\n| Various Trinitarian concepts exist. But generally the Trinity teaching is that in the Godhead there are three persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost; yet, together they are but one God.<\/p>\n The doctrine says that the three are coequal, almighty and uncreated, having existed eternally in the Godhead.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| \n God the Father is not God the Son is not God\u00a0<\/strong>the Holy Spirit [Ghost] is not God the Father.<\/strong><\/p>\nalso<\/p>\n The Father is a God, the Son is a God and the\u00a0<\/strong>Holy Spirit [Ghost] is a God.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nSupporters of the Trinity say that it is founded not only on religious tradition but also on the Bible. Critics of the doctrine say that it is NOT<\/strong> a Biblical teaching, one history source even declaring: \u201cThe origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.\u201d\u2014The Paganism in Our Christianity.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nWith Trinity as truth<\/span>: There is an unexplainable mystery<\/strong> \u2013 how can we explain that 1 God = 3 Gods while at the same time state that 3 Gods are just 1 God.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nWith Trinity as false<\/span>: Almighty God reigns Supreme; no-one is His equal, not even Mary the \u201cMother of God.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| As noted in the book\u00a0Catholicism:\u00a0\u201cUnless [people] keep this Faith whole and undefiled, without doubt [they] shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: we worship one God in Trinity.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nThe Trinity Explained<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| The Roman Catholic Church states: \u201cThe Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion .\u00a0.\u00a0. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: \u2018the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God and yet there are not three Gods but one God.\u2019 In this Trinity .\u00a0.\u00a0. the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.\u201d\u2014The Catholic Encyclopedia.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Nearly all other churches in\u00a0Christendom\u00a0agree. For example, the Greek Orthodox Church also calls the Trinity \u201cthe fundamental doctrine of Christianity,\u201d even saying: \u201cChristians are those who accept Christ as God.\u201d In the book\u00a0Our Orthodox Christian Faith,\u00a0the same church declares: \u201cGod is triune. .\u00a0.\u00a0. The Father is totally God. The Son is totally God. The Holy Spirit is totally God.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nThus, the Trinity is considered to be \u201cone God in three Persons.\u201d Each is said to be without beginning, having existed for eternity.\u00a0Each is said to be almighty, with each neither greater nor lesser than the others.<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nHard to follow?<\/strong> Many sincere believers have found it to be confusing, contrary to normal reason, unlike anything in their experience. How, they ask, could the Father be God, Jesus be God and the Holy Spirit be God, yet there be not three Gods but only one God?<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nWidespread confusion<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nThe Encyclopedia Americana\u00a0notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be \u201cbeyond the grasp of human reason<\/span>.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nMany who accept the Trinity view it that same way. Monsignor Eugene Clark says: \u201cGod is one and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it.\u201d Cardinal John O\u2019Connor states: \u201cWe know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don\u2019t begin to understand.<\/span>\u201d And Pope John Paul II speaks of \u201cthe inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity.<\/span>\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nThus,\u00a0A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge\u00a0says: \u201cPrecisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves.<\/strong>\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n1co14.33 For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace<\/span>, as in all churches of the saints.<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nHow could such a Confusing Doctrine Originate?<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| The Catholic Encyclopedia\u00a0claims: \u201cA dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation.\u201d Catholic scholars Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler state in their\u00a0Theological Dictionary:\u00a0\u201cThe Trinity is a mystery .\u00a0.\u00a0. in the strict sense .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0, which could not be known without revelation and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nIs It Clearly a Bible Teaching?<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nWith the Trinity as truth, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God\u2019s revelation of himself to mankind. God speaks to us through His Word; therefore our worship requirements to God HAVE<\/span> to be found in the Bible.<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nFirst-century believers accepted the Scriptures as the authentic revelation of God. It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority:<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nAc17.10 >And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews. <\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nAc17.11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. <\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nWhat did prominent men of God at that time use as their authority?:<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nAc17.2 <\/span>And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, <\/span><\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nAc17.3 Opening and alleging [explaining and proving by Scriptural references], that Christ must needs have suffered and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. <\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| The Scriptures were used by Jesus as the basis for His teaching, repeatedly saying: \u201cIt is written.\u201d \u201cHe interpreted to them things pertaining to Himself:<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nMt4.4 <\/span>But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.