![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/trinity.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
COGwriter<\/a><\/p>\n This year, May 31st is called the “feast of the Most Holy Trinity” or “Trinity Sunday” by various ones.<\/p>\n Notice something from a Roman Catholic writer:<\/p>\n This Sunday,\u00a0Trinity Sunday (Year C)<\/a>, … As the Catechism\u00a0puts<\/a> it: \u201cGod is one, but not solitary.\u201d There is one God and only one God, but \u201cthe Divine unity is Triune.\u201d …<\/p>\n 06\/12\/25 https:\/\/media.benedictine.edu\/this-sunday-the-trinity-reveals-the-meaning-of-life-the-universe-and-everything<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n If you read the above article, it mentions things about love and assumes that love is there because of the trinity. But that is not anything the article proves. Nor does the author’s assertion of the existence of the trinity explain that meaning of life or the universe.<\/p>\n That said, the article does have the following basically right:<\/p>\n That means the loving responsibility of the universe is now ours, as well.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But that is not dependent upon the doctrine of the trinity. See also the free ebook: The MYSTERY of GOD\u2019s PLAN: Why Did God Create Anything? Why Did God Make You?<\/a><\/p>\n Before we get to some of the history and theology of the trinity, notice something the late Pope Francis said about Trinity Sunday in 2019<\/p>\n June 16, 2019<\/p>\n Pope Francis began his homily by repeating the words of Psalm 8: “What is man that you are mindful of him?\u201d … Pope Francis continued his homily referring to this Sunday\u2019s Feast of the Most Holy Trinity. \u201cThe Trinity is not a theological puzzle\u201d, he said, \u201cbut the splendid mystery of God’s closeness\u201d. https:\/\/www.vaticannews.va\/en\/pope\/news\/2019-06\/pope-at-mass-in-camerino-remember-repair-rebuild-together.html<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The nature of the Godhead remains a mystery to the Greco-Roman faiths.<\/p>\n As far as the origins of this Catholic festival, The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em> gives the following information:<\/p>\n Trinity Sunday<\/strong><\/p>\n The first Sunday after Pentecost, instituted to honour the Most Holy Trinity. In the early Church no special Office or day was assigned for the Holy Trinity. When the Arian heresy was spreading the Fathers prepared an Office with canticles, responses, a Preface, and hymns, to be recited on Sundays. In the Sacramentary of St. Gregory the Great (P.L., LXXVIII, 116) there are prayers and the Preface of the Trinity. The Micrologies (P.L., CLI, 1020), written during the pontificate of Gregory VII (Nilles, II, 460), call the Sunday after Pentecost a Dominica vacans<\/em>, with no special Office, but add that in some places they recited the Office of the Holy Trinity composed by Bishop Stephen of Li\u00e8ge (903-20) By other the Office was said on the Sunday before Advent. Alexander II (1061-1073), not III (Nilles, 1. c.), refused a petition for a special feast on the plea, that such a feast was not customary in the Roman Church which daily honoured the Holy Trinity by the Gloria, Patri, etc., but he did not forbid the celebration where it already existed. John XXII (1316-1334) ordered the feast for the entire Church on the first Sunday after Pentecost. A new Office had been made by the Franciscan John Peckham, Canon of Lyons, later Archbishop of Canterbury (d. 1292). The feast ranked as a double of the second class but was raised to the dignity of a primary of the first class, 24 July 1911, by Pius X (Acta Ap. Sedis, III, 351). The Greeks have no special feast. Since it was after the first great Pentecost that the doctrine of the Trinity was proclaimed to the world, the feast becomingly follows that of Pentecost.(Mershman, Francis.<\/span> “Trinity Sunday.”<\/span> The Catholic Encyclopedia.<\/span> Vol. 15.<\/span> New York: Robert Appleton Company,<\/span> 1912<\/span><\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But what is the history of the trinitarian doctrine?<\/p>\n Well, students of early church history interested in the truth can learn that the early Christians were NOT trinitarian. They held what would be considered as a binitarian view of the Godhead. This is obvious from the writings of many in the second century (for details, see Binitarianism: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning<\/a>).<\/p>\n According to Roman Catholic sources, the term trinity, in relation to the Godhead, did not come until the late second\/early third century. Hence it is a heresy–a change from the original doctrine.<\/p>\n As it turned out, the idea of the trinity was apparently voiced by the heretic Montanus and developed by a famous Gnostic heretic named Valentinus<\/a> in the mid-2nd Century–two people denounced by Church of God leaders in Asia Minor and finally eventually considered to be apostates\/heretics by the Church of Rome. <\/span><\/p>\n One of the so-called Montanist Oracles<\/em>, spoken by Montanus was:<\/span><\/p>\n “I am the Father and the Son and the Paraclete.” (Didymus, De trinitate iii. 41. 