The trinity in the Gospels

  • Thread starter Thread starter whyeyeman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

whyeyeman

Guest
I think some people might call it heretical, but I do not believe that Jesus claimed to be God in Matthew, Mark or Luke. The titles given to him are only ever “Son of Man”, “Son of God” , “Messiah” , “Christ” or “King of the Jews”, none of which mean he is God. Nor does he in any way hint at preexistence.

Even in the Gospel of John he only ever claims preexistence and never explicitly says “I am God”. One obvious objection to this is John 20:28, when Thomas says “My Lord and My God!” in front of Jesus. But reading this subtly I think it is only Thomas proclaiming something already taught by Jesus; that if you see him, you see the father. Jesus is the one sent into the world to make God known to men.

It is obvious to me that the doctrine that Jesus was God is a later development logically following from the belief found in John that Jesus always existed, that he came down from heaven etc.

That being said, I do believe this is a natural development of doctrine which God revealed gradually to the early church.

EDIT: I am not asking for a debate. I have considered every supposed trinitarian proof text and have come to my conclusion. All I am asking is whether this view would be accepted by the church.
 
Last edited:
“The Word was with God and the Word was God”

He associates himself with the Son of Man from Daniel, and indeed early records of Christians (ie by Tacitus) claims we worshipped Christ like a God extremely early.
 
God’s word is God’s word. Saying the words he speaks are him is simply saying that his words express his will.
To develop from John’s prologue that the word is equal to the father and both are God is in my view a later development that is done by the spirit guiding the church.
 
Anyway, I’m not really interested in going through the various trinitarian proof texts. I’ve done it hundreds of times and have already come to my conclusion.
What I mean to ask is can his view be tolerated? Or should I find another church.
 
I think it’s pretty clear who the Word is.

But I think you may be missing some things lost through loss of context and language.
 
whyeyeman said:
I think some people might call it heretical, but I do not believe that Jesus claimed to be God in Matthew, Mark or Luke. The titles given to him are only ever “Son of Man”, “Son of God” , “Messiah” , “Christ” or “King of the Jews”, none of which mean he is God. Nor does he in any way hint at preexistence.

Even in the Gospel of John he only ever claims preexistence and never explicitly says “I am God”. One obvious objection to this is John 20:28, when Thomas says “My Lord and My God!” in front of Jesus. But reading this subtly I think it is only Thomas proclaiming something already taught by Jesus; that if you see him, you see the father. Jesus is the one sent into the world to make God known to men.

It is obvious to me that the doctrine that Jesus was God is a later development logically following from the belief found in John that Jesus always existed, that he came down from heaven etc.

That being said, I do believe this is a natural development of doctrine which God revealed gradually to the early church.

EDIT: I am not asking for a debate. I have considered every supposed trinitarian proof text and have come to my conclusion. All I am asking is whether this view would be accepted by the church.
Click to expand...
John 8
58 Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.
59 They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.
Click to expand...
 
Is it because it disagrees with your bias? I’ve read the New Testament all the way through about three times, I can tell you for sure Jesus claims to be God. I can sling scripture at you all day, but if you’re not going to listen, what’s the point?
 
I read Dave Armstrong’s blog a lot, that would be biblical evidence for Catholicism, and if the op wants to call him dishonest, he’s free to comment on Mr. Armstrong’s blog
 
Last edited:
And no, it’s dishonest because, for example, it claims that Romans 8:11 says the holy spirit raised Jesus from the dead. This is quite simply a lie. Romans 8:11 reads as follows:

“If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.”

Anyone with basic reading comprehension can see that it doesn’t say that.
 
I know I didn’t answer your question because you are relying on synoptic gospels… But this again… what is your point? And you think padre pio believed that?
 
“I don’t want to debate, I’ve already come to my conclusion” comes off as very closed-minded. What’s the point in anyone speaking with you if you close yourself off like that?
 
Please see my point about pre existence.
 
Last edited:
The fact that “the word” is a coequal, coeternal person of a triune God is a later development. Gospel of John was written decades after the three synoptic gospels. Proclamation of Jesus full divinity was not until decades after that, mostly from the influence of Ignatius of Antioch, among others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top