Why must God be only three persons?

[ichabode]

At the end of day because God revealed that to us, You can read John chapters 14 through 17 to get a better understanding.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I think you lost me there. All Protestants believe in the Trinity. It is one aspect of the Catholic faith they did not reject when their founders formed their denominations. Your statement is true about many other doctrines, though

When there is a consensus on the statement only then is it worth it to discuss whether it is true.

Did this standard also come from the divine treasure of Mike?

I am on CAF precisely for the opposite reason. Most people believe like you do, that doctrine is a matter of consesus. If you believe that consensus on a statement is only worth discussing if it is true, why are you on CAF? Your self made standards prevent you from being able to accept what we believe is true, so what is the point? I think you need something you don’t have.

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.

God created you in His own divine image and likeness. He gave you the ability to reject what He has revealed and replace it with your own standards. This is the nature of free will, and the consequence of hubris.

Do not think that because standards are asserted loudly and often they are without any support. What you have done is reject the experiences of millions of people over many millenia who believe differently than you . You have decided that what you think should be the standard should invalidate the experiences of all those who have believed in God.

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

I am not sure who “us” is, but I am confident that you have the ability to research the history of the doctrine of the Trinity if you chose to do so. You are rejecting what God has revealed about Himself, so what would be the point?

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.

Not necessarily but even your narrow standards should encompass that there have been untold numbers of human beings who embraced these fundamentals of the faith for millenia. Even common sense should tell you that people are not willling to die for something that is very important to them. Why have so many been willing to give their lives for an “assumption”? Could it be that they have been persuaded to believe by Someone you have not been?

I'm hoping to get a discussion of what we can and can't say about the Godhead through knowledge and demonstration.

It seems to me that having a discussion with someone who rejects the bulk of the “evidence” would not have much useful outcome.

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

And why would this matter? You have already stated that people’s beliefs, when not scientifically verifiable, are only “assumptions” and without the consensus of everyone else are not worth discussing.

YOu have already rejected the testimony of millions who say that God is three persons in one. What would one more matter?

At least I think I’m one person

Clearly your rationality is intact, even if your faith is not.

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

Yes. In your world, they are one and the same. Since matters of faith and doctrine may not meet your finite standards of what can be “verified”, they must be eliminated as “assumption”.

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.

I cannot see the point of this exercise. You have already stated that the Bible does not provide sufficient verifiable evidence as to constitute a valid source.

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.

I think it is a valid inquiry, but one you do not need anyone on CAF to provide for you. You have demonstrated that you know how to read original sources (and reject them) all on your own.

It really is of no relevance, though, because the Church came to her position because it was revealed to her by God, and this will ne

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.

You have already stated that you do not.

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.

Perhaps. I am skeptical. Such things exist, for those who are interested to discover.

 

[guanophore]

It seems like it may not be a very good investment of your time and energy, given that you will find what Catholics accept as evidence does not meet your standards.
Mike from NJ;13630613:

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.

Well, at least that is one "fact"upon which we can agree.

I can’t stress this enough. Again, show

me those steps before you lay claim that I won’t accept them.

You have posted your position copiously. It is quite evident that you have not, and do not accept them. You are not the only person here who knows how to draw conclusions based on available evidence.

When I say need I "need" it's in man's constant effort to try and understand his creator.

What are you saying? You believe that human beings have a desire to understand the creator. :bigyikes:

When contemplating God did people see that a single personed God was lacking in being able to do what he needed to do.

I have never seen anything that would lead to such a concept.

Remember, God is said to be divinely simple so there would not be more to God than what is needed.

I have never seen anything that would lead to such a concept.

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.

Well, good luck to you Mike. Personally I do not think it is possible to know how much we don’t know, but it seems your world is much more finite than mine, so perhaps you can find what you need.

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

The Council of Nicea.

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?

Not as far as I know. I think that God is omnipotent, so He can do whatever He wants, however He likes.

Perhaps the HS is not necessary to you? One of His “jobs” is to draw human beings into a relationship with God. Did you fire Him from it?

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

Not for a Christian. It has been revealed that this applies to Jesus.

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 invalidated the opposing position by rejecting the bulk of what counts as evidence.

What have I stated falsely?  Be specific.

That there is no evidence in the OT for the Trinity. That you are open to evidence, but you really are not, unless it meets your own narrow criteria.