1.) (Assembled in P. de Labriolle, La crise montaniste<\/cite> (1913), 34-105, by Bates College, Lewston (Maine) http:\/\/abacus.bates.edu\/Faculty\/Philosophy%20and%20Religion\/rel_241\/texts\/montanism.html 01\/31\/06).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is one of the first references to a trinitarian view of the Godhead (the other earliest one was from the heretic Valentinus<\/a>–it is unclear which was first). The paraclete is a term used to signify the Holy Spirit (it is from the Greek term parakletos<\/i>).<\/span><\/p>\n Eusebius records (Eusebius. Church History, Book V, Chapters 18-19) that Church of God leaders in Asia Minor and Antioch, such as Apollonius of Ephesus<\/a>, Serapion of Antioch<\/a>, Apollinaris of Hierapolis<\/a>, and Thraseas of Eumenia<\/a> opposed the Montantist heresies (Apollinaris of Hierapolis<\/a> and Thraseas of Eumenia<\/a> were Quartodecimans, and Apollonius<\/a> likely was as well). However, Roman Bishops would not renounce the Montantist heresy until sometime in the third century, and only after Rome accepted certain Montanus beliefs (see Montanists in The Catholic Encyclopedia)<\/em>! <\/span><\/p>\n The Catechism of the Catholic Church<\/em> admits the Church (not the Bible) had to come up with terms of “philosophical” (pagan\/Greek) origin to explain it:<\/p>\n 251<\/strong> In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop its own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance,” “person,” or “hypostasis,” “relation” and so on (Catechism of the Catholic Church. Imprimatur Potest +Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Doubleday, NY 1995, p. 74).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Here is what is recorded, that a one-time Greco-Roman Catholic bishop named Marcellus of Ancyra wrote around the middle of the fourth century, where certain aspects of trinitarianism came from–paganism: <\/span><\/p>\n Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God…These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him ‘On the Three Natures’. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato (Source: Logan A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), ‘On the Holy Church’: Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ). <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Valentinus<\/a> also wrote this in the heretical ‘Gospel of Truth’:<\/span><\/p>\n The Father uncovers his bosom, which is the Holy Spirit, revealing his secret. His secret is his Son! <\/span> (Valentinus. Gospel of Truth. Verse 17. English translation by Patterson Brown). <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hence Valentinus<\/a> is the earliest known professing Christian writer to make clear trinitarian claims (though he, himself, did not come up with the term trinity)<\/em>. It also should be noted that Valentinus was denounced as a heretic by Polycarp<\/a> of Asia Minor, when Polycarp visited Rome (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 3, Verse 4) and is considered to have been a heretic by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, most Protestants, and those in the Churches of God.<\/span><\/p>\n The idea of the trinity really became promoted by a student of Origen of Alexandira called Gregory the Wonder Worker or Gregory Thaumaturgus:<\/p>\n The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen’s pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos<\/em> composed between 260 and 270, he writes:<\/p>\n There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. (Joyce, George. “The Blessed Trinity.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 20 Apr. 2012 <http:\/\/www.newadvent.org\/cathen\/15047a.htm>.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n An interesting last statement.<\/p>\n Well, Gregory claimed to see an apparition of the Apostle John as well as Mary, the Mother of Jesus<\/a> (and is generally considered the first such person to do so), so it seems he may have gotten some “revelation” from a claimed Marian apparition. According to other sources, he had the power to cause death by placing his cloak on people, promoted non-biblical positions about Mary, and may have been the first to promote the expression “the Holy Trinity” in one of his writings. Notice the following:<\/p>\n Here the mystery of the Holy Trinity was revealed by the archangel to the Holy Virgin according to the gospel (Gregory Thaumaturgus, Homily concerning the Holy Mother of God, Section 35. Translated from the Armenian by F. C. CONYBEARE The Expositor 5th series vol.3 (1896), p. 173. http:\/\/www.tertullian.org\/fathers\/gregory_thaumaturgus_homily.htm viewed 11\/13\/12).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The gospel never uses the expression trinity, much less “Holy Trinity.” But Gregory put his own interpretation on scripture (in this case, he was referring to Luke 1:35). Gregory was a major reason that the trinity started to get accepted much outside of Montanist circles (Origen, too, was a factor). For more information on him, check out the article Gregory the Wonder Worker<\/a>.<\/p>\n Many people know that there was a great debate at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Although Gregory did not wish to go to this meeting, Emperor Constantine summoned and forced Dr. Arius to attend the pagan Emperor’s council. <\/span>According to historical accounts, the attendees at this council were split into three factions:<\/span><\/p>\n 1) Arians – Supporters of the position of Dr. Arius, about 10% of the attendees. Trinitarians were NOT the majority at Nicea as the historians Henry Bettenson and Chris Mauder admit:<\/p>\n The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority, and they were … disliked by many who were not adherents of Arius. (Bettenson H, Mauder C. eds., Documents of the Christian Church. London: Oxford University Press, 1943, p. 45)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Notice what a Roman Catholic priest wrote about Athanasius:<\/p>\n Remember the example of St. Athanasius, the great champion for the true Faith in the 4th-Century crisis concerning the Person and nature of Jesus Christ. St. Athanasius stood up against 90% of all the bishops in the Church, and even endured the appearance of being excommunicated by Pope Liberius . . . (Gruner N., Priest. Part II FATIMA: Roadblocks and Breakthroughs. The Fatima Crusader 110, Fall 2014, p. 48)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So, the above account claims that 90% of Greco-Roman bishops did NOT support the trinity. The idea that the trinity was a fundamental part of even the Greco-Roman faith simply does not agree with the facts.<\/p>\n Although, Eusebius led the biggest group, he and his side did not win.<\/p>\n Emperor Constantine was familiar with a trinitarian viewpoint as he had practiced Mithraism, which had a type of triad\/trinity leading it (see Do You Practice Mithraism?<\/a>).<\/span> After an impassioned speech by Athanasius, Emperor Constantine arose. And since he was the Emperor (plus he was dressed as a golden “angel”; Feldmeth N. Early Christianity. CD Lecture. Fuller Theological Seminary, c. 2003), his standing was noticed by the bulk of the attendees who correctly interpreted the Emperor as now supporting Athanasius. Athanasius of Alexandria was the big supporter of the trinity and his speech moved Constantine. Because<\/span> of Athanasius’ speech and the Emperor’s approval, the bulk of the attendees decided to come up with a statement on the Godhead that the Arians could not support.<\/p>\n This, to a degree, solved the Emperor’s immediate concern about unity of his version of Christianity, and pretty much drove the Arians out. But even some of the strongest supporters of Athanasius’ position, such as <\/span>Marcion of Ancyra, actually did not believe in the trinity as now taught (that is why this paper used the term “Proto-Trinitarians” above). <\/span><\/p>\n Also notice that Emperor Constantine was heavily involved:<\/p>\n Although Constantine<\/strong> is usually remembered for the steps he took toward making Christianity the established religion of the Roman Empire, it would not be wrong to consider him the one who inaugurated the centuries of trinitarian orthodoxy<\/strong>. It was he who proposed and perhaps even imposed the expression homoousis<\/em> at the Council of Nicea in 325<\/strong>, and it was he who provided government aid to the orthodox and exerted government pressure against nonconformists. (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 332-333).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thus a pagan emperor, proposed and militarily imposed, a doctrine on his own. And this did not come from the Bible into the world’s largest churches, but from a pagan (Constantine still honored the pagan sun deities after his supposed conversion to Christianity and was not even baptized into the world’s church until his death bed–and even then he insisted upon being buried in a grave dedicated to a pagan deity).<\/p>\n Notice the following Roman Catholic writing:<\/p>\n God did not stop speaking once He had given the Church the apostolic deposit of faith. He continued to explain the full meaning of that deposit through the development of doctrine, which continues down through this present age by the work of the Magisterium, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is how the Church came to understand more clearly, for example, the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity–the truth that God is three Persons in one divine Essence. This most basic of Christian doctrines took several hundred years for the magisterium to define in a way that would do justice to all the various aspects of the revelation that God had given us in Christ. (Thigpen P. The Rapture Trap, 2nd edition. Nihil obstat<\/em> Joseph C. Price, June 14, 2002. Imprimatur<\/em> Anthony Cardinal Bevilacqua, Archbishop of Philadelphia, June 18, 2002. Ascension Press, 2002, p. 226)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Notice that it is admitted that the New Testament and the original apostles did NOT accept the “mystery of the Trinity” even though this supposedly is the “most basic of Christian doctrines<\/span>.” It should be noted that it took a non-baptized person in the 4th century to push for it and partially define it–that person was an unbaptized, sun-worshiping Emperor Constantine whose then current religion had a trinity of sorts when he pushed for this (see also Do You Practice Mithraism?<\/a>). Emperor Constantine did not possess God’s Holy Spirit, but instead his mind had “been blinded by the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4, NJB).<\/p>\n It should be noted that the trinity as now taught was not completely<\/em> adopted until many decades after the 325 A.D. Council of Nicea. <\/span> It was not even the necessary position of the bishops of Rome or Constantinople in the middle of the fourth century.<\/span><\/p>\n Notice what a Roman Catholic priest wrote about Athanasius:<\/p>\n Remember the example of St. Athanasius, the great champion for the true Faith in the 4th-Century crisis concerning the Person and nature of Jesus Christ. St. Athanasius stood up against 90% of all the bishops in the Church, and even endured the appearance of being excommunicated by Pope Liberius . . . (Gruner N., Priest. Part II FATIMA: Roadblocks and Breakthroughs. The Fatima Crusader 110, Fall 2014, p. 48)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So, the above account claims that 90% of Greco-Roman bishops did NOT support the trinity. The idea that the trinity was a fundamental part of even the Greco-Roman faith simply does not agree with the facts.<\/p>\n And at least one who claimed to be Pope (Liberius) was believed to have been Semi-Arian. Notice w<\/span>hat The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em> teaches:<\/p>\n The second Formula of Sirmium<\/strong> (357) stated the doctrine of the Anomoeans, or extreme Arians. Against this the Semi-Arian bishops, assembled at Ancyra, the episcopal city of their leader Basilius, issued a counter formula, asserting that the Son is in all things like the Father, afterwards approved by the Third Synod of Sirmium<\/strong> (358). This formula, though silent on the term “homousios<\/em>“, consecrated by the Council of Nicaea, was signed by a few orthodox bishops, and probably by Pope Liberius (Benigni, Umberto. “Council of Rimini.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 11 Jul. 2008 <http:\/\/www.newadvent.org\/cathen\/13057b.htm>).<\/p>\n Pneumatomachi<\/strong>\u2026The majority of this sect were clearly orthodox on the Consubstantiality of the Son; they had sent a deputation from the Semi-Arian council of Lampsacus (364 A.D.) to Pope Liberius, who after some hesitation acknowledged the soundness of their faith<\/strong> (Arendzen, John. “Pneumatomachi.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 11 Jul. 2008 <http:\/\/www.newadvent.org\/cathen\/12174a.htm>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Notice that the Eastern Orthodox<\/a> bishop of Constantinople, Macedonius, in the fourth century held to some form of Semi-Arian\/binitarian view:<\/p>\n Towards the middle of the fourth century, Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople<\/strong>, and, after him a number of Semi-Arians, while apparently admitting the Divinity of the Word<\/strong>, denied that of the Holy Ghost<\/strong> (Forget J. Transcribed by W.S. French, Jr. Holy Ghost. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Copyright \u00a9 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright \u00a9 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Thus, into the middle of the fourth century, the two major leaders of the Greco-Roman churches endorsed Semi-Arian, non-trinitarian positions. How then can the Greco-Romans and Protestants claim that the trinity was the original view of the church? It is a historical fact that it was NOT.<\/p>\n The trinity was finally formally adopted at the Council of Constantinople<\/span> in 381–though many in the Roman and Orthodox Church<\/a> believed in versions of it prior to this–but even in 381 it was not exactly the same trinity teaching as now understood. In spite of this, however, the trinity is considered to be so important that The Catholic Encyclopedia <\/i>states:<\/span><\/p>\n The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion (The Blessed Trinity, 1912).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Council doctrine of the trinity <\/span> is considered to be so central to the mainstream that they often teach that one is either not Christian or is in a cult if one does not accept this false doctrine. Yet in the early third century, the bishop of Rome (Zephyrinus<\/a>) would not make a decision about the trinity as the nature of God. How central <\/em>to the Christian religion could a doctrine, not fully embraced until a later date, actually be?<\/span><\/p>\n Similarly, notice this contradictory statement from a Protestant theologian:<\/span><\/p>\n The doctrine of the Trinity is fundamental for the Christian faith, even though the doctrine was not clearly formulated and generally accepted by an ecumenical council until the fourth century..The Council of Chalcedon, the decisions of which were reaffirmed at the Trullanum of 680-681, gave us the formulation of Christological doctrine we now call orthodox. Why did it take over two centuries for debate to cease on a topic, only to leave us with what was already said in 451?…Is it possible to say that Chalcedon politics created theology? There can be no doubt that political factors played a role, and a very important one <\/strong>… The formula for laying the trinitarian and Christological controversies to rest was spelled out at Chalcedon in 451, although it took more than two centuries to accomplish this goal (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. <\/span>127,192-193,194). <\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Anything that was truly “fundamental for the Christian faith” must have been clear and accepted by the true church from the first century. This fact alone demonstrates the fallacy of the trinity. <\/span><\/p>\n Muslims correctly recognize that the “trinity” was not the belief of early Christians:<\/p>\n The concept of the Trinity, that \u201cGod\u201d consists of three persons, who are all \u201cgods\u201d themselves, specifi – cally \u201cGod\u201d the Father, \u201cGod\u201d the Son, and \u201cGod\u201d the Holy Spirit, is the pillar of pagan Christian theology. But it was not always so. Actually, one finds a historic disconnect between the beliefs, on this issue, of the Eastern Church of the Levant and Byzantium and those of the Western Church of Rome, the latter supporting the pagan concept of human divinity and the former making a clear separation between god and man. Break the Cross. Dabiq, issue 15, Shawal 1437, 31 July 2016, p. 51)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n While the above came from a radical portion of Islam, the conclusion that early Christians did not believe God was a trinity is correct–and this is one of the doctrines they point to showing that the bulk that claim Christianity are NOT faithful.<\/p>\n A bishop of the Eastern Orthodox Church also confirmed the trinity’s late acceptance:<\/span><\/p>\n …the councils defined once and for all the Church’s teaching upon the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith — the Trinity and the Incarnation. All Christians agree in regarding these things as ‘mysteries’ which lie beyond human understanding and language…the first two, held in the fourth century…formulated the doctrine of the Trinity…The work of Nicea was taken up by the second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 381. This council expanded and adapted the Nicene Creed, developing in particular that teaching upon the Holy Spirit, whom it affirmed to be God even as the Father and the Son are God…It was the supreme achievement of St. Athanasius of Alexandria to draw out the full implications of the key word in the Nicene Cred: homoousios<\/em>, one in essence or substance, consubstantial. Complementary to his work was that of the three Cappadocian Fathers, Saints…(died 394). While Athanasius emphasized the unity of God — Father and Son are one in essence (ousia<\/em>) – the Cappadocians stressed God’s threeness: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons (hypostasis<\/em>) (Ware T. The Orthodox Church. Penguin Books, London, 1997, pp. 20-23).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n If this doctrine were originally part of the true Christian Church, it would seem that this would be a charge laid against true Christians (such as Stephen, Peter, and Paul in the Book of Acts)–but it never was. And of course, as even most Roman and Orthodox <\/a>Catholics admit, the term trinity is not mentioned in the Bible.<\/span><\/p>\n To insure that people would be forced into accepting the trinity, shortly after the 381 council, Emperor Theodosius declared:<\/p>\n … let us believe in the one diety of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in out judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that the shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation an the second the punishment of out authority, in accordance with the will of heaven shall decide to inflict…(Theodosian Code XVI.1.2. Cited in Bettenson H, ed., Documents of the Christian Church<\/em>, London: Oxford University Press, 1943, p. 31).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Notice that Emperor Theodosius called non-trinitarians “foolish madmen” — and non-trinitarians have often been called names ever since.<\/p>\n Furthermore, consider that belief in the trinity ended up needing the force of Imperial Roman punishment against non-trinitarians<\/p>\n Why?<\/p>\n The reason is that the trinity simply was not something that true Christians ever taught.<\/p>\n Yet, hate and violence against those that did not accept it was promoted by the late fourth century Greco-Roman bishop and saint Gregory of Nyssa:<\/p>\n I affirm, then, that it is a lawful thing to hate God’s enemies, and that this kind of hatred is pleasing to our Lord: and by God’s enemies I mean those who deny the glory of our Lord, be they Jews, or downright idolaters, or those who through Arius’ teaching idolize the creature, and so adopt the error of the Jews. Now when the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are with orthodox devotion being glorified and adored by those who believe that in a distinct and unconfused Trinity there is One Substance, Glory, Kingship, Power, and Universal Rule, in such a case as this what good excuse for fighting can there be? (Gregory of Nyssa. Letter 17 to Eustathia, Ambrosia, and Basilissa. Translated by William Moore.<\/span> From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series<\/span>, Vol. 5.<\/span> Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace.<\/span> (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co.,<\/span> 1893<\/span>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Historical scholar Jonathan Roberts (who was not in the COG) wrote:<\/p>\n Until Theodosius commanded his subjects to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, and enforced his commands upon them by the most inhumane ways, that doctrine was rejected and resisted by the Greek and Roman followers of the Christos … That so senseless and unnatural doctrine should have been forced upon any people, by any means, however tyrannical is a mystery even more mysterious than the arithmetic that can make one three, and three one (Roberts JM. Antiquity Unveiled: Ancient Voices from the the Spirit Realms Disclose the Most Startling Revelations, Proving Christianity to be of Heathen Origin … Published by Oriental publishing co., 1894. Original from the University of Michigan, Digitized May 21, 2007, p. 468).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Consider that from 370-380, Demophilus, who was anti-trinitarian, was the Patriarch of Constantinople (List of Patriarchs of Constantinople. Patriarchate of Constantinople, http:\/\/patriarchateofconstantinople.com\/list-of-patriarchs.html accessed 07\/21\/21).<\/p>\n About this time the Emperor Valens went to Antioch on the Orontes; while he was on his journey Eudoxius died, after having governed the churches of Constantinople during the space of eleven years.\u00a0Demophilus was immediately ordained as his successor by the Arian bishops. The followers of the Nicene doctrines, believing that the course of events was in their power, elected Evagrius as their bishop. He had been ordained by Eustathius, who had formerly governed the church of Antioch in Syria, and who having been recalled from banishment by Jovian, lived in a private manner at Constantinople, and devoted himself to the instruction of those who held his sentiments, exhorting them to perseverance in their view of the Divine Being. (Sozomen. The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen: Comprising a History of the Church from A.D. 324 to A.D. 440 ; Translated from the Greek, with a Memoir of the Author ; Also The Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, as Epitomised by Photius. Bohn, 1855, p. 264)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So, we see that the appointment of Demophilus was fairly normal, but that the trinitarian crowd elected Evagrius who was ordained by one who had been banished. They helped set the stage then, for the later removal of Demophilus.<\/p>\n Even the official website of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople once admitted that the arians\/semi-semiarians ruled that \u201csee\u201d for at least \u201cforty years\u201d in the fourth century (Gregory I of Nazianzen 379-381. \u00a9 2010 The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.\u00a0 http:\/\/www.patriarchate.org\/patriarchate\/former-patriarchs\/gregory-i-of-nazianzen viewed 04\/17\/10). Furthermore, it should be understood that there is no evidence that Constantinople had any \u201cbishops\u201d prior to the fourth century who were actually trinitarians.<\/p>\n The pagan convert Theodosius declared the trinity to tbe the official policy of his empire in 380 A.D. But even that late declaration also supports the view that trinitarianism was not an original catholic belief.<\/p>\n The current Nicene creed, that was adopted at the 381 Council of Constantinople which was convened by Emperor Theodosius, met resistance before acceptance. When the emperor found the Church in this state, he began to consider by what means he could make peace, effect a union, and enlarge the Churches. Immediately therefore he intimated his desire to Demophilus, who presided over the Arian party, and inquired whether he was willing to assent to the Nicene creed, and thus reunite the people, and establish concord. Upon Demophilus’s declining to accede to this proposal, the emperor said to him, \u201cSince you reject peace and unanimity, I order you to quit the churches.\u201d<\/p>\n Which when Demophilus heard, weighing with himself the difficulty of contending against superior power, he convoked his followers in the church, and, standing in the midst of them, thus spoke: \u201cBrethren, it is written in the Gospel.’ If they persecute you in one city, flee ye into another. ‘ ‘ Since therefore the emperor excludes us from the churches, take notice that we will henceforth hold our assemblies without the city. (Socrates Scholasticus, pp. 265-266)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Therefore, consider that: 1) trinitarianism was not the position of the patriarchy of Constantinople, 2) Arian meant Semi-Arian above (and this happens in other writings), 3) an emperor removed the patriarch Demophilus for not endorsing the Nicene Creed, and 4) that political considerations, not theological, looks to have been the reason to push trinitarianism.<\/p>\n The Roman Emperor Theodosius removed Demophilus because he refused to accept Theodosius\u2019 creed. With imperial power, Theodosius made his trinitarian position\u00a0 the \u201cbroad way.\u201d<\/p>\n Jesus warned that it was the narrow way His people are to take, not the broad way (Matthew 7:13-14)\u2014which has long been the way of the trinitarians. Jesus also taught you could tell the true religious leaders from the false by their fruits (cf. Matthew 7:15-20).<\/p>\n Now, the trinity is now so widely held, most consider it essential to be a Christian.<\/p>\n For example, the Vatican\u2019s 21st<\/sup> century, handbook, The Bishop and Christian Unity: An Ecumenical Vademecum<\/em>, basically divides professing Christianity into two groups. One group that accepts the trinitarian godhead definition adopted by the 381 A.D. Council of Constantinople and the other that does not accept it. The Vatican\u2019s handbook only calls for ecumenical unity with the first group.<\/p>\n Furthermore, that is consistent with the trinitarian position adopted last century by the World Council of Churches (WCC Approves a Trinitarian Basis, Christianity Today, December 22, 1961), that has remained in effect in the 21st<\/sup> century (Thomas TK. \u201cWCC, Basis of,\u201d in Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, 2nd ed., ed. Nicholas Lossky et al. Geneva: WCC Publications and Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002: 1238\u20131239). The WCC only accepts trinitarians.<\/p>\n Thus, since the CCOG does not accept the 381 A.D. trinitarian adoption, it would not even be a target of the ecumenical efforts of the Vatican or the WCC. It, and churches closely like it, are a different group.<\/p>\n The idea that early Christians held to trinitarianism is a myth as all reputable theological scholars admit.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s summarize some facts of scripture and early church history:<\/p>\n The idea that the Bible and early Christians believed in the trinity of Theodosius is clearly a myth. It was not part of the original faith and should not be embraced by true Christians.<\/p>\n As far as the Bible goes, if the t<\/span>rinity doctrine was originally part of the Christian Church, it would seem that Paul would have mentioned three members of the Godhead in his letters to the churches–he never does. Paul mentions the Father and Jesus in every introduction of every book he wrote<\/b> (Rom 1:7; I Cor 1:3; II Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2;Col 1:2;I The 1:1; II Thes 1:2; I Tim 1:2; II Tim 1:2; Ti 1:1; Phi 1:3; Heb 1:1-2;), but he never mentions the Holy Spirit<\/b>–this is a binitarian position. If the Holy Spirit was a co-equal member of the trinity, could this possibly be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:28-29)? <\/span><\/p>\n Although Protestants have claimed sola Scriptura<\/em>, they did not get their trinitarian doctrine from the Bible either–they accepted what the Greco-Roman councils decided (see also the free online book: Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing<\/em> Church of God differs from Protestantism<\/a>).<\/p>\n Anyway, the early Christian church was not trinitarian, and those who actually “contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) are not as well.<\/p>\n Those interested in studying this doctrine in more detail, should consider looking at the following documented items:<\/em><\/p>\n Mysteries of God. What is God?<\/a>\u00a0This free e-book answers many questions, such as is God omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent? Does the Godhead consist of a closed trinity or an expanding family? Here are links to related sermons:\u00a0Mysteries: Is God Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and\u00a0<\/a>Omniscient?<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Where Did God Come From? What Does God Look Like?<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0How is God One? Creeds?<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Jesus and Trinitarian Mythology<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Mysteries: The Holy Spirit<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0God\u2019s Names and Kingdom\u00a0<\/a>and\u00a0Mysteries of the Gospel and Deification<\/a>. COGwriter This year, May 31st is called the “feast of the Most Holy Trinity” or “Trinity Sunday” by various ones. Notice something from a Roman Catholic writer: This Sunday, the Trinity Reveals the Meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything This Sunday,\u00a0Trinity Sunday (Year C), … As the Catechism\u00a0puts it: \u201cGod is one, but not […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100829","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-religious-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n
This Sunday, the Trinity Reveals the Meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n2) In-Between – Those who held a position between the Arians and Proto-Trinitarians, about 75% of the attendees. Eusebius was the main spokesperson for them.
\n3) The Proto-Trinitarians – Those who supported the views of Athanasius, about 15% of the attendees.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nPlease understand that Theodosius removed Demophilus from being the Patriarch of Constantinople because he would NOT accept the Emperor\u2019s trinitarian Nicene Creed. The 5th century Greco-Roman historian Socrates Scholasticus wrote:<\/p>\n\n
\nThe MYSTERY of GOD\u2019s PLAN: Why Did God Create Anything? Why Did God Make You?<\/a>\u00a0This free online book helps answers some of the biggest questions that human have, including the biblical meaning of life. Here is a link to three related sermons:\u00a0Mysteries of God\u2019s Plan<\/a>,\u00a0Mysteries of Truth, Sin, Rest, Suffering, and God\u2019s Plan<\/a>,\u00a0Mystery of Race<\/a>, and\u00a0The Mystery of YOU<\/a>. Here is a link to two videos in Spanish:\u00a0El Misterio del Plan de Dios<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0El Misterio de Satan\u00e1s, el Misterio de la Verdad, el Misterio del Reposo<\/a>.
\nDid the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity?<\/a> Most act like this is so, but is it? Here is an old, by somewhat related, article in the Spanish language LA DOCTRINA DE LA TRINIDAD<\/a>. A related sermon is available: Trinity: Fundamental to Christianity or Something Else?<\/a> A brief video is also available: Three trinitarian scriptures?<\/a>
\nBinitarianism: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning<\/a> This is a longer article than the Binitarian View<\/a> article, and has a little more information on binitarianism, and less about unitarianism. A related sermon is also available: Binitarian view of the Godhead<\/a>.
\nBinitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning<\/a> Is binitarianism the correct position? What about unitarianism or trinitarianism?
\nBeliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?<\/a>\u00a0Did the original \u201ccatholic church\u201d have doctrines held by the\u00a0Continuing<\/em>\u00a0Church of God? Did Church of God leaders uses the term \u201ccatholic church\u201d to ever describe the church they were part of? Here are links to related sermons:\u00a0Original Catholic Church of God?<\/a>,\u00a0Original Catholic Doctrine: Creed, Liturgy, Baptism, Passover<\/a>,\u00a0What Type of Catholic was Polycarp of Smyrna?<\/a>,\u00a0Tradition, Holy Days, Salvation, Dress, & Celibacy<\/a>,\u00a0Early Heresies and Heretics<\/a>,\u00a0Doctrines: 3 Days, Abortion, Ecumenism, Meats<\/a>,\u00a0Tithes, Crosses, Destiny, and more<\/a>,\u00a0Saturday or Sunday?<\/a>,\u00a0The Godhead<\/a>,\u00a0Apostolic Laying on of Hands Succession<\/a>,\u00a0Church in the Wilderness Apostolic Succession List<\/a>,\u00a0Holy Mother Church and Heresies<\/a>, and\u00a0Lying Wonders and Original Beliefs<\/a>. Here is a link to that book in the Spanish language:\u00a0Creencias de la iglesia Cat\u00f3lica original<\/a>.
\n<\/b>Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing<\/em> Church of God Differs from Protestantism<\/a> The CCOG is NOT Protestant. This free online book explains how the real <\/em>Church of God differs from mainstream\/traditional Protestants. Several sermons related to the free book are also available: Protestant, Baptist, and CCOG History<\/a>; The First Protestant, God\u2019s Command, Grace, & Character<\/a>; The New Testament, Martin Luther, and the Canon<\/a>; Eucharist, Passover, and Easter<\/a>; Views of Jews, Lost Tribes, Warfare, & Baptism<\/a>; Scripture vs. Tradition, Sabbath vs. Sunday<\/a>; Church Services, Sunday, Heaven, and God\u2019s Plan<\/a><\/a>; Seventh Day Baptists\/Adventists\/Messianics: Protestant or COG?<\/a>; Millennial Kingdom of God and God\u2019s Plan of Salvation<\/a>; Crosses, Trees, Tithes, and Unclean Meats<\/a>; The Godhead and the Trinity<\/a>; Fleeing or Rapture?<\/a>; and Ecumenism, Rome, and CCOG Differences<\/a>.
\n<\/a>Valentinus: The Gnostic Trinitarian Heretic<\/a> He apparently was the first Christ-professing heretic to come up with the idea of three hypostases.
\n<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"