Why must God be only three persons?

[Vico]

Translation: The Catholic Church is right on this matter because the Catholic Church says it is right on this matter.

The Church says God has revealed himself in three persons, yet at the same time calls God working in multiple persons as a divine mystery. It’s difficult to be both fully knowledgeable on a subject while simultaneously lacking in the most basic knowledge on the very same subject. The only reason the Church says that God is three persons is because that is how many persons have been revealed at this time. There is nothing in our understanding of how the Godhead operates which can’t allow for as-yet-unrevealed persons.

The Catholic Church is orthodox on this matter of faith, because Jesus Christ said that evil would not prevail against the Catholic Church, and the Trinity was revealed at the baptism of Christ in the Jordan.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The Catholic Church is orthodox on this matter of faith, because Jesus Christ said that evil would not prevail against the Catholic Church, and the Trinity was revealed at the baptism of Christ in the Jordan.

How does the Church know? What can be said about what each person of the Godhead does that makes it unnecessary for there to be a fourth person?

And as I said a few posts ago, just because Jesus mentions the three persons we currently consider the Godhead doesn’t mean he wasn’t saying there aren’t more. It’s just like in the Old Testament where God mentions only himself he doesn’t mean that Jesus and The Holy Spirit (who had yet to be revealed as being members of the Godhead) weren’t the second and third persons.

 

[Gorgias]

Incorrect. Dei Verbum says:

Divine revelation did not end. It’s just that there will be no more until Jesus returns.

But that doesn’t imply that there will be more once He returns.

Translation: The Catholic Church is right on this matter because the Catholic Church says it is right on this matter.

No. The Catholic Church is right on this matter because Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. It’s kinda difficult to suggest that hell has not prevailed if the Church has declared, doctrinally, something that is false, isn’t it?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

But that doesn’t imply that there will be more once He returns.

Absolutely! It does mean that we can’t rule it out.

No. The Catholic Church is right on this matter because Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. It’s kinda difficult to suggest that hell has not prevailed if the Church has declared, doctrinally, something that is false, isn’t it?

There are plenty of Christians who believe the Church has some incorrect doctrine. The best way to show that something is correct or incorrect is by evidence not merely by declaring it so. As far as the Bible is concerned it in no way rules out a number of person greater than 3 in the Godhead.

 

[Vico]

How does the Church know? What can be said about what each person of the Godhead does that makes it unnecessary for there to be a fourth person?

And as I said a few posts ago, just because Jesus mentions the three persons we currently consider the Godhead doesn’t mean he wasn’t saying there aren’t more. It’s just like in the Old Testament where God mentions only himself he doesn’t mean that Jesus and The Holy Spirit (who had yet to be revealed as being members of the Godhead) weren’t the second and third persons.

The persons are the relations of opposition. It is firmly believed that there are only three. You can verify this from the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Q30 The plurality of persons in God, Article 2. Whether there are more than three persons in God?
“I answer that, As was explained above, there can be only three persons in God. For it was shown above that the several persons are the several subsisting relations really distinct from each other.”

 

[Gorgias]

Absolutely! It does mean that we can’t rule it out.

We could say, with certainty, that the Patriots will not win a Super Bowl before 2/7. That wouldn’t imply that they will, after that date. The difference between this assertion and the one about new and contradictory revelation is that Christ promised that what Peter bound and loosed on earth would be bound and loosed in heaven, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. He didn’t make any such promise about the Patriots.

There are plenty of Christians who believe the Church has some incorrect doctrine.

That and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee.

Many people think many things. Doesn’t mean they’re right, though.

The best way to show that something is correct or incorrect is by evidence not merely by declaring it so.

Except when God himself declares that what the Church declares, will hold in heaven. That’s a pretty important assertion.

As far as the Bible is concerned it in no way rules out a number of person greater than 3 in the Godhead.

Right. And we don’t look at the Bible as the sole source of revelation – we also look at the Apostolic Teaching of the Church (which tells us that God’s a trinity). Whether or not you believe it is a different question, but your belief doesn’t change the value of the doctrinal assertions.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

We could say, with certainty, that the Patriots will not win a Super Bowl before 2/7. That wouldn’t imply that they will, after that date. The difference between this assertion and the one about new and contradictory revelation is that Christ promised that what Peter bound and loosed on earth would be bound and loosed in heaven, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. He didn’t make any such promise about the Patriots.

