Ontology and the Trinity

by John Mackay 611 words

Orthodox Christianity informs us that the Holy Trinity (God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Ghost) are three personas consubstantial with the Godhead. By way of analogy, my bones, muscles and organs each have their distinct persona: ‘character’ but together are consubstantial with the biological entity identified as ‘Me’.

In short, Christian Orthdoxy defines the Godhead as a Trinity of personas: ‘characters’ personified as:

1. God the Father;
2. Jesus the Son; and
3. the Holy Ghost.

Each of these symbolic personas can be said to embody a distinct characteristic that personifies their function with respect to the ‘condition of being’ that is existence. The mapping of these symbolic personas to their functional characteristics can be described as follows:

1. God the Father i.e Creator: ‘that which Creates’ symbolizes the Cause to existence;
2. Jesus the Son as that which issues from God the Father symbolizes the Effect that is existence; and
3. The Holy Ghost as that which symbolizes the Essence of existence;¹

If we are to somehow signify how these distinct yet consubstantial personas function together to provide the complete ontology: ‘account of being’ we can consider the mathematical statement below:

∃ = { Δ }

The mathematical statement: ∃ = { Δ } declares that:

All existence is a conference of difference, a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'. (Mackay, J.I. 2024)

In other words, the constant expression, the conference of difference { Δ } that functions as Creator (personified as God the Father) is the cause that issues the effect that is ∃ existence (personified as Jesus the Son) and when declared together as cause and effect i.e. ∃ = { Δ } signifies the essence (personified as the Holy Ghost/Spirit) of existence.

Though we have re-mapped the Trinity from symbolic personas to their characteristic functions and distilled yet further into mathematical notation, their consubstantiality in terms of fulfilling the Godhead as the complete ontology: ‘account of being’ of existence remains intact.

In closing I should point out that the decision by various religions to personify the characteristics of creation can be understood in that characters make for better narrative vehicles (messengers) because the message can be storified making it easier to consume, propagate and remember. Even if one becomes overwhelmed by the characters (messengers) at the expense of their message (subtext), the message itself remains firmly intact within the story even if the one relating it can no longer distil the message from the messenger. I will address this further in my next article: The Cult of the Messenger.

---