As was shown previously in Part 2, we simply do not ever find the word, concept, or phrase “one substance” in the Bible. In this part, we are going to look at the words “three persons” in the Trinitarian confession of “one substance, three persons” and establish that these two words also came directly from paganism every bit as much as “one substance” did.

Before going on, let me reiterate, I realize that Tertullian is credited with coining the phrase “una substantia, tres persona” (Latin for “one substance, three persons”). But that isn’t the answer to the right question. The question is, where did Tertullian get this idea?

What I will be showing in this study, is that Tertullian himself owed his conclusions to both Gnostics and pagan philosophers, every bit as much as Constantine, and in this way, Tertullian was one of those who “throw a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols…”

So, the next word we shall deal with is the word “persons”. For that we need to introduce a man named Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335–394), one of the Trinitarian champion theologians at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.

Although it began much earlier, the Trinity Dogma was still being developed in 381 when the Council of Constantinople was convened upon the summons of emperor Theodosius. Gregory played a key role at that council in resolving the struggle to redefine “what” God was. After that Council, writing about 383 AD, Gregory himself literally admitted they got the idea of “persons” from Hellenistic philosophy, and they basically congratulated themselves for doing so. What you are going to read in the following is how Gregory admitted where they got the idea of “persons” from. Namely, it was Hellenistic philosophy. And then he also explained that in doing so they had destroyed Jewish monotheism…

“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. For, in personality, the Spirit is one thing and the Word another, and yet again that from which the Word and Spirit is [i.e., the Father is], another [person]. But when you have gained the conception of what the [personal] distinction is in these, the oneness, again, of the nature admits not division, so that the supremacy of the one [pagan philosophic] First Cause is not split and cut up into differing Godships, 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… While yet again, of the Jewish conception, let the unity of the Nature stand; and of the [pagan/Greek] Hellenistic, only the distinction as to persons… For it is as if the number of the [Trinity] were a remedy in the case of those who are in error as to the One, and the assertion of the unity for those whose beliefs are dispersed among a number of divinities.” (Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 1, 3)

So, Gregory of Nyssa just admitted where Trinitarians got the idea of “persons” in the “godhead”. This is an admission and explanation out of the mouth of one of the premier architects of the Trinity. And he even went so far as to explain what it was they were able to change, by and through, the adoption of the idea of persons from the Hellenists.

Notice that Gregory claimed they got the idea of the unity of substance from the Jews. But as we saw earlier, in Part Two, they got the idea of the unity of substance from pagan philosophy and, in the case of Constantine, from Egyptian mythology. This means that Gregory of Nyssa simply told a lie to cover up the truth. Trinitarians clearly got their idea of “one-substance” from the gods round about them, namely Poimandres, not from the biblical Jews. The Jews had no doctrine of “unity of nature.”

What was Gregory’s background that would allow him to speak authoritatively on their source of “persons” in the Godhead? It’s that he was trained in classic Greek philosophy:

“Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, three bishops from Cappadocia, developed a more subtle defence 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, of one substance (the Holy Spirit being added to the other two), within which each had a distinct personality (hypostasis).” Charles Freeman, “Why AD 381 Was a Defining Moment in the History of European Thought,” https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Threefold+mystery%3A+Charles+Freeman+explains+why+AD+381+was+a+defining…-a0174639385

Here is a contemporary scholar explaining that Gregory’s concept of one substance came from his philosophical background, not from Jewish thought. Having a “classical education in Athens” implies “…mathematics, astronomy, harmonics, and dialect – all with an emphasis on the development of a student’s philosophical insight.” https://ancientgreecereloaded.com/blog/education-in-ancient-greece

Notice Gregory’s statement, “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 simpler terms he is saying that “we want to believe that there are three persons in the Godhead like the neoplatonists (gods round about them, wherein he got the idea of persons), but we didn’t know how to say that because the Bible never said that, and we weren’t taught it from the apostles or the Bible…” and then he goes on to explain that they got the term and concept of “persons” from the Greeks, and thereby they were able, in one stroke, to destroy both the polytheism of the world and the monotheism of the Jews. And in case you have forgotten what Jesus had to say about this, let me remind you…

“And they worship me in vain, teaching as doctrine rules made by men” (Matthew 15:9).

Therefore, what the Trinitarians were accomplishing in formulating the extra-biblical Trinity, was exactly equivalent to what the Pharisees had done to God’s commandments in their day. Why do Christians who demonize what the Pharisees did turn and applaud and cherish the “Christian” bishops for committing the same type of offenses against God’s word they condemn in others?

It is all the more unfortunate because, to the contrary, Jesus had affirmed and maintained the Jewish understanding as truth, not heresy, like official Trinitarians claim…

“Jesus said… ‘You worship that which you do not know. We worship that which we know, for salvation is from the Jews’” (John 4:21–22; NKJV).

Recall the huge influence that Satan’s legal heir Constantine played in the Council of Nicaea.

What will we discover if we ask, “What role did Satan’s legal heir play in the 381 AD Council of Constantinople?”

In his article on the Council of Constantinople, Charles Freeman comes to several other important conclusions. First, he points out that the imperial decrees settled the Trinitarian debate. Secondly, he concludes that this also silenced anyone from questioning established traditions. In other words, Trinitarianism effectively erased Jesus’ prescribed attitude of continuing in God’s word. The formulation of the Trinity, once again, made it illegal to live by the Bible only.

If you are one of those folks who believes in “relationship not religion”, this whole development of the Trinity is precisely the place where religion was made more important than relationship that you have been trying to “overcome” all along!

So, again, once the Trinity was “official,” anyone who questioned the decree was to be anathematized.

“…Why is it not common knowledge that the Trinity became part of Christian doctrine only as the result of a series of imperial decrees?…
“Memories of imperial rule faded and when Gregory the Great (540–604) returned to his native Rome after serving in Constantinople as papal nuncio, he brought with him the tradition that the Council of Constantinople had confirmed what the Church already believed. This is still the official explanation given in both Protestant and Catholic traditions. Nothing is said of the debate that was still lively in 381, other than to deride the subordinationists as heretics threatening what, it is usually claimed, was theologically the only solution. Nor is the broader suppression of freedom of thought ever mentioned.
“[The emperor] Theodosius’ role was crucial. Without his political initiative, the Church would never have come to a consensus on such a complex issue. By acquiescing in Theodosius’ policy the bishops were surrendering the opportunity to define the parameters of Christian doctrine… After Theodosius’ decrees, heresies were elaborated and debate constrained. ‘Clever theologians soon become heretics,’ as one bishop from Armenia observed in the 450s.
“It is possible to argue that the year AD 381 is one of the most important moments in the history of European thought. From then on genuine debate over theological issues was not permitted. The Greek intellectual tradition that had done so much to define the key issues of philosophy withered. Authority replaced reason as the arbiter of truth.” Charles Freeman, ibid.

This is how Athanasian co-equalist Trinitarianism finally prevailed over its rival Arianism. A baptized heir of the throne of Satan decreed it by imperial (satanic throne) authority.

So, the formulation of the Trinity dogma and its official endorsement was really nothing more than a political move to join the Church with the world system and “the world’s rulers of the darkness of this age” (Ephesians 6:12). The Trinitarian bishops made a pact with the devil beginning at the Council of Nicaea. In doing so they got into bed with the devil’s government to play politics with the emperor who imposed compliance by imperial decree. The “bishops” were as hungry for power over God’s people as the emperors were. Recall the devil’s temptation of Jesus in Satan’s attempt to make Jesus his underling…

“⁵The devil, leading him up on a high mountain, showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. ⁶The devil said to him, ‘I will give you all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I want. ⁷If you therefore will worship before me, it will all be yours’” (Luke 4:5-7).

The bishops that submitted to the councils failed to follow Jesus’ example in overcoming the temptation to be awarded with power for bowing to Satan. The devil has no problem “sharing” his stolen “authority” to whomever will ultimately submit to him. The same holds true for those who maintain the deception. They are saying they would have succumbed in the Garden to the offer of god-like power, and would willingly break the first commandment to get it, just like Adam and Eve. And thus, they are also saying they wouldn’t have been able to overcome like Jesus did in the wilderness. But Jesus said…

“He who overcomes, I will give to him to sit down with me on my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne” (Revelation 3:21).

And that, succumbing to the devil’s temptation to break the first commandment, explains how the words “homoousios” (one substance) and “persons” made it into the Trinitarian confession, “one substance, three persons” at the hands of the legal heirs of Satan’s throne. By doing so, the emperors gave them the power and authority to determine good and evil for themselves, to be imposed on others as well. That is what “power-hungry” looks like.

Now that you know how the unbiblical phrase “one substance” and the word “persons” got adopted into the Trinitarian confession of faith, next let’s look at the word “three” in the confession.

Gregory of Nyssa gave us the clue of where to look for the source of that word, which is to the Hellenistic philosophers. When we look to the philosophers, we find out who the exact one was that first applied the word “persons” to Plato’s doctrine of “forms”. And from there, he, Numenius, also tells us where his concept of “three” came from.

According to Numenius, the three ancient forgotten gods of paganism are the source of his Trinity.

“The genesis of the Platonic Trinity is one of the most perplexing questions in the history of philosophy…It had its roots in the manysided speculations of Plato himself…In the Timaeus the Demiurge forms the World-Spirit according to the pattern of Ideas, which appear to be independent eternal existences. We have here three conceptions, God, the Ideas, the World Spirit. Plato has nowhere explained or harmonized this triad…
“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.” Charles Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria, 249-252.

“The schools” being referred to here are the “classic education of Athens” that Gregory of Nyssa was trained in. So Numenius provided to these schools (that Gregory was later trained in) the forgotten doctrine of three gods.

Notice Plato invented “forms” within the godhead, but he didn’t assign “personality,” that was the job of this Neoplatonist, Numenius. That is, this is the true, actual, ultimate source of the concept and word “persons” in the Christian Trinity, and Numenius provided this word to coincide with the “the forgotten doctrine of Three Gods”.

The fact that it was Numenius, not Plato, that was the one to personify Plato’s “forms” is an important point. That’s because there are Trinitarians who will note that Justin Marty claimed that Plato learned from Moses, meaning the Old Testament as if Moses taught a “multi-person deity.” The problem here is that Plato himself didn’t ascribe “personality” to the forms; Numenius did. And the reason Numenius did that was to restore the ancient pagan doctrine of three gods, not to affirm the Hebrew Shema (“Hear, O Israel, the Yahweh our God is one”). So when Justin Martyr got his idea of a multi-person deity from Numenius, it was indirectly due to the ancient three god doctrine that Trinitarians can’t bring themselves to admit was the ultimate source of the Trinity.

And this is exactly the kind of thing “teaching people to eat things sacrificed to idols” means.

This is what Trinitarians want to cover up. Today’s Trinitarians want you to think that because the ancient gods of history were “triads,” not “trinities,” that somehow excuses them of the idolatry of going to the gods around and about them. But that is a deception. The Bible doesn’t say that only going after ancient gods known by the Hebrews is idolatry. In fact, the commandment to not go after other gods specifically referred to contemporary gods. (Thus, as Numenius was contemporary with Justin Martyr, for example).

“You shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the peoples who are around you” (Deuteronomy 6:14).

Trinitarians, like Gregory of Nyssa, admit that, along with the adoption of “three persons”, they destroyed the Jewish dogma of one God. And they did that by going to the gods of the people who were around them…the pagan philosophers and the Egyptian god Poimandres.

And that is how the first commandment of God changed from being unequivocally “one” He (Mark12:29-34) to “one substance, three persons” in the Trinitarian imaginations. And this is how Trinitarians have broken the commandments against creating man-made idols.

And to think Trinitarians owe the imposition of their commandment of men to the pagan Roman Emperors that were the legitimate, legal heirs to the throne of Satan.

Now, who are you going to believe?

In the next part, we will look at the very doctrines of the pagan philosophers and compare them to the first commandment and then to the doctrines of the Trinitarians, and you will see for yourself just how closely the Trinity aligns to the pagan, philosophical concept of three persons in one deity.

 Print This Post