Again, there are a great many Christian who say the Church is wrong in its interpretation of that statement. There is no value in that statement until there is a consensus as to its meaning.

That and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee.

I already bought my coffee using a quarter and the assertion that Catholic Church doctrine can not be wrong

Many people think many things. Doesn’t mean they’re right, though.

Absolutely. All non-religious and religious – including Catholics.

Except when God himself declares that what the Church declares, will hold in heaven. That’s a pretty important assertion.

It’s also completely unprovable, unfalsifiable, and ultimately an empty assertion despite its imprtance.

Right. And we don’t look at the Bible as the sole source of revelation – we also look at the Apostolic Teaching of the Church (which tells us that God’s a trinity). Whether or not you believe it is a different question, but your belief doesn’t change the value of the doctrinal assertions.

Remember, I asked how one could demonstrate that there was no way for there to be more than three persons in the Godhead. Trinitarians speak with such certainty on the subject yet can’t give even the slightest bits of knowledge to support their case. Can you provide said knowledge apart from what the Church declares? As I noted earlier it’s hard to state with certainty what something can or can’t be if one can’t state in the slightest how it works.

 

[Gorgias]

Again, there are a great many Christian who say the Church is wrong in its interpretation of that statement. There is no value in that statement until there is a consensus as to its meaning.

Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that God-given doctrinal truth actually exists.

Given that assumption, would the content of the truth depend on ‘consensus’? (Of course not.) Your question, then, is an epistemological one: does this truth exist and how can we know the content of that truth?

It’s also completely unprovable, unfalsifiable, and ultimately an empty assertion despite its imprtance.

Hmm… I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying: we can certainly prove that it’s been part of the canon of Scripture for at least since the oldest manuscripts we have. We can also deduce (given the ways that the canon was chosen) that it’s been part of the story of Christ since the beginning of the Church. By the same standards, we can certainly assert that there hasn’t been any falsification of the passages. Of course, the value of the assertion – whether it’s seen as divine or empty – is a matter of faith. The fact that faith traditions require, well… faith! … and aren’t scientific assertions, doesn’t mean that they are, by definition, ‘empty.’

Remember, I asked how one could demonstrate that there was no way for there to be more than three persons in the Godhead. Trinitarians speak with such certainty on the subject yet can’t give even the slightest bits of knowledge to support their case. Can you provide said knowledge apart from what the Church declares?

And here’s where the rubber meets the road. Look: if you ask for a standard of proof that, a priori, cannot be met, then you’re requesting an unreasonable standard. In essence, all you’re doing is saying “I don’t believe it and I refuse to consider it.”

What other source could possibly be relevant besides those types of evidence that the Church could provide?!?

 

[guanophore]

Again, there are a great many Christian who say the Church is wrong in its interpretation of that statement.  There is no value in that statement until there is a consensus as to its meaning.

LOL.

This is the epitome of hubris. Creatures that want their own consensus of what is “true” to be more valuable and important than what their Creator has revealed as true. Catholicism is not a “consensus” or a democracy. It is a theocracy.

  It's also completely unprovable, unfalsifiable, and ultimately an empty assertion despite its imprtance.

Only empty for those who choose not to be filled by it.

Remember, I asked how one could demonstrate that there was no way for there to be more than three persons in the Godhead. Trinitarians speak with such certainty on the subject yet can’t give even the slightest bits of knowledge to support their case. Can you provide said knowledge apart from what the Church declares?

We have no need for any. Divine truth transcends scientific inquiry. God has revealed Himself t us a three persons. He has revealed that there are no more persons yet to be disclosed. Knowledge comes from many sources.

As I noted earlier it’s hard to state with certainty what something can or can’t be if one can’t state in the slightest how it works.

The fact that you do not accept how God reveals Himself to His One Holy Bride, the Church, does not negate the fact that it does work with certainty.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

LOL.

This is the epitome of hubris. Creatures that want their own consensus of what is “true” to be more valuable and important than what their Creator has revealed as true. Catholicism is not a “consensus” or a democracy. It is a theocracy.

I am leaving the door open for possibilities. I am saying I can’t truly know. You are saying that there are no other possibilities and that despite vast gaps in understanding that you can truly know. It seems like the hubris is on your end and not mine.

