*Trinitarianism's Pagan Polytheistic Anti-Bible Roots*

[Nahum]

Since we know that trinitarianism has absolutely no Bible basis, where did this heretical doctrine originate?


Any takers?

[Nahum]

Ancient Babylonian Triad, Triune, Trinity

Babylon is the place of origin of all False Doctrine and the Trinity
The three main Gods over all the other Gods & Goddesses



THE THREE MAIN GODS
First Person Second Person Third Person
Father, King Son, Prince Queen, Mother
Triad of Babylon
Nimrod Tammuz Simerimas
Shamash Sin Ishtar
Triad of Backslidden Israel
Baal Tammuz Ashtoreth
Triad of Egypt
Osiris Horus Isis
Triad of Greece
Zeus Apollo Athena
Triad of India
Brahama Vishnu Shiva
Triad of Rome
Jupiter Mars Venus
Triad of Catholicism
Father Son Holy Spirit
Jehovah Jesus Dove
Note: The Dove has always been the Catholic root Goddess
symbol. Mary has been elevated to Co-Saviour with Christ.

[staysharp]

Since we know that trinitarianism has absolutely no Bible basis.


You really don't want to go there do u? It's been hashed, rehassed, rerehashed

[James Griffin]

You really don't want to go there do u? It's been hashed, rehassed, rerehashed

Coming from one who just jumped into ANOTHER why is baptism necessary thread? LOL

[TRFrance]

I always like seeing discussions on evangelism, and the gifts of the spirit. I wish we'd see more discussion of those topics.

I think those are two areas the Lord would like his church to go deeper into, especially in these last days.

The basic apostolic doctrine (oneness/baptism/salvation) is important, but I think the Lord would prefer if we move on to deeper things, while still of course maintaining our doctrinal foundation.

my 2 cents

[staysharp]

Coming from one who just jumped into ANOTHER why is baptism necessary thread? LOL

Not because I wanted to, I couldn't leave it. LOL

[Nahum]

Buncha chickens!

I guess it's easy to ignore those beliefs that are indefensible?

[Scott Hutchinson]

Give me a little time and I'll post some links to some articles to read about this.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Ok check out this one.
http://west.net/~antipas/books/trinity/trinity1.html
Somehow this link is not working.

[Carpenter]

It is actually "anti-biblical", "anti-biblical roots..."

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here is a very good article.
http://onenessweb.com/apostolicpillar//articles/trinity.html

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here is another article and I'm not endorsing everything on this site either.
http://angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/trinity.html

[OneAccord]

1 Corinthians 13


1
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

13
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

[Mrs. LPW]

I always like seeing discussions on evangelism, and the gifts of the spirit. I wish we'd see more discussion of those topics.

I think those are two areas the Lord would like his church to go deeper into, especially in these last days.

The basic apostolic doctrine (oneness/baptism/salvation) is important, but I think the Lord would prefer if we move on to deeper things, while still of course maintaining our doctrinal foundation.

my 2 cents

I agree... Hebrews 6:1.... unfortunately there are people who should be teachers but themselves need to be taught.

(my 2 cents)

[TRFrance]

One Accord...

Maybe I'm missing something here.

How does that last post relate to the topic of this thread?
Just curious.

[mizpeh]

It started with Logos Christology using second temple theologies' divine intermediary and snowballed from there. Second temple theology thought the 'word of the Lord' and 'wisdom' as divine intermediaries but were personified by Philo. Trinitarians took it a step further with Logos Christology and 'hypostasized' the Word of God and the Spirit.

“The Memra as a cosmic power furnished Philo the corner-stone upon which he built his peculiar semi-Jewish philosophy. Philo's "divine thought," "the image" and "first-born son" of God, "the archpriest," "intercessor," and "paraclete" of humanity, the "arch type of man" (see Philo), paved the way for the Christian conceptions of the Incarnation ("the Word become flesh") and the Trinity.” (emphasis mine)

“"Philo's Logos seems, therefore, a close congener of the Logos theology that we find among almost all ante-Nicene Christian writers, and which would appear, therefore, to have a "Jewish" Beginning."


I find it helpful when Trinitarians like Layman affirm these statements. It does not then appear that these are merely my opinions, but the opinions of theologians in general. Basically, what we have here is confirmation of the following points:

1)- A Logos-Memra motif existed before John as part of 2nd Temple Intermediary Theology.

