Why must God be only three persons?

[PRmerger]

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

But that would mean you’re creating a religion based on the almighty self rather than the Almighty, wouldn’t it?

 

[tonyrey]

Four Persons are the perfection of symmetry.

 

[guanophore]

It's not adding and subtracting, just a more precise understanding based on the revelation at the time.

But it would be, Mike. A more precise understanding, based on what has already been revealed is what we call the development of doctrine. A different number of persons in the Godhead would be a change, addition or subtraction.

When Jesus returns we will not be adding to scripture but getting a more precise reading of it.

I think, when He returns, we won’t need it anymore!

 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.

Very well. I hope your understanding of God’s love for you is fulfilled when He returns.

Such passages as…?

Jesus chose the Son of Man as a title for Himself. It is probably from Daniel 7, which describes the Son of Man as a very exalted figure: not just a human figure but an exalted figure. It was Jesus’ favorite self-designation.

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

Yes. So when we are told that Jesus is the fullness of God’s revelation of Himself to us, we do not expect further public revelation beside what we have already received.

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.

So by this you eliminate all other references to the Spirit of God?

But yet you claim to have absolute certainty.

Yes, ,but it is not because my intellect can grasp it. It is because I can accept what has been revealed because I trust the Source.

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but it is God’s power to us who are being saved.19For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the understanding of the experts. 20Where is the philosopher? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made the world’s wisdom foolish? 21For since, in God’s wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached. 22For the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks seek wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles.I Cor 1

You want to “prove” through logic, but the message of God is foolishness to those who rely only on logic or scientific method. There are other ways of knowing and certainty.

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.

I think there is much about the nature of God that we cannot know because our finite minds cannot grasp it. We say the Trinity is a mystery because we can only grasp so much intellectually. The Trinity is not an aspect that can change because it has already been revealed, and public revelation is closed. What has been bound on earth is bound in heaven.

How do we show that a 3 person Godhead is perfect and complete?

I do not believe this can be done using the scientific method.

How at the time before the birth of Jesus could it be shown that the 1 person Godhead was imperfect and incomplete?

There was nothing imperfect about God’s revelation of Himself, no matter what stage it was at the time.

Again, what Christians accept as evidence that shows this does not meet your standards.

we need to know why it’s perfect in the context of deity.

Who is “we”, and why does “we” need so much to know this? There is no scientific way to “know” this.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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…

Alright, I engaged with your sources. After wading through a pit of seemingly endless virulent antisemitism, I am of the opinion that your offered documentation does absolutely nothing to answer the OP’s question. In sum, it does plenty to offer evidence that some Christians believed Jesus to be of the essence of God, and that the Holy Trinity was the belief adopted by the council and enforced by the emperor. The authors are taking great pains to show that Jesus and God are co-eternal and consubstantial against the claim that Jesus is not co-essential/eternal but rather created at a certain point in time. However, the claim that there could possibly be an additional and as of yet unknown person of God is absolutely not contradicted by any of the statements of the several authors and their reports of the statements by fathers/bishops/councils.

In other words, the imperial Christians are very concerned about the attack from some quarters (Jews/“heretics”), but are totally vulnerable to attack from the other side (a group claiming additional as of yet undeveloped persons of God). There has not been such a group in Christian history, to my knowledge. This isn’t primarily a historical question though, in my opinion. It’s a philosophical question. If the arguments justifying the trinity can be used to justify pretty much any number of persons of God, how good are the arguments? Too good. They do too much work, and therefore should be called into question and examined.

Edit: I take that back. The Shakers believed that a woman named “Mother Ann Lee” was the second coming of Christ. I once stayed at a former Shaker colony that had been turned into an inn. I remember reading through some pamphlets in the gift shop LOL. I’m sure there are more examples.