Only empty for those who choose not to be filled by it.

It’s not saying that the statement can’t be true, but because there is no way to verify the statement or show the statement is false, it’s empty. I can claim all sorts of things that can’t be proven or disproven, some of which might be absolutely true; but their worth has nothing to do with their truth but with their verifiability.

We have no need for any. Divine truth transcends scientific inquiry. God has revealed Himself t us a three persons.

Gorgias, this is for you as well as guanophore. CAF is a discussion forum where things are not assumed, especially in the Philosophy sub-forum. If you look through the many threads on the Philosophy sub-forum you’ll see discussions on truth, the universe, accidents/substance, freewill, how thought works – all sorts of heavy topics. And while the Church’s positions on these matters do play a part in these discussions they are most certainly not the only points in the discussion.

To say that the Chruch’s position is X and then provide no evidence or substance behind that position is a full-on discussion stopper. It’s there to say one doesn’t wish to discuss the matter further, nor does one wish to back up any assertions that are made. It goes against the very nature of the Philosophy subforum and apologetics in general.

When you say you have no need for evidence, it’s more correct to say that you don’t have any evidence. As I said above, not having evidence doesn’t preclude the statement from being true; but without even the slightest bit of evidence it’s not convincing at all.

He has revealed that there are no more persons yet to be disclosed.

Now see this is an actual point that we can discuss. Where does God say that there are no more persons yet to be disclosed? As I noted in an earlier post, when Jesus in Matthew mentions the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit he in no way says that these are the only three persons in the Godhead.

Knowledge comes from many sources.

Conjecture comes from many sources as well. It’s important not to mistake one for the other.

The fact that you do not accept how God reveals Himself to His One Holy Bride, the Church, does not negate the fact that it does work with certainty.

There is a non-denominational apologist named Eric Hovind. He is very big on the same argument, where since he is absolutely certain of position and whatever scientist, freethinker, etc. he is speaking to leaves room for things we don’t know yet that his certainty trumps anyone’s reasonable doubt. The problem is that truth doesn’t come from one’s certainty but from knowledge, facts, and evidence. As I’ve said the Chruch may be absolutely right when it comes to its statements about the Trinity. I just don’t want you to think that because the Church is certain that is necessarily correct.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that God-given doctrinal truth actually exists.

Given that assumption, would the content of the truth depend on ‘consensus’? (Of course not.) Your question, then, is an epistemological one: does this truth exist and how can we know the content of that truth?

Let me apologize in advance, as I’ll likely repeat many of the points made in my response to guanophore.

I am not denying that what the Church says may be true. I’m also not saying that there needs to be a consensus as to what is true. What I am saying is that what the Chruch says on this matter can not be shown to be true. Not only that, since the Church admits to the Godhead being a mystery and can’t give even the most base understanding of how the Godhead operates it’s hard to take calls that it knows what the Godhead isn’t to heart.

Hmm… I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying: we can certainly prove that it’s been part of the canon of Scripture for at least since the oldest manuscripts we have.

That doesn’t show that it’s true, merely that it was believed for a long time.

We can also deduce (given the ways that the canon was chosen) that it’s been part of the story of Christ since the beginning of the Church.

Again, it just means it’s been believed for a long time. Also as I’ve shown there is nothing from God which says there can’t be more persons yet-to-be-revealed (just as in the days before the birth of Jesus did God at no point say that there was only the one person of God).

By the same standards, we can certainly assert that there hasn’t been any falsification of the passages.

Again, what passages are you referring to? The one in Matthew I already showed did not rule out persons-yet-to-be-revealed?

Of course, the value of the assertion – whether it’s seen as divine or empty – is a matter of faith. The fact that faith traditions require, well… faith! … and aren’t scientific assertions, doesn’t mean that they are, by definition, ‘empty.’

I tell you that using my mind I am the supreme ruler of the Andromeda galaxy. I can not prove that statement nor can anyone disprove it. It’s possible that it’s true, but it has no value beyond being an empty assertion.

I’ll stress this again. Practically every discussion in the Apologetics sections of CAF and especially the Philosophy sub-forum goes well beyond a statement as to what the Church believes. It’s a discussion not merely a search of what the Catechism says. Why does the Church believe what it does? How does it know? Are there steps that could be done that could falsify that belief and would it show it to be true if it could not be falisifed? Let’s discuss and not just give an overview of the Church’s position.

