The Pagan Origins of the Trinity
The entire Trinitarian framework rests on one foundational assumption: that a true “Son of God” must be an offspring of God’s own essence—a “prolation,” as Tertullian put it—of divine substance from one God to another, which he learned directly from Valentinus the Gnostic, but owes its ultimate source to Stoic and Aristotelian metaphysics.
That suits our natural reasoning; however, that is not how God defines His Son.
God defined His son centuries before Jesus was born:
2 Samuel 7:12–14: “I will set up your offspring after you, who will proceed out of your body…I will be his father, and he will be my son.”
Not an offspring of divine essence. An offspring of David’s body. God’s definition of sonship is covenantal and relational—rooted in the seed of Eve, the promise to Abraham, and the throne of David:
Genesis 3:15: “I will put hostility between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring.”
Galatians 3:16: “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his offspring…which is Christ.”
Romans 1:3–4: “Concerning his Son, who was born of the offspring of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power…by the resurrection from the dead.”
Luke 1:35: “And the Angel answered and said unto her, the Holy Spirit shall come upon you and the power of the highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God.”
Galatians 4:4–7: “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent out his Son, born to a woman, born under the law.”
Jesus was born the Son of God by his miraculous birth from Mary. That is where he got the substance of his being. Jesus was not the Son of God because he was a prolation of divine substance. He explained himself to be the Son of God because he heard the Father’s voice and did the Father’s will—from cradle to grave:
John 10:17: “Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.”
John 8:40: “Now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God.”
That—all of the above—is the biblical definition of sonship. And it applies to all sons of God—not just Jesus:
Romans 8:14: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.”
Galatians 4:6–7: “Because you are children, God sent out the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ So you are no longer a bondservant, but a son.”
Yet there is only one “The” Son of God in the unique, preeminent sense:
John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, so that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have life in the age to come.” (REV)
Trinitarians don’t believe this because the Son they believe in is eternally begotten, which, in their theology, implies he never began being begotten, is still being begotten, and always will be being begotten. That’s what the “imagination” of men produces, and that is what needs to be cast down, per Paul. There is no coequality between the definitions of ‘father’ and ‘son’ in any dictionary, lexicon, or language known to man. That’s why Trinitarians had to invent their own meaning and redefine Christ as never quite done being begotten in the process.
The biblical son is the one God himself defined and described—not the one developed in pagan mythology and imported into Christianity. This is precisely why God commanded his people not to go after the gods of the nations: they would corrupt God’s teachings. The nations had their own version of a divine son. God had already defined His.
How Did We Get Here?
Short answer: We didn’t listen to Paul and allowed ourselves to be robbed through man’s philosophy.
The philosophers looked for a son of God in the image of God’s essence. God is looking for sons who will submit themselves to be made into the image of his character. This book has documented how these ideas get commingled and swapped.
It did not happen through Scripture. It traveled a documented evolution—from Egyptian mythology through Greek philosophy to Christian theology—each step carrying the same core two-sided assumption: that divine sonship entails the emanation of the divine essence, and that assumption empowers the redefinition of God contrary to His greatest commandment.
It began with Egyptian Hermeticism. The god Poimandres described divine substance passing from one being to another:
“The Logos…was united with the Demiurge Mind, for he was of the same substance (homoousios)…” —Christopher Stead, Divine Substance, 201-202.
Numenius carried it into Greek philosophy:
“The First God may not undertake creation…This beautiful process occurs…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.” —The Neoplatonic Writings of Numenius, 26-30.
Justin imported it into Christian theology, calling him a numerically different God:
“He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things—numerically… and is named by Moses in the Scripture Lord, is different from Him who also is God…” —Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 56.
Tertullian formalized it—and named his source:
“I am introducing…one thing out of another, as Valentinus does…emanations, of the substances from which they proceed.” —Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 8.
Athanasius enshrined it in the Nicene Creed:
“Very Son of the Father… an offspring proper to the Father’s essence…”—Athanasius, Against the Arians, Discourse 1, Chapter 3, par. 9.
Gregory of Nyssa completed it—and admitted the source:
“Of the [pagan/Greek] Hellenistic, only the distinction as to persons…The Jewish dogma is destroyed.” —Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 1, 3.
Each step moved further from the biblical definition. Not one of them felt constrained within God’s commanded ‘one He.’ Each step moved closer to the pagan view. And none of them—not one—returned to 2 Samuel 7:11–14, or Genesis 3:15, or the seed of Abraham, or the throne of David to find their definition of God’s Son. Because the answer they were looking for was never there. The only answer they wanted was in the philosophy they brought with them.
These two contrasting worldviews, representing two paths we can choose from even today, are shown in the book of Acts.
One from Jerusalem:
Acts 2:22: “Men of Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him among you…”
The other—the pagan one—from Athens, Egypt, and Rome:
Acts 14:11: “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!”
Trinitarians redefined sonship using the categories of Egyptian Hermeticism and Gnostic philosophy—substance producing substance, essence generating essence. In doing so, they answered a question the Bible never asks, with an answer the Bible never gives, from sources the Bible condemned.