2)- Philo's sycretism of Greek philosophy and Jewish theosophy appropriated a pre-existing Logos motif, which he semi-personified, semi-hypostasized. Boyarin details (in another book- Crossroads) how this played a part in the Two Powers heresy (which Layman quoted above), but was ultimately rejected by Rabbinic Judaism.

3)- For Boyarin to say that the Logos of ante-Nicene Christianity had a "Jewish beginning" (see above) is not entirely correct. Philo's model was very much a Hellenized Jewish Logos. Now, when Boyarin says "Philo's Logos seems, therefore, a close congener of the Logos theology that we find among almost all ante-Nicene Christian writers" is absolutely correct. (you have no idea!)

Runia's "Philo in Early Christian Literature" documents just how pervasive Philo (a Hellenized Jewish philosopher) was in the writings of the Church Fathers, both before and after Nicea (Runia examines up to Augustine). We do not know if the earliest Apologists knew Philo directly (Clement of Alexandria forward has been verified), but they were certainly familiar with these same themes from Diaspora Judaism, including a Hellenized Logos-Memra.

In the above quote: "Philo's [Logos]... paved the way for the Christian conceptions of the Incarnation ("the Word become flesh") and the Trinity”, no truer words could be spoken of ante-Nicene Trinitarian development. You see, unfortunately for orthodoxy, one's like Justin appropriated a Hellenized Logos to identify the historical Jesus of Nazareth. But this Logos was based on an Intermediary figure who existed between a transcendent God and a material universe: a demi-god. Thus was born the ontologically subordinate Logos-Christology. Justin's Son-Logos was neither co-equal nor co-eternal with the Father. As I posted elsewhere, for one's like Justin, it could never be said that the transcendent Father could have any contact with a physical world (sound familiar?), thus it was the Son-Logos of God that made the theophanic appearances in the OT. (Dial.Trypho, ch. 127-128)

This line of thinking continues today in quotes like Layman posted:

“Most Trinitarians would tell you that OT appearances of the Angel of God, or the Memra, were Christophonies."

“Well, then we agree that the Logos, the Memra, is personal and that God is personal, therefore we have at least two personal subjects (persons). We can also agree that the Memra of God is, among other places in the OT, the angel of the Lord. (I don't know where you got the idea that Trinitarians don't believe the Son appeared in angelic form in the OT, but they do and they are called Christophanies).”

Even in Tertullian's trinitas we see ontological subordinationism. His main charge against Praxeas was patripassionism, because obviously God the Son can suffer, but how could it ever be said that God the Father suffered?

Subordinationism continued in the 3rd/4th ce. until it reached its logical conclusion: Arianism. Nicea sought to correct the error of Logos-Christology, but somehow an incipient subordinationism continues to this day, and is never more evident than in orthodox Trinitarianism's interpretation of Jn 1:1.
http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=309717&postcount=35

[OneAccord]

One Accord...

Maybe I'm missing something here.

How does that last post relate to the topic of this thread?
Just curious.

Nah, you're not missing a thing. Just felt like posting 1 Cor 13 to remind us that our knowledge, our wisdom, our understanding pales in comparison to the love of God that has been shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost. I don't reckon it relates to this thread at all. Juts a reminder that love covers a multitude of sins.

[pelathais]

Since we know that trinitarianism has absolutely no Bible basis, where did this heretical doctrine originate?


Any takers?
Yeah... I'll take you on. I dealt with this in a Oneness Symposium many years ago. I'm on my way out the door right now but I'll be back after I keep a promise I made to my kids.

My primary resources will be the writings of Davd K. Bernard. I will attempt to refute your assertion on the origins of the Doctrine of the Trinity from his books. I think this is one of the greatest contributions that DKB has made to the Oneness movement and I told him so in front of a large audience many years ago. I still feel that way today.

[TRFrance]

Yeah... I'll take you on. I dealt with this in a Oneness Symposium many years ago. I'm on my way out the door right now but I'll be back after I keep a promise I made to my kids.

My primary resources will be the writings of Davd K. Bernard. I will attempt to refute your assertion on the origins of the Doctrine of the Trinity from his books. I think this is one of the greatest contributions that DKB has made to the Oneness movement and I told him so in front of a large audience many years ago. I still feel that way today.

Should be interesting.
Lemme pull up a chair, and get my popcorn ready.

