Let Us Talk About The Trinity

As everyone knows that the term "Trinity", is not found in the bible. Even as every Kindergardener know that simple math proves 1+1+1=3. So let us look at some factors of how and why it came to be. The key terms in theTrinity debate are Greek. Certainly, a triune per se was part of the Hellenistic heritage. Plato in his Timaeus (Tertullian in 197 AD coined the phrase "Trias" or Trinity, from this work) posited three eternal and independent principles: the “Ideas,” the “Demiurge,” and “Kosmos.” The Demiurge, as maker of the universe, was inferior to the Ideas, which both Hebrew and Christian monotheism would find unacceptable for an omnipotent creator God. Another inheritance from Greek thought was the symbolism of numbers. The number two for Greeks meant antithetical pairs. The number four stood for all directions: the four winds, the four seas, the four elements. The number three represented the whole: the beginning, the middle, and the end. Christians believed in one God as taught they believed Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord". Just as the Jewish fathers taught of only one God in various manifestations, so taught all the Apostles and Christian converts of the 1st and early 2nd centuries. Early Christian views of Jesus were highly exalted, passed on as they were from his intimate companions. They called him Christ, the Anointed One, and “Kyrios” or Lord. To those reared within a Jewish heritage, Kyrios was the Greek term employed for the Hebrew “Adonai,” which was used instead of the unspeakable name for God, “Yahweh.” So Adonai meant profound reverence. To those reared within a Greek heritage, Kyrios brought to mind the many “lords” of the pagan mystery religions. Repeatedly, Jesus was called the “Son of Man” but also the “Son of God.” Was this paradox? The evangelist John wrote his famous passage which identified Jesus with the “Logos” (the Word): John 1:1,14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . And The Word was made flesh; he dwelt (or lived) among us. In the form or body of Jesus Christ. So God with us (Or "Immanuel",) as spoken of in Isaiah 9:6 came to be. Scholars do not all agree (As many are Trinitarians and thus tend not to want to show where this Greek and Pagan idea came from) sources and origins of Logos In the late 2nd century, some viewed Jesus, the Logos, as a second God. One such person was Justin Martyr who called Jesus 2nd to God. This concept was entirely new to Christians. He also changed the baptism formula from simply "The Lord Jesus Christ", (The Acts 2:38 formula) to a extended trinity version, with Jesus at it's center still. Irenaeus, a Asia Minor resident as well as adherent to Catholicism, and Justin understudy, also furthered this concept and added to the confusion. Theophilus (Another Greek convert) in 150AD also introduced a trinity of God, Logos, and Wisdom. This dualism, of course, was unacceptable with the monotheistic heritage of Judaism. One form of Monarchianism believed that the Father indwelled the body of Jesus, whom we known as the son, then died and raised himself from the dead, leaving his spirit, even the Holy Spirit, behind to comfort mankind. Thus, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were viewed as three aspects of God, sequentially, much as the field is tilled, planted, and harvested. Another form of Monarchianism believed that Jesus was a man within whom an impersonal power issued from God. These believers were called Adoptionists, because they held that this power came upon Jesus at his baptism or, according to others, at his resurrection. This belief atleast acknowledge like Justin Martyr and others declared, simply that unless we believe in the cross (Christ's death in our place as payment for all sins.) and the water (Baptism comes from the root and Greek word of "Baptizo". Which means to dip, wash, or immerse only. Furthermore, until 145 AD nearly everyone was in the original mode or type calling upon, the "Lord Jesus Christ" in it. Both forms of Monarchianism were condemned as heresy, yet continued for centuries because it was a reasonable accommodation. Augustine in the 5th century wrote a 15 volume work on the "trinity", yet he admitted and confessed that, "We Cannot Understand it too clearly". Tertullian of Carthage, in North africa argued before the worlds creation that God was alone. But in God resided Reason (The Greek Logos) as his thought9s0, and expressed himself in Word (The Jewish Wisdom). Thus Logos and

Wisdom became the son of God. Such conceptual gymnastics needed to be politically correct. many cultures were intermixed at that time and borrowed one from another. Because Tertullian maintained that a time existed when the son was not, his position was in Jeopardy as the son would be subordinate to the father. (John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.) To get out of problems, Tertullian said that the word became flesh in Jesus, yet the Divine and human did not fuse together (As per his explaination that as "Much like Gold And Silver do not to make a new metal".) Such would make Jesus a third something or "Tertium Quid", neither God nor man. As a former lawyer, he used his legal knowledge to explain his way out. using worldly wisdom, he used the Latin word "substantia", which was Pagan romes term for a man's staus in the community. he wrote that God was one in Substantia or substance but three in his "Personae", (Person) as father, son, and Holy Spirit. Person was the term for parties in legal action. Hence, his system was of a unity of substance within a Trinity of form as explained by him by Rome's legal terms. Origin, who was the greatest Greek of the Greek fathers in the Catholic church in his day, believed all attempts to define God would limit him. He accepted the triad of father, son, and Holy Ghost but made distinction between them. He taught men gained existence from the father, reason from the son, and Holiness from the Holy Ghost. He also was called a "Heretic", because he thought the son lesser or subordinate to the father, as the bible states. His thoughts helped bring about the spilit between the Eastern and Western church factions. ( Bishop Dionysius, Origen’s successor at the catechetical school, stressed the human distinction, using language that implied that the Father had created the Son and, therefore, had to be subordinate to the Father. The Bishop of Rome, not yet called Pope, warned Dionysius to be more careful with his language and make clear that the Son was “homoousion” -that is, of the “same” substance as the Father and not simply “homooiousion” -that is, of “similar” substance as the Father. These two words with two distinct meanings had only two letters different: an extra “i” and an extra “o”—but, oh, how these two letters competed for centuries. In fact, Edward Gibbon in his Decline And Fall of The Roman Empire, referred sarcastically to “furious contests over a single diphthong.” Further, Arius a presbyter of Alexandria, argued that these terms—homoousia and homoiousia—were not found in Scripture.) ecause this constant dissension among the Christians was fracturing the peace of the Roman empire, Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray. He had recently united the empire under his rule and ended his predecessor Diocletian’s persecution of the Christians. This dispute over Arius threatened the newly established peace. As a warrior, administrator, and layman, Constantine certainly did not understand the theological subtleties of the controversy. He intervened as a politician. No evidence exists that Constantine had any knowledge of the pacifist teachings of Jesus or any interest in Christianity or ever attended a church service. In fact, he never allowed himself to be baptized until 337 when he knew he was dying. However, Constantine recognized the political advantage of co-opting an already existing institutional structure. He subsumed it under his authority through an expedient pledge of faith. By accepting Christianity, he intended to subvert it to his will and bring order to his realm. He did this “by creating a false link between Christianity and success in war.” He report, years after a decisive battle, that he had a vision of a cross above the sun, which he interpreted as “By this sign, conquer.” Actually the cross’s proximity to the sun was probably more telling. Constantine carefully maintained his relationship with paganism, particularly the cult of Sol Invictus.10 The halo, far from being a mark of holiness, was first a mark of imperial power in Greek culture. Constantine had himself portrayed on coins with a halo around his

