Someone Please Explain to me

[Somnic]

What exactly does a Trinitarian believe.  Is it that they will see three divine beings when they get to heaven?  Someone please explain to me, in detail, what it is that they believe.  I'm abit confused.  Yes I'm a new born Apostolic, so I have never really heard of this Trinitarian belief.

[yosemite]

The internet is filled with web-site after web-site trying to convince those who are gulliable that the One God of the Old Testament is really three Gods. But, obeying their creeds and confessions they balk at the obvious conclusion of their pagan theories and say they are forbidden to call these three *separate* persons each a God.  But does not their creed say:  GOD from GOD and VERY GOD from VERY GOD?  God from God is certainly more than one God.  

The trick used by trinitarians to try and prove three Gods are three persons, is their use of segmentalism. They will take segments of Scripture, segments of a text, segments of an incident, out of the context of the whole Bible, and try to make them say what the entire Bible refutes.  It is said that heresy in its first generation crawls, in the next walks, and in the next runs.  

This characterizes the pagan trinity heresy of Nicaea where after birth it crawled back to the different regions and became law; Jerome was then hired to interpolate and incorporated such language into the Vulgate where it was next walked all over Europe by the Monks and interpolationist scribes; and then Priests and Preachers ran to all the world to pollute it before the Lord could reach the masses with his message of truth and salvation by the few persecuted and dicimated remaining Monarchist.   

Rome and her daughters have persecuted Monarchist, tortured, multilated, and confiscated their homes and property.  They have murdered those who would not recant the monotheism of the Scriptures.  And, out of respect for that righteous blood, a true Monarchian will never conceed to trinitarianism, Papalism, or Creeds which were used as their law and authority to kill our people, and allow descendents of such to parade upon our platforms and speak behind our Pulpits.  And, only the dead can forgive this injustice against their faith in Jesus Christ as their God and Saviour!

Do not ask us to deny their faith and call them in retrospect heritics and a cult.  TRUE MONARCHIANS WILL NOT DO IT EVEN IF YOU KILL US! Yes we have had a few traitors who have run to the trinitarians.  Yes we have some who came in among us and went out again to embrace the trinity Creeds.  Yes, they call us a cult, but look where they went, ...to Rome or one of her daughters? Should we have expected anything less than their wanting to take part and accept the blood guilt of the precious saints among whom these could never fit because of their lust for LIBERIALISM? The Monarchians does have its list of shameful persons, it starts with Judas, and descends down today among people of like character (self-will above personal sacrifice).

There are these and other attacks upon Oneness Apostolics who hold to the Monarchian doctrine of One God.  Just because someone makes a claim that the trinity of three Gods is true, and just because Papal Rome and her Protestant daughters are the One Catholic Church based upon that confession, DOES NOT MAKE THEM RIGHT IN THEOLOGY or IDEALOGY.  

However they paint the trinity doctrine and however it is pedaled and packaged, it is a false doctrine and is a pagan heresy.  You may stay in the trinity and embrace Catholicism, that is a choice, but to call Apostolics a cult because we have rejected one of the BIGGEST cults and her daughters is unfounded.  

Abuse us if you will, but to us there is one God, and as Jesus said in Revelation 1:8, he is the LORD GOD.  That is our faith and if you want to judge and condemn us for our faith, we are proud to be persecuted, denied, and  and hated for the name of Jesus Christ.
The three branches of the Catholic Church that grew out of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, are the Eastern orthodox Greek Catholic Church, The Roman Catholic Church, and Protestant Catholic Churches. The one identifying doctrine that makes all of these Catholic, is the mystery of the trinity doctrine and trinity baptism. This is the cult captivity of millions. The difference between the true Church that began at Jerusalem and the Catholic Nico-Latins is the Oneness Monarchian Message.

Few realize that the trinity doctrine that was adopted at the Council of Nicaea and thereafter molded into several Creeds (click creeds to go read), descends from Mystery Babylon via Greek philosophy in Plato's theories, and from Jewish Gnosticism, not from the Bible. Yet the Catholics all teach, that if a person does not believe in the trinity doctrine of Mystery Babylon, that person can not be saved. According to them, you and I can not be saved unless we believe Greek philosophy and Jewish Gnosticism that has reinterpreted God different from how God identified himself. This is wrong. Jesus did not ordain philosophers or Gnostic mystics, he ordained Apostles to be the authorities of Church doctrine. One great difference between the Arians, the Trinity-arians, Greek Plato philosophy, Mystery Babylon, and the true Apostolic Christians, is the Oneness Monarchian Message.

