TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

“9Everyone who makes an engraved image is vain... 10Who has fashioned a god, or molds an image that is profitable for nothing?... 12The blacksmith takes an axe, works in the coals, fashions it with hammers, and works it with his strong arm... Yes, he makes a god, and worships it; he makes it an engraved image, and falls down to it... 17...He bows down to it and worships, and prays to it, and says, "Deliver me; for you are my god!" Isaiah 44:9-17

“...the Trinity... was hammered out during the third quarter of the fourth century...” Pelikan, 211.

“The formula ‘one ousia in three hypostaseis’ was crafted on the workbench of theologians... it was anything but obvious.” Joseph T. Lienhard, The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, edited by Stephen T. Davis; Daniel Kendall, SJ; Gerald O’Collins, SJ, Oxford University Press, 1999, page 103.

21Little children, keep yourselves from idols.” 1 John 5:20

I have been falsely accused lately (i.e. here: https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-167838-8.html#3042113) of not listening to people who have spent their lives studying the Bible who have concluded it teaches a Trinity. So, in response, I’m going to post the evidence to the contrary: that in truth, the scholarly historians who have spent their lives studying the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, with one voice, expose that it took going to pagan philosophical words and concepts and even their “gods”, in order to formulate the man-doctrine of the Trinity. Some realize it was an error to do so, others, being disobedient to the scriptures, embrace that Christian philosophers adopted pagan philosophy in order to have concepts by which to describe their deity. Now, being as the formulation of the Trinity is man-made, it is by that definition an idol, thus worshipping it is idolatry: the number one sin in the Bible! The Trinity doctrine is to Christianity what the constant backsliding to idolatry was in ancient biblical Israel. The evidence is simply irrefutable, overwhelming, and conclusive... for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

"for you shall worship no other god: for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." Exodus 34:14

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the strange gods of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them." Deuteronomy 31:16

"...I didn't shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. 28Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the assembly of the Lord and God which he purchased with his own blood. 29For I know that after my departure, vicious wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Men will arise from among your own selves, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31Therefore watch, remembering that for a period of three years I didn't cease to admonish everyone night and day with tears. 32Now, brothers, I entrust you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build up, and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified." Acts 20: 27-32

"As I urged you... command... men not to teach a different doctrine," 1 Timothy 1:3

“Be careful that you don't let anyone rob you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world, and not after Christ.” Colossians 2:8

Herein you will find more than enough evidence of what Paul warned of, how men departed from the faith once delivered and carved them out an idol made by the hands of men. And how men blatantly resorted to transgressing the first commandment along with the command to not teach any other doctrines, not to preach any other Good news, and to not be robbed by philosophy. It is as if Trinitarians took all the warnings in the Bible of what not to do and transformed them into their marching orders!

Following, then, are the words of the historians, who, like archeologists, have dug up the bones of the evolution of thought by which the Trinitarians finally arrived at a description of their idol as put forth in its "classic form" in the fourth century.

(Note: these quotes are derived from my notes as I was researching for my book "God is One and Christ Is All", thus the notes as quoted below were notes to myself. At the end of these quotes I will provide a summary of the high points in the development of the making and manufacturing of the Trinity. In this way, the reader could skim these quotes for the highlights, read the summary, and get the gist of the ramifications of the Trinitarians hammering out their God from the raw material of pagan philosophy and antichristian Gnosticism.
-Tom Raddatz)

In no particular order....

Fr. Joseph T. Lienhard, SJ... he received the degree of Dr. theol. from the University of Freiburg in 1975... From 1975 until 1990 he taught at Marquette University in Milwaukee; since 1990 he has been at Fordham University. He has also held chairs or visiting appointments at John Carroll University, Boston College, St. Joseph’s Seminary Dunwoodie, the Pontifical Biblical Institute, and the Pontifical Gregorian University...

“The formula ‘one ousia in three hypostaseis’ was crafted on the workbench of theologians; and even for them, it is more of a convenient abbreviation than the last word that might be uttered… In standard Greek, and in Christian theological usage for much of the fourth century, the words ousia and hypostasis were synonyms. The history of the formula is the history of the growth of a distinction in meaning between them, and the fact that the Cappadocians had to struggle to explain the distinction shows that it was anything but obvious.” Joseph T. Lienhard, The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, edited by Stephen T. Davis; Daniel Kendall, SJ; Gerald O’Collins, SJ, Oxford University Press, 1999, page 103.


Michel René Barnes ...Associate Professor emeritus of Historical Theology at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He focuses on Latin and Greek Patristic Theology, in particular, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine of Hippo, and pneumatological development in the early church. He now works as principal research fellow at the "Augustine Agency", a privately-financed research library outside Milwaukee (and wholly unaffiliated with Marquette University).

“By the 380’s, ‘Nicene’ Trinitarian theology had developed substantially beyond the doctrine first articulated in the creed of Nicaea, 325…
“I would suggest… that the most fundamental conception and articulation in ‘Nicene’ Trinitarian theology of the 380’s of the unity among the three is the understanding that any action of any member of the Trinity is an action of the three inseparably.” Michel René Barnes, pages 155-156.


Craig Alan Evans (born January 21, 1952) is an evangelical New Testament scholar and author. He is a prolific writer with 70 books and over 600 journal articles and reviews to his name. He earned his B.A in history and philosophy from Claremont McKenna College, a Master of Divinity from Western Baptist Seminary in Portland, Oregon, and his Master of Arts and Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Claremont Graduate University in southern California.
He is John Bisagno Distinguished Professor of Christian Origins at Houston Baptist University...

[b] “The recognition of Jesus’ divine status was a long process, culminating in the creeds affirming the Trinity and the full humanity and full deity of Jesus. Although it cannot be shown that all of the elements of Chalcedonian Christology are plainly taught in Scripture , the belief in the deity of Jesus appears to be rooted in his teaching and activities and not simply in post-Easter ideas.” Craig A. Evans, The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, edited by Stephen T. Davis; Daniel Kendall, SJ; Gerald O’Collins, SJ, Oxford University Press, 1999, page 46.


Gordon Donald Fee (born May 23, 1934)[1] is an American-Canadian Christian theologian and an ordained minister of the Assemblies of God (USA). He currently serves as Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

“It has been rightly said that ‘the New Testament contains no doctrine of the Trinity’.” Gordon D. Fee, The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, edited by Stephen T. Davis; Daniel Kendall, SJ; Gerald O’Collins, SJ, Oxford University Press, 1999, page 49. (Here Fee is showing his agreement with a quote from Donald H. Juel, ‘The Trinity and the New Testament’, Theology Today, 54 (1997) 313.


Gerald Glynn O'Collins AC SJ is an Australian Jesuit priest, author, academic and educator. He is currently a research professor and writer-in-residence at the Jesuit Theological College (JTC) in Parkville, Victoria, and a research professor in theology at St Mary's University College in Twickenham. For more than three decades, he was professor of systematic and fundamental theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University (Rome).

“Reflection on the origins of the Son and the Holy Spirit in the inner life of the Trinity led the Western church to add unilaterally to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: the Spirit proceeds from the Father ‘and the Son’—the ‘Filioque’ addition that has helped to hold apart Eastern and Western Christianity.” Gerald O’Collins The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, edited by Stephen T. Davis; Daniel Kendall, SJ; Gerald O’Collins, SJ, Oxford University Press, 1999, page 11.


Alan F. Segal (August 2, 1945 – February 13, 2011) was a scholar of ancient religions, specializing in Judaism's relationship to Christianity. Segal was a distinguished scholar, author, and speaker, self-described as a "believing Jew and twentieth-century humanist." Segal was one of the first modern scholars to write extensively on the influences of Judaism (including Second Temple Rabbinic texts, Merkabah mysticism, and Jewish apocalypticism) on Paul of Damascus.

“Tertullian… is at pains to show that two Gods are presupposed by the Bible, one who spoke at creation, the second who created (Adv. Praxean, 13)… Apparently, some modalists were accusing Tertullian of believing in ‘ditheism’ whereas he admits to the term ‘binitarian’. By this time, it is clear that no rabbinic Jews would have granted an ounce of difference between the two conceptualizations” (ie two gods or binitarianism)” Alan F. Segal, The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, edited by Stephen T. Davis; Daniel Kendall, SJ; Gerald O’Collins, SJ, Oxford University Press, 1999, pages 91-92.

“It seems likely that the Church continued to use the stronger term ‘two gods’ whenever it needed a strong polemical statement against its heretics but admitted to binitarianism until such time as the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly entrenched in the third and fourth centuries…
“Origen (c. 183-250), however, was heir to the Philonic tradition and is clearly influenced by middle Platonism as well, so he has no compunction about continuing the old vocabulary. He felt that the Son of God, as logos, could be called a deutros theos [second god] (Contra Celsum, 5:39, 6:61, 7:57; de Oratione, 15:1; Com. Ev. Joh., 2:2, 10:37)… ‘We are not afraid to speak, in one sense of two gods, in other sense of one God’ (Dial. Heracl. 2.3, Oulton. Edn. 1. 124-5)… Jews, Christian modalists, and even pagans could accuse him of violating monotheism.” Alan F. Segal, The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, edited by Stephen T. Davis; Daniel Kendall, SJ; Gerald O’Collins, SJ, Oxford University Press, 1999, page 92.

Continued in Part Two

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part Two

William Payne Alston (November 29, 1921 – September 13, 2009) was an American philosopher. He made influential contributions to the philosophy of language, epistemology, and Christian philosophy.... Together with Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and Robert Adams, Alston helped to found the journal Faith and Philosophy. With Plantinga, Wolterstorff, and others, Alston was also responsible for the development of "Reformed epistemology" (a term that Alston, an Episcopalian, never fully endorsed), one of the most important contributions to Christian thought in the twentieth century.

“I am far from supposing that there is no useful, valuable, and even essential work to be done on the Trinity by contemporary thinkers. I do not suggest that we simply repeat one or another patristic formulation and let it go at that. The Trinity, no less than other articles of the Christian faith, needs re-examination and reformulation for each age, as has happened throughout Christian history… For example… twentieth century logic can be employed to render threefoldness in unity less mysterious.” William P. Alston, The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, edited by Stephen T. Davis; Daniel Kendall, SJ; Gerald O’Collins, SJ, Oxford University Press, 1999, page 179

Tom’s note: Here the Trinitarian position is confessed to be still “under construction”. This is a fundamental admission of the belief in the insufficiency of scripture and the exact same attitude that spoiled the Pharisees.
So then, once this author has enabled himself to take up his hammer and begin working the raw material of the Trinity doctrine, where does he recommend going for more? Why, its back to philosophy for more answers…

“Rather than presenting at this point some formulations from the Fathers, I will first go back to the fountainhead of substance metaphysics, Aristotle, from whom the Fathers inherited the concepts in terms of which they set out their substantialist formulations.” William P. Alston, The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, edited by Stephen T. Davis; Daniel Kendall, SJ; Gerald O’Collins, SJ, Oxford University Press, 1999, page 180.

Tom’s note: it is not just the terms, but the concepts that the so-called “Fathers” of the Trinity inherited from the substance metaphysics of the pagan philosopher Aristotle. Plain and simple, this is going after the gods round about them.







Paul Johannes Tillich (August 20, 1886 – October 22, 1965) was a German-American Christian existentialist philosopher and Lutheran Protestant theologian who is widely regarded as one of the most influential theologians of the twentieth century.[2] He also wrote several Christian-themed historical works.


“The concept of Logos in the early Greek fathers also found one of its staunchest allies in Tillich. Of all the leading contemporary theologians, Tillich is the only one who integrated the Logos doctrine into his own theological system. Without it he could not have been the apologetic theologian he was. When Tillich referred to himself as an apologetic theologian, he had in mind the example of the great second-century apologists, Justin Marty, for whom the Logos doctrine was, as for Tillich, the universal principal of the divine self-manifestation… Because the Logos who became flesh was the same Logos who was universally at work in the structures of human existence.” Carl E. Braaten in Preface to Tillich. Pg xiv-xx.

“Tillich was never under any illusion that the first five centuries of the church provide any clear support for Protestantism against Roman Catholicism… The dogma, therefore, the dogmatic development is not something merely lamentable or evil. It was the necessary form by which the church kept its very identity… clearly it was their (Origen and Augustine’s) common bond of Neo-Platonism which attracted Tillich to their way of thinking.” Braaten on Tillich, xx-xxi.

“This type of course used to be called “the history of christian dogma”. Now we call it “the history of Christian thought”, but this is only a change in name… The first step in this history is the use of “dogma” derived from the Greek word dokein, which means “to think, imagine, or hold an opinion.” In the schools of Greek philosophy preceding Christianity dogmata were the doctrines which differentiated the various schools from each other, the Academics (Plato), the Peripatetics (Aristotle), the Stoics, the Skeptics, and the Pythagoreans. Each of these schools had its own fundamental doctrines. If someone wanted to become a member of one of these schools, he had to accept at least the basic presuppositions… Secondly, all dogmas were formulated negatively, that is, as reactions against misinterpretations from inside the church. This is true even of the Apostles’ Creed… they were intended to protect the substance of the biblical message… When new doctrines arose which seemed to undercut the fundamental confession, the protective doctrines were added to it. In this way dogmas arose. Since each new protective statement was itself subject to misinterpretation, there was always the need for sharper theoretic formulations. In order to do this it was necessary to use philosophical terms. This is how the many philosophical concepts entered into the Christian dogmas… Luther was frank about this; he openly declared that he disliked terms like “trinity”, homoousios”, etc. but he admitted that they must be used, however unfortunate, because we have no better ones…
“The next step in the history of this concept was for dogmas to become accepted as canon law by the church. Canon Law is the ecclesiastical law to which everybody who belongs to the church must subject himself. Thus dogma receives a legal sanction… one further step: the ecclesiastical law became accepted as civil law by medieval society… The heretic… must be not only excommunicated but also delivered into the hands of the civil authorities to be punished as a criminal.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, page Xxxviii.

