I plan a study of trinitarians vs. non-trinitarians; would you (both sides) provide your verses and reasoning?
141267
I believe in the trinity b/c the Bible tells the 3 r one!\n\nIf you read in 1 John 5:6-8\n6 This is He who came by water abd blood-Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood.  And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. \n7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven; Father,the word, and the Holy Spirit;and these three are one.
1058164
The trinity is not a biblical teaching, no matter what preachers say! Jesus said himself that the father is greater than he is!\nJohn 14:28 YOU heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming [back] to YOU. If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.\nAnd he also said that he went his way to the father. Does that sound like they are the same?\n1 Cor. 11:3 “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)\n\n\nWhat is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?\n\nThe New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.\n\nThe New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.\n\nIn The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.\n\n\nloj
1152779
"I beseech you therefore brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice holy, acceptable which is your reasonable service.\n\nAnd be ye not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good,and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."  Rom. 12:1-2\n\n"Let this mind be in you which is also in Christ Jesus."  Phil. 2:5\n\n"I will set no wicked thing before my eyes."  Ps. 101:3\n\n"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."  Prov. 23:7\n\n"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are TRUE, whatsoever things are HONEST, whatsoever things are JUST, whatsoever things are PURE, whatsoever things are LOVELY, whatsoever things are of GOOD REPORT; if there be any VIRTUE, and if there be any PRAISE, THINK ON THESE THINGS."\n\nThe aforementioned verses are Biblical principles regarding our minds and  "right" thinking.\n\nI do not watch horror, graphic sex (or any movie rated above PG), or anything that would have little value.  In fact, I do not have TV, therefore no cable, and I RARELY go to the movies for the reasons listed in the verses above.\n\nGod gives us principles and guidelines all throughout scripture for the best way to live.  Your choices are not stacking up.  According to God's principles, you are not acting like a follower of Christ.  You love the world too much.
175920
No, both sides need to be known.  Just because you aren't of that faith doesn't mean you don't know about it or had dealings with it.  Plus there are those on this site with a theology background or are currently studying it in college.  They can give insights most can't.
459634
I'm sure this is tongue in cheek, but obviously one can be christian and not think that the bible is meant to be read as literal truth in every word.  you'd go crazy reconciling the contradictions.
997823
Sorry, I'm gonna pull a Mainworry but this answers your question better than I could have hoped for\n\nParable of the Two Sons:\n\nJesus told a story of two sons.  A father asked his first son to work in the fields, and he replied, "of course I will!"  He then went outside and changed his mind and did not work\n\nThe father asked his second son to help with the fields, and his son relied, "No!"  but later felt guilty and worked in the fields.\n\nJesus asked, "Now, which son did what was right?" and the crowd replied, "The second one!"  Jesus said, "Ah, surely prostitutes and tax collecters will enter heaven before you do".\n\nAthiests are the ones who say "No" to God, but often do what is right of their own choice.  Christians are the ones who say "Yes" to God, but then act in the opposite manner as they should.
1164065
No, we should share the words of God with others.  But also be objective if others have a different understanding of the same text.  It is always good to have more than one verse to support your position. \n\nI don't think that you will condemn yourself.
672666
Without sitting down and looking at all the specifics, I think I'm already doing what he commanded.  The beatitudes and golden rule are fairly good descriptions of how I live my life.  \n\nI'm highly skeptical of the supernatural claims of Christianity, but I agree wholeheartedly that Jesus was a wise man with very good ideas.\n\nEDIT:\nJeff, the text of the KJV is styled in medieval verse (no I don't believe that the translators were divinely inspired).  The beatitudes in particular are poetic in form, and not subject to strict interpretation.  By saying that the poor are blessed, Jesus identified with their suffering and said that it would be recognized.  The beatitudes as a whole are an exhortation to live well and love one another, with specific examples.  They are an example of how the world could be if we lived in peace: a beautiful concept and one I attempt to live.  (Occasionally I succeed, though not often).\n\nAs far as dying in order to live (I assume that you're referring to John 12:24), I've already stated that I'm skeptical about the supernatural aspects of Christianity.  I'm sure that Jesus and I differ on many matters of religion and theology.  That doesn't change how I feel about his philosophical and social ideas.  He's not my savior, but he's a very good example to the world.  I don't worship him, but I'd definitely buy him a beer and listen to what he had to say.\n\nHonestly, I'd probably do the same for you, if we ever met.
