Were Jesus's brothers born of another woman?

[GodsGrace]

If it's a mystery, I assume you can't solve it -- but feel free to try. Meanwhile, kindly stop telling me what I don't understand about the difference between birthing and mothering the human being named Jesus, and birthing and mothering the all powerful Creator of the Universe.

There we are.
You prove exactly my post no. 656.

Mary did not birth the Creator of the Universe.
She birthed HIS SON.....the 2nd Person of the Trinity...
who is ALSO GOD.

What would you say she should be called?
The Mother of Jesus?
So was Jesus just another man?

You must surely know, having studied the early church,,,that the early ECFs did refer to her as the Theotokos....

 

[RedFan]

Here's the problem as I see it RedFan:

When we say MOTHER OF GOD,,,,what comes to our mind is the mother of God Father since when we refer to Him we tend to always think of God Father.

Jesus is the 2nd Person of the Trintiy.
He is the Son of God.
Being the Son of God,,,,He IS God, as we who believe in the Trinity accept.

So here's the problem.....
We either have to accept that Jesus is God and thus Mary is the mother of God...
or
We create a problem with Jesus being God.

It's as simple as that.

During the third century, the use of “Theotókos” (“Mother of God” in Greek) became more widespread. Origen († c. 254) was the first to apply this title to Mary. Among the prayers of supplication, the title first appeared in the prayer “Sub tuum praesidium” that, as mentioned earlier, is the oldest known Marian prayer. During the fourth century, in opposition to the doctrine of Arius, the confession of faith of bishop Alexander of Alexandria contains the same title. Since then, it gained universality and many were the Holy Fathers who reflected and studied in depth the truth that Mary is the Mother of God. Among them were St. Ephrem, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, Proclus of Constantinople, etc. Because of these, “Mother of God” became the most frequent title applied to Mary.

source: The Devotion to the Virgin Mary in the Early Church

I don't see it as that simple. If X has a status at time t-1 (say, God) and receives a second status (say, incarnation) at time t-2, with Y being drafted to deliver that status to X at time t-2, Y clearly did not deliver that status to X at time t-1. The fact that X is the same X before and after the added status does not make Y the deliverer of X in his prior status of God.

 

[GodsGrace]

That’s why I said in a previous post that YOU don’t understand that the very nature of God is a mystery.

Again – the mystery if the Trinity is Christianity 101 . . .

Why must you be so demeaning to people?
As I've been saying for years now....
You are a terrible example for the CC.

 

[Matthias]

Here's the problem as I see it RedFan:

When we say MOTHER OF GOD,,,,what comes to our mind is the mother of God Father since when we refer to Him we tend to always think of God Father.

Jesus is the 2nd Person of the Trintiy.
He is the Son of God.
Being the Son of God,,,,He IS God, as we who believe in the Trinity accept.

So here's the problem.....
We either have to accept that Jesus is God and thus Mary is the mother of God...
or
We create a problem with Jesus being God.

It's as simple as that.

Jewish monotheism doesn’t have this problem. The Jewish law of agency explains how Jesus himself can be called elohim / theos in scripture without himself literally being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.

Jesus himself has a God. There is no God besides the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel. His God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.

Blessed be the God and Father of our lord Jesus Christ = Blessed be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't see it as that simple. If X has a status at time t-1 (say, God) and receives a second status (say, incarnation) at time t-2, with Y being drafted to deliver that status to X at time t-2, Y clearly did not deliver that status to X at time t-1. The fact that X is the same X before and after the added status does not make Y the deliverer of X in his prior status of God.

RF....Didn't you know that Math was my worstest subject???
LOL

I can hardly figure out how long the train took to get to where it was going.

Could you repeat the above in ENGLISH??
Thanks!

I mean, I kind of know what you're saying...but I still think you're thinking is off.
God is God Father.
Then He gets a second status....
BUT DOES HE?
God Father will ALWAYS BE God Father.

So the 2nd status is The Son. (the 2nd Person).

Mary is Y.
So what is Mary delivering?
NOT GOD FATHER.

His Son.
Is His Son not God?

Yeah. I'm not going to go on forever, as I never do.
But we do create a theological problem here.

