D-G says "three persons." That's not implying, that's explicitly stating separate individuals. And I know for certain that Catholic theology considers them separate individuals (but the same person, somehow). Yours is an explanation that makes some logical sense (not a lot, since the whole redemption/salvation thing is inherently nonsensical, but that's not your fault), it just flies in the face of pretty much every form of formal Trinitarian theology I've ever heard. You don't understand: there's almost nothing that does make sense in what you said. You can't just spout a load of nonsense and think that as long as you've linked it with plenty of ellipses and "therefores" you've made a logical argument. Let's take the most egregious example: Jesus Christ is a man, of the universe, therefore not of God... yet God the Father finds and recognizes himself in Jesus Christ... therefore Jesus is of God, and is the Son. At its most fundamental, logic works like this: something is either A, or it is Not A. Something cannot simultaneously be A and Not A. That is a logical contradiction and inherently nonsensical. But here you are, stating that Jesus is both Not A (not of God) and A (of God), simultaneously. This doesn't make sense; this cannot make sense to a mind thinking logically. The only recourse is to abandon logic by appealing to "mystery" and the limits of our comprehension, and to resort to special pleading in which God is the one thing that doesn't have to behave logically because it's God. Which you haven't done yet but I imagine we'll get there. (Alternatively, we'll get someone saying something about quantum physics.) Also: I don't understand how this makes sense even within the mythology. A large chunk of the Bible consists of conditions God places on his "love."