I had to laugh at this account (Ecclesiastical history, Sozomen):

In the name of Jesus Christ, O philosopher, hearken to me. There is one God, the maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. He made all things by the power of the Word, and established them by the holiness of His Spirit. The Word, whom we call the Son of God, seeing that man was sunk in error and living like the beasts pitied him, and vouchsafed to be born of woman, to hold intercourse with men, and to die for them. And He will come again to judge each of us as to the deeds of this present life. We believe these things to be true with all simplicity. Do not, therefore, expend your labor in vain by striving to disprove facts which can only be understood by faith or by scrutinizing the manner in which these things did or did not come to pass. Answer me, do you believe? The philosopher, astonished at what had occurred, replied, “I believe;” and having thanked the old man for having overcome him in argument, he began to teach the same doctrines to others.

LOL

Evangelist: “Don’t think about what I’m saying, just accept it uncritically”
Philosopher: OK

In my mind, this account calls into question the truthfulness of the “history” written by this author. I can’t believe it is anything more than a reflection of his biases and prejudices. As I’m sure you are aware, ancient historians had a totally different standard of “truth.” There are many accounts of miraculous and incredible events throughout the accounts of ancient historians, and we try to read and analyze them with an understanding of their biases and cultural beliefs. They weren’t attempting to report facts and offer commentary like modern historians, but rather construct a narrative to support some view or other. The entire concept of a “fact” is a rather new idea. Really, most of these sources don’t tell us much other than “the author believes so and so and tells some stories to support his case.”

 

[PumpkinCookie]

There are no valid reasons for any of these assertions and they all infringe the principle of economy.

Yes, that is precisely what I think of your assertions as well.

If we take your argument to its logical conclusion even “one” is a number and therefore there is no God!

Yes, I do not believe it is possible to deduce the existence of God a priori, but only based upon experience either miraculous or mystical. God is beyond our powers of reason.

I have neither a miraculous nor mystical experience of God, nevertheless I have faith in the one God because of the testimony and survival of the Jewish people, despite millenia of attempts to destroy them and the unified hatred and contempt of all of humanity.

If God is totally beyond us there is no reason to believe there is a Creator and your religion is irrational… .

I hope that my religious beliefs are not contradicted by reason, but I agree that they are not sufficiently supported by reason. Nevertheless, I believe.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

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 )

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.

While the poetic language is appreciated, it’s not particularly evidentiary or explanatory or philosophical, is it? It seems more like how ancient myths try to tell a story as to what causes natural phenomena to occur, where they start with what is known/assumed and then work backwards. In this case it seems like it was crafted specifically to have exactly three persons make sense. Be honest, if the Bible had mentioned four persons and not three how likely would it be that these poetic descriptions would be tweaked to have 4 persons make the most sense, not because of the nature or truths of deity and love but because the end result has to be 4?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

There is understanding to be had in theoretical physics. Equations can be shown. Theories can be dismantled. Love and human dignity can and have been discussed at exceeding length on CAF.

But this question is the girlfriend from Canada. I’m being told repeatedly that there is an explanation that is at least partially rational. Assumedly there is a philosophical explanation, yet I’m also being told that I won’t be given this explanation.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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?

I am absolutely saying that there could be revelation in the future, specifically after Jesus returns. Please see post 37 where I corrected you as to what Dei Verbum said, “…we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This means there will be no public revelation until that time when Jesus returns. After that there very well could be more revelation, including possibly that our understanding of the Godhead is correct yet incomplete.

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

Catechism:

1023 Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they “see him as he is,” face to face

1027 This mystery of blessed communion with God and all who are in Christ is beyond all understanding and description. Scripture speaks of it in images: life, light, peace, wedding feast, wine of the kingdom, the Father’s house, the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise: “no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him.”

1050 “When we have spread on earth the fruits of our nature and our enterprise . . according to the command of the Lord and in his Spirit, we will find them once again, cleansed this time from the stain of sin, illuminated and transfigured, when Christ presents to his Father an eternal and universal kingdom.” God will then be “all in all” in eternal life

Even outside of the Catechism, I think it’s safe to say that someone in Heaven would have more understanding of God than someone alive on Earth.

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

The person you should be rolling your eyes at is guanophore. Look back at the context where I referenced the Creed. I asked why the Church believes what it believes and he quoted the Creed, which again only shows the what and not the why.

