On the Nature of God-Why There Needs to be 3 Persons in the Godhead

On the Nature of God

Q. Why God Must be Three Persons

If it is true that:

1. God created man in His own image
2. And when God created man He said it is not good that man should be alone.
3. Then if “aloneness” is not good, by contrast the opposites are good, namely, relationships are good
4. Then “relationships” between mankind (men and women) must be a reflection of a more perfect similar thing within God’s nature, namely: relationship must be an inherent part of the nature of God a part that is reflected in the relationships experienced, in particular, by men-and-women in marriage...but but between people in general.
   

Now:

1. if God experiences all good things inherently within Himself

2. And relationships are an inherent part of God’s nature,

Then

1. God must be capable of experiencing all variations of relationships within Himself….namely: aloneness, one-to-one relationships, and one-to-many relationship….all within Himself.
1. Aloneness: God is one
2. One-on-one: would require two people
3. One-to-many: would require three people at a minimum,

QED:

God, by His very nature, must have at least three persons within the Godhead to be complete and lacking (needing) nothing within Himself.

This is also why any other God than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob could not really be God. Note: a corallary to this is that Allah (the god of the Islamic religion) is incomplete within himself and therefore could not possibly be a true God.

Think about it…

LESSONS FROM THE HUMBLE ATOM

We are all familiar with the ATOM...right?

Q. So what are the parts of an atom?

A. Classically there is a NUCLEUS composed of PROTONS and NEUTRONS and circumnavigating the nucleus in very precise well defined orbits are ELECTRONS.

Q. What is the nature of the neutron?

A. It has a large mass (1 atomic unit) and no electrical charge.

Q. What is the nature of the proton?

A. It also has a very large mass (again, 1 atomic unit) and a PLUS charge.

Q. What is the nature of the electron.

A. It has a very small mass (near zero) and a NEGATIVE charge.



Consider an ATOM with one NEUTRON, one PROTON and one ELECTRON. This is a HYDROGEN Atom.

Now if you go into a science class and ask what holds the electron in orbit around the nucleus, you will be told (since there is virtually no mass to the electron...it can't be attributed to gravity) it's the electromagnetic forces of attraction between the opposites (plus for the PROTON and minus for the ELECTRON).

Note: For example, the electrostatic force between an electron and a proton, which constitute a hydrogen atom, is almost 40 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational force between them.

They will then go on to clinch this in your mind using the familiar example of two magnets where the North - South poles attract each other. And you will nod your head in agreement, because you've played with magnets and have observed this phenomena--opposites poles/charges attracting each other.


Now consider another atom where we add another PROTON in the nucleus and another ELECTRON in the valence ring around the nucleus.

Again we ask the question, what holds the 2 electrons in orbit around the nucleus?
And the answer will come back, the 2 protons in the nucleus--2 plus charges of the proton attract the two negative charges of the electron.

OK...

But now consider, if opposites attract, don't you also remember with your experience with magnets that "likes" repel? The two North poles of magnets will repel each other,right?

So looking at this second atom with the TWO PROTONS in the nucleus, both charged positively...

Q. Why do the Protons in the Nucleus not push each other apart?
Q. What is holding them together in the nucleus that is more powerful than their forces of repulsion? (I mean, if you are going to be consistent, you have to ask this question as well, right?).
Furthermore, the power (or force) that is holding these Protons together in the Nucleus is so strong that when we break it apart ... we get an Atomic Bomb.
Q. So again I ask, what is this incredible power that is holding these Protons in such close proximity to each other that it overcomes this huge force of repulsion? What is this "nuclear glue"?

THE "BIG BANG" PRODUCES ORDER??

Modern science theory says the universe as we know it was produced by a "Big Bang."

But is this a reasonable theory?

Can this theory be tested?

Consider:
-Have you ever taken a cherry bomb or fire cracker and lit it off?
-What resulted? Order? .... or chaos?

Consider:
-A car engine.
-There is an explosion that produces power which ultimately drives the wheels moving the car.
-But what is required for that explosion to be productive?
-Must it not be "contained" by some very sophisticated design (the cylinder, pistons, crank arms, wrist pins, etc.)?
-Is it not engineered by a person understanding, at a minimum, thermo dynamics and mechanical engineering?
-In other words: there had to be some intelligent design behind the controlled explosion that produces an "ordered result" instead of an explosion that produces chaos.

