Home

De Trinitatis Erroribus

(The Error of the Trinity) - Part 6

Dedicated to Michael Servetus: 1511-53

HOLY SPIRIT

Gregory of Nazianzus: "Some assume that [the holy spirit] is a power (energeia), some a creature, some that he is God, some cannot decide which of these."

New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The O[ld] T[estament] clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor in the Semitic sense. God's spirit is simply God's power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly. ... The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Volume 14, page 299: "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. . . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."

The Story of Civilization: Part III, page 595: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity."

Joan of Arc was burned to death in England in 1550. The Encyclopędia Britannica (1964): "She was condemned for open blasphemy in denying the Trinity, the one offense which all the church had regarded as unforgivable ever since the struggle with Arianism."

New Catholic Encyclopedia: "But how does one preach the Trinity?" ... "If the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors. If 'the Trinity' here means Trinitarian theology, the best answer would be that one does not preach it at all . . . because the sermon, and especially the Biblical homily, is the place for the word of God, not its theological elaboration."

Professor Norton: "It appears, then, that while other questions of far less difficulty (for instance, the circumcision of the Gentile converts) were subjects of such doubt and controversy that even the authority of the Apostles was barely sufficient to establish the truth, this doctrine [the Trinity], so extraordinary, so obnoxious, and so hard to be understood, was introduced in silence, and received without hesitation, dislike, opposition, or misapprehension."

The History of Christianity, by Peter Eckler: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians, (who differed from their fellow Jews only in the belief that Jesus was the promised Messiah,) 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."

Oxford University Professor J. N. D. Kelly: "During the first three centuries of its existence, the Christian Church had first to emerge from the [monotheistic] Jewish environment that had cradled it and then come to terms with the predominantly Hellenistic (Greek) culture surrounding it. ... "Most of them exploited current philosophical conceptions. . . . They have been accused of Hellenizing Christianity (making it Greek in form and method), but they were in fact attempting to formulate it in intellectual categories congenial [suited] to their age. In a real sense they were the first Christian theologians."

French encyclopedia Alpha: "Most religious traditions or philosophical systems set forth ternary [threefold] groups or triads that correspond to primeval forces or to aspects of the supreme God."

"The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."-Dictionnaire Lachatre.

Encyclopędia Britannica (1976, Macropędia): "Such a Hellenization did, to a large extent, take place. The definition of the Christian faith as contained in the creeds of the ecumenical synods of the early church indicate that unbiblical categories of Neoplatonic philosophy were used in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity."

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: "Perhaps recollection of the many triads of the surrounding polytheistic world contributed to the formation of these threefold formulae."

Encyclopędia Britannica: "The question as to how to reconcile the encounter with God in this threefold figure with faith in the oneness of God, which was the Jews' and Christians' characteristic mark of distinction over against paganism, agitated the piety of ancient Christendom in the deepest way. It also provided the strongest impetus for a speculative theology-an impetus that inspired Western metaphysics [philosophy] throughout the centuries."

Historian J. N. D. Kelly: "The evidence to be collected from the Apostolic Fathers is meagre, and tantalizingly inconclusive. . . . Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign. ... What the Apologists had to say about the Holy Spirit was much more meagre . . . [They] appear to have been extremely vague as to the exact status and role of the Spirit. . . . There can be no doubt that the Apologists' thought was highly confused; they were very far from having worked the threefold pattern of the Church's faith into a coherent scheme. .. The evidence to be collected from the Apostolic Fathers is meagre, and tantalizingly inconclusive. . . . Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign."-Oxford Professor J. N. D. Kelly Early Christian Doctrines.

"The Trinitarians and the Unitarians continued to confront each other, the latter at the beginning of the 3rd century still forming the large majority." (Encyclopędia Britannica, 11th edition)

"The Christian Bible, including the New Testament, has no trinitarian statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity."-Encyclopędia Britannica

"Perhaps recollection of the many triads of the surrounding polytheistic world contributed to the formation of these threefold formulae."-Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

"The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion-the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons. . . . Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: 'the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.' . . . This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system."-The Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century . . . Although Scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the Trinity, it contains all the elements out of which theology has constructed the doctrine."

