Gardening Books Expose Origin of Trinity:

[iris89]

Hi Everyone

Even gardening books which are in no way connected with religious dogma recognize the pagan origins of the Trinity as shown by the following:

The Mistletoe, with its three white berries, was regarded as the symbol of the Druidic Trinity; its growth on the Oak was the symbol of the incarnation of Deity in man. [source – The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Gardening, Page 1718, Volume 11, the Greystone Press, Library of Congress Catalogue #60-7000]

But many are so spiritually blind that they can not see this simple truth.

For more details on the Trinity, go to:


www.network54.com/Forum/388928


Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[Mister Emu]

Please,

(Edit: Some) Pagan religions also involved the death and ressurection of an individual, do you deny this as well?

 

[iris89]

Hi Mister Emu

Yes, some do, but so what? But look at the details of such in some of the pagan religions of ancient Americans and it is easy to see they are pure thinking of men.


Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[James the Persian]

Hi Everyone

Even gardening books which are in no way connected with religious dogma recognize the pagan origins of the Trinity as shown by the following:

The Mistletoe, with its three white berries, was regarded as the symbol of the Druidic Trinity; its growth on the Oak was the symbol of the incarnation of Deity in man. [source – The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Gardening, Page 1718, Volume 11, the Greystone Press, Library of Congress Catalogue #60-7000]

But many are so spiritually blind that they can not see this simple truth.

For more details on the Trinity, go to:


www.network54.com/Forum/388928


Your Friend in Christ Iris89

I'm sorry, but how does Druid use of mistletoe to symbolise an Druidic Trinity prove the pagan origins of the Christian Trinity? Are you suggesting that the Druids influenced Christianity before the Druids had even been exposed to it? That's a very peculiar claim.

It may, of course, explain why St. Patrick had such successes converting entire Druidic schools en masse to Christianity. If they already had a Trinity concept - and I'm not certain this is true - then it may have helped them accept the Trinity that St. Patrick was preaching much as the legend of a dying God resurrected after three days in a cave aided the early Christian evangelists in Dacia. This is, however, a far cry from saying that the Trinity or Resurrection are pagan concepts. You might just as well say that the idea of God Himself is pagan because pagan religions have gods. A similarity between two religions without further evidence in no way implies a causal link.

James

 

[michel]

[font=ARIAL, HELVETICA]In Irish tradition the Shamrock or Three-leaf Clover represents the Holy Trinity: one leaf for the Father, one for the Son and one for the Holy Spirit. When a Shamrock is found with the fourth leaf, it represents God's Grace.[/font]​

​

he he - I think you'll find that everyone wants to make connections.​

 

[iris89]

Hi Jacob Persul



No, I am alluding to the fact that the concept of a trinity was common throughout all of pagan Dom and that apostate Christianity adopted it from the pagans. In fact, history bears this fact out as follows:

By the third and fourth centuries, Christians were weary of Pagan persecution. The temptation was to compromise. Besides, the Pagan emperor Constantine needed Christians to salvage his shaky empire. Constantine embraced; howbeit only on his deathbed. However, he saw Christianity as a tool he could use to firm up his shaky empire. To this opportunity for political intrigue, and happy blend of politics and people was the chief triumvirate of Roman gods Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. Jupiter was the principal deity of Roman mythology and Juno was the next highest divinity. Minerva, the "offspring of the brain of Jupiter" was regarded as the "personification of divine thought, the plan of the material universe of which Jupiter was the creator and Juno the representative" (26). Many Pagan ideas, in fact, were incorporated into Christianity. "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it" (*26).

Roman Emperor Constantine needed to make his subjects feel secure if he were to maintain control of the empire; he wanted to rule a unified empire, be it pagan and/or Christian. But first he would have to find a way to end the dispute over the divinity of Jesus-was he a man or God? So he ordered his Christian bishops to meet at Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle the matter once and for all. To do this, "he made himself the head of the church, and thus the problems of the church became his responsibilities. As a whole the Western Empire with its Roman influence, with some exceptions, had accepted Tertullian and his new theory of the Trinity in the early part of the previous century, but in the East the church adhered more closely to the older formula of baptism in the name of Jesus, or Jesus the Christ. Especially was this true with the Armenians, who specified that baptism "into the death of Christ" was that which alone was essential (*28) .



