Reflex
Active Member
Maybe so, but it's classical theism nonetheless.From my understanding he is trying to define the god concept separate from the abrahamic traditions we have that do describe the concept.
The name is unimportant. What is important is the idea that God, as understood in classical theism, is a radical departure from the idea that God is some sort of magical entity alongside other beings, a being like us only larger.The other huge problem I see from him, is what he says could apply to El or Yahweh or Baal, or Asherah. Or any of the known deities that exist to date.
That might be, but what was the impetus? I's suggesting the impetus was to make sense of divine simplicity.The trinity concept actually unfolded over hundreds of years, so we have a pretty good grasp of its evolution.
That's just an assumption.More then anything by my opinion, it was a way to keep monotheism while actually worshipping the multiple deity concepts that made up the man made doctrine.
Trinitarianism is hardly new, going back in Hinduism long before Jesus. Siva, Vishnu and Brahma are manifestations of the singular Brahman. This is not unlike Christianity's idea of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The aim is the same: to answer the problem of how the many is derived from the One. For Christians, the desire was to formulate an understanding of divine simplicity, borrowed from Plotinus' idea of the One, in the context of Jesus being the incarnation of the "intellectual principle." From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:The God concept had to be defined as to the relationship of Jesus with the Father. There were to many competing ideas and Constantine wanted a unified religion for his nation.
The three basic principles of Plotinus' metaphysics are called by him ‘the One’ (or, equivalently, ‘the Good’), Intellect, and Soul. These principles are both ultimate ontological realities and explanatory principles. Plotinus believed that they were recognized by Plato as such, as well as by the entire subsequent Platonic tradition.