Where did the Trinity Come From

The Trinity Doctrine Originated where:
Short Video: Simple Bible Word that Proves Trinity False

A Look at History and the Bible about the origin of the Trinity

Babel is the original name for Babylon. It means confusion. It was literally started by Cush, the son of Ham, but was brought to a kingdom of power and grandeur under his son, Nimrod, the mighty hunter.

Nimrod, according to the Genesis eleven account and also according to profane history, set out to accomplish three things. He wanted to build a strong nation, which he did. He wanted to propagate his own religion, which he did. He wanted to make a name for himself, which he also accomplished.

His accomplishments were so monumental that the kingdom of Babylon was called the head of gold amongst all world governments. That his religion gained prominence is proven by the fact that Scripture identifies it with Satan completely in Isaiah Chapter 14 and in Revelation Chapters 17-18.

And by history we can prove that it invaded the whole world and is the basis for every system of idolatry, and the theme of mythology, though the names of the gods differ in various sections of the land according to the language of the people. That he made a name for himself and his followers goes without saying, for as long as this present age goes on (until Jesus reveals Himself to His brethren) he will be worshipped and honored, though under a different name from Nimrod, and in a temple slightly different from the one in which he was originally adored.

Since the Bible does not deal in the histories of other nations in detail, it will be necessary to search the ancient profane records to find our answer as to how Pergamos became the seat of the Satanic religion of Babylon. The major sources of information will be in records of Egyptian and Grecian culture. The reason for this is that Egypt received her science and mathematics from the Chaldeans and in turn Greece received them from Egypt.

Now since the priests were in charge of teaching these sciences, and since these sciences were used as a part of religion, we already know the key as to how the Babylonish religion gained its strength in these two countries. It is also true that whenever a nation was able to overcome another nation, in due time the religion of the subduer became the religion of the subdued.

It is well known that the Greeks had the very same signs of the Zodiac as did the Babylonians; and it has been found in the ancient Egyptian records that the Egyptians gave the Greeks their knowledge of polytheism. Thus the mysteries of Babylon spread from nation to nation until it appeared in Rome, in China, India and even in both North and South America we find the very same basic worship.

The ancient histories agree with the Bible that this Babylonish religion was most certainly not the original religion of earth's early peoples. It was the first to drift away from the original faith; but it was not itself the original one. Historians such as Wilkinson and Mallett have proven conclusively from the ancient documents that at one time all the peoples of the earth believed in ONE GOD, supreme, eternal, invisible, Who by the Word of His mouth spoke all things into existence, and that in His character He was loving and good and just.

But as Satan will always corrupt whatever he can, we find him corrupting the minds and hearts of men so that they reject the truth. As he has always attempted to receive worship as though he were God and not the servant and creation of God, he drew worship away from God to the end that he might draw it unto himself and so be exalted. He certainly did accomplish his desire to spread his religion throughout the whole world. This is authenticated by God in the Book of Romans, "When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, until they became vain in their imaginations, and through darkness of heart accepted a corrupted religion to the extent that they worshipped creatures and not the Creator."

Remember, Satan was a creature of God (Son of the Morning). Thus we find that where once truth was disseminated amongst men, and all held to that one truth, there later came a day when a vast group turned from God and spread a diabolical form of worship around the world. History bears it out that those of the tribe of Shem that stood with the unchanging truth were in solid opposition to those of Ham who turned away from truth to the devil's lie. There is no time to engage in a discussion of this; it is merely introduced that you may see there were two religions and two only, and the evil one became world wide.

Monotheism turned to polytheism in Babylon. The devil's lie and the devil's mysteries rose up against the truth of God and the mysteries of God in that city. Satan truly became the god of this world and exacted worship from those that he had duped, causing them to believe that he was truly the Lord.

The polytheistic religion of the enemy began with the trinitarian doctrine. It was way back there in antiquity that the "one God in three persons" idea came into existence. How strange that our modern theologians have not spotted this; but evidently just as duped by Satan as their forebears were, they still believe in three persons in the Godhead. Let us be shown just one place in Scripture where there is any authority for that doctrine. Is it not strange that while the descendants of Ham went on their way in Satanic worship which involved a basic concept of three gods that there is not one trace of the descendants of Shem believing such a thing or having any ceremonial worship that involved even a type of it? It is not strange that the Hebrews believed, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is ONE God", if there were three persons in the Godhead? Abraham, the descendant of Shem, in Genesis 18 saw only ONE God with two angels.

Now how was this trinity expressed? It was expressed by an equilateral triangle even as it is expressed in Rome today. Strange, the Hebrews did not have such a concept. Now who is right? Is it the Hebrews or the Babylonians? In Asia the polytheistic idea of three gods in one came out in an image with three heads on one body. He is expressed as three intelligences. In India, they found it in their hearts to express him as one god in three forms. Now that really is good modern day theology. In Japan there is a great Buddha with three heads like the one we previously described.

But the most revealing of all is that which sets forth the trinitarian concept of God in a triune form of: 1. The head of an old man symbolizing God the Father, 2. A circle which in the mysteries signified "Seed" which in turn means the Son. 3. The wings and tail of a bird (dove). Here was the doctrine of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, three persons in the Godhead, a veritable trinity. You can see the same thing in Rome. Now let me ask once again, is it not strange that the devil and his worshipers actually had more truth revealed than the father of faith, (Abraham) and his descendants? Is it not strange that the worshipers of Satan, knew more about God than the children of God? Now that is what modern theologians try to tell us when they talk about a trinity. Just remember this one thing from now on: these records are facts and this is a fact--Satan is a liar and the father of lies, and whenever he comes with any light it is still a lie. He is a murderer. And his doctrine of the trinity has destroyed the multitudes and will destroy until Jesus comes.

According to history it did not take long for a change to be made in this concept of a Father and a Son and the Holy Ghost. Satan took them a step at a time away from the truth. The evolved concept of Deity was now: 1. The eternal father, 2. The Spirit of God incarnate in a HUMAN mother. (Does that make you think?) 3. A Divine Son, the fruit of that incarnation, (Woman's seed).

But the devil is not content. He hasn't achieved worship of himself yet, except in an indirect way. So he takes the people away from the truth still further. Through his mysteries he reveals to the people that since the great invisible father God does not concern himself in the affairs of men, but remains silent relative to them, then it follows that he may well be worshipped in silence. Actually it means to ignore him as much as possible, if not altogether. This doctrine spread around the world also, and right today in India you can see that temples to the great creator, the silent god, are strikingly few in number.

Since it was not necessary to worship the creator-father, it was only natural that worship swung to the "Mother and Child" as the objects of adoration. In Egypt there was the same combination of mother and son called Isis and Osiris. In India it was Isi and Iswara. (Note the similarity of names even.) In Asia it was Cybele and Deoius. In Rome and in Greece it followed suit. And in China. Well, imagine the surprise of some Roman Catholic missionaries as they entered China and found there a Madonna and Child with rays of light emanating from the head of the babe. The image could well have been exchanged for one in the Vatican except for the difference of certain facial features.

It now behooves us to discover the original mother and child. The original goddess-mother of Babylon was Semiramis who was called Rhea in the eastern countries. In her arms she held a son, who though a babe, was described as tall, strong, handsome and especially captivating to the women. In Ezekiel 8:14 he was called Tammuz. Amongst classical writers he was called Bacchus. To the Babylonians he was Ninus. What accounts for the fact that he is represented as a babe in arms and yet described as a great and mighty man is that he is known as the "Husband-Son". One of his titles was "Husband of the Mother", and in India where the two are known as Iswara and Isi, he (the husband) is represented as the babe at the breast of his own wife.