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 tocontinue the ministry of leadership and accurate teaching of doctrine (Acts 1:15-26)

As I mentioned there are plenty of Christians who argue as to the meaning of Matthew 16:19, and don’t believe the Catholic Church is always right in matters of faith and doctrine. Plus we’re in the Philosophy sub-sub-forum of the Apologetics sub-forum of CAF. We don’t take things under assumption. To resort to the Catholic Church said so without explaining why of the issue at hand goes against the very nature of both Apologetics and Philosophy. It’s a complete aversion to basic discussion.

• 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 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.”

What’s the point of me correcting you if you don’t take it to heart?

“The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13).”

Just from a common sense perspective we can say that at this time we do not know all there is to know about God. As I’ve shown after we die we will gain (at least some of this) knowledge. It may not come to us as public revelation until Jesus returns, but there are many things we don’t know about God that we will at some point know.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

And as I noted above, other Christians don’t believe you are interpreting some of that scripture correctly. None of it rules out the possibility of a fourth person in the Godhead. It’s not evidence, explanation, revelation, or philosophical as to why the limit is at three persons. It’s just a promise that the Chruch can’t interpret this wrong without even explaining that interpretation.

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.

If you’ve read these books, what specific pages or passages in each should I look for an explanation as to why the Godhead can’t contain more than three persons?

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

Just because you claim the historical record has answers regarding the question that is the thrust of this thread, doesn’t mean it truly does – especially when no one can seem to give specifics.

 

[guanophore]

Even outside of the Catechism, I think it’s safe to say that someone in Heaven would have more understanding of God than someone alive on Earth.

No arguement there. Except that He has revealed that whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven, so this changes nothing. The Trinity is bound.

The person you should be rolling your eyes at is guanophore. Look back at the context where I referenced the Creed. I asked why the Church believes what it believes and he quoted the Creed, which again only shows the what and not the why.

Actually I think you might have gotten this mixed. I have been consistent in my position that the Church believes as she does because of divine revelation. You were asking for “evidence”. Creeds are evidence of what has been revealed by God. They are statements that summarize years of research, debate, and discovery. They are a capstone.

As I mentioned there are plenty of Christians who argue as to the meaning of Matthew 16:19, and don’t believe the Catholic Church is always right in matters of faith and doctrine. Plus we’re in the Philosophy sub-sub-forum of the Apologetics sub-forum of CAF. We don’t take things under assumption. To resort to the Catholic Church said so without explaining why of the issue at hand goes against the very nature of both Apologetics and Philosophy. It’s a complete aversion to basic discussion.

Yep

Just from a common sense perspective we can say that at this time we do not know all there is to know about God.

But we can place confident assurance in that which has been revealed, like the Trinity.

As I’ve shown after we die we will gain (at least some of this) knowledge. It may not come to us as public revelation until Jesus returns, but there are many things we don’t know about God that we will at some point know.

With all prayerful expectation.

And as I noted above, other Christians don't believe you are interpreting some of that  scripture correctly.

Certain people rejecting the facts does not change them.

None of it rules out the possibility of a fourth person in the Godhead.

For those who reject what God has revealed about Himself, this is true. You can formulate as many persons in your Godhead as you like.

It’s not evidence, explanation, revelation, or philosophical as to why the limit is at three persons. It’s just a promise that the Chruch can’t interpret this wrong without even explaining that interpretation.

We see it differently, don’t we? Catholics do believe this is God’s revelation about Himself, and His promise to His Holy Bride, the Church, that He will not allow her to fall into error. It does not meet your standards, but that does not invalidate it for those who accept broader standards than the scientific method as a way of knowing.

If you’ve read these books, what specific pages or passages in each should I look for an explanation as to why the Godhead can’t contain more than three persons?

You don’t really think looking up page numbers would make any difference, do you? I can assure you that the scientifc method is not going to be found on any of them…

In the end, your eyes will just be a little drier for reading too much, and we will be back at the same place - “baseless assertions”. Do yourself a favor. Read some lovely fiction. Tolkien is wonderful.

Just because you claim the historical record has answers regarding the question that is the thrust of this thread, doesn’t mean it truly does – especially when no one can seem to give specifics.

You seem to be making the assumption that, because no “specifics” have been forwarded, than none exist.

You have already rejected the Nicean Creed as an artifact in the historical record that documents a three century long journey to grasp the concept of the Trinity. Why would any other historical records be of any value?

