Enjoying Unitarian Studies......
Enjoying Unitarian Studies......
99 of every hundred Christians are Trinitarian, Freelight.
I would disagree, especially looking at the whole history and doctrinal development of 'Christianity', most were more Unitarian in the first/2nd century as a budding sect arising out of monotheistic/unitarian Judaism. The ensuing battles over Christology show continued Unitarian/Trinitarian conflicts in the 'crafting' of doctrine during the Arian Controversy of the 4th century onwards, while Trinitarianism progressively gained a foothold by being supported by political powers that gave the Church the support it needed to uphold what they
formulated as 'orthodox' doctrine. Even today, among the whole of 'Christendom',
not all subscribe to the orthodox definition of the Trinity (most do, catholic and protestants, but only because of taking on the traditional inheritance of their mother-church). Still quite a few Unitarian denominations today, of various sorts and stripes. Monotheistic Judaism, and the earliest Jesus followers were essentially Unitarian,....the Trinity was conceptualized and then 'creedalized' as something that developed over time, becoming more defined during the Arian Controversy as a matter of what the institutionalized church CHOSE to maker her 'creed'. That and the rest is 'history'. - and in a sense it is just stale 'history', because its crystallized theology, religious relics.
Nor do I, which is why I didn't assume anything about the Trinity, and instead became a Unitarian for a spell, which led me to Islam, which is the only major world religion that believes an essentially Unitarian Christology.
I dont see how you assume Islam is the only 'Unitarian' religion, Judaism most certainly is, and Christians who choose to hold to a Unitarian theology which is mainly aligning themselves with their Jewish roots. I'm more liberal to include my cosmological range within a panentheistic
monism (which may include monotheistic nuances but is more metaphysical), since I enjoy the universal truth-wisdom traditions in the eastern schools too, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, etc. There is but one universal 'Deity', one omnipresent Spirit, one substance from which all things derive and are but forms of, one irreducible essence at the heart of all reality, unconditioned, but the source from which all conditions spring. All mystics intuit and understand this
primordial presence many of us call 'God'
- in this vein I draw from the Perennial Wisdom, Theosophical schools of antiquity,
esoteric teachings.
But Freelight, Unitarians believe that all Trinitarians are guilty of most high treason/blasphemy; ascribing deity to a man. Unitarianism is a lighter offense if Trinitarianism be the truth, than is Trinitarianism in the case that Unitarianism/Islam is the truth.
You're pigeonholing Unitarians and trying to fit them all into one catagory or definition, while there is variety of views within the general scope of Unitarianism (which we may do well to go over defining later). Some hold to Jesus being
wholly human attributing no divinity at all to him, others grant Jesus some measure of divine nature or sharing with divinity, either inherent and/or bestowed, but still maintain an essentially Unitarian Christology.
As I shared in the beginning, I see early Jesus followers as being Unitarian, while Trinitarianism was a later doctrinal development formulated/assumed centuries later, finally more defined in the 4th century by 'necessity' with the doctrinal DEBATES looming. We might note as well, that while a triadic concept of Father, Son and Spirit existed previously, earlier records of some church fathers and theologians shows it was but in a vague or less definitive conceptual frame (intellectually entertained to some degree), yet NOT presented as a cardinal orthodox doctrine until later centuries. Otherwise Jesus himself and his first disciples/apostles remained essentially Unitarian. Consider the historical facts, realities and beliefs of the culture of Jesus and his earliest followers.
You have every right as a human being to believe and teach what you do.
Yes I do, and I've been sharing my views, perspectives on religion and theology for some years here and elsewhere, its a wonderfully insightful and progressive journey....with no end to projects and innovations in the near and far future to come
Now to touch on a right or appropriate definition of Unitarianism, which will be complex as far as its meaning historically and contextually applied, the wiki article
here is a good start which is mainly the Unitarian movement and its history, while there may be views within 'Non-trinitarianism' which may not be be formally classified as 'unitarian',...one must learn and differentiate between certain nuances of the term applied historically speaking and then clarify their views in debate specifically. In the meantime we can use the term 'Unitarian' to mean a monotheistic system that holds God to be singular (uni-personal), but does not accept Jesus as being '
God', - we can use traditional orthodox Judaism or Islam as an example in its formal monotheism as being 'non-trinitarian'.
Unitarianism certainly does not accept the orthodox Christian concept/belief of the Trinity
as they define it. I think for simplicity sake, as long as we understand the term in its historical and theological definition
and the scope it may include among various schools, we are good, beyond what we define or contest within 'discussion'. I sometimes use the term-symbol 'Unit-arian' for fun, since traditional Arianism (there are different forms) would be included as 'unitarian', although they DO ascribe divinity to Jesus as a pre-existent being (aeon, archangel, divine co-creator, messenger), the firstborn of creation, the personality
thru which Jehovah created all things,....so Jesus within Arianism or its variations is 'divine' by origination and his relationship to 'God', although he is not 'The God', but
a 'god', the only begotten 'elohim' within the hierarchy of God
- and we sit back and 'eye roll' over the trins who faint over the translation in John 1:1 about the logos being
a god. (I find that entertaining). I have no problems with that translation (among others), protests aside....since Jesus is certainly by his relationship to God, and his special rank and status as being specially 'begotten of Him, a 'god' (elohim), and most certainly subordinate to and the
servant of God. - much of the Unitarian/Trinitarian debate as arguing over these
little details is somewhat 'petty' as splitting hairs, apples and oranges, straining at gnats, and what not. But we seem to have fun at it
- again, some mole hills are made into mountains. - and still...'God' is 'God', and His Son and sons, are His offspring. - arguments notwithstanting.