[ManOfWord]

Well, from the perspective of a oneness preacher and one who has studied the Jewish roots of Christianity, I have a thought. I believe that the only reason that the "triad" viewpoint of the godhead was able to gain a foothold was due to the fact that the church veered away from its Jewish roots and its monotheism. This allowed room for the philosopher's ideas to re-shape the godhead theology.

I know this is no new revelation, but many times we forget that we do have roots and they are NOT Christian. :D

[TK Burk]

Well, from the perspective of a oneness preacher and one who has studied the Jewish roots of Christianity, I have a thought. I believe that the only reason that the "triad" viewpoint of the godhead was able to gain a foothold was due to the fact that the church veered away from its Jewish roots and its monotheism. This allowed room for the philosopher's ideas to re-shape the godhead theology.

I know this is no new revelation, but many times we forget that we do have roots and they are NOT Christian. :D

Ever read anything from the late Jewish scholar, Gershom Scholem? His book "On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead" shows that not everything Jewish is about one God. As a matter of fact, he teaches there are nine manifestations of God. This plurality is very popular among Judaism. At one time, blowing Benny Hinn taught these same nine manifestations. Like Scholem, Hinn taught that there are three manifestations for each of the three degrees of the godhead. I wonder where Benny got that idea from. :winkgrin Definitely not his Bible! :nah

I believe Scholem got his info from the same place that the early apostate church got theirs. This same false doctrine influenced the false church's teachings on the creation of the trinity.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I understand the Trinity doctrine comes from the Kabballah,a book of jewish mysticism.

[pelathais]

It started with Logos Christology using second temple theologies' divine intermediary and snowballed from there. Second temple theology thought the 'word of the Lord' and 'wisdom' as divine intermediaries but were personified by Philo. Trinitarians took it a step further with Logos Christology and 'hypostasized' the Word of God and the Spirit.


Should be interesting.
Lemme pull up a chair, and get my popcorn ready.

Well, from the perspective of a oneness preacher and one who has studied the Jewish roots of Christianity, I have a thought. I believe that the only reason that the "triad" viewpoint of the godhead was able to gain a foothold was due to the fact that the church veered away from its Jewish roots and its monotheism. This allowed room for the philosopher's ideas to re-shape the godhead theology.

I know this is no new revelation, but many times we forget that we do have roots and they are NOT Christian.
Just got back and am catching up... and I missed Mizpeh's post earlier. I wonder why Mizpeh and I argue so much when we agree on so many things? But then that's probably it, we're too much alike. LOL.

MoW and Mizpeh pretty much nailed it.

In the history of the Oneness Movement that started in the early 20th Century there has been a tendency to err when giving an account of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. For example, we have had a lot of literature published that said "The Doctrine of the Trinity was invented at the Council of Nicea..." That of course is silly.

And then we have also added material from Hislop's Two Babylons and similar sources that describe the syncretism that took place when Christianity was forming and see the "holy family" imagery from Mesopotamia, Egypt and other places. The "holy families" really only affected the Trinity indirectly at best.

The Greeks were moving toward monotheism in the Hellenistic Age (post Alexander the Great). This movement was a result of Stoic skeptism and the influences of "the big three," Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. By the time of Aristotle a methodology had begun to emerge resembling the modern Scientific Method. This was the greatest gift to us from the Classical World.

The "gods" and the myths of Ancient Greece were allegorized and a "Prime Mover" was seen as being the source of all of the cosmos. In the Platonic system, this "Prime Mover" or "The God," was too pure to interact directly with the created world, and so Plato offered "emanations" as being the intermediary between creation and the Creator. This idea was developed along a different path through Gnosticism and is responsible for eveything from Arianism to Scientology's Thetans and (whatever the "good demon/space aliens are called).

Basically, the idea was that the Transcendance of God limited His interaction with creation. If this were not so, then the creation would be overwhelmed by the glory of God and cease to be a creation and would become God. So, God "stands apart" from creation. However He is no a "Clock Maker God" who created and then abandoned His work. Instead, through the very process of creation itself, the cosmos was infused with a Principle or Logos. This is God's Word and it is "not far from any of us" for "in Him we move and live and have our being."

Different schools of thought treat the Logos differently. The Arians supposed that the Logos was a "demi-Urge" or "little god." The Gospel of John states that the Logos was God Himself. To explain the apparent contradiction between the Transcendance and the Immanence of God, Christian writers began to speak of a "prosopos" through which God made Himself known at different times. "Prosopos" literally means face and by extension person. We know a person by their face.

