You are on page 1of 13



By Derrick Gillespie *(Edited and updated in August 2011)
This is a question that needs settling once and for all, since, not only does it allow for a better understanding of the Bible's truth about God the Father, His Son, and their personal Holy Spirit, but the way will be made clear for an unbiased approach to the first book of the Bible having God speaking in a plural language, i.e. "let *US". See Gen. 1:26, 27 and Gen. 11:6-8 compared with Gen. 3:22-24 before moving on. Many people get caught in the trap of accepting "hook line and sinker" not only ALL of what the Roman Catholic Church FALSELY claims for itself, but also ALL of what historians have been led to believe about the Papacy or Roman Church, especially in the way they have written about the Trinity, and it's roots!!


No one except the Roman Catholics themselves really believes that the Roman Church was actually the church of Jesus he himself established when he gathered his disciples around him, and then sent them out to preach. Yet this is what the Roman Catholics claim for themselves WITHOUT ANY SOLID BIBLICAL PROOF! And without any biblical proof they have also claimed that Peter (a married man at that) was the first Pope, and that he has passed on, without any break in the chain, an "apostolic succession" of authority in a line of Popes which reside only in the Roman Catholic Church. This therefore means that they believe, without proof, that since they are the first church established while Jesus was on earth then it was the Papacy which is responsible for all major doctrines (including the Trinity) now taught by the Christian church. Hence it is easy to see why they claim that all the apostles, and all early Christian writers of the first two centuries are their pioneers, and hence why they make the boast that all major apologists and Christian thinkers of the first two or three centuries are their "Catholic fathers". And this is a particular falsehood that has been passed on by historians and encyclopedias everywhere you turn, and is swallowed blindly by well meaning Christians simply because people have not stopped to think the issues through carefully, and based upon an unbiased review of the historical facts. This presentation will however seek to destroy this falsehood from several standpoints, and settle once and for all the question of WHEN the Roman Catholic Church or Papacy really came into being as a "universal" church entity!!


Many people fail to recognize that the Roman Catholic Church is inseparable from its inherent nature of being the Papacy, or the political rule of the Pope as the supreme head of what is considered to be the universal church, but ONLY AS WAS PROPOGATED BY THE POLITICAL POWER OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE!! Period!

Now, why the word "Roman", and why "Catholic"? Simple. The Roman empire eventually passed on it's political power of dominating the world to the Roman church after the Roman emperor Constantine became a nominal Christian in the fourth century (after 312 A.D.). And since the world "catholic" literally means "universal" then it can be seen why this denomination (for that's what it really is) chose to use "Catholic" when the Roman empire adopted the Christian religion as the religion of the state, which would henceforth be imposed even by the power of the sword on all areas the Roman empire continued to dominate as the universal empire at the time. We can see then why the Pope then became known as the "Pontifex Maximus or Pontiff for short, since that actually was the religio-political title of the Roman emperors of pagan Rome, who eventually passed on their priestly, so-called divine and political prerogatives to the Pope of the church congregation at Rome. Before that reality there was no Roman Catholic Church as the Papacy is now known!! Yes, there was a congregation of Christians at Rome before this, but just as there was equally very many other Christian congregations at Corinth, Galatia, Phillipi, Ephesus, etc. And, as the New Testament clearly shows, Paul wrote letters to them all and gave no impression of any one congregation having any dominance or place of importance above any other, which included, OF COURSE, the congregation at Rome that Paul wrote the letter of "Romans" to. And so this proves that the congregation at Rome was not *THE church of Christ, or even its headquarters, since *Jerusalem was the church's early headquarters (see Acts 15:1, 2), but the congregation at Rome was simply AMONG the very many congregations of the church as a whole. This is the inescapable truth of both the Bible, as well as from the unbiased pages of history!! Now what BIBLICALLY proves the time when the Papacy really began as an *entity is seen in the crucial prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation. In Daniel 7 and Rev. 13 and 17 the Bible does show that the pagan Roman power would pass on its power to a church entity (represented by a "little horn", a multibodied beast power, or a harlot woman on a beast). When did this occur? Only partially after Constantine adopted the Christian religion, but then FULLY after the pagan empire of Rome collapsed after 476 A.D. Thus the Papacy (an unprecedented religio-political institution) was conceived when Constantine united Church and state, but it was fully birthed as a *separate entity only after the line of emperors ceased, and thus the Roman power was continued through the supremacy of the Roman Popes (Pontiffs or "Pontifex Maximuses"). This then came to be known as "Christendom". No one can sensibly deny that the Roman Papacy did dominate political and religious life of much of the world for centuries, thus proving that the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation did indeed come true!! Now, there are some who would want us to believe that the Papacy did exist even before church and state united after Constantine, but that is simply nonsense of the highest order, since there was no Papacy until the Roman Church acquired Roman state power after Constantine. That's why Daniel 7 spoke of the "little horn"
coming up after a certain point in Roman history, and of course only at a certain time do we see a church (woman in symbol) controlling or riding the "beast" or state power of Rome (as Rev. 17) shows; i.e. IT HAPPENED ONLY AFTER THE FOURTH CENTURY !!


Here are three simple facts which prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is a false notion that the coining of the word and doctrine of the Trinity is a Roman Catholic or Papal invention.

1. In just the same way there was no Jew until Abraham there was no true Roman Catholic until the conversion of Constantine (after 313 A.D.), and the making of Christianity into the official state religion of the Roman Empire (thus forming Christendom). Before that, all Christians were just simply that; Christians, even being persecuted and martyred by pagan Rome itself up to Emperor Constantine. 2. Also, the Papacy (the supreme rule of the Pope through the Roman Catholic Church), or the little horn in prophecy, had no real separate existence as a political force until after the collapse of the political Roman Empire under the emperors, thus coming up after the ten kingdoms arising out of the collapsed Roman Empire after 476 A.D. There was therefore no true Papacy or little horn until the emperors all passed off the scene, despite popes (very important Roman bishops) existed in the Western part of the Roman Empire before this reality. Constantine joining Church and State after 312 A.D. was just the embryonic stage of the Papacys origin, and the founding of Roman Catholicism as a noted entity. 3. Thus it is not true to say that the trinity doctrine was invented by the Roman Catholics and the Papacy, since many early Christian writers such as Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Ignatius, Hippolytus, Athenagoras, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian in the West, Origen in the East, etc. (called Apostolic Fathers or Church Fathers or "Christian Apologists') existed during the period covering the prophetic stages of the Christian Church called Ephesus and Smyrna, from about 60 313 A.D., and they wrote the basic truths of the trinity doctrine, if even in rudimentary form, long before the Roman Catholic system of state religion was founded. See for the historical facts and the detailed pre-papal documents, writings, etc, on the pre-papal Trinity. During this time the word trinity, and concepts of the eternal co-existence, and unity of substance of the Persons of the Godhead already existed alongside basic Arian concepts (evident in early Christian doxologies and written expressions). The Papacy simply *inherited these pre-existing Trinitarian teachings, added its own perspectives and viewpoints, and then brought them together or formulated the pre-existing teachings into formal creeds, which it then forced upon people (just like it did with the Bible, and the rest of Christianity itself). Big difference, since this is not the same as INVENTING the doctrine, or coining the term trinity; a word which means the same as triad or trio!! The doctrine existed widespread among Christian writers before the Council of Nicea!! This will be proved hereafter. The Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) only provided a universal (catholic, not Roman Catholic) nondenominational Christian Conference for the airing of the views of orthodox Trinitarians, semi-Arians, and Arians alike. A Pope was not even present at Nicea, and those bishops who could be called Romans of the West numbered less than 10 out of over 300 bishops (pastors) in attendance. Later, despite Nicea, Arianism even became the official doctrine of the Roman Empire for a time, after Constantine I died, thus proving the Trinity was not the only Godhead doctrine associated with the Roman Church. And remember, the only way the Papacy can validly claim, for it's Papal "fathers", the writers who wrote even before it did historically originate is only if it *really was the Church established by Christ before he left earth; a matter no Protestant would ever dare agree to, and yet Protestants blindly accept the false claims of the Papacy about these early writers being the Papal "fathers". It is time this blatant error is seen for what it really is. And there can be no claim to certain first, second and third century writers referring to the Christian religion as "catholic" (adjective) to mean they intended *"Roman Catholic" (proper noun), since:

a) The denomination did not yet exist as the Papacy, to even be written about or in support of, and b) The word "catholic" as an adjective (not a proper noun) was a commonly used word intending to convey the truth that the *whole church body with all its congregations can be properly, and has been properly refereed to as the "universal" or "catholic" church of Christ. It is sophistry of the highest order for the Papacy to say the early writers simply meant the proper noun Roman Catholic whenever they used the adjective catholic. This falsehood is usually imposed on first, second, and third century documents by simply capitalizing the word adjectival word catholic (i.e. by adding the capital letter C). And many people usually unwittingly fall for this blatant falsehood. It is time that this demonic falsehood is laid to rest by informed Christians. Notice how the Encarta Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, and Websters Dictionary shed light on the much misunderstood word, catholic (THE ADJECTIVE): The term catholic (Greek katholikos, universal, from katholou, in general) was first used in the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (about AD 110). The term was later used by Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata (Miscellanies) That which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. This is what is truly and properly catholic. Microsoft Encarta 2006. 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. catholic- Universal or general; as the catholic church. Originally this epithet was given to the Christian church in general but is now appropriated to the Romish church - Websters Dictionary catholic- (from Greek katholikos, universal), the characteristic that, according to ecclesiastical writers since the 2nd century, distinguished the Christian Church at large from local communities or from heretical and schismatic sects. Encyclopedia Britannica 2007 Please note that this writer is not saying that all the things written by the early Christian writers are correct, or even that they all said the same things, but what I am saying is that they never wrote in the context of being any member of the Roman Catholic Church, since it did not yet exist UNTIL AFTER THR FOURTH CENTURY!! They simply wrote to, or in defense of the universal Christian church as a whole, with all its congregations scattered all over. Period!!

The vast majority of the earliest Christian writers from the first and second centuries revealed their Biblebased faith in accepting that Jesus was not only distinct from His Father as a person, or as His only begotten Son before the incarnation, but that He is also our God in highest nature just like His Father and the Holy Spirit, who all together deserve equal honor in the sense of highest worship! In addition they fiercely rejected any viewpoint that sought to make Jesus and His Father the same person as Sabellius did in second century. In addition they showed that the word "trinity" was not coined by the

Papacy that came long after, but was known and accepted by several of the Christian writers long *BEFORE the Papacy was even conceived. Here following are just some examples of the occurrence of the teaching and the term written long before any Roman Catholic existed [emphases supplied]: 100 A.D. We have also a physician, the Lord our God, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son and Word, before time began Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians 100 A.D. Ientreat you to use Christian nourishment only, and abstain from herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy... For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not Christianssome of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are but the same person -Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter 6 Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, not unto one [one person, as in Sabellian modalism+ having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three [persons] possessed of *EQUAL HONOR. - Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 2 150 A.D. with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity... both Him [the Father], and the Son and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing *them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught. - Justin Martyr- First Apology, Chapter 6 We will prove that we worship him [Jesus] reasonably; for we have learned that that he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third [place] -Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 13 God begot before all creatures a certain rational [self willed] power from himself, and whom the Spirit callssometimes the Son, sometimes Lord and Word this Offspring who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with him Someone [the pre-incarnate Jesus] *numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational being - Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 61 and 62 "And of old He [Jesus] appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an Angel to Moses [hence he preexisted] And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, I AM THAT I AM, the God of Abraham, and the

God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, and the God of your fathers this signified that even though dead [i.e. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob] they are men belonging to Christ Himself the Spirit of prophecy rebukes them [Jews], and says, "Israel doth not know Me, my people have not understood Me." And again, Jesus, as we have already shown, while He was with them, said, "No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him." The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God [hence he pre-existed], who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God [as natural sons are what their father is in nature]. And of old He [Jesus] appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets - Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 63 150 A.D. I praise you [the Father] for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you AND the Holy Spirit be glory both now, and to all coming ages. Amen! Polycarp of Smyrna, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Chapter 14 177 A.D. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points -Athenagoras A Plea for the Christians, Chapter 10, [entitled] *Christians Worship the Father, Son and Holy Spirit 180 A.D. The THREE days [separate entities], which were before the luminaries [i.e. the fourth day Creation of sun, moon, etc.], are types [symbols] of the *Trinity *triavdo- Greek], of God [the Father], and His Word [Jesus], and His Wisdom [Spirit]. And the fourth [day] is the type [symbol] of man, who needs light - Theophilus of Antioch, Chapter 15,Of the Fourth Day, To Autolycus, 2:15

N.B. Here the word trinity (synonym) is being used by a Christian writer (in Greek expression) long before the Papacy arrived after Constantine. Hence it is a blatant falsehood the Papacy coined the word as it relates to the Godhead doctrine after the fourth century. Triavdo" (Greek for trinity) is the earliest recorded Christian use of this word. The use Theophilus makes of it is familiar. He does not lug it in as

something novel: "types of the Trinity," he says, illustrating an accepted Greek word being used by several other Christian writers at the time; he was not introducing a new one. 180 A.D. Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers [thus he pre-existed] -Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 5, Section 2 180 A.D. No one of the sons of Adam is*absolutely [in the highest sense] called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all prophets, the apostles, and by the [personal] Spirit Himself - Irenaeus - Irenaeus Against Heresies, Chapter 19 The Father is truly Lord *despite there is one Lord Jesus Christ+, and the Son truly Lord. The Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord Referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, Scripture says, then the LORD [Jehovah] rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the LORD [another Person also called LORD, or Jehovah] out of Heaven. For it here points out that the Son, who had also talking with Abraham [Gen 18:1] had received power to judge the Sodomites And this [next text also] does declare the same truth: thy throne O God is forever *Heb. 1:8, 10+ For the Spirit designates both [of them, Father and Son] by the name of God [i.e. Jehovah] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 6

190 A.D. The Divine Word is truly manifest *DEITY [supremely God]. He is EQUAL to [with] the Lord of the universe, because He was His Son. Clement of Alexandria, Fragments, Part 1, section 3
"There was then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of

God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated." -Clement of Alexandria, Fragments, Part I, section III "His Son Jesus, the Word of God, is our Instructor. He is God and Creator." -Clement of Alexandria, Instructor, Book I, ch. 11 [regarding Matt. 28:19] I understand nothing else than the Holy *TRINITY [Greek, triavdo+ to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father [the first Person]. -Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book 5, Chapter 14

200 A.D. See, brethren, what a rash and audacious dogma they [Sabellian modalists+ have introduced, when they say without shame, the Father is Himself Christ, Himself the Son, Himself was born But this is not so. The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus *a modalist heretic+ is of a different mind from them [the Scriptures] For who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not on that account deny the economy (i.e. the number) and disposition of [three] persons in the *TRINITY [Greek, triavdo, or Godhead of three] - Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus 200 A.D. That there are two Gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit, God [but] when Christ would come, He might be acknowledged as God, and be called Lord, because He is the Son of Him who is both God and Lord - Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 13:6 All Scriptures give clear proof of the *Trinity *trinitas- Latin], and it is from these that our principle is deduced the distinction of the Trinity is quite clearly displayed - Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 11 N.B. Here for the first time the word trinity is expressed in Latin by Tertullian (as trinitas), since it was commonly used before in Greek as triavdo. Thus Tertullian is credited with first using the Latin form of the word by way of direct translation. He did not coin the concept/word at all, as is often falsely reported. Big difference!! Others continued making use of the word in Greek, as seen below. 265 A.D. There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is His subsistent Wisdom and Power and Eternal Image: perfect Begetter of the perfect Begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, Only of the Only, God of God, Image and Likeness of Deity, Efficient Word, Wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and Power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal and Eternal of Eternal. And there is One Holy Spirit, having His subsistence from God, and being made manifest by the Son, to wit to men: Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect; Life, the Cause of the living; Holy Fount; Sanctity, the Supplier, or Leader, of Sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. [And] There is a perfect *Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything super-induced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abideth ever. - Gregory Thaumaturgus (of Nazianzus)



