Some apostles thought that only the Father is God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 21Dec17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
2

21Dec17

Guest
I’m not Catholic, but I am considering Catholicism.

Even if some of the apostles at some point believed in something similar to today’s trinity, some of them may have changed their minds before or after writing the following verses.

Hebrews 9:14 - “how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.”

2 Corinthians 13:14 - “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”

In both of these verses we have 3 figures: Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God. They don’t say ‘the Father’ but they say ‘God’. Furthermore, the other two are separate from the title of God. This suggests that ‘the Father’ is a role played by God, and the role of ‘the Son’ is played by the man Jesus. (This could be the origin of Paul’s habit of beginning his letters with ‘God the Father’ and ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’.) Above, the author of Hebrews seems to have believed that the Spirit was eternally caused by God as an eternal creation.

Even if you point to other Bible verses, the authors may have at some point changed their minds.

Any rebuttals of my interpretation of these two verses?
 
Last edited:
Dr. William Marshner has an interesting talk that touches on this. “How Do We Know the Early Church?” explores what we know about the apostolic and early Christian understandings of various Church teachings and Scripture. So it talks a lot about whether the earliest Christians had a “high Christology” (ie, Jesus Christ is God) or a “low Christology” (Jesus is just some guy, you know?).

But what you really want to read is Brant Pitre, who is the guy to explain the continuity between Jewish beliefs, practices, and expectations in the time of the Second Temple, and the stuff that Christians came to believe. Basically, if you really knew a lot about the Second Temple time’s ideas and Scripture interpretations, you wouldn’t think that Christian ideas were totally outside the ballpark. That was why they made people like Saul so angry, and why people like Gamaliel were willing to take a wait and see attitude.

So yep, take a look at Brant Pitre’s books:

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.
Jesus the Bridegroom.
Jesus and the Last Supper.

There’s also The Case for Jesus, but that’s more of a straight historical/apologetics work.

I’m not really sure what other books to recommend, since this isn’t really a question that ever troubled me. But Pitre has good footnotes and bibliographies, so I’m sure he will tell you. 🙂

Anyway, have fun researching!
 
Last edited:
21Dec17 said:
Even if you point to other Bible verses, the authors may have at some point changed their minds.
Click to expand...
I guess anything is possible.

However, I’m of the opinion that God opened the mind of the Apostles to understand the Word of God thoroughly and infallibly, when the Holy Spirit descended upon them in the Pentecost. Acts 2.

At this point, the process He had begun on the way to Emmaus, was completed.

Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. 28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. 29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. 30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. 32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
 
I can see your point and understand why this may give you pause. I’ve heard similar arguments made by Jehovah’s Witnesses as well, who also claim that these verses prove that Jesus isn’t divine, much less Almighty God.

When you read them separately it’s easy to make the claim that Jesus isn’t God. However, when read in context with the rest of the NT you can see that Jesus is in fact God.

For me I see these passages as affirming the teaching of the Trinity. Passages like this show a clear distinction of persons. Yet, even though we see three persons in these verses, they all share the same divine nature. They are all one being!
 
HI!

The problem of such understanding is that it must ignore anything that demonstrates a contrasting though/Revelation.

Consider the opening of St. John’s Gospel:

We have the Word (Jesus) that existed as the Word from the Beginning.

Yet, not only was Jesus the Word that existed from the Beginning but Jesus, the Word, was God–from the Beginning!

Then it gets complicated!

The Word (Jesus), Who was God, from the Beginning, Existed with God!

So God, Existing from the Beginning, was with God!

…wait… then it is Revealed that the Word, the God that Existed with God from the Beginning, Came to His Own; what? Did Israel not Belong to Yahweh God, Israel Only Lord? So how can Israel Belong to the Word? Yet, there it is!

But not only that! Then it is Revealed that by Israel’s rejection of the Word, the God that existed with God from the Beginning, all of humankind, those that Believed in Him (the Incarnate Word) were Granted the Grace to Become Children of God–not by act of the flesh but by act of the Essence of God, the Spirit (yes, the Lord, the Giver of Life).

Which brings us to the Revelation of Jesus Being the Son of God–an event that is made possible by the Holy Spirit, not by the Father or the Word, which are God. So because of the Act of the Holy Spirit upon the Virgin, her Offspring, not a product of man’s interaction, the Word Becomes Incarnate, Conceived, in the Virgin’s womb–which makes the Virgin’s Offspring, Holy and Son of God (the Father).

Maran atha!

Angel
 
21Dec17 said:
I’m not Catholic, but I am considering Catholicism.

Even if some of the apostles at some point believed in something similar to today’s trinity, some of them may have changed their minds before or after writing the following verses.

Hebrews 9:14 - “how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.”

2 Corinthians 13:14 - “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
Click to expand...
I believe you’re wrong here:slightly_smiling_face: BUT KEEP prayerfully searching:thinking:

Matt chapter 3:[13] Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him. [14] But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me? [15] And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice. Then he suffered him.

[16] And Jesus [GOD THE SON] being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, [GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT] and coming upon him. [17] And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.[GOD THE FATHER]A

All 3 Person at one time and in one place

Further the identification of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are replete throughout the NT too numerous to evidence by references here in this limited SPACE.

Jesus was teaching and reteaching the Trinity almost daily to His Apostles. I t is notable that the NT has no evidence of the Apostles asking for a clarification of this MOST mysterious Doctrine; WHY? Because it was so often taught to them, and they Grew Daily [albeit slowly] on FAITH.

God Bless you,
Patrick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top