Christianity was in MUCH greater flux in the early days, both doctrinally and organizationally. The doctrine (which is what we're discussing here) wasn't formulated or formalized until the mid-300s. How could the doctrine possibly be at the core of Xy when it hadn't been formalized?? But that doesn't mean that the theology and thought weren't at the core of Xy from very early on -- possibly from the beginning.
If it were truly core to Christianity, then it would have been laid out in the beginning by Christ, the disciples, or Paul. The fact that it wasn't taught by them, the fact that the church was around for 300+ years before the doctrine was even formulated should tell you the obvious point I am making here: it isn't a core doctrine at all. Or, I should say,
you are left with the hefty burden of objectively establishing just how it can be considered a core doctrine post-formulation when for hundreds of years Christians didn't even have the concept of the Trinity? If Jesus, the disciples, and Paul neither taught nor believed it, why do I require it today?
Actually, it was. As a Jew, Paul would have known that the story of the resurrection was a very dangerous one for the monotheism of Judaica. Yet he defends and maintains just that in his writings, which means that it was important enough for him to write down, and to write down in permanent fashion. And since Paul was a Jew, he, too, was staunchly monotheistic, so for Paul, Jesus was, in some manner … God.
Lolz, have you ever read Paul? He never posits that Jesus is God. To the contrary, he wrote some of the most troubling passages for the Trinity, continually establishing over and over again that Jesus is not God but subordinate to him. I'll provide a few examples here, but you should really just take a day and read through Paul (and the rest of the NT) and
really pay attention to what they say concerning Jesus with respects to God.
Romans 8:34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the
right hand of God and is also interceding for us.
Colossians 3:1Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the
right hand of God.
1 Corinthians 15:27-28 For he “has put everything under his feet.”c]">[
c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him,
it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
1 Corinthians 8:6 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.
(technically the following is from Paul's disciple):
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is
one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus
Jesus wasn't concerned so much about who he was, so much as he was concerned about who we are. His "job" wasn't to reveal his Divinity. Had he revealed his Divinity, it would have completely overshadowed his mission to help us understand our own relationship to Divinity. Jesus' mission wasn't to explain the existential aspects of himself, which is what the doctrine seeks to do.
Jesus taught what was important to his ministry, to the Gospel. He did teach some things in private to his disciples vs his public sermons, but there is nothing essential to the faith which Jesus did not pass along. Saying that a doctrine that was developed 300+ years after the fact should be considered a "core" doctrine of the faith is nonsensical. At most you can argue that the Trinity is the best attempt at explaining these existential aspects of Christ.
Every "Jesus not God" construct I've ever dealt with goes straight down a rabbit hole of just plain twisted theology. Every single one of them have to make the scriptures and the apostles' teaching do gymnastics that are completely unnecessary. The Trinity may be hard to understand, but at least it reconciles biblical stories and theological constructs.
My position is well-established in scripture and requires no gymnastics. Angels are addressed as God, Moses is said to be God, and all those who have received the Word are said to be gods by the scriptures. IE, those who are sent to speak and act on God's behalf are said to be God. Who spoke to Moses through the burning bush? Who wrestled with Jacob? These were angels, but they are spoken of as if God himself. It is no different for Christ: he was sent by God to us to act and speak on his behalf, to fulfill his will. As such he is at times referred to as God just as Moses and the angels were - and just like them it is clear this is not literal, that he has a God over him (Hebrews 1:8-9).
Of course scripture is at the core. But it's not the ONLY consideration. And it's not remotely cogent to the topic at hand. the Trinity, while not explicitly biblical, is biblical in its foundation, if you've "ever bothered to read the doctrine."
The Trinity must be consistent with scriptures (approached through objective exegesis). When you start requiring the insertion of fictions into scripture in order to change its meaning to avoid conflicts - you aren't being objective. When you redefine terms in scripture to avoid conflict - like divorcing "God" from "Father" which are interchangeable in scripture - you aren't being objective. You are being intellectually dishonest. Not to lay these faults at your feet, but if you hope to meaningfully discuss this topic, you can't fall back to these obvious errors.
In fact, God is community -- just as humanity is a community -- just as Israel was a community. The Trinity expresses God as three Persons, so it does not "reduce" God. You've got the tail wagging the dog. The doctrine does not say that "God is just the glue." That's heretical. If you really understood the doctrine, you would know that.
For Jews, "God" and "Father" are necessarily the same. For Christians, though, "God" and "Father" are necessarily the same. It's YOU who is misrepresenting the doctrine to have it say different.
"God" and "Father" are synonymous. "God" and "Son" are likewise synonymous. "God" and "Holy Spirit" are also synonymous -- according to the doctrine.
Perhaps a seminary course in theology and another in Trinitarian thought would be helpful for you? One in Paul might also be useful for you.
No, under the doctrine "God" is not synonymous with "Father," "Son," or "Holy Spirit." If it were as you describe, then saying that the "Son is God" would be synonymous with saying that the "Son is the Father." Of course, this is the heresy known as
Patripassianism. You are, thus, clearly in error.
Perhaps a seminary course in theology and another in Trinitarian thought would be helpful for you? One in Paul might also be useful for you.
Ah, yes. The ultimate defense of one who doesn't know what they are talking about: referring the other person to a third party authority figure who isn't even present to discuss the topic.
PS: You created duplicate posts. You might want to delete those to tidy up the thread.