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?
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.
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.
I doubt boatbums would pay much attention to what I think, Mark. :) But she is included in my response out of courtesy.
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?
Contex, just as the language, is so important in understanding the Bible, Mark. Why does Paul refer to Jesus as the first creature or creation (ktisis) in Col 1:15, or just plain "man" in Romans 5, as you point out?
Why would both, Apostles Peter (cf Acts 2:22, 3:16, 23) and Paul (cf 1 Cor 3;11, 1 Tim 2:5, etc.), refer to a risen Christ as a "man" rather than as their God? because they didn't believe he is God! God's favorite big time, sure, but not God.
Yet, Paul turns around and suggests that Christ is something other than a man (cf Gal 1:12) but not God (cf 1 Cor 11:13). Many who have studies Paul have suggested that Paul saw Christ as an intermediate between man and God, both escathologically and ontologically, akin to a a Platonic man, a kid of "super man," who is superior to ordinary men, but definitely not equal to God who to Paul is only the Father.
When both Peter and Paul were still alive, Christians were considered to be Jews religiously speaking and Judaism prohibits calling any man God, and also rejects that God is anything but an indivisible monad (i.e. not Trinitarian).
Calling Jesus a God, as John does at the end of the century when Judaism officially rejected and disowned Christianity as a Jewish sect, would have been blasphemy equal to how Christians would react to a Mormon teaching that God the Father was once a man, and has a physical body (which is what the Mormons believe)!
And speaking of context and of "Romans," Paul was really not addressing the Romans (Latins) but was addressing the Jews living there, and whatever trickling of Latins and Greeks, who for some reason found themselves in or near the synagogues where Paul taught.
[Even this is difficult to believe since Gentiles in those days Gentiles would have been thrown out of the synagogues. Most Talmud opinions agree that Torah should not be taught to the Gentiles, so it is safe to conclude that, contrary to what the NT says, Paul preached to crowds that were predominantly, if not exclusively, Jewish and calling Christ "divine" would have stirred up trouble. And Peter, an Apostle to the cirmcumcision, would have bene stoned to death for saying that Jesus was/is anything but an ordinary man.]
Besides, in the middle of the 1st century both Peter and Paul were Jews in their mindset and worship and beliefs. And as Jews, they would have expected the meshiyah (messiah) to be a mortal man, that is — not divine, but specially blessed and empowered by God, so it is safe to say that neither could believe in the Holy Trinity as proclaimed by the Ecumenical Councils, and still be Jewish even in their own eyes!
Neither would the crowds tolerate Jesus being called anything but God's favorite son, comparable to David, whom God raised from the dead, and who had no such power in him to do what only God could do.
Imagine the reaction in a church on hearing a Mormon describe Jesus as the blood-sibling of Satan, the Father as an incarnate God, and the Trinity being "one in purpose" but otherwise three separated "gods!" Even the poorly cathecized Catholics would surely protest.
The same would have happened to Peter and Paul and all others who would proclaim Jesus a God. But once free from the restraints of Judaism, and in need to establish its own divine authority, the author of John's Gospel undertakes to Hellenize (or better yet Platonize) Jesus and make him equal to God.