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

All that I learned about the Teachings of the Church were irrelevant to me until I had a personal encounter with God.

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.

You have already rejected my ways of knowing, so there is nothing left to discuss.

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

God revealed it to His Church.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Only from a human standpoint. The Creator is in a different category altogether.

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? 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.

One Person is the apotheosis of Egocentricity.

Two Persons are the apotheosis of Infertility!

Three Persons are essential for Love’s creativity.

1. Where there is Perfect Love there is **total identification **of oneself with another person.
2. Perfect love implies both unity and diversity.
3. Three Persons are essential for Love’s creativity.

Unitarianism is a simplistic exaltation of egoism. Three isn’t a crowd if it’s a family!

To love oneself and no one else for all eternity is to be in hell not heaven!

Even in this world love implies a temporary loss of identity because we forget ourselves when we are concerned about some one else. If we can cease to exist for ourselves for a while surely three divine Persons never exist for themselves.

 

[guanophore]

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.

When I was young, I left the faith into which I was baptized. I had a personal encounter with God, which set me on a search to find the church where I could belong. I spent 6 years in Bible studies and various churches, then three years in seminary, studying historical theology, Bible and the doctrinal distinctives of all the denominations. Ulitimately I came to discover that the Church founded by Christ was Catholic, and still is. I say that I studied and prayed my way back into the faith. No other faith squares with the evidence. I do not think all of my graduate professors in philosphy, history, and theology would deny that I “accept without reasoning” after all those textbooks and papers.

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?

Of course!!

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.

It is not too much to ask. But given my conviction that this information would not satisfy you, it is too much for me to do this work for you. I know it advance from your postings that the work of the Fathers and does not meet your criteria.

It seems what you are lacking is not information, but an encounter.

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

Simple. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Besides, no one is holding back any evidence from you . The doctrine of the Trinity is a matter of Church History. The documents are all available to the public. You are an accomplished researcher. If you really want to study it, you will.

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”.

Maybe you missed that post.

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.

Why? What does it matter?

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.

On the contrary, you seem to be a very intelligent, able individual. It does seem that you are unwilling to accept evidence that fails your personal standards, but I am confident that, if the Teachings of Jesus were able to be verified with the scientific method, you would be willing to investigate them.

I have never cast any aspersions on your reasoning ability. Refusal to accept ways of knowing outside of reasoning abilty is really more a matter of pride and narrow mindedness than intelligence.

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?

I think not. I do not think doing research for you would be beneficial to either of us, especially given my conviction that you will reject the outcome.

It seems to me that if such understanding is available then a philosophical proof, a quick summary, even a link could be easily accomplished.

I agree. Just go to the library link above, click on “tracts” and see what happens!

The more and more avoiding of providing the basis of this theological conclusion the more I suspect that it might be baseless.

And I suspect this will be the outcome either way!

Show me where I am mistaken by providing reasons instead of unsupported assertions.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not something arrived upon by human reasoning. It was revealed to us by God. This is why your method of validation will fall short, and any “evidence” will result in being classified as “unsupported assertions”.

 

[guanophore]

WHY I WANT TO KNOW

I am sure if this is the case, you will find what you want.

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.

Catholics would say that this is part of what it means to be made in the image and likeness of God.

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.

No, Mike, this is not the case. We consider the Trinith and the Godhead to be a mystery above and beyond the grasp of the puny, finite human intellect. No “knowledge” can fill this 'certainty" because it requires a leap of faith. And that is the reason why, though you could read volumes of writings on the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity, you will never be able to accept it as anything but “baseless assumption”.

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.

Then you are grossly uneducated in historical theology.

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.

The foundation is the revelation of God about Himself. The fact that you reject this as a foundation does not invalidate it’s reality for those of us who believe.

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.

Motivation has a very key part in learning. Your motivation to have someone else research and present this information to you (so that you can debunk it) certainly is pertinent to the assignments you have given in the thread. To take a line from Mulder - the truth is out there. If you want it, you will find it.

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.

I suppose it may be for some. I generally don’t waste my time speculating about those things I know to be false.

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.

This is also the case with the Trinity.

I guess you are right. I missed the point.

 

[guanophore]

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?

This is certainly an interesting beginning to an excellent research topic.

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.

