Was Paul a Trinitarian?

[Elijah John]

Was Paul a Trinitarian?

[Checkpoint]

Was Paul a Trinitarian?

No, and neither was the early Church.

[Elijah John]

Was Paul a Trinitarian?

No, and neither was the early Church.

I agree, but do you have any evidence? It was really not intended as a "yes or no" question, though it may have been worded that way.

[Checkpoint]

Was Paul a Trinitarian?

No, and neither was the early Church.

I agree, but do you have any evidence? It was really not intended as a "yes or no" question, though it may have been worded that way.

These passages, these statements of Paul, should settle it:

1 Corinthians 8:

4b We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world� and that “There is no God but

5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods� and many “lords�),

6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

7a But not everyone possesses this knowledge.

Ephesians 4:

4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

[Checkpoint]

Was Paul a Trinitarian?

No, and neither was the early Church.

I agree, but do you have any evidence? It was really not intended as a "yes or no" question, though it may have been worded that way.

Why not, therefore, reword the question, or put what you intended in a clearer way?

[2timothy316]

We have to remember that Paul was a student of the rabbinic schools and a devout Jew before he was a Christian. With his scriptural education, he certainly would have been able to see through a false teaching such as the trinity with ease.

“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Ci·liʹcia, but educated in this city at the feet of Ga·maʹli·el, instructed according to the strictness of the ancestral Law, and zealous for God just as all of you are this day." - Acts 22:3.

Gamaliel was "The" person to study under back in those days. Highly respected scriptural teacher. He was the first to hold the title Rabban which is higher than a rabbi. Some writings say that when he died, the Glory of the Law died with him. It's assured, Gamaliel didn't teach the trinity and no person with a Jewish education would listen to any person that did. I would have been considered 'foreign'.

[PinSeeker]

We have to remember that Paul was a student of the rabbinic schools and a devout Jew before he was a Christian. With his scriptural education, he certainly would have been able to see through a false teaching such as the trinity with ease.

“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Ci·liʹcia, but educated in this city at the feet of Ga·maʹli·el, instructed according to the strictness of the ancestral Law, and zealous for God just as all of you are this day." - Acts 22:3.

Gamaliel was "The" person to study under back in those days. Highly respected scriptural teacher. He was the first to hold the title Rabban which is higher than a rabbi. Some writings say that when he died, the Glory of the Law died with him. It's assured, Gamaliel didn't teach the trinity and no person with a Jewish education would listen to any person that did. I would have been considered 'foreign'.

Very interesting that Checkpoint uses Paul's words in Ephesians to dispute the Trinity and Paul's Trinitarianism (or lack thereof), because Paul taught in Ephesians 2 that worship that is in spirit and truth is Trinitarian. No, the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly mentioned, but Paul explains there that, in worship, the congregation lifts its collective heart to God to declare His worth, and as the flow of worship progresses and God is praised, the congregation’s approach to God is always Trinitarian. Specifically, Paul wrote:

• “for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Fatherâ€� Ephesians 2:18

This announcement belongs to a paragraph that presents several reasons why Christ’s church is one. Paul explained that all Christians today, whether Jews or Gentiles, enjoy the same peace with God and stand on the same foundation where Christ is the cornerstone. Though, in the past, there was deep hostility between Jew and Gentile due to God’s sovereign dealings with mankind, the dividing wall of hostility was destroyed when Christ atoned for our sins. Now all who trust in Christ for divine forgiveness share one approach to God: through Christ, in one Spirit, to the Father. This universal — or catholic — approach to God is always Trinitarian.

So, yes, Paul was a Trinitarian. Which makes his transformation and resulting abandonment, at least in this respect, of his heritage and tutelage under Gamaliel all the more stupendous and astounding. If somebody like Paul could be changed/transformed to such a degree, God's grace must truly be amazing, His salvation truly great.

[2timothy316]

No, the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly mentioned,

Yet for some reason people keep making lies about Paul's beliefs.

"This universal — or catholic — approach to God is always Trinitarian."

It is indeed a Catholic belief but it is not a scriptural one. Christians were warned about it.

Paul said to them: “I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.� (Ac 20:29, 30)

This is exactly what happened. Teachings entered that were not taught by Paul or the other apostles. If the trinity were true then it would 'explicitly' be in the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that the scriptures fully equip a man of God in the truth. The Bible is complete. There is nothing that needs to be added to it such as the trinity.

[PinSeeker]

Yet for some reason people keep making lies about Paul's beliefs.

Some people do, for sure. But not Christians who hold to the belief in a God Who exists in three distinct Persons, each with distinct, mutually exclusive functions.

It is indeed a Catholic belief...

And a Christian one. Catholics do get quite a bit right...

...but it is not a scriptural one.

Ohhhhh, but it is.

Christians were warned about it.

They (we) were warned about being led astray to myths by false teachings as a result of wanting to have their ears tickled (2 Timothy 4:3), sure.

If the trinity were true then it would 'explicitly' be in the Bible.

Well, it is explicitly in the Bible, it's just not specifically referred to as "the Trinity"; Scripture very clearly indicates from Genesis on that God exists in three distinct Persons. That some don't see it, or just deny it, or ignore it altogether is a problem, that's for sure, but a human one.

2 Timothy 3:16 says that the scriptures fully equip a man of God in the truth. The Bible is complete. There is nothing that needs to be added to it...

Most wholeheartedly agreed. Some people do try to add to it, and that's the definition of heresy. But Christians who believe in the trinitarian nature of God, nah.

So... we disagree. But that's okay. No need to rip on each other, right?

[2timothy316]

If the trinity were true then it would 'explicitly' be in the Bible.

Well, it is explicitly in the Bible, it's just not specifically referred to as "the Trinity";

Do you not understand the problem with this statement?

Yet you said in post 7 and I quote,

"No, the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly mentioned."

Look at the underlined words in your own posts. Are you familiar with what an oxymoron is?

"a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (such as cruel kindness) broadly : something (such as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oxymoron

You're presenting the trinity as an oxymoron.

Here is another word for consideration.

Credulity: "readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credulity

So... we disagree. But that's okay. No need to rip on each other, right?

Rip on each other? I didn't realize we were ripping on each other. I ripping up the false trinity doctrine and why it shoudn't be supported. I feel no offense on me personally. I seek the Word of God, not the word men. If the trinity was true than the Bible would be very clear. But what is presented for the trinity, by not only you but all believers in the trinity, is simply a man made doctrine after the Bible was completed. I base my faith on evidence. Not some doctrine presented after the Bible was completed. Even the Catholic church acknowledges that their doctrine is their own. If you're fine with that, then so be it. Just be warned, it's not a teaching of the first Christians. Namely Paul.