Coder
Active Member
Here I discuss my belief in the role of the holy spirit in the use of Jesus (as the christ [messiah]) in the parable intended for both Greco-Romans and Jews.
As we know, the Jewish people generally did not believe the unified religion, and did not believe statements about Jesus as messiah. This is more than understandable; it's Godly, intelligent, and reasonable, given the theology and practice of the new religion that was intended to unify the empire with Greco-Romans. However, others accepted the adaptations that were intended for them: The new religion was a state-religion, enacted by force, including physical force (e.g. destruction/conversion of houses of worship). Also, many polytheists may have been open to monotheistic concepts.
As we see with the creed, the statement "I believe in one God the Father Almighty,..." is a complete sentence. This Christian creed appears to be careful to honor and identify God as one. And indeed, in the first sentence, which is a complete sentence, God is identified as one (Father). This first sentence of the creed is truly monotheistic and it clearly states that God is one, and has no "dependencies". Even though the creed continues, and speaks of Jesus and a holy spirit, these are not added as if to create an appearance that God's oneness depends upon Jesus and the spirit. We also see "begotten" language which also clearly helps to "protect" against the use of the parable, i.e. "begotten" clearly indicates theologically that God, as "begetter", has no "dependencies". The spirit is also described as proceeding from the Father and the Son, and the procession of the spirit from the son, who is himself begotten, further clarifies and establishes the teaching that God (the Father) is no way dependent. God (the Father) is the true God of monotheism. (Even the terminology "true God" is needed only in a Greco-Roman polytheistic context.)
If one observes the Glory to God prayer, we see "...you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit...". So, we see that here, Jesus is said to alone be the Most High. However, we know that God alone is the Most High; Jesus in the Christian Bible is also depicted as teaching that God is Spirit (John 4:24). So by including "with the Holy Spirit" when saying that Jesus is the Most High, the "most-highness" of Jesus is not stand-alone. Rather, the "most-highness" of Jesus is dependent on unity "with the Holy Spirit" and unity with the Father. The Father is from Whom Jesus is "begotten", and (along with Jesus) the Father is from Whom the Holy Spirit proceeds. So, analogous to the creeds, the "most-highness" of God (Father) is independent, but the "most-highness" of Jesus is dependent.
It is also interesting to note that use of the name Father for God, pairs well with the prior belief in the Roman god Jupiter. The name "Jupiter" ('pater') means "father in the heavens / sky". One could make the case that even within Greco-Roman theology, with Jupiter as chief god, we see hints of monotheistic concepts that are slightly analogous to the Judeo-Christian concepts of God and angels. Jewish monotheism itself emerged from a somewhat polytheistic context, then the identification of the one God as Yahweh and clear monotheism of Isaiah 44:6.
Note that Judaism and Zoroastrianism share the concept of holy spirit.
Zoroastrianism: Holy Spirit: "source of life", "emanates"
Christianity: Holy Spirit: "giver of life", "proceeds"
So, we see usage of the holy spirit in early Christianity, as an intended Roman unifying concept for Jewish people and others, such as Armenian Zoroastrians, and by personification, Greco-Roman polytheists. The personification of "holy spirit" is not Jewish theology, however, the personification of the "Holy Spirit" as another who is God, is comfortable for polytheists. Also, in the creed we see "consubstantial" with the Father. This "substance" terminology is used in so-called theology that purports to give Greco-Roman adaptive poly-to-mono parables a basis in reality. This "substance" is a "mystery" as is the trinity a "mystery". Yet, some monotheists (like myself), may see any reference to God as a "substance" as disrespectful (or even worse [e.g. blasphemous]).
I have a Christian background. I don't discard important teachings that are ascribed to Jesus and authentic, e.g. clearly having no usage in defining a particular Roman-adaptive theology. However, I don't believe in holy spirit as a reality beyond extraneous words used when speaking of God. My monotheistic belief is closer theologically to that of Jewish people and others. I believe that we can relate to and pray to God as one in a personal relationship. I don't think that it's right or necessary to give another name, "Holy Spirit", to the one God who teaches us. Christians can repeat many Christian Bible passages about the Holy Spirit. Yes, we believe that God is a Spirit, but there is no need to use another name for the one God; it's disrespectful (mocking), and it's not helpful in monotheistic emphasis. After all, what purpose does another name for God ("Holy Spirit") serve?
Even in Jewish theology, I don't see value in the use of the "holy spirit" concept that is evidently an ancient concept as seen with Zoroastrianism. The "holy spirit" concept is in Jewish Scripture. However, in conversations among Jewish people and with Jewish people, one hears the term "holy spirit" much less often than when conversing with Christians and (as mentioned) the holy spirit concept is not personified as in Christianity:
"Although in Jewish scripture the Holy Spirit is never presented as a person..."
The independence of God (Father) as described in creeds, appears to allow for a time when the usage of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as other names/metaphors/images for God, can be jettisoned. After 2000 years, we see the beginnings of this, both in people who follow the teachings of Jesus, and in the emergence of minor/subtle hints in mainstream churches. In some cases, such as an apparent trend towards non-trinitarian Christianity, the hints are not subtle (e.g. 21st Century Reformation). Some may continue in belief that Jesus is "son of God" and/or Messiah, but no longer see these beliefs as definitive in an attempt to equate Jesus with God. The term son of God can have a range of interpretations, as many monotheists believe that we are all children of God e.g. as His creatures and/or created in His image. Some may believe that Jesus, like us, is a child of God, but with special gifts. The term "messiah" is also subject to interpretation. Many Christians also believe in a second coming, which may have some commonality with the Jewish belief that for practical purposes, the Messiah has not come. Most Jewish Messianic prophecies have not taken place.
What we see in Christian creedal theology, and reflected in Christian scripture, is use of the "holy spirit" concept for human purposes in Roman empirical unifying theology. Is this inspired by God? Perhaps some considered that the goal justified the methods. One can see the clues that it was fabricated and that the people that fabricated it knew what it was, and didn't truly believe it themselves:
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie,..."
God clearly teaches us the truth about man: We lie.
Even when desired, top-down change is difficult when tens and hundreds of millions follow a particular creed. This may be a dilemma for churches today. But it is good news that we seem to be outgrowing the literal interpretation of the fibs/parables in the Christian Bible. Freedom of religion and the resultant better communication with our friends, the Jewish people, helps tremendously. The wide access to information also helps.
(How many of us, as children, truly and literally believed in Santa Claus. I did. Then as I got a bit older, I started to gather that maybe something's not quite right about this story, then I finally realized, Santa is not flying a sleigh to my roof.)
As we know, the Jewish people generally did not believe the unified religion, and did not believe statements about Jesus as messiah. This is more than understandable; it's Godly, intelligent, and reasonable, given the theology and practice of the new religion that was intended to unify the empire with Greco-Romans. However, others accepted the adaptations that were intended for them: The new religion was a state-religion, enacted by force, including physical force (e.g. destruction/conversion of houses of worship). Also, many polytheists may have been open to monotheistic concepts.
As we see with the creed, the statement "I believe in one God the Father Almighty,..." is a complete sentence. This Christian creed appears to be careful to honor and identify God as one. And indeed, in the first sentence, which is a complete sentence, God is identified as one (Father). This first sentence of the creed is truly monotheistic and it clearly states that God is one, and has no "dependencies". Even though the creed continues, and speaks of Jesus and a holy spirit, these are not added as if to create an appearance that God's oneness depends upon Jesus and the spirit. We also see "begotten" language which also clearly helps to "protect" against the use of the parable, i.e. "begotten" clearly indicates theologically that God, as "begetter", has no "dependencies". The spirit is also described as proceeding from the Father and the Son, and the procession of the spirit from the son, who is himself begotten, further clarifies and establishes the teaching that God (the Father) is no way dependent. God (the Father) is the true God of monotheism. (Even the terminology "true God" is needed only in a Greco-Roman polytheistic context.)
If one observes the Glory to God prayer, we see "...you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit...". So, we see that here, Jesus is said to alone be the Most High. However, we know that God alone is the Most High; Jesus in the Christian Bible is also depicted as teaching that God is Spirit (John 4:24). So by including "with the Holy Spirit" when saying that Jesus is the Most High, the "most-highness" of Jesus is not stand-alone. Rather, the "most-highness" of Jesus is dependent on unity "with the Holy Spirit" and unity with the Father. The Father is from Whom Jesus is "begotten", and (along with Jesus) the Father is from Whom the Holy Spirit proceeds. So, analogous to the creeds, the "most-highness" of God (Father) is independent, but the "most-highness" of Jesus is dependent.
It is also interesting to note that use of the name Father for God, pairs well with the prior belief in the Roman god Jupiter. The name "Jupiter" ('pater') means "father in the heavens / sky". One could make the case that even within Greco-Roman theology, with Jupiter as chief god, we see hints of monotheistic concepts that are slightly analogous to the Judeo-Christian concepts of God and angels. Jewish monotheism itself emerged from a somewhat polytheistic context, then the identification of the one God as Yahweh and clear monotheism of Isaiah 44:6.
