First, I embellished a bit there.Hello Steve -- You wrote: I don't remember saying this. I am not even sure what it means. Which lecture are you paraphrasing? Could you transcribe my actual words that you have paraphrased, so that I can let you know whether you are understanding the point I was making or not? Thanks!
Perhaps I could have called it The New Revised RickC Paraphrased Version?
I can't recall exactly what you said (along these lines)--what lecture it was from. But I'm relatively sure it was from the Knowing God series.
You were discussing the doctrine of the trinity with special reference to the divinity of Jesus. You said (something like) the doctrine of the trinity wasn't something that Jesus spelled out, so to speak. By this 'spelling out' I mean the fully developed doctrine which didn't reach its final form till the 4th century.
To try to be clearer: What you were emphasizing was that an understanding of the doctrine of the trinity--that is, in terms of all of its fully developed intricacies--wasn't something that Jesus specifically taught. (That stuff happened later, as history shows).
OK, wait!
Now I think I recall what you said (but it may not your exact words).
Whichever lecture it was, you said that Jesus never told anyone, "Just make sure you know I'm the 'Second Person of the Trinity'," if I'm not mistaken.
So, when you said that, I pictured it in my mind how Jesus also never told anyone he was of the same, and not of a similar substance, as the Father <--- which was one of the later controversies as to Jesus' 'nature' as the doctrine of the trinity developed and was being fleshed out.
Did I get it right?
And I hope this makes sense.
(Me just home from work this morning) . . . Thanks!