Chronology

[Athanasius]

I don't know. I also thought that 1+1+1 could not equal 1! But we're talking about Deity here.

As you didn't reply to my follow-up to this I'll take the opportunity to point out that "1+1+1=1" is typically offered as a mockery of the doctrine of the Trinity, rather than part of the doctrine of the Trinity. Mathematically expressed the doctrine might look something more like "1p + 1p + 1p = 1p^3", or perhaps "1x1x1=1", but probably it's best to avoid simplified mathematical models of beings who far outstrip our dimensional understanding.

[ross3421]

“The daily sacrifice will be stopped. Then, after 1,290 days from that time, a blasphemous object that brings destruction will be set up. (Daniel 12:11,” EXB, NCV)

“There will be 1,290 days from the time that the daily sacrifices are stopped, until someone sets up the “Horrible Thing” that causes destruction.” (Daniel 12:11, NEV)

“There will be one thousand two hundred ninety days from the time the daily sacrifice is stopped to the setting up of the desolating monstrosity.” (Daniel 12:11, CEB)

Joshua

why cant both the aod and the sacrifice stopped start the 1290 days.  meaning the 1290 is the reign of the beasts in rev 13 with the second beat taking power 30 days after the first beast

[Athanasius]

“The daily sacrifice will be stopped. Then, after 1,290 days from that time, a blasphemous object that brings destruction will be set up. (Daniel 12:11,” EXB, NCV)

“There will be 1,290 days from the time that the daily sacrifices are stopped, until someone sets up the “Horrible Thing” that causes destruction.” (Daniel 12:11, NEV)

“There will be one thousand two hundred ninety days from the time the daily sacrifice is stopped to the setting up of the desolating monstrosity.” (Daniel 12:11, CEB)

Joshua

why cant both the aod and the sacrifice stopped start the 1290 days.  meaning the 1290 is the reign of the beasts in rev 13 with the second beat taking power 30 days after the first beast

Just a head's up that this user requested for their account to be deleted, so they won't be replying. If you'd like to discuss this with them further, then you can search for the content of their message and reply on their own forum, where they discussed this a few years ago.

[Oseas]

“The daily sacrifice will be stopped. Then, after 1,290 days from that time, a blasphemous object that brings destruction will be set up. (Daniel 12:11,” EXB, NCV)

“There will be 1,290 days from the time that the daily sacrifices are stopped, until someone sets up the “Horrible Thing” that causes destruction.” (Daniel 12:11, NEV)

“There will be one thousand two hundred ninety days from the time the daily sacrifice is stopped to the setting up of the desolating monstrosity.” (Daniel 12:11, CEB)

Joshua

Daniel 9:.26-27 - Complete Jewish Bible -
WHAT PREVAILS IS THE WORD OF GOD. The Word is GOD.

26 Then, AFTER (yeah AFTER) after the sixty-two weeks, MASHIACH will be cut off and have nothing. The people of A PRINCE (YEAH A PRINCE) yet to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary, but his end will come with a flood, and desolations are decreed until the war is over .(This has nothing to do with the destruction of Israel in the year 70AD, as follows:


27 He (he WHOM? the PRINCE; who is he?) he will make a strong COVENANT with LEADERS for ONE week [of years].
(Do you see? This SATANIC PRINCE will rule the last week, the week 70th, by entire. And he will make a strong COVENANT with LEADERS for ONE week [of years].


What kind of strong COVENANT the satanic PRINCE will make with leaders? Who are these leaders?
In this POINT, that is, AFTER the END of the week 62, the prophecy is still in the beginning of the week 70th, and A PRINCE is working in his strong COVENANT with leaders;

Therefore, in this point the FIRST half of the week 70th is in the beginning, and it is already running, and the STRONG COVENANT of the satanic PRINCE and the leaders takes place or is applied for ONE WEEK, but there is a period of time AND EVENTS called or known as FIRST half of the last week that is ruled by the EVIL PRINCE.


... he - the EVIL PRINCE - shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Scripture does not say JESUS was crucified IN 29 A.D., many people are saying that, not Scripture. What Scripture says is that AFTER, yeah, AFTER the week 62 plus 7 the Messiah is "cut off".

JESUS was not crucified neither in the week 69, but AFTER, neither in the midst of the week 70th, what is a devilish lie, this week 70th is/will be RULED by the EVIL PRINCE by entire.

I'm sure that the event above will fulfil LITERALLY in this last decade of the Devil's world - 2020 to 2030. The last week, the week 70th of Daniel 9:v.27, it is within of this current last decade.

Be careful and get ready

[RandyPNW]

I don't know. I also thought that 1+1+1 could not equal 1! But we're talking about Deity here.

As you didn't reply to my follow-up to this I'll take the opportunity to point out that "1+1+1=1" is typically offered as a mockery of the doctrine of the Trinity, rather than part of the doctrine of the Trinity. Mathematically expressed the doctrine might look something more like "1p + 1p + 1p = 1p^3", or perhaps "1x1x1=1", but probably it's best to avoid simplified mathematical models of beings who far outstrip our dimensional understanding.

Sorry, brother--I didn't avoid answering. I must've missed it. I argued this w/ Christian Research Institute back in the mid-70s, after I had gotten out of a modalistic Christian cult. I felt that God as a single Divine Being must be represented as a Person with a capital "P." And the 3 Persons of the Trinity must also have their Persons spelled with a capital "P." This would look like Person = Person + Person + Person. CRI answered back and argued 1 + 1 + 1 does not equal 1.

So yes, language does not resolve the problem of a dimensional matter that exceeded finity. 1P + 1P + 1P = 1(3P)

So I really could care less if some mock the Trinity with what appears to them to be an irrational, meaningless formula. It is experiential to me, and entirely logical.

I experience the same Deity in God's Spirit in all geographical locations where I sense Him. And I recognize the same Spirit in Jesus' words in the Bible.

And my communication with the omnipresent, omnipotent Deity is also experienced as the same Deity. All 3 Persons, in their respective positions, can be experienced as the same Divine Person. And yet each Person's position is distinct, and each Person can communicate with another in a meaningful conversation.

[RandyPNW]

But if that's the case then your limits are quite a ways away, and far enough that appealing to 'common sense' isn't necessary. In other words, where is the epistemic responsibility?

Simple, as in overly-reduced, like improperly reducing an algebraic equation. I'm not referring to "simple-to-understand," but to overly-simplified, perhaps to make something easier to understand, which may not be possible.

Your use of 'fatalistic' was fine, and I knew what you meant. You argue for partial determinism elsewhere, so that's why I asked: why should anything be determined in a fatalistic way?

I was explaining determinism in the philosophical sense, as in absolute determinism.
It was necessary for me to define the term as I was using it.

1+1+1 does not equal 1, not even for the Godhead.

Actually, I think it does. The substance of the Deity is infinite, and as such, absorbs any material or spatial representation of Him, as produced by His word. All 3 representations remain the one God.

But you are saying, right, that while God knows all possible outcomes, He doesn't know which choices will actually be made?

Again, certain things are *absolutely* determined, as in "fatal determination." They *must* take place. For example, God absolutely determined to produce an entire world filled with people who reflect His own image.

But free choices take place within this goal, and cannot prevent the goal from being reached. And so, even with free choices, God knows the end game.

And any choice anybody makes is within the arena of predictability, since God provides for each choice. Even more so, the consequence for each choice is also known in advance.

So God is not surprised by any choice Man may make. And he remains a free creature, without God determining the choice for him.

I suppose you could say God can be "surprised" by these free choices. But is He really surprised if He has provided for each possible choice in advance? I don't think so.

His foreknowledge allows for free choice. And that's a bit incomprehensible for us, although you may describe it as irrational or incompatible. I think it makes sense if there is something God created called "free will" at all!

Wait: does God know all possible outcomes because He's predetermined what those possible outcomes must be, or does He know all possible outcomes that could arise from free creatures acting freely within the context of their circumstances?

Are compelled choices free, though?

Yes, free choices are free. And yes, God knows every possible outcome, and as such foreknows all of the possible choices, allowing free agents to choose which option they choose for. Yes, hard to understand. I just believe in God's omniscience, as well as His creation of free moral agents.

Again, I'm asking why you think foreknowledge is determinative and you're not stating why you think that. You're just writing more replies with this assumption, but why are you assuming it?

I think I've already stated it: God's foreknowledge consists of all He had in mind to create and to do with respect to creation. He is not looking through a crystal ball, but rather, looking at what He wants to do. And if He wants to do it, then what He knows He wants to do is what will be--nothing can prevent Him from doing whatever He wants to do.

I do not think foreknowledge is absolutely determinative--otherwise there would be nothing called free moral agents. It is partially determinative, because God wills to allow free moral agents to make free choices within the orbit of God's all-encompassing plan.

Time itself is too theoretical for me, though I know it exists and experience it. What God experiences must be something completely different, since creation is relative to time, and God is uncreated and before time.

That being said, I think foreknowledge allows for time development and free human choices. It's just that God is already there when Man makes a free choice--He is not really surprised in time, as we are. His foreknowledge is equal to being there seeing something happen, including free choices.

But again, how far does God go in His manipulation if He manipulates to ensure X result but ends up with Y, then has to manipulate further to ensure X1, and so forth? You're assuming foreknowledge while denying it.

Yes, God had a backup plan in the event Man chose to bypass the Tree of Life and choose, instead, the Tree of Knowledge. This led to X1. And God foresaw it, and being incapable of failing in what He had already determined, He already was there in redemptive mode at the time the 1st sin was committed.

God will manipulate redemption to produce the world full of godly people--I don't question that. But even then, free will operates within these parameters, and not outside of them. If Man could destroy God's program, then God would be a liar.

And this is your example of God determining X number of possibilities? Do you mean by this example that God explicitly set up an either/or, or that God provided a command and let things play out?...
It sounds like you're saying God doesn't know what free choices will be made. Except when it's convenient for Him to know the outcome of those choices which now aren't free because He's determined them.

God *partly* determines some of these choices, while *absolutely* determining others. So when God "partly determines" free choices they can only take place within certain determined parameters.

So like, Open Theism and compatibilism... :thinking: Again, why do you think foreknowledge is determinative and that this is a better theology?

God is not surprised by free choices, and as such does not express your sense of my "Open Theism." God is already there,  anticipating any choice, and determining an outcome that pursues the original goal. If God is not "surprised," He has not determined the choices of men for them. He has simply limited what choices they have, determining what must always conform to His over-arching plan.

Maybe God determined that you'd forever misunderstand foreknowledge. How would you know?

You obviously wouldn't! Fortunately, He made us in His image so we could understand His truth and relate to Him.

[Athanasius]

Sorry, brother--I didn't avoid answering. I must've missed it. I argued this w/ Christian Research Institute back in the mid-70s, after I had gotten out of a modalistic Christian cult. I felt that God as a single Divine Being must be represented as a Person with a capital "P." And the 3 Persons of the Trinity must also have their Persons spelled with a capital "P." This would look like Person = Person + Person + Person. CRI answered back and argued 1 + 1 + 1 does not equal 1.

So yes, language does not resolve the problem of a dimensional matter that exceeded finity. 1P + 1P + 1P = 1(3P)

The doctrine of the trinity distinguishes between substance and person, though. The Godhead isn't: Person = Person + Person + Person, it's: the divine substance is instantiated as Person (Gtf), Person (GtS), Person (GtHS). This isn't about whether or not the Trinity appears irrational or whatever, but about accurately stating the doctrine.

Using "1 + 1 + 1 = 1" as quickhand for the doctrine is to misunderstand the doctrine.

[RandyPNW]

Sorry, brother--I didn't avoid answering. I must've missed it. I argued this w/ Christian Research Institute back in the mid-70s, after I had gotten out of a modalistic Christian cult. I felt that God as a single Divine Being must be represented as a Person with a capital "P." And the 3 Persons of the Trinity must also have their Persons spelled with a capital "P." This would look like Person = Person + Person + Person. CRI answered back and argued 1 + 1 + 1 does not equal 1.

So yes, language does not resolve the problem of a dimensional matter that exceeded finity. 1P + 1P + 1P = 1(3P)

The doctrine of the trinity distinguishes between substance and person, though. The Godhead isn't: Person = Person + Person + Person, it's: the divine substance is instantiated as Person (Gtf), Person (GtS), Person (GtHS). This isn't about whether or not the Trinity appears irrational or whatever, but about accurately stating the doctrine.

Using "1 + 1 + 1 = 1" as quickhand for the doctrine is to misunderstand the doctrine.

If I couldn't resolve it with CRI, I probably won't be able to resolve it with you either. I understand what you're saying, and agree with how you're formulating the Trinity--it is orthodox. But I don't agree that it cannot be stated as I say either.

As you yourself said, it is a transcendent idea that can only be expressed in a way that finite concepts are unable to properly appreciate. God's Substance and Person are united in the concept of the Father, and yet are distinguished when you enter into the equation finite, created realities such as the human Son and the finite universe where the Spirit appears in finite locations. And so, you can speak of a Trinity of Persons while speaking of a single infinite Person at the same time. Sorry, I don't think we can go much farther.

[Athanasius]

Simple, as in overly-reduced, like improperly reducing an algebraic equation. I'm not referring to "simple-to-understand," but to overly-simplified, perhaps to make something easier to understand, which may not be possible.

Yes, I got that. I'm wondering how deep is too deep, and if you're trying to stay grounded, while describing Molinism as 'simplistic', then is that possibly a sign that you're in too deep, and as such, aren't warranted in describing Molinism as 'simplistic'? Or, is it a sign that you're in too deep if you're not clear on what's being argued, or engaging with something other than what's being argued (that is, misunderstand what's being argued)?

For example:

That is the "simplistic" formula that I alluded to before, which got you all stirred up. It is not un-intelligent, but rather, devising a formula, or something like an equation, to resolve a complex problem without actually explaining it in material terms.

I could easily say God foreknows everything as an explanation for anything that may happen. But that doesn't explain why several different things could happen, and the cause and effect that went into determining those outcomes.

What I'm asking for is an acknowledgement that the views under discussion aren't simplistic.

I was explaining determinism in the philosophical sense, as in absolute determinism.

It was necessary for me to define the term as I was using it.

No one has asked you to define this term. My question is: should anything be determined in a fatalistic way? I'm not looking for an answer like, "It doesn't need to be". I'm wondering why you've framed your earlier reply in these terms at all:

I'm not really probing very deep--just using common sense. If there is to be something called "free will," and the Bible presupposes it, then everything *cannot* be determined in a fatalistic way. As to God's ability to manage everything, including free will, as a Deity, I don't have a problem with that. If He is able to anticipate any outcome caused by free agents, then He is in effect still determining things as an omnipotent Being. He is, for lack of a better way to put it, determining free choice. I do realize how contradictory that sounds on the surface!

Actually, I think it does. The substance of the Deity is infinite, and as such, absorbs any material or spatial representation of Him, as produced by His word. All 3 representations remain the one God.

What does this mean?

- An infinite substance 'absorbs any material or spatial representation of itself'.
- the Word has produced those 'material or spatial representations' of the Deity (which are absorbed... into what?).
- Regardless, all three representations remain the one God.

What do you mean by 'representation'?

Again, certain things are *absolutely* determined, as in "fatal determination." They *must* take place. For example, God absolutely determined to produce an entire world filled with people who reflect His own image.

That's God's own self-determination. No one would refer to God's own acting as 'fatalism'.

But free choices take place within this goal, and cannot prevent the goal from being reached. And so, even with free choices, God knows the end game.

And any choice anybody makes is within the arena of predictability, since God provides for each choice. Even more so, the consequence for each choice is also known in advance.

So God is not surprised by any choice Man may make. And he remains a free creature, without God determining the choice for him.

I suppose you could say God can be "surprised" by these free choices. But is He really surprised if He has provided for each possible choice in advance? I don't think so.

His foreknowledge allows for free choice. And that's a bit incomprehensible for us, although you may describe it as irrational or incompatible. I think it makes sense if there is something God created called "free will" at all!

So all of that said, we have to conclude that in your view, God is vulnerable through His lack of knowledge of anything He's not fatalistically determined (to use your words). Even if He provides only X options to choices that are only free by illusion, He still doesn't know which choice will be made.

What exactly is 'partial' about your view?

Yes, free choices are free. And yes, God knows every possible outcome, and as such foreknows all of the possible choices, allowing free agents to choose which option they choose for. Yes, hard to understand. I just believe in God's omniscience, as well as His creation of free moral agents.

Compelled choices aren't free, no (because they're compelled).

What you're arguing isn't hard to understand. It's not well thought through. For instance, you think foreknowledge is determinative, but here you're suggesting that God "foreknows all possible choices", but He only foreknows these choices because He set them up, and for some reason in this case His foreknowledge isn't determinative, but that would be because He doesn't possess foreknowledge as properly understood.

