Who was Jesus?

This is a massive question, one that has been asked without ceasing even while Christ was still alive. In the gospels, Christ asks Peter who he says He is, and Peter states that He is the Christ (and not merely another prophet). While this is incredibly helpful in distinguishing Christianity from Second Temple Judaism, it still leaves many questions unanswered. In the early church, there were perspectives such as Arianism, Miaphysitism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism. Eventually beliefs such as Unitarianism, Binitarianism, and Modalism became popular beliefs. But the primary view of Christ is Trinitarian (and I understand that one can be a Trinitarian and Miaphysitist and Monophysitist, but I just gave them as examples of varying thoughts on who Jesus was).

Trinitarianism states that God is three in one, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is argued that this is not Polytheism, as they are merely the three necessary components that make up the one God. And while this has been generally satisfactory for centuries, it has had many opponents. The most famous opponent was Arianism, a belief that developed during the early church. While Arias was condemned for his belief that Christ was the first creation of God and above all other creations yet separate from God the Father, his beliefs were held by a handful of Roman Emperors at the time. In addition, there were Docetists and Gnostics who held differing views on who Christ was. During the Reformation, Unitarianism (a belief that Christ is not God but nonetheless the Savior of mankind) developed in Poland and greatly influenced many other denominations. In fact, a handful of the United States’ first presidents were Unitarians (John Adams, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Milliard Fillmore, William Howard Taft). In recent years, the most prominent non-Trinitarian belief is Modalism. This is primarily held by Oneness Pentecostals and is the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirits are all modes of God that God chooses to inhabit at any particular time but not all at once.

I write all of this to provide perspective on what I’m about to argue for, as well as provide history to the debate of Christ’s Godness in history.

I argue that while Trinitarianism is a good attempt at understanding God, it is insufficient. In fact, Unitarianism and Modalism provide valuable insight and inquiry into who Christ truly is in relation to God. Rather, Christ is the physical Avatar of the infinite God, and that the concept of God the Father is merely a human attempt at putting an anthropomorphic face to God. This anthropomorphism is not bad in its self, but we have developed both in theology and philosophy to the point that we no longer need to see as an unclear reflection anymore.

Here is what I mean by saying Christ is the Avatar of God. Let’s use a computer game as an example. When I boot up a computer game I put the disk in (or simply select the icon on the screen). I have full power over the disk and icon. If I am talented enough, I can even go into the code of the game and edit the assets and world in the game; I can even add new assets and take out pre-existing ones. But if I truly want to be able to “experience” the game for myself beyond just editing code and design, I must create a character within the game. This is how God operates. Following from my previous article I wrote, if God is Infinite Experience, then for man to even comprehend God, there would need to be a physical component, which we see this in the Old Testament. God visiting Abraham (Genesis 18), Jacob wrestles with God (Genesis 32), God is present in a cloud (throughout Exodus). And when John speaks of Christ, he calls him, “The Word,” (John 1) which had always been. I believe this is a sign that Christ is meant to be the concluding manifestation, the Avatar of God.

This is a concept that is unlikely to have been realized by the early church (and why I give Trinitarianism a bit of a pass), as much of their influence was materialistic Greek philosophy (their understanding Christ as best they could with what they had). But now that we are far beyond them in understanding history, philosophy, theology, and even video games, I believe we should let good of the clunky Trinitarian belief. But one may be asking, what then of the Holy Spirit? This I believe was clearly answered by many alternatives that have been considered as heresies for generations. That is, that the Holy Spirit is merely the power of God felt and realized around us. It is sent to many in the Old Testament to provide them great strength or the ability to prophecy. And it is most famously seen in the New Testament as having given the apostles the ability to speak in a plethora of languages without having previously known them. This does not then need to be a separate piece in the fabric that is God, and in fact sounds silly to argue that it is.

In conclusion, the old Trinitarian understanding of God, and Christ in particular, is outdated. While no alternative has provided the perfect solution, many have been helpful in the general discourse. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three elements to one God, but rather there is God (historically understood as the Father) who manifests God’s self within the finite reality as a material Avatar. This culminates in God finally manifesting God’s self in the Avatar of Christ who is the one absolute material representation of God. And the Holy Spirit is merely the name for the power which God provides to God’s followers (which some argue provides Salvation, but that is an article for another day). God is one, not three, and has never been three.

Appendix A

Some may then ask, “Who does one pray to when praying to God?” And while I have shown my sympathies for Modalism in this article, I do argue it is likely most reasonable to pray to God as opposed to Christ. We should view Christ as a guiding light and attempt to follow his example and walk in his footsteps. That being said, if you pray to Jesus, this does not mean God won’t answer/hear your prayers (God is not nit-picky or juvenile like that). Rather, I believe it is unhealthy for us to do this as it can draw us back into unsound reasoning of who Jesus was.

Appendix B

If you’d like to put a name to this new perspective, I have 2 options (and would like to know the reader’s thoughts on both). The first is obviously Avatarism. While this is the most intuitive, I feel it might confuse people with the resurgence of James Cameron’s hit film property. The second is less intuitive and I call it Manifestationism, as Christ is the one and only physical manifestation of God. If you think both of these names are silly or unhelpful, and you’d like to propose your own, be my guest.