head. The sun was also used in Christian symbolism: the resurrection was celebrated on sun day. Also, the main festival for Sol Invictus was the winter solstice, which Christians by the 4th century celebrated as the birthday of Jesus.Although Constantine effectively maintained his credibility and authority with both Christians and pagans, doctrinal disunity between the heavily Christian eastern empire and the provinces of the western empire was threatening political stability. The main element of conflict was the Arian controversy. Constantine wrote to all parties in the dispute and told them that, after careful inquiry into the controversy, he found: ...the cause to be truly insignificant and quite unworthy of such fierce contention. He urged them to compose their differences and forgive each other. He said that their discussions should be: ...intended merely as an intellectual exercise...and not hastily produced in the popular assemblies... When this appeal did not succeed, he called a council of the entire Christian Church. Constantine’s action established a precedent. Local or regional councils were not new, but now a general or ecumenical council was intended to resolve major divisions of faith. This First Ecumenical Council met in 325 AD in Nicea across the Bosphorus strait from Constantinople. Constantine also presided over the council’s opening session and was active in its deliberations. Bishops mostly came from the eastern part of the empire. Constantine had the state pay their travel expenses. Later tradition asserted that 318 bishops attended: 318 was the number of Abraham’s army who rescued Lot. The Church used this analogy to acclaim the bishops who rescued orthodoxy from heresy. After the formal opening by Emperor Constantine, permission was given for the disputants to present their views—then violence erupted. Arius was supported by a small but vocal minority, but the large majority had not yet taken a position. However, the next Bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, took the opposite position from Arius. The two went head to head. Impatient for compromise, Constantine forced a formula through in hopes of quelling the dispute. He used the churches’ growing dependency on him for patronage in order to forge a consensus. The compromise was a creed, which seemed to win general assent, if only as a peacekeeping measure. Constantine wrote to the church in Alexandria: We have received from Divine Providence the supreme favor of being relieved from all error. The Council of Nicea took a further position against the Arians, attaching a rider to the creed, cursing the Arians as anathema. To enforce the decisions of the Council of Nicea, Constantine commanded under penalty of death that all books by Arius be burned. The Emperor also banished Arius along with his supporters and deposed all bishops who had supported him. The urgency behind defining “orthodoxy” and “heresy” had a Watergate explanation —you know, “follow the money.” Constantine had provided tax exemptions for Christian clergy, eventually including exemptions for church lands. Such patronage had a deleterious effect on Christianity. The furious battles over defining who was the true “Christian” had a significant consequence and explains why emperors came to play such a major role in the determination of doctrine. Thus, once a charge of heresy was aimed, counter charges were at the ready, motivated to gain back the spoils of orthodoxy from royal patronage—all under the guise of theology. And the controversy has not, nor will never cease, entirely. Threre are those who wanted the Dualistic God form, which came to power shortly after Constantius' (Constantine's son) death. Justin, a Pagan reversed the Nicene Edict and the clergy lost their power, and money. He said, "No wild beast are so dangerous to man as Christians are to one another". His succesor was Valentinian, a Christian but against Arians. He was tolerant of diversity which began another debat at Alexandria led by Athanasius. As the Arians lost here also, yet the issue of the third part of the united triad, or Holy spirit was addressed (Which had been neglected by earlier councils.) The council said it was not a seperate creature

but inseperable from the other two. Another new element appeared at the Alexandrian council. Three Cappadocian monks—don’t you know—introduced a new term to explain the mystery of this emerging" Trinity". These Cappadocian monks succeeded in developing a consensus by yoking classical philosophy to Christian theology. Their term was “hypostasis”—a thinly disguised Latin form of a Greek noun. Hypostasis was found in both Platonic and Stoic philosophy and meant something like “individual manifestation.” Loosely, the term could be an alternative for ousia. As a new term, hypostasis was useful in introducing the Holy Spirit under the God umbrella along with the Father and the Son. Thus, God became one ousia but three hypostases. Ousia became equivalent to the Latin substantia and hypostasis equivalent to the Latin personae. Parallels were put forth to clarify the position, such as: Peter, James, and John were three separate “hypostases” but, as men, all three shared the same “ousia.” These new terms were supposed to clarify the doctrine The major error was that a concept was introduced to the Latin theology of the Church, which was not intended by the original Greek.. They weren’t even thinking about how all this might be understood in other languageIn381 AD Emperor Theodosius convened the Second Ecumeniccal Council in Constantinople which ended with this merger creed or the "Nicene-Constantinople Creed of Compromise. This States, " I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified". This "Christian" view now was defended and enforced by civil law and death was usually afflicted to dissenters as well as property confiscation. As we all know and can plainly see by nature that God is one, Romans 1. The Catholics (And Prostestants who left with this triad of contradictions, confusion, and powerlessness still intact in their teachings) felt the need to further justify their position of non biblical beliefs, by adopting this add on, at Trent in the mid-16th century. "I accept Sacred Scripture in the sense in which it...is held by Holy Mother Church to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation ...nor will I interpret it any other way than in accordance with the unanimous agreement of the Father". This sound like the Mother Harlot and her children of Revelations, but I will let you decide. Here are the scriptures in Rev. 2:18-24 and 17:1-6. And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, (Trinity, as used in baptism or Godhead.) and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND

ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: (Hogben says in his book "Math For Millions, pages 26,226 that between Inquisition, Auto De Fe or Acts of Faith, and Hitler; that 65 millions people whether Jews, Muslims, or one God believers, have died from the result of her hand that is, "The Catholic Church".) and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. We are told to leave Babylon, (Rev 18) and touch not the unclean thing, and then God will receive us and fill us with his Holy spirit and truth. "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues".