Why must God be only three persons?

[Mike_from_NJ]

I would say that most Christians, especially Catholics, are poorly equipped to defend their faith. And even those that are well prepared will be unable to provide an adequate defense to one who disallows their evidence.

Where is that evidence that you claim is true? (That’s two.)

No one will be able to answer this to your satisfaction, since you do not accept as “evidence” the reasoning upon which this doctrine is based.

Where is that evidence that you claim is true? (That’s three.)

I think I have made it clear that I am unwilling to approach this “trick”. I am persuaded that it would be an exercise with no beneficial outome for either of us.

How nefarious a plan and how fiendish a mind I must possess for asking questions about Catholicism on a site where one asks questions about Catholicism!

Beleive me, I taken the same stance with many fundamentalists on CAF. Pulling together and providing evidence that one knows will not be accepted by the enquirer has limited value.

Is the OP a fundamentalist? Is PumpkinCookie a fundamentalist? Is everyone who follows the thread who might be interested in this issue a fundamentalist?

Why not? You are created in the image and likeness of God. Part of this is that you have been given free will. You can choose for yourself what you want to believe.

Then why do you expect me to accept a teaching of the Church without knowing the reasoning behind it?

You have already been given an answer, Mike. You just can’t accept it. I am sorry it is difficult for you. I will pray for you.

Where is that evidence that you claim is true? (That’s four.)

This is one of the great beauties of Catholicism. In most cases, the answer is “both”.

Monty Python:

Larry: Right you. The one in the middle, what do you think?
Second Yes Man: (panic) Er… er…
Larry: Come on!
Second Writer: Splunge.
Larry: Did he say splunge?
First and Third Yes Men: Yes.
Larry: What does splunge mean?
Second Yes Men: It means … it’s a great-idea-but-possibly-not-and-I’m-not-being-indecisive!

This is what I mean by your epistemological model being limiting. Both are true. Intellect is involved. Intellect alone is insufficient.

If intellect is a part it, describe that intellectual part. It’s better than nothing.

I read in one of your posts above that you have already read several books on the Trinity. Perhaps you might consider checking their contents again as a refresher?

Where is that evidence that you claim is true? (That’s five.)

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Well, you cant’ rule it out because you cannot accept what God has revealed.

And for the same reason, you cannot accept what the Scripture says on this matter (that a future revelation will not be forthcoming).

I’ve already shown repeatedly that more revelation can come after Jesus returns. Also that it only concerns public revelation, which doesn’t count revelation that might come to people after they’ve died.

They why has already been referenced and rejected as “assumption”.

No, the “why” wasn’t referenced. It merely states that the Church believes there are three persons in the Godhead. You stated that the Church believes there are three persons in the Godhead. Neither you nor the creed has given the reasoning behind that belief.

Certainly it would not be logical to expect a satisfactory answer from a person who had not done the research, would it?

By that reasoning (and I use the term loosely) anyone who asks a question on a matter they have studied but don’t know perfectly should not expect an answer. That’s not a great way to advance understanding, and it’s a fairly silly way to dodge a question.

You have made it clear from the outset that there is no way for you to 'know" this. Since the Church bases her teachings on what has been revealed by God, and this is not a logical or rational source (in your world), no one will be able to make an adequate case to satisfy you.

Where is that evidence that you claim is true? (That’s six – just in this round of posts alone!)

I hope and pray that you will have an encounter with the living God that persuades you that logic and reason can only take a person so far, then they must make a leap of faith.

Can you instead pray that someone forthright will come on board and provide the references asked for? The A is CAF doesn’t stand for Avoidance.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Within that Word of God is the fact that there was a once for all divine deposit of faith made to the Church from which we are not at liberty to subtract and to which we are not at liberty to add.

Those who reject the teachings of the Apostles to plenty of adding and subtracting.

It’s not adding and subtracting, just a more precise understanding based on the revelation at the time. When Jesus returns we will not be adding to scripture but getting a more precise reading of it. It’s no different than the leap from the Old to New Testaments did not render the Old Testament incorrect, but read with more understanding.

Such a statement rules out certain passages of the OT that apply to the Messiah.

Such passages as…?

Indeed yes. You and the Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah can invent as many persons to be part of the Godhead as you wish.

Not invent but merely allow that we don’t tell God how and when he will reveal himself to us, but trust that he knows what is best for us to know at any time

If you only find this twice in your OT, we must be reading a very different collection of books. :sad_yes:

The term Holy Spirit only appears twice in the Old Testament (Isiah 63:10 and Psalms 51:11) although terms like “Spirit of God” appear several times in the Old Testament.

It is clearly very difficult to wrap our limited human minds around divine mysteries.

But yet you claim to have absolute certainty.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

To me the most important aspect is that He is more than two, there is room for the other other (as per my post 71).

And really that’s the crux of what I’ve droned on and on about. I’m not trying to disprove the Godhead or state that any of the three persons are not a part of it. I’m just saying that it’s important to say that if there is much we don’t know about God then it’s only right to leave possibilities open as to his nature.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Hold it right there…this presupposes that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are lacking in wisdom and need a 4th.

This is an incorrect articulation of the truth.

When there was the 3rd Person (and this “when” is only used for our limited human language. In the eternity of the Trinity there is no “when”, but I use it only to be able to articulate the concept), the Godhead was perfect and complete.

Nothing more needs to be added.

Else, it’s not God, right? (Channeling St. Anselm here).

How do we show that a 3 person Godhead is perfect and complete?
How at the time before the birth of Jesus could it be shown that the 1 person Godhead was imperfect and incomplete?

While I certainly agree that in general 3 is a magic number (and that you should always unpack your adjectives) we need to know why it’s perfect in the context of deity.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… I won’t accept without reasoning that the Catholic Church is always right on matters of faith and doctrine.

Nobody should at all, nor should they do so without the other essential ingredients as well (see below).

… 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?

Please see the rest of my 71, which is Scripture based. As we already said the “only” aspect of the thing is not as watertight logically as some may think because it doesn’t need to be. Three is representative because it is more than two - when it is more than two it is outgoing.

… All I’m asking is for the reasoning, which I think is not much to ask in a discussion forum.

Just as putting their name on a cheque isn’t solely about publicity seeking but it has to be productive behaviour (not bounce when it is banked), so the reasoning has to be backed up when it is given, by behaviour that can work for the hearer - a Son who indwells and a Holy Spirit who powers. Without the outgoingness the whole thing is pointless. Bit by bit I saw the purpose of my history and the attitude of my companions melted my heart (in zigzag fashion). Thus I realised these things illustrated the theology and the doctrine.

 

[PRmerger]

xxx

Hi, Vic.

Do me a favor and on post # 146, hit “quote” and try to reply to your own post.

See what happens.

Do you see how it makes it difficult to respond?

Please try to learn how to post properly so others can respond appropriately to your posts, should they care to.

Heck, it will even help you respond to your own posts should you care to.

Thanks.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

It’s possible there may be technical faults, but I don’t understand them.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s possible there may be technical faults, but I don’t understand them.

Not technical faults.

If you use the technology correctly, it works just fine.

Look here to learn:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19771

 

[clem456]

None of this can be proven in the way the modern mind demands.

But:
Three things come to mind.
God is love.
God is simple.
God is omnipotent.

God is loving relationship. That means an exchange between “persons”.

God is simple. In his simplicity, more than two definitive and essential persons is absurd.

The power of that love is a person itself. God is not just any two persons, he has a unitive and creative power that is personal.

We have no way of proving this. However, Christians believe that God’s creation proclaims and expresses the truth of his nature.
We also believe that human beings are made “imago dei”, in the image of God. Not as an idol of him, and not as the same essence as him, but as a true expression and sign of how he is.

So human nature is a sign of God’s nature. The maleness and femaleness of human beings is the primordial sign of how God is.

Two persons, radically giving themselves, bring forth a third.

 

[clem456]

The Unwillingness/Inability to Provide the Reasoning

This has all the earmarks of the “girlfriend from Canada” scenario. For those of you who were not raised in the United States or who may be too young to remember a world before social media, let me explain. As teenagers are sometimes wont to do they will not want others to think they are without a boyfriend/girlfriend. In doing so they may claim to be in a relationship but need to explain why no one has seen this person with their alleged partner. The person may claim that the partner goes to another school or nearby town, but that can complicate things. Saying the girlfriend is from Canada means that it’s not so exotic that it seems unlikely, not so close that it can be easily checked out, and not so far away that it seems they would never meet up semi-regularly.

With each and every post that claims both

1. That the evidence/reasoning as to there being a limit on 3 persons is out there.
2. That I can’t be told what this evidence is

makes me think that the possibility of such evidence being out there is that much less likely.

At some point the teenager who claims that he visits Monique in Ottawa every month should be able to produce a photo of her and him together.
At some point the people who claim that it was reasoned that God is no more than three persons should be able to produce that reasoning.

This has all the earmarks of the “everything I can’t see or understand doesn’t exist” scenario.
Because after all, theoretical physics is…theoretical, and therefore we should refuse to accept it, or even consider it.
Likewise, love. Doesn’t exist.
Human dignity. Doesn’t exist.
Can’t touch it, prove it.
Nothing.

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve already shown repeatedly that more revelation can come after Jesus returns.

Somehow, I missed that. Wait – are you talking about the unsubstantiated assertion that, just as there was more revelation after the O.T., there could be more revelation now or in the future? You realize, of course, that you’re doing precisely what you’re accusing us of, right – of making an assertion without any evidence to back it up?

Also that it only concerns public revelation, which doesn’t count revelation that might come to people after they’ve died.

Again, using the standard of evidence that you demand of us, show us the evidence for the assertion of ‘post-mortem revelation’!

No, the “why” wasn’t referenced. It merely states that the Church believes there are three persons in the Godhead. You stated that the Church believes there are three persons in the Godhead. Neither you nor the creed has given the reasoning behind that belief.

Of course the creed doesn’t “give the reasoning”! It’s a Creed, not a history lecture!

But, so that you might stop saying that no one’s answering your question, here’s the explanation – it doesn’t rely on empirical evidence, per se, of course (but that’s the wrong standard of evidence, anyway):

• Christ told His apostles that the Church He was founding would be led by Peter and the apostles, and whatever they held here on earth, would likewise be accepted in heaven. (Mt 16:19).
• Moreover, Christ promised that ‘the gates of hell’ would not prevail over the Church He founded (Mt 16:18). We reason that, inasmuch as an incorrect statement of doctrine – which would mislead the Church in its beliefs – would amount to hell prevailing over the Church, therefore we conclude that the Church cannot pronounce doctrine in faith and morals in error.
• Christ promised that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide us and help lead us into the truth about Jesus (John 15:26, John 14:16-17)
• One of the apostles’ first decisions was that the ministry of ‘apostle’ was not to die with them, but was to be passed on in succession to others (the ‘successors of the apostles’ who would later be known as ‘bishops’) in order to continue the ministry of leadership and accurate teaching of doctrine (Acts 1:15-26)
• One of the teachings of the magisterium (which are protected from error) is that public revelation ended with the death of the last living apostle (cf Dei verbum #4, which states that Jesus “completes the work of salvation … [and] perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself present and manifesting Himself. … The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation.”

We could get into another debate – on the reliability of the Scriptures, but there you have it: an explanation of why we believe what we believe.

Where is that evidence that you claim is true? (That’s six – just in this round of posts alone!)

You’re asking for documentation of the reasoning behind the doctrinal definitions, or the process by which it came to pass? Sure – look in any of the contemporary accounts of the council. To name a few, there are:

• Church History, Book I, by Socrates Scholasticus
• Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History, book I.
• Sozoman’s Ecclesiastical History, Book I (esp. chapter 17).
• Anathanasius’ account of the council in his De Decretis and Ad Afros Epistola Synodica.
• Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, Book 3, Chapters 6ff.

Just because you aren’t aware of the historical record, doesn’t mean it isn’t out there…

 

[guanophore]

Where is that evidence that you claim is true? (That's one.)

In addition to books you posted you already read, there are many examples in this thread, all of which you have rejected. I am not trying to be hostile here. You have the right to reject the faith, and you have the right to restrict what you will accept as evidence. You have the right to limit what you will accept as “verifiable”.

You dodged the point there. Christians say that the Jews were not wrong in their belief in God, but had an incomplete understanding of him (including only knowing God the Father). It’s quite possible that we are in the same boat now, that while we have a better understanding than the Israelites that we still have an incomplete understanding (including only knowing Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

You are free to embrace this possibility. Catholics are not, because we are bound by the Once For all Divine Deposit of Faith, from which nothing may be added, or subtracted.

You again dodged the point here. Saying we know that some items are part of a group does not necessarily mean we know all items in that group.

I accept this as a scientific premise.

Are you suggesting there weren’t heated debates as to the makeup of the Godhead?

Certainly not! Arianism nearly tore the Roman Empire in half! It was the prime factor in Constantine insisting on the Council of Nicea.

Also if you are saying that they are silent on these types of matters than this runs counter to your assertion that there is evidence for your claim.

Right. Your refusal to accept what has been stated is not equivalent to silence. It only means that you have silenced the phenomena as valid sources of evidence.

And yet read practically any thread regarding why people aren’t become Christians or are leaving the Christian faith. Blame will most certainly be placed on those people for not studying Christianity enough or in the right way.

I have never found blame to have any useful purpose. I do believe that every human person has an obligation to learn about faith. For those baptized Catholics, the obligation is to study their faith, and grow into it. I can testify that I am one who left the Church because I was ignorant of what she taught, and why.

In most cases those with the answers are more than willing to provide their reasoning.  This case differs greatly.

Yes, I agree! You can see by my post count and lenght of participation on CAF that I have been rather busy here over the years. Even a brief review of my posts (especially the earlier ones) will yield copious amounts of answers and reasonings. This case does differ greatly.

The right in my description comes not from me but from those who respond to questions of non-believers. Don’t research enough by the believers’ standards and the non-believer has no right to question the beliefs.

Sorry, you lost me here.

believers there is never a “right” amount of research or questioning from non-believers.

Ok.

I love to do research (I know you don’t believe that) but part of my attraction to CAF is that it spurs hours of investigation for me. At one point I was spending 2-4 hours a day for the better part of a year researching, for myself, ,and for other posters. I learned more about my faith in that short time than I did for decades in religious ed. classes.

In this “very different case” I see that no amount of research will meet the need. Besides, I have conceded the point. Your God need not be limited to three persons. You can reserve the right to assign as many persons to your Godhead as you desire.

Remember this is all in your repeated assessment that because I don’t believe in your version of God that I shouldn’t be asking questions of Christian doctrine.

I never made such an assessment. It is your privilege to ask such questions. People like me will even pay financial support to CAF so that you have a place to post them, and create arguments about them.

Just like how you repeatedly misused when I referenced "consensus" you are now misusing how I referenced "right".  And why should it matter?  Shouldn't we learn more about what others think?  Shouldn't we question when we see a paradox between unknowing and certain knowing?  Knowledge truly is power.

Yes, we should question, sometimes even when we don’t see a paradox. Knowledge is power, but it is not the ulitmate power. This is probably where our greatest difference lies. You seem to treat human intellectual knowledge as the ultimate standard, where Catholics recognize a Higher Power.

Good. So let what is good for the goose be good for the gander and not concern ourselves with whether one group questions the rationale of another and just answer the question.

Your question has been answered, Mike from NJ. Your concept of God can have as many persons as you deem to assign.

[/QUOTE]

 

[openmind77]

How do we show that a 3 person Godhead is perfect and complete?
How at the time before the birth of Jesus could it be shown that the 1 person Godhead was imperfect and incomplete?

While I certainly agree that in general 3 is a magic number (and that you should always unpack your adjectives) we need to know why it’s perfect in the context of deity.

Actually you are quite right, but not precisely in the way you are thinking. There is no ‘4th’ God. However the third person of the Trinity splits into five, so ultimately there is a septenary rather than just a trinity. In other words, our Universe has seven main Gods rather than just three. Some of these are actually Goddesses.

Whether they expect it or not, Christianity will learn the truth about the septenary some day (probably when the Christ returns). Of course, that is not the end of the story - there are even more Gods (although lesser ones) at the solar system and planetary level that will eventually be discovered.

Of course this configuration of divinity (a septenary) may be completely different in some other universe.

 

[guanophore]

Where is that evidence that you claim is true? (That’s two.)

Where is that evidence that you claim is true? (That’s three.)

In addition to the books you stated you have read, mention has been made of the Council’s, liturties, writings of the Fathers and other elements of historical theology. All these are evidence of what God has divinely revealed to us. You must reject the principle of Lex Orandi Lex Credendi as valid evidence, because it cannot withstand experimental validation.

How nefarious a plan and how fiendish a mind I must possess for asking questions about Catholicism on a site where one asks questions about Catholicism!

There is noting nefarious and fiendish about being limited. Most people with limitations have no control over that which they are lacking. If a person is born with a club foot, one would not assign such motives to them.

Is the OP a fundamentalist? Is PumpkinCookie a fundamentalist? Is everyone who follows the thread who might be interested in this issue a fundamentalist?

In a sense you could say this is true. Science can be just as fundamentalistic as any religion. In this case, it is very limiting, because it excludes so much evidence.

Then why do you expect me to accept a teaching of the Church without knowing the reasoning behind it?

I have never expressed any such expectation!

It is quite clear that you cannot accept the reasoning behind it because you do not have any room in your paradigm for it.

Where is that evidence that you claim is true? (That’s four.)

There is no evidence that meets your standards. They are too narrow to contain what the Church accepts as evidence.

For example, we believe that the Scriptures are the inspiried and inerrant Word of God - a reliable source of His revelation of Himself to mankind. You cannot verify this experimentally, therefore, all of it must be rejected as a source of evidence.

If intellect is a part it, describe that intellectual part. It’s better than nothing.

I don’t think so. It will ultimately be insufficient, so it will be a useless exercise.

Where is that evidence that you claim is true? (That’s five.)

In places beyond what you are able to accept as valid evidence.

for example, we believe that what the Aposltes preached/taught was the Word of God, and a reliable Source of God’s revelation of Himself. We also believe that God has preserved this preached word infallilby in the Church by the Holy Spirit, so that we can rely with confidence on the teachings of the Church as evidence. This is something else that cannot be experimentally verified.

Is it impossible for filation or procession to have also occurred in a fourth person, just one not yet revealed to us?

It is for Christians, because we accept that Jesus is the fullest revelation of God to humanity. For those who do not accept this, any number of persons can be added or subtracted

Also how do we know these are the only three personal notions? Is it that they looked at the three persons and then worked backward from there, or that they have a complete understanding of the Godhead and how it works to eliminate any other notions? Considering that the Church itself calls the Trinity a mystery I can’t imagine that it is the latter.

True. Elimination of other notions occurred because of what was revealed, and how it was revealed.

 

[guanophore]

Incorrect.  Dei Verbum says:

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

But even apart from that, there are many things about God that the Church says we can not state with any certainty. It doesn’t mean that these things can’t be speculated on and most certainly does not rule out the possibilities pertaining to these things.

yes. And there is a critical word missing in Georgia’s post - “public”. Private revelation continues.

Yet, God does not contradict Himself, so when He comes again, nothing wil be revealed at that time that is not consistent with what has already been revealed.

You are right, speculation may run rampant! It is not an appropriate activity for a Catholic, though.

Our understanding of God would certainly increase after we die.  It's possible that when we die or after Jesus' return that God reveals that there more persons in the Godhead than the three we are aware of.

Catholics accept the words of Christ, so for us this is not possible.

This is also incorrect.  Jesus at no point says that God is a trinity.  He does not say that there are only three persons in the Godhead.  A Bible quote often used claiming that Jesus said God is strictly a Trinity is Matthew 28:19, ""Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"  But he is only mentioning those persons who God has deemed to reveal at that time.  It's just like in the Old Testament where God the Father is not lying when he tells people like Moses that he (the Father) was the one true god, and leaving out those persons who had yet to be revealed.

Jesus told the Apostles that what they bound on earth would be bound in heaven.

and He is the fullness of God’s revelation of HImself to humankind.

That in no way precludes there being more persons who have yet to be revealed.

Not by the limited standards you have imposed.