135763
As a Christian and Bible scholar, please believe me when I say that you have this all wrong--I mean you have truly misinterpretated practically everything.  \n\nI think though your points could be easily cleared up though if you were to sit with someone who has studied the Word. \n\nSince there is no way to address all of your questions and issues raised right now in this forum, why don't you go speak to a Jewish Rabbi or Bible Teaching Christian Pastor in your area.  \n\nYou don't want to hold on to misconceptions do you?  \n\nI'm sure you really do want the truth, right?  Good. You seem like someone that enjoys learning.  \n\nWell then if you want to learn the truth, you have an obligation to go and speak with someone educated in the Bible as well as someone that has a personally close relationship with GOD so that you can understand it from a different perspective.  \n\nYou're intelligent, and have obviously given this a lot of thought.  I'm sure you don't want to hold on to perceptions that are wrong right? \n\nSitting with someone one on one and going through each of your issues raise here, I believe that you will come away with a completely different view. You may still feel the same way, but at least you will have more and better information to draw more accurate conclusions.\n\nI can't begin to list the number of errors in your logic, or the number of times in your writings that you leaped to an erroneous assumption in this very short passage you wrote.  But I know that if you seek the truth, you will take the time to go speak to someone in person about your questions.  \n\nYou can even feel free to email me and I will be happy to talk to you more.  \n\nWe can walk through each passage here, and discuss the historical aspects that are recorded as well as what God is talking to us now about each of these passages.\n\nWe can discuss "What is the Mosaic Law", and how does it apply to the lives of God's people today.  We can also discuss spiritual warfare versus physical warfare and how it relates to the questions "Why would God kill innocent children? and order wars?"\n\nI welcome talking to you. I'm a Christian apologist.  We can debate, discuss, search and examine Bible history, teachings, prophesies, and hidden messages all day long, and it will not bother me, nor will I be offended if you don't agree.  \n\nI also welcome hearing about your religious beliefs. Although a devout Christian,  I enjoy studying other religions and beliefs as well.
268068
Nope,it's one of those passages that I disagree with.What you quoted was one of many unethical verses in the bible.I don't believe or follow everything I read.
469015
I was raised as a Christian, because my Dad is a Lutheran pastor.  I follow the Bible explicitly, but I do study other religions in order to better debate with people.
1077327
I've never thought of it that way. I'm in between religious beliefs at the moment, but yours has given me an entirely new perspective on Christianity. Thanks for putting it out there!
457365
If you don't believe in Life after Death then I would pick up the Bible. Especially if you are an atheist, how do you know what you don't believe if you haven't done your homework.
