Thanks for the clarification - it still isn't clear to me, but I don't think the purpose of the trinity doctrine was to clarify anything. If it did anything it made what was already vague in the scriptures more vague and confusing.IacobPersul said:This is slightly bonkers. The word Trinity means precisely the same thing as triunity, it means three in one. We use the word triune as well, as in the phrase 'the Triune God', triune being the adjectival form of Trinity, but there's really no need to change the noun used - you're not gaining anything (except one superfluous vowel).
One thing I have noticed on this thread is that two false understandings of what the Trinity doctrine is have come up. First, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not aspects of one being - that belief is called modalism and is a monist rather than Trinitarian belief. Second, the three Divine Hypostases (usually, and poorly, translated into English as Persons) are not separate beings - that would be Tritheism. The actual doctrine of the Trinity is that God is one Essence in three Persons. This seems strange to us as a human being is one person, but nonetheless, that is what the Trinity says: God is one in three Persons. Every person we know here is one in Essence (that being their humanity) and one person (that being their actual self). God is uniquely Divine in Essence but is three unique Persons (actually, not really as the word Hypostasis does not mean what we mean by person as that includes their essence, but English doesn't have a better word for the concept).
I have no idea whether this seems at all clear - it's a difficult concept to explain and I'm no theologian - but I hope that people will see the difference between the three positions outlined above.