100 AD "Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. . . . Jesus Christ . . . came forth from one Father and is with and has gone to one [Father] . . . God, who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, [thus having no beginning as when a speaker begins a speech from the point of getting up from his silence] and who in all things pleased him that sent him" -Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians, 6-8. 180 AD "But the Son, eternally *co-existing with the Father, [thus co-eternal] from of old, even from everlasting, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues..." -Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, ch. 30, section 9 *190 A.D. When he [John] says: what was in the beginning [1 John 1:1], he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-equal with the Father. [The word] Was therefore is indicative of an eternity without a beginning, just as the Word Himself, that is, the Son, being one with the Father, in regard to equality of substance, is eternal and uncreated. That the Word always existed is signified by the saying: In the beginning was the Word [John 1:1] -Clement of Alexandria (*190 A.D.), Fragment in Eusebius History, Book 6, Chapter 140 N.B.*Thus Origen, 185-254 A.D., who would be just five years old in 190 A.D. when the above quoted was written, is not properly credited by some theologians for first teaching the truth of the co-eternality (same age) of Jesus Christ with His Father. It was a Bible truth (*Micah 5:2; 1 Jon 1:1, 2) being taught by Christians long before him. Below we see fully what Clement of Alexandria shared with other Christians long before Origen wrote in the third century: That which was from the beginning; which we have seen with our eyes; which we have heard. Following the Gospel according to John, and in accordance with it, this Epistle also contains the spiritual principle. What therefore he says, from the beginning, the Presbyter [John] explained to this effect, that the beginning of generation [of the Son] is not separated from the beginning of the Creator. For when he says, That which was from the beginning, he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-existent with the Father. There was, then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated. That He was always the Word, is signified by saying, In the beginning was the Word. But by the expression, we have seen with our eyes, he signifies the Lords presence in the flesh, and our hands have handled, he says, of the Word of life. He means not only His flesh, but the virtues of the Son, like the sunbeam which penetrates to the lowest places, - this sunbeam coming in the flesh became palpable to the disciplesAnd we show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto you. He [John] signifies by the appellation of Father, that the Son also existed always, without beginning. - ibid

235 AD "God the Father, found and creator of all things, who alone knows no beginning, who is invisible, immeasurable, immortal, and eternal, is one God. Neither his greatness nor his majesty nor his power can possibly be--I should not say exceeded, for they cannot even be equaled. From him . . . the Word was born, his Son. . . . And the latter, since he [Jesus] was born of the Father, is always in [eternally united with] the Father. And I indeed say always . . . He that exists before all time must be said to have been in the Father always, for he that exists before all time cannot be spoken of in relation to time. . . . Assuredly, he [the Son] is God, proceeding from God, causing, as Son, a second person after the Father, but not taking away from the Father the fact that God is one"- Novatian - (Treatise on the Trinity, 31). [Notice Novatians title of his early work, appearing long before the PapacyTreatise on the Trinity]


Despite the early Christians believed in one God the Father, they saw no conflict in their beliefs about Jesus being absolutely called God, LORD or Jehovah in name, and equal with the Father as Deity, simply because He was, as another separate Person, the Son of God. This is precisely how the Jews (John 10:30-33) understood Jesus Son-ship, that is, it was a claim to equality with the Father, not a claim to being the Father Himself. The Jews did understand God the Father to be one person (!!), but never fully understood the fact that God has a distinctly *divine Son, despite the clear hints given to it in Proverbs 30:4 and Gen. 1:26. But God revelation was progressive, and so the revelation of Jesus to them in the New Testament (Heb. 1:1-3) sadly became a STUMBLING STONE" to many! And until they come to accept the second step in the revelation of the Godhead they would henceforth forever have a problem with the Father of the Son they faithfully served as monotheists in the Old Testament (2John 2:23; John 17:3).This new revelation does not in any way destroy what monotheism is, since to be the Son of God does not make Jesus the Father Himself, or make Him another or second "God the Father"!! And it is precisely upon this premise that the earliest PRE-PAPAL reference to a Trinity was made; not that Jesus is Himself the Father, or that he and the Holy Spirit is another independent Almighty God. The ongoing mistake of some anti-Trinitarians (not all) and, ironically, the mistake of some modern Trinitarians too is failure to recognize this historical fact. THE TIME HAS COME TO CLEAR THE AIR!! Here is the simple truth. The One true God, the Father, is, by His very nature, revealed in and worshipped through His Eternal Son, and is present everywhere by His personal Holy Spirit. Think it through carefully. There is only one (1) God, THE FATHER (a singular "Him"), not two or three of Him, but He has told us that he is known through and approached through His Son, and is manifested everywhere by His distinct and personal Spirit. Thats why God spoke as "us" from the very beginning, since He could not deny whom he is united with in the threefold Godhead. That's all!! This was the teaching of the earliest Christians *long before the Papacy and Roman Catholicism was born in the fourth century after Constantine became Christian (signaling the birth of Roman Catholicism). The historical evidence is undeniable, at least to one who is honest with himself after reading this!! The Christians nearest the Bible apostles taught a triad, but denied a plurality of Gods. The idea of gods in the Godhead is one of Satans first lies told on earth. This lie, recorded distinctly in Genesis 3:5, because he

knew that more than one Person in the Godhead is properly called GOD (Gen. 3:22; 2 Thess.2:4), but also knowing that a misunderstanding of *the unity is what would cause us to falsely see Them either as separate gods or worse, as a monstrous three headed individual being (organism). This lie (counterfeit) is found in almost all ancient religions of the world, simply because, by his knowledge of the real truth, Satan was able to plant the seed of misunderstanding. Why is there such a coincidence of divine threes in counterfeit religions? Evidently it was by Satans influence (himself knowing the truth about the true Godhead of constituent Persons) that these ancient pagan religions unwittingly recognized that truly there is a plurality of persons in the Godhead, but unfortunately the persons are either seen as gods, or God is seen as a personal being (personality) with three forms! Why? Satan likes to counterfeit or caricature the truth to cast doubt, and ridicule it!! No Christian should therefore seek to promote these pagan lies, or on the other hand go to the other extreme of unwittingly opposing all that is called God (2 Thessalonians 2:4) in the Persons of the Father, his Son, and their personal Holy Spirit, simply because he cannot understand how, when the Three are spiritually united in the Godhead, 1x1x1 =1(one) God, and not 1+1+1=3(three) gods. Do you notice the plural word all in 2 Thess. 2:4? And can you then see why God chose the human family of two persons initially, but later with the complete family (with offspring from the unity of the first two persons), to illustrate the Godhead of one God the Father, yet inseparably united with His Son, and with both united producing their personal Holy Spirit? Can you see too why God, who knows that LOVE is a fellowship principle, and also knowing that for the statement God is love to be true then he could not picture Himself in isolated aloneness as the only divine being, but as working in harmony with others divine like himself? Thus from the very beginning he said let us; not let me do this or that, or I will, etc. And can you then see why God used the human family, the first earthly institution of love, as the model imaged after him to demonstrate His love and nature of the Godhead on earth? This writer can do nothing more than say, Amen!! What you do, dear reader, with this truth now revealed to you is up to you, but at least you cannot say you were not exposed to what may just be the real truth about the Trinity in the history of the Christian Church. APPENDIX:
The Roman Catholic Trinity seemingly denies the Bible doctrine of the subordination (natural and voluntary subjection) of Christ to the Father, with whom He is equal. The two seemingly paradoxical realities are fully Biblical, and do not contradict each other; as is the case with a wifes relation to her husband, who is Biblically equal with him, but also always subject (subordinate, but not inferior) to him. The Roman Catholic Trinity speaks where the Bible was silent in explaining *how the Godhead is three in one. The Roman Catholic Trinity goes beyond the simple Bible truths of the Deity of Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit, and speculates the "mechanical make-up" of the Godhead on almost an "atomic level". When Jehovahs Witnesses (and many other anti-Trinitarians) attempt to prove that the Trinity is not a Bible doctrine, they always seem to focus on the Roman Catholic Trinity rather than on the Biblical trinity, and on the trinity COMMONLY taught by very many Christians long before the arrival of the Papacy. Also forget the simple noun definition of a trinity. Jehovahs Witnesses and other anti-Trinitarians are right! The

