I am sooooo struggling to understand exactly how this thread is “(Not religious)”.
You inspired me to do a search, and yeah, I got a lot of hits.
https://boards.straightdope.com/search?expanded=true&q=trinity%20%40Polycarp
It’s like if a woman and I walk in on her husband as he’s apparently cheating on her, and he patiently explains that, yes, in a sense the woman he’s now having sex with isn’t her — I mean, that’s obvious; his wife is considerably taller, and doesn’t happen to be Asian, and is standing ten feet away from the woman he’s still having sex with, and so on — but that, in another sense, in a way that’s maybe hard for you to understand, this short woman you’ve caught him in the act with is his tall wife, and so it’s not adultery, see?
(And then his actual wife shoots him dead, only to assure me that it wasn’t murder because he isn’t dead. I mean, yes, in a sense he’s in fact dead; but in another sense, one that’s maybe hard for you to understand, she is him, and she’s not dead, and therefore he’s not dead, and therefore she hasn’t killed him because she clearly hasn’t committed suicide.)
The trinity is one of Atheism’s Holy Trinity (coupled with the Virgin birth and the Resurrection) of contrafàctual gibberish that makes no sense to anyone not already committed in advance to accepting nonsense as dogma.
As far as I can tell, it’s supposed to not make sense. If you think you understand it or can explain it, by definition you haven’t actually grasped it at all.
[church lady voice] How convenient!
I think (though I am obviously not the OP) that the OP is trying to posit that the idea of the Holy Trinity is based on a philosophical, “non-religious” idea that people have different aspects of their persons.
But, yeah, as it stands there in the title, “(Not religious)” isn’t doing much to clarify their OP.
What I am actually looking for is possible thoughts the philosopher may have been having when he wrote this. Thats why I said it was not religious.
Exactly, w both posted at the same time, there is a long list of biblical quotes I am curious about in the same way.
Bear in mind that whoever originally wrote about or described the concept of the Holy Trinity, it’s highly unlikely that they were (or considered themselves to be) a “philosopher” – they were undoubtedly a believer in Christianity, and were elucidating a tenet of that (then-new) faith, for the faithful, rather than trying to examine it from a philosophical standpoint.
From the standpoint of a believer, the writings about the Trinity in the New Testament are, like the rest of the Bible, the inspired word of God (that is, the literal words of God, placed into the minds of the humans who wrote it).
IMO, any attempt, like yours, to frame the Trinity in terms of a human’s personality is an ex post facto exercise.
Me too. My late aunts and their (combined) 16 children are all Catholics. To me, the Holy Trinity is how you start jambalaya.
Yeah, that’s the beauty of religion. 
I think most sane people see it the same way, it is presented as an unsolvable mystery. I have to believe there is a deeper meaning to it that has nothing to do with God. I see a religious God the same way I see an operating system in a computer. I had that operating system installed in me from my earliest memories.
This is where I think the Eastern Orthodox have it right. Western Christianity has wanted to over rationalize something that never was intended to be rational (and deliberately irrational at that). As “The Leftovers” theme song put it so well: let the mystery be.
Which Philosopher?
Why? To my mind, some claims — regardless of whether they’re presented as unsolvable mysteries — don’t have to have a deeper meaning; they can just be, y’know, false. I’m not saying it’s necessarily so, in this case; but are you ruling out that possibility?
Just for the sake of exploring a thought I might be ruling it out. It is very hard to imagine someone saying something like this without a much deeper meaning.
Another one that has me curious is the one in Sodom and Gamora where they were instructed to not look back else they be turned into a pillar of salt. The lowest periods in my own life were always cases where instead of just walking away and not looking back I tried to resolve issues or make sense of something that made no sense.
First you have to accept, without any evidence, that a philosopher wrote this in the first place. It is like asking “What inspired a bricklayer to create pineapple upside down cake?”
Why would I approach any potentially valuable piece of philosophy with an attitude that would shut down my thinking about it???