You have never clearly defined Essence and Person. I gave you why I think those are vague in post 134. A and B have different letters however they are defined the same in the end when you actually talk to Christians. Unless you think that Jesus, the HS and the Father are not fully god then you have a problem. You are just calling the divine in the three persons something different than you are calling the divine in the one god, but it is the same thing.
So you can keep being condescending or you can maybe have a real conversation and address the problems with your definitions that I brought up. You ignored a large portion of my post 134.
You seem to be stuck on Person and Essence, despite my posting numerous materials which if you took the time to look into would indeed help you understand the difference. And it seems that once you come to recognize there is a difference in definition of the terms "essence" and "personhood" that you will then be able to recognize that the orthodox formulation of the Trinity does not violate the law of non-contradiction.
Thus...
Basil of Caesarea, writing in the 370s (
Letter 236.6), gives a good explanation for why we say “God the Father,” “God the Son,” and “God the Spirit”:
The distinction between
ousia and
hupostasis is the same as that between the
general and the
particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man.
Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess
one essence or substance so as not to give a variant definition of existence, but we confess a
particular hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear.
If we have no distinct perception of the separate characteristics, namely, fatherhood, sonship, and sanctification, but form our conception of God from the general idea of existence, we cannot possibly give a sound account of our faith.
We must, therefore, confess the faith by adding the
particular to the
common. The Godhead is common; the fatherhood particular. We must therefore combine the two and say, I believe in
God the Father.
The like course must be pursued in the confession of the Son; we must combine the particular with the common and say I believe in
God the Son, so in the case of the Holy Ghost we must make our utterance conform to the appellation and say in
God the Holy Ghost.
Sproul said:
“One in essence, three in person” is the most concise definition of the doctrine of the Trinity... The Father possesses all that makes God who He is; the Son possesses all that makes God who He is; and the Spirit possesses all that makes God who He is. We do not worship three gods, each of whom has his own power, his own intelligence, and so on. Instead, we worship three persons who hold in common the same power, the same intelligence, and so on.
We do not have a logical contradiction here because God is both one and three at the same time, but He is not one and three in the same sense. The three divine persons are distinct in terms of their personal relationships to one another, but not in their essence. All of them are the being of God. They do not have an independent existence—you could not take away any of the three persons and still have God. Rather, the three persons subsist within the one divine nature, coequal in terms of their shared essence.
Ursinus said:
We may now readily perceive the difference between the Essence of God, and the Persons, subsisting in the divine essence. By the term, Essence, we are to understand, in reference to this subject, that which the eternal Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are considered, and declared to be, singly and absolutely in themselves, and which is common to the three. By the term, Person, however, we are to understand that which the three persons of the Godhead are considered and declared to be individually and relatively, or as compared with each other, and which they are according to the mode of existence peculiar to each. Or, we may define Essence as the very being of God — the very, eternal, and only Deity — whilst the term Person refers to the mode, or manner, in which the being of God, or the divine essence, subsists in each of these three. God the Father is that Being who is of himself, and not from another. The Son is that self-same Being, or essence, not of himself but of the Father. The Holy Ghost is in like manner the self-same Being, not of himself but from the Father and the Son. Thus the Being, or divine essence, of the three persons of the Godhead is one and the same in number. But to be of himself, or from another — from one, or from two; that is, to have this one divine essence of himself, or to have it communicated from another — from one or from two, expresses the mode of existence which is three-fold and distinct; to wit, to be of himself, to be begotten or generated, and to proceed; and hence, the three persons which are expressed by the term. Trinity.
The sum of this distinction between the terms Essence and Person, as applied to God, is this: Essence is absolute and communicable—Person is relative and incommunicable. This may be illustrated by the following example: It is one thing to be a man, and another thing to be a father; and yet one and the same is both a man and a father; he is a man absolutely and according to his nature, and he is a father in respect to another viz: to his son. So it is one thing to be God, and another to be the Father, or Son, or Holy Ghost; and yet one and the same is both God, and the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost; that in respect to himself, this in respect to another.
I recommend reading what he said in full:
Ursinus on the Essence/Person Distinction in the Trinity
Anyway, I think I've done more than enough to demonstrate that there is indeed a fundamental difference between Essence and Person. With that established. I think I have also demonstrated that the orthodox understanding of the Trinity does not violate the law of non-contradiction.
Again, to be charitable, let me add that I have not attempted to, nor have I said that this in any way proves that God IS Triune, or that God even exists. All I've established is that the orthodox formulation of the Trinity does not violate the law of non-contradiction.
Same ol Same ol, avoiding the content of my posts.
