Well, this is where we may simply have to agree to disagree. In light of the faith of the apostles, the early Christians, the Church Fathers, and the Roman Catholic Church, I firmly maintain that Jesus is neither a different nor a separate God from the Father—much less an inferior one.
Are you saying that Paul was renouncing his monotheism when he said that Jesus was God over all, blessed forever?
You certainly can, if you want.
Yes. However Tertullian is not as authoritative as the Bible writers.
for that, you must perhaps do some study why some books are included and some are not. I believe the authority did not come from any councils and had already decided by the body of the Church since the early times who was the authors of the book etc. Just because the council put the bible together did not mean they have the right to interpret the Bible as they saw fit.
John 16:13: “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth.”
2 Tessalonians 2:15: “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”
interesting question to ponder. If Paul was staunchly monotheistic, then what view did he has about the divine nature of Jesus? Why didn’t Paul explain in clear term of who Jesus really is? Why did he leave the tension there? if anyone in the early church can explain it clearly, it should be Paul and yet he didn’t. Interesting indeed.
An alternative is that Paul was monolatry.
Understand you clearly. This is the scope that I dare not venture either. There are biblical passages that push me there and yet … not enough.
That’s a really good question—and I think the key is this: Paul doesn’t leave the “tension” because he’s unsure, but because he’s holding together two truths he fully believes.
On the one hand, Paul is absolutely monotheistic. But on the other, he includes Jesus within that one divine identity, rather than outside of it.
For example:
Paul is essentially reworking the Shema, now including both the Father and Jesus within the identity of the one God.
Philippians 2:6–11: Jesus is in the form of God, yet receives the worship due to God alone (cf. Isaiah 45:23)
Colossians 2:9: “in Him the whole fullness of Deity dwells bodily”
So Paul is not vague about Christ’s status—he affirms it very strongly.
At the same time, it’s also true that the earliest Christians did not yet have the fully developed theological vocabulary that later centuries would provide.
So what we see in Paul is not confusion, but pre-theological clarity:
strict monotheism
Jesus included in the divine identity
the Spirit acting with divine authority
Why does it feel like “tension”, then?
Because Paul is doing something genuinely new in expression, namely he preserves monotheism, while including Jesus within it
And language hasn’t yet been systematized to explain that fully.
In short, Paul doesn’t resolve the tension by choosing one side (remember what I told you about choosing?), rather He affirms:
one God
Jesus as fully divine
and holds them together.
And that’s exactly why later theology had to develop clearer language: not to invent something new, but to articulate what was already there.
They had the reality before they had the terminology.
I don’t think “monolatry” really fits Saint Paul in the slightest because monolatry means worshipping one God while acknowledging others exist. But Paul explicitly denies the existence of other gods in any real sense.
For example:
That’s not monolatry—that’s strict monotheism.
And yet, in the very same passage, Paul says:
This is crucial. Paul is not placing Jesus alongside God as a second deity. He is including Jesus within the identity of the one God.
You see the same pattern elsewhere:
Philippians 2:10–11 → every knee bows to Jesus (echoing Isaiah 45:23, about YHWH)
Colossians 1:16 → all things created through Him
Colossians 2:9 → fullness of deity dwells in Him
These are not things said of a secondary or lesser divine being.
So Paul’s position isn’t: “many gods, but we worship one” (monolatry) BUT “there is only one God—and Jesus shares in that divine identity”
As for why Paul doesn’t “explain it systematically”: he doesn’t because he’s not writing abstract theology—he’s writing to communities that already:
worship Jesus
confess Him as Lord
pray in His name
So again, the issue isn’t lack of clarity, but lack of later technical language.
I have and its my belief that if we leave the realm of made-up, feel good apologetics, we will all find the messiness of canonization less palatable than we might otherwise like from a human perspective.
You accept the early Church’s Judgment on the Bible but not their primary understanding of God based on it. From my perspective it is inconsistent to claim the early church possessed the acumen and divine guidance necessary to distinguish between hundreds of inspired texts and uninspired or fraudulent ones used by various communities as authoritative, but was bllind when it came to understanding the central character of the God described within the books they chose. Why do you think they chose the books they did? The official declaration of the 27 book NT comes after the official declaration of the Trinity (Nicaea). You are thinking the Church read the Bible and c came up with the trinity. The truth is their understanding of Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit also helped them choose which books were authoritative. These books and their beliefs about God were intertwined.
Irenaeus is the first author to mention all four Gospels (ca. 180) and quote from them extensively so we know he is referring to the specific books we accept as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth… and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God…" (Against Heresies , Book I, Chapter 10)
So when you reject the Trinity, you also reject the Bible. There is no way around this. It is a package deal. Their central beliefs about God and Jesus come from apostolic teaching and this comes from the books chosen and helped them choose the books.
What you are doing is like asking a pit master to go to the store and get you the finest cuts of meat and you trust their judgment but when they get back you tell them, “you don’t know how to cook the meat, let me show you.” Or it’s like asking a professor to design a course and curriculum and they provide the model and lesson structure but then you tell them let me teach the course, you don’t understand the content.
Jesus established a Church, not an army of individuals armed with sola scripture and their personal opinions. You can make the choice to side with the Church Jesus established on its central belief or you can reject it and live outside it. You don’t have to understand it all. Logically, you are just picking and choosing what you want to accept from the ancient Church but the Trinity and the Canon are intertwined.
How many books on the Trinity and primary literature from the early Church have you actually read? Hopefully you are not disagreeing with almost 2,000 years of Christian doctrine on its central most issue over a few internet articles or a simple lack of understanding on your part?
I’m not sure why we would think the inspiration process magically stopped when the last book of the NT was written. Did God decide to take a nap and just hope the early Church would get scripture and its most central belief correct?
Vinnie
This fits perfectly with what we’ve been saying.
Paul explicitly calls Jesus “God over all”
That’s not compatible with monolatry or a lesser divine status.
The broader Pauline pattern remains:
Jesus shares in divine titles (Lord)
receives worship due to God (Philippians 2)
possesses the fullness of deity (Colossians 2:9)
So Romans 9:5 isn’t an isolated idea—it’s consistent with Paul’s overall theology.
If Paul can call Christ “God over all, blessed forever,” then he is not treating Jesus as a secondary or lesser deity, rather He is including Him fully within the identity of the one God.
Which again confirms: Paul is not monolatrous—he is monotheistic, with Jesus included in that one divine identity.
It’s also important to note how early these texts are.
1 Corinthians is generally dated to around AD 53–55
Romans is usually dated to around AD 56–58
That places both letters within about 20–25 years of Jesus’ death.
This is far too early for a “legendary development” or a later theological invention.
When Paul writes:
1 Corinthians 8:6 → including Jesus within the identity of the one God
Romans 9:5 → calling Christ “God over all, blessed forever”
he is not introducing a new idea—he is reflecting beliefs already present in the earliest Christian communities.
Key implication: High Christology is not a late development and it’s already present within the first generation of Christians
So the rearl question is: how such a high view of Jesus emerged so early within strict Jewish monotheism?
This is…perfect. There is no other way to define it.
Also this—choosing. As I mentioned earlier, the Greek word hairesis (αἵρεσις) literally means “choice” or “selection”, which is often how heresies arise. I’m not saying he’s a heretic—I don’t have the authority to make that judgment, nor would I presume to. But the pattern of reasoning is similar. Historically, heresies have emerged when individuals assumed they had to choose between truths they perceived as being in opposition, affirming some while discarding others. Rather than holding them together and accepting the Church’s interpretation that the opposition is only apparent.
I wouldn’t call an individual working though doctrine a heretic. And if someone says Jesus is somehow God but I don’t understand it all I think this includes them under the orthodox umbrella.
I think a lot of modern people feel they have to be able to individually prove every doctrine. This is an enlightenment hangup. We are members of a historical, living community started by Jesus and continued through apostolic teaching. One can simply acquiesce to the central most beliefs about God we find in the Creeds and the earliest Church just by the virtue of identifying as Christian in that tradition.This is not a side issue. its the main trunk of the Christian tree. AI says it better than me:
“Assenting to the Creeds and the early Church Councils is an act of intellectual humility. It is an acknowledgment that the collective, historical wisdom of the Church—guided by the Holy Spirit over centuries—possesses a deeper, more robust grasp of divine reality than any one individual trying to parse an ancient text in their living room 2,000 years later.”
And this is really about trusting God over your own wisdom as many sola scripture proponents are so fond of doing. I reiterate:
I’m not sure why we would think the inspiration process magically stopped when the last book of the NT was written. Did God decide to take a nap and just hope the early Church would get scripture and its most central belief correct?
Not trusting the early Church on this is really not trusting God.
Vinnie
I agree—thats why I made it clear that I’m not calling him a heretic; rather, I’m noting that heresies typically arise when individuals choose between truths they perceive as irreconcilable, accepting some while rejecting others.
Yes, exactly.
This is so true, brother.
Not to mention that if we really stick to sola Scriptura, we might run into a bit of a problem…
2 Tessalonians 2:15: “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”
Apostolic teaching definitely was not limited to scriptures. They would have went all over and orally preached and this material was passed around in the same way. Many of these texts are not even from apostles, the Church just thinks they represent their teaching (which invites: how did they know what that teaching was?).
Vinnie
Yeah…exactly. And it would also have been bizzare (to say the least) if the Holy Spirit assisted only the apostles and not their successors. But this is just my opinion.
I like to take you to the tour of a bible study of a passage in the Bible to see how differently we interpret the Bible.
“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
the passage previous to that
“But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. (Mark 13:24-31)
There in the context of the end times, Jesus will come in his glory. He told them what he would do. He would come in clouds with great power and glory. He would send out the angels and gather His elect. And he said that His words will not pass away.” Then in verse 32, Jesus told them that no one knows the hour, not even the angels nor the Son.
So if we look at this passage, Jesus knew a lot. He know how he would come and what he would do and certain signs that might precede His coming. Then he told them no one knows the hour except the Father. So how do we deduce from this?
This is what I mean to let the Bible speak for itself. If it does not fit our theology framework then something is wrong. Either our interpretation of the passage or our theological framework that might need rework.
We can do that with any passages that refer to such thing as this.
I hope you get your facts straight. the 27 books accepted by the council was authoritative way before the council. It was accepted as such by the body of believers in the early church. It had nothing to do with the doctrine of trinity. I hope you are clear on this.
I read only 66 books from Genesis to revelation. I hope that is enough.
you sound like a runaway charismatic who are still claiming that their preaching or their view are equally inspired by the Holy Spirit. You do know how many claim to be apostles nowadays and people should treat them as such.
I think your concern is valid in principle—we shouldn’t force the text to fit a framework. But the same standard has to be applied consistently.
Because you’re also making a choice: you’re taking Mark 13:32 at face value as absolute, and then choosing to interpret everything else in light of it.
But the text itself already creates a tension.
In the same Gospel, Jesus:
forgives sins (Mark 2:5–7), which belongs to God
claims authority over the Law and Sabbath
predicts the future in detail
So the question is not whether there is tension—there clearly is.
The question is: what explanation accounts for all of it?
Now, about your specific point: you say there is no indication in the text that Jesus is speaking “temporally” or from His humanity.
But actually, the Gospels constantly present Jesus in two ways:
He grows in wisdom (Luke 2:52)
He is tired (John 4:6)
He doesn’t know something (Mark 13:32)
And at the same time:
He knows what is in people (John 2:25)
He knows all things (John 16:30)
He exercises divine authority
The text itself forces a distinction—it’s not something imported later.
Also, your reading creates a bigger problem: If you choose to take “the Son does not know” as an absolute statement about His being, then the Son is not omniscient; therefore not fully God.
But then how do you explain:
John 1:1
Colossians 2:9
Philippians 2:6
You end up having to reinterpret those instead in light of your previous choice.
So the issue isn’t that “trinitarians adjust one verse”
It’s: everyone has to reconcile these texts somehow.
The Trinitarian reading does this in a consistent way:
What belongs to human experience → attributed to His humanity
What belongs to God → attributed to His divinity
Not arbitrarily, but because both sets of statements are clearly present in Scripture.
Your approach, instead, ends up in choosing to privilege privileging one type of statement (limitation) and reinterpreting the others.
That’s exactly the kind of “choice” we were talking about earlier.
You also said: “let the Bible speak for itself”
I agree.
But the Bible doesn’t speak in a single flat way about Jesus.
It speaks in a way that attributes to Him both limitation and divine prerogatives
So the real question is: which interpretation allows both to stand without cancelling either?
Do these “how many” have the apostolic succession? Because, you know, for many Christians (namely Catholics and Orthodox, which put together are roughly 1,6 billion people, not that the number makes a difference, just saying…) that tends to be a rather significant “detail”…
I always agree that there is a tension. It was not resolved by the writing of the scriptures.
That is the enigma, isn’t it?
Actually, I found that the literal interpretation of those passages fits very well with “the Son does not know”. I challenge you to take any passage from the bible and work thru it without referring to trinitarian framework.
unfortunately, they only claim their authority on the anointing of the Holy Spirit. I wonder if that is enough? 
We could argue until 2031 and we wouldn’t go anywhere. You made your choice, that’s your prerogative, so you do you. 
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.