Why must God be only three persons?

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

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?

That’s not evidence. That’s the Church making a declarative statement. Where does the Church show (and not just state) that there can not be more than three persons in the Godhead?

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,

Assuming truth is not capital-t Truth then I agree. I’m looking for things that can be shown to be true.

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.

But even apart from science, from a philosophical standpoint I have not seen anyone show that God can’t be five or six persons. If such a philisophical proof exists I’m eager to read it. If no such proof exists then we’re just back to empty assertions.

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.

Certainty is not truth. The woman who hangs out in front of the convenience store near me may be convinced that she’s being spied on by the CIA, but it doesn’t necessarily make it true.

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.

I am in no way asking you to stop believing in the Trinity; but this is a discussion forum. We need something to chew our teeth on besides one person or one group being really, really, really, really sure.

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

Once again assuming and unwarranted certainty are not in the same league as knowing.

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

No, what I said was that there needs to be a consensus on what the statement means, not a consensus as to whether it is true or not. The statement in question has a different meaning to Protestants than to Catholics. Both parties could say that it is true and think different things. When there is a consensus on the statement only then is it worth it to discuss whether it is true.

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

I’m not sure why you are calling my standards “divine standards”. Mine are rational in nature. And it has not shown to be true, merely asserted loudly and often without a smidgen of support.

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.

Perhaps a link to this understanding which rules out additional as-yet-to-be-revealed persons would help edify us,

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.

Yes, they have been believed for a long time. The Jews have believed that the Messiah has not arrived yet, and they’ve believed that for an even longer time. The length of one’s belief in something is not necessarily a measure of its accuracy.

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

You are free to believe what you will. I’m hoping to get a discussion of what we can and can’t say about the Godhead through knowledge and demonstration. Your belief has been noted.

This is also false.

Show a person who at the time said that God was many persons and not just one.

This much is clear from reading your posts.

At least I think I’m one person

It seems to me that this discussion can’t go very far beyond that, since you have rejected what the Church believes is true.

I haven’t rejected what it teaches so much as not been convinced by the non-evidence.

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?

I am willing to alter my position the more convincing the evidence that is presented to me. So far all we have is the Church making a statement without backing support including the Bible. Show me more and I’ll take it in.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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?

Perhaps if the Church explains how it came to its position I would be more willing to accept it as truth. One thing I learned from my old school days: Show your work.

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.

Again with the divine standards. I think you should actually show me those steps before you assess my character and say that I wouldn’t accept them. If there were philosophical proofs, or references to scripture that I’m not aware of, etc I might be more accepting of it then what (at this point) seems to be a claim from whole cloth.

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

That’s not necessarily the case, but so far the one alleged fact I’ve seen is that the Church asserts the Godhead is a Trinity.

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

I can’t stress this enough. Again, show me those steps before you lay claim that I won’t accept them.

This is a false statement.

Show a person who at the time said that God was many persons and not just one.

None of which I am aware.

Good.

But a better question would be, why would a human “need” for there to be more persons in the Godhead be at all relevant?

When I say need I “need” it’s in man’s constant effort to try and understand his creator. When contemplating God did people see that a single personed God was lacking in being able to do what he needed to do. Remember, God is said to be divinely simple so there would not be more to God than what is needed. The answer to my question could then be extrapolated to modern-day, as we wonder if there is more to contemplate about God and if more persons are necessary. In doing all this we must know how much we don’t know.

Yes.

Where and how did we determine a cap at three persons of the Godhead?

No.

Why not? When considering that think as to why The Holy Spirit is necessary. Does he fulfill some purpose that can’t be accomplished by either of the other two persons?

No.

Why not? Couldn’t the Lion of Judah be a person of God not-yet-revealed?

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

I haven’t invalidated the opposing position beforehand. I most certainly haven’t invalidated any evidence since I haven’t been presented with any.

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

What have I stated falsely? Be specific.

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

Let’s just start with how you know about the Godhead, what it is and isn’t. How was that derived?

As I noted a few times now, I’m not saying you can’t be true as to the nature of God, I just want you to show your work so we can discuss them.

Doctrine of the Trinity.

It’s a circle! How was the doctirne of the trinity determined?

 

[Vico]

… How was the doctirne of the trinity determined?

Based on Mt. 28:19, the oldest authoritative formulation of the Church’s doctrine of belief in the Trinity is the Apostle’s Creed. Several councils defined it and defended it against heresies.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Based on Mt. 28:19, the oldest authoritative formulation of the Church’s doctrine of belief in the Trinity is the Apostle’s Creed. Several councils defined it and defended it against heresies.

I brought up that passage earlier. It doesn’t limit the Godhead to just three persons, in the same way when God the Father refers only to himself in the Old Testament he’s not saying that he’s the only person of God.

 

[tonyrey]

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…

Reasonable people don’t waste time and energy making negative assertions unless there is an cogent argument to support them! The principle of economy is applicable. (Occam’s Razor)

 

[Vico]

I brought up that passage earlier. It doesn’t limit the Godhead to just three persons, in the same way when God the Father refers only to himself in the Old Testament he’s not saying that he’s the only person of God.

The passage alone is not the entire reason; there is more to what I posted, *even if *I agreed about the scripture.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Reasonable people don’t waste time and energy making negative assertions unless there is an cogent argument to support them! The principle of economy is applicable. (Occam’s Razor)

Occam’s razor would seem to preference an absolutely unitary God over a trinity God. No matter how you hack it, three is more complex than one.

Mike from NJ’s point is excellent. The various definitions of God as three persons could easily be understood as tacitly or implicitly defining God as at least three persons rather than only three persons. This mirrors the logic allowing Christians to claim that God’s repeated declarations of absolutely unique unity and singularity in the Torah can be understood as an incomplete revelation. Why should we suppose the Christian era’s understanding of God’s nature so far is totally complete, if God is in the habit of giving radically incomplete revelations of his identity, or his people are capable of a radical misunderstandings lasting thousands of years?

 

[guanophore]

Your sole point was that the Chruch said there were just 3 persons, and didn’t even explain why the Church said as much.

The Church has a responsibility to hold and teach what God has revealed as True. This is part of the once for all divine deposit of faith.

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.

The methods by which we know this to be true do not meet your own divine standards of how truth can be verified.

Release this tide of knowledge and understanding as to how the Trinity is said to work

We can only speak to that part of the mystery that has been revealed to us. Though we know sufficient to accomplish our salvation, the majoirity of the mystery is beyond the grasm of our finite minds.

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.

What Marie Curie taught was true. What the Biblical authores and Councils have declared is true. Why should we reject this truth? Can you prove that what was declared at the Council of Nicea in 325 is false, or needs to be changed somehow?

In 1492 Columbus came to America. He had been looking for India but missed.
There is no evidence that exists between that day and this that the facts of the situation need to be “updated” or changed, or found to be untrue.

 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.

This has already been done. Your refusal to accept it does not negate that it exists.

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.

Yes there is still much that science can discover.

But we expect no futher public revelation of God by Himself unitl the second coming.

Science falls short of the ability to discover and validate spiritual realities.

How can we demonstrate what we know about the Godhead?

Scientifically, this may never happen. God is beyond the limitations of science.

 More importantly how can we demonstrate that there is simply no way for it to be more than a Trinity?

For those who accept what God has revealed about Himself, this has already been demonstrated. I do not think it is possible for science to demonstrate it.

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.

Jesus promised that He would not allow His Church to fall into error. We trust the Giver of the promise, so we believe the promise is true.

What is “substance” for us I think has little or no value to you, so your hopes are not likely to be fulfilled.

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.

It has roots in Scripture, and the Apostolic teachings. The Church determined this through a revelation from God. It took several centuries to “arrive at” , proclaim, define,a nd dogmatize it.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Doctrines of the Church are based in and consistent with the Scripture, including the assertion that the Church cannot err in matters of faith and doctrine.

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.

One has to wonder why you have such a strong need to falisfy it.

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.

Perhaps, except that we can trust the Source not to misrepresent the Truth.

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.

Our abililty to back up our certainty does not meet your own divine standards. That does not negate it’s sufficiency for us.

Christianity knows everything needed for our salvation about how God operates. What we know about God will always be limited because we are limited creatures.

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.

You have rejected other epistemological approaches to how we can know what is true in favor of your own.

Therefore you reject assertions of what is “true” that are determined through other methods.

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.

I not in a position to tell you what you should do, but based upon your choices, it would seem that you would need to reject all faith based approaches for the same reason.

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.

This does not seem to be a very rational position. You have no proof that there is a God, that there are any number of persons within said unverifiable God, or anything about the nature of that God. Why begin a discussion based on so many unverifiable foundations? What is the point?

With all that being said, use the wealth of wisdom about the Godhead to show there can’t possibly be a fourth person.

This would be an awesome peice of homework, professor. I sure wish I had the wealth and wisdom of the Godhead at my disposal!

Such an assignment presuposes access to information unavailable to your hapless student.

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

This reinforced my point above abouttrying to have a discussion based on a premise that you do not consider valid. What is the point? If you do not accept the truth of what has already been posited, it is not likely you will be able to accept anything based upon it.

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

Exactly. What Catholics accept as divine truth, you consider to be assumptions. That does not seem to leave much basis for discussion. One has to wonder what your goal is here at CAF.

 

[guanophore]

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 would not take on this assignment even if I thought it would have a beneficial effect for you, which I do not. You have already rejected the sources of Truth that Catholics accept, and now you are encouraging us to round up an argument that you have informed us in advance will be unacceptable. Maybe someone here has the motivation and interest to run around in circles for your amusement?

Volumes and volumes have been written on the Trinity. I doubt anyone here at CAF can do better.

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.

Mystery does not mean that there are no facts or evidence involved. It just means that the whole picture is beyond the capability of our limited human faculties.

Besides, true believers have peace that surpasses understanding, and will not be annoyed with you when you ask for help.

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.

They do come from the Bible, but even more, from the person of Christ. It is good that you are questioning how we can know things. You just seem to be liminted in what you can accept about ways of knowing.

If something “true” was revealed to you in a dream, could you verify it?

  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.

You are right. We know what God has revealed is true, even though we may not understand all the workings behind it. It is not necessary for us to “demonstrate how the Godhead operates” in order to believe what we have been told, because we can trust the Source.

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.

In truth, ,you are not really accepting that you may be wrong. You would only accept that if the “proof” somehow met your own divine standards of verification, which divine truth will not likely do in this case, so you are safe.

Hubris is something that is based in human ego. The truths that God has revealed about Himself are based on what He has decided to disclose, not ourselves. It is for us to accept or reject them.

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

For what purpose? Why do you care whaat the Chruch states?

What is the goal of clamoring?

Can you not find contentment in your own divine standards of what is verifiable, and leave the church our of it? The Church does not, and will not, ever meet your standards. Clamoring about it won’t change anything.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Occam’s razor would seem to preference an absolutely unitary God over a trinity God. No matter how you hack it, three is more complex than one.

…

On this specific point, Tony Rey referred to Occam’s razor in reference to negative assertions. The principle of economy is not about denying complexity when real, or that things can have multiple causes which they can, it’s aimed against something completely different - the tendency to claim that things that are related in some way (of various ways) are not related in any way at all. I.e it asks us to admit that there can be common causes among results or effects to some extent in some ways.

… there is indeed a generation but we must understand that this is eternal, not in time.

The Father is ungenerated.
The Son is generated from the Father.
The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

From this it would appear that it is part of being Father that they come from Him, all along, in other words none including the Father can exist without the others.

(No person of any kind needs to become an extra person to have a relationship with himself, it is already inherent. Sometimes, if we human beings have an under-grown personality, it can look like a very deliberate process to “acquire” this relationship! To be a person of any kind is to not be truly destined to isolation, the potential to relate is emphatically present however much - for some humans - apparently negated.)

The number three is representative. (There is also an extremely rich language of numbers in the Bible.)

The Bible isn’t meant to be taken literally literally (note the care with which that is said).

By helping Mike with this he needn’t have been “backed” into a “corner” affording a “convenient cause” of attack by some.

In three, there is room for the other other.

Hence, there may be a sense in which we don’t “need” “more than three”.

Jesus said that when He ascends to His Father, He will send another Paraclete-Comforter-Advocate.

Being giving from before ever, He creates, a form of giving. From His creation come His adopted sons and daughters (productive and responsible heirs in His profitable business of nurturing others’ gifts) and His Bride (as in the last 21 verses of Proverbs).

They are not exactly navel-gazers.

Also, Abraham saw three men. (Off the cuff I’m not sure why only two went off )

 

[lemondiesel]

Any more persons and I may start to argue polytheism.

Three persons keeps it simple. God is the creation. He experienced first hand his own creation. He then gave all of mankind faith, with the choice to deny.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Guanophore, I’ve taken the liberty to group your latest responses to me into certain categories to limit me repeating myself.