Note that Judaism and Zoroastrianism share the concept of holy spirit.
Zoroastrianism: Holy Spirit: "source of life", "emanates"
Christianity: Holy Spirit: "giver of life", "proceeds"
So, we see usage of the holy spirit in early Christianity, as an intended Roman unifying concept for Jewish people and others, such as Armenian Zoroastrians, and by personification, Greco-Roman polytheists. The personification of "holy spirit" is not Jewish theology, however, the personification of the "Holy Spirit" as another who is God, is comfortable for polytheists. Also, in the creed we see "consubstantial" with the Father. This "substance" terminology is used in so-called theology that purports to give Greco-Roman adaptive poly-to-mono parables a basis in reality. This "substance" is a "mystery" as is the trinity a "mystery". Yet, some monotheists (like myself), may see any reference to God as a "substance" as disrespectful (or even worse [e.g. blasphemous]).
I have a Christian background. I don't discard important teachings that are ascribed to Jesus and authentic, e.g. clearly having no usage in defining a particular Roman-adaptive theology. However, I don't believe in holy spirit as a reality beyond extraneous words used when speaking of God. My monotheistic belief is closer theologically to that of Jewish people and others. I believe that we can relate to and pray to God as one in a personal relationship. I don't think that it's right or necessary to give another name, "Holy Spirit", to the one God who teaches us. Christians can repeat many Christian Bible passages about the Holy Spirit. Yes, we believe that God is a Spirit, but there is no need to use another name for the one God; it's disrespectful (mocking), and it's not helpful in monotheistic emphasis. After all, what purpose does another name for God ("Holy Spirit") serve?
Even in Jewish theology, I don't see value in the use of the "holy spirit" concept that is evidently an ancient concept as seen with Zoroastrianism. The "holy spirit" concept is in Jewish Scripture. However, in conversations among Jewish people and with Jewish people, one hears the term "holy spirit" much less often than when conversing with Christians and (as mentioned) the holy spirit concept is not personified as in Christianity:
"Although in Jewish scripture the Holy Spirit is never presented as a person..."
The independence of God (Father) as described in creeds, appears to allow for a time when the usage of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as other names/metaphors/images for God, can be jettisoned. After 2000 years, we see the beginnings of this, both in people who follow the teachings of Jesus, and in the emergence of minor/subtle hints in mainstream churches. In some cases, such as an apparent trend towards non-trinitarian Christianity, the hints are not subtle (e.g. 21st Century Reformation). Some may continue in belief that Jesus is "son of God" and/or Messiah, but no longer see these beliefs as definitive in an attempt to equate Jesus with God. The term son of God can have a range of interpretations, as many monotheists believe that we are all children of God e.g. as His creatures and/or created in His image. Some may believe that Jesus, like us, is a child of God, but with special gifts. The term "messiah" is also subject to interpretation. Many Christians also believe in a second coming, which may have some commonality with the Jewish belief that for practical purposes, the Messiah has not come. Most Jewish Messianic prophecies have not taken place.
What we see in Christian creedal theology, and reflected in Christian scripture, is use of the "holy spirit" concept for human purposes in Roman empirical unifying theology. Is this inspired by God? Perhaps some considered that the goal justified the methods. One can see the clues that it was fabricated and that the people that fabricated it knew what it was, and didn't truly believe it themselves:
- Roman pattern of usage of common ground in religions
- Forcefully enacted state religion
- Creeds that clearly identify God as one (Father) while also adding arguably contradictory trinitarian language
- Additional names for God such as "Holy Spirit" and "Jesus" that serve no purpose in our personal prayer relationship with God
- Passage(s) in letters for Christian leaders like this one in Romans 3:7 "But if God’s truth redounds to his glory through my falsehood,..."
- (Other evidence of the artificiality of Christian Scriptures [not expounded here, because not the central discussion of this article.])
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie,..."
God clearly teaches us the truth about man: We lie.
Even when desired, top-down change is difficult when tens and hundreds of millions follow a particular creed. This may be a dilemma for churches today. But it is good news that we seem to be outgrowing the literal interpretation of the fibs/parables in the Christian Bible. Freedom of religion and the resultant better communication with our friends, the Jewish people, helps tremendously. The wide access to information also helps.
(How many of us, as children, truly and literally believed in Santa Claus. I did. Then as I got a bit older, I started to gather that maybe something's not quite right about this story, then I finally realized, Santa is not flying a sleigh to my roof.)
Last edited: