Reconstructing the Apostolic Gospel: A Biblical and Historical Reassessment of Trinitarian Development

 Reconstructing the Apostolic Gospel: A Biblical and Historical Reassessment of Trinitarian Development

Author: Stephen D Green, with ChatGPT 

Correspondence: stephengreenubl@gmail.com

Word Count: ~2,100

Abstract

This article argues that the New Testament gospel, as proclaimed by Jesus’ earliest followers, did not include belief in Jesus as God in the later Nicene-Trinitarian sense. Instead, conversion involved recognition of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, and the one raised and exalted by God. Drawing on texts from Acts, the Pauline epistles, and the Gospel of John, and informed by historical development through the fourth-century councils, this study maintains that the ontological identity of Jesus as co-equal with the Father emerged post-apostolically. This theological evolution, while significant, constitutes a departure from the original apostolic message and therefore raises critical questions about doctrinal continuity and theological authority.

1. Introduction

The doctrine of the Trinity occupies a central place in orthodox Christian theology, often treated as a necessary component of saving faith. However, a close textual and historical analysis suggests that the earliest Christian gospel—as recorded in the New Testament—does not require belief in Jesus as ontologically divine in the Nicene sense. Rather, salvation was proclaimed through belief in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, raised by God, and exalted as Lord.

This paper seeks to distinguish between the gospel preached by Jesus’ earliest followers and the later doctrinal formulations codified at the councils of Nicaea (325 CE) and Constantinople (381 CE). It will be shown that the Trinitarian doctrine represents a theological development and not the content of the original apostolic kerygma.

2. Methodology

The approach here is interdisciplinary, combining historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament with historical theology tracing doctrinal development in the early Church. Primary sources include the canonical New Testament texts in Greek, especially Acts, Pauline epistles, and the Gospel of John, alongside conciliar formulations. While this paper does not delve deeply into patristic literature, its historical claims rest on well-documented scholarly consensus regarding the councils and creeds.

3. The New Testament Gospel

3.1. Apostolic Preaching in Acts

The book of Acts offers the most direct evidence for early apostolic proclamation. Conversion narratives emphasize belief in:

• Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 2:36; 3:18–22; 9:22),
• His resurrection by God (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15; 13:30),
• His divine appointment as Lord and judge (Acts 2:36; 10:42),
• His identity as the Son of God (Acts 9:20).

No passage in Acts presents belief in Jesus’ co-equality with God or consubstantiality with the Father as a condition for salvation.

Of note, Acts 8:37, though absent from the earliest manuscripts, records the Ethiopian eunuch’s confession:

“I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

The cumulative witness of Acts points to a functional Christology rooted in Jesus’ mission, resurrection, and exaltation—not ontological divinity.

3.2. Paul’s Gospel

Paul, in Galatians 1:11–12, asserts that his gospel was received not from human origin, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Across his letters, Paul emphasizes:

• Justification by faith (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16),
• Confession of Jesus as Lord and belief in the resurrection (Romans 10:9),
• Jesus as the image of the invisible God and firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:15–20),
• Subordination of the Son to God (1 Corinthians 15:27–28).

The term Kyrios (Lord), while having divine resonance due to its Septuagintal usage, could also denote exaltation or authority without necessitating metaphysical equality with God.

Significantly, Paul never demands belief in Jesus as homoousios with the Father—language that would later become central to Trinitarian dogma.

4. The Gospel of John and the “I Am” Sayings

4.1. Literary and Theological Context

The Gospel of John offers the most developed Christology within the New Testament, yet even here, Jesus’ identity is described in relational and functional terms:

• The one sent by the Father (John 3:17; 5:36–38),
• The Son who does nothing on his own (John 5:19; 6:38),
• The Messiah, the Son of God (John 4:26; 11:27; 20:31).

The stated purpose of the Gospel is not to confirm Trinitarian doctrine but to inspire belief in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God (John 20:31).

4.2. “I Am” (ἐγώ εἰμι) in John 8

The “I am” statements (e.g., John 8:24, 28, 58) are often taken as implicit claims to divinity, particularly John 8:58:

“Before Abraham was, I am.”

However, the Greek phrase ἐγώ εἰμι is context-dependent and does not inherently imply divinity. In John 8:25, Jesus is asked, “Who are you?” to which he replies:

“Exactly what I have been saying to you from the beginning.”

This suggests that the “I am” should be read as “I am [he],” referring back to his identity as the one sent by the Father, not as an invocation of the divine name from Exodus 3:14.

Moreover, original Greek manuscripts were written in majuscule script (all capital letters), meaning that any special typographic emphasis on "I AM" is absent from the text and is a product of later interpretive choices in translation.

5. The Development of Trinitarian Doctrine

5.1. Council of Nicaea (325 CE)

The Council of Nicaea, convened to resolve the Arian controversy, introduced the term homoousios—asserting that the Son is of the same substance as the Father. This formulation, though now seen as central to orthodoxy, was not present in any apostolic preaching and was controversial even among many at the time.

5.2. Council of Constantinople (381 CE)

This council expanded the Nicene Creed to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, completing the framework of the Trinity as defined in classical orthodoxy. However, this doctrine was absent from the New Testament and unknown to the apostolic Church.

While these councils provided theological clarity, they also altered the content of the gospel message as it was originally preached—an issue with profound implications, particularly in light of Paul’s warning in Galatians 1:8–9 against proclaiming “another gospel.”

6. Implications and Conclusion

The requirement to believe in Jesus as ontologically divine in a Trinitarian framework is not grounded in the gospel message of the New Testament. The earliest Christian proclamation centered on:

• Jesus as the Messiah,
• The Son of God,
• Sent by the Father,
• Raised from the dead,
• Exalted by God as Lord.

The later Trinitarian formulation, while a significant theological achievement, is not identical with the apostolic gospel and may represent, in Pauline terms, a “different gospel” (Galatians 1:6–9). At minimum, it constitutes an interpretive layer rather than a salvific requirement in the early Church.

This reassessment does not seek to undermine Trinitarian theology but rather to clarify the original apostolic messageand distinguish it from its later doctrinal developments. Future theological reflection must take seriously the historical evolution of dogma and the potential disjunction between what is essential for salvation and what is later defined as orthodox belief.

References

• The Holy Bible, Greek New Testament (Nestle-Aland 28th ed.)
• The New International Version (2011)
• Council of Nicaea (325), Creed of Nicaea
• Council of Constantinople (381), Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed
• Galatians 1:6–12; Acts 2:36; Romans 10:9; John 20:31

The curse of the different gospel

 The New Testament, particularly Acts, presents conversion to faith in Jesus not as accepting a developed Trinitarian doctrine, but as:

Belief that Jesus is the Messiah (Acts 2:36; Acts 9:22),

Belief that God raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9),

Belief that he is the Son of God (Acts 9:20).

For example: Acts 8:37 (in later manuscripts): "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Even in the Gospel of John, where Jesus' identity is a major theme, his claims are consistently related to being:

Sent by the Father (John 3:17, 5:36–38),

The Son doing the Father's will (John 5:19–30),

The Messiah (John 4:26; 11:27; 20:31),

And “I am” statements, which require contextual interpretation. 

In context, when he says “I am he” (John 8 ) he is referring to a question asked him, who he is, which he answered “Exactly who I have been saying I am all along”. He refers back to all his “I am” descriptions of himself as the door, the good shepherd, the light of the world, the living bread come down from heaven. and clarified it as the one sent by the Father as light of the world and judge of the world, the Son, the Messiah. 

In Greek: ἐγὼ εἰμι (ego eimi), which literally just means “I am.” Whether this is a divine name or simply “I am [he]” depends on context. The Greek, originally, always capitalised all words, so modern readings that interpret this as a divine claim ("I AM" = Exodus 3:14) are interpretive, not textual.

In the context of John 8, Jesus is arguing he is:

The one sent by the Father (v. 16, 18),

Not acting on his own authority (v. 28),

The one doing what the Father taught him (v. 28–29).

So your reading—that Jesus meant "I am he", i.e., the one he has claimed to be all along, the Son sent by the Father—is linguistically and contextually viable.

Trinitarian theology, especially the formulation that Jesus is “God the Son, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father,” is not explicit in the early gospel preaching and was formalized much later:

The Council of Nicaea (325 AD): This taught a different gospel, not the gospel preached by Paul, with Jesus as the “homoousios” (the same substance) with the Father.

The Council of Constantinople (381 AD): This expanded this Trinitarian gospel to include the Holy Spirit.

The Apostolic preaching (e.g., Peter in Acts 2 or Paul in Acts 13) focuses on:

Jesus’ resurrection,

His role as Messiah,

His exaltation by God,

The call to repentance and faith in him.

Belief in his divine nature in a Nicene sense was not the criterion for salvation in those proclamations, so the Council of Nicaea effectively made official a gospel different to the gospel preached by Paul. See Galatians 1 for a hint of how Paul warned against such things, although he had specifically in mind a difference where a gospel might demand keeping of the entire Law of Moses by Gentiles. 