And here’s where the rubber meets the road. Look: if you ask for a standard of proof that, a priori, cannot be met, then you’re requesting an unreasonable standard. In essence, all you’re doing is saying “I don’t believe it and I refuse to consider it.”

What is there to consider? I’ve delved farther into this matter than you have. I’m not expecting proof or disproof but a discussion of the facts at hand. If no such facts exist, just say so.

What other source could possibly be relevant besides those types of evidence that the Church could provide?!?

As I said, an understanding of how the Church arrived at its position is a good start.

We can talk about how the Godhead operates. We know that prior to Jesus’ birth no one thought that God was more than one person of a Godhead. Was there an understanding of God then that showed a need for there to be more than one person? After the second and third persons of the Godhead had been revealed as God, was there then an understanding of God that ruled out the need for a fourth person (or more) of the Godhead? Is it possible that a fourth person of God serves a function after we die that as of yet we do not understand? Is it possible that a fifth person of God serves a function after Jesus’ return that we as of yet do not understand?

There’s a great deal that can be discussed when it comes to our understanding (or more accurately our lack of understanding) of the Godhead. Nonbelievers are always told to leave the possiblity of God open, considering how much we don’t know. I ask believers to do the same about the Godhead, considering how much we don’t know.

 

[tonyrey]

There’s a great deal that can be discussed when it comes to our understanding (or more accurately our lack of understanding) of the Godhead. Nonbelievers are always told to leave the possiblity of God open, considering how much we don’t know. I ask believers to do the same about the Godhead, considering how much we don’t know.

Our lack of understanding of God surpasses our understanding but there is one fact to be taken into account. Christians have a great advantage because Jesus has revealed more about God than any one else not only by what He said but how He lived and died. A historical person is far more revealing than an abstract deity…

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Our lack of understanding of God surpasses our understanding but there is one fact to be taken into account. Christians have a great advantage because Jesus has revealed more about God than any one else not only by what He said but how He lived and died. A historical person is far more revealing than an abstract deity…

What has God revealed that says the number of persons in the Godhead simply can not be greater than 3?

 

[Gorgias]

Mike from NJ:

CAF is a discussion forum where things are not assumed, especially in the Philosophy sub-forum. If you look through the many threads on the Philosophy sub-forum you’ll see discussions on truth, the universe, accidents/substance, freewill, how thought works – all sorts of heavy topics. And while the Church’s positions on these matters do play a part in these discussions they are most certainly not the only points in the discussion.

To say that the Chruch’s position is X and then provide no evidence or substance behind that position is a full-on discussion stopper. It’s there to say one doesn’t wish to discuss the matter further, nor does one wish to back up any assertions that are made. It goes against the very nature of the Philosophy subforum and apologetics in general.

Actually, I didn’t say “game over.” I asked you about the standard of proof you proposed, suggesting that it was an unreasonable one and asking what you had to say about it.

What I am saying is that what the Chruch says on this matter can not be shown to be true.

What’s the standard of proof, then? I mean, for a historical event in antiquity, what’s the standard of proof?

Not only that, since the Church admits to the Godhead being a mystery and can’t give even the most base understanding of how the Godhead operates it’s hard to take calls that it knows what the Godhead isn’t to heart.

Nah… you’re being far too dramatic. We don’t know how matter operates – and yet, we can talk about the fundamental particles of matter without saying “sorry… it’s all a mystery.”

That doesn’t show that it’s true, merely that it was believed for a long time.

No – it shows a chain of evidence: that, from the time of the events themselves, these were the accounts that were written down (and which were assented to by the eyewitnesses to the events). You can claim that the history of the Gospel accounts is about ‘belief’… but it’s really about provenance.

Also as I’ve shown there is nothing from God which says there can’t be more persons yet-to-be-revealed (just as in the days before the birth of Jesus did God at no point say that there was only the one person of God).

If you want to deal with the text on its terms… well, you have to deal with it on its terms. The text asserts that Peter takes on certain authority – and it’s a historical matter that this authority made the claims that we’ve outlined here. Therefore, if you want to deal with the text in its own context, you inescapably reach the conclusion that the doctrine of the Trinity is a terminal doctrine.