162561
The question was asked in our Sunday night Discipleship Training class about where our teacher stood on the topic of predestination. He came back the next week and gave us this.\n\n  The two viewpoints\n    1.Armenianism\n      a. believes in freewill or human ability and that man has not been left in a state of total spiritual hopelessness\n      b. man has the FREEDOM to chose good over evil\n      c. man has the FREEDOM to chose to cooperate with God's Spirit and regenerate or to refuse it and perish\n      d. believes that faith is mans act to God and not His gift to man.\n      e. man plays the major part in salvation\n      f. Gods choice of certain idividuals was determined by and upon what man would do. It was not given to the sinner by God, but was left up to man.\n      g. God chose those who would choose Him by their own freewill\n  2. Calvinism\n      a. man has total inability because of the fall\n      b. man is unable of himself to to accept the gospel\n      c. mans heart is decietful and his will is not free\n      d. it takes regeneration for a man to be saved\n      e. faith is NOT something man contributes to God, it is part of salvation. it is not mans gift to God it is Gods gift to man!\n      f. man resisted His soveriegn will. It is not based on any forseen response.\n      g. God gives faith and repentance to those He selects. The election is not based on man.\n      h. God brings those He selects to Him and the ability to be saved comes from God!<based on God>\n   \n    Scripture references:\n   \n      -Romans 8:30\n      -Romans 11:5-6\n      -2 Thess 2:13-14\n      -2 Timothy 1:9
302218
I think you should consider a study with Jehovah's Witnesses
4454
Study Modalism, not to be confused with Patripassianism.\n\nThe Trinity was a product of philosophy, and politics.  Theological Evolution.  You can see that early "trinitarians" rarely agreed with each other, and all held the 'heresy of sub-ordination'\n\nIt was not until the Council of Nicea that the trinity was given a 'solid' form that could be built upon by later councils.\n\nEusubius, from which we know most of what we know about Nicea, went to the council for the express purpose that modalists would not have a voice in the council, and they didn't.  He origianlly went to help arius, but had been misinformed about his beliefs, and then supported athanasius, since Esubius liked Origen's teachings.\n\nWhen studying modalism, remember that trinitarians oversimplify the doctrine and label it as patripassianism.  This comes soley from claims from thier ancient enemies such as Tertullian and Hippolytus.  \n\nModalism beleives that Jesus was the messiah, God manifested in the flesh, but that he WAS NOT God in three persons, but rather God in A person, who was the image of the invisible God.  The Logos, the plan God had in His mind since the Beginning.\n\nPatripassianism is the view that the Father died on the cross. I am not a modalist. God did not die on the cross, the human flesh died on the cross, not the divine Spirit that dwelt fully within Him.\n\nWere Praxeas and Sabellius patripassianists?  Really, NO ONE can say yes or no.  All we have are biased writings from thier enemies.  Historically, no one knows.\n\nThere is but ONE God.  Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
151341
One thing to keep in mind, when reading the O.T. is that even though you read it literally, you must keep in mind the literary context of the passage, and the culture and time it was written in. \nFirst, this was written to a young nation, just coming out of slavery, and facing some formidable enemies.\nSecond, They had seen miracles unike anything any nation before or since, has seen, so they had a higher level of accountability for their actions - For an Israelite of this time to entice another to turn from God would be a great offence, because they were responsible for a huge amount of revelation from God.\n\nI think the modern-day equivalent would be executing a Traitor or a spy - not at all unheard of even in the last century. Because Israel at this time was a Theocracy, idolotry would be the same as becoming an "enemy of the state".\n\nwrathpuppet, I know you don't believe the Bible is God's Word, but you still might consider taking an introductory course on Biblical exegesis - I think you would find it quite interesting (and maybe even profitable).\n\nBackground studies may be divided into two areas — semantics and pragmatics. Semantics is the study of the language of a text, while pragmatics is the study of the circumstances surrounding the individual linguistic expressions. Exegesis must give equal weight to both areas.\n\n(The particular passage in question was a national law for the fledgling nation of Israel, which was a Theocracy remember.)\n\nFinally (and I think this is your main concern in posting this question), there is application - i.e. what does this text tell me to do today? When you have a problem with the application of a verse, passage, etc, remember this: no Scripture is of any private interpretation - Scripture always interprets Scripture, so just keep reading and the application will present itself. In Romans 12:21-13:10 it says \n12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. \n13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.\n2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.\n3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.\n4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.\n5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.\n6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.\n7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.\n8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. \n9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”\n10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.\n\nSo, there you have the answer, in modern application of the Deuteronomy 13:6-10 \n1. Evil is to be overcome with good, 2. we know that we must obey the governing authority, and the laws they impose, and 3. that we must love our neighbor, it is not good to kill my neighbor, it is unloving to kill my neighbor, and it is unlawful to kill my neighbor.\n\nConclusion: As a Biblical Christian, I must not kill my friend when he invites me to participate in a pagan ritual or attend a yoga session.\n\nP.S. Schneb's study on the Law  bel