re major views of the trinity in article may athos rutgers edu you write yes my comments were long enough that i don t want to repeat them here but i ll send them via email back to the author certainly it was not intended to be a description of three similar deities though i certainly see why it would look that way thanks for the letter your comments helped some as to the last comment i certainly realize that it was not intended to sound that way i am still trying to understand how a spiritual being colud truly be one and three at the same time all of the descriptions of this are either platonic or sound like special pleading sort of they appear to be three seperate beings in all ways but really they are one trust me neither of these is acceptible to me the fact is so far the only descriptions of the trinity that makes any sense to me are the modalistic ones such as modalistic monarchianism or economic trinitarianism i can accept that the three aspects are intrinsic to the nature of god so i perhaps lean more towards the latter i am trying here to see if anybody can come up with another description that is both orthodox and believable sarima teradata com formerly tdatirv sarima or stanley friesen elsegundoca ncr com i fear orthodox theologians have been overly in love with paradox to the extent that well meaning people think they ve just flat out confused there s no problem with things being both and e g if the are different parts of the father son and holy spirit aren t exactly parts of god because parts are things distinguished by physical separation all three persons are omnipresent so they are obviously aren t physically separate but they re in some way different aspects modes or whatever of one god if you accept economic trinitarianism it s possible that you don t have any substantive difference with the standard view is it possible that you just don t find the neo platonic explanation illuminating clh
