The Origin of Trinity The concept of Trinity drive it origins From Paganism to Constantine Its indubitably believe that numerous verses from the Holy Bible substantiate the oneness of God, for instances; “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me” (Isaiah 46) “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord” {6:4}. There are many other verses which have proof the oneness of God in the Bible. However, the most imperative thing is the fact that the word trinity did not originate from the Holy Bible. Even though majority of the Christians across the globe considers the concept of Trinity essential to Christianity, innumerable Bible scholars and historians come to an understanding that the Trinity of Christianity is indebted to greater extent to pagan polytheism and Greek philosophy than to the monotheism of the Jew and the Jewish Jesus. The quest for the origins of Trinity was initiated many centuries ago. Annals of the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian civilizations show polytheistic religions, although many assert that the earliest man believed in one God. Alexander Hislop in many of his works uncovered how the original belief in one god was swapped by the triads of paganism which were immersed into Catholic Church doctrines. Maximum number of the ancient theology was lost in the cause of time in the shingles. Nonetheless, archaeological expeditions in ancient Mesopotamia have unsealed the enthralling culture of the Sumerians, which flourished over 4,000 years ago. Though Sumerian was overthrown first by Assyria, and then by the Babylon, its gods lived on in the cultures of those who conquered. An historian S. H. Hooke articulates in minutiae of the ancient Sumerian trinity: Anu was the primary god of heaven, the ‘Father’, and of course the ‘king of the Gods’; Enlil, the ‘wind-god’ was the god of the earth, and a creator god; and Enki was the god of waters and the ‘lord of wisdom’ `(15-18). Again this is not a proof that the Christians Trinity descended from the ancient Sumerian, Babylonian and Assyrian trios. However, Hislop continues the comparison, ‘In the unity of that one, Only God of Babylonians there were three persons, and to symbolize [sic] the doctrine of Trinity, they employed… the equilateral triangle, as it is known the Romish does at this day’. George Hart revealed the similarities between the Egypt’s history and that of the Samaria’s antiquity. The works of this professor of the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, displays how Egypt also believed in ‘mystical, above creation, and pre-existing’ one, the god Amun. Amun was truly three gods in one. Ra was his face, Ptah his body, and Amun his hidden identity. A renowned historian Will Durant concurs that Ra, Amon, and ptah were combined as three epitomes or aspects of one supreme and triune deity (Oriental Heritage 219). This is also not Proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the ancient Egyptian triads. However, Durant submits that ‘from Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity… (Caesar 595). Dr. Gordon Laing agrees that ‘the worship of the Egyptian triad Isis, Serapis and the child Horus’ probably accustomed the early church theologians to the idea triune God, and was influential ‘in the formation of the doctrine of the trinity as set forth in the Nicaean and Athanasian creeds’ (128-129). According to Jesse Benedict Carter an historical lecturer tell us of the Etruscans, that the early Christians were exposed to a numbers of trinities; from the Babylon through Greece and went on to Rome (16-19), they brought with them their trinity of Tinia, Uni and Minerva. This trinity was a ‘new idea to the Romans’, and yet it became so ‘typical of Rome’ that it quickly spread throughout Italy. Even the names of the Roman trinity: Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, reflect the ancestry. That the Christianity was not ashamed to borrow from pagan culture is ample shown by Durant: ‘Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it’ (Caesar 595). This is also not a proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the Etruscan and Roman trios. Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan, a catholic scholar and professor at Yale, confirms the churches respect for pagan ideas when he states that the Apologists and other early church fathers used and cited the (pagan) Roman Sibylline Oracles to the extent that they were called ‘Sibyllists’ by The 2nd century critic, Celsus. There was also medieval hymn, ‘Dies ires’, which foretold the ‘coming of the day of wrath’ based on the ‘dual authority of David and Sibyl’ (Emergence 64-65). The attitude of the church toward paganism is best summed up in Pope Gregory the Great’s words to a missionary: “You must not interfere with any tradition belief or religious observance that can be harmonized with Christianity (qtd. In Laing 130S). An excellent archaeological expeditions in ancient Mesopotamia has help in uncovered the fascinating culture of the Sumerians, which flourished over 4,000 years ago. A classic historian S. H. Hooke narrated in details of the ancient Sumerian trinity: Anu, was the primary god of heaven, ‘the father and the king of the God; Enlil the wind- god was the god of earth, and a creator god; and Enki was the god of waters and the ‘lord of wisdom’ (15-18). The Babylonian triad consisted of ‘three gods of roughly equal rank… whose inter-relationship is of the essence of their natures ( H. W. Saggs:316). The Babylonian employed… the equilateral triangle, as it is known the Romish church does at this day (p. 16). Egyptian trio god The Amun god To Egyptian’s the Amun god was truly three in one. Re was is face, Ptah his body, and Amun was his hidden identity. The above analysis was made by George Hart a professor of an ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics at the University of London. A well-known historian Will Durant concurs that Ra, Amon, and Ptah were combined as three aspects of one supreme and triune deity (oriental Heritage 201). Furthermore, a hymn written to Amun in 14th century BC defines the Egyptian trinity: shows that ‘All Gods are three:- Amun, Re, Ptah; they have no equal. His name is hidden as Amun, he is Re… before (men) and his body is Ptah (Horngung 219). Dr. Gordon Laing agrees that the worship of Egyptian triad Isis, Serapis and the child Horus’ probably accustomed the early church theologians to the idea of triune God (128-1239). The Etruscans The Etruscans trinity: Tinia, Uni and Munerva this form of trinity was new ideas to the Romans and yet it was become so typical of Rome which enables it to spread quickly in Italy. The names of the Roman trinity: Jupiter, Juno and Munerva, reflects the ancestry. Will Durant was of view ‘that Christianity was not ashamed to borrow pagan culture (Caesar 595). At this point it’s easily fathomable that the concept Trinity did not come from Judaism. The Jesus Christ did not speak of Trinity. The message of Jesus was of the expectation of Kingdom; it was a message of forgiveness and love. Concerning his relationship with God, Jesus said; “ for I have come from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of Him who sent me” (Jhon 6:38), and in another chapter Jesus said; “my food is to do the Will of Him who sent me and to finish His work” (John, 4:34). Jesus further said; “my doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me” (John 7:16). These verses and many others from the Holy Bible leave no doubt concerning the relationship between God and Jesus Christ. In disparity, Judaism is mainly monotheistic with no indication of a trinity. The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) is occupied with verses like “there is no other God… Iam the Lord and there is none else (Isaih 45:14-18). A Jesus commentary affirms that “no other gods exist, for to declare this would be blasphemous… (chumash 458). The scholars agree that the word trinity is neither mentioned nor intended by the authors of the Old Testament (Lonergan 130; fortman xv; Burns2). Jesus Christ died over 100 years before the word Trinity was coined. The word trinity came into existence during the Tertullian period: from the Nicene debate the Homousis and Ousis are not Biblical but from Stoic thought. The word trinity is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. The words trinity did not originate from the Bible, to know the origin of Trinity in Christianity its vital for us to take a look at the situations which the early Christians found themselves. The length of separation in the church even at the time of the Apostles was a major factor, for instance Apostle Paul sent a letter to Thessalonians that “ the mystery of iniquity doth already work” (ii Th 2:7). Walter Bauer; the German New Testament scholar, early church historian and lexicographer succinctly asserts that many Christians of the early time were influenced by Gnosticism. Bauer also proves that the early Christians in Edessa seem to have been followers of the marcions belief. A Greek professor, James Marshall Campbell in his work “The Greek Father” unveiled the Greek fear of Gnosticism prevalent in the early church. Professor James claims that Gnosticism was so predominant at the early period, and many early church writings were defenses against Gnosticism. It’s vital to note that Gnosticism borrowed most of it philosophy and religion from Mithraism, oriental mysticism, astrology, magic and Plato. It considered matter to be evil and in opposition to Deity, depended heavily on visions and sought salvation through knowledge. We owe a lot to these Sages of old J. N. D. Kelly, a lecturer at oxford university, states that “the concepts of philosophy” provided thinkers … with an academic framework for expressing their ideas to the extent that it became ‘deeper religion of most intellectual people’. According to McGiffert, the concepts of philosophy prevalent during the time of the early church were Stoicism, which was ‘ethical in its interests and Monistic in its Ontology’ and Platonism, which was dualistic and predominately religious (46). That the philosophies affected Christianity is a historical fact. The teachings of the philosophers about God; in Plato’s time as, “the Supreme Reality appears in the Trinitarian form of the God, the intelligence, and the world Soul (Laing 129). Laing attributes elaborate Trinitarian theories to the Neo-Platonists, and considers Neo-Platonism ideas as ‘one of the operative factors in the development of Christian theology (129). In a nutshell, Durant writes of the former pagan philosopher, Plotinus, that “Christianity