 

[guanophore]

Love and human dignity can and have been discussed at exceeding length on CAF.

Having discussions about assumptions/ideas does not confirm their validity. It is nothing but speculation.

I say that the Trinity was discussed at exceeding length for three centuries. You say, that does not prove anything. So, we can apply the same method to human love and dignity. They cannot be scientifically validated, therefore, they do not exist.

But this question is the girlfriend from Canada. I’m being told repeatedly that there is an explanation that is at least partially rational. Assumedly there is a philosophical explanation, yet I’m also being told that I won’t be given this explanation.

I suppose human love and dignity must also then be relegated to the category of the girlfriend from Canada. They cannot be experimentally demonstrated, therefore, they are fictional.

I don’t think any explanation of the Trinity will meet your standards of rational, Mike, not even partially. You see, we are working off different foundations. You reject as reliable the sources in which our reasoning is rooted.

It is curious to me that such an intelligent fellow as yourself, who seems to have such a logical mind, and is so well read, finds it necessary to clamor and demand that you be “given and explanation”. Everything you have been given, you have rejected as invalid.

I should think you would be gratified to have received the concession that there is no “evidence” that will meet your standards. Can’t you take any delight in having “won” the point?

26Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1

 

[Aloysium]

. . . But this question is the girlfriend from Canada. I’m being told repeatedly that there is an explanation that is at least partially rational. Assumedly there is a philosophical explanation, yet I’m also being told that I won’t be given this explanation.

Mikey. Mikey!! Dude, I think I’ve supplied your own answer.
The basis of your problem is that you do not have a relationship with God.
He called you here, so it’s a start, but you are still arguing with Him.
The question, your interest in the nature of the Divine is in the realm of fantasy, merely ideas.
Start praying, do for others, let go of the stuff that brings you down, then read what the church teaches - it will all help you grow in Christ.

 

[clem456]

There is understanding to be had in theoretical physics. Equations can be shown. Theories can be dismantled. Love and human dignity can and have been discussed at exceeding length on CAF.

But this question is the girlfriend from Canada. I’m being told repeatedly that there is an explanation that is at least partially rational. Assumedly there is a philosophical explanation, yet I’m also being told that I won’t be given this explanation.

You wouldn’t accept the explanation anyway. You assume the girlfriend from Canada cannot exist. because you cannot see her. Which is the most irrational position of all. Your assumptions limit your ability to reason.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

This thread is truly frustrating! I don’t think you guys understand the basic question. I’m going to re-post this because I believe it is a clear and concise description of what needs to happen on this thread. If you can’t produce this answer, won’t we be forced to conclude that the reasoning behind the “trinity” is suspicious?

Where does it say, in Catholic tradition, that is it impossible for God to be more than three persons, and why?

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find a Pope, Council, or otherwise infallible teaching authority saying something to the affect of:

“There is no way God could be either more or less than the three exact persons we say he is because…[explanation other than “we’re always right” here]…”

The task really should be simple, shouldn’t it? For an organization so confident in its infallible correctness about the nature of God himself, you’d think there would be at least a shred of reason to find, somewhere.

This isn’t about science or forensic evidence. This is about reason. Show us the reason.

Gorgias has completed half of this task. He has given evidence to show that there is no way God could be less than three persons (given the assumption that Jesus is God of course). The other half of this task is wide open, however.

How would you answer Mother Ann Lee of the Shakers? How would you deny that she is the second coming of Christ?

Oh yeah, don’t forget you need arguments that can’t be easily turned back on your position, since that will reveal these arguments to be essentially prejudicial.

 

[Gorgias]

And as I noted above, other Christians don’t believe you are interpreting some of that scripture correctly.

Good on them. Let them explain why they think that the Church is unable to properly interpret Scripture; I’ve already made my case why we believe that she is not only able but particularly commissioned to do precisely that.

If you’ve read these books, what specific pages or passages in each should I look for an explanation as to why the Godhead can’t contain more than three persons?

Read them in context – that’s why I provided chapter references. But please, quit moving the goalposts: you asked for sources that would show what happened in the councils, so that you wouldn’t just have an assertion of Trinity, but rather, an explanation of how the councils debated and arrived at that conclusion.

