Evidence for God from Science

The Trinity teaches there is one Being in three persons.

What is the difference between Being and persons?

Thank you.

I'd recommend reading this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=41367&hilit=Trinity



And start with this video that Kurieuo posted:

I'm not so certain the word "Persons" is the best to use, when it comes to God's Trinity. Identities, perhaps? Manifestations? Using "person" is too associated with a separate being.

Interestingly, there is this definition of the online Merriam Websters: Person: "One of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians."

Philip wrote:
Interestingly, there is this definition of the online Merriam Websters: Person: "One of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians."

That sounds like Modalism. Not Trinitarianism.

Christian2 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:16 am The Trinity teaches there is one Being in three persons.

What is the difference between Being and persons?

Thank you.

That is the Social Trinitarian conception of God, God is three in Who God is, yet unitary in What God is.

It should be said though, that in saying God is one Being, we're not saying God possesses a being of some sort. That would be to predicate God upon "being", which would then make God contingent upon His being in some way. God is spirit, and by that we don't mean God has a spiritual body, but rather God's nature is immaterial in a strict metaphysical sense.

An issue with trying to define God is that the moment we start to define God we're anthropmorphising Him. We're also appropriating what is eternal and immaterial with what is finite and physical. We're kind of lowering God to our level -- which is likely why the Jewish people didn't speak God's name/God's name is unspeakable for God is undefinable. God is who God is / "I AM WHO I AM". (Exodus 3:14)

K: It should be said though, that in saying God is one Being, we're not saying God possesses a being of some sort. That would be to predicate God upon "being", which would then make God contingent upon His being in some way. God is spirit, and by that we don't mean God has a spiritual body, but rather God's nature is immaterial in a strict metaphysical sense.

OK, that makes it perfectly clear!

K: An issue with trying to define God is that the moment we start to define God we're anthropmorphising Him. We're also appropriating what is eternal and immaterial with what is finite and physical. We're kind of lowering God to our level -- which is likely why the Jewish people didn't speak God's name/God's name is unspeakable for God is undefinable. God is who God is / "I AM WHO I AM". (Exodus 3:14)

True - whenever the finite tries to define the Infinite, there will be great inadequacies and inaccuracies. My take is, God is ONE Being Who simply is as He is - which is undefinable with anything more than woefully inadequate generalities. To really understand Him or His Trinity, we'd have to also have HIS mind.

Philip wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:02 pm I'm not so certain the word "Persons" is the best to use, when it comes to God's Trinity. Identities, perhaps? Manifestations? Using "person" is too associated with a separate being.

Interestingly, there is this definition of the online Merriam Websters: Person: "One of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians."

Person denotes personality.
It is important to understand that the Trinity isn't the way that God "manifests" Himself, but the term WE use to "rationalize" the perfect union of 3 persons in ONE being.

The reality is, God is three persons, He is ONE, and He is unlike no other. So, at some point, all analogies break when used to describe God's Trinity.