Now let's see how Constantine got the Trinity. As previously shown, The Roman Empire at this time was being torn apart by religious differences between pagans, mostly Sun God worshippers, and Christianity. Constantine the Emporer was a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, but he was a very pragmatic individual and saw the need to bring religious unity to his empire. The central doctrine of the pagans was the dogma of a Trinity that they had received from earlier pagans in Babylon (Chaldea). In this, the pagan Emperor, Constantine, saw a possibility for unifying his empire if he could only lead the majority of the Christians to accept a Trinity or a Duality. He knew however that he had to make them think it was their own idea. To this end, he, the Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea, about 300, but even though it was the emperor's direction, only a fraction actually attended.



This council went on for a very long time and the emperor worked behind the scene to get support for a Trinity or a Duality. This effort was not completely successful, but finally he got a majority and declared under imperial degree

that this hence forth would be the central doctrinal pillar of the Christian church, which by this time was apostate. Even with this declaration by the emperor himself not all bishops signed the creed. (*29).



So is was the political product of an apostate church, an apostate church that allowed a pagan Roman Emporer, Constantine, to tell it which dogma to accept at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., and then have it rammed down their throats as blessed dogma by another Roman Emporer, Theodosius, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. This in direct violation of God's (YHWH's) word found in the Bible " Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4:4 AV), " If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:19 AV).

Their solution was to create a creed making it illegal for anyone to believe Jesus was not the same as God by inventing the notion of a Trinity. This intellectual tower remained in full force for well over a thousand years, until the Reformation. (*29).



Contrary to popular belief, it was not Constantine's fourth century Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 that formalized the "Doctrine of the Trinity." The Athanasian Creed in the fifth century finally included the three, "the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost...the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal So likewise the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God." Furthermore, this creed added that belief in the trinity "is necessary to everlasting salvation." Strong belief led to action. "Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years ([A.D.]342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome." (*30).





The fact is Christianity never conquered paganism--paganism conquered Christianity. (*31).



Ref:

*26 - McClintock & Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 6

*27 - Lamson, Newton & Durant, Will, "Caesar and Christ," cited from Charles Redeker Caesar and Christ, W. Duran (page 595).

*28 - ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366).

*29 - Payne, Robert, "The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Churches in the Near East" (1957); BETHUNE-BAKER, J,F. "An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine". Methuen; 5th Ed., 1933 and ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366); David, Francis and Blandrata, Georgio, "De falsa et vera unius Dei Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti cognitone" [Latin](The False and True Knowledge of the Unity of God the Father, Son, and Holy spirit), 1566 A.D.; Eklof, Todd F., "David's Francis Tower, Strength through Peace," (06-16-02); The New Encyclopedia Britannica: " Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976); Parkes, James, "The Foundation of Judaism and Christianity," 1960; Durant, Will. "Caesar and Christ." New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75.

*30 - Durant, Will, "Age of Faith,"

*31 - Jonas, Hans, "The Gnostic religion: the message of the alien God and the beginnings of Christianity," 2nd ed., 1963.

[source - DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:, by Iris the Preacher 2001]

If you desire to pursue this more in depth, go to:



http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=388928&messageid=1108469292&lp=1108489334



Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[iris89]

Hi Michael

Your comment,

[font=ARIAL, HELVETICA]In Irish tradition the Shamrock or Three-leaf Clover represents the Holy Trinity: one leaf for the Father, one for the Son and one for the Holy Spirit. When a Shamrock is found with the fourth leaf, it represents God's Grace.[/font]

he he - I think you'll find that everyone wants to make connections.​

​

on the Shammrock in Irish tradition is correct. As I was pointing out to Jacob Persul, this pagan doctrine was part and parcel of most of the pagan world and that apostate Christians adopted it to win the good favor of a pagan Emperor of Rome, a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, and did not pay heed to Titus 2:1, " But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: " (Authorized King James Bible; AV).​

​

Your Friend in Christ Iris89​

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Hi, Iris!

I'm sorry for stepping into the 'individual religions' section, but I just wanted to check something. Are you saying that you believe the Christian faith adapted the concept of the Trinity from the pagans? Or am I misunderstanding?

 

[iris89]

Hi FeathersinHair vbmenu_register("postmenu_219098", true);

I am saying history clearly shows that apostate Christianity adopted the Trinity and many other pagan things from the pagans. For any who doubt, just go to the library and read up on world history of the third and fourth century or go to the following link.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=388928&messageid=1108469292&lp=1108489334

Articles dealing with this fact will be found there and you can and should check both the Biblical and secular references given so you can see everything being said is correct in keeping with the principle given at Acts 17:10-11, "And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Authorized King James Bible; AV).

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[James the Persian]

iris89,

You seriously need to do some research into Church history. Your 'paper' is absolutely riddled with errors. For instance, Constantine never made himself head of the Church - the Church accepted no head but Christ and was organised into a Pentarchy of Patriarchs, each having ultimate responsibility for a geographical region. These were Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Constantine did call and chair the Council of Nicea, but he did not come up with any of the doctrine defined there. It is laughable to believe that the bishops of that council, many of whom bore the scars of the recently ended Roman persecutions, would have suddenly accepted doctrinal changes forced on them by an Emperor just because he asked nicely.

Secondly, I'd have to point out that the Trinity was well established in the East (you only have to look at Church Fathers like Irenaios and Athansios to see this) and not just in the west as you claim and that the Armenians (who are Oriental Orthodox) are staunch Trinitarians, contrary to your implication.

Thirdly, whilst you are correct that the Creed of the Council of Nicea was not completely defined (in that it ends with the words 'and in the Holy Spirit') it does indeed cover all persons of the Trinity. The issue addressed at Nicea was that of the Arian heresy and, as nobody questioned the nature of the Holy Spirit much about Him was left unsaid. The creed currently known as the Nicene Creed is more properly called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as it was completed, and all alterations forbidden, at the Council of Constantinople. The 'Athanasian' Creed is a later (probably medieval) western creed that has absolutely no relation to St. Athanasios and was never accepted in the east, so it can be said to have settled precisely nothing. The creed used in the west was further altered (uncanonically) at the local Council of Toledo in Spain, adding the filioque which is one of the two major reasons for the Great Schism. The filioque was utterly rejected in the east and as the 'Athanasian' Creed teaches this self-same doctrine it is not hard to see why we Orthodox reject it also - and always have done.

The fact that the Roman Emperors made the creeds legally binding has no bearing on the fact that their purpose was to clearly define the faith of the Church so that it could more easily be defended against heresy. What the civil government does in a state with an established religion is of relevance only to civil law and not religious faith.

I'll cheerfully debate any further aspects of Church history, the Church Fathers or the developments of the Creed with you but I'd hope that you would at least familiarise yourself with the faith and history of the eastern Church first. At present it seems very clear that you have little to no understanding of us or our faith and your views are very 'western'. I would like to just ask you one question though. Do you think Christ was lying when He promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church? The thing is that if the whole Church apostasized at Nicea and only later was rediscovered (presumably by some Reformer in the last 500 years) I can only say that the gates of Hell must indeed have prevailed against the Church.

James

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Because I'm not as familiar with the topic as James is, perhaps I am interpreting this the wrong way:

Are you saying that pagans were wrong in 'lending' the concept of the Trinity (usually, in most forms, the Maiden, the Mother and the Crone) to the Church? Or are you trying to malign the early Church for having adapted that idea from paganism?

Unless it is for another reason that I am not understanding (and that would be not be the first time such a thing has happened ), this borders on offensive to pagans. Please explain (to a layperson) what is meant by posting this?

 

[James the Persian]

Because I'm not as familiar with the topic as James is, perhaps I am interpreting this the wrong way:

Are you saying that pagans were wrong in 'lending' the concept of the Trinity (usually, in most forms, the Maiden, the Mother and the Crone) to the Church? Or are you trying to malign the early Church for having adapted that idea from paganism?

Unless it is for another reason that I am not understanding (and that would be not be the first time such a thing has happened ), this borders on offensive to pagans. Please explain (to a layperson) what is meant by posting this?

I'm pretty sure that she's attacking us traditional, Trinitarian Christians for believing in the Trinity because she claims (but has absolutely yet to demonstrate) that the early Church took Triadology from pre-existing pagan ideas. I don't think she's purposefully trying to attack pagans though, of course, by implication she is as she's adopted a Trinitarian/Pagan/Bad vs. Monist/Good position. I'd actually like to know quite what sort of a monist she is.

Personally, as a committed Christian, I would take the view (along with the Church Fathers) that any paralels in pagan religions are down to the image of God we were created with. In my view, therefore, a Trinity concept in pagan religions or, for instance, Hinduism actually lend weight to the truth of Triadology, even if it is obscured by fallen man's limited understanding of God. Many, of course, iris included, would disagree but give me the words of a genuinely wise Church Father over a self-styled modern preacher any day.

James

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Ahhh... I see. Thank you for the clear explanation, James. I really appreciate the research you've done on the subject. Your personal knowledge is obvious, and flows nicely within the lines of the thread. It was especially indicative of your wisdom that you were able to explain it easily to someone such as myself.

Please let me or someone else know if anyone is feeling that they're being attacked as a Trinitarian. (And, of course, Iris is always free to explain that she might have meant something else on the subject entirely.)

 

[iris89]

Hi Jacob Persul

FIRST, It is apparent that you did NOT check out the link provided and the source references provided there..


SECOND, My paper is NOT muddled with error, but correct. Also, my paper did NOT claim Constantine was the head of the church. It only stated the historical fact that he called the council for political reasons and got them to accept what would give religious unity in his empire with this information being taken from renown resources also given in the article. It is readily apparent that you checked none of them.



Also, there are several books going into the subject to even greater depth from a historical aspect and the information presented in my paper does NOT vary from theirs. Go get yourself a copy of this book, here is the data on it:

The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound

by Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting

This important work is a detailed biblical investigation of the relationship of Jesus to the one God of Israel. The authors challenge the notion that biblical monotheism is legitimately represented by a Trinitarian view of God and demonstrate that within the bounds of the canon of Scripture Jesus is confessed as Messiah, Son of God, but not God Himself. Later Christological developments beginning in the second century, and under the influence of pagan Gnosticism, misrepresented the biblical doctrine of God and Christ by altering the terms of the biblical presentation of the Father and the Son. This fateful development laid the foundation of a revised, unscriptural creed which needs to be challenged. This book provides a definitive presentation of a Christology rooted in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. The authors present a sharply-argued appeal for an understanding of God and Jesus in the context of Christianity's original, apostolic, unitary monotheism.

I read someone's elses copy, but I was told this book could be obtained fro from Atlanta Bible College at 1-800-347-4261 or 404-362-0052. Box 100,000, Morrow, GA 30260. E-mail [email protected]

I can provide data on many more publications if you so desire, but I do NOT appreciate being falsely accused of writing a paper riddled with errors as I am a very careful researcher.



THIRD, The trinity was well established in most pagan beliefs, but not in Christianity. Jesus (yeshua) Christ did NOT teach same, nor did any of the apostles. The word does NOT even appear in scripture.



FOURTH, The Trinity is nothing but a creedal belief; it is NOT a Biblical belief. For details go to:



http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=392643&messageid=1124237594&lp=1124237594



FIFTH, What you call the eastern church is nothing but a group that broke with the apostate church in Rome around the tenth century, but carried all the creedal false God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrines/myths/dogma with it so get real.

SIXTH, You need to do some research as your post trying to discredit my research product shows a lack of knowledge on your part. Now go to the link and start doing some research.



http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=388928&messageid=1108469292&lp=1108489334



And,



http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=388928&messageid=1123052469&lp=1123052469



And,



http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=388928&messageid=1108488823&lp=1109893851

And,

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=hector3000.future.easyspa...ermans.htm&fr=ieas-dns

And,

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=www.christianeducational....%2fv1i3.pdf%3b&fr=ieas-dns

And,

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=388928&messageid=1118622253&lp=1118622253


[note: on the last one you will find a source book by ("Jesus-God or the Son of God?" by Brian Holt published by tellway-publishing, www.tellway-publishing.com, you should read before you ever spoute off about someone's research product]


Also, get Anthony F. Buzzard’s book and read it and “The Two Babylons” by Rev. Alexander Hisop.


SEVENTH, I do NOT debate, I am not a debater, I am an independent researcher and produce accurate research products.

EIGHTH, You owe me an apology for what you said wrongly about my research product.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[James the Persian]

Iris,

I owe you no apology whatsoever - your post was riddled with inaccuracies. I showed them and you have yet to refute any of them. It seems I have done more research into the subject than you have. My research lead me out of the half-truths of the Protestantism of my youth and into the fullness of Orthodoxy, so I was not biased in favour of the east a priori. What then, makes you think I will read a heretical book that clearly takes the rejection of the Trinity as it's primary premise? I tell you I will not. Why don't you read the Church Fathers and find me a single one, however early, who rejected the Trinity? You may think your research is good but it is not. Neither is it objective, but is skewed by an a priori decision on your part to reject the Trinity.

You, on the other hand, do owe me an apology for stooping to personal attacks and attacks on my Church. For your information, we did not split from an 'apostate' Roman church in the 10th century (the formal date of the Schism is 1054, by the way). We never accepted the Pope of Rome as ruler over us at any point and the Schism resulted in one Patriarchate (Rome) splitting with the other four, the latter becoming the Orthodox Church. The Church split, yes, but we were never part of the Roman church to begin with.

I'll finish by repeating the question I ended my last post to you with (and which you failed to answer): do you believe that Christ was a liar?

James