All Pagan religions from the time of Babylon, have adopted in one form or another a trinity doctrine or a triad or trinity of gods. In Babylon it was Nimrod, Semiramas, and Tammuz; In Egypt it was Osiris, Isis, and Horus; within Israel pagan gnosticism it was Kether, Hokhmah, and Binah; In Plato's philosophy it was the Unknown Father, Nous/Logos, and the world soul. But in Old Testament Judaism there was only One God, a numerical ONE. The difference between paganism and God's people has always been the Oneness Monarchian Message reinforced by the First Commandment that prohibits any theory of a plurality.

In our study, we will use a few verses to give a flavor of the One God message, and then give a lot of quotes concerning the trinity message. The true Apostolic Church rejects all the decrees and creeds of the Councils. For this reason we reject the trinity doctrine because it is not in the Bible but in the Creeds of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Our Creed of One God is plainly in the Bible, the Oneness Message.

What God Says About His Oneness

EXO 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

ISA 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

ISA 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

ISA 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me.

ISA 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

REV 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

The cult that arose in Babylon and spread its cult tentacles throughout the world was trinitarian (Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop). At first, this doctrine was merely humanism, man making himself god. The first humanism trinity of record to be setup and worshiped as gods, was that of Nimrod, Simeramus, and Tammuz. These are in the Old Testament in the Canaanite language identified as Baal, Ashtoreth, and Tammuz. At the dispersion of the people at the Tower of Babel, this trinity doctrine of humanism was spread all over the world. Each religion of all the pagan religions held two common traits: 1.) A trinity of gods and; 2.) These were in a form of human gods.

These consisted of a man (sacred husband-king), a woman (sacred wife-queen), and a sacred child (son-prince). In Mystery Babylon, the entire body of religious beliefs about God, good and evil, morals, and worship, were reinterpreted with a spiritualist view that we now call mysticism or the left hand path of the cult. In most instances everything contained in the ancient orthodox faith of the Patriarchs was reversed, reinterpreted, or corrupted.

In witchcraft today, the prayers, rituals, and teachings are reversed. Thus, in witchcraft the trinity doctrine is the central theme against which stands the original doctrine of one supreme God (the Monarchy). The singular Eloah for God as in Genesis 1:1 was reinterpreted in Babylon and replaced with the plural Elohim to enhance and help establish the idea of a plurality in the word God.

To prove the singular is the intent of one-God in Genesis 1:1 the verb is singular which identifies the subject as being singular. Although trinitarians do not like it and say the Jews are telling lies, the ancient Godly Israelites always understood God to be one person, a numerical ONE and not three. They understood the plural Elohim to speak of the majesty of intensity and his attributes of power. And for any trinitarian to say the plural means *GODS*, then let them translate it that way and see what a mess they make of the Scriptures.  Even staunch trinitarians know this would be a pollution and sacrilege.  The great schema: Hear O Israel the LORD our God is one LORD, settles the argument. But within Mystery Babylon the skilled scribes of the occult would not be so easily exposed and rebuked by Jewish doctrine. No, they would live by the reinterpretations of Nimrod and his gnosticism and impregnate the world with his doctrines. And thus we have Ministers and people today who believe in the trinitarian doctrine of Mystery Babylon and don't know it is a philosophy of man and not a true doctrine of God.

Within Nimrod's Mystery Babylon eventually came the philosophy that the trinity was a unity of persons whose perfect agreement upon all things, made them one. They were one in agreement and this mutual consent merged into the idea of the one unity of essence. The trinity in unity doctrine was thus stated in the cult as the one essence or nature of the three. As it relates to Nimrod, Simeramus, and Tammuz, they were one in essence, the essence being identified as human gods. When these human gods became deified, it was accepted these three gods were in reality reincarnated avatars or spiritual guides.

It was taught that these three deceased gods were in fact not only once human but were actually sparks of the cosmic soul of one essence. This is interpreted within the occult as the one. This is interpreted as saying that the cosmos is God and man is a microcosm of the cosmos, in reincarnation. The idea of their karma is the perfecting of the soul and merging back into the unity and perfection of the one.  This is alleged to rule all human affairs. Thus the zodiac becomes the rule of the one god of the cosmos upon and charting the human purpose.

Within this occult mysticism, the spirits within Nimrod, Simeramus, and Tammuz were the real essence of the cosmos that made their trinity family a unique fullness of the one pluralistic cosmos. The next step in the formation of the trinity in unity concept, was to teach the idea of emanation. The doctrine of emanation is the pantheistic concept behind the teachings of evolution, all things emanate and evolve from the one source and are a part of the whole in unity and of the same substance.

The idea of emanation of a primary God making of himself another God by subdividing his person as an amoeba splits in half to form another like being, is purely pagan. From Genesis 1:1 and the words: *In the beginning God,* we have the idea of a singular God and there being none else. It is true that the Hebrew word Elohim from which we get the word *God* is a plural word. But that does not mean there are plural Gods.

From ancient time Mystery Babylon has tried to make God what he is not. The ancient Godly Jews would have never dreamed of their being more than one God. They were prohibited by the first Commandment of having a pluralistic concept or view. It was from within this revelation, in contradiction to the surrounding religions of Pagan trinitarians, that Israel worship the One LORD of the Old Testament, chanting : *Hear O Israel, the LORD our GOD is ONE LORD.*

The plural use of *us* as in let *us* make man; Let *u*s go down; were interpreted by the Jews to be God speaking to his angels. It was only after the Council of Nicaea that the Catholics fled to these verses in order to find Scriptural support and excuse for adopting Plato's trinity in unity doctrine that he borrowed from Mystery Babylon.

The doctrinal position formulated at Nicaea was that if a theory does not conform to the Scriptures, then the Scriptures must be reinterpreted to conform to the theory.

Theory was then based upon spiritualizing or bending toward mysticism and philosophy for its support of the great Mystery of Babylon. Except they drop the word Babylon and say only that the trinity is a great MYSTERY that no one can understand. The world is deceived to believe the trinity should be left to mystics and philosophers to interpret, exactly as they did in ancient Mystery Babylon.

The next shoe to drop is to inhibit the human mind from examining the theory, by claiming no one can understand it, it must be accepted by faith. Or as one Minister once said: "If you try to understand the trinity you will lose your mind, but if you don't believe it you will lose your soul." This from a man who preached salvation by faith and then said: "O, by the way, if you don't believe in the trinity you can never be saved."  .

The purpose of this lesson, is to acquaint individuals with the side of the cult doctrine of the trinity that their Church will never tell them. The side that book writers try to exclude from their reference materials.

This one doctrine makes the Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodist, Pentecostals, Episcopals, Charismatics, Presbyterians, Armstrongites, and several more groups and cults, ALL ONE PEOPLE in their basic statement of faith. And the statement to which they subscribe is the doctrine of the trinity however they explain it. Of course the Jehovah's Witnesses deny the trinity as taught by Rome but they have their own trinity of God the Father, the Archangel Jesus-Michael, and the Archangel Lucifer-Devil.

As the Nicaea trinity has two brothers in the trinity, so the Jehovah's Witnesses have a two-brother trinity of Jesus and the devil. Today the Nicaea trinitarians deny the two-brother doctrine, of Jesus and the Holy Spirit being brothers. But what else could the doctrine teach: The Father begets the son, the Holy Spirit proceeds (emanates from) the Father and the Son, hence the Holy Spirit is of the Father and a brother to the Son, or else, the Holy Spirit is the Son of the Father and the Son. God is not the author of confusion.

The clear teaching of the Old Testament is that there is one God, undivided as to his person and that he made man in his IMAGE and in his LIKENESS. That we are all ONE PERSON having a three-fold composition of body, soul, and spirit, but still ONE PERSON, is the exact picture of God. Our soul is manifest in a body. God is manifest in a body. God is one. Jesus is God by virtue of his dual nature. God in Christ; the Father in the Son; Emmanuel God with us; The LORD who ye seek shall come to his Temple; In that day, they shall say this is our God, we have waited for him.

If Jesus is not God, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, then he is not God at all. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God. Not one God in unity or three Gods or even three persons, but ONE GOD. *When ye have seen me ye have seen the Father.* Who is antichrist but he that denieth the Father and the Son (It does not say believe in the Father separate from the Son). When a person confesses that the Father and the Son are the same God in manifestation, they are called heretics by the Catholic Church and Protestant Catholics.

But we believe John 1:1 against all gnosticism however it raises a protest:

In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with GOD and the WORD was GOD (John 1:1).

Should we rephrase this to suit trinitarians who teach that the WORD is the second person of the trinity who was with God the Father, the first person of the trinity, here is what we would get by changing the word God to Father like they want:

In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with the FATHER and the WORD was the FATHER!

Wow! ...now, how can they deny what they make the verse to say? By this change in their own language, the Word and the Father are the same God exactly what we are teaching here.


http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/trinity.html


Jesus Messieh Fellowship




Light To The Nations

The Trinity Doctrine Is Pagan

By Pastor G. Reckart, Pastor

[Scott]

What exactly does a Trinitarian believe.  Is it that they will see three divine beings when they get to heaven?  Someone please explain to me, in detail, what it is that they believe.  I'm abit confused.  Yes I'm a new born Apostolic, so I have never really heard of this Trinitarian belief.

Depends on the trinitarian..

Some believe three persons, some three Gods, some just believe One God but baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

[yosemite]

some sprinkle baptise, and some dont baptise at all.


THE CONFUSION -- by Don Barnett

In short, Trinitarianism and Monarchianism have both conflicted and
overlapped in their doctrines. The picture is confusing because the term
"Trinity" did not mean to Tertullian what it meant to Athanasius, and to him
it did not mean what it did to Augustine. Calvin's concept was not the same
as Luther's neither was it identical to Augustine's. Even today there are
several concepts under the heading of "Trinity" -- many even holding Oneness
views and denying three persons in the Godhead. Athanasius, whose name is
identified with the Nicean Creed of the Trinity, not only admits confusion of
the subject, but makes Modalistic statements contrary to Trinitarianism, such
as:

"THE DIVINITY OF THE FATHER IS IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF THE SON": AND EVEN
THAT THE SON'S DIVINITY IS THE FATHER'S DIVINITY. "THE SON", HE ARGUES, "IS
OF COURSE OTHER THAN THE FATHER AS OFFSPRING, BUT AS GOD HE IS ONE AND THE
SAME. THE GODHEAD IS A UNIQUE, INDIVISIBLE MONAD." [20]

Some are arguing that Christians should keep the term "Trinity" but return
to the biblical, Monarchian view of God. Some feel that they are caught in
the wedge of tradition on the one side, and the Scriptures on the other side -
and they are. The majority of non-scholars today are quite ignorant about the
entire subject. Most ministers graduate from Bible Schools, parroting
Trinitarianism, but know little about its history and problems -- few have
examined the other side; they attack it on the grounds that they have been
warned against it. The terms "Oneness," "Monarchianism," and "Sabellianism"
have not only erroneously been termed the "Jesus Only" doctrine, but have
become known as the devil's lie and heresy -- whereas Trinitarianism is the
deviate. It is even common to hear or read that Monarchianism denied the Holy
Trinity -- as though the doctrine of the Trinity was the established doctrine
when Monarchianism was invented. The truth, as shown by history, is that the
Trinity doctrine, when formulated, denied Monarchianism, which came first.

No wonder people are confused, neither knowing what they affirm nor what
they are against -- blindly following Catholic tradition, and labelling the
teachings of the Apostles: "heresy" and "a cult"!.

[Somnic]

I have heard many variations of the "Trinity".  I have heard the one where people believe that they will see three divine beings when they get to heaven.  I have heard one where people believe that there are three gods in one supreme being.  I have heard that there are three persons.  And most recently I have heard of the Trinity as in one God but with three roles, and those three roles labled as the Trinity. 

The last one is more along the lines that we believe.  One God with three caracteristics, being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.  But just saying believing in the "Trinity" is wrong may not be wrong, if its the last one stated.  If you hear someone believing in the "Trinity", ask them first what it is they believe.  It may be that they believe in the same one God with three roles as we do.  Just saying that someone believes in the "Trinity" doesn't automatically mean they believe in more than one Godhead.

Just my $0.2

[yosemite]

as for myself i chose not to be called or even associated with trinitarian if for nothing else but to keep the confusion down. i choose apostolic because trinity was considered as idolatry in the days of the apostles. i think it was paul who was looking at all the memorials to different gods that were built and found one to the un-known god, singular! i dont have to have multiple gods, just God. Just Jesus!.

In short, Trinitarianism and Monarchianism have both conflicted and
overlapped in their doctrines. The picture is confusing because the term
"Trinity" did not mean to Tertullian what it meant to Athanasius, and to him
it did not mean what it did to Augustine. Calvin's concept was not the same
as Luther's neither was it identical to Augustine's. Even today there are
several concepts under the heading of "Trinity" -- many even holding Oneness
views and denying three persons in the Godhead. Athanasius, whose name is
identified with the Nicean Creed of the Trinity, not only admits confusion of
the subject, but makes Modalistic statements contrary to Trinitarianism.

[Somnic]

I belong to an Apostolic church.  I went there because I felt God pushing me in that direction.  To me there is only One God.  And i have always thought this.  I praise him and worship him at least twice a day (usually more).  My best friend is a Pentecostal, and believe in the "Trinity" of One God with three roles, with those roles labled as the "Trinity".  To me that is fine, and I have no problem with it.  To me, thats exactly what I believe.  There is One God, but God does play three roles.  He is the Father, the Son, and he is the Holy Ghost.  The bible states this many times.  Since there are three characteristics of God, and "Trinity" does mean three, then I see no problem referring to his roles/characteristics as the "Trinity".

The problem is that most people, when they hear the word "Trinity", they automatically associate it with the multiple godheads.  When this is not the case all the time.  I find this topic very confusing sometimes, and it frustrates me.

[yosemite]

yep!! and thats why i leave the trinity out! it is well understood God has different charecteristics, but he is still God. why try to force the trinity thing?
example that i know youve herd but here goes: you are a son and a father and a husband. if i were to call you by name i would say," hay somnic". not, "hay father son husband!"

[Somnic]

Oh i'm not tryin gto force it.  I guess really I'm trying to understand it.

[apsurf]

Yosoemite,

If you want me to read your posts and take you seriously, don't involve reckart's writtings on here, He is too full of himself and the persecuted messiah  complex to be taken seriously.  I don't know anyone who takes him seriously in any form or fashion.
There are better proponents of the oneness to be quoted that don't spit out venom every time they even breath.

[bishopnl]

Cohen G. Reckart....Servant of the Holy Blood.   

Gotta agree with nwlife on this one, Yo.  Just seeing where your source came from takes away any credibility it might otherwise have.

[yosemite]

Yosoemite,

If you want me to read your posts and take you seriously, don't involve reckart's writtings on here, He is too full of himself and the persecuted messiah  complex to be taken seriously.  I don't know anyone who takes him seriously in any form or fashion.
There are better proponents of the oneness to be quoted that don't spit out venom every time they even breath.

Cohen G. Reckart....Servant of the Holy Blood.  

Gotta agree with nwlife on this one, Yo.  Just seeing where your source came from takes away any credibility it might otherwise have.

whether i am taken seriously or not is up to you!! makes no nevermind to me.

where is reckart wrong? where is what i posted wrong?

hmmmmm! thought i was posting don barnet!! that is who i gave credit to anyway!!

ok i went and checked. some was of reckart. but still what was wrong with what i posted? i read it and didnt find anything myself.

[titushome]

I have heard many variations of the "Trinity".  I have heard the one where people believe that they will see three divine beings when they get to heaven.  I have heard one where people believe that there are three gods in one supreme being.  I have heard that there are three persons.  And most recently I have heard of the Trinity as in one God but with three roles, and those three roles labled as the Trinity. 

The last one is more along the lines that we believe.  One God with three caracteristics, being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.  But just saying believing in the "Trinity" is wrong may not be wrong, if its the last one stated.  If you hear someone believing in the "Trinity", ask them first what it is they believe.  It may be that they believe in the same one God with three roles as we do.  Just saying that someone believes in the "Trinity" doesn't automatically mean they believe in more than one Godhead.

Just my $0.2

Sounds to me like you've got the right approach.

[apsurf]

Yosemite,

1. Reckart has no credibility among the oneness ranks.

2. It's not the info posted but the spirit in which reckart writes his articles.

  He attacks anything that doesn't line up exactly with what he thinks.  he will force his members to be rebaptized if the person who baptized them has ever sinned once in their life.  He thinks he is the last day apostle for the world. 

So thus if you want to use his stuff, it makes me question the possibility that you *might* be in a similar frame of mind.  there are several writers that present the info that reckart presents, but in a whole lot better attitude. 

I used to hang around a couple ministers like reckart about 12 years ago or so, and it still affects me to this day.   When I used their material, little by little without realizing it, I started to become like them.   And needlesstosay it was something I didn't like.  If I even sense anything remotely like what I sensed around them, I retreat from that person in a heartbeat.  And Reckart is a person that spews everything with venom, just like the 2 I used to hang around with.

In closing, Yosemite, You don't seem to be anything remotely near what reckart is (or was in his innocent days) but if you wish to use his stuff, go ahead,-----
but it will be the end of any conversation between you and me.

[yosemite]

Yosemite,

1. Reckart has no credibility among the oneness ranks.

2. It's not the info posted but the spirit in which reckart writes his articles.

  He attacks anything that doesn't line up exactly with what he thinks.  he will force his members to be rebaptized if the person who baptized them has ever sinned once in their life.  He thinks he is the last day apostle for the world. 

So thus if you want to use his stuff, it makes me question the possibility that you *might* be in a similar frame of mind.  there are several writers that present the info that reckart presents, but in a whole lot better attitude. 

I used to hang around a couple ministers like reckart about 12 years ago or so, and it still affects me to this day.   When I used their material, little by little without realizing it, I started to become like them.   And needlesstosay it was something I didn't like.  If I even sense anything remotely like what I sensed around them, I retreat from that person in a heartbeat.  And Reckart is a person that spews everything with venom, just like the 2 I used to hang around with.

In closing, Yosemite, You don't seem to be anything remotely near what reckart is (or was in his innocent days) but if you wish to use his stuff, go ahead,-----
but it will be the end of any conversation between you and me.

i can only be me. i use teachings of which i feel are acceptable to the subject. i dont know of reckart and his full beleifs, but what i posted of him i feel to be acceptable to what the topic was. hmmm! the topic was not of or about me it was the subject matter in question. so, now if what i posted was wrong explain to me and somnic what is in err. keep in mind we are not talking of reckart or his full beleif.

1. i search not for credability from you, but the scriptures. scripture tells me God uses all for glory to him.

2. i posted this in the spirit of help. i cant help what nature it was written in, only that it was lineing up with the topic at hand.

from time to time i may post some of reckart if i feel it is right and lines up.

in closing nwlife, hope you dont feel as though you have to avoid me because of who i post. i dont blame you if you avoid me if i post of an untruth, but dont blame me for who i post from if the subject lines up, I'm not Reckart.

[onli-one-jehovi]

I have heard many variations of the "Trinity".  I have heard the one where people believe that they will see three divine beings when they get to heaven.  I have heard one where people believe that there are three gods in one supreme being.  I have heard that there are three persons.  And most recently I have heard of the Trinity as in one God but with three roles, and those three roles labled as the Trinity. 

The last one is more along the lines that we believe.  One God with three caracteristics, being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.  But just saying believing in the "Trinity" is wrong may not be wrong, if its the last one stated.  If you hear someone believing in the "Trinity", ask them first what it is they believe.  It may be that they believe in the same one God with three roles as we do.  Just saying that someone believes in the "Trinity" doesn't automatically mean they believe in more than one Godhead.

Just my $0.2

Sounds to me like you've got the right approach.

** Ditto**

Just don't worry about it and you won't be confused. Stick with the Lord's explanation to you.

[bishopnl]

Yo,

Here are my thoughts.  I wouldn't go ask Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass for info on responsible journalism, even though they've been journalists before.  But their reputation, in my opinion, discredits everything they might have to say. 

I feel the same way about Reckart.  The article you posted contains not just biblical exegesis, but historical anecdotes and information.  I'm familiar with some of it anyway, but I wouldn't take Reckart's word for anything, whether it be biblical exegesis or historical record.

[yosemite]

Yo,

Here are my thoughts.  I wouldn't go ask Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass for info on responsible journalism, even though they've been journalists before.  But their reputation, in my opinion, discredits everything they might have to say. 

I feel the same way about Reckart.  The article you posted contains not just biblical exegesis, but historical anecdotes and information.  I'm familiar with some of it anyway, but I wouldn't take Reckart's word for anything, whether it be biblical exegesis or historical record.

listen, what i posted i feel to be of truth, but i will listen to any explanation that will lead to a better understanding. I dont know jayson or stephen. is what i posted wrong??!! from my studies the historical anecdotes line up and i dont even know what an exegesis is. again we are talking of trinity not reckart or yosemite.

[yosemite]

Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site
Should You Believe in the Trinity?
How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop? 
AT THIS point you might ask: 'If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?' Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.
That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead.

Constantine's Role at Nicaea
FOR many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended.
Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: "Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians."
What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, 'of one substance with the Father' . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination."
'Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching.' —The Encyclopedia Americana
Hence, Constantine's role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. "Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology," says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain.
None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time?

Further Development
AFTER Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula.

That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom's Trinity began to come into focus.

Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: "The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology."

The Athanasian Creed
Norway. Trinity (Father, Son, holy spirit), c. 13th century C.E.

THE Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: "We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God."

Well-informed scholars agree, however, that Athanasius did not compose this creed. The New Encyclopædia Britannica comments: "The creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373) but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century. . . . The creed's influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th century and somewhat later in Rome."

So it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins answers: "The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics."

Apostasy Foretold
THIS disreputable history of the Trinity fits in with what Jesus and his apostles foretold would follow their time. They said that there would be an apostasy, a deviation, a falling away from true worship until Christ's return, when true worship would be restored before God's day of destruction of this system of things.

"The Triad of the Great Gods" Many centuries before the time of Christ, there were triads, or trinities, of gods in ancient Babylonia and Assyria. The French "Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology" notes one such triad in that Mesopotamian area: "The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu's share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods."
Regarding that "day," the apostle Paul said: "It will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed." (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7) Later, he foretold: "When I have gone fierce wolves will invade you and will have no mercy on the flock. Even from your own ranks there will be men coming forward with a travesty of the truth on their lips to induce the disciples to follow them." (Acts 20:29, 30, JB) Other disciples of Jesus also wrote of this apostasy with its 'lawless' clergy class.—See, for example, 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1-3; Jude 3, 4.

Paul also wrote: "The time is sure to come when, far from being content with sound teaching, people will be avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths."—2 Timothy 4:3, 4, JB.

Jesus himself explained what was behind this falling away from true worship. He said that he had sowed good seeds but that the enemy, Satan, would oversow the field with weeds. So along with the first blades of wheat, the weeds appeared also. Thus, a deviation from pure Christianity was to be expected until the harvest, when Christ would set matters right. (Matthew 13:24-43) The Encyclopedia Americana comments: "Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." Where, then, did this deviation originate?—1 Timothy 1:6.

What Influenced It
India. Triune Hindu godhead, c. 7th century C.E.


THROUGHOUT the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.

Historian Will Durant observed: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity." And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: "The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology."


France. Trinity, c. 14th century C.E. (1)


Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers "Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity."

In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."


Italy. Trinity, c. 15th century C.E. (2)


A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith." And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: "The origin of the [trinity] is entirely pagan."

That is why, in the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: "In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality," which is "triadically represented." What does the Greek philosopher Plato have to do with the Trinity?

Platonism
PLATO, it is thought, lived from 428 to 347 before Christ. While he did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up, and these were influenced by Plato's ideas of God and nature.


Germany. Trinity, 20th century C.E.


The French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary) says of Plato's influence: "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: "The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied."

The Church of the First Three Centuries says: "The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers."

By the end of the third century C.E., "Christianity" and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine became "firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians."

The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: "In reality it legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan mystery-worship."

In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: "We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists."

Thus, in the fourth century C.E., the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Development of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul, and idolatry. Spiritually speaking, Christendom had entered its foretold dark ages, dominated by a growing "man of lawlessness" clergy class.—2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7.

Hindu Trinity The book "The Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals" says regarding a Hindu trinity that existed centuries before Christ: "Siva is one of the gods of the Trinity. He is said to be the god of destruction. The other two gods are Brahma, the god of creation and Vishnu, the god of maintenance. . . . To indicate that these three processes are one and the same the three gods are combined in one form."—Published by A. Parthasarathy, Bombay.



Why Did God's Prophets Not Teach It?
WHY, for thousands of years, did none of God's prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the "central doctrine" of faith?

Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an "inscrutable mystery" "beyond the grasp of human reason," one that admittedly had a pagan background and was "largely a matter of church politics"?

The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it.

( i have plenty more in which i can share.)  -yo

[bishopnl]

Yo,

Your sources are the official website of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Cohen G. Reckart?

Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair are reporters who fabricated and/or plagiarized stories for The New Republic and the New York Times, respectively.  Just as I wouldn't take their word about anything concerning journalism seriously, I wouldn't take Cohen G. Reckarts word concerning historical or biblical facts seriously either.  Post them all you want...I'm just saying that people who have any familiarity with Reckart or the Jehovah's Witnesses aren't going to put too much stock in lengthy articles from such sources. 

[bishopnl]

I'm also a bit confused.

You post Reckarts article rejecting the Trinity, which has this to say about the Jehovah's Witnesses:  "Of course the Jehovah's Witnesses deny the trinity as taught by Rome but they have their own trinity of God the Father, the Archangel Jesus-Michael, and the Archangel Lucifer-Devil."

Then you turn around and post an article from the Jehovah's Witnesses website. 

Here's my  .  Take some time to gather some articles from real Apostolic authors who have real research and treat the issue in a respectable, scholarly fashion.  Maybe something by David Bernard, or Jason Dulles, or something like that.  Just random cutting and pasting of articles debating the validity of the Trinity is going to produce some fuzzy results...such as one of your sources discrediting the other source.

[yosemite]

hahahahaha!! that was my point. glad you got it!! does it matter who the message comes from? as long as the message is right, it is fine with me.

i did not go into the fullness of jehova's witness. i just posted history facts that were backed up with dictionaries, dates and events not a religious conversion to jehova's witness. (which i know to be wrong and they have their own idolatry thing going on.)


but isnt it funny that the jahovah's witnesses go to such a length to dis-prove trinity and then turn around and beleive in their own set of trinity gods. i dont beleive in them or the later day saints(who write their own bible), but that doesnt mean they have their historical records wrong in the dates provided.

[bishopnl]

Here are some resources that you might start with:

Trinity-history
A study on the development of the Trinity by Jason Dulles.

Link
This is a link to a whole host of articles written by Apostolic authors that probably have more validity than Reckart's article.  Not too mention, all of their sources, regarding historical anecdotes, quotes, etc. are usually sourced.  Very important to retaining credibility.

[bishopnl]

hahahahaha!! that was my point. glad you got it!! does it matter who the message comes from? as long as the message is right, it is fine with me.

i did not go into the fullness of jehova's witness. i just posted history facts that were backed up with dictionaries, dates and events not a religious conversion to jehova's witness.

I'm sorry, I disagree.  Reckart and the Jehovah's Witnesses are both frequently in error.  Would you attend a Trinitarian church if you felt that 85% of the messages preached in their pulpits were in line with Bible?

So why use such a resource to validate your point?  Do you think that Benny Hinn is a valid resource? Because I consider your sources to be about as valid.

[yosemite]

hahahahaha!! that was my point. glad you got it!! does it matter who the message comes from? as long as the message is right, it is fine with me.

i did not go into the fullness of jehova's witness. i just posted history facts that were backed up with dictionaries, dates and events not a religious conversion to jehova's witness.

I'm sorry, I disagree.  Reckart and the Jehovah's Witnesses are both frequently in error.  Would you attend a Trinitarian church if you felt that 85% of the messages preached in their pulpits were in line with Bible?

So why use such a resource to validate your point?  Do you think that Benny Hinn is a valid resource? Because I consider your sources to be about as valid.

the bible is its own source and if ya dont line up, your in err. history on the other hand is across the board. if man knows anything it would be the history of men-(not of MAN -creation). would i sit in on a trinitarian church? no. that does not mean that i cant research history of men through whomever i chose.

that is why i have so many sources of history!! i search them all!! most line up great some faulter. regardless, all tell me the same thing about trinity!!  all men are subject to err! that is why i want two or more witnesses. tada!!