The trinity - how do you interpeted it

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

I think im in minoriry here, but for me, it means that (all) men (and women ofc. :)) has the divine spark within them and that God is present everywhere.

I doubt the church would agree, but im curious to hear how you interpet it, considering that it it is the cornerstone of the faith.

 

Is it heretical for me to interpet the Son, not only as Christ, but as humanity?

 

[Nintendao]

I go as far as to think of all nature as part of the Son. Infinity is all-encompassing, pure potential, aspects of the Father. The fragment of infinity that we as humans can even perceive at all, and take part in, is the creation, the Son. The Holy Spirit is the active force that continually bind the two together. There is a much more personal relationship and consciousness to them, as actual beings not just some universal concepts, but I don't say too much about that for now. Am happy to ramble on a bit more, as I think about this a lot.

 

On a more abstracted level, the Father is the pattern, the Son is the product, and the H.Spirit is the process. The pattern is most readily observable by looking to the heavens. Massive energies of stars and planets, are not easily interrupted in their orbits. No sin of sloth is conceivable by the sun and moon, who rise and set with a regularity worthy of awe to a lazy bum like myself. The incessant nuclear reaction in the sun, or the churning of earths magnetic core, is easily the envy of any alchemists furnace and cauldron.

 

A relationship of father and son elegantly expressed in the patterns discernable by both galactic superclusters and living tissue bearing a resemblance. To even be able to see them with the telescope and microscope, is because of the pervasiveness of light and persistence across billions of years, who hints at the capability of the spirit.

https://www.space.com/27016-galaxy-supercluster-laniakea-milky-way-home.html

 

Beyond those physical structures, the Law is also reflected. The kingdom to come as the will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. In order for the universe to have stuff in it, the void differentiated itself with the big bang, whose radiation can still be detected today. In order for humans to be able to get closer to perfection, the blood of the lamb dispersed during the crucifixion, can still wash devotees in holy medicine.

 

Moving onto the microcosm of the body, when I make the Sign of the Cross, as the hand moves from head to gut to heart-and-lungs, while recite in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. One example is of thought, feeling, and breath coming together.

 

some references

https://www.beginningcatholic.com/basic-catholic-prayers

https://www.beginningcatholic.com/support-files/rosary-graces.pdf

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/what-is-the-holy-spirit/

https://www.loyolapress.com/catholic-resources/prayer/traditional-catholic-prayers/prayers-every-catholic-should-know/prayer-to-the-holy-spirit/

 

Edited January 24 by Nintendao

[SirPalomides]

11 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

(all) men (and women ofc. :)) has the divine spark within them and that God is present everywhere.

 

That God is omnipresent and that human beings have a divine spark is standard Christian doctrine, though the specific meaning of the divine spark is debated. The meaning of the Trinity though is something else. In fact the Trinity is basically an inscrutable doctrine and various attempts to rationalize/ explain it over the centuries (e.g. modalism, tritheism) have been rejected. 

 

11 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Is it heretical for me to interpet the Son, not only as Christ, but as humanity?

 

 

One of the basic principles of orthodox Christology is that the Son assumed human nature as the New Adam, not simply in an individual sense but the common human nature, so that all humans are somehow restored through him. This is sometimes called the "recapitulation theory of atonement" which is especially prominent among the Greek fathers but which is at least implicitly present in Latin Christianity too. Humans are grafted onto this restored, deified humanity through faith and the Mysteries (baptism, the eucharist, etc.) 

[Cadcam]

I believe the church is considered the body of christ, as one is transfiguration from within by engaging in communion. 

 

I think the Holy Spirt represents the spirit of love between the father, son and body of the church

[Eduardo]

On 23-01-2024 at 0:46, NaturaNaturans said:

 

 

Edited February 7 by Eduardo
Delete

[Apotheose]

14 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

I think im in minoriry here, but for me, it means that (all) men (and women ofc. :)) has the divine spark within them and that God is present everywhere.

I doubt the church would agree, but im curious to hear how you interpet it, considering that it it is the cornerstone of the faith.

 

Is it heretical for me to interpet the Son, not only as Christ, but as humanity?

 

 

You are indeed in minority, and so am I, because that is one of my views of it as well. That is the same interpretation of great christians like rosicrucian Neville Goddard. He views John 10:30 as an allusion to the divine spark in every human soul/mind/body. He was involved with the Kabbalah as well.

