基督徒也干这事 - 耶和华见证人毁损多大十几个7000年的墨西哥土著祭祀庙宇因为只它是异教而非崇拜基督

[greengrass]

经常看到基督徒说牛顿是基督徒啊。

别人说的你就信？要多做功课。

 

[一心无住]

别人说的你就信？要多做功课。

你说的我就信？

 

[greengrass]

你说的我就信？

我说基督教是建立在三位一体上的，你信不信和我无关。

 

[ljyj]

我说基督教是建立在三位一体上的，你信不信和我无关。

很好的回答。基督教内部派别林立都是建立在我的基督教是这样的基础上的。

 

[urus]

很好的回答。基督教内部派别林立都是建立在我的基督教是这样的基础上的。

我说基督教是建立在三位一体上的，你信不信和我无关。

说得很好， 每个人跟神的关系， 就是这个人与神之间的双边关系， 跟其他人，其他组织， 都无关。
所谓“明心见性，存乎一心” 指的就是这个。

你说 身如明镜台，需要 时时勤拂拭。 没错。 这是你跟神之间的沟通。
我说 明镜亦非台，何处染尘埃。 也没错。 这是我跟神之间的理解。

你觉得 不吃猪肉，是对神的尊敬；
我觉得 神案上不放一个猪头，几块冷猪肉， 那就是对神的大不敬。

你我之间， 没必要起争执， 更没必要打架。
神都是一个神， 不同的派系可以有不同的庙宇

 

[johnsun69]

听起来像是分支派系而已吧， 不都是拜上帝的吗？

耶和华见证人就是邪教，根本不是基督教。
他们说基督被钉死在一根柱子上--连圣经都敢篡改，还有什么做不出来的吗？
他们的组织跟传销大同小异。纯属一帮骗子，败坏基督徒的名声。

 

[b4w]

听名字嘛，耶和华见证会，没它儿子什么事，它儿耶稣，法名基督，所以嘛，见证会不是基督教

 

[ljyj]

耶和华见证人就是邪教，根本不是基督教。
他们说基督被钉死在一根柱子上--连圣经都敢篡改，还有什么做不出来的吗？
他们的组织跟传销大同小异。纯属一帮骗子，败坏基督徒的名声。

圣经本就是一本胡编乱造的低级神话书，无所谓篡改。天主教也说新教篡改，东正教也说天主教篡改， 回教说整个基督教都是篡改阿拉的旨意。总之 一神教都是互相杀戮 已显示自己的神才是真的。你的话无非是其表现而已。

 

[明的凡]

牛顿不信三位一体，基督徒不是还说牛顿是基督徒？

For your reference:

At some point in his preparation for ordination, Newton began to struggle with the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity was a topic of deep and heated discussion during the seventeenth century, and in the Anglican Church there was considerable division over it. (Deviations from Trinitarian doctrine within the English church were rampant.) Denying the Trinity was heretical, and so Newton remained extremely cautious about his views. Over his lifetime, he seems to have changed his exact position on the doctrine of the Trinity, but it is difficult to tell. Newton never discussed publically his beliefs on the Trinity, and his notes on it were not found until after his death.

We know, however, that Newton believed in the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit; he also believed that Jesus was the Messiah and atoned for our sins with his death on the cross. Newton even believed, contrary to Arianism (of which he is usually accused), in the eternality of the Son. He also embraced the straightforwardly biblical position that the Father and Son are one. What Newton did not believe, however, was that the Father and Son were one in the sense that they were consubstantial or of the same substance. According to Newton, the Father and Son were one, but this unity was not a metaphysical unity; rather, it was one of dominion and purpose.

There were a number of reasons for Newton’s denial of consubstantiality. The most important reason for Newton was that he simply didn’t see it in Scripture. Newton felt that consubstantiality was a metaphysical concept imported from Greek philosophy, a practice of which he was extremely suspicious. Consubstantiality was, he felt, a very shaky inference from Scripture: “All the old Heresies lay in deductions,” he said, “the true faith was in the text.” Newton blamed both Athanasius and Arius for distorting Scripture when, in the fourth century, they “introduced metaphysical subtleties into their disputes and corrupted the plain language of Scripture.” Their ancient debate seemed to have more in common with Plato and Aristotle than with Jesus. Newton asked whether “Christ sent his apostles to preach metaphysics to the unlearned people, and to their wives and children?”

Furthermore, the two main scriptural proof texts for the Trinity, Newton said, were corrupted by segments of the church to support the doctrine. In his letter to John Locke—“Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture”—Newton outlines how 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16 may have been altered. So, the shaky inference from Scripture to the doctrine of the Trinity was based on a shaky foundation.

Ironically, it was Newton’s unswerving allegiance to the (genuine) words of Scripture that compelled him to deny consubstantiality and embrace what he saw as the true doctrine of the Trinity.

In addition to believing that consubstantiality was not a scriptural doctrine, Newton believed that the metaphysics underlying it “is unintelligible. ’Twas not understood in the Council of [Nicea]...nor ever since.” Just what is a substance, and what does it mean to be of the same substance (and not merely the same kind of substance)? “Substance” is a philosophical term that is mysterious at best. Like Locke, Newton believed that, even if things possessed some underlying substance, we know little, if anything, about it. And if this is so for ordinary material objects, how much more in the case of God?

As Frank Manuel writes, however, we must be careful to not “pigeonhole [Newton] in one of the recognized categories of heresy—Arian, Socinian, Unitarian, or Deist.” It may be that Newton himself never came to a final, clear position. This isn’t surprising. The doctrine of the Trinity is officially a mystery, an article of faith that is incomprehensible. And the line between incomprehensibility and incoherence is often difficult for mortals to identify.

Newton’s scientific methods spilled over into his study of theology. Notice that the doctrine of consubstantiality is an explanation of the biblical data, not a parroting of it. That is, the doctrine is ahypothesis, in the Newtonian sense. Newton, therefore, was not denying the original data—the words of Scripture—but rather the hypothesis used to make sense of them. Hypotheses are always less certain than the facts they are employed to explain.

But one thing is clear. Newton denied consubstantiality, and this was enough to give him pause when it came time for ordination. How could he—while doubting what the Anglican church saw as a fundamental tenet (at least officially)—take a vow to support everything Anglicanism held dear? He therefore chose to resign as senior fellow of the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, and so from his Lucasian professorship. This was a brave thing to do: retiring from Cambridge would mean a lifetime of watching sheep wander his Woolsthorpe estate.

Mitch Stokes is a Fellow of Philosophy at New Saint Andrews College, a modern dance enthusiast, and a champion recumbent bicyclist.


http://www.credenda.org/index.php/Theology/isaac-newton-on-the-trinity-hypothesis.html

 

[明的凡]

... He (Isaac Newton) was an ... and faithful interpreter of nature, antiquity, and Scripture. His philosophy tended to exalt the glory of the Creator, and he exhibited in his manners the purity and simplicity of the doctrines of the Gospel. He was a firm believer in Christianity, not as men in general believe ... he applied the unrivaled mighty powers of his intellect to the complete examination of a subject compared with which all others sink into insignificance; the result was a clear conviction of the truth of revealed religion, which was demonstrated in all his works, and which was still more effectually shown in his life and conduct ...

From "The life of Sir Isaac Newton"