<\/span><\/span><\/b> [de8.3, lk4.4]<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nMt4.7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God<\/strong><\/span>.<\/span> [de6.16] <\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nLk24.27 <\/span>And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. <\/span><\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Jesus, Paul and first-century believers all used the Scriptures as the foundation for their teaching. They knew that:<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n2ti3.16 <\/span>All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: <\/span><\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n2ti3.17 <\/span>That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. <\/span><\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| See\u00a01\u00a0Corinthians 4:6;\u00a01\u00a0Thessalonians 2:13;\u00a02\u00a0Peter 1:20,\u00a021.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| The Bible should clearly reveal information about the Trinity so do theologians and historians themselves say that it is clearly a Bible teaching?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n\u201cTrinity\u201d in the Bible?<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| A Protestant publication states: \u201cThe word Trinity is not found in the Bible .\u00a0.\u00a0. It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century.\u201d [The Illustrated Bible Dictionary] And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity \u201cis not .\u00a0.\u00a0. directly and immediately [the] word of God.\u201d\u2014New Catholic Encyclopedia.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| The Catholic Encyclopedia\u00a0also comments: \u201cIn Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word ????? [tri?as] [of which the Latin\u00a0trinitas\u00a0is a translation] is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about\u00a0A.\u00a0D. 180. .\u00a0.\u00a0. Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of\u00a0trinitas\u00a0in Tertullian.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| However, this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the Trinity. The Catholic work\u00a0Trinitas\u2014A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity,\u00a0for example, notes that some of Tertullian\u2019s words were later used by others to\u00a0describe\u00a0the Trinity. Then it cautions: \u201cBut hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nTestimony of the Hebrew Scriptures<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| While the word \u201cTrinity\u201d is not found in the Bible, is at least the\u00a0idea\u00a0of the Trinity taught clearly in it? For instance, what do the Hebrew Scriptures [\u201cOld Testament\u201d] reveal?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nThe Encyclopedia of Religion\u00a0admits: \u201cTheologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not<\/strong><\/span> contain a doctrine of the Trinity.\u201d And the\u00a0New Catholic Encyclopedia\u00a0also says: \u201cThe doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not<\/strong><\/span> taught in the O[ld] T[estament].\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nSimilarly, in his book\u00a0The Triune God,\u00a0Jesuit Edmund Fortman admits: \u201cThe Old Testament .\u00a0.\u00a0. tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a\u00a0[Trinity]\u00a0within the Godhead.<\/strong>\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Even to see in [the \u201cOld Testament\u201d] suggestions or foreshadowings or \u2018veiled signs\u2019 of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nAn examination of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves will bear out these comments. Thus, there is no clear teaching of a Trinity in the first 39 books of the Bible that make up the true canon of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures.<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nTestimony of the Greek Scriptures<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Do the Christian Greek Scriptures [\u201cNew Testament\u201d] speak clearly of a Trinity?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| The Encyclopedia of Religion\u00a0says: \u201cTheologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| The New Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica\u00a0observes: \u201cNeither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nThus, neither the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures nor the canon of 27 inspired books of the Christian Greek Scriptures provide any clear teaching of the Trinity.<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nTaught by Early Christians?<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Did the early Christians teach the Trinity? Note the following comments by historians and theologians:<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| \u201cPrimitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds.\u201d\u2014The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| \u201cThe early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God and they recognised the .\u00a0.\u00a0. Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One.\u201d\u2014The Paganism in Our Christianity.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| \u201cAt first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian .\u00a0.\u00a0. It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew]\u00a0T[estament] and other early Christian writings.\u201d\u2014Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| \u201cThe formulation \u2018one God in three Persons\u2019 was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. .\u00a0.\u00a0. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.\u201d\u2014New Catholic Encyclopedia.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nWhat the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Irenaeus, who died about 200\u00a0AD, said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to\u00a0him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to\u00a0the\u00a0\u201cOne true and only God,\u201d who is\u00a0\u201csupreme\u00a0over all and besides whom there is no other.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Tertullian, who died about 230\u00a0 AD, taught the supremacy of God. He observed: \u201cThe Father is different from the Son [another], as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent.\u201d He also said: \u201cThere was a time when the Son was not. .\u00a0.