Replies

I do say, though, that based upon the Pauline writings of Scripture, that he never supports the idea of the Triune God that Christians today believe in. It was a more simple belief - that God the Father was THE GOD, and that Jesus was subordinate to God the Father. It seems as if Paul's revelation was not entirely communicated as the Nicene Council later decided.

Well, Mark, the good news is that one doesn't have to believe the apostle Paul defined the Nicene Creed to be saved or otherwise. That comes by faith in the saving blood of Jesus Christ. FTR...sola scriptura is not defined by your narrow version of it. I thought we were having a discussion about Paul's statements on the trinity. You have said in the past, and even now, that you don't see that he understood the concept. I have tried to show you from epistles written by Paul that certainly prove he well grasped the belief. The verses discussed do appear to me to make the statements necessary to conclude his undestanding and, because his words were inspired by the Holy Spirit would not contradict the true nature of the trinity.

For reference, the Nicene Creed of 325 explicitly affirms the divinity of Jesus, applying to him the term "God". The 381 version speaks of the Holy Spirit as worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son. These verses do that too. I am glad you believe in the trinity. It is not an easy thing to try to describe and define it in ways everyone can understand. It takes faith to accept God at his word. I have no doubt Paul "got it" and also taught it.

Well, Mark, the good news is that one doesn't have to believe the apostle Paul defined the Nicene Creed to be saved or otherwise.

Correct.

You have said in the past, and even now, that you don't see that he understood the concept. I have tried to show you from epistles written by Paul that certainly prove he well grasped the belief. The verses discussed do appear to me to make the statements necessary to conclude his undestanding and, because his words were inspired by the Holy Spirit would not contradict the true nature of the trinity.

He may or may not have understood it, based upon his revelation from Christ, but my point is that his writings never reflect it. It wasn't until John, writing decades after the rest of what would become the NT had been written, attempted to pull it all together and start to become explicit about the Trinity. My friend Kosta knows something about the later changes in NT writings in an attempt to harmonize the Gospel message and smooth the apparent differences between Paul and the other Apostles, and certainly between Paul and Jesus.

The verses discussed do appear to me to make the statements necessary to conclude his undestanding and, because his words were inspired by the Holy Spirit would not contradict the true nature of the trinity.

Paul does not have a very good grasp on the Divinity of Jesus according to his words. For example:

1 Corinthians 15: 20 7 8 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

Christ raised from the dead: Christ is lesser and the One doing the raising is greater. Firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep? A man given first place in Heaven. Right?

Romans 5: For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.

One man?

Absolutely I believe in the Trinity and in the Nicene and Athenasian Creeds. I'm not sure how far Paul got it. I have been accused of calling Paul anti Trinitarian, but I have always maintained that Paul is NOT expressly Trinitarian by Nicene standards, and we have enough of his writings in order to show it.