That this Ninus is the Nimrod of the Bible we can affirm by comparing history with the Genesis account. Pompeius said, "Ninus, king of Assyria, changed the ancient moderate ways of life by the desire for conquest. HE WAS THE FIRST WHO CARRIED WAR AGAINST HIS NEIGHBORS. He conquered all nations from Assyria to Lybia as these men knew not the arts of war." Diodorus says, "Ninus was the most ancient of Assyrian kings mentioned in history. Being of warlike disposition he trained many young men rigorously in the arts of war. He brought Babylonia under him while yet there was no city of Babylon." Thus we see this Ninus started to become great in Babylon, built Babel and took over Assyria, becoming its king, and then proceeded to devour other vast territories where the people were unskilled in war and lived in a moderate way as said Pompeius.

Now in Genesis 10, speaking of the kingdom of Nimrod it says, "And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Asshur and builded Nineveh, and Calah etc."

But the translators made a mistake in translating Asshur as a noun for it is a verb, and in the Chaldee means 'to make strong.' Thus it is Nimrod, who having been made strong (he established his kingdom by building the world's first army which he trained by drilling and through the rigors of hunting) went beyond Shinar with his strong army and subdued nations and built such cities as Nineveh, which was named after him, for even today a chief part of the ruins of that city is called Nimroud!

Since we have discovered who Ninus was, it is now necessary to discover who his father was. According to history it was Bel, the founder of Babylon. (Now it is to be noted here that Bel founded it in the sense that he started this whole move, but it was the son, Ninus, that established it and was the first king etc.) But according to the Scripture, the father of Nimrod was Cush: "And Cush begat Nimrod." Not only is this so but we find that Ham begat Cush. Now, in the Egyptian culture Bel was called Hermes, and Hermes means, "THE SON OF HAM". According to history Hermes was the great prophet of idolatry. He was the interpreter of the gods. Another name by which he was called was Mercury. (Read Acts 14:11-12)

Hyginus says this about that god who was known variously as Bel, Hermes, Mercury etc, "For many ages men lived under the government of Jove (not the Roman Jove, but Jehovah of the Hebrews who predates Roman history) without cities and without laws, and all speaking one language. But after that Mercury (Bel, Cush) interpreted the speeches of men (whence an interpreter is called Hermeneutes) the same individual distributed the nations. Then discord began." It is seen from this that Bel or Cush, the father of Nimrod, originally was the ring leader that led the people away from the true God and encouraged the people as the "interpreter of the gods" to take another form of religion. He encouraged them to go ahead with the tower which his son actually built. This encouragement is what brought the confusion and the division of men, so that he was both, "interpreter and confuser".

Cush, then, was the father of the polytheistic system and when men were deified by men, he of course, became the father of the gods. Now Cush was called Bel. And Bel in Roman mythology was Janus. He is pictured as having two faces and he carried a club by which he confounded and "scattered" the people. Ovid writes that Janus said concerning himself, "the ancients called me Chaos". Thus we find that the Cush of the Bible, the original rebel against monotheism was called Bel, Belus, Hermes, Janus, etc. amongst the ancient peoples. He purported to bring revelations and interpretations from the gods to the people. In so doing he caused the wrath of God to scatter the people, bringing division and confusion.

Now up to this point we have seen whence polytheism or the worship of many gods came. But did you notice that we also found a mention of a man named Cush who was given a title of "the father of the gods."? Did you notice here the old theme of ancient mythologies, that gods identify themselves with men? That is where ancestor worship comes from. So we might just examine history to find out about ancestor worship. Well, it was brought out that Cush introduced a three god worship of father, son and spirit. Three gods who were all equal. But he knew about the seed of the woman coming, so there would have to be a woman and her seed come into the picture. This was brought to pass when Nimrod died. His wife, Semiramis deified him, and thus made herself the mother of the son and also the mother of the gods. (Just exactly as the Roman church has deified Mary. They claim she was without sin and was the Mother of God.) She (Semiramis) called Nimrod "Zeroashta" which means, "the woman's promised seed".