This is a good affirmation of my point. Your own divine standard for discerning what is true is “logic and reasoning”. Any source of truth that does not come through that source, or cannot be verified by it, will be relegated to “baseless assumption”.

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.

Well, I have a different perspective on dreams. There is no such thing as a “false” dream. Dreams are God’s way of communicating to us about the parts of our psyche that are hidden from the waking mind.

They can be true, but we certainly don't assume they are true.

You don’t, because you cannot admit any source of truth outside of logic and reasoning. Dreams come from a different source of truth.

What kind of reasoning or investigating could be done to show that Christianity’s position on the Trinity is true?

None that will meet your standards of “truth”.

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!

As you wish . Maybe when it happens you can write a book, and make a fortune.

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.

You are right. You are being deprived of fodder for future rejection. If only people would proffer some grist for the mill, you could indulge your eager mission to reject it.

Your professor is failing you. You don’t write an assertion in a term paper in middle school without something to back it up.

The fact that what “backs it up” does not meet your standards for veracity is not a problem for my professor, who admits that there are other ways of knowing than logic and reasoning.

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.

None of which I am aware.
"guanophore:

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!

I find this an interesting dodge. I am pointing out your departure from a rational position, and you want to blame it on religion?

This is evidence that you are not even following your own standards.

 

[guanophore]

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).

Ok.

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.

I am sure that, if this is the case, you will find what you need. I am certain you will not find any answers that meet your criteria, so you will be able to “give up” with a clear conscience.

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

Why should anyone do this for you? Why are you so eager to have others chase around and gather up information for you? Are you not as able to click on the “Trinity” link in the library as everyone else? Does it give you a sense of power over others if you can send them chasing around to provide information that you can then reject?

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)

What are you saying, that it is not reasonable for Mike to keep asserting that it is possible for there to be a fourth person in the Trinity?

But guanophore said this was part of what was discussed for centuries. What about my argument isn’t cogent?

You have not made any argument. You have just kept repeating the same negative assertion.

 Maybe you can be the one to answer the questions that the OP, Pumpkin Cookie, and I have been asking.

Maybe there is someone here on CAF that would like to provide you entertainment by involving themselves in a wild goose chase.

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.

Oh, I agree! That potential would not be fulfilled in your case, but it certainly is a possibility.

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.

Nor do I think such a thing will be shown here. On what basis did you determine that what should define the persons of the Trinity is their “function”?

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?

Because Jesus is the fullest revelation by God of Himself, and He said so .

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Only from a human standpoint. The Creator is in a different category altogether.

One Person is the apotheosis of Egocentricity.

Two Persons are the apotheosis of Infertility!

Three Persons are essential for Love’s creativity.

1. Where there is Perfect Love there is **total identification **of oneself with another person.
2. Perfect love implies both unity and diversity.
3. Three Persons are essential for Love’s creativity.

Unitarianism is a simplistic exaltation of egoism. Three isn’t a crowd if it’s a family!

To love oneself and no one else for all eternity is to be in hell not heaven!

Even in this world love implies a temporary loss of identity because we forget ourselves when we are concerned about some one else. If we can cease to exist for ourselves for a while surely three divine Persons never exist for themselves.

Four Persons are the perfection of symmetry.

Five Persons are the essence of harmony.

Six Persons are the summit of propinquity.

Seven Persons are the root of solidarity.

Eventually I will run out of words, so I guess our language couldn’t describe a God of infinite persons. I guess theoretically that doesn’t have to mean we should stop when we run out of words though! No reason to suppose God isn’t an infinity of persons.

1. An unlimited being can’t be described further. “Trinity” is a limit.
2. “Love” is a descriptive limit.
3. at least three persons are essential, but any number of additional persons could be added and the couple would be ever more creative. Also, sexual relationship as a metaphor is a limit.

Agree that egoistic self-love for eternity would be torture. God is beyond these things, in my opinion.

We should not draw conclusions about God’s essence based on our own physiology/psychology. He is totally beyond us and “other.”

 

[guanophore]

No reason to suppose God isn’t an infinity of persons.

Except that He has revealed otherwise.

1. An unlimited being can’t be described further. “Trinity” is a limit.

No one has claimed that God cannot be described further. We are not at liberty to describe Him beyond what He has revealed about Himself. He is unlimited, but we are limited.

