- Is the Trinity True or False and Biblical?
- The Pagan origins of the Trinity Doctrine
- How the Trinity got into the Adventist Church
- Was Ellen White a Trinitarian?
- Adventist Pioneers and the Trinity Doctrine
- Who is the Comforter Jesus promised?
- Who is the Holy Spirit by Ellen White?
- Who is the third person by Ellen White?
- Was 1 John 5:7 added to the Bible?
- Does Matthew 28:19 have added Text?
- Is the Holy Spirit a He, She or It?
- The Meaning of I am in John 8:58
- The Pre-Existence of Jesus Christ
- What does the Alpha and Omega mean?
- J.S. Washburn letter on the Trinity
- Christ and his Righteousness Waggoner
- LeRoy Froom and his Book Evangelism
- Did Ellen White write three holiest beings?
- Who is the third person of the heavenly trio?
- What is the Promise of the Father?
- The difference between Godhead and Trinity
- Is the Trinity Doctrine Catholic and Pagan?
- Trinity Doctrine in the Adventist Hymnal
- YouTube Videos on the Trinity Doctrine
- Is the Holy Spirit a Person (30 parts)
- Is Jesus God (20 parts)
- Exposing LeRoy Froom (12 parts)
- The Trinity Doctrine Exposed (24 parts)
- Does 1 Timothy 3:16 say Jesus is God?
Is the Trinity Doctrine in the Bible?
The New Bible Dictionary goes on to explain that “the formal doctrine of the Trinity was the result of several inadequate attempts to explain who and what the Christian God really is ... To deal with these problems the Church Fathers met in [A.D.] 325 at the Council of Nicaea to set out an orthodox biblical definition concerning the divine identity.” However, it wasn't until 381, “at the Council of Constantinople, [that] the divinity of the Spirit was affirmed.”
While Tertullian introduced the term “trinity,” what he taught and believed is different to what the trinity doctrine is today. And since he introduced this term, than that means the trinity doctrine as taught today did not exist in the time of Tertullian. And if it did not exist in his time, then it could never have existed in the time of Christ and the apostles.
Tertullian however did introduce pagan ideas into the worship service. He taught oblations for the dead and made the sign of the cross on the forehead of worshipers. He also dipped people three times to baptize them. Tertullian freely admitted that he had adopted these ideas from pagan teachings and could not support them from Scripture, but he thought that if Christians adopted some heathen rituals of the pagans that they would find it easier to join Christianity.
Wikipedia states what Tertullian believed on the Godhead:
Tertullian was just a forerunner of the Nicene doctrine and did not state the immanent trinity. His use of trinitas (Latin: 'Threeness') emphasised the manifold character of God. In his treatise against Praxeas he used the words, “Trinity and economy, persons and substance.” The Son is distinct from the Father, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. “These three are one substance, not one person; and it is said, 'I and my Father are one' in respect not of the singularity of number but the unity of the substance.” In his book Tertullian against Praxeas, he also states that the Son was not co-eternal with the Father and did have a beginning as the begotten Son of God. He also did not teach that the Holy Spirit was a literal being. So the trinity doctrine as we know it today did not even come from the man who introduced the word Trinity.
So the doctrine of the trinity wasn't formalized until long after the Bible was completed and the apostles were long dead in their graves, and long after the man who introduced the word Trinity was dead and in his grave. It took later theologians centuries to sort out what they believed and to formulate the belief in the trinity!
By no means are theologians' explanations of the trinity doctrine clear. Religious writer A.W. Tozer in his book The Knowledge of the Holy states that the trinity is an “incomprehensible mystery” and that attempts to understand it “must remain forever futile.” He admits that Churches, “without pretending to understand,” have nevertheless continued to teach this doctrine (1961, pp. 17, 18) He then remarkably concludes, “The fact that it cannot be satisfactorily explained, instead of being against it, is in its favor.” — (p. 23)
The New Unger's Bible Dictionary in its article on the trinity concedes that the Trinitarian concept is humanly incomprehensible, “It is admitted by all who thoughtfully deal with this subject that the Scripture revelation here leads us into the presence of a deep mystery; and that all human attempts at expression are of necessity imperfect.” — (1988, p. 1308)
Cyril Richardson, professor of Church history at New York's Union Theological Seminary, though a dedicated Trinitarian himself said this in his book The Doctrine of The Trinity, “My conclusion, then, about the doctrine of the Trinity is that it is an artificial construct ... It produces confusion rather than clarification; and while the problems with which it deals are real ones, the solutions it offers are not illuminating. It has posed for many Christians dark and mysterious statements, which are ultimately meaningless, because it does not sufficiently discriminate in its use of terms.” — (1958, pp. 148-149)
He also admitted, “Much of the defense of the Trinity as a 'revealed' doctrine, is really an evasion of the objections that can be brought against it.” — (p. 16)
A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge states regarding the trinity, “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves.” — (Lyman Abbott, editor, 1885, “Trinitarians”)
Why do even those who believe in the trinity doctrine find it so difficult to explain?
The answer is simple yet shocking. It is because the Bible does not teach it! One cannot prove or explain something from the Bible that is not Biblical. The Bible is our only reliable source of divine revelation. And the truth as we will see is that the trinity concept simply is not part of God's revelation to mankind.
These following admissions from a number of reputable sources and authors who, while themselves affirming the Trinity, acknowledge that the word Trinity and the doctrine is not found in the Bible.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia acknowledges that “'trinity' is a second-century term found nowhere in the Bible, and the Scriptures present no finished trinitarian statement.” — (1988, Vol. 4, “Trinity,” p. 914). It further states that “church fathers crystallized the doctrine in succeeding centuries”—long after the apostles had passed from the scene.
Martin Luther who was the German priest who initiated the Protestant Reformation said, “It is indeed true that the name 'Trinity' is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man.” — (reproduced in The Sermons of Martin Luther, John Lenker, editor, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406)
Historian and science fiction writer H.G. Wells in his noted work The Outline of History stated, “There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the trinity—at any rate from him.” — (1920, Vol. 2, p. 499)
The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism says, “Today, however, scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the OT or the NT ... It would go far beyond the intention and thought-forms of the OT to suppose that a late-fourth-century or thirteenth-century Christian doctrine can be found there ... Likewise, the NT does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.” — (Richard McBrien, general editor, 1995, “God,” pp. 564, 565)
And the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary states, “The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT.” — (Paul Achtemeier, editor, 1996, “Trinity”)
Professor Charles Ryrie wrote, “Many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity . . . In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that 'clearly' states that there is one God who exists in three persons.” — (Basic Theology, p. 89)
He goes on to say, “The above illustrations prove the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results . . . If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity.” — (lbid, p. 90)
Shirley Guthrie, professor of theology at Columbia Theological Seminary wrote, “The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word 'trinity' itself nor such language as 'one-in-three,' 'three-in-one,' one 'essence' (or 'substance'), and three 'persons,' is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy.” — (Christian Doctrine, 1994, pp. 76, 77)
Millard Erickson who is a research professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary writes that the Trinity “is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church.
In view of the difficulty of the subject and the great amount of effort expended to maintain this doctrine, we may well ask ourselves what might justify all this trouble.” — (God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, p. 12)
He further states that the Trinity teaching “is not present in biblical thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this foreign mold [of Greek concepts]. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what the Bible says about God.” — (lbid, p. 20)
He also stated, “It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity's uniqueness ... how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? ... For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly.
Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion.” — (lbid, pp. 108, 109)
Since the trinity is not found in the Bible as so many scholars and theologians admit, then how did it come to be viewed as such an important teaching? Theology professors Roger Olson and Christopher Hall explain part of the puzzle in their book The Trinity, “It is understandable that the importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many lay Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture ... How can it be so important if it is not explicitly stated in Scripture? ...
The doctrine of the Trinity developed gradually after the completion of the New Testament in the heat of controversy, but the church fathers who developed it believed they were simply exegeting [explaining] divine revelation and not at all speculating or inventing new ideas. The full-blown doctrine of the Trinity was spelled out in the fourth century at two great ecumenical (universal) councils: Nicea (325 A.D.) and Constantinople (381 A.D.).” — (2002, pp. 1, 2)
We see from this and other sources quoted above that the idea of a trinity was foreign to Biblical writers. Instead, as many of these sources openly acknowledge, the doctrine of the trinity developed considerably later and over a span of several centuries. To understand the factors that led to the introduction of this belief, we must first go way back to Babel.
The Pagan Origins of the Trinity Doctrine
It would surprise many to know that the absolute beginnings of the three in one trinity doctrine goes right back to the Tower of Babel on the plain of Shinar by the River Euphrates many generations after the flood. At the time of the construction of Babylon at the Tower of Babel, mankind had multiplied and spoken one language. (Genesis 11:1-4) Cush who was the son of Ham and grandson of Noah (Genesis 10:1, 6), helped to plan with his son Nimrod, a way to rule the world through a wicked counterfeit religion. Nimrod was the originator of sun worship and founder of Babylon. The Targum says, “Nimrod became a mighty man of sin, a murderer of innocent men, and a rebel before the Lord.”
So the beginning of Nimrod's plan had its origin at Babel which was later known as Babylon. This city of Babylon with a tower “whose top may reach unto heaven” was built by Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-10; 11:4). They called the tower “Babel, the gate to heaven,” but God called it “Babel, confusion,” and there God confused the language of the people which forced them to scatter. These people wanted one government to rule the world and one religion to sway the hearts of man. This was Satan's attempt to defy God and His authority, but God came down and stopped this rebellion in defiance of His command for mankind to replenish the earth (Genesis 9:1) by confusing their language. So they stopped building and were scattered to different parts of the world (Genesis 11:8-9).
Nimrod had a plan to strengthen his evil religious system and so he married his own mother Semiramis. She was the first deified queen of Babylon and Nimrod was the first deified king.
Nimrod's and Semiramis' followers plunged so deeply into the occult that they even sacrificed babies to Satan in their worship of him. This became a common practice until Shem who was one of Noah's three sons and the great uncle of Nimrod, in his anger and wrath killed Nimrod and cut him up into small pieces as an example to others to not commit such abominable sins.
Alexander Hislop in his book The Two Babylons said, “the Tower of Babel was actually the worship of Satan in the form of fire, the sun and the serpent. However, Satan worship could not be done openly because of the many who still believed in the true God of Noah. So a mystery religion began at Babel where Satan could be worshipped in secret.” — (Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, 2nd American ed.(Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1959) 5, 24)
Because of Nimrod's death, his followers and Semiramis were afraid to continue in their worship of Satan for fear that what happened to Nimrod would also happen to them, so a mystery religion developed at Babel where Satan could be worshipped in secret. The same thing is happening in these last days. Satan is using mysteries and deceptions to deceive people into thinking that they are worshipping the true God when they are actually worshipping Satan.
This counterfeit religion ceased for a short time but Semiramis had a brilliant idea of how she could successfully revive her and Nimrod's pagan religion with a new form. It was not long after the death of her husband that Semiramis became pregnant. She claimed that when Nimrod died he went up to the sun, and so the sun then became a symbol of Nimrod. She told the people that a ray of the sun had come to her and impregnated her with a child and that it was actually Nimrod coming back in a reincarnation of the sun god. The child was called Tammuz and these three were worshipped as the personification of the sun god, and this is where we find the first three came into existence. But this mystery religion was nothing more than Satan worship.
“The trinity got its start in Ancient Babylon with Nimrod - Tammuz - and Semiramis. Semiramis demanded worship for both her husband and her son as well as herself. She claimed that her son, was both the father and the son. Yes, he was “god the father” and “god the son” - The first divine incomprehensible trinity.” — (The Two Babylons, Alexander Hislop, p. 51)
So Semiramis proclaimed that her husband Nimrod was a god, and she as the wife of Nimrod was a goddess. She then announced herself to be “The Queen of Heaven” and that she should be worshiped as such. She claimed that her spirit was the moon and that when she died she would dwell in the moon, even as Nimrod was already in the sun. This system of paganism while professing to be the true religion is actually devil worship. It professes and claims to be the truth of God but in reality it is Satan's masterpiece and the “mystery of iniquity.”