(Tom’s note: It was the mention of the word “opinion” that caught my attention, because that is one of the definitions of heresy- “a self-willed opinion.” So what is now the History of Christian Thought (which was responsible primarily for developing the Trinity), that used to be the History of Dogma, is all in reality just the History of Christian Heresy!

Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive)

“The Roman Church is Roman… The Roman Church took over the heritage of the Roman Empire… We should do the same thing with the Greek philosophical concepts which created the Christian dogma… The Hellenistic period which includes the Stoics, Epicureans, Neo-Pythagoreans, Skeptics, and Neo-Platonists. This Hellenistic period is the immediate source of much of Christian thought [dogma]. It was not so much classical Greek thinking but Hellenistic thought which influenced early Christianity… The Greek philosophers… were people who took upon themselves the task of creating a spiritual world by observing reality objectively as it was given to them, interpreting it in terms of analytic and synthetic reason.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, page 2

“The Stoics… Christianity took from its great competitors many fundamental ideas. The first is the doctrine of the Logos, a doctrine that may bring you to despair when you study the history of Trinitarian christological thought. The dogmatic development of Christianity cannot be understood without it. Logos means “word.” But it also refers to the meaning of a word, the reasonable structure which is indicated by a word. Therefore, Logos can also mean the universal law of reality. This is what Heraclitus meant by it, who was the first to use this word philosophically… For Stoics the Logos was the divine power which is present in everything that is.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, page 7.

“The development in the idea of God during this period between the Testaments was toward a radical transcendence. God becomes more and more transcendent… the abstraction is carried on under two influences: (1) the prohibition against using the name of God; (2) the struggle against anthropomorphisms, that is, seeing God in the image (morphe) of man (anthropos). Consequently the passions of the God of the Old Testament disappear…. When God becomes abstract… mediating beings must appear between God and man.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, page 10.

“When God becomes abstract… Mediating beings must appear between God and man…Of these powers between God and man is the shekinah, the dwelling of God on earth. Another is the memra’, the Word of God, which later became so important in the fourth gospel. Still another is the ‘Spirit of God’, which in the Old Testament means God in action. Now, however, it became a partly independent figure between the most high God and man. The Logos became most important for it united the Jewish memra’ with the Greek philosophical Logos. Logos on Philo is the protogenes huios theou, the first-born Son of God. These mediating beings between the most high God and man to some extent replace the immediacy of the relationship to God. As in Christianity, particularly in Roman Catholic Christianity, the ever more transcendent idea of God was made acceptable to the popular mind by the introduction of the saints into practical piety. The official doctrine remained monotheistic; the saints were to receive only veneration, never adoration.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, page 11.

“The “Son of God” is an adequate term because of the special relationship and intimate communion between Jesus and God. At the same time it is inadequate because “Son of God” is a very familiar pagan concept. The pagan gods propagated sons on earth… The title kyrios means Lord; it is adequate because of its use in the Old Testament where it is an expression of divine power. At the same time it is inadequate because the mystery gods were kyrioi, lords, and furthermore, Jesus was pictured concretely as a finite being… Finally the concept “Logos” was adequate insofar as it expressed the universal self-manifestation of God in all forms of reality. In Greek philosophy and Jewish symbolism it is the cosmic principle of creation. Yet it is inadequate because the Logos is a universal principle, whereas Jesus is a concrete reality… This is expressed in the great paradox of Christianity: the Logos became flesh. Here we have a perfect example of how the meaning of a term, with all the connotations it had from the past, can be transformed in expressing the Christian message. The idea that the universal Logos became flesh could never have been derived from the Greek thought. Therefore the church fathers emphasized again and again that while the Greek philosophers possessed the idea of the universal Logos, what was peculiarly Christian was that the Logos became flesh in a personal life.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, pages 15-16.

(Tom’s note: This begs the question, why then impose the Greek idea of the Logos as being a universal principle or law of reality, which idea comes from the Greek and not the Hebrew scriptures? Tillich’s statement that the Greek universal logos could never have become flesh is actually proof that the John, in using the term logos, was actually refuting Greek philosophy, not trying to validate it to some extent or another as Trinitarians do.

Notice Tillich’s statement: “Finally the concept “Logos” was adequate insofar as it expressed the universal self-manifestation of God in all forms of reality.” But this is not the treatment that the Old Testament gave the Logos. It was originally, biblically simply God’s Word, just as you and I would speak of our Word. “God said… and there was…” It was not until there was Philosophic influence on Jewish and Christian thought that the Logos doctrine of the philosophers was adopted by the Apologists. Here Tillich is guilty of “reading back into” the Johannine text the Greek concept of Logos, and then transforming it back into a Christian dogma by declaring that what is actually the Greek concept of Logos, not the O.T. concept, became flesh, and therefore its not really the Greek Logos that the “fathers” were referring to! This is theological duplicity!)

Continued in Part Three

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part Three

“Baptism was the sacrament of entrance into the church. The baptized person… had to confess that he would accept the implications of his baptism. Then he was baptized in the name of Christ. Later on the names of God the Father and the Spirit were added. As yet there were no accompanying explanations; this was faith and liturgy, not yet theology.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, pages 18-19.
(Tom’s note: Here Tillich admits that the original faith was baptism in the name of Jesus! Then he says the early faith was not yet theology! In other words the Bible was insufficient! No wonder Jesus said they worship Him with their lips but their heart is far from Him!)

“…the early Christians (Apologists)… said… that if we call Jesus the Christ, or the Logos as the Apologists called him, this means that by definition there cannot be any truth which cannot in principle be taken into Christianity. Otherwise the application of the term “Logos” to Jesus as Christ would not have been possible. This does not mean that this Logos knew all the truth… it means that the fundamental truth which has appeared in him is essentially universal and therefore can take in every other truth. For this reason the early theologians did not hesitate to take in as much Greek philosophical truth as they could, and also as much Oriental mysticism as they could. ” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, pages 28-29.
(Tom’s note: there you have it- justification for adopting pagan thought; by subjectively terming it “truth” it becomes justifiably adoptable to Christianity! So they readily absorbed whatsoever they found in the world that they subjectively considered truth! But the Bible says that man by wisdom knew not God!)

“If one thinks in Old Testament terms, one would prefer to translate logos by “word”; if one thinks in Greek terms, as the Apologists did on the whole, then one would translate logos by “reason”. “Reason here does not mean “reasoning”, but refers to the meaningful structure of reality.
“As the immediate self-expression of the divine, the Word (the Logos, form, or reason) is less than the divine abyss, because the divine abyss is always the beginning, and out of the depths of divinity his self-manifestation toward the world comes. The Logos is the beginning of the generations of God; he has, so to speak, a diminished transcendence or divinity. But if this is so, how can he reveal God fully? This became a problem for later times. As soon as the Apologists used the term “logos” the problem arose and could not be silenced any more. If the logos is the self-expression of God in movement, is he less than God or fully God?” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, page 31

(Tom’s note: Jesus thought in Old Testament terms, that is one of the benefits of having been a Jew- unto them were given the oracles of God. However, Tillich continues to define the Logos in Philosophic terms, showing his unabashed sympathy towards the phiosopher/Apologists. To see what I mean, read the next paragraph…)

“It is difficult to explain what the word logos means… because this concept is not the description of an individual being, but of a universal principle… The concept of the Logos can be explained best against the background of Platonism or medieval realism…. The Logos is the first “work” or generation of God as Father… The Word cannot be separated from that of which it is the Word. The Word of God is not identical with God; it is the self-manifestation of God… So Justin could say: “The Logos is different from God according to number, but not according to concept.” He is God; he is not the God, but he is one with God in essence. Justin used also the Stoic doctrines of the immanent and transcendent Logos…” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, pages 30-31.

“In the Apologists the incarnation is not the union of the divine Spirit with the man Jesus; rather the Logos really becomes man. This transformation Christology becomes increasingly important through the Logos doctrine. Through the will of God the preexistent Logos has become man. He has been made flesh.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, page 32.

Tom’s note: the apologists were Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and beyond, in other words, the philosophizing Christians who set out to develop the new doctrine. At first, they did not speak in terms of the logos/word uniting with man, but actually becoming man. After they thought about this, they realized that would mean God would have to “change” by becoming a man. In other words, one lie needed to be created to cover up a past lie, and so on and so on.

“The first great Christian theologians developed their systems in opposition to—and partly in acceptance of—the ideas of gnosticism.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, page 37.

(Tom’s note: What Tillich is talking about are things like the “Logos as universal principle.” Remember that Tillich himself is supportive of adopting whatever truth can be gleaned from Philosophy, rather than rejecting anything that is extra-biblical, and leaving as coincidental any thing that happens to be in common. Notice how Tillich criticizes Adolf von Harnack for denouncing the practices of Hellenizing Christianity)-

“The greatest figure in the Ritschlian school was Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930)… His greatest achievement was the History of Dogma, still a classical work in this area of research… If you read Harnack’s History of Dogma, you will see how the great creeds… came into existence… You will see that the ecumenical councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon used a lot of terms from Greek philosophy in formulating the Trinitarian and christological dogmas. Harnack saw in this development a second wave of Hellenization. The first wave was gnosticism, and the second wave was the formulation of the ancient dogma. The first was rejected by the church; the second was accepted and used by the church… Hellenism is a mixture of Greek, Persian, Egyptian, Jewish and even Indian elements, and mystical groups of all kinds… Harnack’s criticism was that in this way Christianity became intellectualized… Harnack was right in saying that Hellenization had taken place, but wrong in defining this as intellectualization. According to Harnack a foreign element entered into Christianity when terms like ousia and hypostasis were used in constructing the official dogma of the church. This process began not only in the fourth and fifth century councils, but already in the apostolic fathers, and that means in the generation which is contemporaneous with the biblical writings. Then this process received a strong impetus from the apologists who elaborated the logos concept in theology. All this can be called Hellenization, but how else could it have happened?… Harnack’s greatness is that he showed this process of Hellenization. His shortcoming was that he did not see the necessity of it… I would not accept the idea which one hears so much that all the Greek elements must be thrown out… If this were done consistently, at least two-thirds of the New Testament would have to be ruled out, for Paul and John used a lot of Hellenistic concepts. Besides, it would rule out the whole history of doctrine (dogma). This idea is a new bondage to a particular development, the Old Testament development. Christianity is not nearer the Jews than to the Greeks… My criticism of the whole liberal theology, including Harnack, is that it had no real systematic theology; it believed in the results of history in a wrong way.”
-Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, pages 515-519.

(Tom’s note: Here Tillich is getting circular, “its okay to add Greek thought because the Apostles used Greek thought while writing scripture.” However, this is a total rejection that the Apostles warned not to follow the philosophies of man. We have a perfect example in the early writers that they interpreted Greek words in Jewish ways, not Greek ones. That there are similarities means just that and nothing more. There are similarities. But the Bible says to teach no other doctrine. The Bible thoroughly furnishes unto all good works. The Apostles approved the doctrines that they laid down, and disapproved what they didn’t lay down. Otherwise, where does it stop in what is adopted and what is rejected, or what is the measuring stick by what is adopted and what is rejected? Yea hath God said is made subjective to what the current human trend perceives as truth, and once it is labeled “truth” it can be accepted into Christian dogma since logos means universal knowledge! This is just total circular reasoning.)

“The very foundations of the church were threatened by the intrusion of secret traditions which asserted quite different things from what the biblical writings said. Thus the decision to fix the canon arose out of the life-and-death struggle with gnosticism.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, page 38.

Tom’s note: the very fact that it was noted that there were differing and contradictory secret traditions floating around is proof that it does not follow that just because a certain doctrine is ancient that it is truly apostolic.

“The Gnostics interpreted the Scriptures differently from the official church. Therefore, the principal of tradition was bound to come up. The tradition was identified with the regula fidei, the rule of faith. When this happened, not the Bible but the rule of faith became decisive, just as the confessional documents written after the Reformation became the decisive canon for theological instruction, not the Bible… The rule of faith was also called the canon of truth; something is true because it comes from the Apostles. It is apostolic tradition (traditio apostolica) which is mediated through presbyters or bishops. This, however, is still too indefinite; there are too many elements in the tradition, ethical and dogmatic. So a concentrated summary of the Bible and the rule of faith was needed in connection with the confession at baptism, the main sacrament at that time… Thus we have a very impressive system of authorities: the Bible, the apostolic tradition, the rule of faith, the baptismal creed, and the bishops, created in the struggle against the Gnostics.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, page 39.

“In the line of thought which leads from John to Ignatius and Irenaeus, the Logos is not so much a lesser hypostasis, an inferior form or power of being in God, but is much more God himself as revealer, as his self-manifestation.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, page 45.

(Tom’s note: Here Tillich basically admits that John, Ignatius and Irenaeus are all Monarchians, because he has just described their thought in monarchian, as distinct from Trinitarian, or “logos-Christology”, terminology. This isn’t to say that Irenaeus was a mofalistic monarchian, he was not. He never stated or developed the idea the son was an incarnation of the person of the Father. Rather, merely that the “word” was an inherent characteristic of God.)

“Tertullian provided the fundamental formula for the trinity and Christology. He used juristic language… “Let us preserve the mystery of the divine economy which disposes the unity into trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three not in essence but in grade, not in substance but in form.”… He speaks of “economy”, an important word in ancient Christian theology. To speak of divine economy is to speak of God “building up” his manifestations in periods of history. In a living and dynamic way the trinity is built up in historical manifestations… In the moment of creation the Son becomes a second person, and the Spirit a third person. The divine substance or essence, meaning power of being, is in all three persons. Tertullian’s term “persona” does not mean the same as our word “person” . You and I are persons because we are able to reason, to decide, to be responsible, etc. Such a concept of person was not applied to God at all, nor to the three hypostases in God. What then does persona mean? Persona, like the Greek word prosōpon, is the mask of the actor through which a special character is acted out. Thus we have three faces, three countenances, three characteristic expressions of the divine, in the process of divine self-explication… Tertullian also… said: “We see a double essence, not confused but united in one person, in God and the man Jesus.”” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, page 46-47.

Continued in Part Four

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part Four

“At this time baptism is still the most important sacrament. It removes past sins. Baptism has two meanings: it means the washing away of sins and the reception of the divine Spirit… The third element in baptism is the unity of forgiveness and regeneration… It was easy for Tertullian, with his Stoic background, to think of the Spirit as a material force in the water.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, page 48.

(Tom’s note: one could skip over this without grasping its significance. Tertullian was one of the very first to attack Modalistic Monarchianism, and he did so because he perceived God as a material being! This idea comes straight from Stoicism! Yet Trinitarians still claim him as proof of the ancient dogma of the Trinity- and also claim that the formulation of the dogma only used Greek terms to describe an already existing biblical concept! Yet even they would call him (Tertullian) a heretic according to their current perception of their doctrine. But that’s okay, they will say, he was just juvenile in his concepts! What hypocrisy! I wonder if Tertullian would ever have said he realized his words were just juvenile concepts of a later, extra-biblical definition that would be much more mature than his own? Would today’s Trinitarians say that they still only have a vague understanding of concepts that the future church will have better terminology to describe them? Some actually do, some actually admit that “there is much work to be done on the Trinity”.)

“These ideas are the making of the Roman Church; in the long run they were to become very influential… For this reason we cannot say that Protestantism is a restatement of the early centuries… The first five centuries is by no means an agreement with the principles of the Reformation. Therefore, if someone says that we should unite by going back to the development which runs from Irenaeus to Dionysius the Areopagite, I would say that he had better become a Catholic, because Protestantism cannot do that. In these first centuries there are many elements which Protestantism cannot accept…” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, page 49.

“The great Alexandrian theologians, Clement and Origen, met the challenge of Neo-Platonism, and used its concepts to express Christianity. Neo-Platonism is important not only because of its influence on Origen, who produced the first great theological system, but because… it influenced all later forms of Christian mysticism and most forms of classical Christian theology” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, pages 50-51.

“The simple ones revolted also against Origen’s Logos Christology which he had received from the [Platonic] Apologists. The laymen, the simple ones, were not interested in the cosmological speculations of the Logos concept. They wanted to have God himself on earth in Christ. This group was called the Monarchians, from monarchia, meaning “one man’s rule”. They wanted to have only one ruler, one God not three, as they felt was entailed by the Logos Christology. Against the Logos as a second God, they stressed the “monarchy” of the Father. This movement was a monotheistic reaction against the tritheistic danger of the Logos doctrine.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, page 64.

(Tom’s note: Here Tillich tells us it was the One-God folks, the monarchians who combated and resisted the influence of philosophical/Gnostic thought on Christian dogma. Ultimately, they would be cast out of the church and counted as heretics. But in Origen’s day they were still the simple ones, like the bible says,
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
Origen conceived of a complex rather than simple Christ.)

“The Monarchian movement itself was split. The one side followed the adoptionist Christology… In the West we find this way of thinking in “Theodotus of Rome and in the East in Paul of Samosata… The other side of Monarchianism is called modalistic Monarchianism; it was more in line with the basic feeling of the masses of Christians. Modalism means that God himself appears in different modes, in different ways. It was also called Patripassianism, which means that the Father suffered in Christ.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, page 66.

“The Arian controversy was a unique and classical struggle… The politics of the emperors was involved in it. They needed a unity in the church… Personal feuds between bishops and theologians were involved. There was also a conflict between a narrow traditionalism and an unrestrained speculation… The really decisive issue… had to do with the question: How is salvation possible in a world of darkness and mortality? This has been the central question… involved in the great Trinitarian and christological controversies. ” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, pages 69-70.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Tom’s note: In other words, the philosophical idea of matter/flesh as totally corrupt and evil had not been able to be purged from the Apologist/Philosopher/Christians. The very thing that kept them clinging to Platonism and Philosophy were the things that were causing their conflict- how to reconcile these philosophical doctrines within a framework of biblical expression. It was like Paul had said, the preaching of the cross was to the Greek philosophers foolishness. So the Apologist/Philosophers chose to cling to philosophic ideas instead of biblical ones! Those specific philosophic ideas were, (a) the impassibility/ineffability of the “most high” God, (b) the philosophic idea of a Logos as both similar yet distinct from the person of that same “most high” God, while also able to be, at the same time, deity and mediator between man and deity. (c) finally, the presupposition of the inherent evil in matter.

All of these are philosophic concepts. They are also Gnostic concepts. They are not at all explicitly biblical concepts, rather, the philosophers have “read back” into the Christian scriptures and messages their interpretation of presumably similar statements as being what the Bible means or meant to say if only it had sufficiently explained itself. Therein is the root problem- the denial of the sufficiency of the Word of God. This idea of the insufficiency of the Word of God, of course, stems from the very lie in the Garden- you shall not surely die (for disobedience and disbelief), rather God himself knows that you will be as gods knowing good and evil.

The Trinitarian solution then, all along, has been to create a religious practice that is in direct opposition to biblically stated commandment.

Protestantism as neo-Gnosticism! But biblically, matter is not inherently evil, the Bible tells us nothing is unclean in and of itself. God made man and said it was very good. The glory of love is to manifest itself through relationships of beings. By allowing ones’ self to be a manifestation of love, one becomes an instrument, like a bodily “member” to use the biblical term. In other words, by being submitted to God as our head, we become His body. By submitting ourselves to lies, we become instruments of evil. The physical matter of our flesh is not evil, it is our actions that determine our goodness or evil. It is Platonic and Gnostic to ascribe inherent evil to matter, in and of itself. In this Protestantism has become Neo-Gnosticism, in the same way Neo-Platonism became so by taking Platonism to its next logical step.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Athanasius, the great foe of Arius, answered that salvation was possible only on one condition, namely, that the Son of God was made man in Jesus so that we might become God… Only if they are coeternal can Jesus, in whom the Logos is present, give us eternity… So God himself must save us.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, pages 70.

(Tom’s note: Again, the same lie as in the Garden- ye shall be as gods.)

“Arius’ Christology was rejected at the Council of Nicea, A.D. 325. The Nicene Creed begins: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible.” These are important words. The word “invisible” has reference to the Platonic “ideas” . God is the creator not only of the things on earth, but of the “essences” as they appear in Plato’s philosophy. The Creed continues: “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten of the essence of the Father, God of God, and Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, being of one substance [homoousios] with the Father, by whom all things were made in heaven and on earth, who for us men and our salvation came down and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven. From thence he comes to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost… And those who say there was a time when he was not, or he was not before he was made, and he was made out of nothing, and out of another substance or thing, or the Son of God is created or changeable, or alterable, they are condemned by the Catholic Church.” This is the fundamental Christian confession. The central phrase is “of one substance with the Father”. Nothing like this is said of the Holy Ghost. And this was the reason for further struggles and decisions. The condemnations are interesting; the all-embracing one is directed against the Arians: “Those who say there was a time when he was not…are condemned by the Catholic Church.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, pages 71.

Tom’s note: “Being of one substance… was made man” demonstrates their duplicity in claiming that the Father and Son are of the same substance, for how can the Son, of the same essence as the Father, eternal and begotten not made, be made flesh while the Father of the same substance cannot? This formula would later require yet another revision that would insert yet another level of hierarchy between God and man, by restating that it is not the eternally begotten Son that was “made” flesh, only that he was “joined” or “conjoined” to flesh.


“The Origenistic protest against the homoousios led not only to conflict with people like Athanasius or Marcellus, but also against the Nicaenum itself… The Origenists… gathered their forces again and insisted, against the Nicaenum, on three substances in the trinity… This mood prevailed again and again, in some cases with strong support of the emperor, who defied the decision of his predecessor Constantine and tried to suppress the supporters of Nicaea against the Nicaenum…” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, page 75.
Tom’s note: in other words, after the Council had established the creed, they started arresting the newly defined “heretics”, using the sword of the state to enforce the new doctrines, killing each other over it, playing politics, etc. Whereby, you shall know them by their fruit!

“For the homoiousianoi (Arians) the Father and Son are equal in every respect, but they do not have the identical substance. This group interpreted the Nicene formula homoousios, which they could not remove any more, in the sense of homoiousios. And even then Athanasius and the West finally agreed that this could be done, if only the formula itself were accepted. The West in turn accepted the eternal generation of the Son, a formula which derived from Origen and which the West did not like, and with it the West accepted the inner-divine eternal trinity, which is a non-historical (non-economic) view of the trinity. The East, on the other hand, accepted the homoousios [“same substance”] after it was possible to interpret it in the light of the homoiousios [“like-substance”]. And under these same conditions the East also accepted the homoousia of the Spirit.
“This means that theological formulae were discovered which were able to resolve the struggle… For the time being, the Synod of Constantinople, A.D. 381, in which the homoousios and the homoiousios could come together. Before this was possible, however, new theological developments had to occur. These developments are represented by the three great Cappodician theologians.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, pages 75-76.
Tom’s note: the homoiousios with an “i” is what the Arians believe: it meant that the son of God was made of a substance “like” the Father, but was not “the same” substance as the Father. That word for “same-substance” is “homoousios”.

Continued in Part Five

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part Five

“The three Cappodicean theologians were Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, his brother, and Gregory of Nazianzus… Basil’s younger brother was called “the theologian”. He continued the Origenistic tradition and its “scientific” methods… After the Nicene dogma became fixed, it was possible now again for theology to attempt a union of Greek philosophy and Christian dogma. But this theology no longer had the freshness of the first great attempts made by the Apologists… It was more a matter of formulae than of material creativity… These Cappadocian Fathers, especially Gregory of Nazianzus, made sharper distinctions between the concepts that were used in the Trinitarian dogma. Two sets of concepts were used: the first is one divinity, one essence (ousia), one nature (physis); the second is three substances (hypostaseis), three properties (idiōtētes), three persons (prosōpa, personae). The divinity is one essence or nature in three forms, three independent realities. All three have the same will, the same nature and essence. Nevertheless, the number three is real; each of the three has its special characteristics or properties. The Father has the property of being ungenerated; he is from eternity to eternity. The Son has the characteristic of being generated. The Spirit has the characteristic of proceeding from the Father and the Son. But these characteristics are not differences in the divine essence, but only in their relations to each other. This is complex and abstract philosophy, but it offered the formula which made the reunion of the church possible… This decision ends the Trinitarian struggle. Arius and Sabellius and their many followers were excluded.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, pages 76-77.

(Tom’s note: Note the words “scientific” as opposed to searching the scriptures. “Attempt a union of Greek philosophy and Christian dogma” as opposed to faith! Why would a union with that which Apostle Paul had said was ineffective been desirable? Because they had not repented of their philosophical thinking.
2 Corinthians 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
The Trinitarians laid down the spiritual weapon, the Word of God, which is the sword of the Spirit, and took up their man-made philosophical opinions! Interesting that the Bible warned of this in particular in regard to the issue of the Godhead-
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

So they “made” sharper distinctions rather than rested on the sufficiency of scripture. They rested on “Abstract philosophy” rather than scriptural doctrine.)

“For Tertullian the Spirit is a kind of fine substance, as it was also in Stoic philosophy. The fine substance is called Spirit, or grace or love. They are actually the same thing in Catholic theology. Thus, Roman Catholic theology can speak of gratia infusa, infused grace, infused like a liquid, a very fine substance, into the soul of man and transforming it… Tertullian represented the idea that ascetism, the self-denial of the vital reality of oneself, is the way to receive this substantial grace of God. He used the juristic term “compensation” for sin… And he used the term “satisfaction”. By good works we can “satisfy” God.” -Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon and Schuster, 1968, page 99.


John Norman Davidson Kelly FBA (13 April 1909 – 31 March 1997) was a British theologian and academic at the University of Oxford and Principal of St Edmund Hall, Oxford, between 1951 and 1979. Wiki.

“When we pass to the apologists, the infiltration of secular thought is… obvious . Aristides of Athens, for example, opened the Apology which he addressed to the emperor Hadrian (117-38), or possibly Antoninus Pius (138-61), with an outline demonstration of God’s existence based on Aristotle’s argument from motion… In Justin the oneness, transcendence and creative role of God are asserted in language strongly coloured by the Platonizing Stoicism of the day. It was apparently his sincere belief that the Greek thinkers had had access to the works of Moses. So God is everlasting, ineffable and without name, changeless and impassible and ‘ingenerate’… ‘We have learned’, he states, ‘that, being good, He created all things in the beginning out of formless matter.’ This was the teaching of Plato’s Timaeus, which Justin supposed to be akin to, and borrowed from, that contained in Genesis. For Plato, of course, pre-existent matter was eternal…
“The other Apologists were in line with Justin, although some of them quite definitely supported creation ex nihilo (out of nothing)… Athenagoras, however, envisaged Providence as shaping pre-existent matter. Nevertheless they all emphasized His transcendence .” Early Christian Doctrines John Norman Davidson Kelly (Paperback, Revised, 1978), pg 83-85.


“At the New Testament stage ideas about Christ’s pre-existence and creative role were beginning to take shape… No steps had been taken so far, however, to work all these complex elements (Person of Jesus, resurrection, salvation through Him, pouring His Holy Spirit upon the Church, etc.) into a coherent whole. The Church had to wait for more than three hundred years for a final synthesis, for not until the council of Constantinople (381) was the formula of one God existing in three co-equal Persons formally ratified.” Early Christian Doctrines John Norman Davidson Kelly (Paperback, Revised, 1978), pg 88.
(Tom’s note: “ideas are beginning to take shape”- this is another code-word phrase for “new” doctrine was being developed that didn’t previously exist.)


Jaroslav Jan Pelikan Jr. (17 December 1923 – 13 May 2006) was an American scholar of the history of Christianity, Christian theology, and medieval intellectual history at Yale University.

“Hippolytus… reported that there was one party among the Montanists who, in his words, “agreeing with the heresy of the Noetians say that the Father is Himself the Son, and that He underwent birth and suffering and death. This is substantiated by pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies… this treatise went on to speak of a group following Aeschines, who “add this, that they say that Christ Himself is the Son and the Father.” In other words, they would seem to have embraced the doctrine that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were only successive modes of manifestation of the one God… Such language about the Trinity was in itself quite acceptable in the second century, and even later; but when the church went beyond it to formulate the dogma of the Trinity… those who continued to use this language… found themselves heretical on this score…” The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition Jaroslav Jan Pelikan (Paperback, 1975), 104.

“The climax of the doctrinal development of the early church was the dogma of the Trinity. In this dogma the church vindicated the monotheism that had been at issue in its conflicts with Judaism, and it came to terms with the Logos, over which it disputed with paganism… Such a statement about the relation of the Nicene dogma of the Trinity to the centuries preceding it could, however, give the superficial impression of a greater smoothness than the facts warrant, for the formulation and reformulation of the dogma were called forth by doctrinal debate more vigorous than any the church had ever experienced.” Pelikan, 172.

“Christian orthodoxy at the middle of the third century did not yet possess a theological formula to “think of Jesus Christ as of God,” much less a formula to describe the relation between the divine in him and his days on earth.” Pelikan, 176.
(Tom’s note: this alone should tell us that the Trinity is a latter formulation and not something the earlier church believed or understood because it wasn’t something they openly taught by expounding in detail, or preached, by openly declaring.)

“It is, nevertheless, the Christian adaptation of the Greek idea of Logos, for the purposes of apologetics and philosophical theology that has figured most prominently in the secondary literature, and for good reason. The idea of a seminal Logos provided the apologists with a device for correlating Christian revelation not only with the Old Testament, but also with the glimpses of the truth that had been granted to classical philosophers.” Pelikan, 188.

“The use of the titles Logos and Son of God to interpret and correlate the passages of adoption… identity… distinction, and… of derivation was… derived from Holy Scripture, and its speculative interpretation, taken over from the Greek doctrine of the Logos.” Pelikan, 191.
(Tom’s note: In other words, what they could not find in the scriptures to their satisfaction, they called speculative, so that they could have an excuse to incorporate an answer from Greek philosophy. We say that “they could not find”, because we believe, as the apostle wrote, that the scriptures are complete and thoroughly equips us to understand the God of the Bible without support from the crutches of pagan philosophical thought which the Bible specifically denounces!)

“Proverbs 8:22-31… explicitly stated that God had “created” wisdom, and that he had done so “for the sake of his [other] works.” This had been before the age” and before the creation of the earth and the abyss and the mountains. Hence both Logos and Son of God, the two titles which summarized the meaning of the divine in Christ, were taken to refer to a created being… In the ontological distinction between Creator and creature, the Logos definitely belonged on the side of the creature—yet with an important qualification. Other creatures of God had their beginning within time, but the Logos began “before times.” Pelikan, 196.

(Tom’s note:
“TO CREATE (translated as “possessed” in KJV)
“qanah OT:7069, "to get, acquire, earn." These basic meanings are dominant in the Old Testament, but certain poetic passages have long suggested that this verb means "create." In Gen 14:19, Melchizedek blessed Abram and said: "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker [KJV, "possessor"] of heaven and earth" (RSV). Gen 14:22 repeats this divine epithet. Deut 32:6 makes this meaning certain in that qanah is parallel to `asah, "to make": "Is he not your father, who created (qanah) you, who made (`asah) you and established (kun) you?" (RSV). Ps 78:54; 139:13; and Prov 8:22-23 also suggest the idea of creation.”
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

“According to Eusebius of Caesarea, the term (homoousios) was added at the urging of Constantine; and it usually has been attributed to ‘Western sources, mediated through Ossius of Cordova. The variety of its meanings and its previous association with Gnosticism—and as Arius had pointed out, with Manicheism—made it suspect to the orthodox; its identification with the condemned ideas of Paul of Samosata was to be a source of embarrassment to its defenders long after Nicea. But at Nicea, the doctrine it expressed was “that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the genetos creatures [that is, those that have a beginning], but that He is in every way assimilated to the Father alone who begat Him, and that He is not out of any other hypostasis and ousia, but out of the Father… It would not do to say that he was created, or that he had come into being out of things that do not exist, or that his hypostasis or ousia was different from that of the Father, or… that there was a time when he did not exist.” Pelikan, 202.
Tom’s note: This is the big modification that happened at Nicaea. This is when and where it became taboo to speak of “a time when the son was not”. It also is the wholesale adoption of the antichristian idea that Christ is not of the flesh. Because now, the son is nothing but the substance of the Father.

“The form in which homoousios was vindicated and the identification of Christ as God was codified was the dogma of the Trinity, as it was hammered out during the third quarter of the fourth century. And the issue that brought the homoousios to a head and thus helped to formulate the doctrine that Christ was divine was not so much the doctrine of Christ as the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.” Pelikan, 211.
Tom’s note: here Jaroslav Pelikan uses an expression that, if literal, would mean they took a hammer and chisel and formulated the deity they would worship. The Trinity is a man-made idol because it was hammered out by man long after the apostles had departed this world.

Continued in Part Six

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part Six

Carl Gustav Adolf von Harnack (Born Harnack; 7 May 1851 – 10 June 1930) was a Baltic German Lutheran theologian and prominent church historian.

“…The Gnostic systems represent the acute secularising or hellenising of Christianity, with the rejection of the Old Testament; while the Catholic system, on the other hand, represents a gradual process of the same kind with the conservation of the Old Testament… “ Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma, Chapter 4, par. 2.

“…the Gnostics…were, in short, the Theologians of the first century. They were the first to transform Christianity into a system of doctrines (dogmas). They were the first to work up tradition systematically… They are therefore those Christians who, in a swift advance, attempted to capture Christianity for Hellenic culture, and Hellenic culture for Christianity, and who gave up the Old Testament in order to facilitate the conclusion of the covenant…
“The majority of Gnostic undertakings may also be viewed as attempts to transform Christianity into a theosophy, that is, into a revealed metaphysic and philosophy of history, with a complete disregard of the Jewish Old Testament soil on which it originated, through the use of Pauline ideas, and under the influence of the Platonic spirit… “ Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma, Chapter 4, par. 2, page 229.

“Idea and aim of the History of Dogma…
“5. The history of the rise of dogmatic Christianity would seem to close when a well-formulated system of belief had been established by scientific means, and had been made the “articulus constitutivus ecclesiæ,” and as such had been imposed upon the entire Church. This took place in the transition from the [b]3rd to the 4th century when the Logos-Christology was established…
“6. The claim of the Church that the dogmas are simply the exposition of the Christian revelation, because deduced from the Holy Scriptures, is not confirmed by historical investigation. On the contrary, it becomes clear that dogmatic Christianity (the dogmas) in its conception and in its construction was the work of the Hellenic spirit upon the Gospel soil. The intellectual medium by which in early times men sought to make the Gospel comprehensible and to establish it securely, became [b]inseparably blended with the content of the same…
“7… So also does historical investigation destroy the other illusion of the Church, viz.: that the dogma, always having been the same therein, have simply been explained, and that ecclesiastical theology has never had any other aim than to explain the unchanging dogma and to refute the heretical teaching pressing in from without. The formulating of the dogma indicates rather that theology constructed the dogma, but that the Church must ever conceal the labor of the theologians, which thus places them in an unfortunate plight… Dogma has ever in the progress of history devoured its own progenitors.” Adolf Harnack, Outlines of the History of Dogma, Beacon Press, 1957, 3-6.

“Apologists and Gnostics carried forward the work which the Alexandrian Jewish thinker Philo had begun as regards the Old Testament religion; but they divided the work, so to speak, between them.” Har. 119.

“Christianity (to the Apologists) is philosophy and revelation; this is the thesis of every apologist from Aristides to Minucius Felix… Justin’s writings (Apology and Dialogue) have the most in common with the faith of the churches. On the other hand Justin and Athenagoras think the most favorably of philosophy and of philosophers.” Har. 120.

“The Logos-Christolgoy alone permitted a uniting of faith and science, corresponded to the doctrine that God became man in order that we might become gods… But it was by no means wide-spread in the churches in the year 190, or even later; rather was it in part unknown, and in part feared as heretic-gnostic (destruction of the Divine monarchy)… The establishment of the Logos-Christology within the faith of the Church—and indeed as articulus fundamentalis—was accomplished after severe conflicts during the course of a hundred years (till about 300). It signified the transformation of the faith into a system of beliefs with an Hellenic-philosophical cast; it shoved the old eschatological representations aside, and even suppressed them, it put back of the Christ of history a conceivable Christ, a principle, and reduced the historical figure to a mere appearance; it referred the Christian to “natures” and naturalistic magnitudes, instead of to the Person and to the ethical; it gave the faith of the Christians a definite trend toward the contemplation of ideas and doctrinal formulas, and prepared the way, on the one side for the monastic life, on the other for the chaperoned Christianity of the imperfect, active laity; it legitimized a hundred questions in metaphysics, cosmology, and natural science as ecclesiastical, and demanded, under threat of loss of bliss, a definite answer; it went so far that men preached; instead of faith, rather faith in the faith, and it stunted religion while it appeared to broaden it… It prepared the way for the act of Constantine.
“The tendencies in the Church, which strove against philosophical Christianity and the Logos-Christology, men called monarchian… Two tendencies… adoption and modalistic… Both contested the Logos-Christology as “gnosticism” ; the first through an avowed interest in the historical representation of Christ (Synoptic), the second in the interest of monarchy and of the Divinity of Christ… In all ecclesiastical provinces there were monarchian contests; but we know them only in part.” Harnack, 167-169.

“Callixtus… in his formula of reconciliation accepted the Logos (but as a designation of the Father also) and an adoption element (this Hippolytus has well observed), but by means of it actually transferred the faith of the Roman church to the Logos-Christology, and to the physico-deification doctrine—excommunicating his old friend Sabellius. Yet the gnostical subordinationism of Tertullian and Hippolytus could never gain acceptance in Rome.” Harnack, 181.
(Tom’s note: not many Trinitarians are willing to admit that the early perception of the Trinity was always subordinationistic! This is true with Tertullian and Hippolytus in the West, and even more so with Clement and Origen of Alexandria in the East. There are no early examples of “co-equal” Trinitarians in the earliest of times… until around the time of Alexander and Athanasius.)

“Many Occidental teachers, who were not influenced by Plato and the Orient, used in the third and fourth centuries modalistic formulas without hesitation, above all Commodian.” Harnack, 182.

“…The scientific itself trembled before the fine polytheism which it introduced, and farther that Christology became pure philosophy: The symbol which Gregory (Thaumaturgus) disseminated among the churches hardly corresponded in a single sentence with the Biblical statements; it is a compendium of the purest speculations, [b]recalling the Gospel only in the words, Father, Son, and Spirit. Therein the Christian faith was expected to recognize itself once more!” Harnack, 189.

“Through the acceptance of the Logos-Christology as the central dogma of the church, the Church doctrine was, even for the laity, firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians. But mysteries were even sought after… What the Church utilized in doctrine, cultus and organization was “apostolic”, or claimed to be deduced from the Holy Scriptures. But in reality it legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan mystery-worship and the institutions of the decaying state organization to which it attached itself and which received new strength thereby. In theory, monotheistic, it threatened to become polytheistic in practice and to give way to the whole apparatus of low or malformed religions.” Harnack, 194.

“In concluding “Part I” it was described how philosophic theology gained the victory within the Church and how it naturalized its theses in the every formulas of the faith. “Ebionism” and “Sabellianism” were conquered. The banner of the Neo-Platonic philosophy, however, was raised in spite of the shaking off of gnosticism. All thinkers remained under the influence of Origen. But since the system of this man was already heterodox, the development of the Alexandrian theology threatened the Church with further dangers...” Harnack, 196-200.

“Constantine first called an ecumenical synod and declared its decisions to be without error. Slowly the thought of the infallible authority of the Nicene council crept in during the 4th century and was later on transferred to the following councils… But this apparently simple and consistent development solved by no means all the difficulties… The conception of “antiquity” grew ever more elastic. Originally the disciples of the apostles were the “ancients”, and then they counted also the 3d and 4th generations among the “ancients”, the Origen and his disciples were the “ancient” expounders; finally the whole ante-Constantine epoch was considered classic antiquity. But since one could make use of rather little from this period, appeal was taken to Athanasius and the fathers of the 4th century, just as to the “ancients”, and at the same time to numerous falsifications under the name of the fathers of the 2d and 3d centuries… Adoption of new formulas (of the homoousios, of the oneness of the trinity, of the two natures and so on)… was accomplished only because the Nicene creed itself had become a piece of antiquity. ” Harnack, 218-222.

“Both doctrines (Arianism and Athanasianism) are formally in this respect alike, that in them religion and theology are most intimately mingled and grounded upon the Logos-doctrine. But Arianism is a union of adoptionism with the Origenistic-Neo-Platonic doctrine of the subordinate Logos which is the spiritual principle of the world… The orthodox (Athanasian) doctrine is a union of the almost modalistically colored dogma, that Jesus Christ is God in kind, with the Origenistic doctrine of the Logos as the perfect likeness of the Father… In the former (Arianism)… only as cosmologians are the Arians monotheists; as theologians and in religion they are polytheists… The opponents were quite right: This doctrine leads back to paganism… The orthodox (Athanasian) doctrine, on the contrary, possesses its lasting value through its maintenance of the faith that in Christ God himself has redeemed mankind… But since God in Christ was conceived as “alter ego” of the Father… there resulted… (1) Formulas, the direct gainsaying of which is evident (one=three), and ideas which cannot be conceived… Thereby in place of the knowledge of God which Christ had promised, was put mystery, and… (2) The assertion that the Person in Christ is the Logos, one being with God, could be maintained only when one reversed the interpretations of all evangelical reports concerning him, and understood his history docetically (that Christ only seemed to have a body). Therefore, the introduction of the absurd, and the abandonment of the historical Christ in his most valuable traits, is the consequence of the orthodox doctrine… It is easy to see with Arius, as well as with Athanasius, the contradictions and weaknesses flow from the reception of Origenism, that is, from scientific theology (Philosophy). Without this, that is, without the doctrine of the pre-existent, hypostatical Logos, Arianism would have been adoptionism, or pure rationalism, and Athanasius would have been forced to either return to modalism, or to relinquish the idea of the Divine “nature” of Christ.” Harnack, 251-253.

“At the synod of Nicaea (325) the homoousios finally conquered, thanks to the awkward tactics of the Arians… the decisiveness of the (Athanasians) and to the determination of the emperor… Arius and a few companions were excommunicated and their followers persecuted.” Harnack, 253.

“The victory had been gained too quickly… Men saw in the homoousios an unbiblical, new formula, the making of two Gods, or the introduction of Sabellianism, and in addition, the death of true science. Among the opponents who together came forward as conservatives, two parties now became clearly prominent, the Arians and the Origenists (Eusebians) to whom the indifferents joined themselves… Constantine soon understood that he would have to come to an agreement with the anti-Nicene coalition, which after 328 became anti-Athanasian… Arianism… actually established itself in the Church as the state religion” Harnack, 254-259.

Continued in Part Seven

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part Seven

Henry Chadwick KBE FBA (23 June 1920 – 17 June 2008) was a British academic, theologian and Church of England priest. A former Dean of Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford – and as such, head of Christ Church, Oxford – he also served as Master of Peterhouse, Cambridge, becoming the first person in four centuries to have headed a college at both universities. A leading historian of the early church, Chadwick was appointed Regius Professor at both the universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

“The future lay with the program first announced by Justin Martyr, by which the Church would make common cause with Platonic metaphysics and Stoic ethics, while rejecting pagan myth and cult as a demonic, superstitious, counterfeit religion propagated by evil powers…” Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, Penguin, 1993, pg 69-70.

“The Gnostic heretics had appealed to the principles of Platonism to provide a philosophical justification for their doctrine… from the text of Plato… there was a sufficient plausibility about the argument to make it look impressive. The Gnostic appeal to pagan philosophy did not tend to encourage the study of philosophy among those who feared Gnosticism as a corrupter of the truth. Philosophy came to seem like the mother of heresy. To Irenaeus of Lyons Gnosticism was a ragbag of heathen speculations with bits taken from different philosophers to dress out bogus, anti-rational mythology… Tertullian scornfully mocked those who ‘advocate a Stoic or a Platonic or an Aristotelian Christianity”. It was a Gnostic thesis that faith needs supplementation by philosophical inquiries… But in the middle of the second century the atmosphere was very different. Justin Martyr… was converted, but did not understand this to mean the abandonment of his philosophical inquiries, nor even the renunciation of all that he had learnt from Platonism. He regarded Christianity as ‘the true philosophy’.” Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, Penguin, 1993, pg 74-75.



Salvatore R.C. Lilla bio not available.

“Clement's use of Greek philosophical doctrines goes far beyond the borrowing of some terms which do not influence his Christianity at all and which represent only a superficial tinge: in ethics, in the theory of pistis, in gnosis, in the question of the origin of the world, and in theology Clement has produced a process of Hellenization of Christianity which is closely parallel to the process of Hellenization of Judaism which is characteristic of Philo's work. Clement does not borrow a few doctrines or 'terms' of Greek philosophy simply because he wants to speak with the heathen philosophers in their own language in order to convert them to his own religion; this aim, though present in Clement's intentions, is neither the sole nor the most important reason for his use of Greek philosophy. He wanted to transform his religious faith into a monumental philosophical system, to which he allotted the task of reflecting the absolute truth.' He was well aware of the fact that he could not have built up such a system without making use of the materials represented by the Platonism of Philo and of the second century A.D. He could easily resort to Hellenism since he did not see between it and Christianity that radical opposition which some modern theologians like to see between these two forces but, on the contrary, considered the best doctrines of Greek philosophy as practically one and the same thing with the highest aspect of Christianity, since they, according to him, had been originated by the divine Logos. It is exactly the theory of the derivation of philosophy from the Logos that enables Clement to consider it as the clue for the interpretation of Scripture” Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism, By Salvatore R.C. Lilla, 2005 pg 232

Tom’s note: Clement of Alexandria was a forerunner to Athanasius of Alexandria. Athanasius would lean on the history of the Alexandrian church as somehow being the apostolic faith, but as we can see by these historians, Alexandria’s leaders had been infected with Gnosticism and philosophy, not just mildly, but were about purposely merging and marrying Christianity with philosophy and philosophy with Christianity just as the Gnostics had done.


Alastair Logan (A. H. B. Logan) is senior lecturer at the University of Exeter in England. He has been at the university since 1972 and is the longest standing member of its department of theology. Dr Logan is a Christian scholar and the chair EFC at the Cathedral Church of Saint Peter in Exeter. He is known for his work regarding Gnosticism in early Christianity. His best-known published work is Gnostic Truth, Christian Heresy, in which he works to redact the Gnostic movement in early Christianity.

“The Gnostic redeemer concept, whether in its basic structure or its various concrete forms, has, according to Schenke, at times influenced the development of early Christology… Rudolph suggests a two-sided process whereby on the one hand Gnostic ideas were Christianized while on the other Christian concepts were gnosticized; Gnostic redeemer concepts were historicized and the Christian figure of Christ mythologized…
“Indeed one can find a striking precedent for our hypothesis of a Gnostic combination of primal and continuous revelation in response to a taunt of novelty in the Logos doctrine of Justin Martyr. He was able to answer pagan insinuations about the novelty (and therefore falsehood) of Christianity by claiming that the divine Son or Logos, known in all his fullness to Christians through the Incarnation, was yet partially known in his primal revelation in and through his activity in creation, and his continuous revelation to choice souls (Abraham, Socrates, etc.) in history.”
-Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy by Alastair B. Logan, Hendrickson Publishers, 1996, page 215.


Rev. George Christopher Stead (April 9, 1913 – May 28, 2008) was the last Ely Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge. He is best known for his work on the philosophy of the Church Fathers, his 1977 book Divine Substance being widely cited among Patristic scholars. He studied under G.E. Moore and Ludwig Wittgenstein while an undergraduate at Cambridge. He was a Priest and Canon of the Diocese of Ely in the Church of England, having also served briefly as Curate of St. John's, Newcastle upon Tyne in 1939.

Stead was particularly interested in the application of the Aristotelian concept of substance (ousia) to Christian theology and in the use of the term 'homoousios' initially in a context deemed heretical (Paul of Samosata) by the Council of Antioch, subsequently more authoritatively by the Council of Nicaea (325 A. D.) but in turn giving rise to over half a century of heated discussion.

“The word homoousious, usually translated ‘consubstantial’ or ‘coessential’, appears to have been introduced by Gnostic Christians of the second century… It originally meant, ‘having the same substance’, ousia; and in the majority of cases at least, the notion of ousia that is implied is either material or conceived in physical terms. It thus means roughly, ‘made of the same…kind of stuff’.”
-Christopher Stead, Divine Substance, Oxford University Press, 1977, page 190.

“(In)… the second century there is one other pagan writing… the Poimandres, which… could conceivably be the earliest text which contains the word homoousios. The writer describes a revelation given to him by the god Poimandres, which explains the origin of the universe and of man; he draws freely on the book of Genesis, but boldly reinterprets its theology so as to present a fairly complex hierarchy of heavenly beings resembling those of the Gnostics. At the head of the hierarchy stands the supreme God whose name is Mind, Nous, and who is also characterized as ‘life and light’; next to him comes the Logos, who is described as ‘Son of God’…; after him the supreme God ‘brought forth by his word—or Logos—’… another Mind, the Creator or Demiurge, a god of fire and spirit who dwells above the visible world; whereupon the Logos, who had previously been sent down to separate the finer elements from the grosser ‘leapt up… and was united with the Demiurge Mind, for he was of the same substance’ (homoousios)…”
-Christopher Stead, Divine Substance, Oxford University Press, 1977, page 201-202.

“The first half of the third century brings no important change in the usage of the term homoousias by Christian theologians. In the great majority of cases it occurs in quotations or reminiscences of Gnostic writers; and it is only towards the end of this period that we can trace the first tentative use of the term to formulate the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.”
-Christopher Stead, Divine Substance, Oxford University Press, 1977, page 202.

“It is especially noteworthy that Tertullian, who relies upon the phrase una substantia to express the unity manifested in the three Persons of the Godhead… is willing to borrow Gnostic terms such as probohl, ‘emanation’… Tertullian’s… use of the phrase una substantia is closer to the Valentinus’ homoousios than is Hermogenes’ consubstantalis; for in Tertullian’s Trinity the una substantia represents the stuff or reality, called spiritus, which the Second and Third Persons derive from the First…
“Tertullian’s use of (una substantia) has much in common with the Gnostic theology which he condemned, but also expressed in terms which proved useful to later orthodoxy.”
-Christopher Stead, Divine Substance, Oxford University Press, 1977, pages 202-204.

“In the Excerpta… Clement (of Alexandria) comments successively on four separate Gnostic documents… in Ch.58… the supreme (Gnostic) Saviour is called Jesus Christ, and he has ‘put on’ a lesser being, the ‘psychic Christ’, in order to appear in the world (59.2-3); when the time of salvation was come he ‘took up in himself the Ecclesia by his power, both the elect and the called, the one spiritual coming from the Mother, the other psychic coming from the Economy (i.e. the work of the Demiurge, cf. 33)—these he saved and bore upwards what he assumed…” -Christopher Stead, Divine Substance, Oxford University Press, 1977, pages 208-209.

“In general, Clement’s use of the term homoousios agrees with that of Irenaeus… It refers to the three orders of being postulated by the Valentinians…
“It is… in Origen that we find the first suggestion of the Trinitarian use of homoousios…
“Origen used the term homoousios to indicate the Son’s relationship to the Father; and so far as we know was the first Greek writer to do so… Subordinationists… thought that Origen’s doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son did not adequately safeguard the Father’s pre-eminence…
“Origen explains the metaphor of light and its radiance as showing that the Son is eternally generated and coexists with the Father without beginning; but he is not unbegotten… Origen… writes that the Son, though superior to the angels, is in no way comparable to the Father: ‘For he is the image of his goodness, and the effulgence, not of God, but of his glory and his eternal light, and the breath, not of the Father, but of his power’.” Christopher Stead, Divine Substance, Oxford University Press, 1977, pages 208-213.

“Tertullian was possibly the first Christian to adopt (the phrase ek tēs ousias—of/from the substance), though Irenaeus uses the concept of emissions or emanations from a divine spiritual stuff, in comments on Valentinian theology. Tertullian, however, boldly appropriates the Valentinian term ‘projection’ (probolh: Adv. Prax. 8) and declares: ‘I derive the Son from no other source than from the Father’s substance’… Tertullian pictures God as a mind which contains within itself the Word as its ‘plan’ or ‘thought’; yet this is sufficiently distinct to be addressed as ‘a partner in dialogue’ (ibid. 5). At the moment of creation, however, this thought is uttered, and becomes sermo, spoken word, in place of ratio, and now for the first time can be regarded as ‘Son’ in the full sense. So Tertullian applies the text ‘This day have I begotten thee’…
“Origen differs from these Latin fathers in holding that the Son is eternally generated, and in showing more concern about possible materializing interpretations of the term ‘generation’; this leads him to make constant use of the alternative metaphor of an act of will proceeding from the mind…
“Both Tertullian and Origen seem to switch rather abruptly between the metaphors of proclamation and procreation; and it may be worth remarking that in light of Stoic theory the contrast between them would be less extreme than it seems to ourselves.”
-Christopher Stead, Divine Substance, Oxford University Press, 1977, pages 228-229.
Tom’s note: Here is where Stead admits that Origen is the one who first invented the doctrine of “eternal generation” of the son. How many son’s do we know who are eternally generated? I’d say none. The bible has no such language and no such teaching.

“Finally we have to consider the term homoousios as it occurs in the Nicene Creed; what were its immediate antecedents, and what was its meaning…
“May it have been thought that the Triad of persons is called homoousios because they jointly constitute the single complex reality to which is the divine Monad? The difficulty here is that… this scheme is seldom presented… What in fact we find is that the divine Monad and source of the Triad is identified with the first person, the Father… The one divine substance is therefore, properly and primarily, the Father’s substance… The argument put forth by some critics of Nicaea, that if Father and Son are called homoousios, they must be so in virtue of some third reality from which both are derived… It was… answered by saying that… the ultimate and unbegotten source of all being is the Father; which once again shows the unacceptability of any completely symmetrical picture of the Trinity.”
-Christopher Stead, Divine Substance, Oxford University Press, 1977, pages 242, 249-250.
Tom’s note: Here we see that the trinity was anything but worked out or consistently believed before Nicaea as today’s Trinitarians would like to artificially maintain.