In Greek theater the use of theatrical masks was common since a single actor usually played several if not all the roles in a production. The mask was called the prosopo. When Tertullian was arguing against what he called Patripassim, or the idea that the Father suffered on the cross, he coined several words into Latin that had not existed before or were used in different ways. In fact Tertullian is credited with coining hundreds of new Latin terms throughout his writings.

One of these words was "persona." A persona was the theatrical mask worn by ancient Etruscan actors. The Etruscans were the civilization that dominated Northern Italy before the rise of Rome. And so, Tertullian's use of "persona" to make his disctinction between the Father and the Son came to be used as "Person." The phrase then took on all of the baggage and meaning that we think of today when we say someone is a "different person" from another.

Most educated Trinitarian scholars today are well aware of this and will snicker at the way the Fundamentalists use the idea to batter "heretics." The various "anti-cult" sites that promelgate this hillbilly perspective on the Trinity are guilty of twisting their own doctrine and denying their own cultural heritage.

We should not encourage this behavior by doing the same thing ourselves. The development of the Doctrine of the Trinity is complex and variagated. Today's Trinitarians are as well. There are many who really do say things like "God is three different People..." The fumbling contradiction in the verbs and nouns of such a statement is really a marvel to consider.

We are not helping anyone by condemning their views, even their unreasonable or short sighted ones. We need to first elevate the topic of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Then we need to make sure that we keep up to speed on things as well.

[revrandy]

Hey...PP???

Haven't you learned that Doctrine doesn't matter???

Why all the hatin' man....it's time to love.... Can't you see??

You got Truth blocking your sight man...

Get out there.. and create some Prosperity Pamphlets and offer them
to folks as a Christmas Blessing for just 35.00$ thats what the Gospel is all about....Wealth...Riches and Materialism.....

[mizpeh]

Pelathais,

What happened to Bernard? You failed to mention how he helped the Trinitarian cause?

[pelathais]

Pelathais,

What happened to Bernard? You failed to mention how he helped the Trinitarian cause?
I never said he helped the Trinitarian cause. He was the first OP however to publish a reliable history of the development of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

His book Oneness and Trinity: 100 AD to 300 AD, and it's follow up, The Trinitarian Controversy in the Fourth Century looked at the history as I described above.

[mizpeh]

I never said he helped the Trinitarian cause. He was the first OP however to publish a reliable history of the development of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

His book Oneness and Trinity: 100 AD to 300 AD, and it's follow up, The Trinitarian Controversy in the Fourth Century looked at the history as I described above.
Ohhh, okay... :rudolph

[pelathais]

Ohhh, okay... :rudolph
Are you trying to start a fight? :boxing

[mizpeh]

Are you trying to start a fight? :boxing

LOL, not at all! :bells

[ManOfWord]

Ever read anything from the late Jewish scholar, Gershom Scholem? His book "On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead" shows that not everything Jewish is about one God. As a matter of fact, he teaches there are nine manifestations of God. This plurality is very popular among Judaism. At one time, blowing Benny Hinn taught these same nine manifestations. Like Scholem, Hinn taught that there are three manifestations for each of the three degrees of the godhead. I wonder where Benny got that idea from. :winkgrin Definitely not his Bible! :nah

I believe Scholem got his info from the same place that the early apostate church got theirs. This same false doctrine influenced the false church's teachings on the creation of the trinity.

No, I have not read from Scholem but when I was attending "remedial Hebrew School" in a synagogue in the city where I pastored, the Rabbi mentioned this idea. It didn't sound like a theology that was entrenched or held in high esteem, but he did mention it. He also talked about the attributes such as wisdom etc. being personifications of God. However, even though they may talk about a plurality of personifications, I have yet to hear ONE Jewish person talk about a plurality of "persons."

Hinn took something he didn't really know about and ran with it and it got him in hot water. :D

[mizpeh]

Pelathais,

I don't want to leave the wrong impression. The portion quoted in my initial post on this thread was not written by me. If you click the link you can read the entire discussion.

MoW and Mizpeh pretty much nailed it.

[pelathais]

Pelathais,

I don't want to leave the wrong impression. The portion quoted in my initial post on this thread was not written by me. If you click the link you can read the entire discussion.
But even your summation at the top was excellent could stand by itself. Don't sell yourself short!

[ManOfWord]

MoW and Mizpeh pretty much nailed it.



So did Martin Luther!! :D


(although he was a rabid anti-semite)