Semiramis and her priests of Satan were deep into the occult and were masters of lies and deception. Everywhere there were statues or idols of this mother/child cult. Semiramis was soon hailed as “The Queen of Heaven” (Ashtarte). Her symbol became the moon and her husband Nimrod, was called Baal the sun god and hence his symbol became the sun.
So we find that the trinity has its origins all the way back in Babylon. If God had not interfered and confused the languages then we would have had no hope of any truth that we have today. We also find that this worship of three was carried to all the different cultures that we have today but they took on different names since God had confused the languages.
So in Egypt, their trinity became Osiris, Horus and Isis (top left). In Greece it was Zeus, Apollo and Athena (top right). And in India there was Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva (bottom left). Notice also the yellow halo around their heads which represents the sun god. The system of Rome adopted the same symbol where you see saints with a halo around their head. Most tend to think that this means they are holy but it actually represents the sun god. And speaking of Rome, they had Jupiter, Mars and Venus (bottom right).
These few are by no means a comprehensive list but in all the many cultures and pagan systems of worship, we find the ultimate worship of their gods always ends up in three. The common denominator is that they all started at the very same place. But now that they had different languages, they all had different names. As far back into the ancient world as we can go, we find that all known cultures had a three in one triune god.
There is a lot more that could be covered on this topic but what we have is adequate for this study. The parts that have not been examined can be briefly covered by the following summary of the heathen trinity.
- There are always three beings in this triune god.
- One is the father, one is the mother and one is the son.
- The son is also the husband of the mother.
- The son is the father incarnate.
- All three have been deified as gods.
- Often these three are said to be one god. That is, one in three forms, or three in one.
- The father is often not mentioned and instead the mother and son are worshipped by themselves.
- At times the heathen trinity is seen as one god playing three roles, and is pictured with three heads.
- At other times this one god is seen with three faces on one head.
- In several branches of heathenism, the third person of this trinity is regarded as evil and a destroyer.
In this last version, the 1st person is the creator, the 2nd person is the maintainer, and the 3rd person is the destroyer. None of these heathen concepts should ever be found in Christianity!
Alexander Hislop summed up the trinity with the following, “All these have existed from ancient times. While overlaid with idolatry, the recognition of a trinity was universal in all the ancient nations of the world.” — (The Two Babylons, pp. 17, 18)
Remember that the trinity doctrine, and why it is called as such, is as follows. The Father is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three gods but one God, and that's the trinity! In other words, 1+1+1=One! This of course makes no sense at all and is not found in the Bible, so where did it really come from?
The very first three-in-one trinity was the worship of the three stages of the sun!
(1. New born at dawn. (2. Mature and full grown at 12 noon. (3. Old and dying at the end of the day. (Jordan Maxwell. BBC of America Quoted in Exposure Vol. 5, No. 6 1999). All three of course were one divinity being the sun. And so the main medium through which Satan was worshipped in Babylon was the sun. They noticed that the sun had three distinct stages and this fitted well with their belief as they were already worshipping three. Thus the sun was worshiped as three gods. The rising and new born sun as it came to life, the mature and full grown sun at noon, and the dying sun as it set at the end of the day. Yet while they worshipped the sun as three gods, they were not three gods but one god!
So the rising sun was god, the midday sun was god, the setting sun was god, and yet there were not three gods but one god! In other words, 1+1+1=One! So here is the true absolute origin of the trinity doctrine. And this became incorporated into this mystery religion and the worship of Satan.
“Three became the most universal number of deity. Sun worship is one of the most primitive forms of religion, and early man sometimes distinguished between rising, midday, and setting sun. The Egyptians, for example, divided the sun god into three deities: Horus, rising sun, Ra or Re, midday sun, and Osiris, old setting sun.” — (Egyptian Deities, New International Encyclopedia. NY: Dodd, 1917. Volume 7, p. 529)
And all of this started in Babylon. So as each group travelled it took with them the same concept except they now had different names.
The pagans also believed that the three phases of the sun were the three manifestations of the supreme deity as evident in the Egyptian sun gods. See image left. This became known as the three in one god. In order to be able to represent their sun god properly, they combined all three stages of the sun into one, and the result of that would be a picture of what they really believed. When you put all three parts together, you have one and this symbol became a symbol of the sun god, and the being behind that worship was Satan.
They found this symbolism very effective and used this to disguise their true religion. These three interlocking circles formed an equilateral triangle which is a triangle with three equal sides. With an equilateral triangle all sides are equal and must add up to 180 degrees. Each side was representing a phase of the sun with each angle of the triangle being 60 degrees. It does not take a genius to see that the next step, 60 + 60 + 60 represented 666. See image right.
“The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god— as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity.” — (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22, 23)
It is also very significant that the Babylonians used the sexagesimal (base-60) number system from which comes 60 minutes in an hour, 60 seconds in a minute, 360 (60×6) degrees in a circle and 60 degrees in each angle of an equilateral triangle and so on. 360 divided by 10 = 36 and 6 * 6 = 36
This is derived from their system of worship of 36 supreme gods, which included the sun god as number one which they believed to be the father of all the other gods (Nimrod), and the moon was the mother god (Semiramis) as number two. The other gods numbered 3 to 36 were considered the children of the sun god, and included the various stars and constellations that these gods were associated with. These numbers from 1 to 36 total 666, which they also assigned to the sun god since it was the father of all their gods. The calculation is simply this: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 + 24 + 25 + 26 + 27 + 28 + 29 + 30 + 31 + 32 + 33 + 34 + 35 + 36 = 666. Note the Babylonian solar seal amulet with the numbers 1 to 36 and the number 666 underneath these numbers that represented the sun. The numbers are so arranged that each row and column as well as the two diagonals add up to 111. They feared their gods and believed these amulets had more power to protect them from their god's striking them down with this number arrangement. These solar seals are almost impossible to find today and most are in private collections where Satan wants them. This true origin of the number 666 is known by very few and once again how Satan wants it as it reveals too much truth on what this number is all about and who God now assigns this number. See 666 number of the beast for detailed information.
So the pagans used these symbols and numbers to hide the worship they were giving to Satan, and sun worship or Satan worship became the religion of 666. And of course in the Bible we are told this is the number of the beast and it is the number of a man. “Here is wisdom. Let him that has understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.” Revelation 13:18. And of course the beast (Papal Rome) that has this number is also called Babylon in Revelation and here is one reason why. This number has been found on many archaeological digs in Babylon such as the solar seal shown above. This system of Satan worship was a mystery religion and explains the meaning of the word mystery in Revelation 17:5 “And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” See who is mystery Babylon the great.
The image to the right is called the Shield of the Trinity. The precise origin of this type of diagram is unknown, but it is said that it was influenced by 12th century experiments in symbolizing the trinity in abstract visual form. This is the God that is worshipped in the Roman Catholic system. They are worshipping a God that is three in one and one in three. And we know this concept does not originate from God's Word but goes all the way back to Babylon. Despite the origin of the Shield of the trinity being unknown, you will notice all the similarities to the symbolism from Babylon and so the absolute origin no doubt came from a much earlier time. Notice that we still have the equilateral triangle and three circles representing three gods with the only difference being that here we have a circle in the middle to show that all three are supposed to be one god. This concept of all three being the one god is from Babylon and is not found in the Bible and was not taught by the Apostles or Christ.
The trinity doctrine represented by this diagram shows Jesus is not only the Son of God but He is also the God and therefore He is His own Son. And our Heavenly Father is not only our Father but He is also God and hence God is His own Father. It also means that God sent Himself into the world, died to reconcile the world to Himself, raised Himself from the dead, ascended to Himself in heaven, pleads before Himself in heaven to reconcile the world to Himself, and is the only mediator between man and Himself. And that also means that in the garden God prayed to Himself, if it were possible, to let the cup pass from Himself. Are you confused? And yet the Bible says, “God is not the author of confusion,” 1 Corinthians 14:33, Satan is. Should we expect anything less since this three in one doctrine is not in the Bible but comes from Babylon (means confusion) and is actually the worship of Satan?
And if one truly understands the implications of the three in one trinity doctrine then it becomes like the following. And with this being the case then one might ask, “Who do you worship?”
“The Puranas, one of the Hindoo Bibles of more than 3,000 years ago, contain the following passage: 'O ye three Lords! know that I recognize only one God. Inform me, therefore, which of you is the true divinity, that I may address to him alone my adorations.' The three gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, becoming manifest to him, replied, 'Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us. What to you appears such is only the semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, but he is one.' Hence the triangle was adopted by all the ancient nations as a symbol of the Deity ... Three was considered among all the pagan nations as the chief of the mystical numbers, because, as Aristotle remarks, it contains within itself a beginning, a middle, and an end. Hence we find it designating some of the attributes of almost all the pagan gods.” — (Sinclair, pp. 382, 383)
Below we see three interlocking circles or sections. This is known as a triquetra and they found that these three interlocking sections can be substituted for the whole so that part of each circle can be used rather than the whole. This symbol that still represents the three in one sun god is found throughout different cultures and different pagan institutes of belief, and this system is still alive and well to this very day. You will often see the triquetra drawn in many different ways and you will find them in temples, shrines, paintings, etches and carvings.
“The triquetra is a satanic symbol that has its origins in the occult. It has always been associated with pagan beliefs, satanic practises and witchcraft. The triquetra is composed of three 6's overlaid. This logo is the ancient symbol for the pagan trinity. The symbol was popularised again by Satanist Aleister Crowley for the Royal Arch (Lucifer) or the 3rd Degree of the Year Order of Masonry.” — New King James Omissions A.V. Publications.) In other words, this symbol is also used today by various secret societies. And we can see from history how this has progressed throughout time. This information helps us see and unmask the deception Satan is using to deceive the whole world. For example, you can find this symbol in some of the most interesting places. Here are a few of them.
To the right we have wiccan chalices or goblets if you like, which are used by witches in their practises. And what is the symbol on it? 666, Satan, the triquetra. And why would that be? Because witches communicate with Satan. So we should not be at all surprised to find this symbol there.
The next one to the left is from a TV series about three witches, not four witches but three witches interestingly enough. And likewise the symbol they use is the symbol of the sun god or the three in one god. It seems that the world is being trained to accept something and so we need to be very selective in what we watch and expose ourselves to.
And here are another three. The Aquarian Conspiracy with the three interlocking 6's, The Craft, which if you look carefully has a small triquetra in the middle of the cover. And last is the witches Book of Shadows. And what is the symbol there enlarged? Once again we have the symbol of the sun god, the three in one god, and the symbol for Satan. So this is the witches book of shadows and they make their intentions very plain and do not hide who their loyalties belong to.
As shocking as this may be, you will also find this symbol on some editions of the New King James Bible and the New International Version of the Bible. So this symbol has even found its way onto the Bible where it does not belong. This is not a symbol of the God of the Bible but the sun god. When you read inside the cover of the Bible, if it has the triquetra on it, the description there will tell you it is the ancient symbol of the trinity. Yet these symbols belong to Satan and the three in one sun god. A symbol of the worship of the devil.
Compare the top and bottom row of pictures in the image to the right. The bottom row are Christian book covers and the bottom middle picture is a book on the trinity. This is the ultimate deception when the author is teaching the unbiblical and pagan three-in-one trinity doctrine. But then also uses the pagan imagery that represents the true satanic origin of this doctrine by using things such as sun haloes around the heads of what are supposed to represent the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Did you notice the same sun haloes on both rows?
You will also note the triangles around the heads on the bottom left and right with one having three circles representing the sun and the other with one circle representing the sun and the rays of light within. The pagan imagery is blatantly obvious and appears many times in each image so coincidence is an impossibility. Much of the pagan imagery used in ancient times was often carved or engraved in stone and something that God abhors and ordered it to be destroyed. “Then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:” Numbers 33:52.
Trinitarians, such as those who write these books, will deny or change the truth in support of their belief and say that the trinity does not have its roots in paganism, but the weight of evidence is overwhelming and cannot be avoided. As all the experts say, the three in one god is not found explicitly in scripture but it is in paganism from the worship of the sun god. The bishops that formulated the trinity doctrine were the beginnings of the Papal Church that outlawed Sabbath keeping in favour of Sunday worship that came from sun worship, as well as purgatory and dozens of other unbiblical teachings that have their roots in paganism. These bishops who formulated the doctrine of the trinity were steeped in Greek and Platonic philosophy, and there can be no doubt this influenced their religious views and teaching.
The pagan Babylonian priests had a chief priest who held the title Pontifex Maximus (translated to Latin meant that he was head pagan priest or literally the Greatest Pontiff)
So who is Pontifex Maximus and head priest of Babylon now? The Pope! So he has the number 666! So guess where else we find this satanic symbol called the triquetra?
“Here is wisdom. Let him that has understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.” Revelation 13:18. God gave us this information and so many have missed it because they are too busy worshipping the gods of Babylon.
By the second century, faithful members of the true Church had largely been scattered by waves of deadly persecution and were mostly underground. They held firmly to the biblical truth about Jesus Christ and God the Father, though they were persecuted by the Roman authorities as well as those who professed Christianity. The Church that was above ground grew in power and influence, and within a few short centuries came to dominate even the mighty Roman Empire!
Now Satan desired to be worshipped like the most High (Isaiah 14:12-14) and wanted his own day of worship. So sun worship gave rise to Sunday worship in the Church instead of the true day of worship being the Seventh day that we call Saturday, as well as the pagan three in one trinity doctrine. Paganism eventually became mingled with Christianity and was officially adopted by the Papal Church. Many Catholics deny this ever happened but their own Church admits that it is true.
“The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.” — (An Essay on The Development of the Christian Doctrine John Henry “Cardinal Newman” p.373)
“It has often been charged… that Catholicism is overlaid with many pagan incrustations. Catholicism is ready to accept that accusation and even to make it her boast… the great god Pan is not really dead, he is baptized.” — (The Story of Catholicism, p. 37)
“It is interesting to note how often our Church has availed herself of practices which were in common use among pagans … Thus it is true, in a certain sense, that some Catholic rites and ceremonies are a reproduction of those of pagan creeds…” — (The Externals of the Catholic Church, Her Government, Ceremonies, Festivals, Sacramentals and Devotions, by John F. Sullivan, p. 156, published by P.J. Kennedy, NY, 1942)
So it is not surprising that the two things the Roman Catholic Church mock Protestants for are the two things they brought into the Church that are pagan, and both originated from sun worship, which was Satan worship from Babylon. If only more Christians had a desire to learn the real truth instead of defending what Satan has brought into the Church.
“Most Christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship. The Catholic Church protests that it transferred Christian worship from the biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday.” — (Rome's Challenge, www.immaculateheart.com/maryonline, Dec 2003)
“Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in scripture ... But the Protestant Churches have themselves accepted such dogmas, as the Trinity, for which there is no such precise authority in the Gospels,” — (Assumption of Mary, Life magazine, Oct 30, 1950, p. 51)
The question was asked in the Catholic Catechism.
“Q. What is Sunday, or the Lord's Day in general?
A. It is a day dedicated by the Apostles to the honour of the most holy Trinity, and in memory that Christ our Lord arose from the dead upon Sunday, sent down the holy Ghost on a Sunday, &c. and therefore is called the Lord's Day. It is also called Sunday from the old Roman denomination of Dies Solis, the day of the sun, to which it was sacred.” — (The Douay Catechism of 1649, p. 143)
An interesting statement considering “Sunday worship” and the “Trinity doctrine” both came from sun and Satan worship in Babylon, and they were both brought into Christendom by the Catholic Church whom God calls Babylon!
Some of the above information has been taken from the video “The gods of Babylon” and is only a small portion of the information available. I highly recommend watching the entire video for the rest of the story that I have not covered above. You will find it at the bottom of this page or by selecting the link above.
The Origins of the Trinity Doctrine into the Church
So now we know the absolute origins of the trinity doctrine but very few understand how it came to be accepted by the Church several centuries after the Bible was completed. And as you have just seen, its roots go back much farther in history. By late in the first century as we see from 3 John 9-10, conditions had grown so dire that false ministers openly refused to receive representatives of the apostle John and were excommunicating true Christians from the Church!
Of this troubling period Edward Gibbon, the famed historian, wrote in his classic work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire of a “dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church.” — (1821, Vol. 2, p. 111)
It was not long before true servants of God became a marginalized and scattered minority among those calling themselves Christian. A very different religion, now compromised with many concepts and practices rooted in ancient paganism (such mixing of religious beliefs being known as syncretism, common in the Roman Empire at the time), took hold and transformed the faith founded by Jesus Christ.
Historian Jesse Hurlbut says of this time of transformation, “We name the last generation of the first century, from 68 to 100 A.D., 'The Age of Shadows,' partly because the gloom of persecution was over the church, but more especially because of all the periods in the [church's] history, it is the one about which we know the least. We have no longer the clear light of the Book of Acts to guide us; and no author of that age has filled the blank in the history ...
For fifty years after St. Paul's life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it rises, about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul.” — (The Story of the Christian Church, 1970, p. 33)
This “very different” Church would grow in power and influence, and within a few short centuries would come to dominate even the mighty Roman Empire! By the second century, faithful members of the Church, Christ's “little flock” (Luke:12:32) had largely been scattered by waves of deadly persecution. They held firmly to the biblical truth about Jesus Christ and God the Father, though they were persecuted by the Roman authorities as well as those who professed Christianity but were in reality teaching “another Jesus” and a “different gospel.”
Different Ideas about the Godhead Lead to Conflict
Ignatius of Antioch was a student and disciple of the Apostle John whom God trusted the book of Revelation. Note below from John's disciple some of the different errors that were creeping into the early Church. Would John have corrected Ignatius if he was in error? And most significantly, note that Ignatius did not believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one god or that Jesus was co-eternal with the Father. And since Ignatius was John's disciple, what did he teach his student?
“They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; ... Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power. Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons.” — (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter VI - Abstain from the Poison of Heretics)
Notice the name of this chapter is called “Abstain from the Poison of Heretics.” Oh how things have changed. Those who reject the pagan three in one god principle are typically called heretics today, and yet in John's time it was the other way around. Never underestimate Satan to turn truth into error and error into truth.
These four verses from John are the only Scriptures in the entire Bible that use the word antichrist. You will note that John says that these people he called antichrist used to be part of the early Church but apostatized and went out on their own (see green highlighted text) and were in the world in his lifetime (see blue highlighted text). Thus these people John is calling antichrist used to be with them and were professed Christians, but they began teaching something that was wrong. So what error did they teach that caused John to call them antichrist? (see yellow highlighted text) We can see that John says they were denying the Father and the Son and that Jesus came in the flesh. But how does a Christian deny the Father and the Son? Read on and find out as this is clearly a salvation issue.
1 John 2:18-19 “Little children, it is the last time: and as you have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”
1 John 2:22-23 “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same has not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son has the Father also.”
1 John 4:3 “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof you have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”
2 John 1:7 “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”
In the video further below you will learn that the beloved Apostle John had two students that he taught. Under the guidance and direction of John's teachings, they taught that Jesus was the literal Son of God. One of these students (Ignatius of Antioch as just seen above) stated that some were wrongly teaching that all three are one god just as the trinity doctrine teaches today, and also states that this was antichrist. So who was John calling antichrist? Those who were teaching that all three are the one same god! Why is this antichrist? Because teaching all three are the same one god denies there is a literal Father and Son and so it denies both the Father and Son. The trinity doctrine claims it was the one God playing the role of the Son who died on the cross and hence denies that Jesus came in the flesh as the Son of God! Denying that Jesus is the Son of God also denies God is the Father and so also denies the Father and Son. Note carefully 1 John 2:22-23.
The trinity doctrine claims it was the one God who died on the cross and not the literal Son of God, and hence denies that Jesus came in the flesh as the Son of God! This is a startling revelation that reveals the truth and the seriousness of this matter.
This is the main reason the Bible teaches that the Papal Church is antichrist. Antichrist is not one man such as the pope as wrongly taught today. It is the entire Catholic system. They say, “The mystery of the trinity is the central doctrine of the Catholic faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the church.” — (Handbook for Today's Catholic, p. 11). It is antichrist because it denies Jesus because it denies He is truly the literal Son of God who came in the flesh.
For Adventists: Note that Ellen White also confirms the above information, so if you choose to believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one as the trinity doctrine teaches, then John would actually call you antichrist. This is very serious if you value your salvation!
“And Peter, describing the dangers to which the church was to be exposed in the last days, says that as there were false prophets who led Israel into sin, so there will be false teachers, “who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them.... And many shall follow their pernicious ways.” 2 Peter 2:1, 2. Here the apostle has pointed out one of the marked characteristics of spiritualist teachers. They refuse to acknowledge Christ as the Son of God. Concerning such teachers the beloved John declares: “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.” 1 John 2:22, 23. Spiritualism, by denying Christ, denies both the Father and the Son, and the Bible pronounces it the manifestation of antichrist.” — (E.G. White, PP, p. 686)
So consistent with what the Apostle John said, these spiritualist teachers are Christians that are denying the Father and Son which in turn denies Jesus is the Son of God.
Ellen White also said, “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. (Par. 17) ... He who denies the personality of God and of his Son Jesus Christ, is denying God and Christ. “If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.” — (E.G. White, RH, March 8, 1906, p. 9)
So what wrong belief denies the personality of God and His Son which is denying God and Christ? Her husband explains, “Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away [with] the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ,” — (James White, RH, December 11, 1855, p. 85). While Ellen White did not use the word trinity, her husband did.
So if you believe in the trinity doctrine then you deny the personality of God and His Son which Ellen White says denies God and Christ, which also denies Jesus is the Son of God, which the Apostle John and Ellen White both said is antichrist.
Please watch and listen carefully to this short video that discusses what Tertullian believed as well as two students of the Apostle John that give light to what was just discussed.
So this was the setting in which the doctrine of the trinity emerged. In those early decades after Jesus Christ's ministry, death and resurrection, and spanning the next few centuries, various ideas sprang up as to His exact nature. Was He man? Was He God? Was He God appearing as a man? Was He an illusion? Was He a mere man who became God? Was He created by God the Father, or did He exist eternally with the Father?
All of these ideas had their proponents. The unity of belief of the original Church was lost as new beliefs, many borrowed or adapted from pagan religions replaced the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Let us be clear that when it comes to the intellectual and theological debates in those early centuries that led to the formulation of the trinity, the true Church of God was largely absent from the scene as it was eventually driven underground. For this reason, in that stormy period we often see debates not between truth and error, but between one error and a different error. This is a fact seldom recognized by many modern scholars.
A classic example of this was the dispute over the nature of Christ that led the Roman emperor Constantine the Great to convene the Council of Nicea (in modern-day western Turkey) in 325 A.D. Constantine, although held by many to be the first Christian Roman Emperor, was actually a sun worshiper who was only baptized on his deathbed. During his reign he had his eldest son and his wife murdered. He was also vehemently anti-Semitic, referring in one of his edicts to “the detestable Jewish crowd” and “the customs of these most wicked men,” customs that were in fact rooted in the Bible and practiced by Jesus and the apostles who were Jews. Many are also unaware that Jews are non-Trinitarian and always have been! So what does that mean in relation to Jesus and the apostles?
As emperor in a period of great tumult within the Roman Empire, Constantine was challenged with keeping the empire unified. He recognized the value of religion in uniting his empire. This was in fact one of his primary motivations in accepting and sanctioning the “Christian” religion which, by this time, had drifted far from the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles and was Christian in name only.
But now Constantine faced a new challenge. Religion researcher Karen Armstrong explains in A History of God that “one of the first problems that had to be solved was the doctrine of God ... a new danger arose from within which split Christians into bitterly warring camps.” — (1993, p. 106)
Athanasius versus Arius at the Council of Nicea
Constantine convened the Council of Nicea in the year 325 A.D. as much for political reasons for unity in the empire as religious ones. The primary issue at that time came to be known as the Arian controversy.
“In the hope of securing for his throne the support of the growing body of Christians he had shown them considerable favor and it was to his interest to have the church vigorous and united. The Arian controversy was threatening its unity and menacing its strength. He therefore undertook to put an end to the trouble. It was suggested to him, perhaps by the Spanish bishop Hosius, who was influential at court, that if a synod were to meet representing the whole church both east and west, it might be possible to restore harmony.
Constantine himself of course neither knew nor cared anything about the matter in dispute but he was eager to bring the controversy to a close, and Hosius' advice appealed to him as sound.” — (Arthur Cushman McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, 1954, Vol. 1, p. 258)
Arius was a priest from Alexandria in Egypt who supposedly taught that Christ, because He was the Son of God, must have had a beginning and therefore was begotten, or created or established. Further, if Jesus was the Son, the Father of necessity must be older. Opposing the teachings of Arius was Athanasius, a deacon also from Alexandria. His view was an early form of Trinitarianism wherein the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one but at the same time distinct from each other.
The decision as to which view the Church council would accept was to a large extent arbitrary. Karen Armstrong explains in A History of God, “When the bishops gathered at Nicaea on May 20, 325, to resolve the crisis, very few would have shared Athanasius's view of Christ. Most held a position midway between Athanasius and Arius.” — (p. 110)
As emperor, Constantine was in the unusual position of deciding Church doctrine even though he was not really a Christian. (The following year is when he had both his wife and son murdered, as previously mentioned)
Historian Henry Chadwick attests, “Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun.” — (The Early Church, 1993, p. 122). As to the emperor's embrace of Christianity, Chadwick admits, “His conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace ... It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear.” (p. 125)
Chadwick does say that Constantine's deathbed baptism itself “implies no doubt about his Christian belief,” it being common for rulers to put off baptism to avoid accountability for things like torture and executing criminals (p. 127). But this justification doesn't really help the case for the emperor's conversion being genuine.
Norbert Brox, a professor of Church history confirms that Constantine was never actually a converted Christian, “Constantine did not experience any conversion; there are no signs of a change of faith in him. He never said of himself that he had turned to another god ... At the time when he turned to Christianity, for him this was Sol Invictus (the victorious sun god).” — (A Concise History of the Early Church, 1996, p. 48)
When it came to the Nicene Council, The Encyclopaedia Britannica states, “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed ... the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council ... Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.” — (1971 edition, Vol. 6, “Constantine,” p. 386)
With the emperor's approval, the Council rejected the minority view of Arius and, having nothing definitive with which to replace it, approved the view of Athanasius which was also a minority view. The Church was left in the odd position of officially supporting, from that point forward, the decision made at Nicea to endorse a belief held by only a minority of those attending. Constantine is also believed to have exiled those who refused to accept the Nicean creed being Arius himself, the deacon Euzoios and the Libyan bishops Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais. He also exiled the bishops who signed the creed but refused to join in the condemnation of Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicea. However, there is no evidence that Constantius II who was his son and successor was exiled for being an Arian Christian. The Emperor also ordered all copies of the Thalia to be burned, which was the book in which Arius expressed his teachings. The groundwork for official acceptance of the trinity was now laid, but it had taken more than three centuries after Jesus Christ's death and resurrection for this unbiblical teaching to emerge!
Several years later Constantine became more lenient toward those he had condemned and exiled at the council. First he allowed Eusebius of Nicomedia to return who was a protégé of his sister, and then Theognis once he had signed an ambiguous statement of faith. These two and other friends of Arius worked towards getting Arius returned. In 335 A.D. they brought accusations against Athanasius and so Constantine now had Athanasius banished! In the same year, the Synod of Jerusalem under Constantine's direction readmitted Arius to communion in 336 A.D. So Arius was returned from exile when he suddenly died an abysmal death on the way. Some historian Scholars believe that Arius was poisoned by his opponents and question if Athanasius arranged it. Either way, Constantine who was now an Arian ordered Athanasius exiled. Eusebius and Theognis remained in the Emperor's favour and when Constantine accepted baptism on his deathbed, it was performed by Eusebius of Nicomedia.
[Previous two paragraphs source: Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 21, (1776–88), Jonathan Kirsch, God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism, 2004, and Charles Freeman, The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason, 2002]
An Attempt to Cover Up History
Note that all references to Arius presented outside of this section is the generally accepted historical view. But there is more to the generally accepted historical view that has been covered up as you are about to see.
Those who understand how the Papal Church came to rule for 1260 years known as the dark ages also know they had to uproot three opposing kingdoms. But did you ever notice that these were all Arian tribes? We know Athanasius taught the unbiblical pagan view, and that the Catholic Church is known for casting truth to the ground as explained in scripture, so it would certainly make sense that the Arians actually had Biblical truth and explains why these Arian tribes were all destroyed.
“The three divisions which were plucked up were the Heruli in 493, the Vandals in 534, and the Ostrogoths in 538 A.D. Justinian, the emperor, whose seat was at Constantinople, working through the general Belisarius, was the power which overthrew the three kingdoms represented by the three horns, and the reason for their overthrow was their adherence to Arianism in opposition to the orthodox Catholic faith. The details of the overthrow, and the religious controversy which was the root of the trouble, are fully given by Gibbon in the “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” — (S.N. Haskell, The Story of Daniel the Prophet, p. 117, 1908) Further, “The contest between Arianism and the orthodox Catholicism was the means of enthroning the papacy.” — (lbid, p. 266)
Ever since the inception of the Trinity doctrine into Christianity in the 4th century, in one way or another, Trinitarians have consistently persecuted those who did not hold to the trinity faith. They generally regarded them as heretics and the record of Christian history shows this and it is still happening today! So what spirit is behind persecution?
I have seen non-Trinitarians falsely accused of teaching that Christ was created as a means to discredit them. When the accusers were corrected, they still continued with their false accusations even though they knew it was not true. This of course is dishonest and can only be a deliberate attempt at discrediting non-Trinitarians. Did this same thing happen to Arius? Were rumours started to say that he taught Christ was created when in fact he did not, and was just a means of discrediting him to help the pagan doctrine of the trinity take hold?
“'His [Arius'] book, 'Thalia,' was burnt on the spot; and this example was so generally followed, that it became a very rare work.' — Stanley 'History of the Eastern Church,' Lecture iv, par. 39. The decree banishing Arius was shortly so modified as simply to prohibit his returning to Alexandria.” — (The Two Republics, A.T. Jones, p. 351)
The Catholic Church exerted all her power to destroy any records of what Arius believed. The only records we have are those that either fell through the hands of the Catholic power, or those which they have chosen to keep, whether in their original form or altered by them.
“An erroneous charge was circulated that all who were called Arians believed that Christ was a created being. [Footnote: It is doubtful if many believed Christ to be a created being. Generally, those evangelical bodies who opposed the papacy and who were branded as Arians confessed both the divinity of Christ and that He was begotten, not created, by the Father. They recoiled from other extreme deductions and speculations concerning the Godhead.]” — (Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant, p. 92)
“Whether the teachings of Arius were such as are usually represented to us or not, who can say? Phillipus Limborch doubts that Arius himself ever held that Christ was created instead of being begotten [Footnote: Limborch, The History of the Inquisition, page 95].” — (Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant, p. 142)
In 538 A.D, the Arian believers were completely wiped out by the Catholic Church, leaving the Papacy as the sole “Corrector of heretics.” Anyone opposing the Catholic teaching of the trinity was exterminated, for “the Mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of the Catholic Faith.” — (Handbook for Today's Catholic, p. 11)
So how was the trinity doctrine finally established? Was it through careful study of the Scriptures by all parties to establish what the truth was? No! It happened through decades of persecution and bloodshed and by the Papal Church murdering the three Arian tribes that opposed them! The Trinitarian view was won by taking out the opposition.
Does History Reveal Who Taught Biblical Truth?
It is interesting that the history of the Arian controversy has been so well hidden that it is hard to determine just what Arius believed. Yet it seems doubtful that all the accusations brought against Arius and those of like persuasion are accurate. It had become the general rule to brand all those who did not subscribe to the trinity doctrine as Arians. Since it is commonly thought that Arians believe that Christ is a created being, and thus not divine, it has been the continual accusation that if you deny the trinity doctrine, you believe that Christ is a created being, and deny the divinity of Christ. This accusation, when applied to those who dissented from the accepted teachings of the Catholic Church on this subject, has seldom been accurate. I have very reluctantly quoted mainstream history elsewhere in this document but I think other historical evidence reveals the real truth. Looking at the background of Athanasius and Arius for example sheds a lot of light.
Since the trinity doctrine belongs to Satan, then we can expect him to do all he can to protect his counterfeit. That would mean hiding any false teaching from Athanasius but doing all he can to condemn Arius by having history altered, false rumours spread and destroying what Arius did believe, which we know was actually done. The Catholic Church are known experts at this. Since Satan has this base covered, what one can do instead is look at the people Athanasius and Arius received their education from and see what they taught and then the truth becomes very clear.
Athanasius (296-373) who came up with the Catholic Trinitarian view was very strongly influenced by the writings of Origen (184-254) who was a Greek philosopher and theologian who reinterpreted Christian doctrine through the philosophy of neo-platonism. When he taught, he wore the pagan robes of the pagan philosopher. He castrated himself in a lecture in front of his students based on his Gnostic views of the evil of the flesh among other strange practices. Origen also wrote that the creation account in Genesis is a fictitious story. His work was later condemned as unorthodox. Arius (250-336) on the other hand was a student of Lucian of Antioch (240-312). Lucian was responsible for producing what is known as the Textus Receptus that was later restored by Erasmus, and is what gave us the trusted New Testament of the KJV Bible.
This excerpt speaks volumes. “Unlike Origen, Athanasius's reputation is unsullied in all major branches of Christendom. Although some of his opinions turned out to be heretical by later standards of orthodoxy, he was never condemned or even harshly criticized.” — (Roger Olson, The Story of Christian Theology, p. 162)
So what was Satan's goal? Make sure the truth is discredited and that those teaching his counterfeit can do no wrong.
The following author states that the influence of Origen on the writings of Athanasius is seen throughout his work. “That being said, Athanasius is applying these standard arguments to a more highly developed neo-Platonist philosophy and a more cultural diverse society than any previous theologian had faced. Still, the influence of Origen is felt throughout the work, particularly in Athanasius' opening statements about the existence (or rather, non-existence) of evil and the refutation of various dualistic cosmologies.” — (Critique of Athanasius Two Books against the Heathens, Jonathan Shelley)
There can be no doubt that Athanasius incorporated neo-platonism into his works and was greatly influenced by Plato, Origen and Greek philosophy rather than following the true meaning of Scripture. Origen was a student of the humanistic philosophies of Plato, Aristotle and Ammonius and he altered the Bible to make God's Word say what he wanted it to say. Origen was also a student of Clement of Alexandria who sought to combine Greek philosophy with Christianity as many religions do today corrupting Christianity by combining it with pagan ideas. (See George E. Karamanolis, Plato and Aristotle in Agreement, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 208)
As previously seen, the trinity doctrine is not found in Scripture but it is found in Greek philosophy and paganism. So the trinity was not derived from scripture but was conceived in philosophy. Note the definition of neo-platonism. “1. A philosophical system developed at Alexandria in the third century a.d. by Plotinus and his successors. It is based on Platonism with elements of mysticism and some Judaic and Christian concepts and posits a single source from which all existence emanates and with which an individual soul can be mystically united.” — (TheFreeDictionary)
James Strong who wrote the famous Strong's Concordance stated, “Towards the end of the 1st century, and during the 2nd, many learned men came over both from Judaism and paganism to Christianity. These brought with them into the Christian schools of theology their Platonic ideas and phraseology.” — (Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, 1891, Vol. 10, “Trinity,” p. 553)
Almost two thousand years ago Origen wrote, “Could any man of sound judgment suppose that the first, second, and third days (of creation) had an evening and a morning, when there were as yet no sun or moon or stars? Could anyone be so unintelligent as to think that God made a paradise somewhere in the east and planted it with trees, like a farmer, or that in that paradise he put a tree of life, a tree you could see and know with your senses, a tree you could derive life from by eating its fruit with the teeth in your head? When the Bible says that God used to walk in paradise in the evening or that Adam hid behind a tree, no one, I think, will question that these are only fictitious stories of things that never actually happened, and that figuratively they refer to certain mysteries.” — (Tadros Y. Malaty, Before Origen, p. 134)
Origen also “believed the Holy Spirit was a feminine force, that Jesus was only a created being and Gnosticism taught that Jesus became Christ at his baptism but that he was never God. He was a just a good man with very high morals. He believed in the doctrine of Purgatory, transubstantiation, transmigration of the soul and reincarnation of the soul. He doubted the temptations of Jesus in Scripture and claimed they could have never happened. The Scriptures were not literal. Genesis 1-3 was a myth, not historical or literal, as there was no actual person named “Adam.” Based upon Matthew 19, a true man of God should be castrated, which he did to himself. He taught eternal life was not a gift, instead one must grab hold of it and retain it. Christ enters no man until they mentally grasp the understanding of the consummation of the ages. He taught there would be no physical resurrection of the believers.” — (See Dr. Ken Matto, Origen's Gnostic Belief System)
Origen's belief system clearly indicates that he was a Gnostic Greek Philosopher and not a true child of God.
Now let's look at how much influence Lucian had on the teachings of Arius and if he was grounded in the Word. “The leaders in the Arian movement (Arius himself, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris and Theognis) received their training under Lucian and always venerated him as their master and the founder of their system.” — (New World Encyclopedia, Lucian of Antioch)
It was Antioch where Lucian was taught to love and obey God's Word as a child and is also where the disciples were first called Christians. (Acts 11:26) As a young man he became aware of disturbing news from the Roman Churches in the West. Two movements were forming within the early Christian Church. The Churches in Rome looked to the famous college at Alexandria for spiritual guidance, while the Syrian's trusted their leaders in Antioch to guide them. Lucian taught that the Church must choose obedience to the Bible rather than allowing manmade traditions to creep into worship.
“Lucian quickly discerned that there were two movements taking shape in Christendom, one loose in doctrine and affiliating itself with heathenism, the other based on the deep foundations of the Christian faith.” — (Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant, p. 46). It was Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Athanasius who were affiliating themselves with heathenism and hence came the doctrine of the trinity. Lucian on the other hand was the other based on the deep foundations of the Christian faith that produced the Textus Receptus which gave us the trusted New Testament of the KJV Bible.
“The Alexandria catechetical school, which revered Clement of Alexandria and Origen, the greatest theologian of the Greek Church, as its heads, applied the allegorical method to the explanation of Scripture. Its thought was influenced by Plato: its strong point was [pagan] theological speculations. Athanasius and the three Cappadocians [the men whose Trinitarian views were adopted by the Catholic Church at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople] had been included among its members.” — (Hubert Jedin, Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: an Historical Outline, 1960, p. 28)
When Babylon was conquered in 538 B.C, the Babylonian pagan priests went to Rome and Alexandria and took their pagan teachings with them. It was about 200 B.C. when the Jews began sending their best scholars to Alexandria, but they were introduced to many pagan teachings. Hebrew students were taught to accept manmade traditions and to look for mystical meanings in Scripture rather than accept the plain teachings of the Bible. Lucian was aware that the Jewish leaders rejected Jesus as their Messiah because of their faulty teaching in Alexandra.
“Lucian believed in the literal sense of the biblical text and emphasized the need for textual accuracy. Lucian undertook to revise the Septuagint based on the original Hebrew. By comparing the Greek text with Hebrew grammatical styles, and giving priority to the literal sense, Lucian sought to limit the symbolical interpretation characteristic of the Alexandrian (Egyptian) allegorical tradition which incorporated pagan philosophy into Christianity. Lucian's influence permanently oriented Christian theology towards historical realism in its debate with classical non-Christian thought.” — (New World Encyclopedia, Lucian of Antioch)
Satan had success in changing the Jewish Church and now plotted to use the school at Alexandria to destroy the Christian Church. Two well known teachers at Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria and his famous pupil Origen taught students how to allegorize the Bible. For example, they made people, cities or stories in the Bible represent something else. Lucian knew that accepting Clement's and Origen's way of interpreting Scripture would change the meaning of Scripture and would result in the truths of the Bible being changed by human reasoning and tradition.
“The Alexandrines incorporated Greek Pagan philosophical beliefs from Plato's teachings into Christianity (Neoplatonism), and interpreted much of the Bible allegorically, ... Lucian rejected this system entirely and propounded a system of literal interpretation that dominated the Eastern Church for a long period.” — (New World Encyclopedia, Lucian of Antioch)
Lucian would not compromise with the manmade changes Alexandria and Rome were bringing into Christianity. Knowing that Christians must have nothing to do with these pagan practices, Lucian began a college in Antioch which would give young people a true Biblical foundation. Now early Christianity had two rival cities; Alexandria being a powerful center for Satan's errors, and Antioch being the protector of true Christianity.
So unlike Origen and Athanasius, Lucian followed Scripture only and was well aware of the problems with Greek philosophy and paganism. Being strongly opposed, Lucian tried to counteract what was happening. Because Antioch was on the border between Rome and Persia, news and culture steadily streamed in. Lucian saw that “the churches of Rome and Alexandria had entered into an alliance. Alexandria had, for more than two centuries before Christ, been the real capital of the Jews who were compromising with paganism.” — (Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant, p. 47)
From the history of the Jewish nation Lucian could see the effect of accepting the Greek education taught in Alexandria. It was because of their acceptance of Greek culture that the Jews were unprepared to accept Christ. “The church at Alexandria was in this atmosphere. The city of Rome had been for seven hundred years, and was still to be for some time, the world capital of paganism. This environment greatly influenced the church at Rome. Lucian grew up in the churches of Syria and of the Near East, which were modeled after the churches of Judea. Lucian founded a college at Antioch which strove to counteract the dangerous ecclesiastical alliance between Rome and Alexandria.” — (lbid)
The graduates from Lucian's school were solid Bible students. Their goal was to share with others the peace and joy they had received from accepting Jesus into their heart. Pagan superstitions were swept away as faith in God produced transformed followers of Christ. We owe a lot to Lucian who resulted in the true gospel spreading through the world.
Students at Lucian's college also received training in trades and occupations including foreign languages, the sciences and medicine. Antioch became world famous for its medical school and students were skilled in all branches of natural healing. Because of their excellent education, students were hired for important jobs with government officials and even royalty. God blessed them with remarkable occupational success.
But Lucian's greatest gift to Protestant history was his editing of the Textus Receptus. Lucian took all the manuscripts that were known to the early Christians and compiled them together into the New Testament. Dr B. G. Wilkinson states that “The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament, sometimes called the Textus Receptus, or Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles have been translated into the various languages. During the Dark Ages, the Received Text was practically unknown... It was restored to Christendom by the labors of that great scholar, Erasmus. However, neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles wrote the Greek New Testament.” — (Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant, p. 50)
“Lucian had an enduring influence on Biblical textual study and is known for his critical revision of the text of the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament. Basing his revision on the original Hebrew, Lucian emphasized the need for textual accuracy and sought to limit the allegorical interpretation of the Alexandrian Christian tradition, which incorporated pagan philosophy. Lucian's edition contributed significantly to the Syrian recension, that was used by Chrysostom and the later Greek fathers, and became the basis of the textus receptus from which most of the Reformation era New Testament translations were made. Lucian's rationalist approach permanently oriented Christian theology towards historical realism.” — (New World Encyclopedia, Lucian of Antioch)
The Textus Receptus from Lucian is also called the Majority Text because it was based on the majority (90%) of the 5000 plus Greek manuscripts in existence. It did not have material added, removed or modified as did the Minority Text.
Origen also made translations and commentaries of the Bible. But these were written in a way that allowed many errors to be introduced into Christianity. “Origen... denied the deity of Christ, teaching that Jesus was a lesser, created god. He and other false teachers who did not confess the Lord Jesus Christ set to mutilating the Alexandrian group of manuscripts, 'editing,' omitting, and changing passages of Scripture. The Alexandrian texts underlying the modern Bible versions are based on these corrupted manuscripts.” — (Matthew Brill, Evangelism Expounded, WinePress Publishing, 2011, pp. 113, 114)
“Origen, being the textual critic, is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of the sacred manuscripts. Evidence to the contrary shows that he changed them to agree with his human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus, through deceptive scholarship of this kind, certain manuscripts became corrupt.” — (Les Garrett, Which Bible Can We Trust, Prophecy Club, 1998)
There is an explosion of new Bibles today. However, very few use the Textus Receptus as the basis for their translations as the King James Version has. These modern translations come from the Greek text produced by Wescott and Hort who used the Codex Sinaiticus, which has 14800 edits which is more than any other manuscript in Biblical history. The other is the Codex Vaticanus which comes from the Vatican and is claimed to be older than what was used by the reformers. However, it is said that most of it has been overwritten by a fifteenth century scribe, and we know what that means when it comes from the Papacy! Satan is doing everything he can to lead people away from God and has found a very clever way to give us something that looks like Scripture but actually contains some of his lies in place of God's truths.
History is very clear and leaves no doubt that God used Lucian of Antioch for many very important works and that he played a major role in keeping God's true Church alive, though it was eventually driven underground. But Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Athanasius are major figures in the origins of the Apostate Church that persecuted the Christian saints through the dark ages. God calls this Apostate Church Babylon with very good reason. What are two of the biggest errors they introduced in opposition to the Word of God? Sunday worship and the trinity doctrine that both originated from sun and Satan worship in Babylon. It is clear that Lucian was part of God's true Church and those who studied under him and called him master were no doubt also. This as you have seen includes Arius.
So Arius who studied under the Biblical teachings of Lucian of Antioch who was opposed to Greek philosophy is almost certainly the one who had Biblical truth and was deliberately discredited just as Trinitarians do to non-Trinitarians today. Origen on the other hand who Athanasius learned from was definitely influenced by Greek and Platonic philosophy and reinterpreted Christian doctrine through the philosophy of Neoplatonism. So these facts also verify that the trinity doctrine came from paganism and Greek philosophy. The weight of evidence is overwhelming.
Those who understand Bible prophecy also know from history and the following verse that God's true Church was hiding in the wilderness from Papal persecution for 1260 years called the dark ages. “And the woman [God's true Church] fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days [1260 years on the day for a year rule].” Revelation 12:6. Parentheses are added. The Papal Church ruling instituted and enforced the trinity doctrine, but the true Church hiding in the wilderness was non-Trinitarian. So Scripture and history reveal the non-Trinitarian view is correct. You cannot be the true Church if you are teaching serious error on the Godhead!
“No wonder that the Celtic, the Gothic, the Waldensian, the Armenian Churches, and the great Church of the East, as well as other bodies, differed profoundly from the papacy in its metaphysical conceptions of the Trinity and consequently in the importance of the Ten Commandments.” — (Truth Triumphant, Church in the Wilderness, B.G. Wilkinson, Ch. 7, pp. 87, 88)
Debate Not Ended by the Nicene Council
The Council of Nicea did not end the controversy. Karen Armstrong explains, “Athanasius managed to impose his theology on the delegates ... with the emperor breathing down their necks ...
“The show of agreement pleased Constantine, who had no understanding of the theological issues, but in fact there was no unanimity at Nicaea. After the council, the bishops went on teaching as they had before, and the Arian crisis continued for another sixty years. Arius and his followers fought back and managed to regain imperial favor. Athanasius was exiled no fewer than five times. It was very difficult to make his creed stick.” — (pp. 110, 111)
So after Constantine's death in 337 A.D. disputes continued. Constantine's son Constantius II who had become Emperor of the eastern part of the Empire encouraged the Arians and set out to reverse the Nicene creed. His advisor in these affairs was Eusebius of Nicomedia who had already at the Council of Nicea been the head of the Arian party and who was also made bishop of Constantinople. Constantius used his power to exile bishops that followed the Nicene creed and especially Athanasius who fled to Rome. In 355 A.D. Constantius became the sole Emperor and extended his pro-Arian policy toward the western provinces. The continuing debates resulted in numerous synods. Among them was the Council of Sardica in 343 A.D, the Council of Sirmium in 358 A.D. and the double Council of Rimini and Seleucia in 359 A.D. There were no fewer than fourteen further creed formulas between 340 and 360 A.D.
So the fires of this Godhead quarrel burned brightly for over fifty years. From 351 to 360 A.D, Emperor Constantius (son of Constantine) convened no fewer than nine councils of bishops for the sole purpose of trying to settle them to no avail.
After the death of Constantius in 361 A.D, his successor Julian who was a devotee of Rome's pagan gods declared that he would no longer favor one church faction over another and allowed all exiled bishops to return. This resulted in further increasing dissension among Christians. The Emperor Valens however revived Constantius' policy and supported the “Homoian” party exiling bishops. During this persecution many bishops were exiled to the other ends of the Empire.
The ongoing disagreements were at times violent and bloody. Of the aftermath of the Council of Nicea, noted historian Will Durant writes, “Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years (342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome.” — (The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4: The Age of Faith, 1950, p. 8). Ramsay MacMullen in his book Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries wrote, “...more Christians died for their faith at the hands of fellow Christians than had died before in all the persecutions.” While claiming to be Christian many believers fought and slaughtered one another over their differing views of God!
Of the following decades, Professor Harold Brown writes, “During the middle decades of this century, from 340 to 380, the history of doctrine looks more like the history of court and church intrigues and social unrest ... The central doctrines hammered out in this period often appear to have been put through by intrigue or mob violence rather than by the common consent of Christendom led by the Holy Spirit.” (Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church, 2003, p. 119)
Debate Shifts to the Nature of the Holy Spirit
The Nicean Council, convened by Emperor Constantine in 325 A.D, did not actually declare the belief in the doctrine of the trinity as it is today. The bishops decided that Jesus is God just as the Father is God, but the creed they adopted did not mention the deity of the Holy Spirit. The statement issued at the Council of Nicea in this regard simply said, “We believe in the Holy Spirit.” This “seemed to have been added to Athanasius's creed almost as an afterthought,” writes Karen Armstrong. “People were confused about the Holy Spirit. Was it simply a synonym for God or was it something more?” — (p. 115) Trinitarian professors Roger Olson and Christopher Hall said, “the Spirit had appeared almost as a footnote to the Creed of Nicea...” — (The Trinity, p. 40) So disagreements soon centered around the nature of the Holy Spirit.
Professor Charles Ryrie writes, “In the second half of the fourth century, three theologians from the province of Cappadocia in eastern Asia Minor [today central Turkey] gave definitive shape to the doctrine of the Trinity.” — (Basic Theology, p. 65). They proposed an idea that was a step beyond Athanasius' view, being that God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit were co-equal and together in one being, yet also distinct from one another.
These three men were Basil “the Great” who was bishop of Caesarea (330-379 A.D.), his younger brother Gregory, bishop of Nyssa (335-394 A.D.) and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus (330-390 A.D.), and they were all “trained in Greek philosophy,” (Armstrong, p. 113) which undoubtedly affected their outlook and beliefs. Together they comprised what has come to be known as “the three Cappadocians.”
In the view of these three, as Karen Armstrong explains, “the Trinity only made sense as a mystical or spiritual experience ... It was not a logical or intellectual formulation but an imaginative paradigm that confounded reason. Gregory of Nazianzus made this clear when he explained that contemplation of the Three in One induced a profound and overwhelming emotion that confounded thought and intellectual clarity.
'No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Three than I am carried back into the One. When I think of any of the Three, I think of him as the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking escapes me.” — (p. 117). So Karen Armstrong concludes, it is little wonder that, “For many Western Christians ... the Trinity is simply baffling.” — (ibid.)
Ongoing Disputes Lead to the Council of Constantinople
It was not until the co-reigns of Gratian and Theodosius that Arianism lost control among the ruling class and elite of the Eastern Empire. Theodosius' wife St Flacilla was also instrumental in his campaign to stop Arianism. Valens died in the Battle of Adrianople in 378 A.D. and was succeeded by Theodosius I who followed the Nicene creed.
On 24 November 380 A.D, two days after Theodosius arrived in Constantinople, he expelled the Homoiousian bishop Demophilus of Constantinople and surrendered the Churches of that city to Gregory of Nazianzus who was the leader of a small Nicene community there. This act provoked rioting. Bishop Acholius of Thessalonica had just baptized Theodosius during a severe illness as was common in the early Christian world. In February he and Gratian had published an edict that all their subjects should profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (i.e., the Nicene faith), or be handed over for punishment for not doing so. [Above information sourced from Sozomen's Church History VII.4]
So what was the significance of Rome and Alexandria? They were the only places in the world where many Christians kept only Sunday and not the true Sabbath. Why? Because this is where the pagan practices of Babylon landed after it was conquered. And what was the dominant pagan practice that the Babylonian priests brought with them? Sun worship which was done on Sun-day! Throughout the entire history of the change of Sabbath to Sunday, Rome and Alexandria had worked together. Alexandria provided the philosophical reasons for the changes and Rome provided the decrees and anathemas.
Church historian Socrates Scholasticus (5th century) wrote: “For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries [of the Lord's Supper] on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.” — (Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Ch. 22)
So the trinity doctrine and Sunday worship both came from sun and Satan worship that grew in power from the Catholic Church that came from the bishops of Rome and Alexandria. Two pagan practices with the same origin!
In the year May 381 A.D. being 44 years after Constantine's death, Emperor Theodosius convened the Council of Constantinople (today Istanbul, Turkey) to put an end to the disputes. Gregory of Nazianzus who was recently appointed as archbishop of Constantinople was to preside over the council to urge the adoption of his view on the Holy Spirit.
Historian Charles Freeman states, “Virtually nothing is known of the theological debates of the council of 381, but Gregory was certainly hoping to get some acceptance of his belief that the Spirit was consubstantial with the Father [meaning that the persons are of the same being, as substance in this context denotes individual quality].
Whether he dealt with the matter clumsily or whether there was simply no chance of consensus, the 'Macedonians,' bishops who refused to accept the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, left the council ... Typically, Gregory berated the bishops for preferring to have a majority rather than simply accepting 'the Divine Word' of the Trinity on his authority.” — (A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State, 2008, p. 96)
However, Gregory soon became ill and had to withdraw from the council. Who would preside now? “So it was that one Nectarius, an elderly city senator who had been a popular prefect in the city as a result of his patronage of the games, but who was still not a baptized Christian, was selected ... Nectarius appeared to know no theology, and he had to be initiated into the required faith before being baptized and consecrated.” — (Freeman, pp. 97, 98)
It is absolutely bizarre that a man who up to this point wasn't a Christian was appointed to preside over a major Church council tasked with determining what it would teach regarding the nature of God!
The Trinity Becomes Official Doctrine
The teaching of the three Cappadocians “made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture.” — (Harper-Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, p. 568)
Trinitarian Baptist professor Millard J. Erickson states, “What Athanasius did was to extend his teaching about the Word to the Spirit, so that God exists eternally as a Triad sharing one identical and indivisible substance. The Cappadocians - Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa - developed the doctrine of the Spirit, and thus of the Trinity, further.” — (God In Three Persons, p. 90)
Note that “Although Athanasius prepared the ground, constructive agreement on the central doctrine of the Trinity was not reached in his lifetime (297-373 A.D.)” — (Macropaedia, Vol. 16, p. 319)
Nineteenth century historian Adolph Harnack wrote, “The Cappadocians were still relatively independent theologians, worthy disciples and admirers of Origen, using new forms to make the faith of Athanasius intelligible to contemporary thought, and thus establishing them, though with modifications.” — (History of Dogma, Vol. 3, p. 151)
“Gregory (of Nyssa) was able to demonstrate the application of the incarnation more definitely than Athanasius could... But he does so by the aid of a thoroughly Platonic idea which is only slightly suggested in Athanasius, and is not really covered by Biblical reference.” — (Vol. 3, p. 297)
The council adopted a statement that translates into English as, in part, “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages ... And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets ...” The statement also affirmed belief “in one holy, catholic [meaning in this context universal, whole or complete] and apostolic Church ...”
Although much of the Church hierarchy in the East had opposed the Nicene Creed in the decades leading up to Theodosius' accession, he eventually succeeded in achieving unity with the Nicene Creed. With this declaration in 381 A.D. which would become known as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the trinity as generally understood today became the official belief and teaching concerning the nature of God. Thus for the first time in history, Christianity had a doctrine of the trinity. The Platonic beliefs of “the three Cappadocians” had prevailed.
So was Theodosius a Christ-like individual looking for Biblical truth? Or was he a ruthless Emperor who enforced his view and opinion by physical force and persecution? Was he influenced by Scripture or by the bishops of Rome and Alexandria who were steeped in Greek philosophy? So had Biblical truth prevailed? Not a chance!
Theology professor Richard Hanson observes that a result of the council's decision “was to reduce the meanings of the word 'God' from a very large selection of alternatives to one only,” such that “when Western man today says 'God' he means the one, sole exclusive [Trinitarian] God and nothing else.” — (Studies in Christian Antiquity, 1985, pp. 243, 244)
Thus, Emperor Theodosius who himself had been baptized only a year before convening the council was, like Constantine nearly six decades earlier, instrumental in establishing major Church doctrine. As historian Charles Freeman notes, “It is important to remember that Theodosius had no theological background of his own and that he put in place as dogma a formula containing intractable philosophical problems of which he would have been unaware. In effect, the emperor's laws had silenced the debate when it was still unresolved.” — (p. 103)
It is bad enough that the three-in-one part of the trinity doctrine that came from sun and Satan worship becoming an accepted doctrine by the Church. But now it was decided that the Holy Spirit was a literal being co-equal with the Father and Son by people with little or no knowledge of theology, and three men steeped in Platonic and Greek philosophy! Why should we follow something that could never have been taught by the Apostles or the early Church since this was not decided until 400 hundred years after the cross? How could this be correct when it was never taught before this time? Personally, I would rather establish what the Bible teaches than follow what was decided in some council under such bizarre circumstances. Clearly this has serious issues that no true Christian should ever consider.
