A terminological parallel exists for language of the henads and the Christian Trinity. Members of the Trinity, for instance, fully interact existing in a union (henosis) because they share being (ousia), and yet maintain distinction (idiotēs). This thought can be found in Gregory Nazianzen,4 Basil47 and Cyril of Alexandria. In De sancta trinitate dialogoi 423.4-11, Cyril (375–444) demonstrates that the Holy Spirit, Father and Son maintain their individual properties, and yet they interpenetrate without confusion (asynchytos). The three have one consubstantial nature, and yet they have three hypostases, each with its own characteristic (idiotēs) preserved without confusion.
This language parallels terms Proclus uses to describe interaction among henads. Proclus terms the relationship among henads “a unity without confusion” because each henad is said to internally contain all the other henads. The henads are described as gods with each god being a specific manifestation of any given henad. Every order of henad anticipates a divine stratum of gods on lower levels (ET 125). When taken together, the gods are said to have an “undivided union (henosis) and all-perfect communion with each other”, and yet their own essences are separated to preserve their “peculiar hypostasis unconfused (asynchytos)” (PT 1.97.25 and ET 125).
Sarah Klitenic Wear, from the Routledge Handbook of Early Christian Philosophy, on the influence of henadology on Christian articulations of the Trinity.
Note that the Christian limitation of the persons of the Trinity to three is completely extrinsic to the henadological conceptualization of them as pure positive individuals with all in each.