As I said in the conclusion of Part One, I am going to begin by exposing where the Trinitarian confession, “one substance, three persons” comes from. In this part I am going to expose the pagan Emperor Constantine’s role in making it part of the Trinitarian confession.

Let me be clear. I’m not by any means saying that Constantine invented the idea of “one substance.” That is one of the ways in which Trinitarians like to trick people into thinking that Constantine’s role wasn’t as devastating as it really was. Rather, what I will be showing is that Emperor Constantine (as with all the emperors of Rome) was the legal heir of the kingdom of Satan. And, as Satan’s legal representative on earth, he literally made a doctrine of demons (see Part Ten) into the law of the land. Please, allow me to explain…

In the book of Revelation, Jesus said that Satan’s throne had settled in Pergamos…

“To…the assembly in Pergamum write:…I know…where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is” (Revelation 2:12–13).

This statement refers to prophecies in the book of Daniel which tell of the empires leading up to the kingdom of antichrist, beginning with Babylon, then the Medes and Persians, and then Greece, and then Rome.

Jesus felt it important enough to reveal that Pergamum was where the throne of Satan’s kingdom had landed in reference to Daniel’s prophesies. Jesus’ words were historically accurate…

“Pergamum served as the residence of the Attalid [Greek] dynasty…When Eumenes’s son and second successor, Attalus III, died without an heir, he bequeathed the kingdom [thus “Satan’s throne”] to Rome (133 BC). Rome accepted it…” Pergamum, Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1974. [Bracket’s mine].

This explains, historically, where the throne of Satan’s worldly kingdom officially and legally passed from Greece to Rome.

This means that every Roman Emperor, from 133 BC on, was, according to Jesus and historical facts, heir to the throne of Satan’s kingdom.

Here’s a question for you. Would you, yes, you personally, be able to call one of these unrepentant heirs to the throne of Satan a brother in Christ?

If your answer is no, then this study is for you.

On the other hand, if you would have no problem letting one of the unrepentant legal heirs to the throne of Satan be made into a leader in your Church, then this study probably isn’t going to have much impact on you.

If this has gotten your attention, as I hope, I want to show you an example of a Trinitarian who admits that the Council of Nicaea marked a turning point where the “Church” became “inextricably intermingled” with the world’s political systems.

“The results of the Council of Nicaea included Arianism being denounced in no uncertain terms… Constantine ordered that all of Arius’ writings be burned and that anyone found with copies of his writings on their person be put to death. Such steps…were seen as necessary for the church to keep from self-destructing…
“One of the long-lasting consequences of the council, however, is that it set a precedent for the emperor using his authority to establish and enforce church rulings. If Constantine can say, ” Believe this specific thing about the nature of God or die,” then that has startling implications. It also marks the full swing of the pendulum for Christianity: In a handful of years, it had gone from a religion forbidden and persecuted by the empire to one inextricably intermingled with it, where the emperor himself was ruling on theology. This tangling of church and state would subsequently be at the heart of European history for centuries, where popes and kings would struggle against each other for primacy.” https://www.grunge.com/247323/the-messed-up-truth-of-the-council-of-nicaea/

Quote, “this tangling of church and state” is what the Bible calls spiritual harlotry. And this Christian writer is halfway justifying it! Did you notice that Constantine “ordered” non-conformists to “believe…or die”?

All Christians know that “no murderer has eternal life” (1 John 3:15). So did Constantine. This fact is the reason that he did not submit to baptism until his death bed…he was fully aware that as emperor he had many more murders that he would commit before he died. Clearly, Constantine did not believe in living a crucified life or of loving one’s enemies, instead he believed he could be both a servant of the devil and a servant of God. It doesn’t work that way.

“¹⁵What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! ¹⁶Don’t you know that when you present yourselves as servants and obey someone, you are the servants of whomever you obey, whether of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness?” (Romans 6:15-18).

Constantine was a servant of death, and an unbaptized heir of the throne of Satan. Do you really want to thank him for the decisions made at the Council of Nicaea?

Biblically speaking, what should Jesus’ disciple’s attitude be toward the legal heir of Satan’s kingdom? Do you know”? Here are some clues…

“¹⁴Don’t be unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship do righteousness and iniquity have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? ¹⁵What agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what portion does a believer have with an unbeliever? ¹⁶What agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are a temple of the living God. Even as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk in them. I will be their God and they will be my people.” ¹⁷Therefore “‘Come out from among them, and be separate,’ says the Lord. ‘Touch no unclean thing. I will receive you” (2 Corinthians 6:14-17)

“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, ⁶and being in readiness to avenge all disobedience when your obedience is made full” (2 Corinthians 10:3-5).

“¹¹Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. ¹²For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world’s rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:11-12).

These tell us we are in a non-physical, spiritual warfare with just such forces as Constantine officially represented! Given this information so far, would you let a legal heir of Satan lead church councils, interject, and impose doctrines on official confessions of faith, and ratify the Council’s decisions… and then let that emperor enforce those doctrines on pain of death for disobedience?

Appallingly, the early Trinitarian Bishops did all of that…

“The emperor Constantine granted to himself, as ‘bishop of foreign affairs,’ certain rights to church leadership… leading imperial councils and ratifying their decisions…” “Christianity; Church and state; The history of church and state; The church and the Byzantine, or Eastern, Empire,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1974.

Satan’s legal heir led the councils that helped develop, define, and impose the “official” dogma of the Trinity, and he ratified their decisions! That means that Satan’s legal heir legitimized Nicene Trinitarianism and made it an official dogma. This also means that the reason Trinitarian bishops submitted to Satan’s kingdom, rather than God’s, was so they could “lord it over” other Christians with their view. Like it or not, this is the heritage of the Trinity that all Trinitarians share. Consider Jesus’s words in Revelation…

“²²Behold, I will throw her and those who commit adultery with her into a bed of great oppression, unless they repent of her works. ²³I will kill her children with Death, and all the assemblies will know that I am he who searches the minds and hearts. I will give to each one of you according to your deeds” (Revelation 2:22-23).

Do you see why Jesus wanted us to know where Satan’s throne was? Will we hear him…or will our traditions of men cloud our thinking and deafen our ears causing us to harden our hearts against the truth?

Why is this so important?

To see that, let’s ask, what exactly did Constantine do as far as spiritual harlotry is concerned?

At the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 Constantine insisted that they adopt the Egyptian doctrine of homoousios (“same substance”) into the Trinitarian confession.

The main purpose of the council was to settle disputes between two branches of Trinitarian clergy. Athanasian Trinitarianism had a rival in a doctrine called Arianism. The former believed that God and His son were “one substance” (and thus “coequal”), the latter claimed they were only of “similar substance” (and thus they viewed the son as subordinate to the Father, and not coequal).

But since the word and the concept of “one substance” didn’t come from the Bible, we need to ask where did Constantine himself get that word and that concept? It has been typically taught that Constantine got the word either from earlier theologians, such as Tertullian, or Paul of Samosata (a Monarchian) or from Platonic philosophy. However, in a paper titled, “The Word ‘Homoousios’ from Hellenism to Christianity,” the rest of the story is uncovered, and a better explanation is revealed…

“Having…excluded any relationship of the Nicene homoousios with the Christian tradition, it becomes legitimate to propose a new explanation, based on an analysis of two pagan documents which have so far never been taken into account. The main thesis of this paper is that homoousios came straight from Constantine’s Hermetic background. As can be seen clearly in the Poimandres, and even more clearly in an inscription mentioned exclusively in the Theosophia, in the theological language of Egyptian paganism the word homoousios meant that Nous-Father and the Logos-Son, who are two distinct beings, share the same perfection of the divine nature.” Pier Franco Beatrice, “The Word ‘Homoousios’ from Hellenism to Christianity,” Church History 71:2 (June 2002), https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=googlescholar&id=GALE%7CA89816070&v=2.1&it=r&asid=3536c4c6.