HOW THE CHURCH KNOWS WHAT IT KNOWS

It has roots in Scripture, and the Apostolic teachings. The Church determined this through a revelation from God. It took several centuries to “arrive at” , proclaim, define,a nd dogmatize it

You are right. We know what God has revealed is true, even though we may not understand all the workings behind it. It is not necessary for us to “demonstrate how the Godhead operates” in order to believe what we have been told, because we can trust the Source.

The Church has a responsibility to hold and teach what God has revealed as True. This is part of the once for all divine deposit of faith.

The methods by which we know this to be true do not meet your own divine standards of how truth can be verified.

Doctrines of the Church are based in and consistent with the Scripture, including the assertion that the Church cannot err in matters of faith and doctrine.

Christianity knows everything needed for our salvation about how God operates. What we know about God will always be limited because we are limited creatures.

We can only speak to that part of the mystery that has been revealed to us. Though we know sufficient to accomplish our salvation, the majoirity of the mystery is beyond the grasm of our finite minds.

Mystery does not mean that there are no facts or evidence involved. It just means that the whole picture is beyond the capability of our limited human faculties.

Perhaps, except that we can trust the Source not to misrepresent the Truth.

Jesus promised that He would not allow His Church to fall into error. We trust the Giver of the promise, so we believe the promise is true.

Most of what I’m about to say I’ve already said, but it can’t hurt to put it all in one place.

• I fully acknowledge that there are plenty of things that are true which have yet to be explained and some which may never be explained.
• The Church may be correct in its position on God and the Godhead.
• I understand that the Catholic Church teaches that it can not be incorrect in matters of faith and doctrine. It should also be noted that there are a great many Christians who agree with the Church’s understanding of the Trinity yet at the same time complete disagree with the notion that the Church is always correct regarding doctrine.
• The Godhead can neither be proven nor disproven.

Before we begin I’ll ask why your faith should have a “truth” just accepted when you would not do the same for other faiths. This is called special pleading where your threshold for acceptability varies greatly depending on whether it supports your existing belief or not. Just as I won’t accept without reasoning the Allah is the one true god and that Mohammed is his messenger, I won’t accept without reasoning that the Catholic Church is always right on matters of faith and doctrine.

Now with all that being said you noted that the Church took several centuries to arrive at and dogmatize this position on the Trinity. Are there any Church writings that can be looked at which not only state there are only three persons in the Godhead but show the reasoning behind such a statement? Clearly if this was being hammered out over centuries various parties must have had reasoning to feel this was so. All I’m asking is for the reasoning, which I think is not much to ask in a discussion forum.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

WHY IT IS CLAIMED I WILL JUST DISMISS ANY EVIDENCE BEING HELD BACK

In truth, ,you are not really accepting that you may be wrong. You would only accept that if the “proof” somehow met your own divine standards of verification, which divine truth will not likely do in this case, so you are safe.

Hubris is something that is based in human ego. The truths that God has revealed about Himself are based on what He has decided to disclose, not ourselves. It is for us to accept or reject them.

This has already been done. Your refusal to accept it does not negate that it exists.

Therefore you reject assertions of what is “true” that are determined through other methods.

I not in a position to tell you what you should do, but based upon your choices, it would seem that you would need to reject all faith based approaches for the same reason.

You have rejected other epistemological approaches to how we can know what is true in favor of your own.

What is “substance” for us I think has little or no value to you, so your hopes are not likely to be fulfilled.

They do come from the Bible, but even more, from the person of Christ. It is good that you are questioning how we can know things. You just seem to be liminted in what you can accept about ways of knowing.

Our abililty to back up our certainty does not meet your own divine standards. That does not negate it’s sufficiency for us.

First of all, you keep referring to my “divine standards”. Twice in my last responses to you I asked what that meant, since it’s hard for me to think anything I do is divine. So I’ll ask again what you mean by “divine standards”.

Second, as I noted above I am not saying the Catholic Church can’t be correct as to the nature of the Trinity, but I do want to know why they have come to the conclusion that they have. Instead of providing that information you cast aspersions as to my ability to understand, my willingness to investigate evidence, and my very reasoning ability itself. Wouldn’t it be so much simpler to provide this thought process that was honed over the centuries instead of denying any reference to it and claim I wouldn’t consider it? It seems to me that if such understanding is available then a philosophical proof, a quick summary, even a link could be easily accomplished. The more and more avoiding of providing the basis of this theological conclusion the more I suspect that it might be baseless. Show me where I am mistaken by providing reasons instead of unsupported assertions.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

WHY I WANT TO KNOW

Exactly. What Catholics accept as divine truth, you consider to be assumptions. That does not seem to leave much basis for discussion. One has to wonder what your goal is here at CAF.

What is the goal of clamoring?

For what purpose? Why do you care whaat the Chruch states?

Can you not find contentment in your own divine standards of what is verifiable, and leave the church our of it? The Church does not, and will not, ever meet your standards. Clamoring about it won’t change anything.

One has to wonder why you have such a strong need to falisfy it.

I possess intellectual curiosity. I wish to know what I can and to understand what others think, even if I disagree with them. I am also a puzzle solver. My bathroom has a box filled with puzzles books and issue of Games Magazine. In solving puzzles sometimes the best part is figuring out how to know what to write and what not to write in certain parts. I know I can’t put in X in this box, because then that would mean three Os in this column.

This all relates to what is essentially a puzzle: Christianity can admit to a lack of knowledge while at the same time ruling out with absolute certainty what might fill that lack of knowledge. When a similar situation comes up in a puzzle, we have reasons for ruling out certain entries. Christianity (as far as I can tell) has no such reasoning. What’s more it admits that there was only a partial understanding before, there is a partial understanding for the forseeable future, but can’t show what foundation of understanding it uses to admit a certain type of limited understanding.

To deflect the questions I’m asking by questioning my motives doesn’t help the fact that my very pertinent questions seem to go repeatedly unanswered.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I would not take on this assignment even if I thought it would have a beneficial effect for you, which I do not. You have already rejected the sources of Truth that Catholics accept, and now you are encouraging us to round up an argument that you have informed us in advance will be unacceptable. Maybe someone here has the motivation and interest to run around in circles for your amusement?

I don’t find this amusing. I just want answers, the kind that other posters on CAF seem to get in great abundance. The question of a four person Godhead appears to be real stumper for the panel.

What Marie Curie taught was true. What the Biblical authores and Councils have declared is true. Why should we reject this truth? Can you prove that what was declared at the Council of Nicea in 325 is false, or needs to be changed somehow?

You’re missing the point. I said that we don’t need to ask Marie Curie about radium is because her knowledge and understanding has not only been passed on through many generations but also expanded upon. Where in the Council of Nicea does it show why we are to believe that there are no persons in the Godhead beyond the three already revealed? In the many books and articles written about the Council of Nicea (or any Church discussion) are there any that explains the reasoning behind the decision?

If something “true” was revealed to you in a dream, could you verify it?

It depends on the something. The trick is that we don’t use the dream to verify if something is true, but actual logic and reasoning. If I dreamed that my dad won a contest for a cruise, the way it’s verified is by me calling my dad and saying, “Hey, Dad! I had a dream you won a cruise.” And he’d say, “That’s weird. I did win a cruise.” There are all sorts of dreams that are false. There are few that are true. They can be true, but we certainly don’t assume they are true. What kind of reasoning or investigating could be done to show that Christianity’s position on the Trinity is true?

But we expect no futher public revelation of God by Himself unitl the second coming.

This is something I mentioned earlier. It helps support my point greatly. There is more to be revealed – perhaps a fourth person of the Godhead!

Volumes and volumes have been written on the Trinity. I doubt anyone here at CAF can do better.

I think many people on CAF could do better, assuming such reasoning exists out there. As I said earlier, a philosophical proof, a quick summary of the reasoning, or a link to said reasoning is better than nothing.

This would be an awesome peice of homework, professor. I sure wish I had the wealth and wisdom of the Godhead at my disposal!

Your professor is failing you. You don’t write an assertion in a term paper in middle school without something to back it up. And you said yourself that this was discussed for centuries. Surely at least one person in all that time pondered why there could or couldn’t be a fourth person.

This does not seem to be a very rational position. You have no proof that there is a God, that there are any number of persons within said unverifiable God, or anything about the nature of that God. Why begin a discussion based on so many unverifiable foundations? What is the point?

That’s religion for ya!
Seriously, the reason I am allowing that for arguments sake is because there are generally two arguments often used against the Trinity:

1. That a multi-person God is unworkable, impossible, etc.
2. That either the second or third person of the Trinity isn’t really God.
   Asking about the possibility of there being more than three persons avoids those arguments and focuses on what Christianity can definitively say about the Godhead (or more accurately what it must admit it can’t say definitively).

Besides, true believers have peace that surpasses understanding, and will not be annoyed with you when you ask for help.

