History of Philosophy | 18 Middle and Neo-Platonism

[Thomas]

The Trinitarian Doctrine, which you seem to want to peg to Nicaea, which I don't, because I see the council as Christological, with Trinitarian ramifications, if you like, but certainly not the end of the story, and not providing a clear statement of Trinitarian Doctrine.

I'm not sure what you're understanding of Trinity is. As a working definition I'd say one ousia in three hypostases

You've used the Nicene homoousios, but you must acknowledge that term unleashed a whole subsequent array of disputes – the term was not agreed, and even its precise definition was disputed. Terms such as ousia and hypostasis were used, leading to confusion between Latin and Greek, as even in the Greek some treated them as synonymous and others as distinct classifications.

"The principal objection to the term homoousios had been its alleged Sabellian tendencies to eliminate the distinctions between Father and Son. But it was the Cappadocians who proposed an intermediate solution. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were homoousios (of the same essence) but they were not the same things, but three different hypostases. Here we formally meet the term hypostasis which means the actual reality of a given essence.

"To illustrate this term, we can return to our example of the term “tree.” The essence or ousia of tree is that which makes it a tree and not another thing. The hypostasis of “tree” is the concrete reality of this specific tree in my yard as a manifestation of tree essence common to all trees. The teaching of the Cappadocians was that there were three hypostases but one ousia which in English means roughly that there were three distinct entities but with one common nature. The Cappadocians had finessed Nicaea which had condemned the Arian belief that the Father and the Son were different hypostases, but using the term hypostasis in a different sense than Nicaea had. This remains essentially the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trinity to this day.

"The understanding necessarily lays a bit more emphasis on the distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit rather than on the oneness of God (which is emphasized more in western Catholic thinking) but nonetheless was a crucial breakthrough in the controversy. It for the first time provided language in which the threeness of of the one God could be spoken of and safeguarded."
Jesus Christ God, Man and Savior Week Six: God the Son at Nicaea and Constantinople (underlining mine).

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm not sure what you're understanding of Trinity is. As a working definition I'd say one ousia in three hypostases

I doubt whether G-d expects us to know that, when it comes to judgement day.

 

[Ahanu]

I'm suggesting the Church believed in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit from its foundation.

No one is denying that early Christians used triadic language or had a concept of God involving Father, Son, and Spirit. Even Abdu'l-Baha asserts that. But that's a far cry from the complex philosophical and theological framework that defines Trinitarianism as it emerged later. That's why I don't want the label "Trinitarianism" to obscure that distinction.

Just as Tertullian's statement and the Nicene Creed have a "generic resemblance," so too does the Baha'i concept of Trinity superficially resemble the Christian Trinity in its triadic structure ("Giver, Grace, Recipient," "Father, Son, Holy Ghost"):

But as to the question of the Trinity know . . . that in each one of the cycles wherein the Lights have shone forth upon the horizons (i. e., in each prophetic dispensation) and the Forgiving Lord hath revealed Himself on Mount Paran (see Habbakkuk 3:3, etc.) or Mount Sinai, or Mount Seir (see Ezekiel 35), there are necessarily three things: The Giver of Grace, and the Grace, and the Recipient of the Grace; the Source of the Effulgence, and the Effulgence, and the Recipient of the Effulgence; the Illuminator, and the Illumination, and Illuminated. Look at the Mosaic cycle: The Lord, and Moses, and the Fire (i.e., the burning bush), the Intermediary; and [at] the Messianic cycle: The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost the Intermediary; and in the Mohammedan cycle: The Lord, the Apostle (or Messenger, Mohammed), and Gabriel (for, as the Mohammedans believe, Gabriel brought the Revelation from God to Mohammed). Look at the sun and its rays and the heat which results from its rays; the rays and the heat are but two effects of the sun, but inseparable from it; yet the sun is one in its essence, unique in its real identity, single in its attributes, neither is it possible that anything should resemble it. Such is the essence of the Truth concerning the Unity, the real doctrine of Singularity, the undiluted reality as to the (Divine) Sanctity.
-‘Abdu’l-Bahá

I guess we could rightly label Abdu'l-Baha a "19th and 20th century Trinitarian" according to your broad net.