See my previous post.  More public revelation is to come, just not before Jesus returns.  Also who is to say that the truth about the fourth, fifth, tenth persons of God must be publicly revealed?  It's possible that God may deem we are never to truly understand his nature and never reveal the full extent of the Godhead.

If you wish, you may hold such a possibility for yourself.

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

No, the CC is right on this matter because the Holy Spirit has infallibly protected what God has revealed to her.

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.

I can appreciate why you find this difficult.

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.

No, not the only reason. Revelation yes. There are many factors in our understanding (all of which you must reject) that this revelation does not allow for other persons to be present.

 

[petra22]

Then this means that there was something lacking.

And that means this entity cannot be God.

Yes, there was something lacking–“OUR UNDERSTANDING!”

 

[guanophore]

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?

It is not based on the “functions” of the persons, and God’s nature is not based on what is “necessary” for human beings.

You seem to be asking " how does the Church know what has been revealed by God" but I don’t think that is really the question, or that it is a question at all. Rather, it is more of a protest that we accept as “true” things that cannot be experimentally verified (things you call "assumptions).

I doubt that you have performed any research.

You are correct that the methods I use for research are not traditional empirical in nature. I am a student of literature, history, human psychology and theology, so I use other methods that are more appropriate to my disciplines.

I've already shown repeatedly that more revelation can come after Jesus returns.  Also that it only concerns public revelation, which doesn't count revelation that might come to people after they've died.

Right. You have the intellectual and moral freedom to manufacture as many persons inthe Godhead as your heart desires. You may reject what God has revealed about Himself. You do not have to accept that what was bound on earth has been bound in heaven.

No, the “why” wasn’t referenced. It merely states that the Church believes there are three persons in the Godhead. You stated that the Church believes there are three persons in the Godhead. Neither you nor the creed has given the reasoning behind that belief.

Right. The creeds and declarations of the Councils are evidence because they are summaries of the reasoning that has occurred prior.

By that reasoning (and I use the term loosely) anyone who asks a question on a matter they have studied but don’t know perfectly should not expect an answer. That’s not a great way to advance understanding, and it’s a fairly silly way to dodge a question.

Except that this is a very unique case.

But I do concede that, if one wishes to use scientific method in an attempt to verify spiritual truths, you are right. One should not expect an answer.

Where is that evidence that you claim is true? (That’s six – just in this round of posts alone!)

Can you instead pray that someone forthright will come on board and provide the references asked for? The A is CAF doesn’t stand for Avoidance.

No, because in my heart I would be hypocritical, since I do not believe such a response would meet your need.

You see, we could be doing this same dance with any of the doctrines of the faith. Take the hypostatic union, for example. There is no way to scientifically verify that Jesus is one person with both a divine and human nature. I can give you “evidence” through other sources, but none of them would be acceptable because they do not fall into your narrow category.

 

[petra22]

Some will argue that in the Old Testament there was only 'One God" and that the later understanding of Three Persons contradicts that.

Some will further argue that hey, if Three in One was OK, why not Four in One? What’s the big difference?

Well, once God revealed to us the nature of Three, He automatically (and this was well understood until the Clintonesque era ushered in the navel-gazing ‘depends on what ‘is’ is’ school of ‘thought’) by this revelation ‘closed off’ any notion of God being Two Persons, or Four Persons, or anything BUT Three Persons. There is simply no way that a deeper understanding of the nature of ‘Three’ can include "Four’ (no matter how high the value of ‘three’ goes, pace mathematicians.)

Yes, and just to expand on your explanation… First a person has to believe there is a God who created the heavens and the earth just like the Bible says… Then they have to believe that God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light… Fast forward to the time of Jesus. Jesus is the WORD and not just a word, but “THE WORD OF GOD.” God spoke and his word is himself. Jesus is his word made flesh and come into the world… some of the world got it, but some could not get the meaning of it–yet. When Jesus tells us of his relationship to the father… if you believe in God and Jesus, then you believe his word. It’s simple mathematics… QED!

 

[petra22]

Yes.

But “because the Church says so” doesn’t work for someone who isn’t Catholic.

And the question implies “What if the Church is wrong”.

I guess if you think the church is wrong and Jesus started the wrong Church, go to another one you think is right… ???