Just because you claim the historical record has answers regarding the question that is the thrust of this thread, doesn’t mean it truly does – especially when no one can seem to give specifics.

You haven’t read the historical record (after all, you claimed it didn’t exist!), but yet, you can claim that it doesn’t have answers? It’s always convenient when you already know your conclusions before you’ve done the research, eh?

And… “no specifics”? C’mon, Mike – now you’re making it obvious that you’re just all about the polemics: when you asked for specifics, I gave them to you… and now you’re still claiming that no one responded to your requests? Riiiiiiiiggggggghhhht.

 

[clem456]

This thread is truly frustrating! I don’t think you guys understand the basic question. I’m going to re-post this because I believe it is a clear and concise description of what needs to happen on this thread. If you can’t produce this answer, won’t we be forced to conclude that the reasoning behind the “trinity” is suspicious?

The task really should be simple, shouldn’t it? For an organization so confident in its infallible correctness about the nature of God himself, you’d think there would be at least a shred of reason to find, somewhere.

This isn’t about science or forensic evidence. This is about reason. Show us the reason.

Gorgias has completed half of this task. He has given evidence to show that there is no way God could be less than three persons (given the assumption that Jesus is God of course). The other half of this task is wide open, however.

How would you answer Mother Ann Lee of the Shakers? How would you deny that she is the second coming of Christ?

Oh yeah, don’t forget you need arguments that can’t be easily turned back on your position, since that will reveal these arguments to be essentially prejudicial.

You’re asking to prove a negative. The Church doesn’t waste much time on refuting every possible impossibility. Prove you are not bilocating right now.
Note, I have no interest whether you can prove you are bilocating or not. But go ahead and show me anyway, that it is impossible for you to bilocate. Prove you can’t.
You see how silly this is?

As these issues come up, the Church may say something if they are threats to the faith.
The Church has no more interest in proving 3+ impossible than it has to prove God is not a Pumpkin Cookie.

The Church proclaims what is revealed, it is not a negative proving ground for all the impossible variations.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You’re asking to prove a negative. The Church doesn’t waste much time on refuting every possible impossibility. Prove you are not bilocating right now.
Note, I have no interest whether you can prove you are bilocating or not. But go ahead and show me anyway, that it is impossible for you to bilocate. Prove you can’t.
You see how silly this is?

As these issues come up, the Church may say something if they are threats to the faith.
The Church has no more interest in proving 3+ impossible than it has to prove God is not a Pumpkin Cookie.

The Church proclaims what is revealed, it is not a negative proving ground for all the impossible variations.

We can talk about whether or not it is impossible to prove or disprove something like bilocation, but first I’m going to ask you to confirm that I’m right: there is no reason to suppose it is impossible for there to be more than three persons of God. You agree with me, since you’re changing the subject, right?

If not, why not?

 

[guanophore]

This thread is truly frustrating! I don't think you guys understand the basic question. I'm going to re-post this because I believe it is a clear and concise description of what needs to happen on this thread. If you can't produce this answer, won't we be forced to conclude that the reasoning behind the "trinity" is suspicious?

I think that conclusion was made before the thread was opened! At least for Mike it was. I hve been reading some of his posts, and this has been the mindset since becoming a member of CAF. Anything that cannot be personally verified through the senses personally (such as the girlfriend in Canada) does not exist.

No evidence is admissible that is not a result of scientific experimentation. This limits reason the the material realm, which is too small for the bulk of human experience (soul) as well as anything Spiritual.

Where does it say, in Catholic tradition, that is it impossible for God to be more than three persons, and why?

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find a Pope, Council, or otherwise infallible teaching authority saying something to the affect of:

“There is no way God could be either more or less than the three exact persons we say he is because…[explanation other than “we’re always right” here]…”

For us, the Council of Nicaea meets this criteria. It is an infallible declaration of what has been revealed by God to the Church. But you see, an infallible teaching authority is also insufficient, because it does not stand up the the litmus test of experimental validity. There is no way to “prove” that this declaration of the council rules out any different number of members in the Godhead.

