Make your own free website on



The Bible on:

One God | Salvation | Baptism | Faith

Trinitarian Challenge

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

False Teachings

Touch and Agree? | One Body? | One Liners

Preaching: 500 words more or less
Your Questions Answered

The Trinity: Biblical Doctrine or Tradition of Man?

If you have taken the previous two parts of this challenge you have seen that the doctrine of the Trinity has no direct Biblical basis. You have also seen that it is also not described without being explicitly expressed. Even the proponents of this doctrine admit that this teaching is an "implied" or "hidden" one. The underlying implication is, whether intended or not, that it takes a heightened spirituality to "comprehend" the great "Is but Is Not." To those who are offended by that name I would ask them to consider the descriptions of the Godhead prescribed by the doctrine of the Trinity.

According to the teaching of the Trinity God is one but not one since He is also three. God is a "Him" but is not a "Him" since He is also "Them." The interesting thing about this last one is that the proponents of the Trinity have a "taboo" about calling God "them." Why? If God is three and One then why can't you call Him "Them" sometimes? The Bible strictly forbids the worship of more than The One True Living God. God has to be either three or One and cannot be both. Not the "Is but Is Not" One.

I have heard people say "The Godhead is beyond human comprehension" and then proceed to "explain" it to me! This is the God that cannot be explained but is explained. We have an indomitable God that is submitted unto Himself (God the Son is submitted to God the Father and God the Holy Ghost to God the Son). We have a God that is all- powerful but in Jesus powerless to act independently. We have three separated but in unity. I could go on but these will do. Let me say friends that the statements above are not apparent contradictions but are real and virtual impossibilities. The God of the Trinity "Is but Is Not": comprehensible, supreme, all-powerful and singular being.

If this doctrine didn't come from the Bible where did it come from? I recall a young man saying to me that the idea of the Trinity was such a profound concept that only God could have thought of it. If this is true then God did not speak to early Jews but to their pagan neighbors. Centuries before the day of Pentecost the Heathen nations of the world worshipped Gods in Trinity. Laotse of China in 600 B.C.E. wrote that Tao had one nature and that was that the first brought forth the second and these two brought forth the third and these three created the universe. Three but One. In India we have the Trimurti of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. These three are worshipped separately but Brahma is the unifying "principle" which makes them one. These are said to be co-eternal. I spoke to an Indian friend of mine about the Gods of his country and in reference to Brahma, Vishnu and Siva when I said I was confused about whether there were three or one he said "Both, like your Trinity. All exist eternally but Brahma is the strongest and the other two pre- existed in Him." There is the Rig Veda with three Gods but one Godhead or great soul. The Chaldeans had a Trinity (Anos, Illinos and Aos) as did the Babylonians (Ulomus, Ulosurus and Elirn) and the Egyptians (Kneph or Ammun, Pthath and Osiris). We also have the Greeks, the Scandinavians, the Prussians, the Pomeranians, the Wends and the old Americans as well as the Romans which I will now discuss in greater detail.

The principle or head deity in the pantheon of the Roman era was Jupiter. Jupiter was "expressed" as a Trinity. I have heard people say that it is a matter of interpretation. Well let's see, Jupiter would appear as Jupiter Elicius, Jupiter Fulgur and Jupiter Latiaris all other "Jupiters" are variations on these three main identities. These three were expressed as individuals who were independent of each other with their own agenda. Then there was Jupiter Optimus Maximus which had the memories of the other three and could answer as either of the three. Interestingly enough the three could not speak as Jupiter Optimus Maximus but he could speak as any or all of the others. This representation of the Supreme Roman Godhead was to be referred to always as him and not them. This Jupiter having all the characteristics of the three could fully act as any combination of the three or as a "new" and separate entity beyond the three. Jupiter could of course assume any form he chose but basically held these three identities.

At the time of the formation of the Catholic Church there was a conserted effort to among the Pagans to unify Jupiter into a more inclusive package by saying that he was in reality his own father in the form of Saturn, his own brother in Juno and his own sister and wife in Minerva. If memory serves the dialog goes something like this ( Jupiter speaking and paraphrased from the "Aneid" I believe.) "I was present in my father (Saturn) and as the driving force of his will brought forth myself" He then goes on to tell how he is "manifest" in all things. This brought about the introduction of a female into the Roman Godhead. Just as a point of interest consider that Jupiter was the Patriarch or chief God of Nicopolus ( Nicolaitans) at the time The Revelation was written and there was a "push" to unify Roman worship with Jupiter at the "head of the pack." I just throw that out there for your consideration since there is no real way to decipher the cursed "deeds" of the Nicolaitans in Revelation 2:6, but I find it interesting. Remember also that the Church had suffered great persecution under Nero and that those who stayed in Rome had to at best go underground. It is not hard to imagine how Pagan beliefs could "creep" into Church doctrine.

More on the next page.



Useful Stuff-Use with care!
Links are not necessarily endorsements