What Beatrice shows is that Constantine did not explain homoousios in a manner consistent with either Tertullian or Platonism. Rather, Constantine (Satan’s legal heir) described it in terms resembling its use in the Poimandres (the first tractate in the volume of books attributed to the Greek god Hermes Trismegistus). Poimandres is also the name of an Egyptian “god”…

“Behind the hermetic God Poimandres lurks an actual divinity with a vibrant cult in late Hellenistic and early Roman Egypt… To sum up then, Poimandres was an actual contemporary Greco Egyptian divinity with a living cult, a cult of which the author of Corpus Hermeticum I was himself a fervent devotee. The name Poimandres was… a further Hellenization of the earlier, still more purely transcriptional Greek forms of the throne-name of the god-king Amenemhet III.” Howard M. Jackson, A New Proposal for the Origin of the Hermetic God Poimandres, https://www.scribd.com/document/159725707/A-New-Proposal-for-the-Origin-of-the-Hermetic-God-Poimandres#

Meaning, in Constantine’s mind and his application, the word homoousios came directly from Egyptian mythological gods. In other words, he got it from the “gods round about” them. Now then…

“If we admit Constantine’s personal instigation, which seems necessary in view of Eusebius’ narrative, a whole series of new questions arises concerning the political and ecclesiastical motivations that led Constantine to impose the use of homoousios in the Nicene Creed.” Pier Franco Beatrice, “The Word ‘Homoousios’ from Hellenism to Christianity”.

In other words, politics, not truth, was Constantine’s motive to impose the word homoousios. He did not set out to affirm the faith as it had been delivered to the saints by the apostles. He just wanted to be the benefactor of religious peace, harmony, and unity in his empire. He just wanted everyone to get along under his reign, no matter what doctrine he needed to impose toward that end. Ultimately, what was really retained from Christianity was only superficial names. Nearly all the substance and definitions came from paganism.

Constantine tricked the bishops by playing Satan’s con game on them. In his shell game, Constantine swapped the philosophical idea of god’s “substance” for the Egyptian mythological substance. In doing so, he accomplished the third step in the evolution from Christianity to philosophy to pure Egyptian paganism…

“Constantine did not confine himself to imposing, by his authority, the inclusion of homoousios in Eusebius’s creed. He also supplied a ‘philosophical’ explanation with the intention of dispelling any possible misunderstanding connected with the usual ‘materialistic’ interpretation of this word…
“Constantine enunciated his ‘philosophy’ in a more extensive way in the so-called Speech to the Assembly of the Saints. Here…Constantine praises Plato for having said many true things about God…This statement evidently has no relation at all with Plato’s real doctrine. Neither is Numenius likely to have exerted any influence on Constantine’s speech…
“On the contrary, Hermetism offers more significant similarities, and a careful scrutiny reveals strong analogies of thought and language between Constantine’s theology and the tradition found in both the Corpus Hermeticum and the five Egyptian theological oracles of the Theosophia…
“… [I]n Constantine’s view homoousios was a pregnant technical term, with its own precise, traditional Hermetic meaning. In his thought the word homoousios did not contradict the distinction of two divine ousiai, precisely because it was the heritage of the ancient Egyptian theology and of the revelation of Hermes Trismegistus, and had therefore nothing to do with the Sabellian or monarchian identification-theology of the one hypostasis. Hermetism forms the conceptual background of the emperor’s theology…
“Many centuries before being portrayed on the floor of the Siena cathedral (at the end of the fifteenth century), Hermes Trismegistus had already entered the body of Christian doctrine in the semblance of Constantine, setting his seal on the formulation of the Nicene Creed.” Pier Franco Beatrice, “The Word ‘Homoousios’ from Hellenism to Christianity”.

This is the big shell game (and cover-up) of Trinitarianism. It only makes sense that it would be orchestrated by Constantine as Satan’s legal heir. He introduced homoousios under the guise of philosophy to the bishops at Nicaea. Those Bishops had been raised in the “schools” of philosophy, so a philosophic view was acceptable to them, even though it wasn’t Biblical. But what Constantine really imposed on the Trinitarians was pagan hermeticism. What Constantine did was RE-introduce what the antichristian Gnostics had already introduced.

Another contemporary historian, Christopher Stead, notes that the word and concept of homoousios (of the same substance) was introduced by the antichristian Gnostics. Thus, before Constantine’s time, the antichristians had already adopted this idea from paganism. Notice the term refers to physical, material substance. This shows that Trinitarians must use philosophical substance language to divide the “God stuff” into persons.

“The word homoousios, usually translated ‘consubstantial’ or ‘coessential,’ appears to have been introduced by Gnostic Christians of the second century…It originally meant, ‘having the same substance,’ ousia; and in the majority of cases at least, the notion of ousia that is implied is either material or conceived in physical terms. It thus means roughly, ‘made of the same…kind of stuff.’” Christopher Stead, Divine Substance, pg 190.

Stead credits the Gnostics with introducing the word and concept of homoousios, “same substance,” but that doesn’t mean they invented it. Ironically, both Tertullian and the Gnostics credited spiritual revelation as their sources. However, the idea of the projection of one god out of another is totally pagan. In the following quote, Stead, like Beatrice quoted earlier, refers to the Poimandres as the origin, saying it may be the first text to use the word homoousios. He also notes that Gnostics and pagans both reinterpreted the Genesis account of creation. What enabled them to do so was their idea of homoousios. As Tertullian said, you can’t divide the persons of the Godhead without first seeing them as a substance (see Part Eight). This idea allowed them to imagine more than one personality present at creation. They were then able to change what the Bible meant in saying, “God said…and there was…” For them, this didn’t mean God acting alone and simply speaking things into existence. Rather, they mystically transformed the event into a hierarchy of gods acting together. And they were able to reinterpret the creation account in this way only because they were able to speak of God in terms of physical substance.

In the next quote, Stead tells us about the Poimandres, and how it influenced Gnosticism to adopt the word homoousios. So, Constantine imposed the same word that pagans and Gnostics used.

“…the second century…pagan writing…the Poimandres…could conceivably be the earliest text which contains the word homoousios. The writer describes a revelation given to him by the god Poimandres, which explains the origin of the universe and of man; he draws freely on the book of Genesis, but boldly reinterprets its theology so as to present a fairly complex hierarchy of heavenly beings resembling those of the Gnostics. At the head of the hierarchy stands the supreme God whose name is Mind, Nous, and who is also characterized as ‘life and light’; next to him comes the Logos, who is described as ‘Son of God’…the Logos…was united with the Demiurge Mind, for he was of the same substance (homoousios)…” Christopher Stead, Divine Substance, 201-202.

The mythology of Poimandres is distinguished from Gnosticism…

“Gnosticism is definable in several ways. Defined most narrowly, it is a second century Christian heresy. By this definition, the Poimandres does not qualify. It is almost entirely non-Christian…” Robert A. Segal, The Poimandres as Myth.

Clearly, we can see that Egyptian pagan hermeticism and antichristian Gnosticism were interpreting God as a multi-personal deity through the usage of the concept of “one substance” before the Early Christian Trinitarian Designers (ECTD’s) were doing so.

Through all of this (including a “a revelation given…by the god Poimandres”), we can also see how the pagan belief in a hierarchy of deities led to the idea that they were all of one substance (homoousios). We can also see why all Trinitarians interpret Genesis 1:26 as multiple persons. The reason pagans, Gnostics, and Trinitarians all share a similar view isn’t because of their loyalty to God’s word. Neither is it due to divinely imparted unity in truth. Rather, they are all simply being true to their polytheistic pagan roots that run contrary to the first commandment.

The Trinitarian view, whether they admit it or not, thus remains totally aligned with pagan forms of polytheism.

Did you notice the Poimandres has a “son of god” named Logos? But this isn’t the biblical word of God made flesh. Whether the idea of Logos as a second god first appeared in paganism, Platonism or Gnosticism isn’t what is important. What is important is that they are totally in harmony and agreement with each other but not with the Bible. What is also important is that these groups introduced interpreting the Bible this way. We have Irenaeus (see Part Nine) as our witness. Once the door was open to pagan thought, the Trinitarians seemed ever so happy to enter.

Now, let me ask some important questions:

What are the chances that the legal heir of the father of all lies was speaking the plain truth in imposing pagan and antichristian concepts?

What are the chances that these concepts just happened to be something neither Jesus, nor the apostles ever said?

What are the chances that these concepts are not found so stated or explained that way anywhere in the whole Bible?

