The timeline entry for ~150 AD is where the pagan source material becomes undeniable. Three categories of witnesses establish this: the pagan philosophers themselves, one of the Trinity’s own chief architects admitting the origins in his own words, and modern Trinitarian scholars confirming the same.

In this chapter, we must go deeper because the philosophers from whom the Trinitarians drew their doctrine were deep. I have heard Trinitarians, even scholars, say things like “Christians always believed in the Trinity,” and even “a triunity never existed outside of Christianity.” But I am going to show you what they seem determined to keep from you. Paul clearly warned in 2 Corinthians 11:3 not to be moved away from the simplicity in Christ. What follows is precisely the complexity the Trinitarians traded for that simplicity. Their reason for claiming the Bible teaches this, when it doesn’t, is on them. What you are about to read will set the record straight. The summary is available below for those who want it.

Witness One: The Pagan Philosophers

Numenius of Apamea, Syria (~150 AD) is the missing link most histories of the Trinity’s pagan origins overlook. He is the first philosopher to take Plato’s abstract “forms” and ascribe personality to them, giving rise to the concept of distinct divine persons sharing a single substance. And he did so explicitly to restore an ancient pagan doctrine:

“None of the later Platonists had as yet personified the Arch-Idea, or spoken of it as a God. This was the work of Numenius…whose date falls probably about the middle of the second century. Numenius…boasts that he has gone back to the fountain head, to Plato, Socrates and Pythagoras, to the ancient traditions…and has restored to the schools the forgotten doctrine of Three Gods… the Trinity of Numenius consists of the Father, the Creator, and the World.” —Bigg, 249-252.

Numenius also provided the source for the Nicene Creed’s “light from light” formula—the idea that divine substance passes from one person to another without diminishing the source. Numenius makes this explicit when explaining his version of the Neoplatonic trinity:

“But as the second (Divinity) is double, he himself produces the Idea of himself, and the World, inasmuch as his nature is that of a Creator, although he himself remains intelligible…The First God may not undertake creation, and therefore the First God must be considered as the Father of the Creating Divinity…When, however, the Divine is communicated, and passed over from the one to the other, it does not leave the Giver while being of service to the Receiver; not only does the Giver not lose anything thereby, but he gains this further advantage, the memory of his giving (or generosity). This beautiful process occurs with knowledge, by which the Receiver profits, as well as the Giver. This can be seen when one candle receives light from another by mere touch; the fire was not taken away from the other, but its component Matter was kindled by the fire of the other.” —Numenius, 26-30.

That’s what ‘triunity’ looks like from a second-century pagan philosopher — writing before such concepts entered Christianity, first through Gnosticism, and from there through Tertullian (see Chapter Seven). Trinitarians who claim “Christians always believed in a Trinity” would have us believe Gnosticism was a legitimate form of Christianity, without saying so. It all pivoted on the concept of viewing God as “matter” (material substance) that can be shared among different individuals. And note carefully the hierarchy: Numenius’ father figure hands off creation to the son. This is not biblical foreknowledge speaking (which I will cover later), this is literal polytheism. Thus, it was literal polytheism that set the stage for Christian Trinitarianism.

Plotinus, who built directly on Numenius, carried the triune structure further. The language is deliberately complex, contrary to Paul’s warning, that is the point:

“…In the uni-trinity of being-life-thought Plotinus finds…ideas as such in the intelligible world and reciprocal communication among them. With these concepts (of being-life-thought) in mind he is able to write the following:

“‘But nous is all beings. It contains, therefore, all things firm in itself, it only and always is thus…In a manner of speaking, they love one another in that state. Each of them is intellect and being and the whole is total Intellect and total being; intellect by means of thinking causing being to exist… Undoubtedly they both exist together and do not separate…’

“We interpret as follows: Each form, each individual intellect, being a particular reflection of Intellect, is a being in actuality; but each being, each ousia, is elementally constituted by or has in common with the others entity, difference, mobility and stability…Each idea communicates…with the intelligible living whole by means of its triune internal dynamism of being-life-knowledge…It is life and interrelation, since each ousia is simultaneously organ within an organism and organ of an organism along with other organs…The intelligible living presupposes trinity; its earlier moment (intellect) presupposes duality; and the object which claims it (being), presupposes unity.” —Bazán, 59-60.

Mutual indwelling. Same substance. Distinct yet inseparable persons. None of this is in the Bible. All of it is in the philosophers, written two centuries before Nicaea.

And our next witness makes the connection for us…

Witness Two: Gregory of Nyssa—A Primary Architect of the Trinity Admits the Source

Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335–394) was one of the chief architects of the Trinity at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. He was trained in the classical schools of Athens. Writing approximately 383 AD, Gregory did not hide where “persons” came from. He admitted it and congratulated himself for it:

“But since our system of religion wants to observe a distinction of persons in the unity of the Nature…there is need…of a distinct technical statement in order to correct all error on this point…
“…The mystery…is separate as to personality yet is not divided as to subject matter…neither does the statement harmonize with the Jewish dogma, but the truth passes in the mean between these two [pagan and Jewish] conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word, and by the belief in the Spirit; while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the Nature… of the [pagan/Greek] Hellenistic, only the distinction as to persons…” —Gregory, 1, 3.

This is Gregory’s own public admission: the idea of separating “Word” and “Spirit” into “personalities” in the Godhead came from Hellenistic philosophy, not from Scripture or Jewish tradition. And in adopting it, he explicitly states that Jewish monotheism—the Shema, the view Jesus himself affirmed in John 4:22—was treated as a heresy to be destroyed.

Trinitarians who try to pin their multi-personal deity on unclear Hebrew Scriptures are speaking from their imaginations. It is a baseless claim the designers of the Trinity themselves testify against.

This is Gregory of Nyssa—chief champion and architect of the dogma in question—explaining that the Trinitarian view of monotheism is not the same definition as the biblically inspired Jewish view of monotheism. Bear that in mind the next time a Trinitarian tells you they believe in monotheism and believe in one God. Fine. That isn’t the problem. The problem is their definition of the word does not align with God’s self-definition: He is ‘one He’—the greatest commandment, according to Jesus.

The schools Gregory was trained in are directly identified:

“Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa, three bishops from Cappadocia, developed a more subtle defense of the Nicene position. All three had enjoyed a traditional classical education in Athens and proved adept at using philosophical terms to define a single Godhead.” —Freeman.

Those are the same schools Numenius supplied with the forgotten doctrine of three gods, which Numenius first melded into one essence.

Witness Three: Modern Trinitarian Scholarship Confirms the Source

This is not the conclusion of critics alone. Trinitarian scholars themselves trace the doctrine to Aristotelian and Neoplatonic philosophy:

“Rather than presenting at this point some formulations from the Fathers, I will first go back to the fountainhead of substance metaphysics, Aristotle, from whom the Fathers inherited the concepts in terms of which they set out their substantialist formulations.” —Alston, 180.

This is a modern witness to the fact that the concept and terms for God as one substance or essence came from Aristotle, not from the Bible or Judaism.

Most broadly:

“Christianity became in the end a theological child of Neoplatonism—most of the early theologians who framed the doctrinal basis for orthodox Christianity, especially regarding the incarnation, the Trinity, and the contemplative life, were influenced by this philosophy…It is virtually impossible to understand the Nicene Creed without first understanding the philosophy of late antiquity. They are completely fused and interrelated.” —Valantasis, 132-136.

Note carefully: Valantasis does not say you need to understand the Bible or Jewish tradition to understand the Nicene Creed. He says you need to understand pagan philosophy. That is a Trinitarian scholar’s own documented conclusion.

The Documented Scorecard

The following doctrines are found in the writings of Numenius and Plotinus, documented above. The question is: does the Christian Trinity share these same doctrines—and does the Bible?

Score: Numenius/Plotinus and Christian Trinity—13 points in common. Bible—0.

Coincidence is one thing, contradiction is another. That zero is not a claim that the Bible lacks Father/Son/Spirit relational language—it does not. The zero means this: none of these 13 philosophical categories has a biblical precedent. No apostle ever wrote of one essence in three coequal persons, eternal generation without diminution, or substance metaphysics borrowed from Aristotle. Those are not Bible words, Bible concepts, or Bible categories—they are Greek imports.

What isn’t represented in this score is the standard we have been pointing out all along. The commandment still says God is ‘one He.’ And now you know what gave Trinitarians the idea to conceive of Him otherwise.

When the first commandment that God is ‘one He’ is your starting point rather than Nicaea’s, every Father/Son/Spirit text in the Bible has a biblical answer that requires no Neoplatonic scaffolding.

The Documented Connection

The chain of transmission is now established by the witnesses themselves:

→ Numenius restores the forgotten doctrine of three gods to the philosophical schools

→ those schools train Gregory of Nyssa

→ Gregory admits deriving “persons” from those schools

→ Gregory explicitly states that Jewish monotheism was destroyed in the process

→ modern Trinitarian scholars confirm the doctrine traces to pagan philosophical categories, not Scripture

→ The scorecard above shows 13 points of commonality between the philosophers and the so-called Christian Trinity, and zero points of commonality with the Bible.

The scorecard shows exactly where the Trinity stands against God’s immutable standard: ‘one He.’

Summary—In this chapter, I have documented:

✦ That Numenius of Apamea (~150 AD) was the first philosopher to personify Plato’s abstract forms into distinct divine persons sharing one substance—explicitly claiming to restore a forgotten doctrine of three gods.

✦ That Numenius provided the direct source for the Nicene Creed’s “light from light” formula—the concept of divine substance passing from one person to another without diminishing the source.

✦ That Plotinus built directly on Numenius and carried the triune structure further—introducing mutual indwelling, shared substance, and distinct yet inseparable persons—concepts nowhere found in Scripture.

✦ That Gregory of Nyssa, one of the chief architects of the Trinity at Constantinople in 381 AD, admitted in his own words that the concept of distinct persons in the Godhead came from Hellenistic philosophy—and that Jewish monotheism was explicitly destroyed in that process.

✦ That the schools which trained Gregory of Nyssa are the same schools Numenius supplied with the forgotten doctrine of three gods.

✦ That modern Trinitarian scholars—Alston and Valantasis—confirm that the doctrine traces to Aristotelian and Neoplatonic philosophy, not to Scripture or apostolic teaching.

✦ That a 13-point scorecard comparing Numenius and Plotinus’s triunity with the Christian Trinity and the Bible yields 13 points of commonality between the philosophers and the Trinity, and zero with the Bible.

✦ That the chain of transmission is established by the witnesses themselves: Numenius → the philosophical schools → Gregory of Nyssa → the Nicene formulation—confirmed at every step by Trinitarian scholars.

Just like Satan’s job in the Garden was to make God’s commandment of no effect, so also the heirs to his throne and kingdom have accomplished the same thing: cast doubt and distrust on God’s commandment so as to redefine it, making it of no effect and so replacing it with reasoning to the contrary. Subtle. Effective. Devastating. Thus, they transferred authority from God to human reason.

The robbery Paul warned of in Colossians 2:8 stands exposed—confessed by the witnesses themselves. The philosophers conceived it, the architects of the Trinity adopted it, and modern Trinitarian scholars confirm it. Paul identified exactly what happened:

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and traded the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man…” (Romans 1:22–23)

If you were handed a God assembled from pagan philosophy rather than Scripture, you deserved to know. The cure? Simple. Don’t let these philosophies of men rob you anymore. Look to God’s word for explanations that uphold the first commandment, not traditions of men that make God’s commandments of no effect. That’s what “keeping” the first commandment entails.

Print This Post