accepted nearly every line of him…’ (Caesar 611). The conditions were not conducive for the establishment of a new religion other than Paganism; at that particular period Pagans were still controlling the state, and the mind set of Roman government was still at the traditional stages, very superstitious. Whatever calamities the state experienced was taken as the displeasure of gods. As the dissolute Roman government started to crumble, it was not see as a result of irregularities and corruption by the controllers of the state but as the enragement of the gods; and certainly there were persecutions against Christians to placate these gods. Christianity was born into very harsh condition, and at that period for one to remain a faithful Christian or to belief in Jesus Christ meant hardship and ridicule. It was a very difficult period to convert to Christianity from Paganism which was the safer religion. With ambition to develop, the church compromised truth, which resulted in confusion as Pagans became Christians and intermingled belief and traditions. Pelikan discuss the conflict in the church after AD70 and the decline of the Judaic influence within Christianity. As more Pagans were reverted to Christianity, the more offensive they became with Judaic influence. At a time some among them went to the length of rejecting the Old Testament (13-14). The above explanations give more clarity about the formation and the development of the word ‘trinity’. Bernard Lonergan, a Roman Catholic priest and Bible scholar, concurs that the educated Christians of the early centuries believed in a single God (119). Many writers emerged with the dead of the apostles these prolific writers took part indefending Christianity against the pagans persecutions. The writers of these Apologies are known as the Apologists. Campbell agrees when he notes that ‘the Apologists borrowed heavily, and a times inappropriate, from the pagan resources at hand’ (23). They began the ‘process of accommodation’ between Christianity and common philosophy, and used reason to ‘justify Christianity to the pagan world’ (22-23) Tustin Martyr (c.107-166) was the famous of these Apologists. He was pagan by birth; he became a pagan philosophy, then a Christian. After he insinuated that Greek philosophy and Christianity are related. The church was not only divided by Gnosticism, enticed by philosophy and put up by pagan religion, but there was equally geographical division. The geographical division was between East and West; the East centered in Alexandria and the West centered in Rome. Origen who was considered to be the founder of theology. According to Pelikan’s historical theology, Origen was the ‘teacher of such orthodox stalwarts as the Cappadocian fathers, but also the ‘teacher of Arius and the originator of many heresies. Centuries after his death he was condemned by councils at least not less than five times; however, both Athanasius and Eusebius had great respect for him. In his attempt to reckon the ‘incomprehensible God’ with both Stoic and Platonic philosophy, Origen presented views that could support both sides of the trinity argument. To him the father and son were separate’ in respect of hypostasis (substance), but one by harmony and concord and identity of will’ (Lonergan 56). He claimed the Son was the image of God.in line with the biblical story, Seth is the image of his father, Adam. With is written: ‘And Adam begot Seth according to his own image and likeness. ‘Image, in this sense, denotes that the Father and the Son have same nature and substance. (Lonergan 58) He also claimed there was a difference between the God and God when he said ‘ß_&hibar;2,_is indeed the God (God himself)….and anything else other than him who is call God, is deified by participation, by sharing in his divinity, and is more properly to called not the God but simple God’ (Lonergan 61). The introduction of Greek inspiration and Gnosticism in the Eastern Church, it became more mystical and philosophical. The humble doctrines that Jesus taught to the uneducated gave way to the complex and sophisticated arguments of Origen. Like Clement and Origen represented theological development of the East, so the Tertullian had tremendous effects in the West. Kelly notes that the West focused in Rome, gave greater credential to the traditional roles, than to the faith of philosophy. The world rotund the early church was changing. The Roman Empire began to crumble and Constantine came to power. He wished to unify the Empire, and chose Christianity as the instrument for the actualization of the unification. Emperor Constantine invited the bishops from East and West to join him in the small sea village side of Nicea for a council to unify the church. McGiffert encapsulates the council: Alexander of Alexandria offering the Athanasian version, Eusebius of Nicomedia presenting the Arian view of the trinity, and a very large ‘middle party’ led by Eusebius of Cesarea whose various theological opinions did not interfere with their desire for peace (259). The Arian creed style was submitted first by the Eusebius of Nicomedia and it was rejected instantaneously. Then the Cesarean baptismal creed was also submitted by the Cesarea. The anti-Arian vehemently modified Eusebius, which they were compelled to sign and at the end point the Arians were eliminated. Those Arians who refused to sign were deposed and exiled. The Lonergan’s analysis shows how the Eusebius creed explained their style of trinity. ‘Out of the Father’s substance’ was now interpreted to show that the Son is ‘out of the Father’, but ‘not part of the Father’s substance’. ‘Born not made’ because ‘made’ refers to all other creatures which come into being through the Son’, and consubstantial’ really means that the Son comes out of the Father and is like him (75) which shows clearly that the council itself lacked unity of thought. Lonergan proceeded with explanation that the language of debate on the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son has made many people think that the ‘Church at Nicea had abandoned the genuine Christian doctrine, which was religious through and through, in order to embrace some sort of Hellenistic ontology’ (128). He conclude that the Nicene dogma marked the ‘transition from the prophetic Oracle of Yahweh… to Catholic dogma’ (136 to 137. The half termer was below the expectation of Constantine hope. That he personally was never truly swayed to Athanasius the views is amply shown by Durant: Constantine invited Arius to a conference six years later; did not interfere with Athanasius’ expulsion by the Eastern bishops; had an Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia, baptize him; and had his son and successor, Constantius, raised as an Arian (Age 7-8). The Nicene was less popular when it was signed. Durant affirms that the majority of Eastern bishops were with the Arius as such they believed Christ was Son of God; neither consubstantial nor co-eternal’ with his Father (Age 7). Arianism has never been truly quenched. While the West accepted the Athanasian view of the Trinity, and the East accepted the Trinity of the Cappadocian fathers, Arianism lives on in the Unitarian Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and in many smaller religions. Summary The doctrine initiated at Nicene council was against the laws of God, the doctrine proved to be bloody which was contrary to the true God of love. The problems which emanated from council at Nicea were a dreadful one: it was certain that many Christians were slaughtered by the Christians in those two years, and then by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome’. At that time they perverted the teachings of Christ: ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’ (Mathew 19:19). Jesus never claim divinity, he claimed to be sent to the Jewish nation; “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24), in another place in the bible Jesus call himself the Messiah (John 4:25-26). Jesus Christ never requires doctrinaire creeds and never call on people to worship him, but rather said, “Follow me” (Mathew 9-9). God revealed prophets and messengers to each nation for them to serve as an exemplary leaders to lead the people to the straight paths; Jesus was therefore correct calling on the lost people of the Israel to follow is foots steps to the righteousness. Jesus said: ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”. (Mathew 4:8). Jesus never require wealthy and learned bishops to mingle philosophy and pagan polytheism with his humble truth, but in somewhere in the bible he blessed the ‘poor’ and the ‘meek’ (Mathew 4:1-12). The dogma or threesome of Trinity did not originated christ from Jesus. In inference; going by the all biblical verses in the holy bible it’s clear that God is one and He’s not associable with anybody, He was not born and never born. Whoever claim that God has begotten son, committed sacrilegious against his creator. Various historical researches made by the eminent historians and of course most them were church scholars of the highest standard, laid a proof that the early man believe that God is one. Reference: Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Trans. Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins. Ed. Robert A. Kraft and Gerhard Krodel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Bible; King James Version Bible; New International Version Campbell, James Marshall. The Greek Fathers. New York Rome: Cooper Square Publishers, 1963. Durant, Will. Our Origental Heritage. New York: Simon. 1935. Vol. 1 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-1979. Faith; The Age of Faith. New York: Simon. 1950. Vol. 4 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-1975. Fortman, Edmund J. The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Hislop, Alexander. The Two Babylonia: Or, the Papal Worship. 1853. 2nd American ed. Neptune: Loizeaux. 1959. Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. New York: Harper. 1959. Laing, Gordon Jennings. Survivals of Roman Religion. New York: Cooper Square Publishers. 1963. Lonergan, Bernard. The Way to Nicea: The Dialectical Development of Trinitarian Theology. Trans. Conn O’Donovan. Philadelphia: Westminster P. 1976. McGifert, Arthur Cushman. A History of Christian Thought. Vol. 1. New York: Scribner’s. 1932. Sags, H.W. F. The Greatness that was Babylon: A Sketch of the Ancient Civilization of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. New York: New American Library. 1968.
Posted on: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 20:31:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015