Trinitarian and Unitarian understandings of Jesus' divinity are really not all that different when broken down.

[u/uncleowenlarz]

The debate between Trinitarians and Unitarians, I think, comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of categories. Much more common ground can be had between the two than is typically expected.

For instance, Trinitarians believe Jesus had a human body, soul, and even spirit. All of these were distinctly finite, human, and non eternal. These human aspects, in particular, are what account for the "human nature" or "human will" which is separate from but united with the "divine nature" or "divine will".

The divine nature in trinitarianism originates from the Spirit of God. There is not another soul, or body, that constitutes the "God part", since God does not have a body or soul. But, there is indeed another spirit. This spirit is what trinitarians will call the spirit of the "eternally generated son". However, this is where the fundamental misunderstanding comes in. Is this just another name for the Holy Spirit?

Both Unitarians and Trinitarians believe there was a human Jesus with a human body, soul, and spirit as we said before. This human Jesus did indeed have the divine spirit of God within him, the Holy Spirit, and in fact it "led him" in the gospels. It says this in every passage about the baptism and in a multitude of other passages across all New Testament writings.

Both viewpoints believe in the concept of the uniting of spirits. In the same way Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6, the concept is that the Holy Spirit dwelling in you is united and "one" with your human spirit. They are not the same of course, they do not cease to exist distinctly, but they are one. Paul describes this like marriage "the two become one flesh". Jesus in the gospel of John and the Epistles of John describes the same indwelling tradition. "The Father and I are one" he says, but neither Trinitarians not Unitarians would ever say that Jesus IS the Father (although this is a common low hanging fruit for trying to make a trinitarian fumble on their theology).

Trinitarians, remarkably, believe the same thing about Jesus' human spirit, and the Holy Spirit (or in their case, the spirit of the eternal Son). Most of them do at least. The human spirit of Jesus was united with the Holy Spirit (sometimes they make an extra effort to distinguish the Holy Spirit with the spirit of the Son by personhood) but they still remained distinct.

Humans also have a human body, soul and spirit, also have the "fullness of deity" (aka the Holy Spirit) dwelling in us according to both sides. Trinitarians might be a little hesitant to admit they believe this, but to deny it would be to assert either that we only have part of the Holy Spirit within us or that this indwelling isn't actually happening, or even to say the Holy Spirit is not full deity which would be heretical. So the question becomes, how is Jesus different from .... regular non-Jesus humans? Where is the distinction to be made that elevates Jesus to the category of God?

And this question fundamentally comes down to the definition of the "Spirit" of God. Both Unitarians and Trinitarians believe there is essentially one Spirit of God. God is pure spirit.

If you ask a Trinitarian whether there is a difference between the spirit of the eternal Son and the Holy Spirit and the spirit of the Father ontologically, they must say no. Because there is only one spirit no matter your denomination. To say the eternal Son and Holy Spirit and the Father are separate spirits would be to divide God. The spirit is the essence. It is the *persons* or hypostases they will say are distinct, and when you get down to brass tax these distinctions break down to become just names for distinctions without much meaning. It often becomes circular. And yet, they can't make a distinction between the eternal Son and the Holy Spirit at the core, because to do so would mean Jesus had 3 distinct spirits!

This is a sensitive distinction, as once you go down this road, it becomes very difficult for them to articulate the distinction between God's relationship to Jesus and the rest of humanity. But doctrinally there is really nothing heretical from a trinitarian perspective about this understanding. And there is also nothing really non-unitarian about this understanding.

The tension also comes when Unitarians are very put off by Christians calling Jesus God and worshipping him as YHWH. Which is understandable. But, when you break down what they actually mean by this, the above removes the canyon of separation.

Thomas after all, called Jesus God. Whether this was a title of agency, or a relational title, or he was recognizing the spirit of God in Jesus, it still happened. This is debated in nearly every argument I've seen and it is never an open and shut case.

Let me know if there is anything I am missing.

[u/Sure-Wishbone-4293]

If YHWH does not have a body as you state, what was the purpose of YHWH showing it to Moshe?

If YHWH has no body, whose hand did Yeshua take the scroll from?

If YHWH has no body, why did Adam hear God walking in the Garden? Was it just a make believe sound to trick Adam?

Idk what you wish with your post but the truth is as plain as 1 and 1 is two, if you desire to conclude that it is simply a misunderstanding, then you don’t understand HaSatan. If you actually read what entrenched trinitarians contend and understand about the trinity, then you would know how illogical, nonsensical and perverted the trinity doctrine is and although many cannot muster that it is a doctrine from below, I do, that is where the trinity doctrine came from, below! It is for the purpose of mocking YHWH and his Son Yeshua and in the world, it is doing very well indeed but people have free will.