\u00a0. Before all things, God was alone.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Origen, who died about 250\u00a0 AD, said that \u201cthe Father and Son are two substances .\u00a0.\u00a0. two things as to their essence,\u201d and that \u201ccompared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nThe testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nHow Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| As the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom? Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| That is partially correct. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the Holy Spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nConstantine\u2019s Role at Nicaea<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| For many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in\u00a0The Early Church:\u00a0\u201cConstantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; .\u00a0.\u00a0. his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace .\u00a0.\u00a0. It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The\u00a0Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica\u00a0relates: \u201cConstantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed .\u00a0.\u00a0. the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, \u2018of one substance with the Father\u2019 .\u00a0.\u00a0. Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Hence, Constantine\u2019s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. \u201cConstantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,\u201d says\u00a0A\u00a0Short History of Christian Doctrine.\u00a0What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire and he wanted to solidify his domain.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the Holy Spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nFurther Development<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| After Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD to clarify the formula.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nThat council agreed to place the Holy Spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom\u2019s Trinity began to come into focus.<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nYet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed.<\/strong> Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds.\u00a0The Encyclopedia Americana\u00a0notes: \u201cThe full development\u00a0of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nThe Athanasian Creed<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| The Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: \u201cWe worship one God in Trinity .\u00a0.\u00a0. The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Well-informed scholars agree, however, that Athanasius did not compose this creed.\u00a0The New Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica\u00a0comments: \u201cThe creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius [died 373] but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century. .\u00a0.\u00a0. The creed\u2019s influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th\u00a0century and somewhat later in Rome.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nSo it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? In\u00a0Origin and Evolution of Religion,\u00a0E.\u00a0W.\u00a0Hopkins answers: \u201cThe final orthodox definition of the\u00a0trinity was largely a matter of church politics.<\/strong>\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nApostasy Foretold<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| This disreputable history of the Trinity fits in with what Jesus and His apostles foretold would follow their time. They said that there would be an apostasy, a deviation, a falling away from true worship until Christ\u2019s return, when true worship would be restored before God\u2019s day of destruction of this system of things.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Regarding that \u201cday,\u201d the apostle Paul said:<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n2th2.3 <\/span>Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; <\/span><\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n2th2.7 <\/span>For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way. <\/span><\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nLater, Paul foretold:<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nAc20.29 <\/span>For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. <\/span><\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nAc20.30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. <\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nOther disciples of Jesus also wrote of this apostasy with its \u2018lawless\u2019 clergy class. Note\u00a02\u00a0Peter 2:1;\u00a01\u00a0John 4:1-3;\u00a0Jude 3,\u00a04.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Paul also wrote:<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n2ti4.3 <\/span>For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; <\/span><\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n2ti4.4 <\/span>And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables. <\/span><\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Jesus himself explained [Matthew 13:24-43] what was behind this falling away from true worship. He said that He had sowed good seeds but that the enemy, Satan, would oversow the field with weeds. So along with the first blades of wheat, the weeds appeared also. Thus, a deviation from pure Christianity was to be expected until the harvest, when Christ would set\u00a0matters\u00a0right.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| The Encyclopedia Americana\u00a0comments: \u201cFourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.\u201d Where, then, did this deviation originate?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n1ti1.6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; <\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nWhat Influenced It<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Throughout the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece and Rome in the centuries before, during and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Historian Will Durant observed: \u201cChristianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. .\u00a0.\u00a0. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.\u201d And in the book\u00a0Egyptian Religion,\u00a0Siegfried Morenz notes: \u201cThe trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians .\u00a0.\u00a0. Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers \u201cAlexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge\u00a0notes that many say that the Trinity \u201cis a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions and ingrafted on the Christian faith.\u201d And\u00a0The Paganism in Our Christianity\u00a0declares: \u201cThe origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| That is why, in the\u00a0Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics,\u00a0James Hastings wrote: \u201cIn Indian religion,\u00a0e.g.,\u00a0we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahm?, Siva and Vi??u; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis and Horus .\u00a0.\u00a0. Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality,\u201d which is \u201ctriadically represented.\u201d What does the Greek philosopher Plato have to do with the Trinity?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nPlatonism<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Plato lived from c.428 to c.347 BC. While he did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up and these were influenced by Plato\u2019s ideas of God and nature.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| The Church of the First Three Centuries\u00a0says: \u201cThe doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; .\u00a0.\u00a0. it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; .\u00a0.\u00a0. it grew up and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| By the end of the third century AD, \u201cChristianity\u201d and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in\u00a0Outlines of the History of Dogma,\u00a0church doctrine became \u201cfirmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| In the book\u00a0A Statement of Reasons,\u00a0Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: \u201cWe can\u00a0trace the history of this doctrine and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy .\u00a0.\u00a0. The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Thus, in the fourth century AD, the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Development of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul and idolatry. Spiritually speaking, Christendom had entered its foretold dark ages, dominated by a growing \u201cman of lawlessness\u201d clergy class. See 2\u00a0Thessalonians 2:3,\u00a07 above.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nWhy Did God\u2019s Prophets Not Teach It?<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Why, for thousands of years, did none of God\u2019s prophets teach His people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use His ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to His followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the \u201ccentral doctrine\u201d of faith?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to His servants for thousands of years, one that is an \u201cinscrutable mystery\u201d \u201cbeyond the grasp of human reason,\u201d one that admittedly had a pagan background and was \u201clargely a matter of church politics\u201d?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nThe testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it<\/span>.<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\u201cThe Triad of the Great Gods\u201d<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Many centuries before the time of Christ, there were triads, or trinities, of gods in ancient Babylonia and Assyria. The French \u201cLarousse Encyclopedia of Mythology\u201d notes one such triad in that Mesopotamian area: \u201cThe universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nHindu Trinity<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| The book \u201cThe Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals\u201d says regarding a Hindu trinity that existed centuries before Christ: \u201cSiva is one of the gods of the Trinity. He is said to be the god of destruction. The other two gods are Brahma, the god of creation and Vishnu, the god of maintenance. .\u00a0.\u00a0. To indicate that these three processes are one and the same the three gods are combined in one form.\u201d\u2014Published by A.\u00a0Parthasarathy, Bombay.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nWhat Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus?<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| If people were to read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of a Trinity, would they arrive at such a concept on their own? Not at all.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| What comes through very clearly to an impartial reader is that God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, separate and distinct from anyone else and that Jesus, even in His prehuman existence, is also separate and distinct, the only begotten Son of God and from the bosom of the Father, and always subordinate to God the Father.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nGod Is One, Not Three<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| The Bible teaching that God is one is called monotheism. And L.\u00a0L.\u00a0Paine, professor of ecclesiastical history, indicates that monotheism in its purest form does not allow for a Trinity: \u201cThe Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there .\u00a0.\u00a0. is utterly without foundation.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Was there any change from monotheism after Jesus came to the earth? Paine answers: \u201cOn this point there is no break between the Old Testament and the New. The monotheistic tradition is continued. Jesus was a Jew, trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testament scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to the core; a new gospel indeed, but not a new theology. .\u00a0.\u00a0. And he accepted as his own belief the great text of Jewish monotheism:\u00a0\u2018Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.\u2019\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Thousands of times throughout the Bible, God is spoken of as one person. When He speaks, it is as one undivided individual. The Bible could not be any clearer on this. As God states:<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nIs42.8 I [am] the LORD: that [is] my name<\/span>: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.<\/strong> [de6.4; ml2.10; mk12.29-30,32; jn17.3; ro3.30; 1co8.4&6; ep4.6; 1ti2.5; ja2.19]<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Ex20.2 <\/span>I [am] the | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |