The Trinity Doctrine is a Hoax.

The trinity doctrine is a hoax and said to be a mystery.  Yes, it certainly is a mystery by Mystery Babylon who has tried to make God what he is not.

This ONE DOCTRINE makes the Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodist, Pentecostals, Episcopals, Charismatics, Presbyterians, and several more groups and cults,  ALL ONE PEOPLE in their basic statement of faith – however they may explain it.

One person asked me how can so many be wrong?  This alone would give me rise for concern.  They are wrong because they believe the idea of emanation of a Supreme God making himself another God by subdividing himself as an amoeba splits in half to make two identical new amoebas.

Though the Hebrew word for Elohim, where we get the word “God” is a plural word, nowhere in Scripture does it ever suggest to mean a “plurality of individuals” anymore than its use of Moses in Exodus 7:1 when God said to him: “See, I have made thee a god [ELOHIM] to Pharaoh.”  Does this make Moses a plurality of individuals?  Elohim in the plural means “gods” — not persons. Thus the argument that its plural usage means a trinity would tend to mean that there are “three gods,” not three persons in one God, as  claimed by the trinity doctrine.

Mystery Babylon would have us believe that the trinity is a mystery and those faithful followers caught up in the deceived system, since they can’t really explain the trinity themselves, must turn others to the philosophers and trinitarian scholars to interpret what they call a “mystery,” which they have a difficult time explaining themselves, and just have the masses accept that what they say is true and one must believe it “by faith” or it may cost one their salvation.  It is stated about the trinity,  “If you try to understand the trinity you will lose your mind, but if you don’t believe it you will lose your soul.” (Harold Lindsell and Charles J. Woodbridge, A Handbook of Christian Truth, 1953, pp. 51-52)  Imagine that, one’s salvation depends on the issue of the trinity doctrine!

The Jews would never have dreamed of there being more than one supreme God.  They were prohibited by the first commandment, given by God Himself, of having a pluralistic concept or view. Faithful Israel worshiped the One LORD (Yahweh) of the Old Testament, always saying,  “Hear O Israel, the LORD our GOD is ONE LORD” and what Jesus confirmed (Mark 12:29).

The fact is, the doctrine of the trinity worked its way into the Church (by philosophers) and was formulated at Nicaea – if anyone dare to investigate this truth.  Nicaea did not conform to the Scriptures, but the Scriptures had to be reinterpreted by Greek philosophers to conform to their theory.

The triad deities (three-in-one) is nothing new, for it can be found in a host of pagan religions and mythologies. It deals almost entirely in philosophy and abstract metaphysics.

The following are some trinitarian symbolism:

imagesThe midevil portrayal of the trinity.

image1The Circle and Triangle symbol suggest the eternity of the trinity.

equilateral-triangle1The Equilateral Triangle symbol of the trinity: The three distinct angles combine to make one complete figure.

 

image8The All-Seeing Eye symbol is supposedly the all-seeing eye of God, looking out from the triangle of the trinity.

images3The Triquetra: Early symbol of the trinity.  The three equal arcs express an eternity, continuous form, indivisibility in their “interweaving,” and their center is a triangle, the ancient trinity symbol.

images4The Pagan fish images were interlinked to symbolize the individuals within the trinity.

images5Shield of the trinity: Three curving sides, exactly equal in length, carry the Latin words “is not.”  The short straight bands carry the word “is.”  The outer circles bear the words “Father,” “Son,” “Holy Spirit,” while the inner circle is “God.”

images7The Three Intertwining circles: These indicate the doctrine of the equality, unity and coeternal nature of theses three persons of the trinity.

 

 

The triad deities (three-in-one) can be traced back as far as Nimrod.  “After the destruction of the Tower of Babel, Nimrod and his wife-mother Semiramis, the first rulers of Babylon, fled to Egypt.  Nimrod (known as Ninus or Athothis, among many other names) shared rulership with his father Cush (or Menes) in Egypt’s first dynasty.   After Nimrod’s death, Semiramis claimed their son Horus was Nimrod reincarnated.  These three – Osiris (Nimrod), Isis (Semiramis) and Horus (their son) – came to be exalted.” (Exploring Ancient History – The First 25oo Years, Schulz, ch. 11,24).

