Is it Possible the God actually has FOUR parts?

[DNB]

I believe in a body He is dependent on the body. My wife once asked if God were in the body then who was ruling the universe. The answer is that God is omnipresent so He is also outside the body (The Father) and ruling the universe.

God is not dependent on anything corporeal, or temporal, or prone to decay and corruption - He is spirit and transcendent.

 

[Soapy]

For an amusing response from a theologian at a Catholic college;
The Trinity doesn't make much difference to people. I have often remarked to students that if I and my fellow preachers mounted our pulpits some Sunday and announced that we had a letter from the Vatican saying that there are not three Persons but four, most people in the pews would simply groan. "Oh, when will these changes stop?" But to most of them it would cause no problem other than having to think about how to fit the fourth one in when making the sign of the cross.

Yes, and there are five points of reference on a cross: top, bottom, left, right, and middle.

 

[pearl]

Yes, and there are five points of reference on a cross: top, bottom, left, right, and middle.

Not really. The middle is counted, as part of, making the 'sign' on the cross.

 

[Soapy]

Not really. The middle is counted, as part of, making the 'sign' on the cross.

What is the biblical reference to making the sign of the cross.

I only know of it from Catholic ceremonies.

Are all people calling themselves ‘Christian’s’ supposed to make the sign?

 

[pearl]

Are all people calling themselves ‘Christian’s’ supposed to make the sign?

To my knowledge it is only Catholics who make the sign of the cross.
“All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, Mt 28:16-20.
Baptizing them: baptism is the means of entrance into the community of the risen one, the Church. In the name of the Father…holy Spirit: this is perhaps the clearest expression in the New Testament of trinitarian belief. It may have been the baptismal formula of Matthew’s church, but primarily it designates the effect of baptism, the union of the one baptized with the Father, Son, and holy Spirit.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

"My God has three parts." or "My God consists of three persons." are both arguments people have thought worthwhile to defend in threads recently. But I have a question about these claims:

Is it possible that God actually consists of four or more parts/persons?

(But these extra persons do not involve humanity so much. They are merely parts required for God's own divine purposes, so God only thought it necessary to disclose the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to humanity via the scriptures.)

And a bonus question (that I'm sure has been asked already): How important is it to the Christian faith that a believer accept that God has three parts? What if a person (out of concern for the first question) made the claim that God has AT LEAST three parts? Would that be heresy?

Dear @vulcanlogician

I’m interested. What is it that you have sensed that makes you ask this? Is it something you are able to share?

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[vulcanlogician]

I’m interested. What is it that you have sensed that makes you ask this? Is it something you are able to share?

It was really just kind of a thought experiment.

When I posted the thread there were multiple debates going on about the Trinity. I've never seen an issue with folks seeing God as three persons or one person, even though it's kind of a convoluted theory, and the scriptural justification seems a tad weak.

What's always seemed odd about it is that some people get REALLY worked up about the issue. A few years back, a Baptist friend of mine got his post deleted from a Christian forum. The post expressed reservations about the Trinitarian theory. The reason cited for the posts removal was that it "denied the divinity of Jesus." I have no opinion on the issue one way or another, but I couldn't help think that the whole thing was a bit trivial and trifling.

I mean, if someone thinks God consists of three persons or parts, fine. But why not four? I mean, God is supposedly the omnipotent creator of the cosmos. Why do folks insist that they have him all figured out the way they do? Maybe God has eleven parts. Who's to say otherwise? The Bible barely states that God has three parts (if it even does that-- you really have to squint your eyes to arrive at that conclusion). I was wondering what people's response might be to the idea that there might be even more parts that God didn't feel we needed to know about.

 

[Soapy]

To my knowledge it is only Catholics who make the sign of the cross.
“All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, Mt 28:16-20.
Baptizing them: baptism is the means of entrance into the community of the risen one, the Church. In the name of the Father…holy Spirit: this is perhaps the clearest expression in the New Testament of trinitarian belief. It may have been the baptismal formula of Matthew’s church, but primarily it designates the effect of baptism, the union of the one baptized with the Father, Son, and holy Spirit.

Baptism in trinitarianism is ‘In the name of The Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’…

Yet not a single apostle ever baptised that way.

Every apostle baptised in the name of ‘Jesus’ only.

So, does the name of Jesus represent ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’?

If yes, then is it known that the name, ‘Jesus’, is not scriptural? Is it known that it is in fact, a corruption of modern language - that it is actually ‘Joshua’ (Hebrew: ‘Yeshua’)…. And there are many people who are called ‘Joshua’ / ‘Jesus’?

The true reality is, of course, that the apostles were only to baptise in the name of Jesus Christ. The title, ‘Christ’, is very important since it distinguished every other ‘Jesus’ from the only ones anointed with the spirit of God!!

And… there is never a call for apostles to do anything in the name of the Father, and least of all, in the name of the spirit of God!!!

 

[Soapy]

It was really just kind of a thought experiment.

When I posted the thread there were multiple debates going on about the Trinity. I've never seen an issue with folks seeing God as three persons or one person, even though it's kind of a convoluted theory, and the scriptural justification seems a tad weak.

What's always seemed odd about it is that some people get REALLY worked up about the issue. A few years back, a Baptist friend of mine got his post deleted from a Christian forum. The post expressed reservations about the Trinitarian theory. The reason cited for the posts removal was that it "denied the divinity of Jesus." I have no opinion on the issue one way or another, but I couldn't help think that the whole thing was a bit trivial and trifling.

I mean, if someone thinks God consists of three persons or parts, fine. But why not four? I mean, God is supposedly the omnipotent creator of the cosmos. Why do folks insist that they have him all figured out the way they do? Maybe God has eleven parts. Who's to say otherwise? The Bible barely states that God has three parts (if it even does that-- you really have to squint your eyes to arrive at that conclusion). I was wondering what people's response might be to the idea that there might be even more parts that God didn't feel we needed to know about.

What did you mean by ‘Parts’?

A person, or two, or three, even four, persons are not PARTS of a God.

But that’s not even the argument with ‘Christian’. The argument is that there is a faction, the greater part by far, that claim that the ONE TRUE GOD that the Jews (Israelites) worshipped CONSISTS of THREE PERSONS… Which, of course, means that such a God IS NOT A PERSON but a CO([operation])RPORATION!!

Listen to the premises of the most debated argument:

1. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth - all things by himself
2. Jesus created all things by himself
3. Jesus is God

So who is God then if it takes THREE to be God?

The premises imply that only Jesus, out of the three person corporation, created all things. BUT the Father is also said to have created all things … AND the term ‘Father’ means:

• “He who creates”!!

So there is a great anomaly?

To get around this, Trinitarians say that the Father ‘created through Jesus’.

But, again, that doesn’t work if it is to be true that Jesus created all things BY HIMSELF!!

And you will have noticed that there is no claim of the spirit of God creating anything - yet it too, is said to be God - God who created all things!!!?

And furthermore, Jesus is not mentioned at all in any scripture of the Old Testament except as a saviour who is prophesied to come into existence as a son in the line of Abraham and as the ‘Seed of a Woman’ (a new creation in the model of Adam!…. Holy, sinless, and righteous!)

It is important to know also that the REAL POINT is that the nation of Israel were surrounded by, very often were tempted by, and dwelt among, nations who believed in and worshipped MANY GODS (worshipped spiritual deities). But the God of the Israelites told the Israelites that they must worship HIM and HIM ALONE as their God… that ‘their God was ONE GOD’.

‘One God’… meaning there were NO OTHERS.

Trinitarians have blatantly tried to mislead Christian societies by claiming that God told them he was THREE PERSONS. But ask the trinitarian where they read that in the scriptures and you won’t get any answer that has scriptural backing.

The truth: The God of the Bible, of the Israelites, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is the ONLY GOD…

 

[Muffled]

So Horus is the creator and ruler of the universe?

I believe that would not be Horus. He would be reputed as a god not God.

 

[Soapy]

I believe that would not be Horus. He would be reputed as a god not God.

Desperation to appear to be right underlines all your posts. What is your true purpose of debating Christianity?

 

[Soapy]

I believe in a body He is dependent on the body. My wife once asked if God were in the body then who was ruling the universe. The answer is that God is omnipresent so He is also outside the body (The Father) and ruling the universe.

God CAN BE in a PERSON by means of His Spirit. This is exemplified by the anointment of Jesus and the Apostles.

GOD HIMSELF is not in the person but rather He gives HIS SPIRIT to be IN THOSE who are worthy in the eyes of God.

The spirit of God gives power to do remarkable things and also to learn, understand, recall, and express, the truth of God to those whom GOD desires to hear His word.

Although it is said that ‘God is omnipotent’, it is NOT GOD himself that is present but rather it is his SPIRIT by which he is present - GOD never leaves his ethereal throne!!

 

[Muffled]

God is not dependent on anything corporeal, or temporal, or prone to decay and corruption - He is spirit and transcendent.

I believe your belief has no basis.

 

[Muffled]

Desperation to appear to be right underlines all your posts. What is your true purpose of debating Christianity?

I believe in the Truth.

 

[Muffled]

God CAN BE in a PERSON by means of His Spirit. This is exemplified by the anointment of Jesus and the Apostles.

GOD HIMSELF is not in the person but rather He gives HIS SPIRIT to be IN THOSE who are worthy in the eyes of God.

The spirit of God gives power to do remarkable things and also to learn, understand, recall, and express, the truth of God to those whom GOD desires to hear His word.

Although it is said that ‘God is omnipotent’, it is NOT GOD himself that is present but rather it is his SPIRIT by which he is present - GOD never leaves his ethereal throne!!

I believe those are cotradictory statements. Jesus says The Paraclete, Himself and the Father will be in the believer. He says He is in the Father and the Father in Him.

I believe God does not have to be within to do that but that does not change the reality of God in us.

I believe you are wrong. God is a Spirit and is not going to have a separate spirit. God is omnipresent so He is not restricted to His throne.

 

[Soapy]

I believe those are cotradictory statements. Jesus says The Paraclete, Himself and the Father will be in the believer. He says He is in the Father and the Father in Him.

I believe God does not have to be within to do that but that does not change the reality of God in us.

I believe you are wrong. God is a Spirit and is not going to have a separate spirit. God is omnipresent so He is not restricted to His throne.

You are thinking of God on a literal throne. I said ETHEREAL throne. The throne is not a physical item. It carries the meaning of ‘Power’, that is, ‘The seat of Power’.

In humanity, in the physical, it is like a king who SENDS OUT HIS POWER and his Will is done. If his throne is the seat of power, then he never has to leave his throne to execute his Will on his subjects. His WORD is the POWER by which he executes his Will:

• He says, ‘Do!’, and it is done
• He says, ‘Let there be light!’ and creation comes into being
• He says, ‘I will!’, and in time it is so

And, ‘I am in the Father’ is just another way of saying, ‘I agree with the Father’.

So it is also that God is in Christ, in that God agrees with what Christ is doing.

And so Jesus desires that the apostles ALSO be in God (agree with God because God is truth, truth and love, love and righteousness.)

Jesus desires for the apostles to be where he is, IN GOD, so they may witness the glory of being IN the TRUTH… and the truth is a glorious thing especially when all around you is in darkness of sin and untruth.