent Blood”

Those words, said of apostate Israel centuries ago, apply to all false religions and to those of Christendom in particular. (Psalm 106:38) Do not forget the millions of lives snuffed out in the Holocaust, a tragedy in which Christendom’s churches were not guiltless.​—See Awake! April 8, 1989. ...

Regarding Christendom's support of the Nazi regime and involvement in the holocaust: Why the Churches Kept Silent (Awake!—1995)

Catholic historian E. I. Watkin wrote: “Painful as the admission must be, we cannot in the interest of a false edification or dishonest loyalty deny or ignore the historical fact that Bishops have consistently supported all wars waged by the government of their country. . . . Where belligerent nationalism is concerned they have spoken as the mouthpiece of Caesar.” When Watkin said that bishops of the Catholic Church “supported all wars waged by the government of their country,” he included the wars of aggression waged by Hitler. As Roman Catholic professor of history at Vienna University, Friedrich Heer, admitted: “In the cold facts of German history, the Cross and the swastika came ever closer together, until the swastika proclaimed the message of victory from the towers of German cathedrals, swastika flags appeared round altars and Catholic and Protestant theologians, pastors, churchmen and statesmen welcomed the alliance with Hitler.” Catholic Church leaders gave such unqualified support to Hitler’s wars that the Roman Catholic professor Gordon Zahn wrote: “The German Catholic who looked to his religious superiors for spiritual guidance and direction regarding service in Hitler’s wars received virtually the same answers he would have received from the Nazi ruler himself.” That Catholics obediently followed the direction of their church leaders was documented by Professor Heer. He noted: “Of about thirty-​two million German Catholics​—fifteen and a half million of whom were men—​only seven [individuals] openly refused military service. Six of these were Austrians.” More recent evidence indicates that a few other Catholics, as well as some Protestants, stood up against the Nazi State because of religious convictions. Some even paid with their lives, while at the same time their spiritual leaders were selling out to the Third Reich. ... Similarly, Martin Niemoeller, a Protestant church leader who himself had been in a Nazi concentration camp, later confessed: ‘It may be truthfully recalled that Christian churches, throughout the ages, have always consented to bless war, troops, and arms and that they prayed in a very unchristian way for the annihilation of their enemy.’ He admitted: “All this is our fault and our fathers’ fault, but obviously not God’s fault.” Niemoeller then added: “And to think that we Christians of today are ashamed of the so-​called sect of the serious scholars of the Bible [Jehovah’s Witnesses], who by the hundreds and thousands have gone into concentration camps and died because they refused to serve in war and declined to fire on human beings.” Susannah Heschel, a professor of Judaic studies, uncovered church documents proving that the Lutheran clergy were willing, yes anxious, to support Hitler. She said they begged for the privilege of displaying the swastika in their churches. The overwhelming majority of clergymen were not coerced collaborators, her research showed, but were enthusiastic supporters of Hitler and his Aryan ideals. As a lecturer, Heschel is frequently asked by church members, “What could we have done?” “You could have been like Jehovah’s Witnesses,” she replies. [whereislogic: pardon the format, I'm out of space for making paragraphs.]

Context (playlist link):

Thirty Identifying Marks of False Christian Religions

But here in the playlist is where the subject of the doctrine of the Trinity (or false religion/Babylon the Great) starts (Isaac Newton already figured it out, before him, there was Michael Servetus):

Isaac Newton's science/scientia/knowledge about reality

Some other truth seekers who figured it out before Newton:

Three 16th-Century Truth Seekers​—What Did They Find?

“WHAT is truth?” That was the question that Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of Judea in the first century, asked of Jesus, who was on trial before the governor. (John 18:38) Pilate, of course, was not really seeking the truth. If anything, his question revealed his skeptical or cynical attitude. Apparently, to Pilate truth was whatever a person might choose or was taught to believe; there was really no way to determine what is truth. Many today feel the same way.

Churchgoers in 16th-century Europe faced the dilemma of what to believe as truth. Raised to believe in the supremacy of the pope and in other teachings of the church, they were confronted with new ideas spread by the Reformation, which was sweeping through Europe at the time. What should they believe? How would they decide what is truth?