1. “Love” is a descriptive limit.

I am not sure what this means. Perhaps you are referring to the finite human understanding of love?

We should not draw conclusions about God’s essence based on our own physiology/psychology. He is totally beyond us and “other.”

Yes, I agree. We have a tendency to anthropomorphize.

 

[Vico]

…

Vico:

Originally Posted by Vico View Post
The passage alone is not the entire reason; there is more to what I posted, even if I agreed about the scripture.

Why should anyone do this for you? Why are you so eager to have others chase around and gather up information for you? Are you not as able to click on the “Trinity” link in the library as everyone else? Does it give you a sense of power over others if you can send them chasing around to provide information that you can then reject?

…

What I posted before is what I am referring to:

Vico:

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]

The Unwillingness/Inability to Provide the Reasoning

I am not sure who “us” is, but I am confident that you have the ability to research the history of the doctrine of the Trinity if you chose to do so. You are rejecting what God has revealed about Himself, so what would be the point?

I think it is a valid inquiry, but one you do not need anyone on CAF to provide for you. You have demonstrated that you know how to read original sources (and reject them) all on your own.

It is not too much to ask. But given my conviction that this information would not satisfy you, it is too much for me to do this work for you. I know it advance from your postings that the work of the Fathers and does not meet your criteria.

Perhaps. I am skeptical. Such things exist, for those who are interested to discover.

Besides, no one is holding back any evidence from you . The doctrine of the Trinity is a matter of Church History. The documents are all available to the public. You are an accomplished researcher. If you really want to study it, you will.

I think not. I do not think doing research for you would be beneficial to either of us, especially given my conviction that you will reject the outcome.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not something arrived upon by human reasoning. It was revealed to us by God. This is why your method of validation will fall short, and any “evidence” will result in being classified as “unsupported assertions”.

Motivation has a very key part in learning. Your motivation to have someone else research and present this information to you (so that you can debunk it) certainly is pertinent to the assignments you have given in the thread. To take a line from Mulder - the truth is out there. If you want it, you will find it.

I suppose it may be for some. I generally don’t waste my time speculating about those things I know to be false.

This is certainly an interesting beginning to an excellent research topic.

None that will meet your standards of “truth”.

You are right. You are being deprived of fodder for future rejection. If only people would proffer some grist for the mill, you could indulge your eager mission to reject it.

I am sure that, if this is the case, you will find what you need. I am certain you will not find any answers that meet your criteria, so you will be able to “give up” with a clear conscience.

Maybe there is someone here on CAF that would like to provide you entertainment by involving themselves in a wild goose chase.

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.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The Church Is Always Right On Faith and Doctrine Redux plus
Special Pleading For Christian Concepts Over Other Religious Concepts Redux

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.

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.

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

Do not think that because standards are asserted loudly and often they are without any support. What you have done is reject the experiences of millions of people over many millenia who believe differently than you . You have decided that what you think should be the standard should invalidate the experiences of all those who have believed in God.

It seems to me that having a discussion with someone who rejects the bulk of the “evidence” would not have much useful outcome.

Yes. In your world, they are one and the same. Since matters of faith and doctrine may not meet your finite standards of what can be “verified”, they must be eliminated as “assumption”.

God revealed it to His Church.

It really is of no relevance, though, because the Church came to her position because it was revealed to her by God, and this will ne

It seems like it may not be a very good investment of your time and energy, given that you will find what Catholics accept as evidence does not meet your standards.

It seems what you are lacking is not information, but an encounter.

Then you are grossly uneducated in historical theology.

The foundation is the revelation of God about Himself. The fact that you reject this as a foundation does not invalidate it’s reality for those of us who believe.

You don’t, because you cannot admit any source of truth outside of logic and reasoning.

The fact that what “backs it up” does not meet your standards for veracity is not a problem for my professor, who admits that there are other ways of knowing than logic and reasoning.

Because Jesus is the fullest revelation by God of Himself, and He said so .

I’ll try it again. There is a gap between what is true and what can be shown to be true. A 3-person Godhead may be true, and as I’ve noted that for argument’s sake that I’ll accept that there is a Godhead of at least three persons. The trick becomes showing that there is a fourth person (or more) in the Godhead. I most certainly can not prove there is a fourth person and at the same time Christianity can’t prove there is not. For thousands of years, according to Christianity, Judaism had an accurate yet incomplete understanding of God. Even now it admits to an incomplete understanding of God. Still it somehow can say it has a complete understanding of God in this regard. That may be true, but the reasoning behind that alleged complete understanding seems out of reach to those like me who are curious to examine that understanding.

Part of this supposed understanding comes form Church statements, what you call evidence but is more accurately called assumptions. You are asking people who are taking a neutral position on this (and other religious) matters to not accept such statement from other Christian denominations (some of whom believe in the Old and New Testaments but do not believe in the Trinity) as well similar statements from other faiths. This is the apologetics forum. It’s there to discuss, to question, to validate and verify. It’s not the home of unquestioned fiats with an unwillingness to examine. Is there anybody here who can discuss this matter like so many of the other matters on CAF?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

You are right that the Church has made a declarative statement. But the declaration was based on evidence.

What is that evidence?

The declaration itself confirms that there are only three persons.

Declarations don’t confirm things. Evidence does. What is that evidence?

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.

What are those references in the Old Testament that show that there can not be more than three persons in the Godhead? Surely a link to those Bible passages should be incredibly easy to post.

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

You are just assuming things about me. Show me a philosophical proof demonstrating there can’t be more than 3 persons and we can discuss its merits.

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?

Yes. I don’t pick and choose what I determine is true before I am presented with the arguments for and against it.

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.

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.

Are you suggesting that the reason I can’t get a simple straight answer to basic question regarding God is that in my heart of hearts I’m secretly searching for Jesus? Isn’t it easier to just answer the question instead of continually dodging it?

I think you lost me there. All Protestants believe in the Trinity. It is one aspect of the Catholic faith they did not reject when their founders formed their denominations. Your statement is true about many other doctrines, though

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?

I’ve already explained this, but I’m willing to give it another go. It’s not about gaining a consensus as to whether a statement is true, but a consensus as to what a statement means. Only when it’s agreed as to what a statement means can we then try to determine whether it is true or not. This whole thing about consensus started when you referenced the passage about “binding and loosing”. There is not a consensus between denominations as to what it means. That’s what I mean by consensus.

I am on CAF precisely for the opposite reason. Most people believe like you do, that doctrine is a matter of consesus. If you believe that consensus on a statement is only worth discussing if it is true, why are you on CAF? Your self made standards prevent you from being able to accept what we believe is true, so what is the point? I think you need something you don’t have.

Consensus on what a statement means before determining if it’s true is the basis of understanding in discussion, not just in the theological realm but everywhere. The thing I need but don’t have is a philosophical proof, an article, a link, something that says orthodox Christianity doesn’t believe in the possibility of a fourth person of God is because X, Y, and Z.

Not necessarily but even your narrow standards should encompass that there have been untold numbers of human beings who embraced these fundamentals of the faith for millenia. Even common sense should tell you that people are not willling to die for something that is very important to them. Why have so many been willing to give their lives for an “assumption”? Could it be that they have been persuaded to believe by Someone you have not been?

Are you really pulling in the “wouldn’t die for a lie” trope for the topic of understanding what we can and can’t say about how many persons are in the Godhead? One does not have to do with the other.

And why would this matter? You have already stated that people’s beliefs, when not scientifically verifiable, are only “assumptions” and without the consensus of everyone else are not worth discussing.

Again you’ve misrepresentated what I explained about my use of consensus in this thread. See above.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

YOu have already rejected the testimony of millions who say that God is three persons in one. What would one more matter?

While I myself don’t believe in the concept of a Trinity, I know that it is an unfalsifiable concept so I’m not looking to demonstrate that it’s not true. As I’ve stated Christians may very well be right both in regards to God as well as to him being a Trinity, and thus I would be wrong. But again that’s not why I’m trying to discuss here. Instead I’m trying to determine if there are more person and why those who are sure there are not can state that with complete assuredness. It doesn’t matter to me whether there are 1, 3, or 100 persons. It’s all about reasoning for me.

I cannot see the point of this exercise. You have already stated that the Bible does not provide sufficient verifiable evidence as to constitute a valid source.

Actually I’ve been pointed to a single passage in Matthew and four verses in John. None of them say in any way that there can not be more persons of God.

You have posted your position copiously. It is quite evident that you have not, and do not accept them. You are not the only person here who knows how to draw conclusions based on available evidence.

Yes, PumpkinCookie is the other.

What are you saying? You believe that human beings have a desire to understand the creator. :bigyikes:

Sure, in a poetic sense. For some who are convinced of a deity it might be a more concrete concept; but all of us in one way or another look to increase our understanding of the universe and our place in it.

I have never seen anything that would lead to such a concept.

But we can’t rule it out. It’s not about proving that there is a fourth person, but whether it is possible for there to be a fourth person.

Not for a Christian. It has been revealed that this applies to Jesus.

Where in the Catechism does it even reference the Lion of Judah let alone state that this is Jesus?

Besides that’s just an example. How can we rule out there being a fourth person of God who is vital to the Day of Judgment?

Not as far as I know. I think that God is omnipotent, so He can do whatever He wants, however He likes.

Perhaps the HS is not necessary to you? One of His “jobs” is to draw human beings into a relationship with God. Did you fire Him from it?

One of the way we can determine if something is missing from a group is by first determining the functionality of the items we know about in a group and work from there. As you say God the Father is omnipotent and could conceivably do all of the actions of the Holy Spirit. At least in this regard that means that even if we couldn’t find a purpose for a fourth or fifth person in the Godhead that doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist.

The Council of Nicea

Can you be more specific? Where does it indicate that it is impossible for there to be persons in the Godhead beyond the third?

That there is no evidence in the OT for the Trinity. That you are open to evidence, but you really are not, unless it meets your own narrow criteria.

Could a person have been given only the Old Testament come to the conclusion that God was a Trinity? I’m not asking whether it allowed for it, but would a person *at that time * be able to read the Old Testament and say yes God is three persons? After the fact people looked at the Old Testament and saw how passages did not conflict with the idea of God being a Trinity. Is there anything reading the Old and New Testaments that does not allow there being later revelation showing God is more than three persons?

Maybe you missed that post.

What is that specific post where you explain this?

Why? What does it matter?

It matters a great deal to say if a person or group can verify what he or it states.

On the contrary, you seem to be a very intelligent, able individual. It does seem that you are unwilling to accept evidence that fails your personal standards, but I am confident that, if the Teachings of Jesus were able to be verified with the scientific method, you would be willing to investigate them.

I have never cast any aspersions on your reasoning ability. Refusal to accept ways of knowing outside of reasoning abilty is really more a matter of pride and narrow mindedness than intelligence.

Just remember that when I note that your unwillingness to answer the questions at hand in an apologetic and philosophical discussion forum are not attacks on your reasoning ability but do call into question your openmindedness.

I agree. Just go to the library link above, click on “tracts” and see what happens!

I’ve already done a great deal of research and haven’t found anything that specifically limits the number of persons to three. It should be so incredibly easy for those who say with utmost confidence that this is the case where specifically to learn more about this reasoning.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

And I suspect this will be the outcome either way!

Why suspect, assume, cast aspersions when you can just provide the reasoning?

No, Mike, this is not the case. We consider the Trinith and the Godhead to be a mystery above and beyond the grasp of the puny, finite human intellect. No “knowledge” can fill this 'certainty" because it requires a leap of faith. And that is the reason why, though you could read volumes of writings on the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity, you will never be able to accept it as anything but “baseless assumption”.

You say there are volumes of writings on the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity (and I agree as I’ve read some of them), yet I haven’t found any which saw why we can’t rule out as-yet-unrevealed persons. Can you point to specific writings that do so?

This is also the case with the Trinity.

I guess you are right. I missed the point.

Ok, so we are in agreement that we don’t need to go back to the point of understanding in order to make sense of a discovery. So when you said, “I mean, for a historical event in antiquity, what’s the standard of proof?” can you now understand that we’re not looking for proof of an event but a logical reasoning that can be worked through to this day?

Well, I have a different perspective on dreams. There is no such thing as a “false” dream. Dreams are God’s way of communicating to us about the parts of our psyche that are hidden from the waking mind.

Dreams come from a different source of truth.

Dreams (including oracles) were sometimes used as a means of the Greek Gods to communicate with the people. Does this mean that the Greek Gods are true as well? And what does this have to do with this line of reading as to the Godhead that you say I can find if I’d just look hard enough?

None of which I am aware.

So you’re certain that there are no more than three persons in the Godhead, that the Church is correct in stating as such, that the makeup of the Godhead was debating for centuries, yet you know of no discussion in those centuries of putting a cap on the number of persons at three. I hope you can see why this doesn’t add up.

Why should anyone do this for you? Why are you so eager to have others chase around and gather up information for you? Are you not as able to click on the “Trinity” link in the library as everyone else? Does it give you a sense of power over others if you can send them chasing around to provide information that you can then reject?

I just want you to stop dodging the question. If I start a thread on CAF on transubstantiation, or the rapture, or squaring the gospels with history and each other I would get a flood of responses regarding one side or the other. The Church’s position wouldn’t be just stated, but explained.

Here in this thread? Not so much. I’m accused of being on a power trip to get answers for questions on Catholicism in a Catholic discussion board. It seems that the issue comes not from my questions but from the utter lack of answers.

You have not made any argument. You have just kept repeating the same negative assertion.

What I’m saying is a basic statement on knowing. If a person doesn’t understanding the majority of a certain thing or topic, then it strains credulity to say that same person can speak with confidence as to what that thing or topic is not. It’s certain possible that person can be correct, but it falls on that person to explain their reasoning.

I keep repeating it because you are unable or unwilling to show your work (or the Church’s work). Until you can back up any assertions I will keep repeating it.

Nor do I think such a thing will be shown here. On what basis did you determine that what should define the persons of the Trinity is their “function”?

It seems the most logical, because God is said to be perfectly simple. One of the things that is tough hurdle in understanding the Trinity is why there are three persons instead of one. That why would likely come from function, but if there is another explanation as to why I’d be glad to hear it. If there is no reasoning behind it other than God is a mystey then it’s safe to say that we can apply the same logic as to why seven persons and not four. You saw earlier in the thread where Occam’s Razor was being used to say there is no need beyond three, but if there is no need beyond one then need is not a factor in counting the persons in the Godhead.

Oh, I agree! That potential would not be fulfilled in your case, but it certainly is a possibility.

It won’t be fulfilled unless someone can make even the slightest of cases for not there being more than 3 persons. Yes, the Church says it’s 3 but there is a complete lack of stating why the Church says so.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

At the end of day because God revealed that to us, You can read John chapters 14 through 17 to get a better understanding.

Where specifically in those chapters does it state that there can be no persons in the Godhead beyond the three listed?

 

[davidv]

{snip]It won’t be fulfilled unless someone can make even the slightest of cases for not there being more than 3 persons. Yes, the Church says it’s 3 but there is a complete lack of stating why the Church says so.

30 seconds of research indicates that this a false claim.

CCC:

249 From the beginning, the revealed truth of the Holy Trinity has been at the very root of the Church’s living faith, principally by means of Baptism. It finds its expression in the rule of baptismal faith, formulated in the preaching, catechesis and prayer of the Church. Such formulations are already found in the apostolic writings, such as this salutation taken up in the Eucharistic liturgy: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."81

CCC:

237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God”.58 To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

:clapping:

30 seconds of research indicates that this a false claim.

:clapping:

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

30 seconds of research indicates that this a false claim.

What have I been saying for what seems like hundreds of times in this thread: Why?

Let’s break this down:

249 From the beginning, the revealed truth of the Holy Trinity has been at the very root of the Church’s living faith, principally by means of Baptism.

That means they believed in the Trinity for a long time.

It finds its expression in the rule of baptismal faith, formulated in the preaching, catechesis and prayer of the Church.

That means the Church refers to the three known persons of God in Mass, prayer, and other ceremonies.

Such formulations are already found in the apostolic writings, such as this salutation taken up in the Eucharistic liturgy: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."81

That means there are very old writings which refer to three known persons of the Godhead.

It does not state that there can’t be any more persons in the Godhead beyond the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – and that’s what this whole thread is about.

237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God”.58 To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament.

Does any of that work of creation suggest it is impossible for there to be more than three persons in the Godhead. Again, I’m not asking to show that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are or aren’t part of the Godhead, but where more persons are part that we are not yet aware of.

But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.

So there’s no reasoning behind it. The Bible mentions the three persons and it’s assumed that this is a complete understanding of the Godhead. So far there is nothing that runs counter to what I’ve been saying over and over again.