It seems understanding has depreciated in value. Don’t think about it to hard and just accept it. I’d rather try to increase my understanding instead of giving it up for fear of not having answers.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The passage alone is not the entire reason; there is more to what I posted, *even if *I agreed about the scripture.

Can you direct me to those other reasons?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Reasonable people don’t waste time and energy making negative assertions unless there is an cogent argument to support them! The principle of economy is applicable. (Occam’s Razor)

But guanophore said this was part of what was discussed for centuries. What about my argument isn’t cogent? Maybe you can be the one to answer the questions that the OP, Pumpkin Cookie, and I have been asking.

Besides determining what something isn’t can be just as helpful as determining what something is. Discussion like this always has the potential to be greatly fruitful.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Occam’s razor would seem to preference an absolutely unitary God over a trinity God. No matter how you hack it, three is more complex than one.

Absolutely! Now if it could said that only person 1 could do function A and so on then it makes sense that a unitary God is impossible and a trinity God is the simplest form possible. But so far we haven’t been shown anything like that.

Mike from NJ’s point is excellent. The various definitions of God as three persons could easily be understood as tacitly or implicitly defining God as at least three persons rather than only three persons. This mirrors the logic allowing Christians to claim that God’s repeated declarations of absolutely unique unity and singularity in the Torah can be understood as an incomplete revelation. Why should we suppose the Christian era’s understanding of God’s nature so far is totally complete, if God is in the habit of giving radically incomplete revelations of his identity, or his people are capable of a radical misunderstandings lasting thousands of years?

You are far better at this whole brevity and clarity thing than me

 

[guanophore]

That’s not evidence. That’s the Church making a declarative statement. Where does the Church show (and not just state) that there can not be more than three persons in the Godhead?

You are right that the Church has made a declarative statement. But the declaration was based on evidence. The declaration itself confirms that there are only three persons. This was derived from the history of God’s revelation of Himself to humanity, beginning with Adam and Eve. Jesus Himself told us that “salvation is from the Jews”, so Christianity is based on the foundation of Judaism. Although the references to the Trinity are hidden in the OT, they are present, and Jesus, who is the fullness of God’s revelation of Himself, revealed the Trinity.

I know that none of this really matters to you, since God’s revelation of Himself does not meet your standards of evidence. I am writing this for others who might be reading the thread.

Assuming truth is not capital-t Truth then I agree.  I'm looking for things that can be shown to be true.

Exactly. You are thinking that science, or your rules of “evidence” as a finite reality can be applied to the infinite. In addition, you reject even basic human phenomena that does not fit into your rigid parameters. This just limits what you can know.

But even apart from science, from a philosophical standpoint I have not seen anyone show that God can’t be five or six persons. If such a philisophical proof exists I’m eager to read it. If no such proof exists then we’re just back to empty assertions.

I think you will find that most philosophical speculations cannot be validated by science. Therefore, philosophy does not meet your standards for “proof” either.

For you, declarations from the Church about what is True are “empty”, because you do not trust the Source. For those of us who can trust the Source, they are life, and freedom.

Certainty is not truth. The woman who hangs out in front of the convenience store near me may be convinced that she’s being spied on by the CIA, but it doesn’t necessarily make it true.

It makes it true for her! Have you never studied phenomenology?

Adherance to your standards of verification is something that is true for you, but not for those of us that embrace the Catholic faith. Is there any difference?

I am in no way asking you to stop believing in the Trinity; but this is a discussion forum. We need something to chew our teeth on besides one person or one group being really, really, really, really sure.

The real question is, why do YOU NEED this? Since you have rejected our position a priori, why discuss? How does it benefit you personally to “chew” on something besides other people’s faith? You seem to need something your science has not provided for you.

Once again assuming and unwarranted certainty are not in the same league as knowing.

Mike, for you, the Teachings of Jesus may be “assumptions” and “unwarranted certainty” but for those of us that know HIm, this is not the case. Statements such as this only make it clear that what you are yearning for, perhaps in every fiber of your being, is an experience of the risen Christ.

No, what I said was that there needs to be a consensus on what the statement means, not a consensus as to whether it is true or not.

This is still false. God’s revelation of Himself to humanity is not a matter of “consensus”. He is the author of Truth, whether every human being rejects it! The Kingdom of God is a Theocracy, not a democracy.

By what standard do you determine that “there needs to be a consensus”? Is this just another of your home made standards of validation?