During that period, there were, among many others, three men who were determined to seek out the truth.* How did they go about identifying what was true and what was false? And what did they find? Let us see.

“LET THE BIBLE . . . ALWAYS RULE SUPREME”

...

The Capito home in Strasbourg became a place where religious dissenters met and no doubt discussed many religious matters and Bible teachings. Though some Reformers still promoted the Trinity doctrine, Capito’s writings, according to the book The Radical Reformation, reflect “reticence on the doctrine of the Trinity.” Why? Capito was impressed by the way that Spanish theologian Michael Servetus appealed to Bible texts to disprove the Trinity.* [See the article “Michael Servetus​—A Solitary Quest for the Truth,” ...]

Denial of the Trinity could bring fatal consequences, so Capito was cautious about declaring his feelings openly. However, his writings suggest that he had privately questioned the Trinity doctrine even before he met Servetus. A Catholic priest later wrote that Capito and his associates “proceeded to discuss in their private capacity, and without appeal,​—the profoundest mysteries of religion; [and] rejected that of the most Holy Trinity.” A century later, Capito was listed first among prominent anti-Trinitarian writers.

Capito believed that the Bible was the source of truth. “Let the Bible and the law of Christ always rule supreme in theology,” he stated. According to Dr. Kittelson, Capito “insisted that the chief failing of the scholastic theologians lay in their neglect of the Scriptures.”

This earnest desire to learn the truth from God’s Word was shared by Martin Cellarius (also known as Martin Borrhaus), a young man who stayed at the Capito home in 1526.

...

Especially noteworthy were Cellarius’ brief remarks regarding the nature of Jesus Christ. Although he did not directly contradict the Trinity, Cellarius distinguished the “Heavenly Father” from “his Son Jesus Christ” and wrote that Jesus was one of many gods and sons of the almighty God.​—John 10:34, 35.

In his book Antitrinitarian Biography (1850), Robert Wallace noted that Cellarius’ writings did not follow the Trinitarian orthodoxy common in the 16th century.* [Regarding Cellarius’ use of the word “god” when applied to Christ, the book states: “It is printed deus, and not Deus, the latter being used only to designate the Supreme God.”] Several scholars thus conclude that Cellarius must have rejected the Trinity. He has been described as one of God’s instruments “in inculcating a knowledge of the true God and of Christ.”

...

Campanus objected to the ideas of both transubstantiation and consubstantiation.* [Consubstantiation is Luther’s teaching that the bread and the wine “coexist” with Christ’s body at the Lord’s Supper.] According to author André Séguenny, Campanus believed that “the Bread as a substance remains always bread, but as a sacrament, it represents symbolically the flesh of the Christ.” At the 1529 Marburg Colloquy, a meeting held to discuss these very questions, Campanus was not permitted to share what he had learned from the Scriptures. Thereafter, he was shunned by his fellow Reformers in Wittenberg.

The Reformers were especially upset by Campanus’ beliefs about the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit. In his 1532 book Restitution, Campanus taught that Jesus and his Father are two distinct persons. The Father and Son “are one,” he explained, only as a husband and wife are said to be “one flesh”​—united, yet still two persons. (John 10:30; Matthew 19:5) Campanus noted that the Scriptures use the same illustration to show that the Father has authority over the Son: “The head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.”​—1 Corinthians 11:3.

What about the holy spirit? Again, Campanus appealed to the Bible, writing: “With no Scripture may it be adduced that the Holy Spirit is the third person . . . The spirit of God is taken in an operative sense, in that He prepares and carries out all things through his spiritual power and activity.”​—Genesis 1:2.

Luther called Campanus a blasphemer and an adversary of God’s Son. Another Reformer called for Campanus’ execution. Yet, Campanus was undeterred. According to The Radical Reformation, “Campanus was convinced that the loss of this originally apostolic and biblical understanding of the Godhead and of man accounted for the fall of the Church.”