For some reason Mike does not seem to be satisfied wth the concession that we recognize his ability to add as many members to his godhead as his heart desires. We have even affirmed that his ability to do this is a reflection of the fact that he has been made in the image and likeness of God.

The task really should be simple, shouldn’t it? For an organization so confident in its infallible correctness about the nature of God himself, you’d think there would be at least a shred of reason to find, somewhere.

None that meets the narrow and insufficient standards that have been declared as only acceptable.

One would have to accept that there are other ways of knowing outside of physical science.

This isn’t about science or forensic evidence. This is about reason. Show us the reason.

Actually, if you read through the thread, it has been repeatedly asserted that anything that is not science based falls short of proving validity.

And no amount of reason will suffice, either, since all the reasoning about the Trinity us based upon evidence that, though true for us because it has been divinely revealed, does not meet the standard of 'fact". Ultimately it will be classified as mere speculation, assumption, and imagination.

Gorgias has completed half of this task. He has given evidence to show that there is no way God could be less than three persons (given the assumption that Jesus is God of course). The other half of this task is wide open, however.

How many members would you like to have in your godhead?

How would you answer Mother Ann Lee of the Shakers? How would you deny that she is the second coming of Christ?

I would point out that, to be defined as Christian, one espouses the Creed produced at the Council. That Creed excludes this possibility.

Oh yeah, don’t forget you need arguments that can’t be easily turned back on your position, since that will reveal these arguments to be essentially prejudicial.

I have no doubt that the conclusion of the Council is essentially prejudicial - primarily against Arianism.

What is amazing to me is that the history of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity can be ignored by anyone. Even a non-believer finds ample secular references that Arianism was splitting the Roman Empire, pressuring Constantine to call a Church Council to resolve the matter. At one point as much as 80% of the Bishops had fallen into this heresy. There are three centuries of writings, arguments, debates and documents describing these events, some of them secular. It boggles the mind that the claim can be made even by a lazy student of history that this did not happen.

Just because you claim the historical record has answers regarding the question that is the thrust of this thread, doesn’t mean it truly does – especially when no one can seem to give specifics.

Since the basic set of premises upon which the formulation at Nicaea was founded has already been rejected, I don’t think that any amount of specific references that state the Godhead is a Trinity will matter. For us, these types of declarations rule out other alternatives, but for those who do not accept the same foundations, they are inadequate.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

…I would point out that, to be defined as Christian, one espouses the Creed produced at the Council. That Creed excludes this possibility [of there being more than three persons of God].

Why does the creed exclude the possibility? Explain your reasoning. I will agree that it affirms belief in three persons of God, but it also does not seem to contradict the possibility of more persons.

Thousands of people affirmed the early Christian creeds and also believed that Mother Ann Lee was the second coming of Christ. If the matter were so simple, why didn’t these people just reject her with the same assertion you put forward?

Right now millions of people believe the Holy Spirit is an African dude living in the Democratic Republic of Congo. bbc.com/news/magazine-33476886

Clearly, Christianity is vulnerable to the seemingly limitless addition/developments of persons of God. I’d argue that even the most rigid understandings of Catholicism are vulnerable in that there are no precise and unequivocal rejections of further “developments” in understanding the nature of God.

Show us the reason. Answer the question. By not answering, you are affirming that there is no REASON God must be only three persons.

 

[davidv]

Why does the creed exclude the possibility? Explain your reasoning. I will agree that it affirms belief in three persons of God, but it also does not seem to contradict the possibility of more persons.

Thousands of people affirmed the early Christian creeds and also believed that Mother Ann Lee was the second coming of Christ. If the matter were so simple, why didn’t these people just reject her with the same assertion you put forward?

Right now millions of people believe the Holy Spirit is an African dude living in the Democratic Republic of Congo. bbc.com/news/magazine-33476886

Clearly, Christianity is vulnerable to the seemingly limitless addition of persons of God. I’d argue that even the most rigid understandings of Catholicism are vulnerable in that there are no precise and unequivocal rejections of further “developments” in understanding the nature of God.

Show us the reason. Answer the question. By not answering, you are affirming that there is no REASON God must be only three person.

The reason has been provided and rejected.