Again, what passages are you referring to? The one in Matthew I already showed did not rule out persons-yet-to-be-revealed?

No, in this context, we’re talking about your (unsubstantiated) claims about ‘falsification’. Here, I’m pointing out that we can be confident that the Gospels haven’t been falsified. That’s all.

I tell you that using my mind I am the supreme ruler of the Andromeda galaxy. I can not prove that statement nor can anyone disprove it. It’s possible that it’s true, but it has no value beyond being an empty assertion.

And, just as soon as you do the kinds of things that Jesus did – miraculous healings, raisings of the dead, personal resurrection – and just as soon as you assemble a body of believers who disseminate your story and teachings, then we can talk about how your assertions aren’t just ‘empty.’ Until then, your Andromeda story is just a personal invention, and completely unlike the Gospels. So… nice try, but not at all relevant.

I’ll stress this again. Practically every discussion in the Apologetics sections of CAF and especially the Philosophy sub-forum goes well beyond a statement as to what the Church believes. It’s a discussion not merely a search of what the Catechism says. Why does the Church believe what it does? How does it know? Are there steps that could be done that could falsify that belief and would it show it to be true if it could not be falisifed? Let’s discuss and not just give an overview of the Church’s position.

On the other hand, a discussion of the history of the Church’s story is precisely relevant to this forum’s MO.

 

[guanophore]

I am leaving the door open for possibilities.

Perhaps so, but you want those possiblities only on your own terms.

I am saying I can’t truly know.

I guess this is where we differ. Your criteria of what you can accept as “knowledge” rules out what God has revealed about Himself.

Catholics are confident that we can truly know because we can trust the Source of the truth that has been revealed.

You are saying that there are no other possibilities and that despite vast gaps in understanding that you can truly know. It seems like the hubris is on your end and not mine.

There are some possiblilites that are not ruled out on the basis of what has already been divinely revealed. More member so the Trinity is not one of those.

I am not sure what you mean by “vast gaps in understanding”. Yes we can truly know some things that are beyond our finite human ability to comprehend.

It’s not saying that the statement can’t be true, but because there is no way to verify the statement or show the statement is false, it’s empty.

According to your limited and finite criteria of what qualifies as “verification”. It is empty for you because you cannot accept that Truth can exist beyond your limited ability to “test” it.

It seems that you have made yourself, and your own ability to “verify” the standard of what can be determined as Truth. This is what I mean by hubris. The creature makes himself to be the divine standard.

 I can claim all sorts of things that can't be proven or disproven, some of which might be absolutely true; but their worth has nothing to do with their truth but with their verifiability.

How sad.

To say that the Chruch’s position is X and then provide no evidence or substance behind that position is a full-on discussion stopper.

Only for those who refuse to accept the evidence that does exist. The evidence apparently does not meet your own personal divine standards.

It's there to say one doesn't wish to discuss the matter further, nor does one wish to back up any assertions that are made.  It goes against the very nature of the Philosophy subforum and apologetics in general.

Ok.

When you say you have no need for evidence, it's more correct to say that you don't **have** any evidence.

It would be more correct to say that the evidence that is pursuasive for me does not meet your divine standards.

As I said above, not having evidence doesn't preclude the statement from being true; but without even the slightest bit of evidence it's not convincing at all.

I understand. How sad.

Now see this is an actual point that we can discuss. Where does God say that there are no more persons yet to be disclosed? As I noted in an earlier post, when Jesus in Matthew mentions the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit he in no way says that these are the only three persons in the Godhead.

This info is further up in the thread. The Church defined the Trinity. What is bound on earth is bound in heaven. You can find that in your Bible, right?

  The problem is that truth doesn't come from one's certainty but from knowledge, facts, and evidence.

I agree that this is a problem but probably not for the same reason you do. You see, divine revelation is a reliable source of Truth, but may not meet your criteria in the area of “knowledge, facts, and evidence”. Science has limitations, and divine revelation is above and beyond what it can verify. That is not to say that many matters of divine revelation can certainly be verified with “knowledge, facts, and evidence”, but ultimately, they may fall short.

This approach also denies the “certainty” that comes from inner conviction. Science has no way to deal with supernatural experiences that bring about such certainty.

As I've said the Chruch may be absolutely right when it comes to its statements about the Trinity.  I just don't want you to think that because the Church is certain that is necessarily correct.

Well, what you want me to think is not a factor for me. I believe it because God has revealed it, and I can trust the Source. Since you apparently do not consider divine revelation meet your standards of “knowledge, facts, and evidence” you may not be able to accept what God has revealed about Himself.

There are ways of knowing, beyond science and reason that are accessible by humans.

 

[guanophore]

I am not denying that what the Church says may be true. I’m also not saying that there needs to be a consensus as to what is true.

I think you did say there needs to be a consensus.

What I am saying is that what the Chruch says on this matter can not be shown to be true.

Not by your own divine standards. It has been shown to be true to those of us that have different standards.

 Not only that, since the Church admits to the Godhead being a mystery and can't give even the most base understanding of how the Godhead operates it's hard to take calls that it knows what the Godhead **isn't** to heart.

On the contrary, two millenia of scholarly and deeply spiritual writings are available on the nature and function of the Trinity. It is false to say that there is no “base understanding”. This is published in the Catechism.

That doesn’t show that it’s true, merely that it was believed for a long time.

Accepting the standard that nothing asserted by the Church will meet your own divine standards of what can be verified as “true”, I will say this for others reading the thread. What has been believed is very important to Catholics, since our faith has been passed down from one entrusted servant to another leading back to the Apostles. Those Truths that Jesus taught to the Aposltes have been believed for a long time.

Again, it just means it’s been believed for a long time. Also as I’ve shown there is nothing from God which says there can’t be more persons yet-to-be-revealed

Your refusal to accept what has come from God does not eliminate the reality that this Truth has come from God.

(just as in the days before the birth of Jesus did God at no point say that there was only the one person of God).

This is also false.

I tell you that using my mind I am the supreme ruler of the Andromeda galaxy.

This much is clear from reading your posts.

I can not prove that statement nor can anyone disprove it. It’s possible that it’s true, but it has no value beyond being an empty assertion.

It has value to me because it helps me understand your world view.

 I'll stress this again.  Practically every discussion in the Apologetics sections of CAF and especially the Philosophy sub-forum goes well beyond a statement as to what the Church believes.

It seems to me that this discussion can’t go very far beyond that, since you have rejected what the Church believes is true. Even if you do not accept this as divine revelation yourself, you have discounted that Catholics accept it as divinely revealed. How can there be any meaningful discussion when the opposing viewpoint is dismisse before it starts?

It’s a discussion not merely a search of what the Catechism says.

The Catechism states what the Church believes and teaches. You have rejected it as a source of Truth. How can we get any further? You are taking the position that the content of it does not exist or is not valid. Where do we go from there?

Why does the Church believe what it does? How does it know? Are there steps that could be done that could falsify that belief and would it show it to be true if it could not be falisifed? Let’s discuss and not just give an overview of the Church’s position.

These are important epistological questions. Yes, I think there are steps that can be taken to verify Truth. I do not think you accept any of those steps because they do not meet your own divine standards. You do not accept that there is any way of knowing truth that is different than what you use for yourself.

What is there to consider?  I've delved farther into this matter than you have.  I'm not expecting proof or disproof but a discussion of the facts at hand.  If no such facts exist, just say so.

I do not think that what counts as “facts” for Catholics meet your criteria of “facts”.

As I said, an understanding of how the Church arrived at its position is a good start.

It would be, if a person was really open to such understanding.

We can talk about how the Godhead operates. We know that prior to Jesus’ birth no one thought that God was more than one person of a Godhead.

This is a false statement.

Was there an understanding of God then that showed a need for there to be more than one person?

None of which I am aware. But a better question would be, why would a human “need” for there to be more persons in the Godhead be at all relevant?

After the second and third persons of the Godhead had been revealed as God, was there then an understanding of God that ruled out the need for a fourth person (or more) of the Godhead?

Yes.

Is it possible that a fourth person of God serves a function after we die that as of yet we do not understand?

No.

Is it possible that a fifth person of God serves a function after Jesus’ return that we as of yet do not understand?

No.

 

[guanophore]

There's a great deal that can be discussed when it comes to our understanding (or more accurately our lack of understanding) of the Godhead.

It does not appear to be so. When you invalidate the opposing position a priori, it is not conducive to discussion.

You have proposed falsehoods in this post. Is that conducive to discussion?

