of 15
7/28/2019 TRINITY ORIGINS
1/15
TRINITY ORIGINS
I. TRINITY ORIGINSTHE ANTIQUITY OF PAGAN TRINITIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD
This article will propose to examine the philosophical and pagan origins of the Trinity
and its early development. Pagan pantheons (national families of gods) of the various
ethnic gods will be compared, and triads (sets of three gods) in these pantheons will beexamined for specific trinitarian qualities. The antiquity of the Babylonian pantheon, and
its subsequent influence upon the various pantheons, is pointed out.
The idea of the Greek Logos (Word), a secondary, derived messenger god, is seen inthe ancient pantheons of the nations with a clear differentiation observed between the
pagan-philosophical use of the term logos (word), and the Hebrew understanding of the
term in their writings up to the time of Philo, the Jewish priest-philosopher of Alexandria.
The gnostic influence of the Greek and neoplatonic philosophers upon the architects ofthe Christian Trinity is emphasized, especially the critical role of Philo in the
development of the Logosdoctrine, which is a keystone doctrine of trinitarian theology.
The Catholic fathers of the Trinity are identified, and comments will be made upon the
comparative, developmental trinitarian theology among them.
Theological concepts developed by early trinitarians will be noted. One such example is
subordinationism, a fatal flaw of trinitarian theology, which forever subordinates Jesus
Christ to the status of a secondary, derived God.
The antiquity of the Trinity is not denied. On the contrary, the Trinity doctrine has taken
many millennia to develope, and is yet in the process of change.
Our study will show that the Trinity is actually of pagan, philosophical ancestry, and wasengrafted onto, and accomodated to, Christian theology.
Many scholars in comparative religion and mythology have found common relationships
and attributes among the various pantheons.
Alexander Hislop, in his TWO BABYLONS, seems to trace the various mythologies
back to a common heritage. Hislop pointed out the antiquity of the theological concept ofthe Trinity by giving examples of pagan trinities in Siberia, Japan, and India. He noted
7/28/2019 TRINITY ORIGINS
2/15
that the recognition of the Trinity was universal in all the ancient nations of the world.
He went so far as to say that the supreme divinity in almost all heathen nations was
triune. While Hislop was attempting to prove that mankind has always believed in atrinity, he also unwittingly shows the pagan origins of the idea of a trinity.
NO TEACHING OF A TRINITY IN OLD TESTAMENT JUDAISM
Arthur Wainwright can find no doctrine remotely resembling the doctrine of the Trinity
taught in Judaism, the ancestor of Christianity, until the time of Philo in the first century
AD. And we know that Philo, even though he was a Jewish priest, was heavily influencedby Greek pagan thought.
The idea of a plural God was far from the Hebrew mind. The non-canonical book of
Jubilees (second century BC) alters the plural verb of Genesis 1.26, in conformity withGenesis 1.27, stating, And after all this he created man, a man and a woman, created he
them (Jubilees 2.14).
Both the Palestinian Targum and the Jerusalem Targum maintain that God was addressingthe angels in Genesis 3.22 and in Genesis 11.7.
The Jews, who, after all, wrote the Old Testament under the inspiration of the Spirit,
themselves refute the presence of any Trinity in Genesis.
VARIOUS ANCIENT PAGAN TRIADS
The pagan idea of a triad is very old. Sumerians, according to Morris Jastrow, paid
homage to a triad of El-lil, god or lord of the storm, Ea, water deity of Eridu on the
Persian Gulf, and Anu, sun god of Ur-uk.
El-lil, was called the father of Sumer (Shinar), and chief of gods, creator and
sustainer of life. The universe was apparently up among these three pre-eminent
deities.
Later, Marduk, the firstborn of Ea, and the patron deity of Babylon, is made god of the
earth,and his symbol, oddly enough, is the dragon. He was called Bel or Baal (lord).
Ashur, the god of the Assyrian capital was a sun god, and his consort or wife was
Ishtar, the great mother goddess of Nineveh, a city founded by Ninus or Nimrod.
Ishtar, known as Ashtoreth to the Phoenicians, and Astarte to the Greeks, was often
portrayed riding on a lion. She was called the daughter of the moon, and identified in
astrology as the Roman Venus (goddess of love). She was also known as Nana or
7/28/2019 TRINITY ORIGINS
3/15
Madonna (Lady).