There is no Scripture that says the Holy Spirit is God or that the Holy Spirit is a literal being as decided by this council in 381 A.D. And to later justify what was decided by saying that the Holy Spirit can be grieved, so therefore the Spirit of God must be a person is not theology! That is red fire engine logic. That is, fire engines are red, my car is red, therefore my car is a fire engine. What Paul said on the other hand is Biblical, “For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” 1 Corinthians 2:11 NIV. Here Paul likens the spirit of man to the Spirit of God. Just as a man has a spirit, God also has a Spirit in the same manner, and His Spirit is the part of Him associated with the mind, will, and emotions the same as a man. My spirit can also be grieved but that does not make my spirit another person any more than it does God's according to Paul. The only difference as Paul points out is that a man's spirit is within him but the Spirit of God can go anywhere.
Quoting Acts 5:3-4 is also red fire engine logic. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and thus is from God. This is why Peter showed that to lie to the Spirit of God that revealed the deception, is to lie to God Himself and is no different.
A true Christian studies and follows the Word of God. Not put their trust in man let alone men with little or no theological knowledge and then later search the Scriptures to see what can be found to match their chosen belief.
Other Beliefs About the Nature of God Banned
Now that a decision had been reached, Theodosius would tolerate no dissenting views. He issued his own edict that read, “We now order that all churches are to be handed over to the bishops who profess Father, Son and Holy Spirit of a single majesty, of the same glory, of one splendor, who establish no difference by sacrilegious separation, but (who affirm) the order of the Trinity by recognizing the Persons and uniting the Godhead.” — (Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, p. 223)
Another edict from Theodosius went further in demanding adherence to the new teaching, “Let us believe the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles [assemblies] the name of churches.
They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation, and the second the punishment which our authority, in accordance with the will of Heaven, shall decide to inflict.” — (Documents of the Christian Church, Henry Bettenson, editor, 1967, p. 22)
Thus we see a teaching forced onto the Church that was foreign to Christ, never taught by the apostles and unknown to the other Biblical writers, was locked into place and the true Biblical revelation about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit was permanently locked out. Those who agreed with the decision of Emperor Theodosius were considered Catholics. But anyone who disagreed was in accordance with the edicts of the emperor and Church authorities branded a heretic and dealt with accordingly. If this was done today in this manner, would you accept it?
Trinity Doctrine Decided by Trial and Error
This unusual chain of events is why theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson would summarize the story in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith by noting that the adoption of the trinity doctrine came as a result of “a process of theological exploration which lasted at least three hundred years ... In fact it was a process of trial and error (almost of hit and miss), in which the error was by no means all confined to the unorthodox ... It would be foolish to represent the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as having been achieved by any other way.” — (1980, p. 172)
They then conclude, “This was a long, confused, process whereby different schools of thought in the Church worked out for themselves, and then tried to impose on others, their answer to the question, 'How divine is Jesus Christ?' ... If ever there was a controversy decided by the method of trial and error, it was this one.” — (p. 175)
Anglican churchman and Oxford University lecturer K. E. Kirk writes on the adoption of the trinity doctrine, “The theological and philosophical vindication of the divinity of the Spirit begins in the fourth century; we naturally turn to the writers of that period to discover what grounds they have for their belief. To our surprise, we are forced to admit that they have none ...
This failure of Christian theology ... to produce logical justification of the cardinal point in its trinitarian doctrine is of the greatest possible significance. We are forced, even before turning to the question of the vindication of the doctrine by experience, to ask ourselves whether theology or philosophy has ever produced any reasons why its belief should be Trinitarian.” — (The Evolution of the Doctrine of the Trinity, published in Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, A.E.J. Rawlinson, editor, 1928, pp. 221, 222)
This in brief is the amazing story of how the doctrine of the trinity came to be introduced and how those who refused to accept it came to be branded as heretics or unbelievers.
So should we base our view of God on a doctrine that is not spelled out in the Bible, that was not formalized until three centuries after the time of Jesus Christ and the apostles, that was debated and argued for decades (not to mention for centuries since), that was imposed by religious councils presided over by novices or nonbelievers and that was “decided by the method of trial and error” and a lot of bloodshed? I pray that the answer is obvious to all.
Here is a brief summary of the pagan origin of the trinity doctrine.
- The three in one trinity doctrine originated from paganism with the worship of the sun and Satan at Babel.
- Paganism entered the Church at Rome during the early centuries, including the heathen teachings about God. As a result, the heathen trinity was brought into the Catholic Church. Over the years it took on many forms.
- The Catholic Church officially condemned the heathen trinity of Modalistic Monarchianism and Sabbellianism in 264 A.D. at Antioch. Many Catholics have continued to teach this form of heathenism down through the years. (Some Protestant Christians still teach this form of the heathen trinity)
- The Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. deliberately condemned the Arians for believing that Jesus had a beginning, without regard as to whether He was created or begotten. The decision of the council was that Christ was eternally begotten, without beginning. Arius said this made Christ the “unbegotten begotten One,” which was a contradiction of terms.
- Emperor Theodosius the Great convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture. It was decided by people with little or no knowledge of theology and “the three Cappadocians” that the Holy Spirit was a literal being, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and Son. Those disagreeing were branded as foolish madmen and heretics and were dealt with accordingly. It was in this year (381 A.D.) that the doctrine of the trinity was fully established.
- After the passing of the Nicene Creed, the Arians were proscribed. The uprooting of the three horns on the head of the fourth beast of Daniel 7 eradicated the Arians by force. In 538 A.D. the last of the three horns was uprooted, giving the Papacy full dominion over the Churches.
- The debate over the trinity doctrine continued on until the 6th century until it was firmly established as Papal dogma.
Seventh day Adventists and quite a few other denominations who understand the identity of antichrist also know that the Papacy has continually cast the truth to the ground. (Daniel 8:12) So the pagan doctrine of the trinity as well as Sunday keeping was passed on to all the new Protestant Churches that began from the Protestant Reformation, and remains with the majority today. Arius probably did not teach that Christ was created, but taught Biblical truth and so what he taught was truth cast to the ground by the Papal Church as Scripture states.
More than 15 years after Ellen White had “supposedly” become a Trinitarian, she states that Jesus was the “divine” Son of God before He was born in Bethlehem. Woodrow Whidden on the other hand who is one of the authors of the book “The Trinity” believes that words such as “Father”, “Son”, “Son of God”, “first born”, “only begotten”, “the only true God”, “one God the Father” etc. in Scripture are all just figurative and metaphorical. That makes a mockery of several hundred verses in the Bible! If you cannot take these words as being literal then you cannot take anything in the Bible as being literal, and so you may as well discard the entire Bible as a bad joke! If you cannot see the deception in this example of the implications of the trinity doctrine and how it denies the Father and Son then you will never see it.
Who Receives the Worship?
When Christians are asked if they believe in the trinity, they often say yes without even knowing exactly what it is. And most also say that it does not really matter anyway as it is not a salvation issue. But that could not be further from the truth and if we truly love the Lord then we should want to know anyway. As seen earlier, John called those teaching that all three are one were antichrist. Are those John calls antichrist saved? Not likely! Many serious problems arise from not knowing as we have seen already, but the following is one of the worst. Seventh day Adventists are most easily misled here because when informed of the truth, they typically turn to the internet where they eventually find a handful of easily misunderstood quotes by Ellen White, which were compiled by LeRoy Froom with the deliberate intent to deceive. Without even checking what the Bible says, they put their trust in these misunderstood quotes and never look deeper, or examine her other writings to see what she really meant. Some have the mentality that their Church could never be wrong. What a tragic mistake.
Reading Revelation chapters 13 and 14 we find that the mark of the beast is about who we worship. Isaiah 14:12-14 says that Satan desires to be worshipped as God. But if Satan asked you to worship him, would you do it? Of course not. And Satan of course knows this. So Satan gets himself a front man and props him up so when they are worshipped, he receives worship by proxy. This is called worship by representation. There are two ways Satan does this with Christians and both come from sun worship, which as you have already seen is really the worship of Satan.
The first way is through Sunday worship. For those who are unaware, Scripture informs us that the Lord's Sabbath is a sign that it is God whom we worship and God who sanctifies us when we keep His Seventh day Holy. Revelation 13:2 says Satan gave his power, throne and great authority to the first beast which is the Papal Church system. So when this beast power is being worshipped, who is really being worshipped? Satan himself! So where does worship come into this? By Satan through the Catholic Church implementing his own day of worship being Sunday. That is, Sunday worship that evolved from sun worship.
The second way is by worship of the Holy Spirit as a non-existent literal being, and so Satan steps in to receive this worship by representation once again. This was something he put in place a long time ago in 381 A.D. as we have just seen. The Bible never teaches that the Holy Spirit is God or that the Holy Spirit should be prayed to or worshipped, and yet the Catholic Church does this. Today there are more and more from other denominations now doing the same. Just recently some Adventists are now teaching we should pray to the Holy Spirit. Yet we are only supposed to worship God through His Son. Jerry Moon from the Seventh day Adventist theological seminary, who is one of the authors of the book The Trinity, first says in this book, “In the spirit of the pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist church, the authors of this book firmly hold the following conviction: if we cannot support any teaching biblically, we do not want it.” — (The Trinity, p. 10) “We will be very candid with our readers--if it is not biblical we do not want it, even if the vast majority of authorities in the religious world endorse it (including Adventist pioneers and the theologians of 'Babylon').” — (The Trinity, p.11)
Considering the last bracketed statement, why is there a triquetra on the front cover and even worse, with three fiery rings? What do they represent? The theologians of Babylon of course are the pagan sun worshippers, where astrology originated from!
Next we have an interesting confession that we have already seen many times from other writers and historians, “The only way for the pioneers in their context to effectively separate Scripture from tradition was to abandon every doctrine not clearly supported from the Bible alone. Thus they initially rejected the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, which clearly contained elements not evident in Scripture.” — (The Trinity, p. 202)
So the authors say that “if it is not Biblical we do not want it” as they clearly state more than once. And yet below they say that even if there is no Biblical support for it, as long as it seems logical it is okay! Reading on, “But what about direct prayer to the Holy Spirit? While we have no clear example of or direct command to pray to the Spirit in Scripture, doing so does have, in principle, some implicit biblical support. ... it only seems logical that God's people can pray directly to and worship the Holy Spirit.” — (The Trinity, pp. 272, 273, Emphasis). Is this one reason that the trinity doctrine is now accepted by so many Churches? Even if it is not evident in Scripture, as long as it seems logical then it is okay. Though I am not sure what is logical about 1+1+1=One!
And if you think that Satan is not leading Adventists to start praying to the Holy Spirit then watch this 35 second YouTube video clip. Close the window to return to this page. Did you notice that he says “God the Spirit” which is a Catholic Trinitarian phrase and hence is never found in the Bible which uses the term “Spirit of God” which has a totally different meaning.
Some Adventists have suggested that I read material from Jerry Moon, and while I have done so to get a balanced view in my research to be sure I am teaching truth, I cannot agree with what he says. If it is not in the Bible, we should not teach it. And especially when we know where the trinity doctrine comes from! Should one trust these authors at all after such major contradictions and unbiblical statements? John W. Reeve being one of the authors is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Notre Dame which is Catholic. And he also teaches at the Seventh day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University. Catholic and Adventist? Does this explain the above problems and why they have a triquetra on the front cover? The black pope did say to bring the Adventist Church over to Rome.
Here is one statement from Jerry Moon that I do agree with and especially the highlighted part.
“That most of the leading SDA pioneers were non-Trinitarian in their theology has become accepted Adventist history, surprising as it sounded to most Adventists 40 years ago when Erwin R. Gane wrote an M.A. thesis on the topic.” “More recently, a further question has arisen with increasing urgency: was the pioneers' belief about the Godhead right or wrong? “As one line of reasoning goes, either the pioneers were wrong and the present church is right, or the pioneers were right and the present Seventh-day Adventist Church has apostatized from biblical truth.” — (Jerry Moon, The Trinity, Chapter, Trinity and antitrinitarianism in Seventh-day Adventist history, p. 190)
Seventh day Adventists were once non-Trinitarians but one man managed to slowly get this counterfeit doctrine into their Church. Adventists are aware of the Sabbath deception but most are totally ignorant of the trinity deception. Some Adventists who have discovered this deception have formed their own ministries such as the people responsible for the videos on this page. The Adventist Church before they accepted the trinity doctrine was as close to Biblical truth as one can ever be and one can learn a lot from them and especially on Bible prophecy. I strongly suggest taking advantage of their knowledge in this area. See the next page for how the trinity doctrine crept into the Adventist Church. Earlier we saw that in several branches of heathenism, the third person of this trinity is regarded as evil and a destroyer. If the Holy Spirit is not a literal being and was instigated by Satan who steps up to receive worship as this third person, is he evil and a destroyer? This is something we need to consider very seriously.
Greek Philosophy's Influence on the Trinity Doctrine
Greek philosophers were greatly influenced by Greek philosopher Plato (427-347 BC) who was considered the greatest of all philosophers. Plato thought he could define God and most Greek philosophy was based on his theories. Since the triad deities were among all ancient religions, and Plato was ingrained in trinitarian thought, he wanted to come up with a better definition to define God above all deities of Greek mythology. Plato's definition of God was, (1) The “first God,” who was the Supreme Being in the universe; (2) the “second God,” whom Plato described as the “soul of the universe”; and (3) the “third God,” defined as the “spirit.”
The Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (15 BC-AD 50) who was a follower of Greek philosophy, and was influenced by Plato's version saw God as, (1) Father, who created all things (Philo named him “the Demiurge”), (2) Mother, who was Knowledge the Maker possessed and (3) the Beloved Son was the world. Supposedly the union of “Demiurge” and “Knowledge” produced man's world. This esoteric type of thinking led to the birth of the development of the trinity.
Many historians and religious scholars attest to the influence of Greek or Platonic philosophy in the development and acceptance of the trinity doctrine in the fourth century. But what did such philosophy entail and how did it come to affect the doctrine of the trinity?
Charles Bigg stated that the famous Greek philosopher Plato believed in a divine triad of “God, the ideas, [and] the World-Spirit,” though he “nowhere explained or harmonized this triad.” — (Charles Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria, 1886, p. 249)
Later Greek thinkers refined Plato's concepts into what they referred to as three “substances,” the supreme God or “the One,” from which came “mind” or “thought” and a “spirit” or “soul.” In their thinking, all were different divine “substances” or aspects of the same God. Another way of expressing this was as “good,” the personification of that good, and the agent by which that good is carried out. Again, these were different divine aspects of that same supreme good, distinct and yet unified as one.
Such metaphysical thinking was common among the intelligentsia of the Greek world and carried over into the thinking of the Roman world of the New Testament period and succeeding centuries. As the last of the apostles died off, some of this metaphysical thinking began to affect and infiltrate the early Church, primarily through those who had already begun to compromise with paganism.
As Bible scholars John McClintock and James Strong explain, “Towards the end of the 1st century, and during the 2d, many learned men came over both from Judaism and paganism to Christianity. These brought with them into the Christian schools of theology their Platonic ideas and phraseology.” — (Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, 1891, Vol. 10, “Trinity,” p. 553)
The true Church largely resisted such infiltration and held firm to the teaching of the apostles, drawing their doctrine from the writings of the apostles and “the Holy Scriptures [the books of the Old Testament] which are able to make you wise for salvation.” (2 Timothy:3:15)
Two distinct threads of Christianity split and developed separately. One remained true to the plain and simple teachings of the Bible and the other became increasingly compromised with pagan thought and practices adopted from the Greco-Roman world.
Thus, as debate swelled over the nature of God in the fourth century leading to the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, it was no longer a debate between biblical truth and error. Many sides in the debate had been seriously compromised by their acceptance of unbiblical philosophical ideas.
Many of the Church leaders who formulated the doctrine of the trinity were steeped in Greek and Platonic philosophy, and this influenced their religious views and teaching. The language they used in describing and defining the trinity is, in fact, taken directly from Platonic and Greek philosophy. The word trinity itself is neither biblical nor Christian. Rather, the Platonic term trias, from the word for three, was Latinized as trinitas, the latter giving us the English word trinity.
“The Alexandria catechetical school, which revered Clement of Alexandria and Origen, the greatest theologian of the Greek Church, as its heads, applied the allegorical method to the explanation of Scripture. Its thought was influenced by Plato: its strong point was [pagan] theological speculations. Athanasius and the three Cappadocians [the men whose Trinitarian views were adopted by the Catholic Church at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople] had been included among its members.” — (Hubert Jedin, Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: an Historical Outline, 1960, p. 28)
“The doctrines of the Logos [i.e., the “Word,” a designation for Christ in John 1] and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who ... were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy ... That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source cannot be denied.” — (The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Samuel Macauley Jackson, editor, 1911, Vol. 9, p. 91)
The preface to historian Edward Gibbons' History of Christianity sums up the Greek influence on the adoption of the trinity doctrine by stating, “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism [basic religion, in this context] of the first Christians ... was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.” — (1883, p. xvi)
The link between Plato's teachings and the trinity as adopted by the Catholic Church centuries later is so strong that Edward Gibbon, in his masterwork The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, referred to Plato as “the Athenian sage, who had thus marvelously anticipated one of the most surprising discoveries of the Christian revelation.” — (The Trinity 1890, Vol. 1, p. 574)
Thus we see that the doctrine of the trinity owes far less to the Bible than it does to the metaphysical speculations of Plato and other pagan Greek philosophers. No wonder the apostle Paul warns us in Colossians:2:8 NIV to beware of “hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.”
How Ancient Trinitarian Gods Influenced Adoption of the Trinity
Many who believe in the trinity are surprised to learn that the idea of divine beings existing as trinities or triads long predated Christianity. Yet the evidence is abundantly documented.
Marie Sinclair, Countess of Caithness, in her 1876 book Old Truths in a New Light, states, “It is generally, although erroneously, supposed that the doctrine of the Trinity is of Christian origin. Nearly every nation of antiquity possessed a similar doctrine. [The early Catholic theologian] St. Jerome testifies unequivocally, 'All the ancient nations believed in the Trinity'.” — (p. 382)
Notice how the following quotes document belief in a divine trinity in many regions and religions of the ancient world.
“The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu's share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods.” — (The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, 1994, pp. 54, 55)
“The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god— as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity.” — (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22, 23)
“The Puranas, one of the Hindoo Bibles of more than 3,000 years ago, contain the following passage: 'O ye three Lords! know that I recognize only one God. Inform me, therefore, which of you is the true divinity, that I may address to him alone my adorations.' The three gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva [or Shiva], becoming manifest to him, replied, 'Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us. What to you appears such is only the semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, but he is one.'
Hence the triangle was adopted by all the ancient nations as a symbol of the Deity ... Three was considered among all the pagan nations as the chief of the mystical numbers, because, as Aristotle remarks, it contains within itself a beginning, a middle, and an end. Hence we find it designating some of the attributes of almost all the pagan gods.” (Sinclair, pp. 382, 383)
“In the Fourth Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: 'All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bounded by threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity'.” — (Arthur Weigall, Paganism in Our Christianity, 1928, pp. 197, 198)
“The Hymn to Amun decreed that 'No god came into being before him (Amun)' and that 'All gods are three: Amun, Re and Ptah, and there is no second to them. Hidden is his name as Amon, he is Re in face, and his body is Ptah.' ... This is a statement of trinity, the three chief gods of Egypt subsumed into one of them, Amon. Clearly, the concept of organic unity within plurality got an extraordinary boost with this formulation. Theologically, in a crude form it came strikingly close to the later Christian form of plural Trinitarian monotheism.” — (Simson Najovits, Egypt, Trunk of the Tree, Vol. 2, 2004, pp. 83, 84)
Many other areas had their own divine trinities. In Greece they were Zeus, Poseidon and Adonis. The Phoenicians worshipped Ulomus, Ulosuros and Eliun. Rome worshipped Jupiter, Mars and Venus. In Germanic nations they were called Wodan, Thor and Fricco. Regarding the Celts, one source states, “The ancient heathen deities of the pagan Irish, Criosan, Biosena, and Seeva, or Sheeva, are doubtless the Creeshna [Krishna], Veeshnu [Vishnu], [or the all-inclusive] Brahma, and Seeva [Shiva], of the Hindoos.” — (Thomas Maurice, The History of Hindostan, Vol. 2, 1798, p. 171)
The deception is beautifully seen by the astonishing admission of Arthur Weigall who himself is a Trinitarian. Egyptologist Arthur Weigall summed up the influence of ancient beliefs on the adoption of the trinity doctrine by the Catholic Church in the following excerpt from his book:
“It must not be forgotten that Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon [the Trinity], and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord; and the origin of the conception is entirely pagan ...
The ancient Egyptians, whose influence on early religious thought was profound, usually arranged their gods or goddesses in trinities: there was the trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, the trinity of Amen, Mut, and Khonsu, the trinity of Khnum, Satis, and Anukis, and so forth ...
The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognized the mysterious and undefined existence of the Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One ...
The application of this old pagan conception of a Trinity to Christian theology was made possible by the recognition of the Holy Spirit as the required third 'Person,' co-equal with the other 'Persons' ...
The idea of the Spirit being co-equal with God was not generally recognised until the second half of the Fourth Century A.D... . In the year 381 the Council of Constantinople added to the earlier Nicene Creed a description of the Holy Spirit as 'the Lord, and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified.' ...
Thus, the Athanasian creed, which is a later composition but reflects the general conceptions of Athanasius [the 4th-century Trinitarian whose view eventually became official doctrine] and his school, formulated the conception of a co-equal Trinity wherein the Holy Spirit was the third 'Person'; and so it was made a dogma of the faith, and belief in the Three in One and One in Three became a paramount doctrine of Christianity, though not without terrible riots and bloodshed ...
Today a Christian thinker ... has no wish to be precise about it, more especially since the definition is obviously pagan in origin and was not adopted by the Church until nearly three hundred years after Christ.” — (Arthur Weigall, Paganism in Our Christianity, 1928, pp. 197-203)
James Bonwick summarized the story well on page 396 of his 1878 work Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought, “It is an undoubted fact that more or less all over the world the deities are in triads. This rule applies to eastern and western hemispheres, to north and south.
Further, it is observed that, in some mystical way, the triad of three persons is one. The first is as the second or third, the second as first or third, the third as first or second; in fact, they are each other, one and the same individual being. The definition of Athanasius, who lived in Egypt, applies to the trinities of all heathen religions.”
The gods of Babylon
The following video will shock you and reveals how Sunday worship and the trinity doctrine both have their origins in the beginning of Babylon and sun worship. It really is a must watch.
Site Pages Menu
- The Bible Ten Commandments
- What Day Is The Sabbath Day
- False Teachers & Doctrine Exposed
- Hades And Hell Fire Truth
- Who Changed Sabbath To Sunday
- What is the Mark of the Beast
- 666 and The Number of The Beast
- The Millennial Reign of Christ
- Who is the Remnant Church of God
- The Wednesday Crucifixion
- What Is Wicca And Witchcraft
- Who Is The Antichrist Today
- Colossians 2:16 and the Sabbath
- The Secret Rapture Theory
- Who Is Mystery Babylon the Great
- What Happens When We Die
- What Day is the True Sabbath Day
- 666 The Mark Of The Beast
- The Two Witnesses of Revelation
- Daniels 70 Weeks Prophecy
- What is the Battle of Armageddon
- What is Speaking in Tongues
- Change of The Sabbath to Sunday
- Sabbath in the New Testament
- Daniel Abomination of Desolation
1 John 2:22 “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.”