Where have I suggested 'a path directly'? You're reading that onto me. The path is anything but ...

It's simply clarifying the implication of your arguments. Your entire argument rests on establishing a trajectory - a sense of continuity and inevitable progression, even if a winding one at that, towards later forms of Trinitarianism from the 2nd century or earlier right from the get-go, the moment Jesus arrived on the scene. You present Tertullian as evidence for "2nd-century Trinitarianism," you emphasize his "remarkable resemblances" to Nicaea, you highlight early creedal formulas. This isn't a misreading, but a fair interpretation of your argument.

You also state that "a Trinitarian doctrine would have emerged from the contemplation of Scripture regardless of Plato." Your "regardless of Plato" statement implies a kind of inevitable path - one determined by Scripture itself. Here you ignore that Greek philosophy provides conceptual tools for these Church Fathers that often think in Platonic ways.

It is also undeniable that Origen's philosophical assertions were influenced by his Christian faith.

It's not one or t'other, it's a two-way street and it requires a careful reading, as scholars like Ramelli show.

Exactly. This emphasis on a "two-way street" - where "Origen's Christian faith influenced his philosophical assertions" - is contradicted by your earlier claim that "a Trinitarian doctrine would have emerged from the contemplation of Scripture regardless of Plato." If his philosophical framework in turn shaped his theological formulations, then Origen's theology was shaped by contingent factors beyond just Scripture.

That's my point. We see it clearly in Tertullian, who was influenced by Stoic philosophy. We see the emergence of one substance. Tertullian did not simply derive his Trinitarian formulations from "Scripture alone."

Put another way ... why did the Fathers look to Platonism for a doctrine of the Trinity at all?

Let's ask Justin. Middle Platonism had a concept of the Logos (or Nous) as a mediating principle emanating from the One (a divine intellect or reason that is both distinct from and derived from the ultimate source) offered a philosophical analogue for the Christian Logos, the Son of God. Justin directly exploited this parallel.

 

[Ahanu]

And as we know, Tertullian ended up a Montanist.

Tertullian became a Montanist. That movement was deemed heretical. So if his understanding of Scripture was so clear, how did he end up in heresy? Or was the issue that his understanding of Scripture was not so clear? Why?

If this could happen in the early Church, could the same happen to today's Catholics two thousand years from now? Is it possible that future interpretations of Scripture or doctrine could lead to similar deviations, or even schisms? This isn't to say it will happen, but it's a thought-provoking possibility, isn't it?

 

[Thomas]

No one is denying that early Christians used triadic language or had a concept of God involving Father, Son, and Spirit.

OK.

But that's a far cry from the complex philosophical and theological framework that defines Trinitarianism as it emerged later.

No disagreement there.

That's why I don't want the label "Trinitarianism" to obscure that distinction.

That tends towards anachronisms, although that's just a personal observation.

As I see it, the 'real ground' and the real distinctions emerge in the dialogue between the theological triad and the philosophical triad. The word 'trinity' and subsequently 'trinitarian' were coined in a broader context of belief than that debate.

Just as Tertullian's statement and the Nicene Creed have a "generic resemblance,"

More than generic, the word-for-word correspondence between Tertullian (213) and Nicaea (325) and Tertullian and Constantinople (381) suggest the same credal tradition.

Whereas there is no correlative correspondence between the Baha'i concept of Trinity and the Christian.

I guess we could rightly label Abdu'l-Baha a "19th and 20th century Trinitarian" according to your broad net.

No, I really don't think so.

Your entire argument rests on establishing a trajectory - a sense of continuity and inevitable progression, even if a winding one at that, towards later forms of Trinitarianism from the 2nd century or earlier right from the get-go, the moment Jesus arrived on the scene.

OK. Well, as had Jesus not arrived on the scene, and not said the things he said – which is the genesis of the whole 'God is One and God is Three' doctrine, then yes.

However, I think history is often neither 'continuous' nor 'inevitable'.

You present Tertullian as evidence for "2nd-century Trinitarianism," you emphasize his "remarkable resemblances" to Nicaea, you highlight early creedal formulas. This isn't a misreading, but a fair interpretation of your argument.

The facts speak for themselves.

You also state that "a Trinitarian doctrine would have emerged from the contemplation of Scripture regardless of Plato." Your "regardless of Plato" statement implies a kind of inevitable path - one determined by Scripture itself.

Implies to you ... not to me. I'm more aware, perhaps, of how, when and why the Church determines it's doctrines and dogmas.

The Church is 'Trinitarian' in that its credal formulae were triune from the very first, and was using the term in both Greek and Latin by the 2nd century.

From there, I'd say the Church would argue the Trinity according to the prevalent philosophies of the day. had the Church been in dialogue with a prevalent Hindu philosophy, say, then other arguments would be deployed – of avataras (incarnation), of citsatananda (Being, Consciousness, Bliss – a far more Trinitarian correlative than either Plato or Plotinus.)

So the dialogue and clash with the world was inevitable, but where that path led, or what other paths might have been travelled, one can only wonder ...

Here you ignore that Greek philosophy provides conceptual tools for these Church Fathers that often think in Platonic ways.

You keep repeating this, and I keep explaining myself.

They used Platonic conceptual tools, they thought in Platonic ways, and arrived at a doctrine that redefined the terms and is not itself Platonic, in fact it refutes, or more accurately perfects, certain Platonic ideas in the face of Scripture.

Exactly. This emphasis on a "two-way street" - where "Origen's Christian faith influenced his philosophical assertions" - is contradicted by your earlier claim that "a Trinitarian doctrine would have emerged from the contemplation of Scripture regardless of Plato."

I don't see why, if in the end the Trinitarian doctrine did refute Plato.

If his philosophical framework in turn shaped his theological formulations, then Origen's theology was shaped by contingent factors beyond just Scripture.

And the history shows the Fathers are not infallible, and that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not Origen's doctrine, nor is it Tertullian's doctrine, even though he coined the term.

That's my point. We see it clearly in Tertullian, who was influenced by Stoic philosophy. We see the emergence of one substance. Tertullian did not simply derive his Trinitarian formulations from "Scripture alone."

Of course not! He used language to express a doctrine – how else could he?

But terms such as mia physis, homoousios, hypostasis and so forth were deployed and defined with greater rigour and precision as a result of the ongoing debates, differences and difficulties.

I'd say the Fathers used whatever they could get their hands on to formulate their doctrine – homoousios seems a term most likely derived from the Christian Gnostic schools of Basilides (active 117-138) and Valentinus (110-180) ...

Let's ask Justin. Middle Platonism had a concept of the Logos (or Nous) as a mediating principle emanating from the One (a divine intellect or reason that is both distinct from and derived from the ultimate source) offered a philosophical analogue for the Christian Logos, the Son of God. Justin directly exploited this parallel.

And Justin's position was relatively short-lived and not taken up by later theologians.

I'm not denying the influence and never did, I'm simply saying that where Platonic theory seemed at odds with Scripture – then Scripture won out.

 

[Ahanu]

More than generic, the word-for-word correspondence between Tertullian (213) and Nicaea (325) and Tertullian and Constantinople (381) suggest the same credal tradition.

More obscuring than anything else here. This is still a superficial resemblance based on generic creedal language, not evidence of a "same credal tradition" in, say, the Nicene doctrinal sense or those of later articulations. You've ignored the fundamental doctrinal differences we've discussed.

Whereas there is no correlative correspondence between the Baha'i concept of Trinity and the Christian.

The term "Trinity" and triadic language are broader categories than, say, Nicene Trinitarianism. Just as the Baha'i Faith has a "Trinity" that is theologically distinct from the Christian Trinity, so too does Tertullian's and Justin's pre-Nicene theology remain distinct from later formulations.

 

[Ahanu]

That tends towards anachronisms, although that's just a personal observation.

In my personal observation, it's a misunderstanding to suggest that my caution against using "Trinitarianism" to describe the 2nd century is what "tends towards anachronisms." My view acknowledges that "trinity" and "Trinitarian" are terms that have been used in different ways across history, and that applying them without qualification to the 2nd century obscures the significant doctrinal developments that occurred later.

The real anachronism, and the one we must continuously be on guard against, is projecting the fully defined, ontologically precise Trinitarianism of the 4th century and beyond back onto the 2nd century and earlier. That is the historical distortion, and that is what applying "Trinitarianism" indiscriminately risks perpetuating.

 

[Ahanu]

No, I really don't think so.

No surprise there.

OK. Well, as had Jesus not arrived on the scene, and not said the things he said – which is the genesis of the whole 'God is One and God is Three' doctrine, then yes.

However, I think history is often neither 'continuous' nor 'inevitable'.

But if history is often neither "continuous" nor "inevitable," and you say the genesis is Jesus's arrival and sayings, then how do you account for what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy points out? They state that some Christians admit their Trinity doctrine can't be inferred from the Bible, has inadequate or no biblical evidence, or is even incompatible with the Bible. Furthermore, they say, "No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of a believing that the one God is tripersonal..." Given this, how can we speak of a continuous trajectory from Jesus to later Trinitarianism? It seems like a significant development, and according to the SEP, even a development away from the biblical text itself. This paints a picture of a significant shift rom whatever genesis you see in Jesus's sayings.

 

[Ahanu]

And Justin's position was relatively short-lived and not taken up by later theologians.

I'm not denying the influence and never did, I'm simply saying that where Platonic theory seemed at odds with Scripture – then Scripture won out.

I disagree with the idea Justin was just a blip. It's not like he is borrowing from a fleeting trend. Philo used it long before Justin. As Paula Fredriksen points out, Philo already described the Logos as a "second god," a concept Justin directly mirrored. This wasn't some minor, short-lived idea. The SEP points this out as well: "A direct influence on second century Christian theology is the Jewish philosopher Philo . . . Justin Martyr . . . and later second century Christians influenced by Platonism . . . "

When you say Justin's position was "not taken up," we need to consider what shaped theological development in the centuries after Justin. Who knows what theological trajectories might have flourished if not for the intervention of Roman imperial power? The SEP really is quite clear about the role of power. It states that "as imperial and ecclesial forces began to systematically extinguish subordinationist groups . . . the kind of trinitarianism which finally prevailed . . . began to gel into a recognizable form."

 

[Ahanu]

The Trinitarian Doctrine, which you seem to want to peg to Nicaea, which I don't, because I see the council as Christological, with Trinitarian ramifications, if you like, but certainly not the end of the story, and not providing a clear statement of Trinitarian Doctrine.

It's like saying the invention of the printing press was merely about printing pamphlets, with book ramifications "if you like."

then Scripture won out.

You say "Scripture won out."

However, McClellan's recent analysis here suggests a very different picture. He argues that these scriptures, when understood in their original context, don't actually support the later Trinitarian interpretations. Instead, they point to a Christology where Jesus is God's authorized agent, bearing his name and authority - a view that aligns perfectly with the subordinationist and unitarian theologies that the SEP says were prevalent in the early centuries before Trinitarian doctrine as we know it developed.

If even a key "proof text" like John 10.30 is not actually teaching ontological oneness when understood in its original context, then the claim for scriptural inevitability weakens. The very fact that it took "a couple of centuries" for Christians to develop the philosophical tools to articulate consubstantiality hints that Trinitarianism was a constructed doctrine.

 

[Ahanu]

I'm not sure what you're understanding of Trinity is. As a working definition I'd say one ousia in three hypostases

But McClellan's analysis of John 10:30 challenges the relevance of "ousia" thinking to the New Testament itself. He says: "one reason we know John is not saying that oneness in substance or essence is because it would take a couple of centuries for philosophically oriented Christians to distinguish between the Greek and the Latin concepts of substance . . . that was not a philosophical framework that was available to the author or authors of the Gospel of John."

This "working definition" you offer that's rooted in ousia and hypostases is the kind of later philosophical framework McClellan argues is anachronistic to impose on the earlier scriptures.

Actually, texts like John 10.30 were about mutual indwelling, unity of purpose, and divine agency. Nicaea imposed homoousios, which is obviously a term outside of the immediate scriptural and 1st-century Jewish framework. This sparked confusion and debate, because it was trying to articulate something scripture itself wasn't directly saying in those philosophical terms.

In the video, McClellan shows us that the scriptural basis for the philosophical precision of later Trinitarianism is actually quite tenuous. Scriptures like John 10.30 point to different, non-ontological understandings of Jesus's divinity and his relationship to the Father. These understandings are more rooted in agency and representation than in shared substance. A Trinitarian reading of the text would be illogical, for he says: "So, if I and the Father are one means we share the same substance but are distinct in person, then that will extend to include the disciples as well who will all become consubstantial with Jesus and the Father and distinguished in person. In other words, the Trinity will take on countless additional persons hypostases even as the substance remains one. That's kind of silly. I've never seen anyone argue for that position on John 10.30."

McClellan's scriptural exegesis focuses on original context. This highlights the absence of a clearly articulated Trinitarian doctrine within the New Testament itself. This absence explains why Nicaea was controversial, why homoousios was ambiguous, and why further finessing by the Cappadocians was needed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The very fact that it took "a couple of centuries" for Christians to develop the philosophical tools to articulate consubstantiality hints that Trinitarianism was a constructed doctrine.

Indeed so .. it's not logical to conclude otherwise.

 

[Thomas]

More obscuring than anything else here.

D'you think so? I don't.

This is still a superficial resemblance based on generic creedal language, not evidence of a "same credal tradition" in, say, the Nicene doctrinal sense or those of later articulations. You've ignored the fundamental doctrinal differences we've discussed.

Just to clarify – credal statements in Tertullian are word-for-word the same as in Nicaea and Constantinople.

The point here being that the majority of Christians, who were not philosophers nor theologians, believed in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as One, but had no idea as to how technically that could be so ... and the same, I would suggest, is a general rule today in the Trinitarian churches – that ask your average believer to explain the Trinity and within 30 seconds they'll be talking heresy – I say this because that's what happened to us on our degree course.

So the Church was Trinitarian in everything but later philosophical technical definition from the get-go.

+++

I am not ignoring differences, I'm pointing out the path of development. Nicaea laid the foundation for later doctrinal development, but it was nowhere near a Trinitarian Council and supplied only the barest Trinitarian definition.

Homoousios, a defining term at Nicaea, finds its origins, according to the majority of scholars, in Christian Gnosticism and they from the Hermetic Tradition, not from Greek philosophy.

The 'fundamental doctrinal differences' which revolve around philosophical terminology and implication are a matter for the philosopher/theologian, even if they had far-reaching ramifications, such as the schism between the mainline and the Coptic Church later on.

The term "Trinity" and triadic language are broader categories than, say, Nicene Trinitarianism. Just as the Baha'i Faith has a "Trinity" that is theologically distinct from the Christian Trinity, so too does Tertullian's and Justin's pre-Nicene theology remain distinct from later formulations.

OK, but the Christian Trinity in all its permutations implies Three Divine Persons and one God, whereas I'm not sure the Baha'i does, so there's no real equivalence between the Christian/Baha'i and the 2nd/4th century declarations. And there is a continuity in the 2nd/4th century, as Gregory of Nyssa (4th c) referenced (2nd c) Origen constantly in his doctrinal arguments.

Everybody has triunes one way or another, the web abounds with examples that the Christians have supposedly copied from the Greeks, the Egyptians, and so on ... but if you say Capital T "Trinity", I'd say that refers to the Christian idea, and anyone else using the capital T is merely appropriating the Christian term for their own dubious reason.

 

[Thomas]

In my personal observation, it's a misunderstanding to suggest ...

OK. I disagree.

The real anachronism, and the one we must continuously be on guard against, is projecting the fully defined, ontologically precise Trinitarianism of the 4th century and beyond back onto the 2nd century and earlier. That is the historical distortion, and that is what applying "Trinitarianism" indiscriminately risks perpetuating.

The Church was always Trinitarian.

If we're talking about anachronism and doctrinal development, then we should prefix, such as 'Apostolic Trinitarianism' to refer to the doctrine in the New Testament, '1st century Trinitarianism', '2nd century Trinitarianism' and so on, to chart the doctrinal developments. later we need more precision still, to observe the developments between Nicea, 1st quarter 4th century, and 'Cappadocian Trinitarianism' of the 4th quarter of that century ... and so on ...

The point is, ask a Christian from the beginning until today, 'Who are the three?' and they'll say 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit'.

Ask 'How are the three?' and there is a whole other matter!

 

[Thomas]

But if history is often neither "continuous" nor "inevitable," and you say the genesis is Jesus's arrival and sayings, then how do you account for what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy points out? They state that some Christians admit their Trinity doctrine can't be inferred from the Bible, has inadequate or no biblical evidence, or is even incompatible with the Bible.

And Trinitarians say otherwise. I can infer it from the Bible. The Fathers did, and so on ...

Furthermore, they say, "No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of a believing that the one God is tripersonal..."

And yet the earliest baptismal formula is tripersonal.

Given this, how can we speak of a continuous trajectory from Jesus to later Trinitarianism?

I never argue a continuous trajectory. But the line is consistent in that the same Scripture has been argued from the start, it's understanding deepened and changed, but later exegetes of the Paraclete in John do not contradict or refute the early exegetes.

It seems like a significant development...

Yes it is a major development.

... and according to the SEP, even a development away from the biblical text itself...

Then the SEP would be wrong, for reasons stated.

This paints a picture of a significant shift rom whatever genesis you see in Jesus's sayings.

That's your interpretation of their interpretation ... mine is different ...

 

[Thomas]

I disagree with the idea Justin was just a blip.

OK, a fair comment.

When you say Justin's position was "not taken up," we need to consider what shaped theological development in the centuries after Justin. Who knows what theological trajectories might have flourished if not for the intervention of Roman imperial power? The SEP really is quite clear about the role of power. It states that "as imperial and ecclesial forces began to systematically extinguish subordinationist groups . . . the kind of trinitarianism which finally prevailed . . . began to gel into a recognizable form."

Yeah ... you'd have to be carful of anachronisms here ... Constantine favoured/disfavoured/favoured ... I've discussed this at length with @juantoo3.

 

[Thomas]

However, McClellan's recent analysis here suggests a very different picture.

There is a broad diversity of belief regarding Christianity. Dan McClellan is just one example of his individual viewpoint. Suffice to say I don't find his argument, on this point, convincing.

There are even Catholic theologians I don't agree with.

 

[Thomas]

But McClellan's analysis of John 10:30 challenges the relevance of "ousia" thinking to the New Testament itself. He says: "one reason we know John is not saying that oneness in substance or essence is because it would take a couple of centuries for philosophically oriented Christians to distinguish between the Greek and the Latin concepts of substance . . . that was not a philosophical framework that was available to the author or authors of the Gospel of John."