Paul, who claimed to receive his gospel from Jesus directly (Galatians 1:11–12), emphasizes:

Justification by faith (Romans 3–5),

Belief in the resurrection (Romans 10:9),

Jesus as the Lord (Greek: Kyrios, a term that has divine overtones but can also mean "master").

Nowhere does Paul say: “You must believe Jesus is God in the ontological Trinitarian sense.”

Paul warned that anyone, even an angel of even himself, (so obviously this warning includes a gospel from a Council such as Nicaea) preached a gospel different to this, they were divinely accursed. 

In summary, the strict Trinitarian version of the gospel (requiring belief in Jesus as God) is not what the earliest Christians preached or believed, and this assertion is historically and biblically grounded. The New Testament gospel centers on Jesus as:

The Messiah,

The Son of God,

Sent by the Father,

Raised by God,

Exalted as Lord.

Belief in Jesus' divinity, in the Trinitarian sense, came later as the early Church sought to articulate the mystery of Jesus’ identity in light of Jewish monotheism and Greek philosophical categories.

Stephen D Green, with input and some wording from ChatGPT 

Keeping the gospel pure

 The insistence on strict formulations of God’s nature—such as full post-Nicene Trinitarianism—as a requirement for salvation creates a theological and pastoral problem that strikes at the heart of the gospel. When churches teach that one must explicitly affirm a detailed and technical doctrine of the Godhead in order to be truly saved, they promote a standard that not even the apostles upheld. In the book of Acts, the pattern of salvation is clear and consistent: individuals heard the message of Jesus Christ, repented, believed, and were baptized in order to begin a life of discipleship that would lead them into a saving, liberating knowledge of the truth. Nowhere are converts required to articulate a sophisticated doctrine of divine nature. Their faith was directed toward the risen Christ and was marked by the reception of the Holy Spirit, not by adherence to creeds that would not be formulated for centuries.

This presents a stark paradox. If strict theological formulations concerning God's nature were actually required for salvation, then none of the thousands who responded to Peter’s sermon at Pentecost would have been saved. The Ethiopian eunuch would not qualify. Cornelius and his household, though clearly filled with the Holy Spirit, would fall short. This logic would imply that the apostles themselves failed to preach the true gospel—a profoundly troubling implication. Such a conclusion cannot stand unless one is willing to disown the testimony of Scripture and the lived reality of the early church. By elevating later doctrinal developments to the level of salvific essentials, we risk rewriting the history of redemption and nullifying the gospel’s original simplicity.

The harm done by such insistence is not theoretical. It creates confusion, burdens consciences, and divides the body of Christ. It sets up a two-tiered system of believers: those who meet a doctrinal benchmark and those who, though sincere in faith and filled with the Spirit, are marginalized due to their inability to articulate complex theological systems. Even worse, it threatens the unity of the church—the very temple of God—by fencing off grace through intellectual or institutional boundaries. When the church treats sincere followers of Jesus as incomplete or unworthy because they cannot affirm every doctrinal formula, it forgets that salvation is by God’s grace through faith, not by mastery of theological nuance.

This is further complicated by a widespread and unspoken double standard. In practice, many churches and pastors quietly recognize that strict doctrinal enforcement alienates seekers and hinders gospel outreach. While creeds and official positions may demand adherence to complex theological definitions, these are often waived or quietly ignored when it comes to real-world ministry, particularly in evangelism or baptism. This quiet concession preserves attendance and avoids confrontation, but it also undermines theological consistency and pastoral honesty. The result is a church culture where leaders present one message publicly but operate by another privately—a condition that breeds confusion, cynicism, and spiritual instability.

What is needed is a return to the clarity and focus of the apostolic message. Detailed theological models should be treated as tools for growing in understanding, not as boundaries that determine inclusion in the people of God. Faith in Jesus Christ as Lord—crucified, risen, and reigning—and a commitment to his teachings is what leads to salvation. Any doctrinal articulation, no matter how historic or revered, must not replace or overshadow the gospel. Churches can affirm the mystery and majesty of God without making precision in doctrine a litmus test for salvation. To do otherwise places an unnecessary burden on believers and risks obscuring the grace that stands at the heart of the gospel.

The power of the gospel lies in its simplicity, not in the complexity of doctrinal systems that came later. To make exact belief a prerequisite for salvation is to construct a barrier neither Christ nor the apostles ever imposed. Doing so empties the cross of its power and distorts the message we are entrusted to proclaim. The church must be both theologically careful and pastorally honest about what truly matters for salvation. Only then can it faithfully represent the truth and generosity of the gospel it has been called to live and share.

Do not adopt strict Trinitarianism in church

 If strict Trinitarianism is true, nobody mentioned in Acts got saved.

Strict Trinitarianism paradox

 If strict Trinitarianism is true—meaning that salvation absolutely requires explicit, correct belief that Jesus is fully God (the eternal Son, coequal with the Father)—and if nobody in Acts actually held or expressed that explicit doctrine, then logically, according to that strict standard, nobody mentioned in Acts would have been saved.

Why?

The book of Acts records faith in Jesus as Messiah and Lord, repentance, baptism, and receiving the Spirit—but no clear, explicit affirmation of Trinitarian doctrine as it was formally defined centuries later.

Early believers used “Lord” for Jesus and “God” usually for the Father, without the later developed language of three persons in one essence.

Strict Trinitarianism, by definition, demands that this precise theological belief be present for salvation.

Since that belief wasn’t explicitly professed in Acts, then by strict logic, those early believers did not meet the saving belief requirement.

What Does This Mean?

This is a theological paradox or tension within strict Trinitarianism.

Either:

Strict Trinitarianism must relax its requirement (allowing implicit or developing faith to count as saving),

Or it must contend that early believers weren’t truly saved (which contradicts orthodox church tradition and Scripture’s portrayal of the early church).

Most Trinitarian theologians opt for #1, recognizing salvation by faith in the real Jesus, even if doctrinal understanding matures later.

Bottom Line

Strict Trinitarianism, taken absolutely literally, does raise this challenging implication.

ChatGPT, with Stephen D Green

 

The Book of Enoch and the Preservation of Antediluvian Tradition: A Provenance Analysis

Author: Stephen D. Green, B.Sc., with ChatGPT
Contact: stephengreenubl@gmail.com

---

Abstract

The Book of Enoch—particularly its earliest strata, including the Book of the Watchers and the Astronomical Book—is frequently treated as a product of Second Temple apocalyptic literature. Yet, its internal features, thematic structures, and technological references suggest a much older origin. This paper argues that the core of Enoch preserves elements of a literary and mythological tradition traceable to the late 4th and early 3rd millennium BCE. Drawing on comparative mythology, Mesopotamian and Levantine archaeology, textual analysis, and scribal transmission history, this analysis contends that Enoch functions as a vessel of deep cultural memory, encoding antediluvian wisdom literature within later Jewish religious frameworks.

---

1. Introduction

Since its rediscovery in the modern period, the Book of Enoch has fascinated scholars for its unique apocalyptic vision and its expansion of Genesis 6. However, rather than reading it solely as a Hellenistic-period creation, this analysis treats Enoch as a multi-layered text whose earliest narrative and symbolic structures may preserve Mesopotamian and Near Eastern oral traditions of profound antiquity. A detailed review of the text’s cosmology, technological motifs, narrative position relative to the Flood, and mythological parallels reveals deep ties to early Bronze Age intellectual culture.

---

2. Cosmological Framework: Phenomenological Observation, Not Flat-Earth Doctrine

Contrary to common critiques, Enoch’s cosmology does not endorse a “flat Earth” model in the doctrinal sense. Instead, the text employs phenomenological cosmological language—“portals of the sun,” “storehouses of the winds,” and the regulation of celestial movements—that encodes empirical sky-watching within symbolic or mythopoetic structures. The Astronomical Book (1 Enoch 72–82) documents solar and lunar cycles in ways consistent with archaic observational astronomy. The language is descriptive of visual experience, not deductively geometrical.

This aligns Enoch more closely with the cosmological worldview of Mesopotamian and Egyptian priestly-astronomical traditions than with later schematic models. Rather than promoting cosmological dogma, the text preserves a spiritually charged model of environmental and celestial regularity. It should be interpreted as a sacred phenomenology of the sky rather than pseudoscientific error.

---

3. The Watchers and Early Technological Memory

A central feature of Enoch is its account of forbidden knowledge—technological, magical, and ornamental—transmitted by angelic Watchers to early humans. The following knowledge is named explicitly:

• Metalworking (swords, breastplates, knives)

• Cosmetics (antimony, beautification practices)

• Enchantments and root-cutting (magical and botanical knowledge)

• Astronomy and calendaric systems

These innovations are consistent with known developments from the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Near East:

• At Nahal Mishmar (ca. 3500 BCE), archaeologists discovered a ritual hoard of copper objects, weapons, and artifacts suggesting elite control over metallurgy.