 

[GodsGrace]

Jewish monotheism doesn’t have this problem. The Jewish law of agency explains how Jesus can be called elohim / theos in scripture without literally being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.

Jesus himself has a God. There is no God besides the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel. His God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.

Blessed be the God and Father of our lord Jesus Christ = Blessed be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.

I understand you M.
But your belief system brings up other problems.
Who was Mary in your system?

The mother of......?
a man?

 

[RedFan]

RF....Didn't you know that Math was my worstest subject???
LOL

I can hardly figure out how long the train took to get to where it was going.

Could you repeat the above in ENGLISH??
Thanks!

I mean, I kind of know what you're saying...but I still think you're thinking is off.
God is God Father.
Then He gets a second status....
BUT DOES HE?
God Father will ALWAYS BE God Father.

So the 2nd status is The Son. (the 2nd Person).

Mary is Y.
So what is Mary delivering?
NOT GOD FATHER.

His Son.
Is His Son not God?

Yeah. I'm not going to go on forever, as I never do.
But we do create a theological problem here.

I'll try it another way. The siolistic view of @BreadOfLife is this:

1. Mary is the mother of Jesus;
2. Jesus is God; therefore,
3. Mary is the mother of God

But to see why it just doesn't work, please bear with me, because we must delve into Trinitarian logic a bit (hope we don't get banned!).

Trinitarians hold that

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.

The difficulty in understanding the Trinity has always been that these four propositions are, as a group, logically inconsistent when analyzed from the standpoint of the three basic rules of logical equivalence: self-identity (everything is identical to itself, i.e., x = x); symmetry (if two things are equivalent, they are equivalent in any order, i.e., if x = y, then y = x); and transitivity (if one thing is the same as another and that other is the same as a third, then the first is the same as the third, i.e., if x = y and y = z then x = z). The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity fares ill in this analysis.

To make them logically consistent, we would need to sacrifice one of the four tenets. And that has been the approach of many who were branded as heretics throughout the history of the Church. Thus, Arius sacrificed the third one:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.
3′. Therefore the Son is not God.

and Sabellius sacrificed the fourth one:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4′. Therefore the Father is the Son.

Both Arius’ argument and Sabellius’ argument are logically consistent because, unlike the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, they satisfy all three of the aforementioned principles of logical consistency. Arius and Sabellius, although approaching the inconsistency from different perspectives, each preferred rationality to irrationality―even if it meant preferring heresy to orthodoxy.

Now, we Trinitarians have two choices. We can simply throw up our hands and declare that God does not have to play by the rules of logical consistency, thereby forever assigning the Trinity to the status of unfathomable mystery -- @BreadOfLife is in this camp. Or, we can allow for identity and equivalence to be relative to their contexts. Thus, “Robert is good” can be consistent with “Robert is not good” as long as a different sense of “good” holds for each proposition (e.g., he is a good theologian; he is not a good golfer.)

To say that “The Father is not the Son” is likewise context-dependent and predicate-specific. We can maintain without contradiction both that “The Father is not the same person as the Son” and “The Father is the same God as the Son” only by separating out personhood from Godhood.

How to tease them apart is the ultimate challenge of orthodox Trinitarian theology. But separating personhood and Godhood is exactly the task confronting whoever wants to proclaim Mary as Mother of God (as opposed to just mother of Jesus).

This is what I was getting at . . . motherhood is context dependent.

 

[TigersPaw]

There we are.
You prove exactly my post no. 656.

Mary did not birth the Creator of the Universe.
She birthed HIS SON.....the 2nd Person of the Trinity...
who is ALSO GOD.

What would you say she should be called?
The Mother of Jesus?
So was Jesus just another man?

You must surely know, having studied the early church, that the early ECFs did refer to her as the Theotokos....

If we really want to peal this back, the son of God existed, before Jesus existed before he was Christ.
So Mary appears in scripture to have birthed Jesus, not the son of God.
Jesus as Manifestation of the Christ: In this view, Jesus embodied the Christ fully, but the Christ existed before and beyond him in a cosmic sense.

 

[Matthias]

I'm sorry Matthias....I'm not understanding you.
What Gregory is saying is that he holds to the biblical teaching of The Trinity...incl the full divinity of the Holy Spirit....and that he and his coherts add nothing new of their OWN INVENTION....meaning that everything they believe is from the NT.

Gregory does NOT entertain lofty conceptions of the Trinity....but holds merely to NT teaching.


In Gregory of Nyssa’s defense of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit against the Macedonians, he resolutely denies their accusations of entertaining lofty conceptions about the Trinity. Instead, Gregory insists that he and his cohorts have merely held to the biblical teaching of the Trinity, including the full divinity of the Holy Spirit in the Godhead, adding nothing new of their own invention.

Here's the part I love:

The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality.’”

The Jewish dogma is DESTROYED....what is the Jewish dogma in your view?
To me it's the Shema.

Jewish monotheism is, says Gregory (speaking on behalf of the Catholic Church), heresy.

I’m a Jewish monotheist. Gregory (speaking on behalf of the Catholic Church), identifies me as a heretic. There’s no denying it.

The Jewish dogma, expressed in the unitarian creed of Judaism - the Shema - has been destroyed by the Catholic Church. There is no denying it.

What Gregory says (again, on behalf of the Catholic Church) about me he is saying about all Jewish monotheists.

Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the Son of God, is himself a Jewish monotheist by faith and by practice.

This dogma is destroyed by acceptance of THE WORD, and by belief in the Spirit.

Gregory affirms that it is. I accept “THE WORD” and I believe in the Spirit. I don’t do so in the same way that the Catholic Church does.

Back to Jesus and destroying his dogma. It is the Catholic Church, not Jesus, that destroyed the doctrine and dogma of Jewish monotheism. I want the world to know that. I want the world to think about that.mi want the world to make a decision on it.

Also, the polytheistic error of the Greeks vanishes by the UNITY doing away with plurality.

IOW,,,,God is not plural....He is a unit.
But Gregory accepts the Word and the Spirit.

Thus destroying this Jewish dogma.

What don't I understand?

Do you understand the seriousness of destroying Jesus’ Jewish dogma?

Here's something else he wrote on the Holy Spirit:

Gregory defends his position with a firm disjunction, either the Spirit is on the side of Creator, and thus God, or else he is on the side of creation, and thus not God. He argues that there can be no middle ground of half created, half uncreated. And since it would be monstrous to claim that the Holy Spirit is part of Creation, we must affirm that the Holy Spirit is truly God, and if truly God then He can’t be any less than God, he can’t be diminished in anyway.

source: Gregory of Nyssa on The Doctrine of The Trinity.

Yes. Compare that with what Gregory of Nazianzus wrote in AD 380 about what the wise in the church believed concerning the Holy Spirit.

As for Gregory of Nyssa, I’ve read his works. I’ve taught them to students and preached on them from the pulpit. I’ve written about them in various publications and in various media. I want them to be known as widely as possible. Few Catholics, and fewer Protestants, are involved in doing that.

 

[Matthias]

I understand you M.
But your belief system brings up other problems.

My belief system is the Messiah’s belief system, Jewish monotheism.

When you say that Jewish monotheism brings up other problems you’re saying that what Jesus himself believes brings up other problems.

Who was Mary in your system?

With the above in mind, you’re asking me who was Mary in Jesus’ system.

The mother of......?
a man?

She is the Jewish mother of Jesus - himself a male Jewish child / a human person - the promised Messiah, the miraculously begotten Son of her God and his God.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'll try it another way. The siolistic view of @BreadOfLife is this:

1. Mary is the mother of Jesus;
2. Jesus is God; therefore,
3. Mary is the mother of God

But to see why it just doesn't work, please bear with me, because we must delve into Trinitarian logic a bit (hope we don't get banned!).

Trinitarians hold that

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.

The difficulty in understanding the Trinity has always been that these four propositions are, as a group, logically inconsistent when analyzed from the standpoint of the three basic rules of logical equivalence: self-identity (everything is identical to itself, i.e., x = x); symmetry (if two things are equivalent, they are equivalent in any order, i.e., if x = y, then y = x); and transitivity (if one thing is the same as another and that other is the same as a third, then the first is the same as the third, i.e., if x = y and y = z then x = z). The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity fares ill in this analysis.

To make them logically consistent, we would need to sacrifice one of the four tenets. And that has been the approach of many who were branded as heretics throughout the history of the Church. Thus, Arius sacrificed the third one:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.
3′. Therefore the Son is not God.

and Sabellius sacrificed the fourth one:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4′. Therefore the Father is the Son.

Both Arius’ argument and Sabellius’ argument are logically consistent because, unlike the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, they satisfy all three of the aforementioned principles of logical consistency. Arius and Sabellius, although approaching the inconsistency from different perspectives, each preferred rationality to irrationality―even if it meant preferring heresy to orthodoxy.

Now, we Trinitarians have two choices. We can simply throw up our hands and declare that God does not have to play by the rules of logical consistency, thereby forever assigning the Trinity to the status of unfathomable mystery -- @BreadOfLife is in this camp. Or, we can allow for identity and equivalence to be relative to their contexts. Thus, “Robert is good” can be consistent with “Robert is not good” as long as a different sense of “good” holds for each proposition (e.g., he is a good theologian; he is not a good golfer.)

To say that “The Father is not the Son” is likewise context-dependent and predicate-specific. We can maintain without contradiction both that “The Father is not the same person as the Son” and “The Father is the same God as the Son” only by separating out personhood from Godhood.

How to tease them apart is the ultimate challenge of orthodox Trinitarian theology. But separating personhood and Godhood is exactly the task confronting whoever wants to proclaim Mary as Mother of God (as opposed to just mother of Jesus).

This is what I was getting at . . . motherhood is context dependent.

I've come to understand the Trinity in a very simple way....if I try to go further, I come upon the problems you present above.
I've also had to explain the Trinity to young persons and they never really understand BESIDES the fact that any example you use is heretical.

The trinity is explained very simply...but is it that simple to understand? No. As you've proven above.
Here's the one sentence definition:

The 1-Sentence Definition​

"The Trinity is the foundational Christian belief that God is one Being who exists in three Persons.”

source: A Simple Way to Explain the Trinity

What needs to be understood is the difference between BEING and PERSON....
I don't know too many who get to the philosophical position you're stating above....
and I don't think it would even help.

Then we have the image:



Very simple. But this doesn't help too much either.

You said:
"To say that “The Father is not the Son” is likewise context-dependent and predicate-specific. We can maintain without contradiction both that “The Father is not the same person as the Son” and “The Father is the same God as the Son” only by separating out personhood from Godhood."

Personhood IS all-important in attempting to explain the Trinity.

As to the examples of the propositions you give....MUST we have propositions?
What if none of them express God properly because He's so unique?

Why is your first one wrong?

Trinitarians hold that

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.

I understand Jesus to be the logos....the reason, the mind, the Word of God.
As if He were a piece of God....
That logos created everything when God spoke the universe into existence.
That logos is what became human.

Does this fit into any of your propositions??

 

[GodsGrace]

If we really want to peal this back, the son of God existed, before Jesus existed before he was Christ.
So Mary appears in scripture to have birthed Jesus, not the son of God.
Jesus as Manifestation of the Christ: In this view, Jesus embodied the Christ fully, but the Christ existed before and beyond him in a cosmic sense.

Absolutely correct.
Jesus, as the 2nd Person of the Trintiy - Now called The Son - existed from the beginning.
He always existed.
It's just the human form,,,Jesus,,,that was born 2 thousand years ago.
So Mary birthed Jesus, as you've stated.
OK.
But we have to ask, WHO was Jesus?
Was He just a man?
Was He really God?
IF He was God,,,,then why can't we call Mary the Mother of God?

I understand some of the problems with this...but I see no way out.
Did you read @RedFan 's post no. 667?
He has the philosophy right,,,,which I don't even understand 100%.....
but can we simplify?
Or am I just so naiive to think I understand it somewhat??

 

[Matthias]

“I’m just talking about Jewish monotheism, officer.”

 

[GodsGrace]

My belief system is the Messiah’s belief system, Jewish monotheism.

When you say that Jewish monotheism brings up other problems you’re saying that what Jesus himself believes brings up other problems.