The Catholic Encyclopedia: "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian."

Encyclopędia Britannica: "Christian theology took the Neoplatonic metaphysics [philosophy] of substance as well as its doctrine of hypostases [essence, or nature] as the departure point for interpreting the relationship of the 'Father' to the 'Son.'"

Britannica: "From the outset, the controversy between both parties [at Nicaea] took place upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of substance, which was foreign to the New Testament itself. It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New Testament."

The 15-volume Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique: "It seems unquestionable that the revelation of the mystery of the Trinity was not made to the Jews."

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary: "It must be remembered that the O[ld] T[estament] was written before the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity was clearly given."

Oxford scholar R. B. Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament: "Many critics, however, of unimpeachable [Trinitarian] orthodoxy, think it wiser to rest where such divines as Cajetan [a theologian] in the Church of Rome and Calvin among Protestants were content to stand, and to take the plural form as a plural of majesty."

The Catholic Encyclopedia: "Even these exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour to come was to be none other than God Himself."

Cyclopędia by M'Clintock and Strong: "Thus it appears that none of the passages cited from the Old Test[ament] in proof of the Trinity are conclusive . . . We do not find in the Old Test[ament] clear or decided proof upon this subject."

M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopędia (re Matthew 28:19): "The connection of these three subjects does not prove their personality or equality."

Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: "The N[ew] T[estament] does not actually speak of triunity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae of the NT."

ROMANS 9.5 -- IS CHRIST "GOD"?

A Catholic Dictionary: "The strongest statement of Christ's divinity in St. Paul, and, indeed, in the N[ew] T[estament] [is Romans 9:5]."

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology acknowledges that even if a Trinitarian rendering of the Greek were accurate, "Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos [God] has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology [praise] directed to God."

A Catholic Dictionary: "There is no reason in grammar or in the context which forbids us to translate 'God, who is over all, be blessed for ever, Amen.'"

Professor Johannes Schneider, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: "All this underlines the point that primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church."

HOLY SPIRIT

The Catholic Encyclopedia: "Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person."

A Catholic Dictionary: "On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power."

The New Encyclopędia Britannica: "The emergence of Trinitarian speculations in early church theology led to great difficulties in the article about the Holy Spirit. For the being-as-person of the Holy Spirit, which is evident in the New Testament as divine power . . . could not be clearly grasped. . . . The Holy Spirit was viewed not as a personal figure but rather as a power. ... Nevertheless, with Athanasius (died 373) the idea of the complete homoousia (essence) of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son was achieved."

A Catholic Dictionary: "The true divinity of the third Person was asserted at a Council of Alexandria in 362, . . . and finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381."

A Catholic Dictionary: "Most of these places furnish no cogent proof of personality. . . . We must not forget that the N[ew] T[estament] personifies mere attributes such as love (1 Cor. xiii. 4), and sin (Rom. vii. 11), nay, even abstract and lifeless things, such as the law (Rom. iii. 19), the water and the blood (1 Jo 5:8; 1 Jn. v. 8)."

"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 Paganism in Our Christianity, by Arthur Weigall)

Volume 2 of The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (1976): "A few N[ew] T[estament] texts [that] raise the question whether the Son of God is also called God. ... Jesus Christ does not usurp the place of God. His oneness with the Father does not mean absolute identity of being. Although the Son of God in his pre-existent being was in the form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6). In his earthly existence he was obedient to God, even unto death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). He is the mediator, but not the originator, of salvation (2 Cor. 5:19; Col. 1:20; Heb. 9:15), the lamb of God who bears the sins of the world (Jn. 1:36). After the completion of his work on earth he has indeed been raised to the right hand of God (Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 3:22) and invested with the honour of the heavenly Kyrios, Lord (Phil. 2:9 f.). But he is still not made equal to God. Although completely coordinated with God, he remains subordinate to him. (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28). This is true also of his position as eternal high priest in the heavenly sanctuary according to Heb. (Heb. 9:24; 10:12 f.; cf. Ps. 110:1). He represents us before God (cf. also Rom. 8:34). If in Rev. 1:13 ff. the appearance of the heavenly son of man is described with features from the picture of the 'Ancient of Days' (God) of Dan. 7, this is not to say that Christ is equal with God. In Rev. a distinction is always made between God and the 'Lamb'."

Switzerland, Vocabulaire biblique (1954, p. 72): "No New Testament writings supply explicit assurance of a triune God."

Ian Henderson, University of Glasgow, Encyclopedia International (1969):

"The doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the apostles' preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament." (page 226)

London Observer December 3, 1978: "One of Britain's leading Anglican theologians, the Rev. Dr Geoffrey Lampe, . . . has come out with a strong challenge to the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity. . . . He said the Trinity doctrine-God consisting of three 'Persons'-has 'not much' future."

Berlin, Germany, Doctor of Theology J. Schneider: "Jesus Christ does not usurp the place of God. His oneness with the Father does not mean absolute identity of being. Although the Son of God in his preexistent being was in the form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6). . . . Although completely co-ordinated with God, he remains subordinate to him." (Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament (1965), Vol. 2, p. 606.

Journal of Biblical Literature: "In many passages where the persons of God and Christ were clearly distinguishable, the removal of the Tetragram must have created considerable ambiguity. . . . Once the confusion was caused by the change in the divine name in the quotations, the same confusion spread to other parts of the NT where quotations were not involved at all. ... Did such restructuring of the text give rise to the later christological [about the nature of Christ] controversies within the church, and were the NT passages involved in these controversies identical with those which in the NT era apparently created no problems at all? . . . Are [current christological] studies based on the NT text as it appeared in the first century, or are they based on an altered text which represents a time in church history when the difference between God and Christ was confused in the text and blurred in the minds of churchmen?"

Alvan Lamson, D.D: "For the original and distinctive features of the doctrine of the Logos, as held by the learned Fathers of the second and third centuries, we must look, not to the Jewish Scriptures, nor to the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, but to Philo [the Jewish philosopher of the first century C.E.] and the Alexandrine Platonists. In consistency with this view, we maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers; that in the time of Justin [c. 100-165 C.E.], and long after, the distinct nature and inferiority of the Son were universally taught; and that only the first shadowy outline of the Trinity had then become visible."-The Church of the First Three Centuries, p. 34.

"The Myth of God Incarnate" (John Hick): "There is actually nothing new about the central themes of this book ... That the historical Jesus did not present Himself as God incarnate is accepted by all [theologians] . . . Christian laymen today are not fully aware of it. ... (Jesus) did not teach the doctrine of the trinity."

RE 3.14

Albert Barnes re the Greek word translated "beginning" or "origin": "The word properly refers to the commencement of a thing, not its authorship, and denotes properly primacy in time, and primacy in rank, but not primacy in the sense of causing anything to exist. . . . The word is not, therefore, found in the sense of authorship, as denoting that one is the beginning of anything in the sense that he caused it to have an existence. ... If it were demonstrated from other sources that Christ was, in fact, a created being, and the first that God had made, it cannot be denied that this language would appropriately express that fact." (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, p. 1569.)

N. Leroy Norquist, The Lutheran: "The men who framed [the Trinity] designed it as a tool to be used against heretics. In fighting heresy, they experimented with words, sharpened phrases, until they had defined the relation of the three 'persons' of the Trinity."

Catholic theologian Walter Farrell: "The mystery of the Trinity, as God has told it to us, is the mystery of three divine persons, really distinct, in one and the same divine nature: coequal, coeternal, consubstantial, one God. Of these persons, the Second proceeds from the First by an eternal generation; the Third proceeds from the First and the Second by an eternal spiration. . . . The Trinity is a mystery; no doubt about it. Unless we had been told of its existence, we would never have suspected such a thing. Moreover, now that we know that there is a Trinity, we cannot understand it. The man who attempts to unravel the mystery is in the position of a near-sighted man straining his eyes from the Eastern Shore of Maryland for a glimpse of Spain."

