I am dealing with the definition given.


You were dealing with one limited definition. You have clarified that you don't agree that the modes are purely consecutive, but only some modalists believe that. You have not indicated how you differ from the modalists who don't believe that, but have instead argued for their position.


My overall point is that there are a lot of silly people running around saying "You are a modalist!" and I have yet to find one who claims a Modalist belief on this board.


If it walks like a duck and swims like a duck, it does not have to claim 'I am a duck!' to be a duck.


Brian, I never called them three offices,


Yes you have, Jerry. And more than once.


Now I understand that you are not really meaning person, but three hypostases


I do mean person, just not with the definition you want, but rather the definition Christianity has used for nearly 2,000 years.


when I gave you the definition of the word person, I gave you the only possibly correct definition of the word as to not separate the three into three gods.


Yet I don't use that definition, nor separate the three into three gods. Therefore your definition is not the correct one.


now I realize that you mean hypostasis, and not person


I have used the term hypostasis since we first started discussing this.


you can't expect me to fully understand your thinking when you use such a term.


But can I expect you to see how Christianity has used such a term for nearly 2,000 years?

Brian