Morris Jastrow tells us that the Mother Goddess was quite common throughout theMiddle east. She was brought from Asia minor to Rome with the hope that her statue
(idol) might save the Roman state from the Carthaginians.
Ishtar has a bloody history as a goddess. She was reputedly the murderer of her consortTammuz (variously known as Baal, Adonis, the Egyptian Osiris, the Greek Bacchus, or
simply Nimrod). Queen Semiramis later brought forth an illegitimate son, which she
claimed was Nimrod resurrected. He was called El-Bar, or God the Son, and theBranch of Cush. Thus was formulated one of the ancient triadic patterns of father,
mother, son
The early triadic pattern is noted in connection with the construction of the Tower ofBabel. Diodorus Siculus, in his Bibliotheca, relates that in the topmost completed story of
the Tower was placed the images of three gods.
Franz Cumont tells us that triads were very common in the religion of the Chaldeans. TheBabylonian triad became the Syrian triad of Hadad, Atargatis, and Simios. In Rome, this
triad was Jupiter, Venus, and Mercury. Not only did the triadic pattern of deity spreadthroughout the world, but Cumont remarks on the continuing influence of the Babylonianpriesthood after the fall of Babylon from political leadership.
The system of the Babylonian priests affected many other countries worldwide (e.g., the
Druids of England and Europe).
SOME PAGAN TRINITIES SIMILAR IN STRUCTURE TO THE CATHOLIC
TRINITY
Trinitarians today may argue that the pagan trinities were completely different from the
model of the Christian Trinity. But some pagan triads have models which are surprisingly
familiar. For example, the Hindu Trinity:
The conception most closely linked with Vedism and Brahmanism is that of the Hindu
Trinity, the Trimurti. The Absolute manifests himself in three persons, Brahma the
Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer. The syllable we write as om, butwhich is in reality made up of three words, a, u, and m, (which) is the symbol of this
trinity.
-Asiatic Mythology
And the Egyptian triad of the sun god was one god expressed in three persons. He was
known as the noonday sun (Ra), the evening sun (Tum), and the dawning sun
(Khepera). The sun god reportedly said, Lo! I am Khepera at dawn, Ra at high noon, andTum at eventide. He was one god in three distinct persons. And so it is not correct to say
that the pagan trinities do not resemble the Christian Trinity, insofar as the structure goes.
II TRINITARIAN DEVELOPMENTNEO-PLATONIC SCHOOL INDEBTED TO BABYLONIAN WISDOM
7/28/2019 TRINITY ORIGINS
4/15
The ancient Greeks were very impressed with the wisdom of the Babylonians. Franz
Cumont said, Philosophy claimed more and more to derive its inspiration from thefabulous wisdom of Chaldea (Babylon) and Egypt.
According to Cumont, the entire neo-platonic school is heavily indebted to the
Chaldeans (Babylonians). It was the neo-platonic school of philosophy which influenced
the Catholic fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.Porphyry reveals that the neo-platonists had incorporated Babylonian and Persian
demonology into their philosophical system.
PLATO CONVEYED THE IDEA OF A MESSENGER GOD (LOGOS) TO THE
CATHOLIC FATHERS
Plato, the famed Greek philosopher, greatly influenced the Catholic fathers. He was
acquainted with Babylonian wisdom, and had traveled to Babylonia, Israel, and Egypt.
Plato advocated the idea of a secondary messenger god, representing the unknownprimary god, who remained impassible (unable to suffer or to feel pain) and unknowable.
This being was called the Logos (the Word).
This messenger god was known in Babylon and Egypt. The Egyptian god Thoth(Tammuz) was called the Logos:
Father of Light, O Logos that orderest day and night, come show thyself to me. O god of
gods, in thy ape-form enter. -Lewis R. Farnell
Showerman says that the ancient writer Harpocration associated the phrase mysterious
Logos to the god Attis (who would equate to Tammuz, Thoth or Nimrod). He alsoaccords the Greek messenger god Hermes the title of Logos, and Dunlap speaks of a
Chaldean Logos.
The idea of a separate, secondary messenger god is a key element in the Trinitydoctrine. We can see that this idea is pre-Christian and it is pagan.
The Catholic fathers obviously obtained this idea from the Greek philosophers, who in
turn obtained it from Babylonian and oriental religions. It does not come from the Bible.
Ishtar was identified as the Logos of the Babylonian god El-lil. She supposedly
exclaimed, Of the lord (El-lil), his Word (Logos) am I. In other words, she (her priests)
claimed to be the spokesperson for El-lil.
THE APOSTLE JOHN ATTEMPTED TO DESTROY THE CONCEPT OF A
SECONDARY LOGOS MESSENGER GOD
7/28/2019 TRINITY ORIGINS
5/15
The pagan concept of the Logos can be seen as a bridge for introducing the equally pagan
idea of a triadic deity.
The apostle John, in penning John 1.1 was actually apparently responding to those early
Christian gnostics who were identifying Jesus with the pagan Logos. He specifically
identifies the biblical logos (word) as God the Father Himself. He does not advocate
the concept of Christ as a separate, pre-existing divine Person, co-existing with God theFather.
As Granville Henry has observed:
Did John intend to introduce Greek philosophical, scientific or religious representations
for the person of Christ? A broad concensus of contemporary New Testament scholars
maintains that the logos Christology of John must be understood in its peculiarly Hebrewcontext. To deviate from this context and emphasize Greek meanings is to make a major
error in interpretation.
The Greek concept of a personal, separate divine Logos, distinct from God, or a secondGod, was unknown to the apostles, and entirely foreign to their understanding of a
solitary divine God, who was known to them from the days of Abraham. They recognizedthat sole divinity in Jesus Christ. Thomas had knelt before Him exclaiming My Lord andmy God (John 20.28).
HOW WAS THIS GREEK CONCEPT OF A DERIVED SECONDARY
MESSENGER GOD INTRODUCED INTO CHRISTIANTIY?
Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD) of Alexandria was the man who attempted to fuse the strict
monotheistic theology of the Hebrew religion with the transcendental theology andphilosophy of the Greek platonists.
As Alvan Lamson has written:
The authors of the Septuagint version and the Platonists employed the same term (logos)
to express totally different views: the former (Septuagint) intending by it simply a mode
of action in the Deity; the latter (the Platonists) , a real being, (the Deitys) agent andminister in executing his will. Philo was the first, we believe, who attributed to the Logos
a
permanent subsistence.
There is a vast difference in understanding the word of God as a mode of action (e.g.,
God speaking light into existence) and in understanding the word of God as a separate
being from God.
7/28/2019 TRINITY ORIGINS
6/15
But Philo was to have a profound influence upon the Catholic fathers, and therefore upon
the development of the Catholic Trinity.
Through the use of allegorical interpretation (what we also understand as
spiritualization today), which had long been known to the students of Homer, and
which was systematized by the Stoic philosophers, Philo began his effort to combine the
absolute monotheism of Judaism with the transcendentalist theology of Platonism. Hewas actually attempting a synthesis of biblical theology and pagan philosophy.
Plato described the pagan Logos as a Jewish archangel. To Philo, the Logos was theIdea of ideas, the firstbegotten Son of the uncreated Father, and the second God.
The cosmos, Philo wrote, is held together by the power of the Logos. The Supreme
God is too remote and impassible to have direct contact with this world, and so it is theLogos who appears to man (e.g., as in the burning bush to Moses).
Philo wrote about this concept of his in the following manner:
The Absolute Being, the Father, who had begotten all things, gave an especial grace to
the Archangel and First-born Logos (Word), that standing between, He might sever the
creature from the Creator. The same is ever the Intercessor for the dying mortal before the
immortal God, and the Ambassador and the Ruler to the subject. He is neither withoutbeginning of days, as God is, nor is He begotten, as we are, but is something between
these extremes, being connected with both.
The reader can see that Philos conception of the Logos, with some modifications, is very
similar to later trinitarian teaching on the Catholic Logos.
Charles Semisch has stated, The early (Catholic) Fathers only poured the contents of thescriptures into a Philonian vessel: they view the biblical passages through a Philonian
medium.
Henry Malter believes that Philo actually wanted to prove that Judaism and Hellenism(Greek philosophy) taught the same divine truth in just a different way.
WAS PHILO A GNOSTIC?
If we accept the thesis that Philo greatly influenced the development of the Catholic
Trinity through his idea of grafting the pagan Logos into the Old Testament teaching,
then we might well consider his relationship to gnosticism.
Philip Carrington believes that Philo was a gnostic, and Carrington had this to say:
(Philo was) the first and only Jewish philosopher of antiquity. To him Plato was only
7/28/2019 TRINITY ORIGINS
7/15
Moses talking Greek. But in spite of his Judaism and Platonism, he shows only too many
traces of that gnostic error which is so fatal to sound thinking.
Elaine Pagels, in her excellent study of the gnostic gospels, has stated that Wilhelm
Bousset claims to have traced gnosticism back to ancient Babylonian and Persian
sources. The gnostics believed that matter was evil, and they believed in an unknown
God with lesser emanations from the spirit world.
Martin Larson, speaking of Christian gnosicism, said, The gnostic heresy had its roots in
the concept that Christ had existed as a separate power since the creation of the world.
And James Adam noted, The distinction which Plato...introduced into the being of the
Godhead prepared the way for the theology of Philo. Platos conception of the divine
nature as a differentiated unity...(bears) a certain resemblance to the Christian doctrine ofthe Trinity.
Philo was influenced by Platos Timaeus when he called the Logos the image of God,
and the second God. This led James Adam to write:
The Timaeus did more than any other literary masterpiece to facilitate and promote the
fusion of Hellenism and Hebraism out of which so much of Christian theology has
sprung.
Why dont the trinitarian Christians today want people to know the background of the
Trinity doctrine? Why do they attempt to ignore the history of the doctrine? Whenconfronted with this truthful history, many of them attempt to belittle the importance of
the origins of the trinity doctrine.
H.A. Wolfson declares that the Catholic fathers, in discussing the pre-existent Christ,show unmistakable evidence of the influence of the Philonic Logos. And Wolfson notes
that:
All of these (Catholic) fathers seemed to have identified the Johannine Logos with thePhilonic Logos, and they also seemed to have known of Philos two-fold stage theory of
the pre-existent Logos, and they seem to have consciously transferred this twofold stage
theory from the Platonic Logos to the Johannine Logos.
Wolfson believes that the Catholic fathers consciously transferred the pagan idea of the
Logos to the Christian Logos of the apostle John! How can trinitarian scholars today
honestly claim that the doctrine of the Trinity has no pagan influence in it?
H. Kennedy wrote, It can scarcely be denied that (Philos) particular differentiation of
the Logos from the Supreme God had an exceptional influence on the subsequent
Christology of the church. How can trinitarians not see the influence of Greekphilosophy and the Jewish priest, Philo, on the doctrine of the Trinity? Their only answer
is that the Catholic fathers merely used Greek philosophy to confirm the scripturality ofthe Trinity doctrine. But since there is a glaring lack any of the components of the Trinitydoctrine in the scriptures (e.g., terms such as three persons, three-in-one, co-equal,
co-eternal, not to mention the word trinity), it is obvious that this is not so.
And, as Henry Chadwick said, The history of Christian philosophy begins not with aChristian, but with a Jew. It is sad indeed that a Jew played such a role in formulating
the doctrine of the Trinity, which downgrades the Lord Jesus Christ to a subordinate role
7/28/2019 TRINITY ORIGINS
8/15
contrary to scripture. Another Jew, Paul of Tarsus, warned Christians about philosophy,
vain deceit, and the traditions of men (see Colossians 2.8).
III ARCHITECTS OF THE CATHOLIC TRINITY
Clement of Alexandria (150-213 AD), head of one of the early Christian schools, whichwas heavily influenced by philosophy and gnosticism, admitted that he was opposed by
those who still considered philosophy evil. He made light of their opposition and saidthat they were light and ignorant. He denounced the so-called orthodoxy who, likebeasts which work from fear, do good works without knowing what they are doing. But
Clement, of course, knew what he was doing. He had a special gnosis (knowledge) that
the ignorant orthodox did not possess.
Friedrich Ueberweg says that Gnosticism was the first comprehensive attempt to
contruct a philosophy of Christianity. The more flagrant gnostics, such as Cerdo,
Cerinthus, Saturninus, and even Marcion, had been expelled from the church. These moreflambuoyant gnostics were only the tip of the iceberg. There was still a remnant in the
churches, who obviously began developing some philosophical system of Christianity
that would compete, so they thought, in the Gentile world.
The apostle Paul was troubled with gnostics, and spoke against those who clung to
falsely-named science (knowledge or gnosis) (1 Timothy 6.20).
Simon Magus (Acts 8), who clashed with Philip and Peter, was said to have been theteacher of the gnostic Menander. Menander, in turn, was the master of the famous
gnostics, Saturninus and Basilides.
Gnosticism, after Judaism, had the dubious honor of being the earliest heresy ofChristianity. Isnt is strange that gnostics seem to disappear, to some degree, after the
ascendancy of the Catholics? Gnosticism is probably the breeding ground of trinitarian
theology.
Clement of Alexander is certainly one of the Catholic fathers of the Trinity. The influenceof Philo and gnosticism is seen in both him and his successor Origen.
In Stromateis (i.vi.28), Clement wrote, Philosophy...was a schoolmaster to bring
Hellenism to Christ, (just) as the Law was for the Hebrews.
The Bible college at Alexandria, under the presidency of Clement of Alexandria, openedits arms to the teachers of gnosticism (Charles Merivale).
E.G. Weltin called Clement a Christian Platonist and gnostic. Like Philo, Clement
7/28/2019 TRINITY ORIGINS
9/15
taught that the Logos was an Angel.
In Paedagogus, Clement wrote, the Logos has appeared, and fear is turned to love, andthat mystic angel (Jesus) is born. And he wrote, God is one, and beyond the one, and
above the Monad itself.
According to Moses Stuart, Clement so distinguished between the substance of theFather and of the Son as to make the latter inferior. And Photius wrote that Clement, in
his now lost work Hypotyposes, held to the argument of the Son as a creature, and
asserted the doctrine of the transmigration of souls.
And while Alexandria may well be the site where the Trinity doctrine was transplanted
into Catholic Christianity, there was an earlier writer from Athens, Quadratus, who may
have written Logos theology as early as 125 AD. If Quadratus was the author of TheEpistle To Diognetus, he used the Logos doctrine and praised gnosticism.
Another Catholic architect of the Trinity doctrine was Justin Martyr (c.100-165 AD), who
was reportedly converted to Catholicism, which was probably a small minority group atthat time, in about 133 AD.
Justin never discarded his pallium (philosophers cloak). Justin taught during the time of
an outburst of gnosticism (the heyday of Valentinus, Basilides, Cerdon, and Marcion).Justin desired to understand the Messiah in the light of Greek philosophy. He wrote:
At the beginning, before all creatures, God begat of Himself a certain rational power,which, by the Holy Spirit, is also called the Glory of the Lord-now Son, now Wisdom,
now Angel, now God, now Lord, and Logos.
THE SUBORDINATION OF JESUS CHRIST AS A DERIVED GOD
Justin did not teach the eternal generation of the Logos, as later Catholic fathers (such
as one of his pupils, Irenaeus, was to do) did, but rather he taught that the Logos, or
reason of God, which, was before the creation, voluntarily begotten (or emitted) fromthe Father, and was thus
converted into a real, separate Person. Thus the Son became a derived Being. This
doctrine of derivation implies inferiority, and as Alvan Lamson says, a derived Godcannot be a self-existent God.
The subordination of Jesus Christ has been a hallmark of trinitarian doctrine down
through the centuries. Although the Athanasians (and modern trinitarians) claim to havecorrected this subordination at Nicea in 325 AD, there are those today (and especially the
common people who are trinitarians) who still argue that Jesus cannot be God the Father
due to His inferiority to God the Father.
If Jesus is not entitled to every title that belongs to God, then Jesus is not fully God. Since
we know that Jesus is fully God, we know that He is worthy of the title God the Father.
The twofold-stage theory of the Lords birth is a key building block of the doctrine of
the Trinity. Initially, Proverbs 8.22 was used to validate this teaching. The Catholic-
Confraternity-Douay Version of this passage reads: The Lord begot me, the first-born ofhis ways, the forerunner of his prodigies of long ago. This was used to show that Jesus
was born before the ages. Thus, the Lord was (1) born before the ages, and (2) born at
Bethlehem. The gross inferiority that this brought to the Son began to be apparent, and
7/28/2019 TRINITY ORIGINS
10/15
Catholic fathers such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Novatian, began to teach an eternal
begetting of the Son in order to assure the Sons eternal equality with the Father.
Athenagoras, Theophilus, who is first noted using the word triados (180 AD) to describe
the Godhead, and Tertullian all held to the twofold stage theory.
Novatian, realizing that this greatly subordinated the Son, wrote:
But He who is before all time must be said to have been always in the Father; for no time
can be assigned to Him who is before all time. And He is always in the Father, unless the
Father be not always Father, only that the Father precedes Him-in a certain sense-since itis necessary in some degree that He should before (since) He is Father.
He is always in the Father, but the Father precedes Him-in a certain sense? In some
degree? What contradictory nonsense! He is always in the Father, but, then again, noHe is not since the Father precedes Him? But this great spiritual truth is qualified with
in a certain sense,
and by some degree! To what lengths will the trinitarian go to keep his co-equal
Persons and yet keep his eternal Son?
Athanasius tried to correct this imbalance dogmatically, and Augustine saw it. He said,The Son is equal to the Father, but not while the Son is in the flesh. By making this
statement, Augustine denies the incarnation, since the incarnation is God manifest in the
flesh. The Son is the flesh. It is not the Son in the Son, but rather the Father in the Son.
THE LOGOS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT MADE INTO TWO PERSONS
Another step in the origin and development of the Trinity was the introduction of the
heretical view that the Holy Spirit and the Logos were two separate divine Persons.
Wolfson notes that the Catholic fathers merely followed Philo in alleging that the Holy
Spirit and the Logos were two distinct beings or persons.
When the Catholic fathers distinguished between the Holy Spirit and the Logos, theywere then forced to re-interpret the writings of Matthew and John.
John had written that the Logos was made flesh (John 1.14), but Matthew had said thatthat which was conceived in Mary was of the Holy Ghost (the supposed Third Person)
(Matthew 1.20).
And Jesus clearly identified the Father as His Father (the supposed First Person). Thispresented a problem for the founding fathers of the Trinity. How did they respond to this
paradox.
Justin Martyr of Rome and Theophilus of Antioch stated that the Holy Spirit in Luke 1.35
and Matthew 1.20 was not actually the Third Person in this case, but rather the Logos
(the Second Person) in a sense! Here is some more specious nonsense! Justin wrote, It iswrong to understand the Spirit and power of God as anything else (other) than the Logos,who is also the firstborn of God (Apology I.33).
Most of the Catholic fathers were astute enough to avoid the contradiciton by maintainingthat the members of the Trinity had cooperated in the virgin birth. Clement of
Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Novatian all held this view. Otherwise,
they would have been forced to admit that God the Father was the Holy Spirit, and that
7/28/2019 TRINITY ORIGINS
11/15
He was the Logos (Word). Just as John 1.1 explicitly states, And the Word (Logos) was
God.
John of Damascus (675-749 AD) put it in the customary dogmatic terminology of the
Catholic-Protestant tradition when he wrote:
He was made by the whole Trinity, for the works of the Trinity are not separable...whenone of the Three is mentioned as the author of any work, the whole Trinity is to be
understood as working.
This preposterous statement surely had to be made with tongue in cheek. Because themain trinitarian argument for identifying the separate divine Persons is their individual
functions. So if one argues that the works of the Trinity are not separable, then it
becomes nearly impossible to identify the difference, for example, between the FirstPerson (a Spirit) and the Third Person (a Spirit)!
These early Catholic fathers rejected polytheism (many gods), but since they accepted the
Platonic triad of Philo, they were forced to compromise the unity of God.
God could no longer be an absolute unity, but he must perforce be a relative unity. This
is a weakness of the Trinity doctrine, since it can no longer honestly uphold the absolute
unity of God (the monarchy). There must be a relative unity that will allow within itthe combination of three distinct, separate elements, or what the trinitarians call
subsistences.
And Wolfson tells us that the Catholic fathers were constantly aware of a consciousness
of opposition to the Jewish conception of the absolute unity of God. This awareness,
says Wolfson, is noticeable throughout everything the Fathers say in support of the
Trinity. This is why we maintain that THE TRINITY TEACHING IS REACTIONARYIN ITS ESSENCE RATHER THAN BEING A POSITIVE DOCTRINE.
THE ORIGIN OF THE TRINITARIAN INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1.26
Genesis 1.26 also seems to have played a role, through its interpretation, in the origin of
the Trinity. Irenaeus interpreted Genesis 1.26 to indicate a plurality of divine Persons in
the Godhead:
For with Him were present the Logos (Word) and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by
whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He
speaks saying, Let us make man after our image and likeness.
Where had such a novel interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures come? Certainly, as we
have seen, no Jew would normally make much an interpretation. None of the apostles
did. But it is very likely that it can be traced to a Jew named Philo of Alexandria, whohad written concerning Genesis 1.26:
When scripture says that God made man in the image of God, it means he made him in
the image of the second God, who is the Logos. For nothing mortal can be made in thelikeness of the Most High One and Father of the universe.
The Logos trinitarian doctrine, in spite of all denials, and subsequent dogmatic tinkeringby theologians, postulates Christ in the role of the second God. Today, the terminology
has been slightly altered to state, second Person.
Martin Werner wrote that every significant theologian of the church, in the pre-Nicene
7/28/2019 TRINITY ORIGINS
12/15
period, has actually represented a subordinationist Christology. Of course, he means
every significant
Catholic theologian, since no apostolic theologian would every downgrade Christ to the
status of the second Person.
Origen (185-254 AD), although he is condemned by the Catholic church as a heretic, isacknowledged as one of the most renowned Catholic fathers (except for perhaps
Augustine).
Adolf Harnack wrote that, by the beginning of the fourth century, the theology of theapologists had triumphed, and all thinkers stood under the influence of Origen.
And Rufus Jones says of Origen, he made a thorough study of Plato and Numenius, and
was in all his thinking profoundly influenced by the contemporary neo-platonicmovement.
Henry Chadwick also wrote, Origen admires Plato and Numenius, and say Numeniuswas familiar with the scriptures...he calls him Numenius the Pythagorean, who
expounded Plato with great skill and maintained the Pythagorean doctrines. And Bell
says that Origen was influenced by the gnosticism of Egypt, and that he followed Philos
allegorical method in biblical exegesis.
In Origens work, Against Celsus, who apparently protested the Catholic fathers use of
the Greek Logos, called the Logos the second God in three places.
Origen, in his interpretation of John 1.1, presaged the Watchtower Society, by stating that
ho theos (the God) belonged to God the Father only, while theos (a god) was a lesser
title given to the Son. Jean Danielou attributes this interpretation of Origens to Philosearlier theology of the Logos. And as Bell remarked, Origen regarded the divinity of
Christ as inferior to the Fathers.
But to highlight the contradictory nature of trinitarian theology, Origens greatestcontribution to trinitarian theology might have been his teaching on the eternal
generation of the Son. This, in spite of the fact, that Origen was a subordinationist. His
teaching contained what F. Baur called the germs of both the Arian and the Athanasiandoctrines.
Origen wrote in his Commentary On Johns Gospel that We believe that the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit are three essences or substances. That this is tritheistic almost no onewould deny.
Almost all of these Catholic fathers were forced to attempt to refute the contemporary
oneness theology which was still quite prevalent.
THE CATHOLIC FATHERS IDENTIFIED THE CHRISTIAN LOGOS WITH
THE PAGAN LOGOS
It is incorrect to assume that these Catholic fathers did not identify the Christian Logos
with the pagan Logos. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) wrote:
They who have lived in company with the Logos are Christians, even if they wereaccounted atheists. And such among the Greeks, were Socrates and Heraclitus.
It is clear from this statement that Justin considered the pagan Logos and the Christian
7/28/2019 TRINITY ORIGINS
13/15
Logos to be the same Logos. No matter that Socrates and Heraclitus were pagans-they
lived in company with the Logos (the same Logos that Justin was putting forth).
SUMMARY
Deuteronomy 6.4 states, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. When asked by
a scribe, Which is the first commandment of all? (Mark 12.28). And Jesus answeredand said, The first of all commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one
Lord (Mark 12.29).
The oneness of God is the most important commandment of all. There is only one Lord(Ephesians 4.5).
Jesus told the Jews, I am from above, and I am not of this world (John 8.23). And he
said, I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that Iam he, ye shall die in your sins (John 8.24). The only one from above, who is not of this
world, and who is able to save us, is God Almighty Himself. I would not trust a second
divine Person or a second God to save me.
1 Timothy 3.16 tells us that God was manifest in the flesh, and 2 Corinthians 5.19 says
that God was in Christ.
Jesus could have identified God as a Trinity, but instead Jesus identified God as a
Spirit (John 4.24). Nowhere in the Bible is the word Trinity used. This is not
comparable to the use of the word rapture. Nowhere in the Bible is the word raptureused (the word means to be caught up in an ectasy, an adequate description of the
event), but the description of the rapture is clear in 1 Thessalonians 4.13-17 and in 1
Corinthians 15.51,52. But the Trinity is not described in the Bible. Nowhere are the
building blocks of the doctrine found. You cannot find the terms three Persons, Three-in-One, the eternal Son.
It is not possible to show the existence of even a second divine Person. All the
differences pointed out between the Father and the Son only point to the sphere of theincarnation. A trinitarian cannot find one scripture that shows a difference between the
Father and the Son, which does not relate to the incarnation. In other words, he cannot
relate differences within the sphere of the Godhead. All differences are within the sphereof the incarnation itself.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons (Neptune, NJ: Loizeau Bros, 1959)
2. Veronica Ions, Indian Mythology (London: Pam Hamlyn Ltd, 1967)
3. Arthur Wainwright, The Trinity In The New Testament (London: SPCK, 1962)
4. Morris Jastrow, Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia and Assyria(New York: G.P. Putnams Son, n.d.)
5. Franz Cumont, The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism (Chicago: The Open Court
Pub., n.d.)
6. J. Jacklin, Clement Huart, Henri Maspero et al, Asiatic Mythology (New York: Thom.
Crowell Co, 1932)
7. Donald A. Mackenzie, Egyptian Myth and Legend (London: Gresham Pub, n.d.)
7/28/2019 TRINITY ORIGINS
14/15
8. Morris Jastrow, Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions (New York: Chas. Scribners Sons,
1914)
9. William B. Chalfant, Ancient Champions of Oneness, 1979
10. Frederick Woodbridge, The Son of Apollo (NY: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1929)
11. Max Fisher, What The Great Philosophers Thought About God (Los Angeles: Univ.Book Pub., 1958)
12. Lewis R. Farnell, Greece and Babylon (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1911)
13. Grant Showerman, The Great Mother of The Gods (Madison, WI: Bulletin of The
Univ. of Wisconsin No. 43, 1901)
14. Samuel Fales Dunlap, The Ghevers of Hebron (NY: J.W. Bouton, 1898)
15. Horatio W. Dresser, A History of Ancient and Medieval Philosopher (NY: Thom.
Crowell, 1926)
16. Granville C. Henry Jr., Logos: Mathematics and Christian Theology (Lewisburg:
Bucknell Univ., 1976)
17. Virgin Corwin, St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch (New Haven: Yale Univ.Press, 1960)
18. John Cordner, The Philosophic Origin and Historic Progress of The Doctrine of TheTrinity
19. Alvan Lamson, The Chruch of The First Three Centuries (Boson: Walker, Wise and
Co., 1860)
20. H. Chadwick, in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval
Philosophy (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1967)
21. Henry Malter, Hastings Encyclopedia of Ethics and Religion (ix, p.873).
22. Philip Carrington, Christian Apologetics in The Second Century (London: SPCK,
1921)
23. Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (NY: Vintage Books, 1981)
24. Martin A. Larson, The Story of Christian Origins (Washington: New Republic, 1977)
25. James Adam, The Religious Teachers of Greece (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909)
26. Harry A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of The Church Fathers (Cambridge: Harvard Univ.
Press, 1964)
27. H.A. Kennedy, Philos Contribution To Religion (London: Hodder & Stoughton,
1919)
28. Friedrich Ueberweg, History of Philosophy (NY: Chas. Scribners Sons, 1908)
29. Charles Merivale, The Conversion of The Northern Nations (NY: D. Appleton & Co)
30. E.G. Weltin, The Ancient Popes (Westminister, MD: Newman Press, 1968)
31. God Incarnate, ed. John Hick (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1977)
32. Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma (Boston: Beacon Press, 1957)
7/28/2019 TRINITY ORIGINS
15/15
33. Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma (London: Williams & Norgate, 1905)
34. Rufus Jones, The Churchs Debt To Heretics (London: James Clark & Co, 1924)
35. Harold Idris Bell, Cults and Creeds in Graeco-Roman Egypt (NY: Philosophical
Library, 1953)
36. Jean Danielou, A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before The Council of Nicea(Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1973)
37. K.R. Hagenbach, A History of Christian Doctrine (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1883)
38. Henry Milman, History of Latin Christianity (NY: A.C. Armstrong, 1899)
Most of the ancient writers can be found translated in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868), or later editions.