It was never Campanus’ intention to organize a religious group. He had sought in vain for truth, he said, “among the sects and all the heretics.” So he hoped that the Catholic Church, by means of a restitution, would reinstate true Christian teaching. Eventually, however, Catholic authorities arrested Campanus, and he may have spent upwards of 20 years in prison. Historians believe that he died in about 1575.

“MAKE SURE OF ALL THINGS”

Diligent study of the Bible enabled Capito, Cellarius, Campanus, and others to distinguish truth from error. Even though not all of the conclusions reached by these truth seekers were in full harmony with the Bible, these men humbly searched the Scriptures and treasured the truth that they learned.

The apostle Paul urged his fellow Christians: “Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) To help you in your search for truth, Jehovah’s Witnesses have published a book with the appropriate title What Does the Bible Really Teach?

...

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Indeed, according to the interactions of a certain exorcist in the 1930's with a demon he was in the process of casting out, the demon, under the compulsion to tell the truth by virtue of the exorcist's control over it, told the exorcist that Hell was the creation of Satan & his demons, not the creation of God. The demon even said, regarding God: "It never even entered His mind to create a Hell".

You're claiming God isn't omnipresent or sharing in said belief.

Probably worth explaining that my own belief in the creator is a one where it is ever present although that does infer a timeliness of the presence it wouldn't be accurate to say that's what I believe. God would be in all time all of the time AKA omnipresent.

To say 1 thing could be missed is to say anything and everything could be missed, surely God deals in absolutes? they'd be the only one capable. Do you not agree that saying anything other than that would describe the supreme being as not so supreme? As in merely a god?

This is backed up by the fact that in the Book of Revelation, it is prophesied that Hell itself will be cast into the lake of fire, as an enemy of God & not a part of His lawful Creation.

I would say that's a fully conscious and knowledgeable rebellion, as if to say they cannot be forgiven because they knew exactly what they do. That said, you're saying there's things that not even God knew.

Not being awkward here just hoping you can elaborate further on what you're saying. I always figured we both believed in a supreme being but apparently not?

originally posted by: randomuser2034
a reply to: Topcraft

... Certainly not the Churches of Christendom. They hide the name and do not use it.

Yet the Psalmist exclaimed:

"I will praise Jehovah for his justice;
I will sing praises to the name of Jehovah the Most High."
-Psalm 7:17.
...

On that note:

And since you brought up John 17:6 as well, DefendingYHWH has a 2-part video on that subject as well (responding to the standard argument that Jesus wasn't referring to the actual personal "name" of God there and in verse 26):

a reply to: whereislogic

Another wall of Scripture, another JW. If that’s your idea of simple, you have failed miserably.

Back to simple. Let’s ask you the question….How can you claim to be a Christian if you do not believe Christ is God?

The whole purpose of the Bible is to consolidate the Christian belief system. That is its purpose. That is what it did.
When Constantine converted to Christianity there were two things available to him. The Jewish Traditions, and what must have been an overwhelming amount of written accounts of the life of Christ.

It was a massive task that took aprox 50 years. They went thru the Hebrew books, The Torah etc. to develop the relevant background, and especially the prophecy’s of the coming Savior. We know this as the Old Testament.

Now came the hard part. Christ had a very large following. He was also a very memorable person and his followers wanted to preserve his words and actions both for them, and the future. Some of these people were present for the actual events, and some heard them secondhand. These stories were copied and widespread over 300 years in many languages. Some were accurate, some were not. Some were outright false. Imagine 500 people at an event, and they each tried to document what they saw and heard. When you collected and read those accounts, they would have many differences. Many of these people were illiterate, so when they found someone who could write, they told them what they remembered.

Any document that was found about the life and message of Christ was compared to the others. 300 years of this stuff. I can’t imagine the difficulty of a task like this. When compared, multiple stories of an event would have shown similarities and differences. Differences were discarded to get to one coherent and consistent story. It had to be done this way, as there was so much out there that no one was certain of the truth.

One of the problems was that due to all the confusion, one person thought Christ was God, the next said he wasn’t and the third was caught between the other two. It was finally decided that Christ was indeed God, Reflected in the Trinity of Father Son, and Holy Ghost.

All this was combined into the New Testament. Together, Old and New Testament are The Bible. Translated into Latin which was at the time and, still is an unspoken dead language. The language and meaning of the Bible would never change, unless someone purposely changed it, and that would be very obvious. The confusion of the past was dissolved, and Christianity was defined for the first time. Since then, it has been translated into every language on earth. That was never the intent. Every time you translate, something is lost or changed. Words don’t always mean the same things in different languages, do they.

I understand why those translations happened. We lovers of Christ want to read his words for ourself instead of hearing them from someone else who understands the Latin. You have to be very careful reading the Bible in other than Latin, lest you change the meaning of what was intended.

To the JW, Mormons, and many others. Your very existence is due to your hatred for the Holy Roman Catholic Church. I understand this. Many horrible things were done in the name of God by the Church. I don’t like it much but I can’t change history. I am a Roman Catholic, and a Christian. The only authority that matters to me, is that of God. He has total authority over me. The church is corrupted from the inside by forces that would see it destroyed, thereby destroying Gods word. They have plenty of outside help too, from you and others. That will never happen. The spirit of the HRCC is alive and well in the body of Christ, The True Christians, who by the way are not all Catholic. No Anti-Pope, corrupt child molesting priest, or self proclaimed Christian who doesn’t follow the Latin Bible, will ever bring it down. It’s just not possible. Christ lives in our hearts and minds. His name engraved on our very soul.

This is what it is to be a Christian, there is no other way. Once again John 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word

was with God, and the Word was God. And, John 14: And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.

You cannot dispute any of what I have written here, because it’s Gods word according to the Bible.

Unless of course you change the word of God to suit your narrative, which you have. Without Christ, you have nothing!

a reply to: glend

The Gospel of John is true. But you have to remember that Christ came to us as a man, not God. The Jewish messiah. Born from a woman as you were. Christ was considered a rabbi or teacher or the Jewish messiah by his followers it wasn’t until the fullness of his message was brought out in the Latin Bible that Christianity really took off and that we acknowledge him as God. His audience was the Jewish people, and he was the messiah that they prophesied. As a whole, they rejected him for that, and executed him. Ultimately, you can either believe what it says in the Bible as the word of God, or not. It is what it is. Your choice. There will be dire consequences for those that change those words to suit their narrative.

You should find a priest or pastor you trust to bounce those questions off of. I’m just a follower, they can give you better answers than I can, as they have studied more than I have. Some things are simple, and indisputable those anyone can understand. When you find something you believe contradicts, you need a very knowledgeable person to guide you, and that’s not me.

Mortality is a human construct.

Prove me wrong.

a reply to: AlongCameaSpider

I suppose strickly speaking from a from a philosophical and existential perspective.

The concept of mortality can be seen as a human construct in the sense that humans are uniquely aware of their own mortality.

Mortality through is also a biological reality for all living organisms and an intrinsic part of the biological fabric of life.

a reply to: whereislogic

I take great interest in your posts, they are cogent & full of wisdom - but I think in parts your sources do a disservice to the actual reality of spiritual things, which have been evidenced by first person sources, experiences of near-death, I refer to specifically, when talking about a soul as being separate from a corporeal body. NDE survivors do express that a part of them, their essence & essential beingness, as a 'body' of immaterial stuff, was separated from their corporeal body at the time their heart & brain function ceased, when they were taken on a journey into the heavens in spirit form, before being sent back when resuscitation efforts were made successfully on Earth.

Whether or not the original label of 'soul' was specifically intended to refer to the whole person in the Old Testament ("and the man became a living soul"), it is a fitting descriptor of the modern conception of the spiritual part of our total being, and we can say with confidence that our 'soul' separates from our body & travels away from this world at the point of physical death.

Emmanuel Swedenborg had much to say on these matters, and although I tread carefully with his works, a lot of it does line up very well with scripture, such that I believe he was given a special dispensation to provide support for the spiritual life of the believer in an age where materialism & rationalism threatened belief in the sacred ministry of Christ, and the validity of the church. The Swedenborgian churches which popped up in his honour after he died were misled completely, I don't believe he ever would have wanted people doing seances in his name.

originally posted by: Topcraft
a reply to: whereislogic

Another wall of Scripture, another JW. If that’s your idea of simple, you have failed miserably.

With my opening remark about "that sentiment" I was primarily referring to the first 2 Bible texts and their introduction.

The rest was elaboration I added on later. These 2 texts are indeed simple to understand, as is their introduction.

They also explain why spending lots of time trying to share "beneficial teaching" from God's own Word (the Bible) with you that you "will not put up with" (2 Tim 4:3,4), would be a waste of time on my part. (which is why these quotations weren't meant for you specifically, as I explained in the follow-up comment as well as in the opening sentence with the expression "addressing everyone here")

A Christian welcomes the "beneficial teaching" from God's Word and would not look for a reason to complain about it or paint the habit of quoting Scriptures (something "good") in a negative light (as something "bad", Isa 5:20). Regardless of the amount of Scriptures quoted. As Jesus put it at John 8:47:

“The one who is from God listens to the sayings of God. This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God.”

When I am quoting Scripture, I am not using my words, but God's. If you take issue with the quotations of these Scriptures, your issue is with Jehovah God, not me. You can therefore also sort out your questions with Him rather than me. His Word, the Bible, is a wonderful tool for finding answers directly from Jehovah God to the questions you raised (see also what James 1:19-26 says concerning using God's Word as a mirror, quoted again further below). That includes the difference between a real disciple or follower of Christ (John 13:34,35; 2 Cor 10:3-5) and those described by the apostle Paul here:

“But what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to eliminate the pretext of those who are wanting a basis for being found equal to us in the things about which they boast. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light. 15 It is therefore nothing extraordinary if his ministers also keep disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness. But their end will be according to their works.” (2 Cor 11:12-15)

Verse 12 above also counts regarding my numerous quotations of God's Word. Verse 11 says:

“For what reason? Because I do not love you? God knows I do.”

That's my motivation, and "you" is again a general "you", as in, everyone here (in Dutch there are 2 different words for that, I don't know how to make that clear in English which of the 2 meanings for "you" I'm using at the time, other than spelling that out like I just did; it's a bit of a hassle). So you can expect many more Bible quotations in my commentary in the future (as well as repetitions of the ones already quoted in this thread). The more the better (and as little from me personally as possible*).

*: As recommended at James 1:19-26 as quoted in my first comment in this thread (time for a repetition):

Know this, my beloved brothers: Everyone must be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger, 20 for man’s anger does not bring about God’s righteousness. 21 Therefore, put away all filthiness and every trace of badness,* [Or possibly, “and the abundance of badness.”] and accept with mildness the implanting of the word that is able to save you.* [Or “your souls.”]

22 However, become doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves with false reasoning. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, this one is like a man looking at his own face in a mirror. 24 For he looks at himself, and he goes away and immediately forgets what sort of person he is. 25 But the one who peers into the perfect law that belongs to freedom and continues in it has become, not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work; and he will be happy in what he does.

26 If any man thinks he is a worshipper of God* [Or “is religious.”] but does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he is deceiving his own heart, and his worship is futile.

Understanding (Aid to Bible Understanding)

... The person who is rightly motivated seeks understanding, not out of mere curiosity or to exalt himself, but for the very purpose of acting in wisdom; ‘wisdom is before his face.’ (Prov. 17:24) He is not like those in the apostle Paul’s day who assumed to be teachers of others but were “puffed up with pride, not understanding anything,” unwisely letting themselves become “mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words,” things that produce disunity and a host of bad results.—1 Tim. 6:3-5; see KNOWLEDGE; WISDOM.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...

And a bit more of a summary:

Trinity (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

Trinitarians (the laity, and to some extent also the clergy) generally do not respond to or adequately explain any of these scriptures used to show that the Trinity doctrine is a doctrine of men (also not the responses to their so-called “Proof Texts”, such as John 1:1, and then we're especially talking about the clergy, scholars and the "teachers" mentioned at 2 Tim 4:3,4 and 2 Peter 2:1). More specifically, those men described at 1 Timothy 4:1,2 (and those spirits guiding them mentioned in verse 1).

Instead, they often just bring up John 1:1 again as if they never got a response to it. The first video in my first response to Topcraft (which was for everyone here) concerns John 1:1. It responds to a Trinitarian interpretation and translation of this verse.

This is what I said below what I quoted above:

An easier way to tell a Christian from someone who merely claims to be a Christian though, is to check out their stance on military service.

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* [“We do not wage warfare.” Lit., “we are not doing military service.” ...; Lat., non . . . mi·li·ta'mus.] according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God;” (2 Cor 10:3-5)

That concerns the challenge that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians, and the claim that adherents or members of Christendom are (or when one of them makes such a claim or implies it, or when their "questionings" boil down to either or both those points, quoting from 1 Tim 6:3-5, see external box about "understanding" at the end of my previous comment for a bit more from that text). Note that not doing military service is in accordance with the commandment from Jesus (for Christians) at John 13:34,35, referred to in my previous comment. A commandment that functions as proof of discipleship (when obeyed).

Which Church or denomination in Christendom reminds their members or adherents of that (or teaches that Christians do not do military service, incl. that Christianity and military service are incompatible, just another way of putting it)?

“In the second century, Christianity . . . had affirmed the incompatibility of military service with Christianity.” (A Short History of Rome, by G. Ferrero and C. Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382)

A detailed discussion of the clergy’s support for World War I is given in the book Preachers Present Arms, by Ray H. Abrams (New York, 1933). The book states: “The clerics gave the war its passionate spiritual significance and drive. . . . The war itself was a holy war to promote the Kingdom of God upon earth. To give one’s life for his country was to give it for God and His Kingdom. God and country became synonymous. . . . The Germans and the Allies were alike in this respect. Each side believed it had the monopoly on God . . . Most of the theologians had no difficulty whatsoever in placing Jesus in the very forefront of the thickest fighting leading his troops on to victory. . . . The church thereby became part and parcel of the war system. . . . The [church] leaders lost no time in getting thoroughly organized on a war-time basis. Within twenty-four hours after the declaration of war, the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America laid plans for the fullest cooperation. . . . Many of the churches went much further than they were asked. They became recruiting stations for the enlistment of troops.”​—Pages 53, 57, 59, 63, 74, 80, 82.

The clergymen of Christendom, who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ, preached the young men onto the battlefields. The late Harry Emerson Fosdick, a prominent Protestant clergyman, supported the war effort but later admitted: “Even in our churches we have put the battle flags . . . With one corner of our mouth we have praised the Prince of Peace and with the other we have glorified war.” The priests and other clergymen of Christendom offered prayers for the fighting forces at religious gatherings, and they served as chaplains for the army, the navy, and the air force.

originally posted by: Topcraft
a reply to: whereislogic

Another wall of Scripture, ...

We could use more walls of Scripture on ATS. There is not enough of that for my taste. Or more succinct comments with Bible quotations, it's all good (I'm usually not that good at limiting my comments to just 1 scripture though, especially once I want to elaborate and show other scriptures that describe either the same subject in a slightly different way or a similar or related subject). Because:

“All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

There, I managed just doing the one scripture.

By the way, did the Pope quote any scriptures concerning or in support of the subject he was talking about? Or for that matter, anywhere in the entire "60 minutes" interview linked in the OP? (it's only 13 minutes but I'm not that interested in checking cause I may end up looking for some "beneficial teaching" from God's Word that isn't in there, quoting the footnote from the earlier quoted 2 Tim 4:3,4 again)

No! they are good or evil or inbetween.

I have seen kids under 5 years old Steal toys
from other kids and make them cry.
the evil kid did not care at all.

another time difrents kids.
the kid with the toy Give it the the kid
who is crying to play with the toy.

You just know that they kids will grow up to be Evil or Good.

yes the parents will teach them to be good. mostly.
they evil kid grows up to hide it. they turn to crimb.
or get a job in the government.
wait! they are both the same!

the good kid gets a Lot of bullying at school.
Good is seen as being Week!
We live in a Evil world.

a reply to: Scratchpost

Yes, you dont wish to turn to "crimb".

That's the beginning of the "enb".