But it wasn't too long until the woman began to attract more attention than the son, and soon she was the one who was depicted as trampling underfoot the serpent. They called her "the queen of the heaven" and made her divine. How like today wherein Mary, the mother of Jesus, had been elevated to immortality and now the Vatican council is attempting to give a quality to Mary she does not possess, for they would like to call her, "Mary the Mediatrix," "Mary the Mother of All Believers," or "Mother of the Church." If there was ever Babylonish ancestor worship in a religion, it is the religion of the Church of Rome.

Not only was ancestor worship originated in Babylon but so also was the worship of nature. It was in Babylon the gods were identified with the sun and moon, etc. The chief object in nature was the sun which has light giving and heat giving properties and appears to man as a ball of fire in the heavens. Thus the chief god would be the sun god whom they called Baal. Often the sun was depicted as a circle of flame and soon around that flame there appeared a serpent. It wasn't long until the serpent became a symbol of the sun and consequently worshipped. Thus the desire of Satan's heart became full-fledged. He was worshipped as God. His throne was established. His slaves bowed to him. There in Pergamos in the form of a living serpent he was worshipped. The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, now symbolized in the form of a living serpent had not only seduced Eve but the majority of mankind. – by Rev W. Branham

Here is a review

the concept of the Trinity did not come from Judaism.
a)   Judaism is strongly monotheistic with no hint of a trinity. The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) is filled with scriptures such as before Me there was no God formed, Neither shall any be after Me (Isa 43:10), and there is no other God...I am the Lord and there is none else (Isa 45:14,18). A Jewish commentary affirms that [no] other gods exist, for to declare this would be blasphemous... (Chumash 458). Even though Word, Spirit, Presence, and Wisdom are used as personifications of God, Biblical scholars agree that the Trinity is neither mentioned nor intended by the authors of the Old Testament

2)   Nor did Jesus speak of a trinity. The message of Jesus was of the coming kingdom; it was a message of love and forgiveness. As for his relationship with the Father, Jesus said, ... I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me,{Joh 5:30} and in another place my doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me; {John7:16} and his words my Father is greater than I {Joh 14:28} leave no doubt as to their relationship. But when He spoke and raised the dead, He was God. {Mat 1:23} He was Emmanual (God with US), So we can see He was both man and God. The human flesh that God created in which to dwell in.

3)   According to Pelikan, One of the most widely accepted conclusions of the 19th century history of dogma was the thesis that the dogma of the Trinity was not an explicit doctrine of the New Testament, still less of the Old Testament, but had evolved from New Testament times to the 4th century.

4)   When the dissolute Roman government began to crumble, it was not seen as a result of corruption within, but as the anger of the gods; and thus there were strong persecutions against Christians to placate these gods. In such a time was Christianity born. On one side were persecutions; on the other the seduction of philosophy. To remain faithful to the belief of Jesus Christ meant hardship and ridicule. It was only for the simple poor and the rich in faith. It was a hard time to convert to Christianity from the relatively safer paganism. In the desire to grow, the Roman Catholic Church compromised truth, which resulted in confusion as pagans became Christians and intermingled beliefs and traditions. In his Emergence of Catholic Tradition, Pelikan discusses the conflict in the Church after AD 70 and the decline of Judaic influence within Christianity. As more and more pagans came into Christianity, they found the Judaic influence offensive. Some even went so far as to reject the Old Testament (13-14).

5)   As the apostles died, various writers undertook the task of defending Christianity against the persecutions of the pagans. The writers of these Apologies are known to us now as the Apologists. Pelikan states that it was at least partly in response to pagan criticism of the stories in the Bible that the Christian apologists... took over and adapted the methods and even vocabulary of pagan abstract ideas. (Emergence 30). Campbell agrees when he states that the Apologists borrowed heavily, and at times inappropriately, from the pagan resources at hand (23). They began the process of accommodation between Christianity and common philosophy, and used reason to justify Christianity to the pagan world.

6)   The world around the early Church was changing. The Roman empire began to crumble and Constantine came to power. He wished to unify the Empire, and chose Christianity to do so. But Christianity was far from unified. Constantine invited the bishops from East and West to join him in the small seaside village of Nicea for a council to unify the church. McGiffert summarizes the council: three main groups were present at this council: Eusebius of Nicomedia presenting the Arian view of the Trinity, Alexander of Alexandria presenting the Athanasian version, and a very large middle party led by Eusebius of Cesarea whose various theological opinions did not interfere with their desire for peace (259). Eusebius of Nicomedia submitted the Arian creed first and it was rejected. Then Eusebius of Cesarea submitted the Cesarean baptismal creed. Instead of submitting a creed of their own, the anti-Arians modified Eusebius’, thereby compelling him to sign it and completely shutting the Arians out. Those Arians who did not sign were deposed and exiled (261-263).

7)   Lonergan shows just how much of the creed Eusebius took exception to as the words were explained. Out of the Father’s substance was now interpreted to show that the Son is out of the Father, but not part of the Father’s substance. Born not made because made refers to all other creatures which come into being through the Son, and consubstantial really means that the Son comes out of the Father and is like him (75). It is clear that the council strongly lacked unity of thought. Lonergan goes on to explain that the language of debate on the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son has made many people think that the Church at Nicea had abandoned the genuine Christian doctrine, which was religious through and through, in order to embrace some sort of hellenistic ontology (128). He concludes that the Nicene dogma marked the ‘transition from the prophetic Oracle of Yahweh... to Catholic dogma’ (136-7).

8.)   The Nicene was NOT a popular creed when it was signed. Durant affirms that the majority of Eastern bishops sided with Arius in that they believed Christ was the Son of God neither consubstantial nor co-eternal with his Father (Age 7). Arianism has never been truly quenched. While the West accepted the Athanasian view of the Trinity, and the East accepted the Trinity of the Cappadocian fathers, Arianism lives on in the Unitarian Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and in many smaller religions.

9)   The evolution of the Trinity can be well seen in the words of the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.2 As each of the creeds became more wordy and convoluted, the simple, pure faith of the Apostolic church became lost in a haze. Even more interesting is the fact that as the creeds became more specific (and less scriptural) the adherence to them became stricter, and the penalty for disbelief harsher.

10)   The common culture of the day was one filled with triune gods. From ancient Sumeria’s Anu, Enlil, and Enki and Egypt’s dual trinities of Amun-Re-Ptah and Isis, Osiris, and Horus to Rome’s Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva the whole concept of paganism revolved around the magic number of three. In Greek philosophy, also, we have seen how the number three was used as an unspecified trinity of intelligence, mind, and reason.

11)   In stark contrast, is the simple oneness of the Hebrew God. Jesus claimed to be sent to the ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel’.{Mt 15:24} His apostles were all Jews. His God was the Jewish God. He called himself the Son of God and acknowledged his role as the Christ (anointed one), {Mt 16:15-17} and the Messiah (God in Flesh). {Joh 4:25-26} His message was one of love, righteousness, and salvation, and he despised the religious dogma of tradition. What a contrast from the proceedings of the Council of Nicea and the murders that followed! He gave the good news of his coming kingdom to the poor and meek: the lowly of this world. He did not require dogmatic creeds that had to be believed to the word, but rather said, ‘Follow me’.{Mt 9:9}

12)   Is this positive proof that the Trinity owes it origins to paganism and philosophy? The evidences of history leave little doubt. The concept of the Trinity finds its roots in Pagan theology and Greek philosophy: it is a stranger to the Jewish Jesus and the Hebrew people from which he sprang. Scripture says the kingdom called the 'beast' received a deadly wound by the sword (Revelation 13:3,14). This was Imperial Rome, which came back to life and power as the 'Holy Roman Empire (Roman Catholic Church)'. And this Roman Church will gain religious and political power just as she has in the past.

After the religious and political union, according to Bible prophecy, there will come a boycott and persecution "that no man might buy or sell" (Revelation 13:17). After the close of the Gentile Dispensation and that is very close, these foolish virgins will be a hunted and persecuted group at the hands of an apostate church, government and citizenry, They will now know that what they was told earlier was true, but it is now too late for them to be in the bride. They will have to stand up for the truth now and it will cost them their lives. They will be treated as heretics, not fit for society. Their crime will be that they disagree with the accredited teachings of the World Council of Churches or the Roman church. This is to refuse the mark in the forehead - their teaching. And to refuse their fellowship - is to refuse the mark in the hand. It's almost that way now.

The hour of decision is here, 'the Spirit and the Bride say, "Come!"' The last warning from heaven is, "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues" (Revelation 18:4). At the Dispensation change, whoever belongs to this great Roman Church or her harlot daughters cannot belong to the church of Jesus Christ (Matthew 25:6). Every denomination automatically bears the mark or identification of the Mother Church. Whoever recognizes their Trinitarian teaching and is baptized in the Trinitarian formula actually belongs to that Roman Catholic Church though they may not think so. They are baptized into the Roman Catholic Church because the teaching, dogma came from her and not God’s Word.

After the trinity doctrine came about, it wasn't but a short time that Baptism was changed to using the titles of father, son, and Holy Spirit instead of the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ as was always done in the bible and by doing so they prove they have not the correct revelation of who the Word (Jesus) is, they have left the Word, which means they have left God.

(13) What did most of the Christians of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century believe then.

The Oneness of God was the only significant belief in the early second century with regard to the Godhead. Even when forms of Trinitarianism began to develop they did not gain dominance until the latter part of the third century. During this time there were many notable Oneness leaders and teachers who opposed this shift in doctrine. support of our assertion that Oneness was the predominant belief during the period immediately following the apostles.

Most of these early Christians were of a oneness view known as Modalistic Monarchianism.
Modalistic monarchianism is the term most often used by church historians to refer to the Oneness view.

EncyclopediaBritannica defines it as follows:
“Modalistic monarchianism, conceiving that the whole fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ, took exception to the ‘subordination’ of some church writers, and maintained that the titles Father and Son were only different designations of the same subject, the one God, who ‘with reference to the relations in which He had previously stood to the world is called the Father, but in reference to His appearance in humanity is called the Son.' [34]
The most prominent modalist leaders were Noetus of Smyrna, Praxeas, and Sabellius. Noetus was Praxeas teacher in Asia Minor, Praxeas preached in Rome about 190, and Sabellius preached in Rome about 215. I~1 Since Sabellius was the best known modalist, historians often call the doctrine Sabellianism. Sabellius relied heavily upon Scripture, especially passages such as Exodus 20:3, Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 44:6, and John 10:38. [He said that God revealed Himself as Father in creation, Son in incarnation, and Holy Ghost in regeneration and sanctification.

Some interpret this to mean that he believed these three manifestations were strictly successive in time. Which is not what he believed, it was just made up to try and discredit him.

Encyclopedia Britannica describes Sabellius’ belief in this way “His central proposition was to the effect that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same person, three titles thus being attached to one and the same being.

(14) Oneness Believers from the Fourth Century to the Present

We have found evidence of many other Oneness believers throughout church history in addition to those described. We feel that the believers we have discovered represent only the tip of the iceberg. Some writers find evidence that the Oneness doctrine existed among the Priscillianists (C. 350- c. 700), Euchites (c. 350 - c. 900), and Bogomils (c. 900 - c. 1400).

It appears that most Oneness believers did not leave a written record. Others had their written works destroyed by victorious opponents. Many were persecuted and martyred, and their movements were destroyed by official Christendom. We do not know how many Oneness believers and movements were not recorded in history, or how many so-called heretics were really Oneness believers. What we find. however, reveals that the Oneness belief survived in spite of its violent opposition.

In the Middle Ages, the prominent scholar and theologian Abelard (1079- 1142) was accused of teaching Sabellian (Oneness) doctrine. Eventually his enemies forced him to retire from teaching. He sought refuge at a monastery in Cluny, France, and there died.

The Reformation produced many who opposed the doctrine of the trinity in favor of the Oneness belief. One prominent anti-Trinitarian at the time of the Reformation was Michael Servetus (1511 - 1553), an eminent physician from Spain. He had only a few followers, although some historians consider him to be a motivating force for the development of Unitarianism. However, he definitely was not Unitarian, for he acknowledged Jesus as God. The following description of him clearly indicates he was a true Oneness believer: “The denial by Servetus of the tri-personality of the Godhead and the eternality of the Son, along with his anti-baptism, made his system abhorrent to Catholics and Protestants alike, in spite of his intense Biblicism, his passionate devotion to the person of Christ, and his Christocentric scheme of the universe.”

Servetus wrote, “There is no other person of God but Christ... the entire Godhead of the Father is in him” 142.1 Servetus went so far as to call the doctrine of the trinity a three-headed monster. He believed it necessarily led to polytheism and was a delusion from the devil. He also believed that because the church accepted Trinitarianism, God allowed it to come under the rule of the papacy and so to lose Christ. He could not understand why the Protestants would come out of Catholicism but still insist upon retaining the non-biblical and man-made doctrine of the trinity.

Servetus was burned at the stake in 1553 for his Oneness belief; with the approval of John Calvin (although Calvin would have rather had him beheaded). [43]

Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688 - 1772) was a Swedish philosopher and religious writer who expressed a good understanding of the oneness of God. He taught a number of other doctrines that are very different from what we believe, but he did have a revelation of who Jesus really is. He used the term trinity but said it was only “three modes of manifestation” and not a trinity of eternal persons. He used Colossians 2:9 to prove that all the “trinity” was in Jesus Christ, and he referred to Isaiah 9:6 and John 10:30 to prove that Jesus was the Father. He denied that the Son was begotten from eternity, holding the view that the Son of God was the humanity by which God sent Himself into the world. He also believed that Jesus was Jehovah God who assumed humanity in order to save mankind. Swedenborg wrote:

“Whoever does not approach the true God of heaven and earth, cannot have entrance into heaven, because heaven is heaven from that one only God, and that God is Jesus Christ, who is Jehovah the Lord, from eternity the Creator, in time the Redeemer, and to eternity the Regenerator: of consequence, who is at once Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and this is the Gospel which is to be preached.”

What is the nature of God?

What is the relationship of Jesus Christ to God?

These two questions are fundamental to Christianity. The traditional answer of Christendom is given by its doctrine of the trinity. In the first few centuries of Christianity, however, this formulation was by no means the definitive one. In fact, The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that in the second century A.D. “a Trinitarian solution was still in the future” and that Trinitarian dogma “was not solidly established.., prior to the end of the 4th century.”

There were many explanations of the nature of God and Christ, several of which enjoyed widespread acceptance. One of the most important of these was modalistic monarchianism, which affirmed both the absolute oneness of the Godhead and the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Undoubtedly, the modalists’ doctrine was misunderstood, misrepresented, and distorted in the process. It is impossible, therefore, to find a precise description of the belief of a particular modalist. However, by putting together different statements about these various men, it is possible to arrive at a fairly good understanding of modalism. For example, there were possibly some differences in the theologies of Noetus, Praxeas, Sabellius, and Marcellus; how serious is difficult to determine. It is certain, however, that each maintained the full deity of Jesus Christ while admitting of no distinction of persons in the Godhead.

The modalist doctrine is usually explained simply as the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are only manifestations, or modes, of the one God (the monarchial), and not three distinct persons (hypostases). It should be distinguished from dynamic monarchianism which also upheld the oneness of God, but did so by claiming that Jesus was an inferior, subordinate being. More precisely, modalistic monarchianism is the belief that considers “Jesus as the incarnation of the Godhead” or “the Father incarnate.”

See The Great Tribulation

See GODHEAD Explained See WATER BAPTISM