Nonbelievers are always told to leave the possiblity of God open, considering how much we don't know.  I ask believers to do the same about the Godhead, considering how much we don't know.

The fact that you do not accept our ways of knowing does not mean they don’t exist.

What has God revealed that says the number of persons in the Godhead simply can not be greater than 3?

Doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Actually, I didn’t say “game over.” I asked you about the standard of proof you proposed, suggesting that it was an unreasonable one and asking what you had to say about it.

Your sole point was that the Chruch said there were just 3 persons, and didn’t even explain why the Church said as much. It’s not saying game over, but it’s pretty close. I asked a series of questions to our understanding of God before and after the arrival of Jesus and if there was either a completeness or incompleteness in understanding in either case. That’s not a half-bad starting point.

What’s the standard of proof, then? I mean, for a historical event in antiquity, what’s the standard of proof?

I’m not talking about a point in antiquity. I’m talking about now. Right now you are saying there are exactly 3 persons in the Godhead. No more, and no less. Demonstrate that to be true. Release this tide of knowledge and understanding as to how the Trinity is said to work to say that it is impossible that there may be more than 3 persons. This knowledge and understanding is in the here and now. We don’t need to ask Marie Curie how radium works. We don’t need to ask any particular Biblical author how the Godhead works.

For the sake of argument I’m allowing that God can be multiple persons, separate from each other, who are all co-equal and co-eternal and who are all God. The only thing I’m not allowing is that there is a cap on the number of persons at 3. With all that being said, use the wealth of wisdom about the Godhead to show there can’t possibly be a fourth person.

Nah… you’re being far too dramatic. We don’t know how matter operates – and yet, we can talk about the fundamental particles of matter without saying “sorry… it’s all a mystery.”

We have, are, and will conduct expirements showing how matter operates. We know what we know not from someone saying it, but by demonstrating it. We also know that there is more than what we currently know. We didn’t rule out quarks or spacetime or the Higgs-Boson. There is still more to be discovered.

How can we demonstrate what we know about the Godhead? More importantly how can we demonstrate that there is simply no way for it to be more than a Trinity?

No – it shows a chain of evidence: that, from the time of the events themselves, these were the accounts that were written down (and which were assented to by the eyewitnesses to the events). You can claim that the history of the Gospel accounts is about ‘belief’… but it’s really about provenance.

Shall I consider the same provenance in dealing with other faiths, or is Christianity the special case?

If you want to deal with the text on its terms… well, you have to deal with it on its terms. The text asserts that Peter takes on certain authority – and it’s a historical matter that this authority made the claims that we’ve outlined here. Therefore, if you want to deal with the text in its own context, you inescapably reach the conclusion that the doctrine of the Trinity is a terminal doctrine.

I’m saying you could be wrong. I’m saying the Church could be wrong. I could be wrong. I’m hoping for a little more substance in the counterclaim than nuh-uh the Church is right.

As I said the passage often quoted in Matthew doesn’t rule out the possibility of there being more as-yet-unrevealed persons. Where does the Church infer that there can not be as-yet-unrevealed persons? How did it arrive at that conclusion? It doesn’t appear it came from the Bible.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

No, in this context, we’re talking about your (unsubstantiated) claims about ‘falsification’. Here, I’m pointing out that we can be confident that the Gospels haven’t been falsified. That’s all.

I see where the problem is. You misquoted me. In post 47 I wrote, “It’s also completely unprovable, unfalsifiable, and ultimately an empty assertion despite its imprtance.”. You responded by saying in part, “By the same standards, we can certainly assert that there hasn’t been any falsification of the passages.” Read my part again. I was talking about the assertion that the Chruch could not be incorrect in doctrinal matters. You turned that into an accusation that scripture was falsified, when that wasn’t what I was saying at all.

Unfalsifiable means that a statment can not be disproven. If I say I currently have a dog in the backseat of my car, you could take a look and see that is not the case. If I instead say I have a ghost in the backseat of my car, you can’t prove me wrong because the statement is unfalsifiable. The same is true of the statement that the Church is correct on all matters of doctrine. I wasn’t making a single claim of falsified gospels. I will be more careful to double check and make sure I’m being quoted accurately in the future.

And, just as soon as you do the kinds of things that Jesus did – miraculous healings, raisings of the dead, personal resurrection – and just as soon as you assemble a body of believers who disseminate your story and teachings, then we can talk about how your assertions aren’t just ‘empty.’ Until then, your Andromeda story is just a personal invention, and completely unlike the Gospels. So… nice try, but not at all relevant.

Speaking of unfalsifiable statements, I did all that Jesus did and more as ruler of the Andromeda galaxy. It’s very much like the gospels or the assertion that the Church is always right on doctirnal matters.

On the other hand, a discussion of the history of the Church’s story is precisely relevant to this forum’s MO.

It has a hand in it, but it can’t be the sole item to present for your case. If we want to use a religion’s history and documentation I can choose any of a multitude of monotheistic faiths with a single god; but that’s not what this forum is about. I find it far more interesting to show how in the one hand Christianity says it knows practically nothing of how God operates, but can claim with absolute certainty that what we don’t know doesn’t include an additional person or two of God – all without the ability to back up that certainty.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Perhaps so, but you want those possiblities only on your own terms.

When you say my terms, I’m guessing it’s an unwillingness to accept certain aspects of Christian doctrine without a demonstration that they are true. Correct me if I’m wrong.

If I’m not wrong, please show why should accept Christian doctrine on the nature of the deity and not the doctrine of other faiths.

Also as I noted above to Gorgias, for the sake of argument I’m allowing that God can be multiple persons, separate from each other, who are all co-equal and co-eternal and who are all God. The only thing I’m not allowing is that there is a cap on the number of persons at 3. With all that being said, use the wealth of wisdom about the Godhead to show there can’t possibly be a fourth person.

I guess this is where we differ. Your criteria of what you can accept as “knowledge” rules out what God has revealed about Himself.

More accurately it’s what an author of a book claims that God revealed about himself.

Catholics are confident that we can truly know because we can trust the Source of the truth that has been revealed.

Replace “truly know” with “assume” and replace “truth” with “assumption” and I would agree.

There are some possiblilites that are not ruled out on the basis of what has already been divinely revealed. More member so the Trinity is not one of those.

Outside of what, to me, appears to be a misreading of a passage in the Bible, please use the knowledge of the Godhead that Christianity currently holds to demonstrate that there can not be a fourth person in the Godhead.

I am not sure what you mean by “vast gaps in understanding”. Yes we can truly know some things that are beyond our finite human ability to comprehend.

I think an analogy might be in order. My day-to-day job I work on phone and internet service for various small to midsized businesses. I will get calls from people who may not be technically savvy. I will ask a serious of questions as to the layout of their network, their equipment, diagnostic steps taking, even non-technical things like what their phone numbers are when the issue started. Often enough those same people who know practically nothing as to how they operate from a technological standpoint will get quite angry when asked what have they checked on their end. “There’s NO WAY it’s a problem with our equipment!” In short, they can’t state with any certainty what is or is not going on with their work environment, but are ADAMANT as to what the problem is not. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong, but when they are right it’s by chance and not by anything resembling understanding.

The same thing here. Christians may be right, but when they say that how God operates is a mystery I can’t take their spiritual diagnostics as anything other than an unsupported assertion.

According to your limited and finite criteria of what qualifies as “verification”. It is empty for you because you cannot accept that Truth can exist beyond your limited ability to “test” it.

I find when truth is capitalized it’s rarely true. As I’ve said a few times now, orthodox Christianity might be true in stating that not only is there a God but that he consists of exactly persons. It’s just that assertions are a dime a dozen. How do we know what we claim to know? How can we show what we claim to know to be true? So far all the Trinitarians have are assertions – and those don’t even come from the Bible.

It seems that you have made yourself, and your own ability to “verify” the standard of what can be determined as Truth. This is what I mean by hubris. The creature makes himself to be the divine standard.

As I noted in my first response to you, I accept that I might be wrong. Those who rule out a fourth person of the God absolutely refuse to admit they might be wrong despite not being to demonstrate how the Godhead operates. Allowing that I might be in error is the opposite of hubris. A person steadfastly not allowing for the slightest possibility of error and with no way to back up said steadfastness is hubris.

Only for those who refuse to accept the evidence that does exist. The evidence apparently does not meet your own personal divine standards.

It would be more correct to say that the evidence that is pursuasive for me does not meet your divine standards.

What is that evidence? I am clamoring for anything apart from the Church states that God is exactly three persons.