Continued in Part Eight

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part Eight

“…Eusebius clearly states that (Constantine) both advocated and explained the term ( homoousios). It is the much later Arian writer Philostorgius who alleged, at least a hundred years afterwards, that Ossius and Alexander ‘agreed to make the Son homoousios with the Father’.”
-Christopher Stead, Divine Substance, Oxford University Press, 1977, page 252.
Tom’s note: Constantine was the legal heir of satan’s throne. No wonder he would want to take charge of Christian councils!

“Athanasius never says that the Father and Son are homoousioi; still less, of course, that the Father is homoousios with the Son. Nor does he ever connect the term with a noun referring to the Godhead as a whole; he does not speak of the ‘consubstantial Trinity’ (as he does of the ‘indivisible Trinity’), nor of the ‘consubstantial Godhead’ (as he does of the ‘one Godhead’). There is in fact a built-in asymmetry in his use of the term, which suggests that he is moving only very cautiously away from the moderate Origenism of Alexander… He avoids… symmetrical expressions… he by no means presses the suggestion of an exactly two-way relationship, but soon reverts to the traditional, and asymmetrical, images of the ray of light and the river springing from its source…
“The Father communicates to the Son all that he has and is, the Son receives the fullness of divine being; yet the Father initiates, the Son responds, and not vice versa; the Father does not surrender, nor the Son usurp, his distinctive position…”
-Christopher Stead, Divine Substance, Oxford University Press, 1977, pages 260-261, 266.


Reverend Charles Bigg, DD (1840–1908) was a Church of England clergyman, theologian and church historian.
Bigg was the winner of the Gaisford Prize for Greek Prose in 1861. In 1886, he delivered the Bampton Lectures, later published as: The Christian Platonists of Alexandria. He served as the principal of Brighton College in 1871. In 1900 he was invited by the Bishop of London, Mandell Creighton, to a round table conference that produced The Doctrine of Holy Communion and its Expression in Ritual in 1900.
After the death of Reverend William Bright, he was in April 1901 appointed Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Oxford, holding the post until his death.

“Our view of the conditions out of which Christian Platonism sprung would be incomplete without a brief notice of Gnosticism… The Aeons of Valentinus and others are but the Ideas of Plato seen through the fog of an Egyptian or Syrian mind… For us they have mainly this interest, that they complete the work of the Phionic analysis. God is finally separated from His attributes, the Aeons of Reason and Truth, and becomes the Eternal Silence of Valentinus, the Non-Esstent God of Basilides.” Charles Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria (1886), Kessinger Publishing’s Rare Mystical Reprints, Pages 27-28.
Tom’s note: remember what Harnack had said? Gnosticism was the acute/immediate Hellenizing of Christianity, Trinitarianism was the gradual Hellenizing of Christianity!

“To Gnostics is due the importation of the words ousia, hupostasis, homoousious into theology” Charles Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria (1886), Kessinger Publishing’s Rare Mystical Reprints, page 35 fn 1.

“…Clement… strenuously asserted not only the merits of Philosophy in the past but its continuous necessity in the Church… Science is the correlative of Duty. And though Scripture is the all-sufficient guide, even here the Christian must borrow assistance from the Schools. For Philosophy is necessary to Exegesis… But their great Platonic maxim, that ‘nothing is to be believed which is unworthy of God,’ makes reason the judge of Revelation…. Accordingly they put the letter of the Bible in effect on one side, wherever, as in the account of Creation or of the Fall, it appeared to conflict with the teaching of Science… Their object is to show, not that Common Sense is enough for salvation, but that neither Faith without Reason nor Reason without Faith can bring forth its noblest fruits…” Charles Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria (1886), Kessinger Publishing’s Rare Mystical Reprints, pages 50-52.

“(Origen says) ‘For to ascribe division to an incorporeal substance is the act not only of extreme impiety but of the dullest folly.’ Bigg, Page 177
Tom’s note: Note the progression of the steps of the development. Origen had earlier rejected the later idea that the “persons” of the Trinity could be called distinct persons in one “substance” because Origen still held the earlier concept of God’s incorporeality and of being immaterial.

“We shall however wrong Origen, if we attempt to derive his subordinationism from metaphysical considerations. It is purely scriptural, and rests wholly and entirely upon the words of Jesus, ‘My Father is greater than I,’ ‘that they may know Thee the only true God,’ ‘None is good save One.’pages 180-181.

“The genesis of the Platonic Trinity is one of the most perplexing questions in the history of philosophy… It had its roots in the manysided speculations of Plato himself, and was largely modified by influences from other quarters… In the Timaeus the Demiurge forms the World-Spirit according to the pattern of Ideas, which appear to be independent eternal existences. We have here three conceptions, God, the Ideas, the World Spirit. Plato has nowhere explained or harmonized this triad…
“In the time of Plutarch (A.D. 46-120) many (philosophers) regarded the Ideas as thoughts existing in the divine Mind… Others… assigned to the Ideas a substantive existence outside the divine Mind… But, though the Ideas might doubtless be gathered up into one, none of the later Platonists had as yet personified the Arch-Idea, or spoken of it as a God. This was the work of Numenius… whose date falls probably about the middle of the second century.
“…Numenius… boasts that he has gone back to the fountain head, to Plato, Socrates and Pythagoras, to the ancient traditions of Brahmins, Magi, Egyptians and Jews, and has restored to the schools the forgotten doctrine of Three Gods. Of these the first is Mind, simple and changeless, good and wise. Being changeless he cannot create, hence there is derived from him a second God, the Creator. The Son is no longer simple, like the Father, but twofold. ‘Condescending to Matter, which is multiple, he gives to it unity, but is himself divided.’ Part of him is incorporated in the things that he has made, becomes in fact the World Spirit part hovers over the world as its guide, ‘riding on Matter as a pilot on a ship,’… Hence… the Trinity of Numenius consists of the Father, the Creator, and the World. ” Charles Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria (1886), Kessinger Publishing’s Rare Mystical Reprints, pages 249-252.

Tom’s note: Here Bigg is supplying the actual source of the later developed Trinity in pagan philsophy and mythology.


Pier Franco Beatrice is a professor of Early Christian Literature at the University of Padua, Italy.

This paper was presented as a Master Theme of the Thirteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies (Oxford, 16-21 Aug. 1999). A shorter version of this paper was presented at the Eleventh International Congress of Classical Studies (Kavala, Greece, 24-30 Aug. 1999).

“Having…excluded any relationship of the Nicene homoousios with the Christian tradition, it becomes legitimate to propose a new explanation, based on an analysis of two pagan documents which have so far never been taken into account. The main thesis of this paper is that [b]homoousios came straight from Constantine’s Hermetic background. As can be seen clearly in the Poimandres, and even more clearly in an inscription mentioned exclusively in the Theosophia, in the theological language of Egyptian paganism the word homoousios meant that Nous-Father and the Logos-Son, who are two distinct beings, share the same perfection of the divine nature.” Pier Franco Beatrice, “The Word ‘Homoousios’ from Hellenism to Christianity,” Church History 71:2 (June 2002), available at Highbeam Reasearch, www.highbeam.com

“Surprising though it may seem, there is total agreement among scholars on at least one point. Adolf von Harnack, Ignacio Ortiz de Urbina, Luis M. Mendizábal, George Leonard Prestige, Peter Gerlitz, Éphrem Boularand, John Norman D. Kelly, Frauke Dinsen, Christopher Stead—all without exception agree in claiming that the Gnostics were the first theologians to use the word homoousios…The late Aloys Grillmeir wrote: ‘The early history of the Nicene homoousios shows us that the theologians of the church were probably made aware of this concept, and thus of the doctrine of emanation, by the Gnostics.’” Pier Franco Beatrice, “The Word ‘Homoousios’ from Hellenism to Christianity,” 248.

“If we admit Constantine’s personal instigation, which seems necessary in view of Eusebius’ narrative, a whole series of new questions arises concerning the political and ecclesiastical motivations that led Constantine to impose the use of homoousios in the Nicene Creed.” Pier Franco Beatrice, “The Word ‘Homoousios’ from Hellenism to Christianity,” 248.

“Constantine did not confine himself to imposing, by his authority, the inclusion of homoousios in Eusebius’s creed. He also supplied a ‘philosophical’ explanation with the intention of dispelling any possible misunderstanding connected with the usual ‘materialistic’ interpretation of this word…
“Constantine enunciated his ‘philosophy’ in a more extensive way in the so-called Speech to the Assembly of the Saints. Here…Constantine praises Plato for having said many true things about God…This statement evidently has no relation at all with Plato’s real doctrine. Neither is Numenius likely to have exerted any influence on Constantine’s speech…
“On the contrary, Hermetism offers more significant similarities, and a careful scrutiny reveals strong analogies of thought and language between Constantine’s theology and the tradition found in both the Corpus Hermeticum and the five Egyptian theological oracles of the Theosophia…
“…[I]n Constantine’s view homoousios was a pregnant technical term, with its own precise, traditional Hermetic meaning. In his thought the word homoousios did not contradict the distinction of two divine ousiai, precisely because it was the heritage of the ancient Egyptian theology and of the revelation of Hermes Trismegistus, and had therefore nothing to do with the Sabellian or monarchian identification-theology of the one hypostasis. Hermetism forms the conceptual background of the emperor’s theology…
“Many centuries before being portrayed on the floor of the Siena cathedral (at the end of the fifteenth century), Hermes Trismegistus had already entered the body of Christian doctrine in the semblance of Constantine, setting his seal on the formulation of the Nicene Creed.” Pier Franco Beatrice, “The Word ‘Homoousios’ from Hellenism to Christianity,” 264-266, 270, 272.


Richard E. Rubenstein ...is an author and University Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs at George Mason University, holding degrees from Harvard College, Oxford University (as a Rhodes Scholar), and Harvard Law School. He lives in Washington, D.C... Beginning in the late 90s, Rubenstein turned his attention to religious conflict and wrote three books showing why religious disputes become (or don't become) violent. "When Jesus Became God" (Harcourt, 1999), is a best-selling account of the controversy over Christ's divinity in early Christianity.

"One reason the Arian controversy interests me… is that because before it ended, Jews and Christians could talk to each other and argue among themselves about crucial issues like the divinity of Jesus, the meaning of salvation, basic ethical standards…everything. They disagreed strongly about many things, but there was still a closeness between them. They participated in the same moral culture. When the controversy ended—when Jesus became God—that closeness faded. To Christians God became a Trinity. Heresy became a crime. Judaism became a form of infidelity. And Jews living in Christian countries learned not to think very much about Jesus and his message.” Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, A Harvest Book, Harcourt Inc, 1999, pgs Xiv-xv

"Alexandrian Christianity had a special flavor. In this 'turbulent and intellectually saturated melting pot,' outstanding thinkers drew on the latest trends in Greek philosophy to explain biblical texts and expound Church doctrines. The results were frequently brilliant and almost always controversial, producing an intellectual history 'marked by repeated innovations, by constant tensions, by innumerable disputes.' These disputes were no mere squabbles between intellectuals; they were Alexandria's favorite sport… sometimes as bloody as the gladiatorial contests…" Rubenstein 5
Tom’s note: by their fruits you will know them.

"In the second century, Alexandrian Christians, inspired by anti-Semitic preaching, had launched one of the earliest riots against the city's Jewish community. Two hundred years later those who called Jesus "Lord" were battling each other in the streets… and lynching bishops." Rubenstein 5
Tom’s note: by their fruits you will know them.

"By the time ((361 ad) George (of Cappadocia, bishop of Alexandria and titular head of Egypt's huge Christian community) met his grisly death, religious riots had become commonplace throughout the region. Assassinations were less frequent, but militant believers employed a wide variety of violent tactics and imaginatively conceived dirty tricks to do each other harm. Bishop Athanasius, a future saint and uninhibited faction fighter, had his opponents excommunicated and anathematized, beaten and intimidated, kidnapped, imprisoned, and exiled to distant provinces. His adversaries, no less implacable, charged him with an assortment of crimes, including bribery, theft, extortion, sacrilege, treason and murder. At their instigation, Athanasius was condemned by Church councils and exiled from Alexandria no less than five times…" Rubenstein 6.
Tom’s note: by their fruits you will know them.

Continued in Part Nine

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part Nine

"Gregory of Nyssa, writing twenty years after the lynching of Bishop George… deplored the contentiousness of his fellow Christians. 'If in this city you ask a shopkeeper for change,' he complained, 'he will argue with you about whether the Son is begotten or unbegotten. If you inquire about the quality of bread, the baker will answer, 'The Father is greater, the Son is less.' … Gregory's wry comment is fascinating both for what it says and what it implies… It implies that Arianism, which orthodox Christians now consider the archetypal heresy, was once at least as popular as the doctrine that Jesus is God." Rubenstein 6-7

"To patriarchal Romans, the very titles Father and Son implied a relationship of superiority and inferiority. Two of the most brilliant and influential of the Eastern Church Fathers, Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria, had taught that Jesus was inferior in some respects to God. And the idea of hierarchy of power and glory in heaven matched what people saw on earth, as well as what they read in the Gospels." Rubenstein 10.

"The Christians involved in the great controversy over Christ's divinity would soon find themselves gripped by the urge to persecute their adversaries." Rubenstein 17

"By the year 250… the Christian movement had grown rapidly and now included large numbers of respectable citizens who had no taste for martyrdom or imprisonment. Far more of its members obeyed imperial orders or bribed their way out of trouble than risked the emperor's displeasure. In the first year of the persecution (of Decius and Valerian), says one historian, 'Christians joined with their pagan neighbors in a rush to sacrifice,' and 'the Christian church practically collapsed.'" Rubenstein 18.

"St. Augustine himself advocated violent suppression of the Donatists, justifying massacres in the name of Christian unity." Rubenstein 39.

"(Hosius, Bishop of Cordova's sovereign, Constantine the Great) had a bright vision, which Hosius shared, of a Roman Empire as holy as it was powerful—an empire united across all lines of earthly division by indissoluble bonds of faith. The great revival that Diocletian had begun Constantine would bring to fruition, with the aid of Christ and his Church." Rubenstein 48.
Tom’s Note: Here Christianity's Ishmael is born. Good intentions sought by humanistic means!

"Origen of Alexandria, the greatest theologian of his time, had caused an enormous stir by declaring that while the Son was eternal like the Father and united with Him, he was separate from and less than God. One of Origen's dialogues read as follows:
Origen: Is the Father God?
Heraclides: Assuredly.
Origen: Is the Son distinct from the Father?
Heraclides: Of course. How can He be Son if he is also Father?
Origen: While being distinct from the Father is the Son also God?
Heraclides: He himself is also God.
Origen: And do two Gods become a unity?
Heraclides: Yes.
Origen: Do we confess two Gods?
Heraclides: Yes. The power is one."
Rubenstein 53-54.

"Faced with the problem that had confronted all Christians since St. Paul—how to be a monotheist believing in one God, yet still worship Jesus Christ—Arius advanced the view that Jesus was a creature intermediary between man and God. Origen had been a Subordinationist, too, but he insisted (even at the risk of calling Christ a 'second God') that the Son was with the Father eternally. Arius seemed to demote him even further, perhaps to the level of an angel… or, Alexander worried, a man!" Rubenstein 55-56.

"In 318 (Bishop Alexander) delivered a series of sermons maintaining strongly that Jesus Christ was Eternal God in the form of man and that beliefs to the contrary were heretical… Arius published an open letter challenging the prelate's views; Alexander ordered him to appear before him to defend his own position; and the controversy escalated sharply…
"Arius appeared at the bishop's palace… when Arius refused to recant, the bishop terminated the meeting and called upon all Egypt's bishops to attend an important council in Alexandria. The year was 318… A number of churchmen (Alexander did not say how many) supported Arius, although the majority accepted their bishop's position. The anti-Arians drew up a creed—a confession of Orthodoxy—which was laid before Arius and his supporters with a demand that they sign it. When they refused, the council excommunicated them and banished them from Alexandria…
"The Arians resisted… There was street fighting between Arius's supporters and groups favoring Alexander. Finally, Arius dispatched a letter to a powerful friend, Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, the imperial capital." Rubenstein 56-57.

"Eusebius not only welcomed (Arius) but wrote other bishops on his behalf, with the result that an irate Bishop Alexander was soon receiving scores of letters asking him to readmit Arius to communion in Alexandria and restore him to his pulpit. The wily Eusebius then convened a church council of his own with the intention of minimizing the effect of the Egyptian council. In 319 or 320 the bishops of his province, Bythnia, met in Nicomedia to verify that Arius's views were 'orthodox'—that is, with the range of ideas acceptable for Christians to hold…
"Guided by Eusebius, the Bythnian bishops had little difficulty in declaring Arius's views acceptable. They admitted him to communion immediately and addressed a strong letter to Bishop Alexander demanding that he do the same. For the first time, one council of bishops had met specifically to reverse a decree of excommunication pronounced by another council. The odd result was that a priest denied communion with other Christians in one city was welcomed to church in another! " Rubenstein 59.

"Another Eusebius: Bishop of Caesarea… threw the considerable weight of his scholarly reputation behind Arius's views. This Eusebius was a great admirer of Origen's theology, which he believed confirmed Arius's central principle: the inferiority of the created Son to the eternal Father… Following the Nicomedian bishop's example, he convened a council of bishops subject to his jurisdiction. Meeting in Caesarea in 321 or 322, the Council of Caesarea again vindicated Arius's orthodoxy and demanded that Bishop Alexander reinstate him." Rubenstein 60.

"Arius could claim the support of almost all the Eastern bishops, including most of those with substantial reputations as theologians." Rubenstein 61.

"Athanasius criticized Eusebius of Nicomedia, instructed other clergymen to disregard his letters, and dramatically accused the Arians of 'rending the robe of Christ.'…
“Alexander was characterizing Arius's philosophy as a heretical attack on Jesus' divinity, and Athanasius had compared the Arians to the crucifiers of Christ. Language this inflammatory was an invitation to violence—and both sides were involved in increasingly violent street battles." Rubenstein 61.

"Athanasius was… quite prepared to use the violent methods of the streets, when necessary, to accomplish worthwhile goals." Rubenstein 63.

"The differences between the Arians and (Athanasians) were no mere matters of emphasis or alterable 'opinion': they went to the heart of what it meant to be a Christian. Why did the Arians maintain so vehemently that God sent us a Savior who was less than God? Because fundamentally, the idea of the Eternal becoming a man offended them, as it offended the Jews . They thought that identifying Jesus as God lowered the Almighty by embodying him in a physical creature. But God could, and did, take on fleshly form to fulfill His own plan of salvation without ceasing for a moment to be God.
"The Arians, furthermore, had become prisoners of Greek logic. They thought in terms of either/or. That is why they accused Alexander and his allies of 'Sabellianism'… The Arians could not really imagine that he might be both… Could the death of a mere human being redeem our sins, grant us immortality, and, eventually, resurrect our physical bodies? Of course not!" Rubenstein 62-64.

"A council of bishops was scheduled to meet… in Antioch to decide who should be that city's new prelate following the death of old bishop Philogonius. Antioch's… metropolitan bishop had jurisdiction over the clergy of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Cappadocia, and Arabia as well as lands to the east of the Persian border… Eustathius (was) the candidate for the succession favored by Alexander. The Arians had apparently fielded a candidate of their own who was supported by Eusebius of Caesarea. As usual, each side was supported by gangs of street fighters, and the resulting riots had been considerably more destructive than those troubling Alexandria." Rubenstein 65.

"Hosius… arriving in Antioch early in 325 (prior to the great council) in time to participate in the final planning of the council… By the time the bishops assembled… assumed the chair as presiding officer, and (had) a draft Statement of Faith… drawn up.
"This statement, overwhelmingly approved by the sixty or so bishops (dominated by the anti-Arian bishops ordained by Philogonius)… required to affirm, among other things that they believed 'in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten not from non-existence, but from the Father'; that the Son has always existed ; that he is 'immutable and unalterable'; and that he is 'the image not of the will nor of anything else except the actual existence (hypostasis) of the Father.' As if this anti-Arian pronouncement were not clear enough, the council added anathemas to it—the first anathemas (literally, curses carrying a threat of excommunication) issued by any church council against errors of doctrine…
"Everyone present declared his adherence to the statement and the anathemas except three bishops: Theodotus of Laodicea, Narcissus of Neronias, and… Eusebius of Caesarea. As presiding officer, Hosius called each man before him in the presence of the council and questioned him about his beliefs. Each expressed his views. The council then declared these opinions heretical and excommunicated all three bishops.
"Eusebius of Caesarea excommunicated! The shock rebounded, as Hosius knew it would, throughout the Christian world… The lofty stature of Arian leaders would not protect them from the judgment of 'orthodox' Christians or the emperor's wrath. " Rubenstein 66-67.

"Constantine was pleased with (Hosius') work… Constantine suggested the appointment (of Hosius to preside over the Great Council) himself. There was one change of plan, however… Constantine had decided to move the meeting from Ancyra… to his summer residence on the lake of Nicaea… Constantine now saw himself playing the role of host to the assembled bishops… Constantine hosted the council on his own territory. The emperor, although unbaptized, liked to style himself a 'bishop for the outsiders': a joke that was not entirely a joke." Rubenstein 68-69.

"Constantine was in a position strongly to influence—perhaps even to dictate—the course of events at Nicaea." Rubenstein 71.

"Some Christians, among them Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia, had a stronger sense of historical community than others. Those whose ideas… for whom Christianity seemed a natural extension of and improvement on Judaism, tended to be Arians of one sort or another. By contrast, the strongest anti-Arians experienced their present as a sharp break with the past. It was they who demanded, in effect, that Christianity be 'updated' by blurring or even obliterating the long-accepted distinction between the Father and the Son.
"From the perspective of our time, it may seem strange to think of Arian 'heretics' as conservatives, but emphasizing Jesus' humanity and God's transcendent otherness had never seemed heretical in the East. On the contrary, subordinating the Son to the Father was a rational way of maintaining one's belief in a largely unknowable, utterly singular First Cause while picturing Christ as a usable model of human moral development. For young militants like Athanasius, however, ancient modes of thought and cultural values were increasingly irrelevant. Greek humanism and rationalism were shallow; Judaism was an offensive, anti-Christian faith… People's primary need was the need for security. Only a strong God, a strong Church, and a strong empire could provide helpless humans with the security they craved.
"Not surprisingly Constantine was drawn naturally to this perspective. The emperor believed in moral progress, but he was certain it could not be achieved without authority, uniformity, and regularity. He detested Judaism, and his own experience convinced him that the world he had helped to create represented a 'New Rome' very different from the old… Constantine… would… (teach) the Church the Roman virtues of law, order, and efficient administration." Rubenstein 73-75.

"The Council of Nicaea, then, was not universal. Nevertheless, it is everywhere considered the first ecumenical (or universal) council of the Catholic Church. Several gatherings would be more representative of the entire Church; one of them, the joint council of Rimini-Seleucia (359), was attended by more than five hundred bishops from both the East and West. If any meeting deserves the title 'ecumenical,' that one seems to qualify, but its results—the adoption of an Arian creed—was later repudiated by the Church. Councils whose products were later deemed unorthodox not only lost the 'ecumenical' label but virtually disappeared from official Church history. " Rubenstein 75.

"The order of events (at Nicaea, 325) following Constantine's speech cannot be clearly established, but fairly early in the discussion Eusebius of Caesarea made the case for his own orthodoxy… He presented a creed of his own…
"The creed… recital had the desired effect on Constantine. Before anyone could respond, the emperor not only pronounced it acceptable, but stated that it reflected his own beliefs. There was only one amendment that he would suggest. Eusebius should add that the Son was homoousios with the Father: that is, that Jesus and God shared the same essence." Rubenstein 78.

Continued in Part Ten

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part Ten

"The emperor's 'suggestion' was a response (very likely prepared in advance, after consultation with Hosius) to a tricky problem. On its face, Eusebius's creed seemed perfectly orthodox from the anti-Arian point of view, since it emphasized Jesus' divinity without appearing to subordinate him in any way to the Father. The difficulty was that every word of the document, as originally written, could be interpreted in an Arian fashion. The Arians believed that Jesus was divine, too, since God had adopted him as His Son and promoted him to godhood. 'God from God, light from light, life from life'? These phrases did not necessarily mean that the Son was identical with the Father or equal to Him, only that he had at some point become divine. Arius himself had argued that Jesus was 'God, but not true God.'
"Similarly, to say that Christ was the Logos or Word of God (a reference to John 1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'), or that God created the world 'through him,' could be meant either literally or metaphorically. To say that Jesus was literally God's Word or creative power would mean that he was an aspect or activity of God. But this interpretation, in Arius's view, would deprive him of his separate existence and humanity; the human Son would disappear completely into the divine Father. For this reason Arius argued that Jesus was God's 'Word' metaphorically, not literally, and that any supernatural powers bestowed upon him were powers granted by the Father to the Son, that is, by a superior to a subordinate." Rubenstein 78-79.

"For Hosius and the anti-Arians, therefore, the problem was how to devise a statement of faith that the 'subordinationists' could not interpret in their own way and sign. The answer, so they thought, was to be found in one Greek word—perhaps the most important nonbiblical word in Christian history—homoousios. Ousia is usually translated as 'essence' or 'substance'; homo means 'the same. '" Rubenstein 79.

"Homoousios had been kicking around Eastern theological circles for some time, but most churchmen did not like it, since it was a Greek philosophical term not found anywhere in Scripture. More important, it had been associated with the heresy of Sabellius; the idea that Jesus Christ was an aspect of activity of God lacking any real existence of his own.” Rubenstein 80.

"It is not clear whether Eusebius (of Nicomedia) delivered this (letter produced at Nicaea, ascribed to him) or whether (which seems more likely) it … was 'leaked' by the anti-Arians to embarrass him… The letter itself has disappeared… According to Bishop (St.) Ambrose of Milan, one passage in the letter mentioned homoousios scoffingly, in order to show how ludicrous it was to equate the Son with the Father: Imagine! Some fools maintain that Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, and the omnipotent, unknowable Creator are made out of the same essential stuff. Did God somehow divide his own substance to make a Son? And, if so, how many more 'Gods' might he produce by further division? No idea could be more absurd! " Rubenstein 80.

"This… gave Alexander and Athanasius the weapon they were looking for. Homoousios—'the absurdity'—would become a test of faith and a method of smoking out those unable to accept Jesus' identity with God. Somehow, Constantine was brought to accept this strategy and to insist that Eusebius of Caesarea add it to his creed. Very likely, the anti-Arians expected that he would refuse: an act of disobedience that would offend the emperor and, very likely, result in Eusebius's deposition and exile. To their consternation, the bishop willingly accepted the amendment and was accepted back into the fold.
"Why did Eusebius agree to accept the homoousios?… The key word was ambiguous… As one expert has remarked, 'There were few words in Greek susceptible of so many confusing shades of meaning as ousia.'
"Homoousios could mean 'of the same essence,' but it could also mean of the same 'substance,' 'reality,' 'being,' or even 'type.' The great Platonic philosopher Porphyry, had written that the souls of humans and animals were homoousios (of the same general type). If this was the meaning of the word as used at Nicaea, any Arian could accept it, since the Arians agreed that both God and Jesus were divine, although in different ways." Rubenstein 81.

"Athanasius himself did not consider it politic to use the term (homoousios) in his writing. And to say that Jesus and God were of the same 'hypostasis' [individual being] or substance' smacked of Sabellianism." Rubenstein 82.

"Everyone signed with the exception of two of Arius's most devoted Libyan supporters, whom the emperor immediately sent into exile along with Arius and several priests. The signators included all the other Arians present, including the two Eusebius's… The exiled Libyan bishops… on their way out of the hall… criticized (Eusebius of Nicomedia) bitterly for bowing to the emperor's will." Rubenstein 83.

"Within three years, over the protests of the anti-Arians, Arius… and fellow exiles would be forgiven by Constantine and welcomed back to the Church. Eusebius would become Constantine's closest advisor, and would insist that Athanasius, now bishop of Alexandria, readmit Arius to communion in that city as well. A decade after that, with Bishop Athanasius himself in exile, Arianism would be well on the way to becoming the dominant theology of the Eastern Empire." Rubenstein 84.

(Tom’s note: Here the argument that the R.C.C.s are right by fact of unbroken chain is contradicted! In the east they were Arians, and at Rome they were Patripassians, Praxeans and Sabellians!)

"A look into the future, then, shows us Nicaea as a watershed. While it looks forward to the ultimate resolution of the Arian controversy from the Catholic point of view… it also represents the last point at which Christians with strongly opposed theological views acted civilly towards each other." Rubenstein 87.

"By 327 the Arians were ready to mount their campaign for reinstatement in the Church… whoever presented a detailed explanation of the relationship of the Father to the Son could fairly easily be accused of heresy… Arius had paid the price of speaking to clearly in The Banquet, in which he seemed to imply that Jesus was essentially a creature like other creatures. Eustathius of Antioch exemplified the opposite danger, for he insisted that homoousios meant that Christ and God were one and the same 'individual reality' or 'person' (hypostasis)…
"Eustathius tried to defend himself against the charge of Sabellianism by arguing that Christ had a human nature, too… Therefore, when Jesus declared, 'The Father is greater than I,'… it was Jesus the man talking, not Jesus the Son of God.
"In 327 Eusebius of Caesarea managed to convene a council of bishops to investigate charges of heresy and misbehavior in office brought against Eustathius… The assembled churchmen had little trouble convicting Eustathius of Sabellianism and immoral conduct, excommunicating him, and deposing him from office. Six other bishops in the region with similar views suffered the same fate. " Rubenstein 100.

"Arius and the priest Euzoius wrote to Nicomedia asking for an audience. They expressed their desire to be readmitted to communion with other Christians and assured the emperor that he and the bishops would find their theological views acceptable. Constantine wrote back reminding them gently that they might have ended their exile earlier by being less stubborn. He ordered them to come to Nicomedia and received them in court in November 327." Rubenstein 102.

"The Council of Nicomedia met early in 328. The bishops studied Arius's creed, questioned him and Euzoius personally, and pronounced their views orthodox. They then solemnly readmitted the two men to communion… The Anti-Arian bishops of Nicomedia and Nicaea were quickly dismissed and replaced by the exiles…
"A few years later, Arius's most vehement opponent, Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra, would be excommunicated and deposed on charges of heresy similar to those brought against Eustathius of Antioch. Constantine's desire for peace in the Church had a great deal to do with the success of this counterattack…" Rubenstein 103.

"The return of the Arians was not just a product of clever maneuvering by Eusebius and Arius; it was an indication that the apparent consensus reached at the Council of Nicaea was, in large part, an illusion produced by the bishops' desire to please the emperor and to restore the unity of the Church. There were lessons to be drawn from this experience, but few had learned them. Consensus cannot be created by verbal formulas… And a false consensus may be more productive of conflict than an honest disagreement." Rubenstein 104.

"The Arian controversy was riding high. For Arius himself, however, things were not going so well. Despite Constantine's blandishments, Bishop Alexander refused to permit him to return to Alexandria, arguing that there could be no place in the Church for unrepentant heretics. In 328, Constantine dispatched another letter to Alexander, insisting that Arius's views were now acceptable to the great majority of bishops and demanding that the Alexandrian church adhere to the decisions of the council of Nicomedia… Alexander sent Athanasius… to plead his case… While (Athanasius) was in Nicomedia (Alexander) died… Athanasius… rushed back to campaign for the position (of metropolitan bishop).
"Only in hindsight can one recognize the pivotal significance of this moment… Athanasius… whose ambition was boundless… was very much at home in the 'real' world of power relations and political skullduggery. ” Rubenstein 104-105.

"…Losing patience with the assembled bishops, Athanasius convinced a few of them to go with him to the Church of Dionysius and consecrate him bishop behind closed doors… He then procured a decree of the Alexandria City Council characterizing his election as the people's choice, and sent it to Constantine with a letter alleging that he had received the consent of the Alexandrian bishops." Rubenstein 106.

"After a brief period of quiet, the Melitian bishops returned to their old habits, which seem to have included holding unauthorized church services and ordaining clergymen without Athanasius's consent. His response was to send gangs of thuggish supporters into the Melitian districts, where they beat and wounded supporters of the Melitian leader, John Arcaph, and, according to Arcaph, imprisoned and even murdered dissident priests…
"One writer sums up (Athanasius's) style of governing as follows:
"In Alexandria itself, he maintained the popular support which he enjoyed from the outset and buttressed his position by organizing an ecclesiastical mafia, if he so desired, he could instigate a riot or prevent the orderly administration of the city. Athanasius possessed a power independent of the emperor, which he built up and perpetuated by violence. That was both the strength and the weakness of his position. Like a modern gangster, he evoked widespread mistrust, proclaimed total innocence—and usually succeeded in evading conviction on specific charges." Rubenstein 106-107.

"In (330)…Eusebius of Nicomedia… received a delegation of Melitian clergymen from Egypt. Four bishops complained that Bishop Athanasius had sent violent gangs to beat and harass their followers, and that he was refusing to let them worship in their churches notwithstanding that the Council of Nicaea had confirmed their authority to act as Christian priests." Rubenstein 110.

"During the spring and summer of 331, charges against Athanasius continued to multiply. In addition to committing acts of violence and sacrilege (breaking a sacred chalice), someone now swore that he had given a casket of gold to a high court official who was suspected of plotting against the emperor…
"He did not deny that Ischyras was beaten or that the chalice was broken with his knowledge. His defense was that since Ischyras was not a properly ordained priest, the chalice was not a sacred vessel! As one commentator puts it, 'In short, his opponents cry 'Violence and sacrilege' and Athanasius replies 'No: only violence.'" Rubenstein 111-112. (reference is to page 113, R.P.C. Hanson, Search for Chrstian Doctrine of God.)

"When Athanasius returned to Alexandria in the summer of 332, his position seemed stronger than ever. The emperor had endorsed his character!" Rubenstein 112.

"Arius had reason to be angry. Four years after Constantine promised to return him to Alexandria and told Athanasius to readmit him—four years after the recalcitrant bishop had declined to obey the Council of Nicomedia's decision and his emperor's direct order—Arius was still exiled, [b]in effect, from his own city, and Athanasius was still oppressing (and sometimes brutalizing) his followers.” Rubenstein 113


Tom’s note: As the saying goes, the victors write history. And these thugs led by Athanasius were the victors, these thugs also introduced on pain of Constantine’s sword, the doctrine of the Trinity.

Continued in Part Eleven

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part Eleven


Marion Hillar, M.D., Ph.D., is the founder of the Center for Socinian, Philosophical, and Religious Studies. He earned his degrees at the University Medical School of Danzig and studied at the Jagiellonian University and at Sorbonne. He did research and taught in Europe at the University Medical School of Danzig and Universitá degli studi di Camerino, and in the USA at Baylor College of Medicine and Ponce School of Medicine. He is currently professor of philosophy and director of the Center for Philosophy and Socinian Studies... His studies were focused on the ancient Greek philosophy, moral issues in religion and philosophy, and the development of theology and religions...

“Justin’s Triadic Formula
“When Justin mentions that Christians believe in the Triad…he refers directly to the discussion among his contemporary Middle Platonists. We have testimony of this discussion preserved in the fragments of the philosophical writings of Numenius of Apamea in Syria (fl. ca 150 C.E.)306…
“Numenius: Immediate Source of Justin’s Theology
“Numenius…developed further such concepts of Greek philosophical tradition (as One, Demiurge, Father, Logos, Mother, World Soul) into a theological system by introducing explicitly a system of hierarchical cosmic entities, two or three Gods…
“Eusebius praised Numenius for deriving his ideas from Plato and Moses. Numenius himself declared Plato to be just ‘Moses who speaks the Attic language.’ There is a complete correlation between the two systems, that of Justin and that of Numenius (Table 1)…
“Conclusions
“Justin’s theology derived from the Hellenistic interpretation of the scriptural material and constitutes the first step leading to Nicaea.
“According to Justin, there are three (or two) separate divine entities popularly worshiped by the Christians: God the Father whose substance is God’s Pneuma, the second Pneuma is the Logos or the Son of God, and the third Pneuma is the Holy or Prophetic Pneuma… These terms were hypostatized and interpreted in the light of Greek philosophical and theological speculations.
“…Justin…insisted on the subordination of these two Pneumas to the First Pneuma, God the Father. Thus there is no trace of the post-Nicaean Trinity in Justin’s writings understood as the triune divinity, but a hierarchically organized triad as he believed in only one God, God the Father. The Logos and the Holy Pneuma had subordinate ranks, being in the second and third place, respectively, and entirely dependent on the will of God the Father.” http://socinian.org/files/Numenius_GreekSources.pdf.
Tom’s note: Hillar concludes that Justin’s Greek Hellenistic ideas are the first step toward Nicaea, that is, the Trinity. However, in Justin there is “no trace of the post-Nicaean Trinity.” This means that Justin did not believe in a coequal Trinity. He believed in a Trinity that looked much like that of Arius. If Justin had lived in the fourth century or later, Nicene Trinitarians would have excommunicated him as a heretic. Yet all of today’s Nicene Trinitarians justify him. By jumping on Justin’s bandwagon, all Trinitarians prove how hypocritical they are. Even worse, they all justify rejecting the strict monotheism of the God of the Jews for the additional pagan philosophical gods of Heraclitus, Plato, and Numenius. Trinitarians are certainly guilty of breaking their own narrow interpretation of the first commandment.



Here, then, is a summary of how the Trinity evolved:

The antichristian Gnostics were the first to attempt harmonizing Christianity with certain teachings from paganism, both philosophy and mysticism. Some of those teachings were such things as the Trinity, and the idea of one God birthing another God before the rest of creation, and the idea of the “same substance” of the persons in their godhead. These Gnostics harmfully influenced a lot of nominal Christians. At one time, in fact, Valentinus was one of the men being considered for the bishopric of the city of Rome. Fortunately, he lost the vote, but that shows how much influence he had and indicates there were numerous Gnostics.

Irenaeus is credited with being one of the main contributors in exposing the errors of the antichristian Gnostics. He wrote against the Gnostic idea of one god birthing another god, and he repudiated the Gnostic idea of “dual natures” as being the very reason John wrote against “antichristians.” However, Gnostic teachings had already crept in and begun their corruptive influence on many.

Tertullian was among those who were corrupted with some of Gnosticism’s ideas, and he repackaged some of those ideas (such as the projection of one God out of another) into a form of the Trinity, in such a way as to make them seem reasonable, by resorting to “reasoning” rather than “scripturally stated” revelation. Tertullian’s form of the Trinity has been called Subordinationism, which refers to his belief that the Son was not eternal and was not coequal with the Father but instead was subordinate.

Other theologians also did a lot of damage by purposely merging Christian thought with pagan philosophy. Among these were Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and many others. These Philosopher-Christians are the ones the Trinitarians call their Church “Fathers” (even though they lived hundreds of years after the apostles).

It was Origen (who lived around 184–254) who first taught the doctrine of eternal generation of the Son. This was the doctrine that led to the full-blown Nicene Trinity (coequal/coeternal persons) being developed. Arius actually maintained the older Subordinationist Trinitarianism, and Alexander and Athanasius, who came after, and were thus disciples of Origen’s eternally begotten doctrine, believed they were championing the ancient position. But both the Arians and the Nicenes were wrong; neither of their positions were the faith once delivered.

All forms of Trinitarianism used words and concepts adopted from pagan philosophy and antichristian Gnosticism. All the Trinitarian “Fathers” of the fourth century accomplished was to have hammered out a new way of understanding and talking about God so that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit could all be coequal in deific authority and coeternal in existence, and thus the full-blown Trinity was formed. That dogma was then thrust upon the Christian world through the secular, legal authority of the Roman Emperors... Resultingly, the naysayers to this new formulation were arrested and or put to death for the newly defined “heresy” of being “non-Trinitarian.”

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

Tommy Radd...do you believe Jesus is God? If there is no Trinity why would He say in Matthew 28, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Are you calling Jesus a liar?

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Jesus did not say he was God here or anywhere else.

Jesus said he was “given” authority. God doesn’t need to be “given” authority.

Why don’t you believe him?

Why do you feel you need to put words in his mouth?

Do you think Jesus wasn’t able to explain himself?

Why do you feel Gnostics and pagans had better words and concepts to describe Jesus than he and his apostles?

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

baptizing them in the name of the Father (that's God) and the Son (Jesus, a man whose sacrifice fulfills the Lord's promise) and the Holy Spirit (the spirit of Christianity that the Lord grants all who sincerely seek Him)...

I would never call Jesus a liar...

When he spoke that there is one God, and that it was not him, I listened...

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

To call yourself a Christian is self-delusion.