That's an anachronistic argument, isn't it, applying later definitions?

Likewise he cannot argue is that John is saying separate substances, for the same reason – that discussion hasn't happened yet – so here John could well mean Jesus is ontologically one with God, he simply hasn't had reason to get into a dialogue about the technicalities of that claim.

The Jews listening certainly thought that is what He was claiming to be a god, and went to stone Him for blasphemy (v33) – but McClellan's argument lacks substance.

And he then makes certain claims about the nature of 'Mutual Indwelling' which I find theologically shallow and dependent upon false dilemma.

If we want to discuss that, we need to do so separately, although I'm not about to go through every McClellan video ... but in this instance I would argue that both Hart and Fredrikson argue a 1st century theophanic vision which McClellan, from this admittedly brief video, seems unaware of, or hasn't taken sufficiently into account.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

OK. I disagree.


The Church was always Trinitarian.

If we're talking about anachronism and doctrinal development, then we should prefix, such as 'Apostolic Trinitarianism' to refer to the doctrine in the New Testament, '1st century Trinitarianism', '2nd century Trinitarianism' and so on, to chart the doctrinal developments. later we need more precision still, to observe the developments between Nicea, 1st quarter 4th century, and 'Cappadocian Trinitarianism' of the 4th quarter of that century ... and so on ...

The point is, ask a Christian from the beginning until today, 'Who are the three?' and they'll say 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit'.

Ask 'How are the three?' and there is a whole other matter!

I see the issue has grown via interpretation that in all case Father was referring to God, which I see is incorrect. The trinune would be God, Son and Holy Spirit, with Jesus saying he and the Father were One.

I have come to see the Father was the end of Age Messiah, a Station yet to come, one that would guide us to all truth.

Thus the tribune was always God, the Holy Spirit and the Messenger. The Messengers are know in the different stations that God gave them.

The Son was Jesus, the Father we see as Baha'u'llah, both born of the Holy Spirit, given by God.

How else can God become One for all humamity, if we do not embrace all the Names given of God in this following Frame of Reference?

1) God unkowable Essence, we could offer the "Most Great Spirit"
2) Holy Spirit, the first cause given of God, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, contains all the Stations, Names and attributes given of God.

Spoiler: Names and Attributes

Praise be to God Who hath ever caused His Names and Attributes to penetrate the degrees of existence; Who hath made the effects of those Names and Attributes to shine resplendent and their signs to be firmly established in both the hidden and manifest worlds. By them He hath made the holy realities that are informed by His grace and are the recipients of His outpourings to be the sole revealers of all that pertaineth unto Him, and hath caused them to move through the firmament of perfection in arcs of descent and ascent. He hath ordained these Names and Attributes to be the first and foremost origin and cause of being in the world of creation and the source of the different grades of realities in the degrees of existence. When, through its power of attraction and propagation, the Day-Star of Names and Attributes shone upon the hidden realities in the heart of the unseen realm, they issued forth, were spread abroad, scattered about, set in order, became the recipients of the grace of God and His outpourings, and were made to be the sole manifestations of the Divine conditions and Eternal signs. Emerging from behind the veils, they appeared clothed in raiments of light, moving in the firmament of the unity of God, in orbits of sanctity and circles of glorification..."

Tablet of the Universe (Lawh-i-Aflakiyyih)

A theological description of reality, with reference to Ptolemy and Al-Farabi.

bahai-library.com

3) The Annointed Ones, the Messengers, the Prophets, born of that Holy Spirit.

Is this not all the flocks comming together as one fold, under one shepherd, God, the name One?

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

That's your interpretation of their interpretation ... mine is different ...

This shows us we do always need a God given interpreter. Just as scriputures offer, that God will always supply us with, will never let us alone.

I am unable to compete with academia, I just go with logic and reason and all that is good.

Regards Tony