I think I've already stated it: God's foreknowledge consists of all He had in mind to create and to do with respect to creation. He is not looking through a crystal ball, but rather, looking at what He wants to do. And if He wants to do it, then what He knows He wants to do is what will be--nothing can prevent Him from doing whatever He wants to do.

I do not think foreknowledge is absolutely determinative--otherwise there would be nothing called free moral agents. It is partially determinative, because God wills to allow free moral agents to make free choices within the orbit of God's all-encompassing plan.

Time itself is too theoretical for me, though I know it exists and experience it. What God experiences must be something completely different, since creation is relative to time, and God is uncreated and before time.

That being said, I think foreknowledge allows for time development and free human choices. It's just that God is already there when Man makes a free choice--He is not really surprised in time, as we are. His foreknowledge is equal to being there seeing something happen, including free choices.

This is all sorts of confused. It's more probable that you think foreknowledge is determinative (in any degree) because you're fixated on a misconception of foreknowledge.

Yes, God had a backup plan in the event Man chose to bypass the Tree of Life and choose, instead, the Tree of Knowledge. This led to X1. And God foresaw it, and being incapable of failing in what He had already determined, He already was there in redemptive mode at the time the 1st sin was committed.

God will manipulate redemption to produce the world full of godly people--I don't question that. But even then, free will operates within these parameters, and not outside of them. If Man could destroy God's program, then God would be a liar.

God determined it, you mean, vis-a-vis His manipulation of the circumstance and determination of the choices therein. One wonders why God would need to manipulate and not just create free people who He determined would choose for him.

God *partly* determines some of these choices, while *absolutely* determining others. So when God "partly determines" free choices they can only take place within certain determined parameters.

Don't forget: only when it's convenient to the plot.

You obviously wouldn't!

I think it's pretty clear.

[Athanasius]

If I couldn't resolve it with CRI, I probably won't be able to resolve it with you either. I understand what you're saying, and agree with how you're formulating the Trinity--it is orthodox. But I don't agree that it cannot be stated as I say either.

As you yourself said, it is a transcendent idea that can only be expressed in a way that finite concepts are unable to properly appreciate. God's Substance and Person are united in the concept of the Father, and yet are distinguished when you enter into the equation finite, created realities such as the human Son and the finite universe where the Spirit appears in finite locations. And so, you can speak of a Trinity of Persons while speaking of a single infinite Person at the same time. Sorry, I don't think we can go much farther.

You won't be able to resolve this with the CRI, me, or anyone who understands the concepts used in expressing the doctrine of the Trinity because you're not describing the Trinity. Just because God is transcendent doesn't mean we can describe Him any which way.

[RandyPNW]

If I couldn't resolve it with CRI, I probably won't be able to resolve it with you either. I understand what you're saying, and agree with how you're formulating the Trinity--it is orthodox. But I don't agree that it cannot be stated as I say either.

As you yourself said, it is a transcendent idea that can only be expressed in a way that finite concepts are unable to properly appreciate. God's Substance and Person are united in the concept of the Father, and yet are distinguished when you enter into the equation finite, created realities such as the human Son and the finite universe where the Spirit appears in finite locations. And so, you can speak of a Trinity of Persons while speaking of a single infinite Person at the same time. Sorry, I don't think we can go much farther.

You won't be able to resolve this with the CRI, me, or anyone who understands the concepts used in expressing the doctrine of the Trinity because you're not describing the Trinity. Just because God is transcendent doesn't mean we can describe Him any which way.

When I disagree with someone, I try to avoid making the disagreement "personal." Let me just say I agree that we have to remain orthodox in our formulation of the Trinity.

But I do not agree that the *only* way to express orthodoxy is through the use of language used by the Councils of the Church. That is indeed the only way to express orthodoxy using the language of the councils. But orthodoxy existed before the councils, and exists independent of the language used by the councils.

In other words, the Trinity can, in my opinion, be expressed better than how the councils expressed it. And I feel it has to be expressed better due to continuing issues that the language of the councils does not adequately deal with.

[Athanasius]

When I disagree with someone, I try to avoid making the disagreement "personal."

That's good to know. I'll let you know when I get personal. Promise.

Let me just say I agree that we have to remain orthodox in our formulation of the Trinity.

It doesn't read that way. It reads like you want to have multiple orthodoxies so that you can say your description of the Trinity is "orthodox" despite its apparent heterodox nature.

