"The necessity to formulate the doctrine was thrust upon the Church by forces from without, and it was,

in particular, its faith in the deity of Christ, and the necessity to defend it, that first compelled the Church to face the duty of formulating a full doctrine of the Trinity for its rule of faith" (New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas !. !. Bruce, Trinity, p "#$%&. "'n the immediate post New Testament period of the (postolic !athers no attempt was made to wor) out the *od+Christ (!ather+,on& relationship in ontological terms. By the end of the fourth century, and owing mainly to the challenge posed by -arious heresies, theologians went beyond the immediate testimony of the Bible and also beyond liturgical and creedal e.pressions of trinitarian faith to the ontological trinity of coe/ual persons "within" *od. The shift is from function to ontology, from the "economic trinity" (!ather, ,on, and ,pirit in relation to us& to the "immanent" or "essential Trinity" (!ather, ,on, and ,pirit in relation to each other&. 't was prompted chiefly by belief in the di-inity of Christ and later in the di-inity of the 0oly ,pirit, but e-en earlier by the consistent worship of *od in a trinitarian pattern and the practice of baptism into the threefold name of *od. By the close of the fourth century the orthodo. teaching was in place1 *od is one nature, three persons (mia ousia, treis hupostaseis&" (The 2ncyclopedia of 3eligion, 4ircea 2liade, Trinity, 5ol "6, p67+68&. "'n the New Testament affirmations about the ,on were largely functional and soteriological, and stressed what the ,on is to us. (rians willingly recited these affirmations but read into them their own meaning. To preclude this (rian abuse of the ,cripture affirmations Nicea transposed these Biblical affirmations into ontological formulas, and gathered the multiplicity of scriptural affirmations, titles, symbols, images, and predicates about the ,on into a single affirmation that the ,on is not made but born of the !ather, true *od from true *od, and consubstantial with the !ather" (The Triune *od, 2dmund J. !ortman, p 99+8:&. "2conomic and essential trinity1+ (a& The transition from the Trinity of e.perience to the Trinity of dogma is describable in other terms as the transition from the economic or dispensational Trinity ;*ree)< to the essential, immanent or ontological Trinity ;*ree)<. (t first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the a strictly ontological reference. 't was not so in the apostolic and sub+ apostolic ages, as reflected in apostolic the NT and other early Christian writings. Nor was it so e-en in the age of the Christian apologists. (nd e-en Tertullian, who founded the nomenclature of the orthodo. doctrine, )new as little of an ontological Trinity as did the apologists= his still the economic or relati-e conception of the Johannine and >auline theology. ,o 0arnac) holds, and he says further that the whole history of Christological and Trinitarian dogma from (thanasius to (ugustine is the history of the displacement of the ?ogos+ conception by that of the ,on, of the substitution of the immanent and absolute Trinity for the economic and relati-e. 'n any case the orthodo. doctrine in its de-eloped form is a Trinity of essence rather than of manifestation, as ha-ing to do in the first instance with the sub@ecti-e rather than the ob@ecti-e Being of *od. (nd, @ust because these two meanings of the Trinity+the theoretical and the practical, as they might also be described+are being sharply distinguished in modern Christian thought, it might be well if the term ATrinityA were employed to designate the Trinity of re-elation or the doctrine of the threefold self+ manifestation of *od&, and the term BTriunityA (cf. *erm. Dreienig)eit& (dopted as the designation of the essential Trinity (or the doctrine of the tri+personal nature of *od&" (2ncyclopCdia of 3eligion and 2thics, James 0astings, Trinity, p D9"&. "Ef course the doctrine of our ?ordAs di-inity itself partly implies and partly recommends the doctrine of the Trinity ... !irst, the Creeds of that early day ma)e no mention in their letter of the Catholic doctrine at all. They ma)e mention

indeed of a Three= but that there is any mystery in the doctrine, that the Three are Ene, that They are coe/ual, coeternal, all increate, all omnipotent, all incomprehensible, is not stated and ne-er could be gathered from them. Ef course we belie-e that they imply it, or rather intend it" (2ssay on the De-elopment of Christian Doctrine, John 0enry Newman, a cardinal by >ope ?eo ''' in "%8$, "%8%, pD:+D#&. "The ideas implicit in these early catechedical and liturgical formulae, as in the New Testament writersA use of the same dyadic and triadic patterns, represent a pre+reflecti-e, pre+theological phase of Christian belief. 't was out of the raw material thus pro-ided by the preaching, worshiping Church that theologians had to construct their more sophisticated accounts of the Christian doctrine of the *odhead" (J. N. D. Felly, 2arly Christian Doctrines, p $:&. "!irst, it is important to note that the doctrine of the Trinity does not go bac) to non+Christian sources ;this is his opinion<, as has sometimes been supposed in the past. There has been no lac) of attempts to find the initial form of the doctrine of the Trinity in >lato, or in 0induism, or in >arsiism. (ll such attempts may be regarded today as ha-ing floundered ;again his opinion refuted below<. 't is another /uestion, of course, whether or not the church, in de-eloping the doctrine of the Trinity ;why de-elope something if it already e.istedG<, had recourse to certain thought forms already present in the philosophical and religious en-ironment, in order that, with the help of these, it might gi-e its own faith clear intellectual e.pression ;see an admission of borrowing pagan philosophy<. This /uestion must definitely be answered in the affirmati-e. 'n particular cases the appropriation of this concept or that can often be pro-ed. Hnfortunately, howe-er, it is true that particularly in reference to the beginnings of the doctrine of the Trinity there is still much uncertainty. 'n this area final clarity has not yet been achie-ed. (s far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity. This does not mean -ery much, howe-er, for generally spea)ing the New Testament is less intent upon setting forth certain doctrines than it is upon proclaiming the )ingdom of *od, a )ingdom that dawns in and with the person of Jesus Christ. (t the same time, howe-er, there are in the New Testament the rudiments of a concept of *od that was susceptible of further de-elopment and clarification, along doctrinal lines ;his opinion<. ... ,pea)ing first of the person of Jesus Christ ... 'n other passages of the New Testament the predicate "*od" is without a doubt applied to Christ" (( ,hort 0istory of Christian Doctrine, Bernard ?ohse, "$99, p78+7$&. "'t is a good thing to e.amine the re-elation that *od made to the Jewish people in the Eld Testament. Ie shall not find in it a lesson on the trinity++there is none ;Twentieth Century 2ncyclopedia of Catholicism, 5ol. #:, Ihat 's The Trinity, Bernard >iault<." "'n the boo) ( ,tatement of 3easons, (ndrews Norton says of the Trinity1 AIe can trace the history of this doctrine, and disco-er its source, not in the Christian re-elation, but in the >latonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his (postles, but a fiction of the school of the later >latonists" (( ,tatement of 3easons, (ndrews Norton, "%8#, !ifth edition, (merican Hnitarian (ssociation, Boston, 4(, p $D, ":D&. "Ihat does the Eld Testament tell us of *odG 't tells us there is one *od, a wonderful *od of life and lo-e and righteousness and power and glory and mystery, who is the creator and lord of the whole uni-erse, who is intensely concerned with the tiny people of 'srael. 't tells us of 0is Iord, Iisdom. ,pirit, of the 4essieh 0e will send, of a ,on of 4an and a ,uffering ,er-ant to come. But it tells us nothing e.plicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune *od who is !ather, ,on

and 0oly ,pirit." "But nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct sub@ects of di-ine life and acti-ity in the same *odhead" (The Triune *od, 2dmund !ortman, pp 9, "6&. "The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the trinity. Neither the word trinity itself, nor such language as one in three, three in one, one essence or substance or three persons, is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient Church, ta)en not from the Bible but from classical *ree) philosophy ;,hirley C. *uthrie, Jr., Christian Doctrine, p $#<." "There is no e-idence the (postles of Jesus e-er heard of a trinity ;0. *. Iells, Eutline of 0istory, "$#: 2dition, p D$$<." "The word trinity is not found in the Bible ;The 'llustrated Bible Dictionary<." "'t was at this stage that Constantine made his momentous suggestion. 4ight not the relationship of ,on to !ather be e.pressed by the term homoousios ("of the same substance" &. 'ts use, howe-er, by the ,abellian bishops of ?ibya had been condemned by Dionysius of (le.andria in the #9:s, and, in a different sense, its use by >aul of ,amosata bad been condemned by the Council of (ntioch in #9%. 't was thus a "loaded" word as well as being unscriptural. Ihy Constantine put it forward we do not )now. The possibility is that once again he was prompted by 0osius, and he may ha-e been using it as a "translation" of the traditional -iew held in the Iest, that the Trinity was composed of "Three >ersons in one substance," without in/uiring further into the meaning of these terms. The 2mperor bad spo)en, and no one dared touch the creed during his lifetime. The great ma@ority of the 2astern bishops found themsel-es in a false position" (The 3ise of Christianity, "$%6, I.0.C. !rend, p"D:+"D"&. "The doctrine of the Trinity is considered beyond the grasp of human reasoning ;The 2ncyclopedia (mericana<." "Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is stri)ing that the term does not appear in the New Testament. ?i)ewise, the de-eloped concept of three coe/ual partners in the *odhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon. ,ince the Christians ha-e come to worship Jesus as a god ... 4atthew #%."$ ... 4atthew records a special connection between *od the !ather and Jesus the ,on (e.g., "".#8&, but he falls short of claiming that Jesus is e/ual with *od. 't is JohnAs gospel that suggests the idea of e/uality between Jesus and *od ... Ihile there are other New Testament te.ts where *od, Jesus, and the ,pirit are referred to in the same passage (e.g., Jude #:+#"&, it is important to a-oid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear. (n e.ample is " >eter "."+#" (E.ford Companion to the Bible, Bruce 4. 4etJger and 4ichael D. Coogan, Trinity, p 8%#&. "The trinity is not directly and immediately the Iord of *od ;New Catholic 2ncyclopedia<." "The >latonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating bac) to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that ga-e birth to the three hypostases or di-ine persons taught by the Christian churches. ... This *ree) philosopherAs conception of the di-ine trinity ... can be found in all the ancient ;pagan< religions" (!rench Nou-eau Dictionnaire Hni-ersel ;New Hni-ersal Dictionary<, 5ol. #, p. "D98&. "The doctrine of the holy trinity is not taught in the Eld Testament ;New Catholic 2ncyclopedia<."

"Iithout abandoning our principle that 2gyptian influence made itself felt as an undercurrent throughout 0ellenism, we may ne-ertheless claim pride of place for (le.andria and so consider (le.andrian theology as the intermediary between the 2gyptian religious heritage and Christianity ;yet those who accept the (le.andria trinity infusion cry the loudest o-er (le.andrian manuscripts for the BibleG<. The Trinity is not the only sub@ect+ matter at issue here. (lso Christology, which is closely lin)ed to it + the doctrine concerning the nature of Christ and especially his pre+e.istence before the creation and time + re-ol-es around /uestions which had been posed earlier by 2gyptian theologians and which they sol-ed in a stri)ingly similar way" (2gyptian 3eligion, ,iegfried 4orenJ, p#6D+#68&. "'n ,cripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Di-ine >ersons are denoted together. The word ;triAas< (of which the ?atin trinitas is a translation& is first found in Theophilus of (ntioch about (. D. "%:. . . . ,hortly afterwards it appears in its ?atin form of trinitas in Tertullian" (The Catholic 2ncyclopedia, "$"#, 5ol. "6, Trinity, p D8&. "The Eld Testament tells us nothing e.plicitly or by necessary implication of a triune *od who is !ather, ,on, and 0oly ,pirit. There is no e-idence that any sacred writer e-en suspected the e.istence of a trinity within the *odhead. 2-en to see in the Eld Testament, suggestions or fore+shadowings or -eiled signs of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers. The New Testament writers gi-e us no formal or formulated doctrine of the trinity, no e.plicit teaching that in one *od there are three co+e/ual di-ine persons. Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct sub@ects of di-ine life and acti-ity in the same *odhead ;The Triune *od, by 2dmund !ortman, Jesuit<. "Neither the word trinity nor the e.plicit doctrine appears in the New Testament" ;The New 2ncyclopedia Britannica<." "?et us allow that the whole circle of doctrines, of which our ?ord is the sub@ect, was consistently and uniformly confessed by the >rimiti-e Church . . . But it surely is otherwise with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. ' do not see in what sense it can be said that there is a consensus of primiti-e ;church authorities< in its fa-our . . . The Creeds of that early day ma)e no mention . . . of the ;Trinity< at all. They ma)e mention indeed of a Three= but that there is any mystery in the doctrine, that the Three are Ene, that They are coe/ual, co+eternal, all increate, all omnipotent, all incomprehensible, is not stated, and ne-er could be gathered from them" (2ssay on the De-elopment of Christian Doctrine, John 0enry Newman, a cardinal by >ope ?eo ''' in "%8$, "%8%, pD:&. "(s !ar as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the trinity ;( ,hort 0istory of Christian Doctrine, by Bernhard ?ohse<." "(b& (lthough the notion of a di-ine Triad or Trinity is characteristic of the Christian religion, it is by no means peculiar to it. 'n 'ndian religion e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, si-a, and 5isnu= and in 2gyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Esiris, 'sis, and 0orus, constituting a di-ine family, li)e the !ather, 4other, and ,on in medie-al Christian pictures. Nor is it only in historical religions that we find *od -iewed as a Trinity. Ene recalls in particular the Neo+>latonic -iew of the ,upreme or Hltimate 3eality, which was suggested by >lato in the Timmoeus= e.g., in the philosophy of >lotinus the primary or original 3ealities are triadically represented as the *ood or (in numerical symbol& the Ene, the 'ntelligence or the Ene+4any, and the Iorld+,oul or the Ene and 4any. The religious Trinity associated, if somewhat loosely, with

ComteAs philosophy might also be cited here1 the cultus of humanity as the *reat Being, of space as the *reat 4edium, and of the earth as the *reat !etish. (c& Ihat lends a special character to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is its close association with the distincti-e Christian -iew of di-ine incarnation" ;still borrowed from paganism<... " (s (ugustine said, "if in the boo)s of the >latonists it was to be found that Ain the beginning was the Iord,A it was not found there that Athe Iord became flesh and dwelt among us.A" ... "None the less Christ is ac)nowledged as the eternal ,on of *od and the supreme re-elation of the !ather, and the /uic)ening ,pirit of life is ac)nowledged to be deri-ed A from on high." (nd so, when the early Christians would describe their conception of *od, all the three elements+*od, Christ, and the ,pirit+enter into the description, and the one *od is found to be re-ealed in a threefold way" ;re-ealed -ia >lato philosophy< (2ncyclopCdia of 3eligion and 2thics, James 0astings, Trinity, p D6%&. "The New Testament does not contain the de-eloped doctrine of the trinity ;The New 'nternational Dictionary of New Testament Theology<." "The doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the apostlesA preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament" (2ncyclopedia 'nternational, 'an 0enderson, Hni-ersity of *lasgow, "$9$, page ##9&. "This sublime pronouncement of absolute monotheism was a declaration of war against all polytheism . . . 'n the same way, the ,hema e.cludes the trinity of the Christian creed as a -iolation of the Hnity of *od" (The >entateuch and 0aftorahs, J. 0. 0ertJ, "$D", 5ol. ", p. #"6&. "?uther was uneasy with the term trinity, not the idea of Trinity, for ?uther most certainly always was a trinitarian1 "En the words persona, (etc. &. . . . 4uch has been said, about the time of the 3eformation, concerning the tendency of these terms to lead to tritheism ;belie-ing in three gods<= and among the ad-ocates for their e.pulsion from theological dis/uisition, might be mentioned a number of the first di-ines of the age, not e.cepting 4innius and e-en ?uther himself.++Ket, to pre-ent the charge of (rianism or ,ocinianism, which he )new his enemies would eagerly seiJe the least prete.t to prefer against them, ?uther yielded to 4elanchthonAs wishes, and in the (ugsburg Confession, the doctrine of the Trinity is couched in the old scholastic terms" ;scholastic, meaning borrowed paganism< (*. C. ,torr !lattAs , Biblical Theology. ,. ,. ,chmuc)er, trans., p. 7:"&. "The fanciful idea that ;elo+him< referred to the trinity of persons in the *odhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. 't is either what grammarians call the plural of ma@esty, or it denotes the fullness of di-ine strength, the sum of powers displayed by *od" (Iilliam ,mith1 ( Dictionary Ef The Bible, p##:&. "The doctrine of the trinity he ;4ichael ,er-etus< felt to be a Catholic per-ersion and himself to be a good New Testament Christian in combating it. (ccording to his conception, a trinity composed of three distinct persons in one *od is a rational impossibility" (4anAs 3eligion, John B. Noss, "$9%& ;note1 John Cal-in, founder of the >resbyterian Church, had ,er-etus burned at the sta)e because of his anti+trinitarian -iews<. "The doctrines of the ?ogos and the Trinity recei-ed their shape from *ree) !athers, who ... were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the >latonic philosophy ... That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied" (The New ,chaff+0erJog 2ncyclopedia of 3eligious Fnowledge, edited by ,amuel 4acauley Jac)son, "$68, 5ol. 'L, p. $"&. "To Jesus and >aul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently ne-er )nown. They

say nothing about it ;Erigin and 2-olution of 3eligion, by Kale Hni-ersity >rofessor 2. Iashburn 0op)ins<." "Christianity had con/uered paganism, and paganism had corrupted Christianity" (Iinwood 3eade, >hilosopher and historian, The 4artyrdom of 4an, p "%7+%D&. "Ket it is self+e-ident that !ather, ,on and ,pirit are here lin)ed in an indissoluble threefold relationship. En the other hand, the NT does not actually spea) of triunity. Ie see) this in -ain in the triadic formulae of the NT. ... 2arly Christianity itself, howe-er, does not yet ha-e the problem of the Trinity in -iew" (*erhard Fittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 5ol. 7, p. ":%&. "The Christian religion in the 7rd century made no compromise with any of the pagan religions and )ept far away from the numerous intersections out of which, under the influence of the monotheistic philosophy of religion, a now religiousness de-eloped itself. But the spirit of this religiousness entered into the Church and produced forms of e.pression in doctrine and cultus to correspond with itself. The testament of primiti-e Christianity+the 0oly ,criptures+and the testament of anti/uity+the New+>latonic speculation+were by the end of the 7d century intimately and, as it seemed, inseparably united in the great churches of the 2ast. Through the acceptance of the ?ogos+ Christology as the central dogma of the Church, the Church doctrine was, e-en for the laity, firmly rooted in the soil of 0ellenism. Thereby it became a mystery to the great ma@ority of Christians" (Eutlines of the 0istory of Dogma, (dolf 0arnac), p"$7&. "(t first the Christian !aith was not trinitarian. 't was not so in the (postolic and sub+(postolic ages, as reflected in the New Testament and of the early Christian writings ;2ncyclopedia of 3eligion and 2thics<." "The doctrine of the trinity was of gradual and comparati-ely late formation. 't had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian ,criptures. 't grew up, and was engrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the >latoniJing !athers. ;The Church of the !irst Three Centuries<." "Christianity did not destroy paganism= it adopted it ... !rom 2gypt came the ideas of a di-ine trinity" (The ,tory of Ci-iliJation, Caesar and Christ, Iill Durant, >art ''', "$DD, p. 6$6&. "The trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith" (( Dictionary of 3eligious Fnowledge, ?yman (bbott, "%86, p$DD&. ">recisely what the doctrine is, or precisely how it is to be e.plained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themsel-es" (( Dictionary of 3eligious Fnowledge" (?yman (bbott, "%86, p. $DD&. "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and, though used by Tertullian in the last decade of the #nd century, it did not find a place formally in the theology of the Church till the Dth century" (New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas !. !. Bruce, Trinity, p "#$%&. The trinity1 "is a -ery mar)ed feature in 0indooism, and is discernible in >ersian, 2gyptian, 3oman, Japanese, 'ndian and the most ancient *recian mythologies" (3eligious Dictionary, ?yman (bbott, p$DD&. "Theologians today are in agreement that the 0ebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity ... theologians agree that the New Testament also does not

contain an e.plicit doctrine of the Trinity. 'n the immediate post New Testament period of the (postolic !athers no attempt was made to wor) out the *od+Christ (!ather+,on& relationship in ontological terms" (The 2ncyclopedia of 3eligion, 4ircea 2liade, Trinity, 5ol "6, p67+68&. "Neither the word Trinity, nor the e.plicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the ,hema in the Eld Testament1 "0ear, : 'srael1 The ?ord our *od is one ?ord" (Deut. 91D&. ... Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine de-eloped gradually o-er se-eral centuries and through many contro-ersies" (2ncyclopedia Britannica, Trinity, 5ol. L, p."#9, "$8$&. "The New Testament does not contain a formaliJed e.planation of the trinity that uses such words as trinity, three persons, one substance, and the li)e" (Ihy Kou ,hould Belie-e 'n The Trinity, "$%$, 3obert 4. Bowman Jr.&. "The Trinity. The NT does not contain the de-eloped doctrine of the Trinity. "The Bible lac)s the e.press declaration that the !ather, the ,on, and the 0oly ,pirit are of e/ual essence and therefore in an e/ual sense *od himself" (New 'nternational Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Brown, Colin, "$7#, *od, -ol #, p%D, J. ,chneider&. "Ihen we turn to the problem of the doctrine of the Trinity, we are confronted by a peculiarly contradictory situation. En the one hand, the history of Christian theology and of dogma teaches us to regard the dogma of the Trinity as the distincti-e element in the Christian idea of *od, that which distinguishes it from the idea of *od in Judaism and in 'slam, and indeed, in all forms of rational Theism. Judaism, 'slam, and rational Theism are Hnitarian. En the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did NET form part of the early Christian+New Testament+message. Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word "Trinity", but e-en the 2L>?'C'T 'D2( of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith.. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, howe-er, is not a Biblical Doctrine" (2mil Brunner, "The Christian Doctrine of *od", >hiladelphia1 Iestminster >ress, "$D$, pp. #:6 #79&. "(ll this underlines the point that primiti-e Christianity did not ha-e an e.plicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subse/uently elaborated in the creeds of the early church" (James ?. Bar)er, "(postacy !rom the Di-ine Church", ,alt ?a)e City HT, "$9:, p. DD&. "Thus the New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune *od who is three co+e/ual >ersons of Ene Nature" (Iilliam J. 0ill, "The Three+>ersoned *od", Iashington DC, The Catholic Hni-ersity of (merica >ress, "$%#, p. #8&. "These passages gi-e no doctrine of the Trinity... >aul has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear+cut realiJation of a Trinitarian problem......there is no trinitarian doctrine in the ,ynoptics or (cts... nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct sub@ects of di-ine life and acti-ity in the same *odhead" (!ortman, "Triune *od", pp. ##+#7&. "'n order to argue sucessfully for the unconditionality and permanence of the ancient Trinitarian Creeds, it is necessary to ma)e a distinction between doctrines, on the one hand, and on the terminology and conceptuality in which they were formulated on the other... ,ome of the crucial concepts employed by these creeds, such as "substance", "person", and "in two natures" are postbiblical no-elties. 'f these particular notions are essential, the doctrines of these creeds are clearly conditional, dependent on the ?(T2 02??2N',T'C 4'?'2H" (*eorge

(. ?indbec), >rofesson of 0istorical Theology, Kale Hni-ersity, "The Nature of Doctrine", >hiladelphia1 Iestminster >ress, "$%D, p. $#&. Trinitarian discussion, 3oman Catholic as well as others, presents a somewhat unsteady sillouette. Two things ha-e happened. There is the recognition on the part of e.egetes and Bibical theologians, including a constantly growing number of 3oman Catholics, that one should not spea) of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious /ualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does spea) of an un/ualified Trinitarianism, one has mo-ed from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last /uadrant of the Dth century" (3.?.3ichard, "Trinity, 0oly", in New Catholic 2ncyclopedia, "6 -ols.&. "The concept of three di-ine persons+!ather, son, and 0oly ,pirit united in one *odhead+came into Christianity, not -ia the Bible, but from philosophical categories of the fourth and fifth centuries (.D. ...'t baffles and repels modern man, who misses the nuances of the *ree) (A>rosoponA& in which the doctrine was formulated and therefore concludes, mista)enly, that Christianity preaches a )ind of polytheism. ...Nothing essential would be lost and much clarity would be gained if Christians abandoned traditional Trinitarian terminology and simply spo)e of *od acting as the Creator and sustainer of the uni-erse, re-ealing 0imself in the person of Jesus Christ, or dwelling within men as a holy spirit" (Bishop James (. >i)e, Den-er >ost, (ugust #%, "$96&. "The trinitarian doctrine is pagan. The idea of three gods is paganism and comes from polythiesm and pantheism. The o-erwhelming ma@ority of trinitarian scholars admit the trinity is not Biblical, did not e.ist in the (postolic age, and was de-eloped o-er a period of #$6 years. 't appears to be the basic doctrine of the gnostic sect called the Nicolatines in 3e-elation chapters # and 7. Ihile it is true that many trinitarians confess the trinity doctrine came from paganism, they elect to belie-e it, remain in it, because that is where their employment is. The doctrine of sal-ation by faith (mind religion& allows for belief in paganism with no threat to sal-ation. Thus, these ha-e no in-ested interest to identify the paganism of the trinity as a damnable philosophy. They also ha-e no interest in actually saying the tinity is pagan and comes from paganism. They will s)irt this declaration to say only that it is not in the Eld Testament, not intended in the New Tesament, was not )nown by Jesus or the (postles, and was de-eloped o-er nearly three centuries. To protect their @obs, their reputations, and to remain financially secure, they will support the trinity doctrine. ,o, for anyone to say that there are no trinitarian scholars of repute who confess the trinity came from pagan sources, is falsehood. (nd for anyone to labor to pro-e the trinity did not come from pagan sources, shows a total disregard and disrespect for the *od of the Bible" (The Trinity Doctrine 's >agan, Cohen *. 3ec)art, >astor= Copyright "$$6&. Note1 ,ome of the /uotes contained here were copied from the anti+,emitic web site Mhttp1NNwww.bible.caNtrinityNO. By anti+,emitic, we mean those at this web site do not belie-e in the absolute oneness 4onarchy of *od as contained in the !irst Commandment and throughout the Eld Testament. Ie belie-e that at the root of trinitarianism lies the ancient root of anti+,emitism of *entile nations trying to destroy 'srael, the only 4onothestic religion and nation in the world. (nyone who espouses an anti+oneness, an anti+4onarchian -iew, are therefore ad-ocating subtle paganism (*ree) pagan 0ellenism&, to o-erthrow the ancient (postolic 4essianic Jewish belief in one *od and one person in the godhead. Ihile the Jews re@ect Jesus as *od, the (postolic doctrine is that Jesus is *od manifest in the flesh. Jesus said he was this *od in 3e-elation #"19+8. Ie hold to the strict monothestic, oneness, monarchian 4essianic Jewish faith in *od.