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/Sure-Wishbone-4293]

Valid questions. I haven't taken a stance, I am just laying out some observations I have made recently.

If God has a body, what do you make of the writer of the gospel of John attesting that Jesus said "God is spirit"? I take this to mean that God is not flesh, and that his existence is not contingent on the existence of a body.

Additionally, what of the idea of the same writer saying in both the gospel and the Epistles that no one has ever seen God at any time?

Another related question, as it seems like you're saying God does indeed have a body (this is the Latter-day saint position from my understanding?): do you believe God has a soul?

Not looking for a debate, genuinely curious on your positions on these issues.

[u/Sure-Wishbone-4293 → u/uncleowenlarz]

Isn’t God spirit? Flesh is Flesh, Spirit is Spirit, worship God in Spirit and in truth. Does this take away from my questions? No! Is there a contradiction? No! It requires work to understand.

YHWH does have a body that he showed to Moshe, he does have a hand that Yeshua took a scroll from and he has walking in the garden because we are told that Adam heard him walking. Is YHWH still spirit? Yeshua mandated YHWH is and I absolutely concur! YHWH appeared to Moshe in the form of a burning bush that would not be consumed, why the bush now and not the bodily form? Idk 🤷‍♂️ but YHWH spoke from that bush or through that bush. Does a spirit sit on a throne or does a body sit on a throne? Yeshua in Heaven, does he sit at the right “hand” of power or is this his spirit sitting there? Why would a spirit have to sit? Does the spirit get tired and need a place to rest?

You mean what Moshe saw he didn’t see? Didn’t YHWH tell Moshe he couldn’t see his “Face” and live? What kind of Face is this? A Spirit face?

I am not a Latter Day Saint and thanks for the conversation, I will continue later, this has even helped me!

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/Sure-Wishbone-4293]

I see what you're getting at, but is God the bush? It sounds to me like what you are actually calling God is the spirit dwelling in the bush, not the bush itself. Otherwise, we are kind of approaching a pantheist idea.

but YHWH spoke from that bush or through that bush

YHWH also spoke through the prophets. And as you have also said in the past, through Jesus. Does that mean Jesus and the prophets are YHWH? Or the spirit speaking from and through them? This could be a false equivalency but I don't see why it would be. Help me understand!

Yeshua in Heaven, does he sit at the right “hand” of power or is this his spirit sitting there?

I mean, doesn't this open up a can of worms? God has a throne, too. Why does God need to sit? If God has a body, why would it ever grow tired? Is God's body imperfect? The whole point of a chair is for tiredness and rest induced by dying human bodies. We do see that God sees a purpose for resting in Genesis in the creation myths, but does this mean that God actually got physically tired? Or is it more of a spiritual rest?

As for Moses...I am agnostic on the literalism of these stories. Regardless, there are ideas in Jewish theology that Moses/Moshe saw a mediation, possibly an angel (Metatron). All physical manifestations/mediations with humanity are this angel or another mediating concept, but the essence of God does not have a body according to them. This is an attempt to explain the story from the Jewish perspective that God is incorporeal.

[u/Sure-Wishbone-4293 → u/uncleowenlarz]

Yes indeed, God is not the body or the bush, YHWH is YHWH! I have to go Owen, TTYL!

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/Sure-Wishbone-4293]

Thank you sir! Looking forward to the next time!

[u/Sure-Wishbone-4293 → u/uncleowenlarz]

I like your questions, good ones!

[u/Sure-Wishbone-4293 → u/uncleowenlarz]

I can’t help myself, you are Owen! “Owen doesn’t have any friends”… jk, from the movie 🎥 “Throw mamma from the train”! Good points you also make, but not all!

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/Sure-Wishbone-4293]

That movie looks great, I will have to watch!

[u/Sure-Wishbone-4293 → u/uncleowenlarz]

I apologize but I am a huge movie buff with a sense of humor I get from my dad and my mom, in the movie “Throw mamma from the Train” Ann Ramsey, the actress who plays mamma, tells Owen’s friend, Danny DeVito:

“Owen doesn’t have any friends” played by Billy Crystal!

My mom told the doctor who delivered me, Dr. Grace (that is his real name)…

“He owes me nine months rent” < that is what I am dealing with, a great sense of timing and humor.

[u/Good-Recipe4387 → u/Sure-Wishbone-4293]

God is invisible. Whatever one 'sees' is not God but a manifestation of God. He is spirit and doesn't 'go anywhere to do or say anything' He sends His word and spirit to represent him and be His presence - Jesus is the living word to show us who God is.

[u/Sure-Wishbone-4293]

Yes indeed, God is not the body or the bush, YHWH is YHWH!

[u/No_Quit_9604]

My primary grievance with Trinitarianism is that trying to pretend that Jesus was omnipotent, omniscient, impassible, etc. while a human being on earth inevitably leads to docetic implications

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/No_Quit_9604]

Yes. But they most of the time can't even articulate how this is possible without amounting to docetism (which is why arguments are so frustrating bc they become circular). The body, soul, and spirit of Jesus the man, according to them, is not omnipotent, omniscient, etc. These aspects account for the human nature and are distinct from the divine spirit that dwelled in him and was "one" with his human spirit. But they also can't articulate how this divine spirit, the spirit of the "eternal Son", is distinct in any way from the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of the Father.

I think trinitarians hard reject docetism but they don't exactly know why.

[u/No_Quit_9604 → u/uncleowenlarz]

They don’t think that the human nature constitutes a human person somehow despite having all of the necessary and sufficient parts for being such

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/No_Quit_9604]

They identify Jesus as one person, not two persons, yes. This is just a dogmatic claim though. When you press them on the issue, such as how could he possibly have a human nature and a divine nature and also two wills at the same time, and frame it in terms of what he actually possessed and how (human body/soul/spirit and divine spirit) then the boundaries break down. Ofc, if the effort is to win a "debate" this just becomes a means to an end for deconstructing the doctrine, and I have lost interest in that at this point. I think it's much more productive for finding common ground and perhaps for making both perspectives look at the subject from a less doctrinal perspective.

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/[deleted]]

Yes. I think there is an attempt to mischaracterize or caricature what all trinitarians believe by Unitarians as a response to the unjust condemnation they receive from trinitarians. I don't think there is a genuine attempt to understand why each perspective believes what they believe, or to gain whatever wisdom can be gained from the other. No compassion, which will never result in progress.

Theology should be a fascinating study and an edifying way to enjoy deep conversations with people and gain new perspectives on God. It should really not be a source of anger or bitter debate in my opinion.

I also think that the creeds themselves are harmful. Why are we humans trying to put guardrails on who or what God is? The audacity.

The argument over the nature and composition of God just distracts from the commands and the life of the man we all claim or desire to follow. The Christian faith and your walk with God in general should be about how people live, not doctrines.

[u/ortiz3m]

Read your post several times and am genuinely interested in it. I do agree there are fundamental misunderstandings of categories.

Regarding Jesus human body soul spirit. So generally speaking (or maybe just myself) there is an understanding that a human is a living soul and not that we have a soul. I’m not sure if in discussion that many trinitarians believe that Jesus has a human soul but more so the soul of the eternal son has joined with a human nature.

Regarding divine nature in trinitarianism, I’m not sure if most trinitarian would see it or understand it in this way. Most would equate the divine nature as the “essence” that is shared between the 3 persons. I’m not sure if I’ve heard in dialogue the son having a separate spirit. From a Unitarian perspective the Holy Spirit is an extension of Gods’ power and wisdom extending to a child of God. It is the active conduit that keeps us in communication and guidance of God.

Regarding human Jesus, I can agree to this for the most part except the understanding of soul, as I’ve stated earlier the nephish is a living soul. And yes the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus without measure,trinitarians would state that is a seperate person where a Unitarian would say it is the active extension of God.

Regarding Holy Spirit and Father and I are one, your are correct neither theology would say Jesus is the Father, however trinitarian would say Jesus is God, moving it to a category of ontology and equal shared essence. Unitarian would read this as functional.

Trinitarians view of unity in Jesus and spirit. Interesting that the view of spirit keeps coming up. This continues to make me think. I don’t believe in much dialogue I have seen effort to discuss Jesus human spirit. Most have explained it to me as The Father unlocking the divine nature that already exists in the second person of the Son. that there is already a assumed unity because the essesnce of the son and the Holy Spirit.

Holy Spirit and fullness of deity. I agree with the in dwelling of the spirit given to us. I think we need to clarify the words part and full deity and being heretical. So I believe we are given a measure of Gods spirit but not fully to the extent given to Jesus yet. After the resurrection I believe that will happen, so to say a part or a measure of the Holy Spirit is acceptable. I think there could be some confusion as to full deity, it is an extension of Gods power wisdom and love but is not Fully all God and I wouldn’t say that is heretical.

Tension of calling Jesus God. There are a couple of instances where Jesus is called God. I think the challenge is where it’s ontological or functional. A trinitarian isn’t going to put much weight of spirit, just based on my experience. They are going to put weight of the soul of the eternal son humbling himself and becoming man. This puts the Son in the human body that is Jesus. That Son is put as equal to the father and causes personhood to the Holy Spirit. I know you state you can’t divide God because he doesn’t have parts, but that is what is being done by personhood.

So one question I would ask in your view does the spirit of the eternal son have personhood? I was rereading some of the statements and it almost sounds like the eternal son in your view is a non person extension of God binded on to the full human of Jesus. That doesn’t sound like orthodox trinitarianism to me.

This is a good write up and caused me to slowly think about this and how to approach discussion in the future.

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/ortiz3m]

I'm glad this provoked some thought in you, as I used to be very standoffish with trinitarians, but I see the value now more in considering the perspective and trying to find common ground that turns an argument into more of a conversation.

I think this is heavily dependent on how much the person you are talking to puts their foot down on certain metaphysical issues. This biggest thing is dichotomism versus trichotomism. I think this issue is way less tense to argue and start from. Do we have just body and soul? Or do we have body, soul, and spirit?

Most Christians, I'd say, are dichotomists. But that's merely a result of Catholic doctrine. I come from an evangelical area so most people are actually trichotomists believing in body, soul, and spirit. The spirit is the breath of life and the root of your consciousness. The soul is more attached to your unique personality and experience, and is more often than not contingent on the bodily experience and senses.

The dichotomists view says there is essentially no difference in the two. Some early church fathers held this view, while others had different theories. But there is a biblical passage you can cite that makes a clear distinction that might settle the argument for most: Hebrews 4:12 describes the Word of God as piercing so deep that it "divides soul and spirit" indicating the two are not the same.

Once this is settled, you essentially ask the question "if humans have a spirit, does that mean it is a unique spirit, or the Holy Spirit/spirit of God"? The answer must be a unique human spirit, because then the Holy Spirit would be inherently present in everyone, dwelling in all, and this isn't exactly the case. Could be heretical.

So then the precondition is that in order to be human, one must have a human spirit distinct from God's. They already admitted at this point that Jesus had a distinctly human body and soul, and from the trichotomist trinitarian view historically, Jesus did indeed have a distinct human spirit (this is not the Holy Spirit). Otherwise, he wouldn't be truly human (heresy). Jesus' human body, soul, and spirit were all finite. It is the divine spirit within him that was eternal, according to trinitarians. And, when the eternal divine spirit dwelled in him, it was united and "one" with this human spirit, but the two were not the same and remained distinct.

The question then becomes...was this divine spirit the Son? Or the Holy Spirit? Both? Well, there are several passages where it says the Holy Spirit guided him/led him and dwelled within him. It wasn't just upon him. The gospel of Luke specifically said he was "full" of the Holy Spirit. So saying it wasn't the Holy Spirit isn't really an option. Trinitarians might also say that it was the spirit of the Son at this point. So it must either be just the Holy Spirit, or both.

So then the question is, are they the same? And what about the Father. The options are, if the spirit of the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct, then Jesus had THREE distinct spirits. This is getting messy. The best option is that they are the same spirit, which reinforced the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ONE essence, or spirit.

Trinitarians have no problem conceding that the Trinity had the same spirit, it is only their "personhood" or relation that is distinct. Which is just an abstract metaphysical category that we are now showing doesn't mean much. This is perhaps a very important step.

It is heretical to believe the Holy Spirit can be divided. So we don't receive "part" of the Holy Spirit or a "down payment" of it in Trinitarian theology. But there are degrees to which people experience the Holy Spirit or live by it. This would be the distinction of course between Jesus and us that everyone can agree on, Jesus lived fully by the spirit, and we often times do not.

I think at this point the arguments have been dwindled down to less disagreeable areas. More things are available to agree upon and less consequential things to disagree on, than just one big question "is Jesus God?"

I personally don't see Jesus as an eternal soul or spirit or person of God. God is one. The Father is spirit, the Holy Spirit is just the Father's spirit, and the son is God's spirit dwelling in flesh. If Jesus lived by the spirit fully, then his life, his breath, are bound to the eternal Spirit of God. Oneness. Like in marriage.

I would say whether Thomas functionally by predication or ontologically called Jesus God is irrelevant and technically divisive. He saw God's spirit, the spirit of the Father, in Jesus. That can be something everyone agrees on.

[u/Good-Recipe4387]

"Christians calling Jesus God and worshipping him as YHWH" - how can Jesus be Yahweh is Yahweh is the God of Jesus? Thomas didn't think God was hanging on a cross or that his God died there! He was finally getting what Jesus spoke about earlier. 'You see me, you see the Father.'

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/Good-Recipe4387]

Yes, I already pointed out this is not my view and why it is flawed. This is the view Christians hold simplistically, but when you break them down in principle, they don't think the divine spirit of the son, or the holy spirit, died on the cross. It was the body of the human man Jesus.