But I do not agree that the *only* way to express orthodoxy is through the use of language used by the Councils of the Church. That is indeed the only way to express orthodoxy using the language of the councils. But orthodoxy existed before the councils, and exists independent of the language used by the councils.

Are you suggesting that when a council was convened, it came up with totally new theology irrespective of what was being discussed at the time? That it didn't take into consideration the orthodoxy of the day? If you are, what's one of the councils that you have in mind? If you aren't (and I doubt you are), then it's absurd to suggest that there's tension between "orthodoxy before the councils" and the convening of a council to discuss what that orthodoxy actually is. Councils were conveyed exactly because of that existing orthodoxy... that maybe wasn't so orthodox on each of its sides.

In other words, the Trinity can, in my opinion, be expressed better than how the councils expressed it. And I feel it has to be expressed better due to continuing issues that the language of the councils does not adequately deal with.

That's fair enough if you can demonstrate it (let's be clear that I'm not limiting the doctrine of the trinity purely to the formulation of the early church and ignoring any subsequent development), but if you think "1 + 1 + 1 = 1" is a better expression of the doctrine of the Trinity than what the councils, or perhaps the Cappadocian fathers, etc., came up with, then you're kidding yourself.

You might think you hold to an orthodox understanding of the Trinity, and you clearly affirm the need for an orthodox formulation, but that's not what you're arguing for in practice. This isn't about you personally. It's about the argument you're offering and how it expresses the Trinity. The Trinity is not "Person = Person + Person + Person" and this isn't even in the ballpark of orthodoxy as expressed -- but I'll be nicer to you than you were to Joshua, hint hint wink wink hint wink hint.

[RandyPNW]

Are you suggesting that when a council was convened, it came up with totally new theology irrespective of what was being discussed at the time?

No. The Councils dealt with the concerns of their time, which happened to be a good enough set of formulas to last throughout Christian history. And I do respect that.

But like all men, they weren't perfect. And at least in my mind, the Trinitarian formulation ended up a 3-headed monster. I had to figure it out for myself.

If you don't like how I frame it, you don't have to accept it. But you can't prove it's heterodox. You can only prove it's not precisely the language used for the orthodox formula of the time.

I don't see anything there that prohibits more Persons in the Deity than only three? Do you?

For example, Do you see anywhere where God is said to be limited to only 3 Persons? Would a Theophany in the OT, for example, be excluded, by council formulation, from representing a Person in the Deity?

That's fair enough if you can demonstrate it (let's be clear that I'm not limiting the doctrine of the trinity purely to the formulation of the early church and ignoring any subsequent development), but if you think "1 + 1 + 1 = 1" is a better expression of the doctrine of the Trinity than what the councils, or perhaps the Cappadocian fathers, etc., came up with, then you're kidding yourself.

No, I'm not kidding myself. That formulation was the beginning of my considering how far the Substance of the Deity can be stretched to include more Persons? When I began to consider that the relationship between infinity and finitude were the key to understanding the distinction of Persons, then I realized that finite representations of Deity can also be of infinite quantity.

It was not important to know how many Persons God wished to be--only that in theory that's what He can do. That way, God's Substance is seen as a transcendent reality that can be expressed in any number of finite forms, assuming the expression of each Person is designed to present the Person of God in that form.

You might think you hold to an orthodox understanding of the Trinity, and you clearly affirm the need for an orthodox formulation, but that's not what you're arguing for in practice. This isn't about you personally. It's about the argument you're offering and how it expresses the Trinity. The Trinity is not "Person = Person + Person + Person" and this isn't even in the ballpark of orthodoxy as expressed -- but I'll be nicer to you than you were to Joshua, hint hint wink wink hint wink hint.

I wasn't being unkind to Joshua--just informing him of what he needed to know, that he was espousing heretical beliefs on a Christian forum. None of that was "personal." That was your presumption, and that presumption was wrong.

Again, I disagree. The formula 1 Person = 1P + 1P + 1P, if 1P = 3P  is correct. It just isn't part of the councils' orthodox formulations. But in my opinion, it was always assumed to be true, even before arguing that there were 3 Persons in 1 God.

[Athanasius]

No. The Councils dealt with the concerns of their time, which happened to be a good enough set of formulas to last throughout Christian history. And I do respect that.