New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true."

MT 28.19

Greek scholar A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. I, p. 245): "The use of name ([Greek] onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority."

The Oxford Companion to the Bible: "Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking thatg the term does not appear in the NT. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected with the confines of the canon. ... (Mt 28.19) ... Matthew records a special connection between God the Father and Jesus the Son but he falls short of claiming that Jesus is equal with God. ... it is important to avoid reading the Trinity into places here it does not appear." (pages 782-3) The Dictionary of New Testament Theology: "The NT does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. ‘The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence and there in an equal sense God himself. ... These two express declarations, which go beyond the witness of the Bible.’ (Karl Barth)" (Vol 2, page 84)

"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 bound 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, in his book The Paganism in Our Christianity, p. 198)

The Expository Times, Theologian Vincent Taylor: "The Gospels clearly show that the knowledge of Jesus was limited, that He asked questions for the sake of information . . . that He challenged the rich ruler who addressed Him as 'Good Master' with the question, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.' [Mark 10:18] These issues have constantly caused embarrassment and must continue to do so if without qualification Jesus is described as God."

The New Bible Dictionary: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and, though used by Tertullian in the last decade of the 2nd century, it did not find a place formally in the theology of the Church till the 4th century."

Theologian G. H. Boobyer: "Do we not find the orthodox doctrine of the person of Christ a source of much perplexity to enquiring non-christians and to many a christian believer under instruction? 'True God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father' and 'the selfsame perfect in Godhead, the selfsame perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man'-thus runs the familiar language . . . Must it not be conceded that to many intelligent lay folk it seems sheer mystification?" (Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Spring 1968, page 248.)

Professor E. Washburn Hopkins, Origin and Evolution of Religion, page 336: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; at any rate, they say nothing about it."

Episcopal professor of church history James Arthur Muller: "This lack of a formulated doctrine of the Trinity reflects the theological thought of the second century. In the works of Justin Martyr, who wrote in about 150 A.D., the preexistence of the Son is stressed, yet in relation to the Father He is spoken of as 'in the second place.'" (Creeds and Loyalty, page 9.)

The Faith of Christendom, edited by B. A. Gerrish: "So far, then, from being composed by the Apostles in person, we have no reason to assume that the Creed which bears their title appeared less than five hundred years after their time. ... (p 61) ... The attribution of the Creed to Athanasius was exposed in the seventeenth century by the Dutch scholar G. J. Voss. It has been argued on internal evidence that the document may be dated to the period between A.D. 381 and 428."

John J. Moment: "Athanasius had been dead for five hundred years when it appeared. ... Its stereotyped definitions have continued to be accepted in Protestantism, more or less consciously, as the norm of orthodoxy." (We Believe, page 118)

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967 edition, Vol. XIV, pp. 306, 304): "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the OT [Old Testament] ... It is not, as already seen, directly and immediately the word of God. ... The formulation 'one God in three persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."

"Whatever may have been the true character of Constantine's conversion to the Christian faith, its consequences were of vast importance both to the empire and to the Church of Christ. It opened the way for the unobstructed propagation of the Gospel to a wider extent than at any former period of its history. All impediments to an open profession of Christianity were removed, and it became the established religion of the empire. Numerous, however, in various points of view, as were the advantages accruing to it from this change, it soon began to suffer from being brought into close contact with the fostering influence of secular power. The simplicity of the Gospel was corrupted; pompous rites and ceremonies were introduced; worldly honours and emoluments were conferred on the teachers of Christianity, and the kingdom of Christ in a good measure converted into a kingdom of this world."-Theological Dictionary, by Henderson and Buck. See also M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopędia, Volume 2, page 488a; and Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 1, pages 454ff.

H. G. Wells, God the Invisible King: "The writer is of opinion that the Council of Nicaea, which forcibly crystallised the controversies of two centuries and formulated the creed upon which all the existing Christian churches are based, was one of the most disastrous and one of the least venerable of all religious gatherings. ... The systematic destruction by the orthodox of all heretical writings, had about it none of that quality of honest conviction which comes to those who have a real knowledge of God; it was a bawling down of dissensions that, left to work themselves out, would have spoiled good business. ... A large majority of those who possess and repeat the Christian creeds have come into the practice so insensibly from unthinking childhood that only in the slightest way do they realise the nature of the statements to which they subscribe. They will speak and think of both Christ and God in ways flatly incompatible with the doctrine of the Triune deity upon which, theoretically, the entire fabric of all the churches rests. ... By faith we said of that stuffed scarecrow of divinity, that incoherent accumulation of antique theological notions, the Nicene deity, 'This is certainly no God.'"

New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]. . . . The mystery of the Holy Trinity was not revealed to the Chosen People of the OT." "One should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification." In fact, this authority dates the dogma of "one God in three Persons" to the last quarter of the fourth century. "Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."-Vol. XIV, pp. 306, 295, 299.

Theologian G. H. Boobyer: "Do we not find the orthodox doctrine of the person of Christ a source of much perplexity to enquiring non-christians and to many a christian believer under instruction? 'True God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father' and 'the selfsame perfect in Godhead, the selfsame perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man'-thus runs the familiar language . . . Must it not be conceded that to many intelligent lay folk it seems sheer mystification?"-Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Spring 1968, page 248.

CREEDS ---

Episcopal professor of church history James Arthur Muller: "This lack of a formulated doctrine of the Trinity reflects the theological thought of the second century. In the works of Justin Martyr, who wrote in about 150 A.D., the preexistence of the Son is stressed, yet in relation to the Father He is spoken of as 'in the second place.'"-Creeds and Loyalty, page 9.

John Henry Newman, who was made a cardinal by Pope Leo III in 1879, in his book entitled "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine," published in 1878: "Confiding then in the power of Christianity to resist the infection of evil, and to transmute the very instruments and appendages of demon worship to an evangelical use, and feeling also that these usages had originally come from primitive revelations and from the instinct of nature, though they had been corrupted; and that they must invent what they needed, if they did not use what they found; and that they were moreover possessed of the very archetypes, of which paganism attempted the shadows; the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, to imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace, as well as the philosophy of the educated class. 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.-Pages 355, 371, 373, edition of 1881

Cardinal Hosius (quoted): "We believe the doctrine of a triune God, because we have received it by tradition, though not mentioned at all in Scripture." (Conf. Cathol. Fidei, Chap. XXVI)

Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear." He says the idea of a coequal trinity "was only adopted by the [Roman Catholic] Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord; and the origin of the conception is entirely pagan." (Page 198) "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 bound by threes, for the end, the middle, and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity.' 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 Hindu trinity of Brahman, Siva, and Vishnu is another of the many and widespread instances of this theological conception. 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, and the Apostles' Creed, which is the earliest of the formulated articles of Christian faith, does not mention it."

Act passed April 21, 1649, in the state of Maryland, or rather the colony of Maryland: "By this Law, (1) Blasphemy against God, denying our Saviour Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, or denying the Holy Trinity, or the Godhead of any of the three persons, etc., was to be punished with death, and confiscation of lands and goods to the Lord Proprietary."

"The recognition of a trinity was universal in all the ancient nations of the world."-The Two Babylons, Hislop.

"The word triad, or trinity, was borrowed from the pagan schools of philosophy and introduced into the theology of Christians of the middle second century by Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch."-Bibliotheque Ecclesiastique, Dupin.

"Trinity is a very marked feature in Hindooism, and is discernible in Persian, Egyptian, Roman, Japanese, Indian and the most ancient Grecian mythologies."-Religious Dictionary, Abbott.

Scholar Jakób Jocz: "It is at this point that the gulf between the Church and the Synagogue opens before us in all its depth and significance. . . . The teaching of the divinity of Jesus Christ is an unpardonable offence in the eyes of Judaism."-The Jewish People and Jesus Christ.

Dr. J. H. Hertz, a rabbi: "This sublime pronouncement of absolute monotheism was a declaration of war against all polytheism . . . In the same way, the Shema excludes the trinity of the Christian creed as a violation of the Unity of God."

Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel: "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."-Volume 2, page 1467.

MOSLEMS, A Qur“anic: "The People of the Book went wrong: The Jews in breaking their Covenant, and slandering Mary and Jesus . . . and the Christians in raising Jesus the Apostle to equality with God" by means of the Trinity doctrine.-Surah 4:153-176, AYA.

"There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century."-New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 295.

"The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato's] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."-Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachātre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.[6]

From Eusebeias, PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL, Vol 2, pages 535-537)

Plato (Epistle to Dionysus) -- "I must explain it to you then in riddles, that if the tablet suffer any harm in the remote parts of sea or land, the reader may learn nothing. For the matter is thus: Around the King of the Universe are all things, and all are for His sake, and that is the cause of all things beautiful: and around the Second are the secondary things, and around the Third the tertiary."

How was this understood by Platonic disciples?

Eusebeias -- "These statements are referred, by those who attempt to explain Plato, to the First God, and to the Second Cause, and thirdly to the Soul of the Universe, defining it also as a third God."

Numenius (Of the Good) -- "(Eusebias) This is what Plotinus says. ‘This is the reason also of Plato’s TRINITIES: for he says that around the King of all are all the primaries, and around the second the secondaries, and around the third the TERTIARIES.’ And Numenius highly commending Plato’s doctrines in his treatise OF THE GOOD gives his own interpretation of the Second Cause as follows: ‘The First God being in Himself, is simple, because, being united throughout with Himself, He can never be divided. God however the Second and the Third is one."

THE FORMATION OF CHRISTIAN DOGMA (Prof Martin Werner, Bern) -- "The earliest Church authors, however, did not apparently take over their Logos doctrine from Gnosticism. (page 225) ... Thus in the great Gnostic systems, as later in Neoplatonism, the Nous held the place within the Church in its doctrine assigned to the Logos. ... Sometimes Philo is clearly the source of inspiration, sometimes Prov. viii, 22 ff., sometimes it is a question of an attempt at a compromise between this key passage of the Old Testament and John i, I. (226) ... With Justin and Irenaeus the process of de-eschatologising the Primitive Christian conception of Christ, assisted by the Logos doctrine, was able even to achieve the transformation of the apocalyptic Christ into the Platonic World-Soul." (228)

 EB CD-ROM, under "Trinity- history of the doctrine" -- "The diversity in interpretation of the Trinity was conditioned especially through the understanding of the figure of Jesus Christ.According to the theology of the Gospel According to John, the divinity of Jesus Christ constituted the departure point for understanding his person and efficacy. The Gospel According to Mark, however, did not proceed from a theology of incarnation but instead understood the baptism of Jesus Christ as the adoption of the man Jesus Christ into the Sonship of God, accomplished through the descent of the Holy Spirit. The situation became further aggravated by the conceptions of the special personal character of the manifestation of God developed by way of the historical figure of Jesus Christ; the Holy Spirit was viewed not as a personal figure but rather as a power and appeared graphically only in the form of the dove and thus receded, to a large extent, in the Trinitarian speculation."

Regarding the masculine gender PARAKLETO(S, N) [Paraclete, Comforter, Helper] --- The dictionary defines "personify" as, "to think or speak of a thing has having life or personality ... as, we personify a ship by referring to it as ‘she’." This personification of abstractions or powers is shown from Genesis 4.7 The New English Bible (NE) says: "Sin is a demon crouching at the door." Proverbs chs 1 and 8 compare Wisdom (SOPHIA) to a woman. Jesus says: "Wisdom is vindicated by all her children." (Lk 7.35 RSV) Paul has "sin" and "death" as kings who "rule" and possess "desires." (Ro 5.14, 21; 6.12) He has the "higher powers" as "she." (Ro 13.3, 4)

Unlike English many languages have verbs with gender. Though PARAKLETOS is masculine, PNEUMA (Spirit) is not, it is neuter, or "it." This is seen in Romans 8.16 where the United Bible Societies’ interlinear renders: "Itself (AUTO) the spirit witnesses with the spirit of us," or, "the spirit itself bears witness." The Catholic New American Bible admits this regarding John 14.17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'"

Other abstractions are given personality. Note the Nazarene at John 3.8: "The wind [PNEUMA, neuter "spirit"] blows where it chooses [wishes, wills, pleases]." Compare 1 John 5.6-8: "There are three that testify [Jn 15.26] the spirit, and the water and the blood."

When Jesus speaks of the neuter PNEUMA as a masculine PARAKLETOS is he using a "metaphor" (RIEU), "similitude" (UBSint), "figure of speech" (NASB), "proverbs" (KJV), "parables" (KNX), or "comparisons" (NWT) and not literally? (Jn 16.25, 29)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The O[ld] T[estament] clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person . . . God's spirit is simply God's power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly. ... The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God. ... On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power. ... Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person."

Catholic theologian Edmund Fortman: "The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view. . . . The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a divine force or power. ... Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person." (The Triune God)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God." (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: "The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally."-Vol. XIV, p. 296.

 REGARDING THE HOLY SPIRIT: Do you agree with the Nazarene? Is the Sender "greater" than the one sent? "A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one that is sent forth greater than the one that sent him." (Jn 13.16) Is the Holy Spirit "sent" or not? (Jn 14.26)

The words of church historian Neander --- of whom McClintock and Strong's Cyclopędia describes as, "Universally conceded to be by far the greatest of ecclesiastical historians" --- wrote: "In A.D. 380, great indistinctness prevailed among the different parties respecting this dogma so that a contemporary could say, 'Some of our theologians regard the holy spirit simply as a mode of divine operation; others as a creature of God; others as God himself; others again, say that they know not which of the opinions to accept from their reverence for Holy Writ, which says nothing upon the subject.'"

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God." (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: "The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally."-Vol. XIV, p. 296.

THE DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY (Vol 3, pp. 689-701) -- "Spirit ... denotes dynamic movement of the air. ... ‘Holy Spirit’ denotes supernatural POWER. ... This is nowhere more clearly evident than in Acts where the Spirit is presented as an almost tangible FORCE, visible if not in itself, certainly in its affects. ... For the first Christians, the Spirit was most characteristically a divine POWER manifesting itself in inspired utterance. ... The Spirit was evidently experienced as a numinous POWER pervading the early community and giving its early leadership an aura of authority which could not be withstood. (Acts 5.1-10) ... It is important to realize that for Paul too the Spirit is a divine POWER."

"The Holy Spirit is a DYNAMIS [power] and is expressly so called in Lk (24.49) ["Look, I am sending forth upon you that which is promised by my Father. You, though, abide in the city until you beocme clothed with power from on high."] and DYNAMIS HYPSISTOU, Lk (1.35) ["Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will over shadow you."]. ... In some pass. the Holy Spirit is rhetorically represented as a Person." (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, page 522) (Compare Ac 1.11; 5.11, 55)

Theological Workbook of the Old Testament, Vol 2, page 836-7: "The basic idea of RUAH (Grk pneuma) is ‘air in motion.’ ... "’The RUAH spirit of God is in my nostrils.’ (Job 27.3) ... The ‘breath’ of God may be a strong wind. (Is 40.7) ... His ‘spirit’ may indicate no more than active power. (Is 40.13)"

 Regarding the holy spirit speaking in Acts 13.1-4:
Note the context, for the first verse mentions "prophets and teachers" in the Antioch ecclesia. Then following this it states: "The holy spirit said: 'Separate to me Barnabas and Paul.'" Does it not seem that the one who really spoke would be one of the prophets? So "the God of our Lord" used His own power and influence (the holy spirit) to speak through such prophet? The work THE PEOPLE'S NEW TESTAMENT WITH NOTES (B. W. Johnson), page 470, footnote #2: "The Holy Spirit said. By an inspiration given to some one of these prophets." This is consistent with examples in the OT where the NT says the spirit said something when it was the prophet. Note Jer 31.31-33 and Heb 10.15, 16: "Moreover the holy spirit also bears witness to us, for after it has said: 'This is the covenant ... '"

Regarding the English word "spirit" --- THE ROOTS OF ENGLISH, page 229: "[Latin SPIRARE, to breathe." Thus it equals both the Hebrew (RUACH) and Greek (PNEUMA) for "breath." Thus, "spirit of God" is reasonably rendered "Breath of God" or "Wind of God." The word "spirit" has taken on a corporeal tone like the word "ghost." Likely, if the word PNEUMA had been rendered "breath" or "wind" in English the Holy Spirit would not have developed so strongly in English as a Person separate from God. Some translators actually do render RUACH as "wind" in Genesis 1.2. (NJB: a divine wind)

Note the parallels between spirit and breath (wind) in poetic verses. Psalm 18.10, "Yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind (RUACH/PNEUMA)." (KJV, ASV, JPS, NEB) Psalm 33.6: "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath (RUACH/PNEUMA) of his mouth." (KJV, NJB) Psalm 104.30: "Thou sendest forth thy spirit (RUACH/PNEUMA), they are created." [NJB: you give breath]

What "the spirit of God" is can be understood by comparing it to the "spirit of man." Many score times does the Bible speak of man’s inner attributes of mind which may be vented by his breath such as in anger. This "spirit" is not another person but part and parcel of the person himself. Thus, the "spirit of God" is also that inner attribute of the Divine Mind which the Creator can project from Himself to accomplish His will. The two cannot be separated. Thus, if a person sin against the spirit of God it is the same as sinning against God. (Nu 12.1-16; Ac 5.1-4) If one blaspheme the spirit of God it is the same as blaspheming God, but not necessarily the Son. (Mt 12.31, 32)

 REGARDING THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS: Some use the words of the Pharisees to prove Jesus is God when they quote them: "No one can forgive sins but God." Is this statement by the religious hierarchy of the day accurate? How did Jesus respond to it and did this prove he thought he was God?

Matthew 9.1-8 reads: "So, boarding the boat, he proceeded across and went into his own city. 2 And, look! they were bringing him a paralyzed man lying on a bed. On seeing their faith Jesus said to the paralytic: "Take courage, child; your sins are forgiven." 3 And, look! certain of the scribes [Lk - and Pharisees] said to themselves: "This fellow is blaspheming. [Mk 2.7 -- Who but God can forgive sins?]" 4 And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said: "Why are YOU thinking wicked things in YOUR hearts? 5 For instance, which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Get up and walk? 6 However, in order for YOU to know that the Son of man HAS AUTHORITY on earth to forgive sins-" then he said to the paralytic: "Get up, pick up your bed, and go to your home." 7 And he got up and went off to his home. 8 At the sight of this the crowds were struck with fear, and they glorified [The] GOD, WHO GAVE SUCH AUTHORITY TO MEN." Who gave the Son this authority?

Is Jesus the only one who could forgive sins? Note what Jesus says to Peter and the apostles: "And after he said this he blew upon them and said to them: "Receive holy spirit. 23 If YOU FORGIVE THE SINS of any persons, they stand forgiven to them; if YOU retain those of any persons, they stand retained." (Jn 20.22, 23)

Is it fair to state that this argument about who can forgive sins as proof of Jesus’ deity is misused? Is it fair to say that the idea originated with the enemies of Jesus?

Nazarene Saints Publishing © Copyright. 1997. All Rights Reserved.

595 West Stetson Avenue, Suite 2 Hemet, CA 92543 USA email:

Back to the Friends of the Nazarene - Trinity Page

The page has been viewed Since April 27, 1999