 

John 10:30 - “I and My Father are One”

But for me, the “Son” would symbolize both humanity and the Christ. Humanity being ‘drops of the Ocean’, which contain the same substance of the Father and the Holy Spirit; and the Christ being exactly the Father, but in human form, like Jesus Christ was, to fulfill a particular duty as an incarnate being.

 

And the Holy Spirit would be the intermediary, the connector between the Father and the Son. It would be the Fire that renovates/ressurects one’s counsciousness, which thus free it from ignorance and presents it with the Eternal Light.

 

The Catholic Church does not agree with that. They view John 10:30 as a relationship between only Jesus Christ and The Father. Answering your question, it would be probably heretical, yes, to believe as we do, but you shouldn’t waste your time thinking about that. You can believe anything you want, and should.

Edited January 23 by Apotheose

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

Mhm, interresting to read your perspective. Christianity is the faith thats closest to my heart, and that i understand intuitivley (as a result of growing up where i did). I have, however, barley opened "the holy book," and I am only at church for baptisim, funerals, marriage etc.

 

One thing I am gratefull for, is growing up in a lutheran and secular country, where there are no "high priests" and little to no dogma. How the church or member x at daobums demands that scripture should be interpeted, concerncs me somewhere between very little and nothing at all. 

 

I think it is a lot of beauty and power in it, and I wouldve loved to see how things turned out if it was not for power play, dogma and such. Influences on christianity (platonism, solar worship, mithra, mystery traditions etc.) is something Id like to look deeper into.

 

 Again, I am not a well read, but how many possible ways is it to interpet something like this:

Quote

Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

 

Time to brush the dust of my grandfathers mothers bible, and have a look. John maybe?

 

One thing that I find very interresting, is that the only unforgiveable sin, is sin against the holy spirit. Any thoughts on that?

[Cobie]

.

Edited January 25 by Cobie

[Nungali]

Seems to be something missing here  ?

 

Son  ..... Father  .....    ? 

 

Not 'Mother'  ?    I think that is rather telling .

 

I prefer to go to the root and see the 'trinity' aspect as a process  and dynamic of creation -   religions have a history of taking  observed natural laws and processes and creating personification and deity  out of them .  A great loss IMO .

[Cobie]

 

23 minutes ago, Nungali said:

… personification … A great loss IMO 

“personification …   A great loss IMO.”   

 

You mean like this:

 

On 01/02/2022 at 11:03 PM, Nungali said:

 

For me , 'Mary' was IN the light . 

 

       … 

 

Edited January 23 by Cobie

[Apotheose]

On 23/01/2024 at 3:07 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

Mhm, interresting to read your perspective. Christianity is the faith thats closest to my heart, and that i understand intuitivley (as a result of growing up where i did). I have, however, barley opened "the holy book," and I am only at church for baptisim, funerals, marriage etc.

 

One thing I am gratefull for, is growing up in a lutheran and secular country, where there are no "high priests" and little to no dogma. How the church or member x at daobums demands that scripture should be interpeted, concerncs me somewhere between very little and nothing at all. 

 

I think it is a lot of beauty and power in it, and I wouldve loved to see how things turned out if it was not for power play, dogma and such. Influences on christianity (platonism, solar worship, mithra, mystery traditions etc.) is something Id like to look deeper into.

 

 Again, I am not a well read, but how many possible ways is it to interpet something like this:

 

Time to brush the dust of my grandfathers mothers bible, and have a look. John maybe?

 

One thing that I find very interresting, is that the only unforgiveable sin, is sin against the holy spirit. Any thoughts on that?

 

I share your opinion on that; humanity would be much more aware of the innate powers of the Counsciousness if there weren’t so many ingrained dogmas in their mind which are provided by religion.

 

There’s indeed a lot of power and beauty in christianism, as you said. The Gospel of John is definitely the most mystical and esoteric part of the Bible.

 

Many authors have shared their opinion on the time Jesus said that “blasphemy against the Spirit is unforgiveable”. Personally, the one I find the most logical and sensible is Saint Augustine’s view of it. Its meaning is actually not that deep as some christian strands make it seems to be. Considering that the [Holy] Spirit is what connects the Father to His Son(s), and the Spirit is what enlightens the ignorant person and turns them into a redeemed one, blaspheming against It would simply mean absolute unbelief in ‘Redemption’, ‘Enlightenment’, ‘Illumination’ or any other mystical term that means the reconnection between man and the Divine. To deny the Spirit would mean to not believe in the Divine to begin with. And the reason it is “unforgiveable” is an obviousness, it’s because a non-believer can never be Redeemed. The atheist can never get fully immerse in God’s Essence because he, unconsciously, lives by the oscillations of human desires and social circumstances. It is “unforgivable” because the person who is yet ignorant of God’s Existence and Benevolence can never be enlightened by Him and will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven until he discovers Him.

 

About the quote you brought up, when Jesus says “the Kingdom of Heaven is in your midst”, some people believe he is reffering to the Pineal Gland. That is supported by the fact that Jesus was crucified in a place called Calvary, or Golgotha Hill. If I remember it correctly, Golghota means “Skull” in Aramaic, and “Calva” means “Skull” in latin. It’s metaphorical and also a minority between christian scholars, but the hint that the Kingdom of Heaven is in “your midst” and Jesus being crucified in a skull-shaped place, induces the idea of the “skull’s midst”.

Edited February 4 by Apotheose

[Nintendao]

2 hours ago, Nungali said:

Seems to be something missing here  ?

 

Son  ..... Father  .....    ? 

 

Not 'Mother'  ?    I think that is rather telling .

There's no missing the Divine Mother in the Rosary. That'll be 53 Hail Marys and a Hail Holy Queen, young man! 

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, Cobie said:

 

“personification …   A great loss IMO.”   

 

You mean like this:

 

 

 

Yes . Just like that .

 

You see the feminine principle got so ignored that it made itself a personification . 

 

Which is different from people doing it  .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, Nintendao said:

There's no missing the Divine Mother in the Rosary. That'll be 53 Hail Marys and a Hail Holy Queen, young man! 

 

 

D'oh ! 

 

( That's tough  !  The most I ever got before was ' Three Our Father's  ) 

 

 

Catholicism isn't too bad , I just have some doubts about some aspects of belief    ;

 

 

[Apotheose]

6 hours ago, Nungali said:

Seems to be something missing here  ?

 

Son  ..... Father  .....    ? 

 

Not 'Mother'  ?    I think that is rather telling .

 

I prefer to go to the root and see the 'trinity' aspect as a process  and dynamic of creation -   religions have a history of taking  observed natural laws and processes and creating personification and deity  out of them .  A great loss IMO .

 

I’d have to agree with you, Nungali, for the 100th time. In my opinion, ruling out the Feminine is one of the biggest flaws in abrahamic religions. The idea that there is a ‘Father’ in the sky waiting for us is, in my view, a big naivety. Of course Christianism is incredibly beautiful, but it has its flaws.

 

Considering Mary as the ‘Feminine Chunk” of God does not make sense for me. The Almighty God, the Father, is definitely a Male figure in Christianism, and Mary is not a part of Deus (the Trinity; latin for “God”).

 

I’m obviously in minority here, but I consider that Christ was born in the Baptism of Jesus - as a consequence of the advent of the Holy Spirit. So Mary did not give birth to Jesus Christ, but just to Jesus. Jesus was of course an Illuminated man and supposedly an Initiate, but he was not a Christ until the baptism. So Mary is not a form of Divinity in Christianism - in my view -, but rather a vehicle for the birth of a “chosen one” who later would become the Christ, the Father in human form.

 

But even if we consider Jesus as being born as Christ already, Mary still would not be exactly a form of the Divinity. She does not take part in the Trinity, and therefore she is not the “feminine correspondent” of The Father. So, in conclusion, it’s clear that the Feminine was subdued in Christianism.

Edited January 24 by Apotheose

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

7 hours ago, Apotheose said:

christianism

Love that term. Will look into some of the others as well, with time. Regarding «the unforgivable sin,» there is some twisted beauty in that as well. Not as in atheists are damned in this life and the following, but rather that listening and connecting to the divine inside, outside and around you is the way to «redemption». To me, redemption gives off a little original sin vibes, which im not a fan off, but I use that term in lack of a better one.

[Nungali]

14 hours ago, Apotheose said:

 

I’d have to agree with you, Nungali, for the 100th time. In my opinion, ruling out the Feminine is one of the biggest flaws in abrahamic religions. The idea that there is a ‘Father’ in the sky waiting for us is, in my view, a big naivety. Of course Christianism is incredibly beautiful, but it has its flaws.

 

Well, it was a religion for its time, a lot of things where 'patriarchal'  based  then, still are , whereas before they seemed matriarchal  ( see 'Old Europe - archaeology ' )  its rather remarkable that it has continued into such modern times  but then again its remarkable that ' the male age ' has continued into modern times as well . One theory is that this passed some time back and now we are in the age of the child  .  Unfortunately the 'child' is a bit dangerous , like a 6 year old that just discovered the gun 'safe' has been left open  ( except in our case it was nuclear weapons  ... and some other 'issues ' ) hopefully the kid matures soon  although I am not sure if we have gone through the 'teenage  rebellion' stage yet .

 

However  some manifestations of Christianity , or some newer manifestation of it  might be able to cover this one ?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Child

 

Considering Mary as the ‘Feminine Chunk” of God does not make sense for me. The Almighty God, the Father, is definitely a Male figure in Christianism, and Mary is not a part of Deus (the Trinity; latin for “God”).

 

No , she is not 'Divinity' and certainly not a God or a Goddess . I was going to point that out to Coby , in relation to her  thinking she found ' yet another'  discrepancy in my posting ,  my comments where about God / Gods  and 'personification '    of  Gods ,  and Mary was not a God, as you say .  But I would not want to disappoint Coby in her attempt to embarrass me or gain 'evidence' for my  ' Dunning - Krugerism'     .....  but really thats just all an adverse response by her  to cover up her confused emotions  (  I think she has a 'thing'  for me    ) , she seems to be following me around , oh well, I do have that effect on some women .

 

 

However the pictures I posted which she reposted here  of the Mary type figure  I did not originally post as any example of   an aspect of 'The Trinity '  .... it was from a post about a highly personal spiritual experience , where she appeared  in the role of ' Animus / Tutelary Spirit / Daena '  . In that regard  she was like the 'Holy Spirit ' , in stead of a dove above my head  and light coming down onto me , it was  an image similar to  that in those posted pictures .   I was standing in water , by the way .... 'lustration' .

 

I am assuming you are familiar with the ' Sophia' angle ?

 

I’m obviously in minority here, but I consider that Christ was born in the Baptism of Jesus - as a consequence of the advent of the Holy Spirit. So Mary did not give birth to Jesus Christ, but just to Jesus. Jesus was of course an Illuminated man and supposedly an Initiate, but he was not a Christ until the baptism. So Mary is not a form of Divinity in Christianism - in my view -, but rather a vehicle for the birth of a “chosen one” who later would become the Christ, the Father in human form.

 

That seems more reasonable than the  Catholic view .  Also , myself being in an esoteric initiation tradition , I can  accept the  idea about the a higher  spirit entering  after a time of work, study and 'meditation'  (isolation , etc   eg. Mathew 4 , 1-11 . )  and that being affirmed in a ceremony of lustration .

 

But even if we consider Jesus as being born as Christ already, Mary still would not be exactly a form of the Divinity. She does not take part in the Trinity, and therefore she is not the “feminine correspondent” of The Father. So, in conclusion, it’s clear that the Feminine was subdued in Christianism.

 

Indeed , which is why some probably  tried to give Mary that position .  Her cult became very popular in some regions .   Some see devotional relationship to Jesus and/ or Mary as expressions of the Anima / Animus so in that way , in psychology, they could be seen  as a 'pair' .

 

My comments about 'principles'  becoming personified related more to what I think about the developments of religion way back ; in Zoroastrianism  . In my reading and understanding the early version was very advanced and more a 'meditative psychology'  , a 'science of the mind' and how to gain control of it  to send it in a good direction

much like the 'mental analytical' approach of Buddhism .  Eventually these forces and principles became a  bunch of  .....   ( well, not 'Gods' as  Zoroastrianism is supposed to be monotheistic  , which creates a problem when potentially   ' bad principle' or direction of the mind became personified as 'Ahriman'  , thus actually creating a  type of dualism  between creators  instead of a conflict within the mind  ) .

 

The same probably applies to Christianity  where the concept is much more than the personification , eg your comment above :  " The idea that there is a ‘Father’ in the sky waiting for us is, in my view, a big naivety. "

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_and_animus

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutelary_deity

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daena    

( also we see a reflection of this principle  in the Egyptian Ma'at ;  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat  )

 

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

Regarding the male-centric (forgive me, language barrier) aspects of christianity, here are some fun (or not so fun) facts:

 

pope (n.)

"the Bishop of Rome as head of the Roman Catholic Church," c. 1200, from Old English papa (9c.), from Church Latin papa "bishop, pope" (in classical Latin, "tutor"), from Greek papas "patriarch, bishop," originally "father" (see papa).

 

papa (n.)

"father," 1680s, from French papa, from Latin papa, originally a reduplicated child's word, similar to Greek pappa (vocative) "o father," pappas "father," pappos "grandfather." The native word is daddy; according to OED the first use of papa was in courtly speech, as a continental affectation, and it was not used by common folk until late 18c.

 

paterfamilias (n.)

"male head of a family or household," late 15c., from Latin pater familias "master of a house, head of a family," from pater "father" (see father (n.)) + familias, old genitive of familia"family" (see family).

TLDR

 

 

I think at this point it is just so deeply ingrained at us. Still tho, i doubt many view the father as «sky-daddy»

 

edit: NGL, that pope derives from papa is hilarious to me

 

Edited January 24 by NaturaNaturans

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

I say it publically, you truly has a gift with words Nungali, it is a pleasure : )

[Nungali]

Gift ?

 

 

I thought it was a 'mania'  ? 

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

5 minutes ago, Nungali said:

Gift ?

 

 

I thought it was a 'mania'  ? 

Mania is not to different from genius. I remember you told me about the roots of that very term as well.

 

But enough brown noseing haha

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

Some gold written by a member of another forum, qouted with permission ofc.

 

———————————-

Quote

Anyway, @xxxxc asked me to share some additional thoughts so, I guess I'll share the ones I expected to come up based on my initial post...

I think it's important to engage with the "entire" subject, so I disagree with the reasoning that we should follow limited lines of inquiry "because so and so does that." Limited lines of inquiry in my experience are used to generate data points for use by specialists in other Disciplines not because they're somehow "more objective" or, "more accurate."

The "Trinity Theme" that OP is exploring has been taken to represent an example of Christianity "borrowing" from various Polytheistic traditions. I don't think that anyone seriously doubts the overwhelming evidence that early Christians borrowed from Eastern traditions, not just Iranian but also Bhuddist (after all, in the New Testament Jesus identifies 9 things that are required to be a "Christian." Those "9 things" are literally just reciting Bhuddism's Eightfold Path plus, "Believe in Me" so there's obvious influence at play.)

What is overlooked I think, is the extent to which all of these traditions interacted via the Steppes prior to the Bronze-Age Collapse. I.E. in the PIE Context. Pre-Bronze Age is actually my area of study which is why I raised the topic of the Solar themes of the Nordic Bronze Age and, made the point that they contrast strongly with the Apocalyptic Themes of Early Medieval Norse myth as we understand it. Christianity became widespread at the same time that it became characterized by Apocalyptic Themes. So IMO, this represents a clear interruption of existing Norse beliefs and also, represents potential Christian Influence much earlier than we typically recognize. 

Obviously this goes both ways since we know that early Christianity was subject to outside influences such as the adoption of Mithras' birthday for the dating of Christmas and, influences from Sol Invictus via Rome which introduced Triumphalism and Conquest as aspects of the Christian God.

Moving on from that, but still specific to the OP is the act of Cannabalism which is seen in Christianity via Communion. This is actually somewhat out of place as a thematic element because by this point, Greek Polytheism had been supplanted largely by Eastern Mystery Cults which don't typically display cannibalistic themes raising the question of "where exactly did they come up with this."

To me, this along with certain direct parallels such as the specific action/reaction seen in the Punishments of Loki and Prometheus, the nature of the Underworld which is simply "nothing" and doesn't relate to punishment as well as the presence of a group of female quasi-deities - the Greek Furies and the Norse Valkyries - suggests a very strong link between Norse and, Greek that's not well reflected by the current record. When you add to this the migrations we know to have occurred from the 4th Century onward - as well as the fact that Eastern Europe has not been heavily investigated in the archaeological sense - I think that Comparative Mythology will lead us in time to several conclusions:

1. The "Germanic Peoples" as a whole were both more mobile and, more "Steppe-Facing" than previously believed.
2. Trade between "Greece" and "Scandinavia" had been ongoing for longer than previously appreciated similar to how trade between the Baltic and Tyrhennian was ongoing via the Amber Road well before 700 BCE.
3. By gaining evidence including Germanic and Scandinavian peoples as intermediaries of cultural and technological exchange we'll be better able to understand a number of different historical cultures such as the White Huns or, the various Goths who act in extremely wide and strange contexts. Also however, I think we'll better understand the oral cultures of Continental Europe such as the various Gallic Tribes which migrated to Italy as well as how Roman/Etruscant Republicanism became differentiated from both Latin Traditions of Kingship as well as from various Greek Traditions of government.

All of these things rely on starting with broad, thematic observations and following where they lead rather than the alternative.

 

[Apotheose]

9 hours ago, Nungali said:

However the pictures I posted which she reposted here  of the Mary type figure  I did not originally post as any example of   an aspect of 'The Trinity '  .... it was from a post about a highly personal spiritual experience , where she appeared  in the role of ' Animus / Tutelary Spirit / Daena '  . In that regard  she was like the 'Holy Spirit ' , in stead of a dove above my head  and light coming down onto me , it was  an image similar to  that in those posted pictures .   I was standing in water , by the way .... 'lustration' .

 

I am assuming you are familiar with the ' Sophia' angle ?

Yes, I’m familiar with Sophia. It’s not that strong of an overall attribute of Christianity but Its symbolism as the Feminine is indubitable. But in my previous comment I just wanted to point out that the Feminine is generally overlooked.

 

I genuinely found your experience with the Divine Feminine very interesting; I’m sure it was something incredible to experience. My time to entangle that much with the Feminine has not come yet, but I’ve had akin experiences. I remember once having inspirations of what maternal Love was like. The Feminine Love is different from everything; it is sheer abrogation and admiration. Contemplating the symbol of the pelican feeding its offsprings with her own flesh is something that sometimes moves me to tears. The Feminine is truly fascinating; it is a misfortune that contemporary societies do not comprehend it that much. Man is given the gift of awareness and still does not stop and have a look at the deepness of a woman’s eyes, it’s a shame. There’s so much inside those eyes. And it’s also a shame that the ‘purely-religious’ path seems to not be something that can provide that level of awareness and appreciation for their followers.
 

And, regarding your experience, and also Lustration, I’d like to hear your opinion about something. Considering that ancient Lustration rites involved sacrifices, I’d like to know what do you think of sacrifices in general (thanksgiving, offerings, lustration etc.) from an esoteric standpoint. Do they have indeed a practical meaning in mysticism or are they just that meaningful within the ‘intellect’s bounds?
 

Regarding the ‘principles’ you mentioned being personified, I often conclude that it might have occured due to Man wanting to outsource his responsibility as a Creator to external Beings/Gods. That much likely did not follow a chronological line - as most primitive religions of early Homo sapiens believed in the separation between Man and that which they comprehended as God -, but perhaps at a given moment Man got aware of his/her divine abilities and resigned them. Maybe it’s because it’s too much of a responsibility? Interesting to meditate about! The fact is - as you stated - human faculties were personified as Gods, and that might be one of the causes of Man unconsciously being a slave of the ups and downs of Duality. What had been truly a mental dynamic later became Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu, Christ and Satan and much others. And hence Man resigned his/her responsibility to having both of them inside their minds. The time devil tempted Jesus is, in my view, not a story, but a ‘lesson’ about the principles you referred to.

Edited January 25 by Apotheose

[Sanity Check]

My crude take on the trinity goes something like...

 

Catholic church:  "We represent an ISO standards compliant, non profit, monotheistic religion."

 

Atheists:  "You have God, Jesus and the Holy spirit. That's not monotheistic!"

 

Catholic church:  "!@#%. Ok. We'll merge God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit into a single unit in 300 to 500 AD and call it the trinity, how's that?"

 

Atheists:  "Cool story, bro."

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

15 hours ago, Apotheose said:

And hence Man resigned his/her responsibility to having both of them inside their minds. The time devil tempted Jesus is, in my view, not a story, but a ‘lesson’ about the principles you referred to.

If youd like to, id love to hear more about this. I lack the knowledge of these various spiritual traditions, but much of what you say here ressonates with me