Q. If you now apply that to the origin of the universe, does it not seem logical that there must have been some intelligent design behind, even a "big bang" that would be required to produce all the order that we see around us today?

Q. So what was that "intelligent design" behind the supposed "big bang"?

-It had to be something far more orderly and intelligent than "liting off a big cherry bomb"!

-Ohh, by the way....who or what lit the cherry bomb to start with ?

WHY 7 DAYS IN A WEEK?

Q1. What is the natural cycle represented by one day?

A1. The rotation of the earth one time on it's axis

Q2. What is the natural cycle represented by one month?

A2. The revolution of the moon one time around the earth.

Q3. What is the natural cycle represented by the year?

A3. The revolution of the earth one time around the sun.


Q4. What is the natural cycle of the week?

Consider: -We could have had 5, or 4 or 10 or ?? Why 7?
Consider: -In every culture, primative or modern, there is a 7 day period associated with what we would call a week? Why?

A4. ??

WHAT IS GRAVITY?

When asked what holds you to the Earth or what holds the planets in orbit around the Sun, the easy answer is: "gravity".

Q. But what is gravity?

A. professor will tell you about Kepler's Laws. If he get's technical, he'll tell you that gravity is a "force" related to the mass of the two objects and the inverse square of the distance between them.

It all sounds so scientific and so precise...but just what is this "force" anyway?
What is this "power" that works at a distance...and has no substance you can get your hands on...yet we all know the effects of it?


Again, just what is gravity? What is it like anyway?



We'll, to get a handle on this, let's consider what you, like me, have probably been told in the past.
"Gravity? It's like a ball at the end of a string that a person is spinning around. "

Great! So your hand is like the Sun, the ball like the Earth, and the string like gravity.
Or your hand is like the Earth, the ball like the Moon and the string, the gravity. OK?

Great...so the string is like gravity. Ok, let's ask a few questions to try to get a handle on what gravity is like, so we might better understand what this term is that we use so casually.

Q. How big a diameter would the string have to be to hold the Moon in it's orbit around the Earth? I.e., how big would the string have to be for it to replace gravity?

"Well the string might break," you retort.

OK, let's try something stronger...let's use wire in place of the string...in fact, let's use the strongest wire you can find...piano wire...and ask the question again.

But before we continue...you may want to determine how big (in terms of the diameter) the Moon and the Earth are.


Moon diameter: 2160 miles (3476 km) across. (This distance is about one fourth the diameter of the Earth, and 400 times smaller than that of the sun.)

Earth diameter: At the Equator: 7,926.28 miles (12,756.1 km)


Q. How big a diameter would the wire have to be to hold the Moon in it's orbit around the Earth? I.e., how big would it have to be to replace gravity?



A. A mile?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bigger....
A. 10 miles?
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
Nope...
A. 100 miles?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Nope again....try
A. 1,000 miles?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
No! Bigger
A. 2,000 miles (about the diameter of the Moon)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
No! Bigger....
A. 5,000 miles?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
No....Bigger yet
A. It turns out that using the highest tensile strength wire (piano wire), and neglecting the weight of the wire itself, the wire would have to be...

~7,000 MILES in DIAMETER!!!

THAT'S ALMOST

THE DIAMETER OF THE EARTH

and

~4 TIMES THE DIAMETER OF THE MOON!!

Now...let that sink in a little...then maybe we'll continue by asking some more questions...if you're up to it?

WHAT'S AT THE OTHER FOCI OF THE ELLIPSE?

Q. What is the nature of an ellipse?



A. It's like a flattened or stretched circle where, among other things, the center is stretched into two foci. Technically any point on the surface is equal to the sum of the distances from one foci to that point on the circumference and the other foci to that same point on the circumference.



FACT: Our planet's orbits can be described by elipses. At one focus is the Sun whose gravitational force bends the planet's orbit around to follow an elliptical orbit.



QUESTION: What is at the other focus that prevents the planet's orbit from sailing off out into infinity in the universe on a parabolic trajectory, and instead pulls it back around at the apogee and starts another trip around the Sun.
HINT: Mass of whatever is "holding" the earth in it's orbit would have to be of the same order as the Sun...but there is nothing obvious out there with that amount of mass.
Q. So what is it that must have a mass equal to that of the Sun and yet is invisible and resides at the other focus ... of EACH planet?