"Valid" in what sense? A valid religious belief, sure. I think that it's dangerous and ultimately not productive to try to decide if someone's religious belief is "valid." It has no scientific basis, sure, but it should be something kept entirely separate from science. It's a matter of personal belief. I don't share the belief, but I also think it's unfair to try to take it away from the people who have it.
I think that it's dangerous and ultimately not productive to try to decide if someone's religious belief is "valid." It has no scientific basis, sure, but it should be something kept entirely separate from science. It's a matter of personal belief. I don't share the belief, but I also think it's unfair to try to take it away from the people who have it.
the bible said in Gen. 1:26 "let [us] make man in our image" who is the us? in Gen. 1:1 it said "in the Begining God created" the Hebrew word for God, which "Elohim" is plural so one may argue that it means more than one, but in what sense? Jesus said that "i and the father are one" what many people do is that they misinterpret the concept of the Trinity for is not saying that there are the same person but they are all the same thing. All coequal, coeternal and coexistent yet they are distinct. in Greek the word [one] comes from the word "Hen" and that world is neutral so it not attached to any sex, therefore it is saying they are the samething. in Phil. 2:7 it said that Jesus "who is in the [Form Of God]. did not consider equality with God something to be exploited. in Hebrews 1:3 he express the exact image of his person. in Col. 2:9 the fullness of the Godhead (theotetos) is in him bodily. (v 1:16) he created all things, yet in Genesis the bible said God did. Jesus said when you see me you see the father because he is the "image of the invisible God" when God said "i am one Lord" the Hebrew word for [one] in that context does not denotes solitary unity but composite unity compare Gen. 2:24. in Gen. 19:24 "then Yahweh rained down burning sulfur on sodom and gomorrah from [Yahweh] out of the heavens" in this verse you see two Yahwehs so how does one explain this? it is no doubt that the concept of the trinity is biblical and is valid and is not read into scripture but is derived from the evidence that is there. if one wants to prove otherwise i want biblical evidence to support that fact and not opinions
Put aside that God is the creator of the universe and that he can pull just about any tricks he wants.
I can be a mother, student, friend, teacher, mentor, wife, and housekeeper, yet I'm one person. Same concept, but way awesomer than anything we can do here.
No, because I think learning science is more important than learning about the bible and Holy Trinity of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I agree that the bible is one of the oldest written books we have found thus far, but we must learn about things that can answers for the future. Answers that can help us understand what we were before and what we will be tomorrow. Learning about the bible will stop this progress in education because the bible is very judgmental and subjective. As for science is very much objective and helps everyone.
The "smoking gu?" Verse, 1 john 5:7 is a forgery that does not show up in any manuscript until after 500 A.D. And only in latin, not the original greek and only in manuscripts found in spain which seems to be where this forgery started. I'm a Christian, but the trinity doctrine is far from a certainty. I don't say its impossible because it may be true but we can only make inferences without complete certainty, kind of like the whole "predestination vs. Free wil?" Argument for salvation that people are unsure of. There are Bible verse that could be taken to mean one case and verses for another. The point is we can only infer, and from what I see there is little (but there is still some) chance that the co-equal trinity view is correct. It seems like an opinion that came out of the council of nicea that was taken as fact ever since. Even after luthers protestant reformation, which should have fixed this grave error hundreds of years ago.