Loading...Last week I was asked about the famous passage often known (among scholars) as the “Christ Hymn” of Philippians, 2:6-11. For a very long time (mid 20th c?) scholars have argued that it is a passage Paul did not write himself, but one that he is actually *quoting*. The passage seems to affirm the idea that Christ existed *before* he came into the world.
That may not seem weird to modern Christians, but in fact the only place where the idea is (otherwise) explicitly stated is in the Gospel of John. In Mark’s Gospel there is not a word about Jesus existing before his birth, or, remarkably in Matthew or Luke either! In those Gospels Jesus is born of a virgin. But *nothing* suggests that he existed before then. When God made Mary pregnant through the spirit, that is when the Son of God came into being — for those Gospels.
Only with John is Jesus said to be a pre-existent being: and in John there is not a word about Jesus’ mother being a *virgin*. The later idea that Christ was the pre-existent Son of God who became “incarnate through the virgin Mary” represents a theological combining of what Matthew and Luke say with what John says, ending up in a doctrine that none of them says!
So doesn’t that mean that the idea of an “incarnation” (the “becoming flesh” of a pre-existent divine being) is LATE in the early tradition, not showing up until the end of the first century, in the very last of our Gospels (John) to be written?
It may seem that way. But in fact, the basic idea is already in the key passage this person asked me about, Phil. 2:6-11. As I indicated, the passage is frequently called (probably wrongly) a “hymn” (that’s probably wrong because – as I’ve been told by an expert in the field of ancient music, it doesn’t actually scan as music). But in any event, it is highly structured in a balanced fashion and thus seems to be more like a poem than like prose. The reasons for thinking that Paul is quoting rather than composing it are pretty compelling, and I will get to them eventually. For now I want to point out the rhythmic structure.
To urge their service for others, the Philippians are told: “have the same mind in yourselves that was also in Christ Jesus” and then the poem/hymn about Christ begins:
It is dead easy to see the rest of this post. Join the blog! It’s an unbelievable value — about 50 cents a week for five meaty posts. And every one of those cents goes to charities helping those in need. Charity benefits, the blog benefits, you benefit — the universe benefits! So join!!
If Paul is quoting something that doesn’t totally make his point, does he necessarily fully agree with it then? Do you think Paul believed Jesus to be divine and pre existing? Or is he borrowing from someone he doesn’t fully agree with who he still thinks said something well? In any case, I agree it’s neat that this offers evidence that Christ incarnate was believed early on.
I think he agrees with it, yes.
Isn’t it possible this is by someone he knows–and perhaps converted?
You suggest Paul is citing a poem people he’s writing to In Philippi will be familiar with. Yet we have no other evidence of this poem’s existence, anywhere. Meaning it’s unlikely to have been that widely distributed or well known among the overall Christian community, which largely seems to have believed that Jesus was man made divine by God, not a pre-existent heavenly being. John’s Gospel is the first to go with pre-existence, and John very likely read Paul.
Paul is writing to a religious community he founded. And no doubt instilled with his own Christology, that he says was not influenced by any earlier source, but only by his own personal revelation. If he had read this poem before coming to his own conclusions, why would he cite it, thus undermining his own claim to divinely imparted knowledge?
And this is, of course, assuming that neither Paul nor whoever preserved this snatch of writing rewrote it in any way, to more closely match Paul’s ideas.
If there’s anything we know about Paul, it’s that he would go to any lengths to persuade others not only to become Christians, but also to share his conception of who Jesus was. All things to All Men.
It is a very interesting theory. But given how early Paul was active in the church, should we assume this poem existed before Paul’s own Christology had been both formulated and communicated?
Sure, it’s possible. But I don’t know what kind of evidence could be adduced.
Paul quotes one poem of uncertain provenance to back up his concept of Jesus’ nature that he very likely developed as a result of his vision on the road to Damascus. We don’t know when the poem was written, or when Paul first became aware of it. So we’re not doing too well with the adducing, no matter what position we take. (All the more since Philippians is thought to be a collection of snippets from different letters.)
If Paul could have a vision of a man he never met, but had heard strange things about, so could others. But these people, I think, would be extreme outliers in the larger Christian community, and I doubt any of them had significant personal contact with Jesus.
The prevailing tradition, in the early years, would be shaped by those who had known Jesus as a man, and their core memories are of a human being. Paul would have listened to these people with interest, and gone on thinking he knew better, because his revelation had been purer, more spiritual. They had seen the mask; he’d been shown what lay beneath.
Is it likely that he read this poem and thought “Of course! This is it!”? More likely he saw in it confirmation of what he’d believed for a while. But granted, there are other ways to imagine it. And Paul would have taken some time to fully develop his Christology. So the influence could run either way–or both ways.
However, the fact that we only have this poem from Paul himself is rather telling. If it was so well-known, and this was a well-established idea, why did it take so long for it to show up in early Christian literature?
Not sure what you mean about it taking so long? This is one of the earliest pieces of Christian literature we have.
We have it only from Paul’s epistle, dated around 49-51 AD. The poem is not believed to go back any further than the 40’s, as I understand. Meaning that at most it’s ten years older than Paul’s reference to it. Probably less.
Paul’s beliefs about the nature of Jesus certainly predate Philippians. (They may very well predate the writing of this poem). He does not say “This poem revealed to me something I had not heretofore understood.” He believes his knowledge of Jesus comes from divine revelation. Nor does he reference any other such sources. Meaning this could very well be the only thing not written by himself he’s aware of that comes close to his own conception. Which makes it not at all surprising that it was brought to his attention, and met with his approval.
Paul may not have been alone in seeing Jesus as a pre-existent divine being, but of course he wasn’t. He was teaching every new convert he made what he personally believed about Jesus, and had been doing that before this poem is likely to have been written.
Interesting. I’m currently working through Pauline Dogmatics, the latest book from leading Pauline theologian Douglas Campbell, wherein he spends quite a lot of time unpacking the theology of the “Christ hymn” found in Philippians 2. I’m sure I recall that somewhere in the book, Campbell makes a passing statement to the effect that he’s not entirely convinced of this text’s non-Pauline origin (though, having just spent a good 20 minutes flicking through references, I’m damned if I can find where!).
(FWIW, Campbell also bucks the consensus in believing Ephesians to have been authored by Paul, his argument being that the text was subsequently misaddressed, having been originally addressed (and delivered) to the church in Laodicea.)
Stephen, another long-time blog member here, mentioned that your close friend Dale Martin’s next book will be the about the differences between the view of Paul in Acts and what we can glean about him from his authentic letters. Perhaps you could invite him to debut it here, either as he is writing it or when it is released. Increase sales and also benefit your blog members who have already become very interested in this topic by your posts on this question.
I second that suggestion.
So, the early Christology expressed in the poem, would have Christ as a powerful supernatural being, almost on a par with God, potentially equal to God, but choosing incarnation out of love for humanity? Something like that? But not, as in later Christology, co-equal to God and existing from eternity as a part of a Trinity? In this earlier Christology it seems that Christ would have been something created, as angels were supposed to have been created, and so not co-eternal, but almost equal to God and potentially equal to God? This is hard for me to understand. Then again, I’ve never been able to make sense of “begotten not made”.
Yeah, maybe I should go into more depth about it. It’s an issue I deal with at length in my book How Jesus Became God.
If Jesus existed before his incarnation as the poem states, then is this evidence for a belief in reincarnation?
No, I”m afraid not. It’s referring only to Jesus as a divine being become human.
Then it would seem to be consistent with Jesus as an angel in Galatians 4:14 as you’ve discussed before?
“ but you received me as an angel of God, as Jesus Christ.”
That seems significant even if perhaps not generally so considered since it supports the Jesus was an angel elevated to God Christology… does this not make an additional Christology rather than changing the date for the preexisting logos view?
1. Born human, made God at resurrection
2. Born human, made God at Baptism by John.
3. Demigod by god and virgin birth,
4. Eternal trinity
5. Angel exalted (either after turning human or just appearing human….).
I’ve decided to post again on Paul’s fuller understanding. And yes, it is a different Christology from that found elsewhere in the NT, with numerous similarities.
Some five weeks ago you shared with us your revelatory moment about your agnosticism/ atheism. Have you continued with this stream of thought during your times of meditation or have you been happy to let it lie and move on to other things? Has this new insight changed you in the way you approach your work, your relationships and life in general?
It hasn’t changed my life or work much, just my internal thought processes.
The way it is laid out it suggests *works* and not only faith is necessary to be exalted through reward. Does not this view suggest that,*God* and only God is a separate entity with more power than Jesus and only God can exalt to higher levels? Also to me, it sounds like we(people) can become fully obedient to this unselfish sacrificial love for others and in a sense be perfected in our progression. My second question is, are we capable to fully give up our will for God’s will ? This is exactly what Mormons believe. That by serving others faithfully and in humility , you too can be exalted to the highest realm (celestial) kingdom. Good post.
Yes, it does assume that Jesus was originally below God and that God exalted him to his own level later.
It would make sense to me that the early pagan converts would see Jesus as a god in the flesh,as their mythology already had lots of stories of gods either becoming human for a while, or fathering children with human women. But do you think it probably goes back to the early Jewish Christians? Of course, the Jewish Scriptures had stories of angels coming to earth in the form of men, so maybe it wasn’t a stretch for them, either.
I’d say it’s hard to tell. One indication of how tricky it is: Paul bought into it and *he* was a Jewish Christian!
Did Daniel think that the Son of Man existed before incarnation? Could this be from Daniel or the other apocalypticists?
Daniel doesn’t speak of the one like a son of man becoming an incarnate being, so it’s hard to tell.
So Paul would not have found this “high” Christology incompatible with Jesus having had a normal biological birth, having both a human mother and father. Do we know how that was supposed to have worked? How does a pre-existent divine being become a human being sans the doctrine of the virgin birth?
thanks
They arrange to get born by a human. Hey, it’s a miracle! God can do what he wants. 🙂
Since the style of the poem is un-Pauline, could it be a later interpolation?
It doesn’t seem to be because it fits very tightly into the context in order to prove the point Paul is making all along, and they key theological views are actually replicated elsewhere in Paul.
I’ve never been altogether convinced by the arguments for this passage’s pre-Pauline “pre-existence” (forgive the pun) as opposed to an alternative that it has been interpolated into the epistle later (perhaps around the time of the initial collecting, editing, and distribution of Paul’s epistles, c.100CE). Most of the arguments you bring here are the usual sort for spotting interpolations – a sudden change in language pallet, key concepts and phrases not used elsewhere, and that it doesn’t fit the surrounding context smoothly (as you say it might even work against the point Paul is trying to make). You stress the latter here to show it must have been around before Paul. But I’m not following the logic for precedent there. How do we know it wasn’t a poem/hymn that became popular after Paul and was inserted into his epistles around the time of the initial collecting, editing, and distribution? FWIW, Robert Price recognizes the passage as an interpolation (Amazing Colossal Apostle, p.459f.) and James Tabor thinks it a composition of Paul himself (Paul & Jesus, p.118f.).
It doesn’t seem to be an interpolation because it fits very tightly into the context in order to prove the point Paul is making all along, and they key theological views are actually replicated elsewhere in Paul. The normal arguments for interpolation don’t seem to work here (theological incongruities, poor transitions from preceding and following, context makes better sense without it, etc.)
How you think this pre-Pauline indication of an incarnation Christology fits into your thesis found in your book “How Jesus became God”
Great question! But it not only fits there — it is an argument I used there! Several have asked about that: I think I’ll do some further posts on it.
Dr. Ehrman,
I believe I read in one of your books that it may be possible that Paul regarded Jesus, from the beginning of time up to his birth and subsequent death, as ‘the Angel of God.’
After the Resurrection, did Paul think of Jesus as having been elevated to the same ‘level’ as God (the Father)?
The last 2 lines of the poem seem to indicate to me that Jesus is NOT God, or at least, not at the same level as God the Father.
“That Jesus Christ is Lord
To the glory of God the Father.”
I don’t think that ‘Lord’ is a synonym as God.
I think Mark 12:6 suggests God loved the Son before he sent him into the world.
And Jesus in Mark has no earthly father.
Where does Mark say that Jesus did not have an earthly father??
In the very literal sense Jesus has no earthly father in Mark; he has a mother, brothers and sisters but the only father he has is God.
It seems more than a coincidence that the one family relative the son of god is missing in Mark is a father.
And if Matthew’s “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us?” is taken as the original version, Mark could be said to be explicitly denying an earthly father for Jesus.
OK, fair enough. But that means that he has no finger nails in Mark either.
Yes but that would have more significance if Mark’s story was about Jesus Christ and the heavenly fingernails. And if at some point in the story he told us Jesus has perfectly ordinary hands and palms and fingers and fingerprints.
My point is that he had no reason to mention his father either, especially if it was known that he was deceased.
Yeah either he thought he had no reason to mention the father or he left him out because he was supposed to be the son of god.
I think given that 3/4 of the gospel writers felt a need to mention the earthly father that its more likely to be the latter.
Hello Dr. Ehrman,
I recently joined your blog and I have to say I am quite glad that I did! I have a quick question that is unrelated to this post. Do you think that the historical Jesus actually said to Peter in Mark 8:33 and in Matthew 16:23 “Get behind me Satan!”? I ask this because I have heard you suggest that maybe the historical Jesus was not planning on getting crucified, but rather one of his disciples spilled the beans regarding the coming kingdom Jesus spoke of. If Jesus really did say this to Peter, I think it would suggest Jesus knew it was his destiny to be crucified. Was this a Christian tradition that was developed later?
Thanks,
Caleb
No, I think that is probably a later addition to Jesus’ words, made in order to stress the idea that anyone who thinks Jesus could not be the messiah because he was crucified is from the devil.
Aren’t there Incarnation Christologies found in the O.T. ?
There are certainly divine beings who temporarily become human, yes indeed! Including the Lord himself.
This is a lot to wrap my head around, I might grasp it better in the Greek. You mentioned an “expert in the field of ancient music” that said the verses didn’t seem musical. I would love to know more about that conversation. Have you covered this topic elsewhere? Does this expert have published work on the topic? Thanks!
Yes, he’s a friend of mine, a brilliant NT scholar named Charles Cosgrove. He has published on this, but only in a seriously academic journal, and I don’t recall where. It has to do with how ancient music worked (he’s also a skilled musician and publishes on ancient music)
I found his CV at https://www.garrett.edu/sites/default/files/faculty-cvs/VITA%202018.pdf — maybe I can dig up some of the articles on early Christian hymns. Thanks!
“Who, although he was in the form of God
Did not regard equality with God
Something to be grasped after;”
So perhaps a Holy Angel or some other divine being, but the opposite of Satan who longed for Gods power? Would that be an accurate interpretation?
Oh boy is that phrase “grasped after” debated among scholars. Is he grabbing from something he didn’t have or is he clinging onto something he does have? Has a lot to do with the Greek word used. I wrote a long paper on the topic in grad school. Maybe I should post on it!
I would totally read that!
I have a question related to your post on Feb 10 re Oral Traditions…first, of course, no one has a perfect memory recall…but my questions are about translations of either written or oral stories. If a story is handed down through oral tradition over hundreds to thousands of years the meaning of words and phrases change over time…they don’t mean today what they meant then…so, how do those that you debate explain this? If they have kept it (oral) exactly the same for thousands of years, how does some one today understand what it means…unless you ‘update’ it to be understood by people today? And second question, when a written text is translated to a different languages wouldn’t some of the original meaning be lost in translation? Especially since we are not talking about just a sentence or two, we are talking about ‘books’ and/or copious text/documents. I have worked and lived in various countries during my life and it was always ‘assume’ that anywhere from 10 to 20% of original meaning could be lost in written business translations…and this is in today’s language…assume it would be much more if it was a translation of a text 100s to 1000s of years old. So, how do those that you debate address these two issues?
Great question. The normal answer is that in addition to the tradition an interpretation would be passed along with it, to explain it — just as today we have interpretations of Shakespeare and the King James Bible, cause we don’t speak that way any more.
I wonder what the textual evidence is for Philippians? Doesn’t it make more sense from a historical theological perspective that this is an insertion by a later scribe?
It doesn’t seem to be because it fits very tightly into the context in order to prove the point Paul is making all along, and the key theological views are actually replicated elsewhere in Paul.
Where does that earlier poem come from do you think?
I’m afraid we don’t know. Some Greek-speaking Christian community with a high view of Christ!
Very powerful theology so close to Jesus death and resurrection is amazing. Must have been written by some very intelligent and fervent believers. Not likely written by the uneducated disciples. Love to know who wrote it.
Is it possible that it existed earlier speaking of another deity/person and Paul tweaked it to fit his need.
It’s conceivable, yes indeed. BUT, we don’t know of other deities from antiquity for who this exact description would apply (note: it is presupposing one Lord God over all, not a typically polytheistic system)
Hi Bart did Paul believe Jesus was an angel, the Jehovahs Witnesses believe he was the Arc Angel Michael they cite 1 Thessolonians 4.16 and Jude 9 .
He wasn’t Michael, no; but in my view Paul did think he was the top angel before coming to earth. I think I’ll post on that.
Metatron?
Ha! some have argued that. But, well, Metatron doesn’t show up for centuries.
Do we know the order in which the various Epistles of Paul were written? Can we safely assume that the six fakes were all written after the seven he actually wrote? But, what really wonders me is, if they are arranged chronologically, can we discern an evolution in Paul’s theology, in any regard? Or perhaps, TWO lines of evolution: the first HIS, and the second consisting of attempts to cleanup or flesh out details as the early church’s dogma evolved?
We don’t know for sure, with a couple of exceptions. 1 Thessalonians was almost certainly written first; Romans probably last; the other five possibly in the canonical order, with, of coruse, 1 Cor before 2 Cor. The other six, probably after his life. Some evolution in some respects. I’ll say somethingabout it in a later post.
Thanks. The nature of reincarnated bodies seems like an especially ripe topic for reinterpretation.
Please comment on 1 Corinthians 15: 24-28 in light of this Philippians 2 passage.
You’ll need to tell me what you want to know.
I am not supprised to read about ideas of Christ, messiah who might come from older sources than the first Greek manucripts.
For me, it seems that the Essenes, with their customs and beliefs, their apocalyptic vision and rejection of accepted provided elements for the beginning of the new religion, Christianity.
If I understood it correctly it seemed they had similar stories, symbols which can be found related to Jesus/Christ. One example is the story of the passover meal prepared and unleavened bread and wine. I understood that the dead Sea scroll describe a sacred meal of bread and wine that will be eaten at the end of days with the messiah.
Then you have the story about the virgin birth resembles the story which you can find in Q4 246, where they say in the same language “He will be called great and he will be called Son of God and they will call him Son of the Most High. He will judge the earth in righteousness, and every nation will bow down to him “
Then you have several similarities using stories, terms about opposing forces of good and evil, light and darkness. It seemed to me that this is quite similar language or ideas you find in Paul and John who also uses those terms,,,,like “I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness” The Essens also used those symbols, terms,,,,, “All the children of righteousness are ruled by the Prince of Light and walk in the way of light, but all the children of falsehood are ruled by the Angle of Darkness and walk in the ways of darkness” (Rule of the Community 3)
I also understood that the stories of the Sermon of the Mount/Plain have striking paralells in the scroll and apocryphal literature.
I would not be supprised that some of the ideas in the New testament whould have a clear source from the different jewish traditions at that time.
I would appreciate if you as a scolar, could give me a response if I am far off in such assumptions.
What is usually thought these days is that Jesus was not personally associated with the Essenes (let alone the ones at Qumran), but that in many ways he had a very similar apocalyptic theology. Sacred meals, of course, were common in various traditions in Greco-Roman antiquity, and so it’s hard to say if the Christians Agape goes back to the Essenes, something else, or a combination of things. Since jesus’ followrs were also almost certainly not Essenes, but guess is that it is something else or a combination.
If I understood it correctly, at least Josephus explains that there were three major groups, Pharisees, Sadducees and the Essenes. It is tempting to think that Jesus might have been educated by some religous authorities in some way, not at least because he was called a Rabbi/teacher. If the stories in the Gospels areaccurate, he seemed to have a great knowledge about the “Law”, the Hebrew Bible, and the allegoris which I am sure would require an education beyond ordinary selfstudy (which likely was not available in any or most ways). At that time, the scriptures (least the Talmud and others) which was almost impossible to read if one didn’t know how to read them), and also dealing with all the allegoris within this religion.
If he was not educated by the Pharisees, or the Sadducees (my guess), nore the Essenes (which you suggest) , a group he shared a whole lot of the same ideas together with, where do you think he might have been educated, inspired?
Kjell TIdslevold
The other thing, though, is that Josephus says that the Pharisees are the largest group. But there were only 6000 of them. There were soemething like 4 million Jews in the world. So most people didn’t have any contact with the groups — probably in Judea more than anywhere, of course, though Jesus was from a remote part of rural Galilee; my guess is that he never ran into any as a young person.
I’ve read that a hymn can be a type of revelation. Is this hymn a revelation about the nature of Jesus?
I don’t think it’s a hymn; but yes it is meant to reveal the truth about Christ.
What do you think of Paula Fredriksen’s argument in her 2017 book _Paul_, where she writes (p. 138) that, in the original Greek, Paul “distinguishes between degrees of divinity here” (italics omitted) and that he never calls Jesus “God” (theos). And since Paul is quoting (or using) a pre-Pauline hymn, I take it to mean that the idea of Jesus as God is an idea that the Jesus Movement only seized on after Paul.
The only issue really is how one punctuates Romans 9:3-4. But yes, otherwise he never calls Jesus “God.” But in the Philippians poem he does say that God elevated Christ to be *equal* with himself, and elsewhere indicates he was the one through whom the universe was created. So he is definitely not God the Father, but he ends up on that level.
Is there any possibility that this hymn was around in non-Christian circles and got edited and repurposed by Paul or other early Christians?
Note that the name “Jesus” only occurs in the last two stanzas, and only once in each of those. In stanzas 1-4, there’s no explicit indication of who “he” is.
Oops, I see that stevefredregill has already asked the question. Please excuse the redundancy!
It seems unlikely, since we don’t know of other divine beings who were crucified and then made equal with God.
Dr. Ehrman,
What do you think is of the earlier tradition? Rom. 1:4 or Phil. 2:9?
Rom. 1:4 seems to embrace the older view of Christ.
Dr Ehrman –
Is it possible that Paul gets (at least) some of his ideas from the Books of Enoch or Ezra (4th book)?
In Enoch, the Messiah is called “the Son of Man,” and is described as an angelic being, his countenance resembling a man’s, and as occupying a seat in heaven beside the Ancient of Days (xlvi. 1), or, as it is expressed in ch. xxxix. 7, “under the wings of the Lord of spirits.” In ch. xlviii. 3, 6, xlix. 2b it is stated that “He was chosen and hidden with God before the world was created, and will remain in His presence forevermore” (comp. also lxii. 6); and that “His glory will last from eternity unto eternity and his might from generation unto generation”. He is represented as the embodiment of justice and wisdom and as the medium of all God’s revelations to men (xlvi. 3; xlix. 1, 2a, 3). At the end of time the Lord will reveal him to the world and will place him on the throne of His glory in order that he may judge all creatures in accordance with the end to which God had chosen him from the beginning. When he rises for the judgment all the world will fall down before him, and adore and extol him, and give praise to the Lord of spirits. The angels in heaven also, and the elect in the Garden of Life, will join in his praise and will glorify the Lord. “He will judge all hidden things, and no one will be able to make vain excuses to him”.
Ezra (4th – about 100 C.E.) presents both the pre-existent and the earthly Messiah. The latter is seen in ch. vii. 28, xi. 37-46, xii. 31-34, where the Messiah is represented as the Lion “who will spring from the seed of David,”
(info conveniently lifted from the Jewish Encyclopedia)
Yes, it’s possible with 1 Enoch. But the most notable thing is that Paul never identifies Jesus as the Son of Man; and 4 Ezra was written after Paul’s death.
If this poem was around before Paul, how likely is it that Mark, Mathew and Luke didn’t know about it? If they did know about this high Christology, why didn’t they include it in their gospels? How is it that only John talks about Jesus in terms similar to these?
My sense is that most Christians in most places in, say, the 60s and 70s and 80s, did not know *most* Christian traditions and writings found in other parts of Christendom. It’s so hard for us to imagine a world without postal service, let alone print media let alone electronic…. Word didn’t get around the way we would imagine….
So, I have a oneness pentecostal background..yeah, so when I read this text I do not see a pre incarnate man-god Jesus, but rather a God who, in his omniscience, extended his presence and became a man, all rhe while maintaining his full divinity from “heaven” while fully interacting with humanity as Jesus, who he bestowed a name”Jesus” to be His own, that is God’s name.
So the ancient idea of incarnation was clear early on but became convoluted by a greco roman culture who had previously dealt with gods who were super humans, while the Jewish God was a spirit who showed himself through “mighty acts” as a all powerful spirit.
Hence the flawed doctrine of trinity comes into play.
I may not get a responce on this because I’m 5 months late posting but why hang on to a flawed roman catholic doctrine while challenging all other flawed biblical teachings. The only constant in the entire bible is one god, who shares power with no one. So of jesus was anything other than a really influential man, he WAS God, not a coexistant demi god.