In Babylon, these three became known as Ninus, Ishtar, and Tammuz.  This triad of deities were well known and worshiped among many nations.  Rome had its similar triad deities as well – Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva.

TrimurtiAfter the 6th century BC, Hinduism featured three three-in-one god that became known as the Trimutri.  The god of Brahman consisted of (1) Brahma, the creator, (2) Vishnu, the preserver and (3) Shiva, the destroyer (What the Great Religions Believe, Joseph Gaer, p. 25).

The trinity was not derived from scripture, but was conceived in philosophy.

A little brief history:

Greek philosophers were very much influenced by Greek philosopher Plato (427-347 BC), considered the greatest of all philosophers.  He thought he could define God and most Greek philosophy was based on his theories, what developed to be Middle Platonism and eventually Neo-Platonism.  Since the triad deities were among all ancient religions, and Plato ingrained in trinitarian thought, wanted to come up with a better definition to define God above all deities of Greek mythology. Plato’s definition was (1) The ‘first God,” who was the Supreme Being in the universe; (2) the “second God,” whom Plato described as the “soul of the universe”; and (3) the “third God,” defined as the “spirit”.

Along comes Philo of Alexandria, Egypt (15 BC-AD 50), a follower of Greek philosophy influenced by Plato’s version, saw God as: (1) Father, who created all things (Philo named him “the Demiurge”),  (2) Mother, who was Knowledge the Maker possessed and (3) the Beloved Son was the world.  Supposedly the union of Demiurge and Knowledge produced man’s world. This esoteric type of thinking led to the birth of the development of the trinity.

In Greek  philosophy, Philo follows the Platonic doctrine of Ideas and the Soul of the World, and the Stoic doctrine of God as the Reason operative in the world.  In its Stoic form the latter doctrine was pantheistic [meaning many gods], but Philo could adapt it to his purpose simply by drawing a sharper distinction between the Logo and the world” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol. 21, p. 411).

When it comes to the trinity, it really can’t be explained but must be accepted by faith that it is true when there is not one shred of evidence in the scriptures describing or explaining the trinity teaching.  Many scholars and commentators will admit this, even the Catholic Church, but it does not stop them from continuing with this hoax of the trinity doctrine as Bible doctrine.

For further reading, see “After Nicaea” by Juan Baixeras.

The fact is, the history of the trinity accepted as part of the “Christian faith” has been one of bloodshed, intolerance and condemnation to those who came out from under its delusion and would not, nor give, blind allegiance to an invented doctrine.  Christians who did not believe in this teaching were considered infidels and faced the edge of the sword or burned to death by both Protestants and Roman Catholics. (So much for loving thy neighbor!)  Jesus said, “Therefore by their fruits you shall know them.”

Michael Servetus, who is credited with the discovery of the pulmonary circulation in the human body, was one of those who denied the trinity teaching and was put to death by John Calvin whom he opposed.

I will end with the Prologue of the book “Out of the Flames” by Lawrence and Nancy Goldstone:

Prologue

Shortly after noon on a cold and rainy late October day in 1553, a procession began at the town hall of Geneva, in western Switzerland. At its head were the local dignitaries-magistrates in their robes and hats, members of the town council, clergymen in their gowns and the lieutenant-criminel, the chief of police. Immediately behind them rode a wave of officers on horseback and a guard of mounted archers. Next came the citizens of the city, first the well-to-do burghers, then the tradespeople and artisans, and, finally, a mob of the city’s lower classes. Their destination was a hillside about a mile outside the city walls.

In the midst of these fair skinned Swiss, one man stood out, a prisoner. He was in his forties, dark, almost Moorish, dirty and weak, with a long unkempt beard and ragged clothing. He was surrounded by a crowd of pastors exhorting him to confess his sins. An aging churchman walked next to him, whispering in his ear. The prisoner prayed silently in reply.

The prisoner’s shabby appearance belied his status as one of Europe’s leading physicians and preeminent thinkers. His name was Michael Servetus, and his crime was publishing a book that redefined Christianity in a more tolerant and inclusive way.  Although this book contained, almost as an afterthought, a great scientific discovery– one which a century later would propel medicine into the modern age- -on that October afternoon in 1553, no one in Geneva knew or cared.

Michael Servetus had risked life and position to publish this book. After running afoul of the Inquisition with an earlier version twenty years before, he had gone underground and, like Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, had arisen again under an assumed identity to become a respected citizen of France.  Noblemen traveled great distances to consult with “Dr. Villeneue.”  But Michael Servetus was unwilling to live out his life without being true to his beliefs and his principles, so he wrote his book and had it printed and distributed.

Shortly after its publication, he had been arrested by the inquisitors of France and sentenced to death.  On the eve of his execution, he had managed a daring escape and had eluded capture for months.  He was on his way to Italy, where he would be safe, but chose instead to stop in Geneva.  There, his dark skin betrayed him.  He was recognized while praying in church and arrested.

Before his supporters could rally to his defense, Michael Servetus was thrown into a dark, airless, vermin-infested cell, where he was kept for seventy–five days, denied a change of clothes, bedding, and often food and water. His access to the outside world was limited to forced participation in a gaudy show trial, where he was to go head to head with his accuser, perhaps the greatest mind of the Reformation.  He defended himself brilliantly, but the quality of his arguments never mattered.  Servertus’ fate had been sealed from the moment he was recognized.  He was found guilty of the charges brought by a council and prosecutor handpicked by his archrival and sworn enemy, Jean Chauvin, an obscure failed humanist who had reinvented himself as the reformer John Calvin and risen to be virtual dictator of the great city.

On October 26, 1553, Michael Servetus was condemned “to be led to Champel and burned there alive on the next day together with his books.

Torture and cruelty were no stranger to sixteenth-century justice.  There was a strict hierarchy of punishment, from relatively painless to gruesomely agonizing, depending on the severity of the crime.  Slanderers had their tongues cut out, thieves were impaled.  The penalty for murder-beheading-was considered relatively charitable.

But of all the punishments, the very worst was to be burned alive, and so this horror was reserved for the most terrible crimes there was – heresy.  Heretics were especially loathed because they put not only their own souls in mortal jeopardy, but also those of the otherwise innocent people infected by their teachings.

Hollywood has often used burnings as a special effect.  The victim is led to a stake atop an immense pile of wood and trussed with ropes.  Torches are brought; the pile of wood is set ablaze and huge flames immediately leap up, surrounding the body.  The victim screams as the bonfire erupts and the flames leap higher and higher, burning furiously.  The camera pans upward as the smoke rises into the sky, and it is understood that all is over, that the victim is past suffering.

Only Hollywood has gotten it wrong.  It was never over quickly.  The whole point of burning at the stake was to subject the condemned to prolonged, horrible, unendurable pain.  That was the type of pain that awaited Michael Servetus and he knew it.

When Servetus was led to the hill at Champel, the stake and pyre were made of fresh wood, green wood, newly cut branches with the leaves still attached. They sat him on a log and chained him to a post. His neck was bound with thick rope. On his head they put a crown of straw, doused in sulphur. Chained to his side was what was thought to be the last available copy of his book, the rest having all been zealously hunted down and destroyed. The ideas were to be burnt along with him. There was no escape.

The fire was lit.  Green wood does not burn easily, does not roar up.  It smokes and sputters, burning unevenly and slowly.  And so Michael Servetus’s life was not extinguished quickly in a blazing wall of fire.  Rather, he was slowing roasted, agonizingly conscious the entire time, the fire creeping upward inch by inch, not for minutes but for a full half hour.  “Poor me, who cannot finish my life in this fire,” the spectators heard him moan.  At last, he screamed a final prayer to God, and then his ashes commingled with those of his book.

Advertisements

About dividingword

For more info, please visit: www.dividingword.net
This entry was posted in Trinity? and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s