With the above in mind, you’re asking me who was Mary in Jesus’ system.



She is the Jewish mother of Jesus - himself a male Jewish child / a human person - the promised Messiah, the miraculously begotten Son of her God and his God.

I found the below link that speaks of Gregory of Nyssa.

It's kind of heavy stuff...beyond me for sure....
but I thought you'd enjoy it and maybe @RedFan .

It's an article by Wm Lane Craig.

A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity | Reasonable Faith

“Let me ask of my reader, wherever, alike with myself, he is certain, there to go on with me; wherever, alike with myself, he hesitates, there to join with me in inquiring;...

www.reasonablefaith.org

 

[GodsGrace]

“I’m just talking about Jewish monotheism, officer.”

I don't think I could watch that video Matthias....
It's just TOOOOOO LONG!!!

 

[BreadOfLife]

If it's a mystery, I assume you can't solve it -- but feel free to try.

I didn’t say it could be “solved”.
I’m the one who told YOU it was a mystery . . .

Meanwhile, kindly stop telling me what I don't understand about the difference between birthing and mothering the human being named Jesus, and birthing and mothering the all powerful Creator of the Universe.

You don’t understand that it is mystery. Your posts make that crystal-clear.
It’s NOT something that you can figure out with your limited human reasoning.

The facts are as follows:
a. Each Person in the Trinity is fully-God.
b. Jesus, the Son, id the 2nd Person in the Trinity.
c. Jesus, the God-Man has TWO natures – fully-Human and fully-divine.
d. His two natures are inseparable.
e. Mary conceived, carried and gave birth to the God-Man.

YOU have to decide if:
- Jesus, the MAN by Himself is God
- Jesus, in the Hypostatic Union of His Two natures is God.

Hint: ONE of these positions is heresy . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why must you be so demeaning to people?
As I've been saying for years now....
You are a terrible example for the CC.

First of all – there was nothing “demeaning” in my post. Just facts.

And, coming from a person who spreads as many lies about the Catholic Church as YOU do – your sanctimonious tone should be turned inward . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Now, we Trinitarians have two choices. We can simply throw up our hands and declare that God does not have to play by the rules of logical consistency, thereby forever assigning the Trinity to the status of unfathomable mystery -- @BreadOfLife is in this camp. Or, we can allow for identity and equivalence to be relative to their contexts. Thus, “Robert is good” can be consistent with “Robert is not good” as long as a different sense of “good” holds for each proposition (e.g., he is a good theologian; he is not a good golfer.)

To say that “The Father is not the Son” is likewise context-dependent and predicate-specific. We can maintain without contradiction both that “The Father is not the same person as the Son” and “The Father is the same God as the Son” only by separating out personhood from Godhood.

There are certain things about God that man cannot wrap his mind around.

We can believe in God, we can love God- but we’ll never completely understand His purpose, His will OR His nature.

If YOU think you have God “all figured out” - you’d be the first person in history to make this arrogant claim – and you’d be as wrong as Arius, Nestorius and Sabellius . . .

 

[Matthias]

Yes. Compare that with what Gregory of Nazianzus wrote in AD 380 about what the wise in the church believed concerning the Holy Spirit.

Post in thread 'What is truth?'
What is truth?

There you go, sheriff. Last time I delivered Gregory of Nyssa. This time Gregory of Nazianzus.

I’ll watch from the ridge across the border to see what you do with him.

 

[RedFan]

I've come to understand the Trinity in a very simple way....if I try to go further, I come upon the problems you present above.
I've also had to explain the Trinity to young persons and they never really understand BESIDES the fact that any example you use is heretical.

The trinity is explained very simply...but is it that simple to understand? No. As you've proven above.
Here's the one sentence definition:

The 1-Sentence Definition​

source: A Simple Way to Explain the Trinity

What needs to be understood is the difference between BEING and PERSON....
I don't know too many who get to the philosophical position you're stating above....
and I don't think it would even help.

Then we have the image:

View attachment 52828

Very simple. But this doesn't help too much either.

You said:
"To say that “The Father is not the Son” is likewise context-dependent and predicate-specific. We can maintain without contradiction both that “The Father is not the same person as the Son” and “The Father is the same God as the Son” only by separating out personhood from Godhood."

Personhood IS all-important in attempting to explain the Trinity.

As to the examples of the propositions you give....MUST we have propositions?
What if none of them express God properly because He's so unique?

Why is your first one wrong?

Trinitarians hold that

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.

I understand Jesus to be the logos....the reason, the mind, the Word of God.
As if He were a piece of God....
That logos created everything when God spoke the universe into existence.
That logos is what became human.

Does this fit into any of your propositions??

I wish it did fit into my propositions in a way that avoided the logical dilemma! Your image is exactly the problem, in pictorial terms, of the illogic I have been highlighting.

Orthodox Trinitariaism is threatened on one side by accusations of tritheism (Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three Gods), and on the other by accusations of modalism (Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mere modes of the same single entity) – and while always striving to bend to neither, a bend away from one is often a bend toward the other. Thus, emphasizing the distinctiveness of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in fending off modalist challenges seems to be a nod toward tritheism; and vice versa. Here's my tentative solution:

Any defense of a tripersonal God (I prefer “triune” God, but we can use the adjectives interchangeably for now) requires two context-dependent definitions of “God” – one defining “God” as the Trinity itself, another defining “God” as a single divine person of that Trinity.

Isolating the “stuff” of “Godness” may be impossible to express in human terms, but we don’t need to do so; we only need to hold that whatever that ousia may be, it subsists in each of the three “Persons” within the Trinity. It may help to use a musical analogy here, one I am indebted to Jeremy Begbie for.

Think of a chord composed of three different notes, say the chord C major composed of the notes C, E and G. Each note is a sound, and when played together the C chord is likewise a sound. In each case the sound is recognizable as what we call “music.” By analogy of “deity” to “music,” each of the three persons, like each note of the chord, is deity (music), and together they form deity (music) through three distinct sounds (persons). But the real harmony is in the Trinity (chord). Played simultaneously, the individual notes comprising the chord are subsumed in a single identifiable sound; our ear does not immediately pick the chord apart (although we can do so intellectually, and on the sheet music). It’s just music to the ear. It’s just God.

But "person" as an analogue of "note" here is only an approximation. It is common these days for Trinitarians to latch onto “person” as the right translation of hypostasis. Some of that is fueled by the KJV’s English translation of the word in Hebrews 1:3 as “person.” Lucian Turcescu’s Gregory of Nyssa and the Concept of Divine Persons (Oxford University Press, 2005) “proposes to explain the difference between ousia and hypostasis, two Greek words the Cappadocians used to refer to ‘substance’ and ‘person’ respectively” (p. 48). I am reluctant to translate hypostasis as “person” rather than “individuated substance.”

Gregory of Nyssa’s Letter to Peter works out the distinction between ousia and hypostasis as relating to the different names and properties attributed to God.

“As a theological term the word hypostasis was originally used as a possible equivalent to ousia (‘being,’ or ‘existence’), as being the substratum or underlying existence of things. Cp. Heb. i. 3 (‘the express image of His being’ (hypostaseos). It was still used in this sense in the earlier years of the fourth century. But later the two terms were distinguished, and currency was given to this distinction by the formula of the Cappadocian Fathers to denote the Trinity ‘One Being’ (ousia) ‘in three persons’ (hupostaseis). The later Western term ‘person’ has different associations from hypostasis, which denotes ‘a particular centre of being.’” J.H. Srawley, The Catechetical Oration of St. Gregory of Nyssa (1903) p. 26 n. 1.

I have stopped referring to the Trinity as three PERSONS in one God -- because it will trip us up needlessly. “Person” is just the wrong translation of hypostasis. With all due respect to the KJV’s translation of that word in Hebrews 1:3 as “person,” you need to consider what happens when you juxtapose -- as the Nicenes did 1700 years ago -- hypostasis with ousia. They are not the same. Students of Greek and Latin who look at hypo and stasis as mirror images of sub and stantia are falling into a trap. I don’t want to downplay the importance of Hebrews 1:3 for Greek trinitarian theology, but we should be cautious in presuming that the author of Hebrews used the word in the exact same sense as the Cappadocian Fathers did three centuries later.