Today’s Trinitarians, for the most part, are in denial or ignorance of the history of their dogma. So, I am going to address three specific, very false statements that have been posed to me in defense of the Trinity. These three falsehoods are…

1. That the Trinity is based on Jewish views of a multi-person deity.
2. That there were “no” trinities whatsoever in the pagan world from which they derived their dogma, and there are no “legitimate” scholars that believe there was any pagan sources from which the Trinity was derived.
3. That the Trinity is “spiritual” and couldn’t have been conceived of by the natural mind.

To address just how false these statements are, I am going to provide not only scripture but quotes from three types of sources, namely…

1. Pagan philosophers (primary sources themselves).
2. Early Christian Trinitarian Designers “ECTD’s” (the one’s directly responsible for “developing” and “designing” the Trinity into Christian terms rather than pagan philosophical terms, while retaining the pagan concepts at the expense of biblical commands and concepts).
3. Modern scholars confirming that the critical ideas used in forming the Trinity came directly from pagan philosophy. Thus, NOT from the Bible and NOT from Jewish sources of a “multi-personal deity”.

These errors were posed to me in a Facebook group discussion. I realized these questions represent the consensus of most Trinitarians, and also that I wasn’t going to be able to just provide a curt, “you’re wrong” reply. These questions deserve having a solid response that totally annihilates the errors enabled by such deception. So, rather than answering them there, I decided on this process, where I will post this text on Dropbox and do a YouTube video series (for the benefit of those who prefer listening).

Here’s the scripture that I base my authorization to reply on…

“³For though we walk in the flesh, we don’t wage war according to the flesh; ⁴for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the throwing down of strongholds, ⁵throwing down imaginations and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:3-5).

This next passage clearly explains what has been done, from a biblical view, by those who conceive of God in terms of “substance” and are then able to divide Him up into persons. It is called “trading the glory of the incorruptible God for an image of corruptible man”…

“²¹Because knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. ²²Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, ²³and traded the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, four-footed animals, and creeping things.
²⁴Therefore God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves; ²⁵who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. ²⁶For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. ²⁷Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error” (Romans 1:21-27).

This is called idolatry.

Now let’s look at the primary sources for the Trinity doctrine. This is the point in history when pagan “polytheism” first transformed into the idea of “trinity” or “triunity” of multiple personalities in one deific substance from the ancient “triads.” This is the missing link from most attempts I’ve read that attempt to prove that the Trinity originated in pagan sources. They weren’t wrong, they just weren’t finished connecting the dots. The source of this transformation is Numenius of Apamea in Syria (fl. ca 150 C.E.)

In this passage, you will see the Trinitarian source for speaking of God in materialistic terms. You will see the source for the “light from light” doctrine of Trinitarianism’s Nicene Creed (which we’ll see below). And that source is the pagan philosopher Numenius.

“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.” The Neoplatonic Writings of Numenius, collected and translated from the Greek by Kenneth Guthrie (Selene Books, [1917], rpt. 1987), 26-30.

This is one of the pagan philosophical sources of “persons” (i.e., “he himself” in addition to others like him being with him). Here we see the purpose for a second deity, even though it really doesn’t make sense. The first god is too transcendent to undertake the menial job of creation, therefore he makes a second god. Therefore, the first god was not actually the one to “undertake creation.” The second god, however, is somehow free to create. This is how philosophy attempts to explain imperfections in the creation; it’s because the First Principle, which is pure perfection, did not create this imperfect world. Thus we see the actual original source of the Trinitarian concept of a junior deity as “God the Son” derived from the same “substance” as the father figure (“First Cause”).

This doesn’t make sense because if the second god was identical to the first cause (father) then the second would be just as transcendent as the first. This contradiction carried over to the Christian trinity as well. If not, then why (in the Christian Trinity version) didn’t the Father just do the creating himself? And why is the son able to be seen, heard, be the actual doer in creation, become incarnated, etc., but the Father could not? It’s because this construction is a man-made imagination, that came from philosophers, whom the Bible says don’t know the things of God, that’s why.

But Numenius isn’t the only philosopher upon which the Trinitarians leaned on from whom to adopt their pagan views of God. Plotinus, who was influenced by Numenius as a predecessor, was another source. When Gregory said they got the idea of persons from the Hellenists, such as these two philosophers are who he is referring to.

“…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.” Francisco García Bazán, “The ‘Second God’ in Gnosticism and Plotinus’s Anti-Gnostic Polemic,” trans. Winifred T. Slater, in /i>Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, ed. Richard T. Wallis and Jay Bregman; Studies in Neoplatonism, vol 6; Papers presented at the International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, University of Oklahoma, March 18–21, 1984 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 59-60.

The second paragraph is a direct quote from Plotinus. This complexity is not the “simplicity” of Christ, but we do see in it the distinct elements of the Trinity doctrine. We find here the ideas of mutual indwelling, same-substance (homoousios), mutual love—even the idea that each is whole, yet distinct “they both exist together and do not separate”. Nowhere in the Bible will you find the Godhead described like this; however, it is nearly identical to Trinitarian imaginations of the Godhead. Such intricate philosophic jargon as this is the source, identified by Gregory, of the deific “persons” of Trinitarianism. Trinitarian doctrine is pagan philosophy, not biblical truth that sets free.

These two quotes show the error in numbers 2 & 3 of the false Trinitarian contentions…
2. That there were “no” trinities whatsoever in the pagan world from which they derived their dogma, and there are no scholars that believe there was any pagan sources from which the Trinity was derived.
3. That the Trinity is “spiritual” and couldn’t have been conceived of by the natural mind.

Clearly, these philosophers were speaking of a Trinity well before the Council of Nicaea. As for number 2, the statement, “In the uni-trinity of being-life-thought Plotinus finds…ideas as such in the intelligible world,” shows that it is entirely possible to conceive of the Trinity in natural terms because that is precisely what these philosophers did.

Now let’s compare this complex theological jargon with the first commandment according to Jesus.

“²⁸One of the scribes… asked him, “Which commandment is foremost of all?” ²⁹Jesus answered, “The greatest is, ‘Hear, Israel, the Lord (singular) our God (singular) , the Lord (singular) is one (singular) : ³⁰you shall love the Lord (singular) your God (singular) with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’This is the first commandment…. ³²The scribe said to him, “Truly, teacher, you have said well that he (singular) is one (singular), and there is none other but he (singular), ³³and to love him (singular) with all the heart, and with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” ³⁴When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the Kingdom of God” (Mark 12:28-34).

This is not a philosophical speculation. This is the foremost of all biblical commandments. The grammatical singular of the above words is irrefutable. The reason I added the word “singular” here is because the Greek words themselves are that particular that these are singular forms of each word (where it may not be as clear in English.)

Trinitarianism is nothing more than an exercise in interpreting the Bible in a way that makes it appear to conform to pagan, philosophic imaginations that were never, ever spelled out in the Bible like the first commandment is.

Some will claim they didn’t get the idea for the Trinity from pagan philosophers, but by reading the Bible. The answer to that is, if early Christian Trinitarians could conclude a Trinity, and if pagan philosophers can conclude a Trinity, what makes anyone think they couldn’t “find such ideas in the intelligible world” and impose those thoughts on the Bible to also come up with a description of God that is never spelled out in the Bible?

“No temptation has taken you except what is common to man…” (1 Corinthians 10:13).

It isn’t about what you, or I, or the philosophers, or Satan’s legal heirs “conclude” or “reason out”. It is about what does God’s word command.

“If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15).

“One who says, “I know him,” and doesn’t keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth isn’t in him” (1 John 2:4).

Why would God need to command something that was obvious. Does God command us to breathe air? To eat for survival? To prepare for winter in its season and summer in its season?

And most of all, why would Satan’s legal heirs, the emperors of the Roman Empire, want to impose on pain of death a true understanding of the first commandment in a formulation that “coincidentally” neither Jesus, nor the apostles, nor any other prophet or writer of the Bible was ever able to articulate and explain?

 Print This Post