again, I appreciate your detailed response and willingness to go back to the scripture.
The Bible does not do that. it was our interpretation that define them that way to fit our trinitarian framework. No where the Bible ever says that some saying of Jesus are temporal and some concerning His human nature.
Jesus never said that this is temporal. Our interpretation is the one who put what Jesus said as temporal.
I am sorry bro. But examples that you have shown are still interpretation of biblical passages from trinitarian lense. Let the passage speak for itself. How did we know that Mark 13:32 is temporal? Did Jesus reveal that it was temporary?
What I mean about going to the source is to let the Bible speak for itself, not us giving interpretation thru our preconceived framework.
I agree with you on one important point: the Son is not the Father—He is distinct from Him. But distinction does not mean a different or lesser God.
John holds both truths together:
John 1:1 → the Word is with God (distinction) and is God (same nature)
John 1:18 → the Son makes the Father known
So the Son is not a second, visible God alongside an invisible Father. Rather the invisible God is perfectly revealed in the Son
That’s why Jesus says (John 14:9), “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father”—not because He is the Father, but because He shares the same divine nature.
Colossians 1:15 → image of the invisible God
Hebrews 1:3 → exact imprint of His nature
In other words: distinct in person andone in essence; therefore not two Gods, nor a hierarchy within God.
The Son is the visible self-revelation of the one God, not a lesser or separate deity.
A Muslim, Jew or Universalist Unitarian that denies the trinity is a non-Christian. Anyone who purports to be a Christian and denies the trinity is guilty of textbook heresy. The Trinity is the fundamental answer to who God is for Orthodox/Creedal (Catholic, Eastern mainline Protestant) Christians. This is not a minor doctrine of our faith open to disagreement. It is not a branch, it is the trunk of the tree
it does not mean you cannot be saved or do the Lord’s work. Accurate doctrine is not a requirement of loving God or serving others. A rose by any other name smells as sweet. But it is simply an objective fact that denying the trinity today puts you clearly outside the umbrella of Orthodox Christianity.
That the Church Jesus left behind had to sort out diverse traditions is not a problem. That Jesus Is God is found in the Gospels, His own teachings and miracles and in the earliest writings we have (Paul).
And how far are you willing to take this “conceived by human ingenuity” or “man decided” argument? Did man decide on what books go in the Bible…or did it fall from heaven? If you give zero Credence to the Church Jesus established and the Creeds, you have cut off the branch of the tree you are trying to sit in.
The trinity was one of if not the most important issues discussed in the early Church. If they got this wrong and the Creeds are wrong, we have no reason to think they got the Bible right.
I am not against worshipping Jesus as God. But I present in previous post above in all greetings of Paul, Peter and James in their epistles. In all their greeting, they always refer to Jesus as Lord. (Master, King) and the Father as God. Is there a tension? Yes. And they leave it at that. They didn’t try to explain whether this Lord (Jesus) and this God (the Father) as equal or one essence. I think it is wise for us to follow that as well.
I think i explained very well the distinction using the texts. If you don’t find it convincing there is nothing i can do about it I’m afraid.
When a passage is read in isolation, without integrating it with the rest of Scripture, it can easily lead to error. Historically, that’s how heresies tend to emerge: they elevate one set of texts while sidelining others. I’m not calling you a heretic—far from it; just highlighting the pattern (. It’s also worth noting that the word “heresy” itself comes from the Greek hairesis, which literally means “choice” or “selection.”) .
The real task is to hold together all the passages, even when they seem to pull in different directions.
For example, I believe I have demonstrated where and why Christ’s human nature is emphasized, and likewise where and why His divine, eternal, and omniscient nature is affirmed. Preferring one over the other is an interpretive choice rather than a conclusion demanded by the texts—particularly given that the earliest Christians worshipped Jesus as God.
Are you saying that trinitarian doctrine is unquestionable even if it is not revealed in the Bible and many passages (when interpreted without the lense of trinitarian doctrine) are in conflict with the doctrine itself? But why should be the case? Isn’t that the motto of reformanda? we need to go back to the Bible and search the Bible like the reformer did. Wasn’t that what Luther did during the reformation and evaluate the church doctrine at his time and found it deviate from the Scripture? Wasn’t Luther the one who said that the council and the creeds need to be evaluated in light of the Scripture?
Actually Saint Paul in one passage refers to Jesus as God in the clearest possible way.
Romans 9:1-5: “i am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For i could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.”
I agree with you totally here. Integrating our interpretation with the rest of Scripture is what we must do to have a complete picture. However, interpretation the passage thru the lense of trinitarian theology and treating that theology as the frame work is not scripture.
It’s okay. My point of starting this post is to see whether we can defend trinitarian theology starting from the scripture instead of vice versa. That is not the case so far
Are you suggesting that the early Christians who worshipped Jesus as God borrowed Doc’s DeLorean, traveled three centuries into the future to receive lessons on the Trinity, and then returned? After all, they were already worshipping Jesus as God long before any ecumenical council formally settled the matter.
This is definitely the strongest passage supporting Jesus as God. I am not against this at all and thank you for pointing me to this passage. As I said before, I am not saying that Jesus Christ is not God, so I have no problem with this passage at all. The tension is still there however. How is this God (Jesus) related to God (the Father)? The Scripture does not give us the detail picture. I like to leave it at that.
The fact that Jesus is God is taught in the Bible. We don’t need trinitarian doctrine for that. However, the detail definition of relationship of Jesus as in the classical definition of trinitarian doctrine is beyond the scope of the scripture.
In my opinion, the prologue of the Gospel of John is just as strong—if not stronger—but I see your point: that passage might carry more weight because Paul’s Letter to the Romans is much more ancient than the Gospel of John. In fact, it predates all the Gospels.
The canonization of the Bible was a messy process taking centuries to complete. You can deny the authority of the Creeds and the early Church if you want. But the Bible was put together by them. You have cut off the branch you are sitting in. Personally, I reject sola scripture–especially the kind that imagines the Bible as falling from heaven. The major reformers upheld the Trinity. Michael Servetus was a prominent figure who challenged the Trinity and he was burned at the stake. Calvin served as an expert witness and supported the death penalty though I believe he preferred beheading. I also disagree with you that the Trinity is not clearly gleaned from the Bible starting primarily with the teachings of Jesus.
If I might add in the spirit of gracious discussion, perhaps defending a doctrine and forced to reinterpret many passages from the Bible in light of that doctrine is not the wise way to go. I am proposing to go back to the Bible and take all the relevant passages and let the Bible speak for itself, not in isolation, but in whole. And then we can look to other doctrines out there and evaluate them accordingly.
Sure, but the point is that if Jesus is God—and this is already taught in the Bible—then without the Trinity He would have to be a separate or distinct God from the Father. That would either undermine monotheism or reduce Him to a kind of “lesser god” or “super-angel” or something similar.
That view would also be ahistorical, since the early Christians worshipped Him in ways reserved for God alone, while still remaining strictly monotheistic. This suggests that, although they had not yet formally articulated the doctrine of the Trinity, it was already present in nuce—implicitly—in both the Scriptures and their own understanding.
I am glad we don’t live in that same spirit nowadays though perhaps that same spirit might still lingers nowadays.
That is good Vinnie. Then forget about Trinitarian doctrine and just start with the Bible. Learn everything about the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the OT and NT. Start afresh. After that, perhaps we can look at the trinitarian doctrine. If you are still holding that doctrine, then it’s great. I have nothing against that. However if one doesn’t hold that doctrine, then I am all for that as well.
There at last we have the same end of the road. Here I am saying, I really don’t know whether Jesus is a separate or distinct God from the Father or He is actually as He is presented in trinitarian doctrine. Since the bible is silent and I didn’t see Paul, Peter or whoever else wrote the Bible trying to solve this enigma, then shouldn’t we leave it at that?
Not to mention that the trinitarian nature of God was also affirmed by the early fathers of the Church, such as Tertullian.
Tertullian, Adversus Praxean, chapter 2 https://www.tertullian.org/latin/adversus_praxean.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com : “tres autem non statu sed gradu, nec substantia sed forma, nec potestate sed specie,
usi is autem substantiae et unius status et unius potestatis, quia unus deus ex quo et gradus isti et formae et species in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti deputantur”
Which means, in English: “They are three, however not in state but in degree; not in substance but in form; not in power but in distinction; yet of one substance, one state, and one power, because God is one—from whom these degrees and forms and distinctions are reckoned under the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Adversus Praxean was written more than a century before the Council of Nicaea settled the issue once and for all.
After all, they were already worshipping Jesus as God long before any ecumenical council formally settled the matter.
or something similar.