What are the chances that these concepts just happened to come from Constantine’s background in pagan mythology of the god Poimandres?

Are we to believe all that is innocent coincidence?

Or are we seeing a major cover-up and deception of a massive act of spiritual harlotry being played out before our eyes in the annals of history and perpetuated even to this day?

Does God use Satan’s legal heir to authorize and impose truth on His people on pain of excommunication and death? Does God use spiritual harlotry to reveal and impose truth? Is that how God operates in the New Testament or at all ever?

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves” (Matthew 7:15).

How could there possibly be a greater example of a wolf in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15) than an unbaptized legal heir of the father of lies passing himself off as a “Christian Bishop” in order to impose a mythological definition on the creed of the “church”?

“¹²But what I do, that I will continue to do, that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity… ¹³For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as Christ’s apostles. ¹⁴And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light. ¹⁵It is no great thing therefore if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works” (2 Corinthians 11:12-15).

How could there possibly be a greater example of a “servant” of Satan, passing themselves off as a “servant of righteousness” more than the legal heir of Satan’s kingdom on earth passing himself off as a Christian Bishop?

And, if not the deception of harlotry, what else would be the purpose of Satan’s legal heir passing himself off as a Christian?

To understand Constantine’s role at Nicaea, one must consider and compare Satan’s purpose for the temptation in the Garden. By tricking Adam and Eve to disobey God, he was able to bring them into subjection to himself. That was Satan’s chief goal in the Garden: to have God’s people worship and serve him instead of God. And all he had to do was trick them to disobey God’s commandment to them. This is how he became “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4 & Luke 4:6). The way he accomplished that was to trick Adam and Eve into both disobeying God’s commandment and obeying the serpent’s lie instead.

It must be noted that both elements were necessary. That is because of the biblical principle that whom you submit yourself to obey, his servant you are to whom you obey.

“Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?” (Romans 6:16, NKJV).

It is no coincidence, therefore, that as the legal heir of Satan’s throne, Constantine’s purpose in deceiving the bishops was to bring them under his authority as “ruler of the known world.” The only way he could do that was to trick them, just like the serpent did, through disobedience, to break God’s first commandment and submit in obedience to his lie instead. You can’t serve two masters.

The fact that Satan’s legal heir imposed the word “homoousios” into the confession of Trinitarians, to get them to break God’s first commandment, should be all the evidence a Christian would need to realize Constantine was authorizing a false, pagan doctrine to be imposed on Christianity and Christian confession. However, that isn’t to say that’s the only evidence we have, not by a long shot. It is only to say it ought to be the most persuasive piece of evidence to the discerning Christian.

“…For a spirit of prostitution leads them astray and they have played the harlot against their God” (Hosea 4:12).

“Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions” (Psalm 106:39).

Rather than bow down to golden calves made by man’s inventions, we are called to cast those types of imaginations down and bring every thought into obedience to Christ.

And yet, there are many Christians who want to tell us that, because neither Constantine himself, nor the council of Nicaea, first invented or first used the concept of “one substance”, that is supposed to prove that what Constantine did (ratifying a doctrine from Egyptian mythology) was totally innocent and acceptable! If that isn’t teaching people to eat things sacrificed to idols, tell me, what is?

Discerning Christians need to seriously ask themselves these questions.

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:3 KJV).

I’m not trying to be argumentative or judgmental or any of that. I’m just trying to be real and honest here. The truth, not lies, sets free. And the truth is, as will be shown more and more in this series, is that Trinitarians got their idea of “one-substance” from the gods around them, not from the Bible. And it was Satan’s legal heir, Emperor Constantine, who adamantly and officially had that word and concept imposed onto the Trinitarian confession, that was then held to be obligatory to all Christians under pain of excommunication and/or death… And it is high time that Christ’s people wake up to this fact if they want to be found to be chaste virgins for Christ upon his return. Jesus never condoned elevating traditions of men above the commandments of God, rather the opposite…

“⁵The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why don’t your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders…?” ⁶He answered them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. ⁷They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ⁸ “For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things.” ⁹He said to them, “Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition… ¹³making void the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down. You do many things like this” (Mark 7:5-13).

 Print This Post