But like all men, they weren't perfect. And at least in my mind, the Trinitarian formulation ended up a 3-headed monster. I had to figure it out for myself.

If you don't like how I frame it, you don't have to accept it. But you can't prove it's heterodox. You can only prove it's not precisely the language used for the orthodox formula of the time.

If a view is heterodox, it's because it doesn't align with what's been agreed to be orthodox. I don't need to prove that your view is heterodox because it is by definition, if it doesn't align with orthodox teaching. Your view doesn't align with orthodox teaching, and so, it is heterodox at best.

For comparison: if someone's Christology is heterodox, then they hold a view of Christ that is not the agreed upon, orthodox teaching. For example, the view that Jesus is God via coronation is heterodox at best, and we rely on historical teaching, councils, etc., to refute the view. Which you did. And, it's the same when we come to the doctrine of the Trinity. If you have an understanding of the Godhead that isn't orthodox then so be it. As I said elsewhere, I don't think the doctrine of the Trinity is necessarily salvific. Don't pretend that it's a view that's orthodox, though.

I don't see anything there that prohibits more Persons in the Deity than only three? Do you?

Yes, revelation. Doctrinal positions must only be formed with respect to what God has said, revealed of Himself, and so on.

For example, Do you see anywhere where God is said to be limited to only 3 Persons? Would a Theophany in the OT, for example, be excluded, by council formulation, from representing a Person in the Deity?

Theophanies are regarded as manifestations of some person of the Godhead, such as the Word, prior to incarnation. If God reveals Himself as three persons, then God is three persons. If we later find out the Godhead isn't Trinitarian, then so be it. But that's not the revelation we've been given. What we've been given reveals God as Trinitarian, so God is Trinitarian.

Besides, your language of 'expression' doesn't suggest multiple people of the Godhead, any more than I'm a different person when I put on a hat, or glasses with a nose and moustache.

No, I'm not kidding myself. That formulation was the beginning of my considering how far the Substance of the Deity can be stretched to include more Persons? When I began to consider that the relationship between infinity and finitude were the key to understanding the distinction of Persons, then I realized that finite representations of Deity can also be of infinite quantity.

It was not important to know how many Persons God wished to be--only that in theory that's what He can do. That way, God's Substance is seen as a transcendent reality that can be expressed in any number of finite forms, assuming the expression of each Person is designed to present the Person of God in that form.

What you're doing is doctrine divorced from Scripture (revelation). It's not like substance is constrained such that it can only be instantiated in three Persons at max. Can God be more than three persons? Sure, in theory, God isn't native to our reality so why not? But what we have in the doctrine of the Trinity is what God has revealed of Himself, so theorising isn't appropriate. If God tells us that He's three Persons, then He's three Persons.

I wasn't being unkind to Joshua--just informing him of what he needed to know, that he was espousing heretical beliefs on a Christian forum. None of that was "personal." That was your presumption, and that presumption was wrong.

I didn't say that you made it personal, I said that you weren't kind. Joshua's Christology was heretical, just as your formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity (which in your view isn't a Trinity) is. But does it do anyone any good to point this out? If Joshua had replied with, "yeah but the councils were only men" would you have accepted that? (You wouldn't have.) But we're not bishops and this isn't the 4th century so I don't see the merit in pointing out heresy the majority of the time; I think it's better to discuss it.

But be honest with yourself about the views you hold with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity. You're allowing for your own view the flexibility that you deny others.

[Oseas]

“The daily sacrifice will be stopped. Then, after 1,290 days from that time, a blasphemous object that brings destruction will be set up. (Daniel 12:11,” EXB, NCV)

“There will be 1,290 days from the time that the daily sacrifices are stopped, until someone sets up the “Horrible Thing” that causes destruction.” (Daniel 12:11, NEV)

“There will be one thousand two hundred ninety days from the time the daily sacrifice is stopped to the setting up of the desolating monstrosity.” (Daniel 12:11, CEB)

Joshua

What you have posted refers to the second half of the week 70th Daniel 9:v.27. In the exact point you posted, begins the second half of the week that will be ruled by the EVIL PRINCE and he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

In the other hand, in my personal understanding or according my view, the week 70th Daniel 9:v.27 will fulfill LITERALLY in this current decade 2020 - 2030.

May our Lord GOD bless us and keep us, and give us His protection
Amen