• In Uruk (ca. 3200 BCE), the invention of writing and city-based administration mirrors Enoch’s concern with civilizational corruption.

• Predynastic Egyptian grave goods, including mirrors, pigments, and beautification tools, align with the text's focus on ornamental deception and vanity.

The specificity and historicity of these technological references argue against a late Hellenistic origin. Rather, Enochencodes remembered cultural thresholds, mythologizing a period of sudden technological empowerment as spiritually dangerous.

---

4. The Flood as Future Event: Narrative Horizon and Literary Genre

One of the most critical features of Enoch is its portrayal of the Flood—not as a past, mythologized event—but as a pending divine judgment. This sets Enoch apart from the Epic of Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, and Genesis, all of which treat the Flood as completed cosmic history.

In Enoch, Noah appears only in pre-Flood contexts. The text retains no awareness of a post-Flood world, no covenant, and no genealogical continuation. The eschatology is purely anticipatory. This forward-facing narrative orientation finds a striking parallel in the Instruction of Shuruppak (ca. 2500 BCE), a Mesopotamian wisdom text presented as advice from a father to his son in the days before the Flood.

This genre—antediluvian moral instruction with an implicit or explicit apocalyptic warning—suggests that Enoch may derive from the same literary environment that produced Shuruppak. In both cases, the preservation of divine wisdom is presented as a bulwark against impending catastrophe, rather than a reflection on a past one.

---

5. Scribal Transmission: From Archaic Sources to Qumran

The discovery of Aramaic fragments of 1 Enoch in Qumran Cave 4 (particularly the Book of the Watchers and the Astronomical Book) places the text within the textual culture of Second Temple Judaism. However, its presence at Qumran does not entail recent composition. The Qumran sectarians acted as conservators, not originators, of many texts—including the Genesis Apocryphon, Jubilees, and temple scrolls.

Moreover, the linguistic translation into Aramaic reflects adaptation for accessibility, not creation. Just as the Mesopotamian scribes of the first millennium BCE preserved Sumerian texts by copying them into Akkadian, the Enochic materials were likely copied, translated, and recontextualized across centuries. This pattern supports the view that Enochis a product of ancient scribal continuity rather than spontaneous Hellenistic invention.

---

6. Comparative Mythology: The Apkallu and the Transmission of Forbidden Knowledge

The motif of divine or semi-divine beings teaching humanity aligns with Near Eastern myths of the Apkallu—the fish-cloaked sages sent by the god Enki to bring civilization to early kings. In some traditions, the Apkallu are later judged to have corrupted mankind, paralleling the Watchers' fall.

This shared motif—the transfer of divine knowledge to mortals, followed by punishment—supports the idea that Enochpreserves a culturally embedded mythic structure. It is not a literary borrowing, but a reworking of a common cultural grammar. Both the Apkallu and Watchers symbolize the ambiguous nature of civilizational progress: potentially enlightening, ultimately destabilizing.

---

7. Ashurbanipal’s Claim and the Reality of Antediluvian Archives

King Ashurbanipal of Assyria (r. 669–631 BCE) claimed to have read texts “from before the Flood.” In light of the curation of extremely old materials in his library—such as the Sumerian King List and flood epics—this is no empty boast. His statement that he could read “the dark and the light script” likely refers to his training in both contemporary and archaic cuneiform.

This scribal capability, combined with the transmission of mythological texts from the 3rd millennium BCE onward, establishes a credible precedent for the survival of antediluvian-themed texts into the first millennium BCE. Enoch, framed explicitly as pre-Flood revelation, could be part of the same textual afterlife, either as a local Jewish development of the genre or as a direct heir to Mesopotamian moral-apocalyptic texts.

---

8. Conclusion: Enoch as a Vessel of Cultural Deep Time

The Book of Enoch, when viewed through the lens of comparative antiquity, is best understood not as a Second Temple theological innovation but as a repository of ancient memory. Its accurate portrayal of early technologies, its pre-Flood orientation, and its alignment with Mesopotamian literary forms point to a tradition with roots in the early Bronze Age. The Watchers myth, cosmological schemas, and thematic structures echo the concerns of a world in which divine knowledge, technological power, and social upheaval were tightly interlinked.

Rather than representing a pseudepigraphal fiction of the Hellenistic period, Enoch offers us a glimpse of how ancient peoples mythologized the dawn of civilization—and how those memories were carried forward through centuries of scribal care, cultural reinterpretation, and religious preservation.

---