explained Roman Catholic Trinity after the fourth century is not found in the Bible, but the Deity of Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, and the harmonious working of a one-body but-several-members type relationship of the Three Persons in the Godhead (as Biblically indicated in 1 Corinthians 12: 4-6, 11,12) are clearly taught! Many of the speculations of the later Trinitarian theology cannot be ultimately proven true or false this side of heaven, since no one has a full knowledge of the nature of the Godhead in order to compare. However, because these speculations (as they are popularly taught by Creeds) are not outlined in the Bible specifically, then it is true that they are not in the Bible, even if these ideas may seem reasonable to many! Yet the early Christian writers did have many ideas similar to what came after Nicea, and so Nicea did not invent trinity, but just expanded on the pre-existing teaching. Big difference!!

The table following shows many differences in pre-papal and post-papal realities about the trinity doctrine.

Biblical Trinity Taught in the Bible directly

In the Bible, we see an affirmation of the Deity of Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit, combined with a monotheistic view of God, the Father, but without any explanation as to how the whole thing fits together and works. The simple affirmation of the "three-ness, triad or trio of the Godhead", seen at the Baptism of Jesus and the baptism of every Christian (Matthew 28:19), is the Economic Trinity compared with the EXPLAINED version of the trinity.

Roman Catholic Trinity Not taught in the Bible *explicitly

The developed trinity or Ontological Trinity is the theological explanation as to how a monotheistic view of the Godhead can have three-ness. This ontological trinity explains how the plumbing works and goes far beyond a simple affirmation of the three-ness of the mono-theistic Godhead as revealed in scripture, even attempting to explain the psychology, or the mind and consciousness of the Godhead. When Jehovahs Witnesses, and other anti-Trinitarians say the Trinity is not found in the Bible, they always refer, unwittingly, to the ontological Trinity, without knowing the difference themselves. Jehovahs Witnesses, and many other anti-Trinitarians dont know the difference between a trinity and Modalism (which even Roman Catholics, despite themselves, are out rightly opposed to).

Expressed triad, trio, or trinity Explained triad, trio, trinity *Economic Trinity: Ontological Trinity:
The observed activity of the Eternal Godhead in the World (that is, early Christians perceived and believed the Godhead to have directly intervened in history in the persons of the Father, Son and their personal Holy Spirit) A more formal (sometimes coerced) understanding of the essential nature or being This is the relational trinity of the Father, His (mode of existence) of the Godhead as Triune, Son, and their personal Holy Spirit; a Godhead as presented in Creedal statements. revealed in clear triadic terms but not fully

explained as to how it all works.

1st Century Biblical Trinity testified to by most of the Apostolic writers, and the pre-papal Christian apologists before the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.), but without any detailed explanation of the Godhead which has been clearly expressed in triadic terms

-4th century, and post- Nicea Creedal Trinity -Trinity of Dogma (fixed and sometimes enforced church doctrine) -Systematically explained, essential, immanent or ontological Trinity

Neither Roman Catholics nor Jehovah Witnesses (among other anti-Trinitarians) understand the difference between the 1st Century Biblical Trinity, and the 4th century Creedal Trinity. Do you?