The motive at least in starting the Patriarchinity series, was a rebuttal to the monotarians and binitarians-- that is the large group within Messianicism that I'm trying to rescue from the oppression of their monotarian and binitarian beliefs. One of their main criticisms of the plurality of the Elohim, especially the Christian Trinity, is the "God in three Persons" formula. Their implication is that the Christian Trinity is demeaning Elohim by replacing divinity with mere humanity. I don't believe that was the intention of the Christian Trinity nor is it my intention with the Patriarchial view of Elohim. But that seems to be a big sticking point with them, and in debates they will always default to that argument-- even though I've never used the term "Person." So when i point that fact out to them, they have little to say in response.

"Person" and "Being" are really interchangeable, and in my mind as long as they are capitalized, then the intentions are clear (much in the same way "Elohim" is not equal to "elohim"). In fact I was just reading a passage in Scripture the other day (forgot where exactly) and the word "being" or "beings" was used in the same exact way that "person" or "people" would have been used. But with the monotarian or binitarian (and maybe the muslim even), the word "Person" carries a certain amount of baggage such that if they hear or see you use that term, they immediately shut down and write you off as a complete heretic. Whereas when using the term "Being" or "Beings," the window of opportunity stays open a bit longer.

Thanks for clarifying. It's amazing how much baggage and stigmata attach to words. One can go paranoid around different people as you never know what's going to upset them. I almost feel like speaking in tongues ;)