The result? Paul identified it centuries before any of them put pen to parchment:
Romans 1:22–24: “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… Therefore, God also gave them up…”
To the God of the Bible, Tertullian protested, as I also addressed in Chapter Seven:
“I, on the contrary, contend that nothing empty and void could have come forth from God, seeing that it is not put forth from that which is empty and void; nor could that possibly be devoid of substance which has proceeded from so great a substance, and has produced such mighty substances: for all things which were made through Him, He Himself (personally) made. How could it be, that he Himself is nothing, without whom nothing was made? How could he who is empty have made things which are solid, and he who is void have made things which are full, and he who is incorporeal have made things which have body?” —Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 7
This protest by Tertullian was not by accident or ignorance. It was a deliberate rejection of what Justin and Irenaeus had taught before him—made openly, because his critics had already recognized exactly what he was introducing. He had no choice but to own it.
Justin Martyr had affirmed that God is incorporeal—“immutable, impassible, incorporeal, and nameless” (Droge, 306). Irenaeus had explicitly defended an indivisible, non-compound God: “The Father of all is not to be regarded as a kind of compound Being…but Nous is the Father, and the Father Nous” (Against Heresies, 2.17.7). These were not fringe positions. They were the mainstream (orthodox and majority) assembly’s understanding before Tertullian wrote a word.
Tertullian purposely and knowingly set all of that aside. Instead, he reached into Stoic philosophy—where “there is no incorporeal reality”—and gave God a substance. Then he reached into Valentinian Gnosticism and gave that substance a prolation mechanism. The result was una substantia, tres personae: the formula that made the Trinity possible, and doing so made the God of the Bible into something He had never been described as before—except in pagan circles. That is the epitome of idolatry: creating your own definition of God to worship.
Tertullian changed the incorruptible, incorporeal God of Justin, Irenaeus, and Scripture into a God of Stoic material substance—because without that substance, as he freely admitted, you cannot make Him three. Every Trinitarian who has defended una substantia, tres personae since Tertullian has inherited that exchange, and with it Paul’s condemnation. The swap was made at Carthage around 200 AD by a Montanist schismatic who took it from a Gnostic heretic. That is the documented origin of the Trinity’s foundational category. And Romans 1:22–23 is its biblical verdict.
This protest is why Trinitarians today claim the Bible “forces them to believe in the Trinity.” It’s because they read the words of the Bible through their human reasoning and honestly cannot see that a Son of God could be anything other than what makes us children of our parents: inheriting physical DNA.
But God was not looking for a son made of His substance. That idea comes from man’s imagination, contemplating nature, and jumping to conclusions. What God wants from and for His offspring is spirit and truth, not mere physical emanation. God was looking for a son who would do His will.
He found one in a man named Jesus Christ of Nazareth. So, God declared him His Son:
“‘You are my Son. Today I have become your father?’ and again, ‘I will be to him a Father, and he will be to me a Son?’” (Hebrews 1:5)
And through that son, he is finding more.
“…that we might receive the adoption as children. And because you are children, God sent out the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, ‘Abba, Father!’ So you are no longer a bondservant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” (Galatians 4:5–7)
How about you? Are you ready to quit fighting the defense of worldly mindedness and turn to the living God as your Father, and join us in the brotherhood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God?
Hebrews 2:10–13: “For it became him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in bringing many children to glory, to make the author of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, ‘I will declare your name to my brothers. Among the congregation I will sing your praise.’ Again, ‘I will put my trust in him.’ Again, ‘Behold, here I am with the children whom God has given me.’”
And now you also know how we humans can become partakers of God’s divine nature, without falling for the Serpent’s lie in the Garden: we can partake of His holiness of character.
2 Peter 1:4: “He has granted to us his precious and exceedingly great promises; that through these you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world by lust.”
“Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God. Whoever loves the Father also loves the child who is born of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. For this is loving God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous. For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world: your faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 John 5:1–5)
Epilogue
I have done my part. I have fed God’s sheep. I have provided the reader with more than enough reasons to let God define His Son, let Jesus explain himself, and let the apostles proclaim him with authority—without importing pagan philosophy, Egyptian Hermeticism, and Gnostic words and concepts, as the Trinitarians have done.
Your next step is in your hands.
“For he says, ‘At an acceptable time I listened to you. In a day of salvation I helped you.’ Behold, now is the acceptable time. Behold, now is the day of salvation.” (2 Corinthians 6:2)
For Further Study
I have shown where the Trinity came from and documented who Jesus is according to Scripture.
If you would like more of my writings on what the Bible teaches about Jesus, please see the following studies on my website:
The Biblical Principle of Agency
https://1lord1faith.org/agency/
Foreknowledge vs. Preexistence: What the Bible Actually Says
https://1lord1faith.org/foreknowledge-vs-preexistence/
Attributes of Jesus Christ vs Attributes of God the Father
https://1lord1faith.org/attributes-of-christ/
This study, “THE PAGAN ORIGINS OF THE TRINITY,” will also be made available on my website: