Roots of the Trinity

The Gnostic Roots of the Trinity Doctrine

In the essay "Which Bible" we learned that the "older" texts are not necessarily the most reliable, and we saw
that it was during the time of Constantine that ecumenical Bibles were written. It was also during this time that
many Catholic doctrines were established, most notably at the Council of Nicea. In addition, we know that the
early "Church Fathers" were heavily influenced by the Jewish Rabbis.

The Trinity Doctrine is probably the most divisive of all doctrines among Christians. Aside from the question of
"Is Jesus God", which is also not taught in the overall context of the Bible, but that He is an exact image of the
Father, the questions remains as to where did the idea of a three-person Godhead come from?

We have no known New Testament manuscripts that were written prior to the fourth century. That means that
there exists a gap of over three hundred years from the time of the writing of the Gospel of Matthew and the
earliest manuscripts available to us today. Keep in mind that it was during this time that the Catholic Church was
evolving into what the early church fathers wanted it to become. The result is that no manuscript is free of
textual error. There is no reference to a Trinity anywhere in the Bible, so we need to consider the possibility that
all the existing manuscripts may have textual errors.

According to the Biblical historian Dr. C. R. Gregory:

"The Greek manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by the scribes, who put into them
the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings."

In order to determine the most reliable text, it is not the age of the manuscript that we should focus on, but the
age of the text within the manuscript. There is reason to believe that the worst errors had entered in the second
century. Some textual corruptions occurred simultaneously with the respective doctrinal changes as they were
being introduced in the early church.

All the extant versions containing Matthew 28:19 say that Jesus commanded the disciples to baptize "in the
name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit".   The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics says: "In all
extant versions the text is found in the traditional [Trinitarian] form. ..though it must be remembered that the best
manuscripts, both of the African Old Latin and of the Old Syriac Versions are defective at this point."

F.C. Conybeare said: "In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the
Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew."

What this means is that although all the early Versions say "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in Matthew 28:19, the
earliest versions do not contain the verse at all, not due to omission but removal! Therefore we can not be certain
of the motives why these pages were destroyed, but it becomes necessary to consult the early historical writings.
In order to determine what the text may have originally said, it becomes necessary to examine the testimony of
the early Catholic writers.

In the "Hibbert Journal", F. C. Conybeare goes on to relate: "In the course of my reading I have been able to
substantiate these doubts of the authenticity of the text of Matthew 28:19 by adducing patristic [L. pater:
"father"] evidence against it, so weighty that in the future the most conservative of divines will shrink from
resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all, while the more enlightened will discard it as completely as they have its
fellow-text of the 'Three Witnesses".

We may not have the original texts, but we do have "eye witness" observations of at least two men who had
access to manuscripts dating much earlier than those we have today. The preserved written works of these
eyewitnesses have been preserved, but it is necessary to verify their reliability. Then we may be able to see if a
Trinity as it is taught today was ever implied in the inspired writings.

Eusebius of Caesurae was also known as Eusebius Pamphili. He was born around 270 A.D., and died around 340
A.D. He was a Trinitarian, and during his life there were many doctrinal changes occurring. He would later
assist on the formulation of the Nicene Creed. We will examine some quotes in order to establish his credibility.

"Eusebius of Caesurae, to whom we are indebted for the preservation of so many contemporary works of
antiquity, many of which would have perished had he not collected and edited them."
-Robert Roberts, in Good Company, vol. III, pg. 10

"Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time. .. worked
untiringly for the acceptance of the pure Word of the New Testament as it came from the Apostles. .. Eusebius. ..
relies throughout only upon ancient manuscripts, and always openly confesses the truth when he cannot find
sufficient testimony." -E.K. in the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Aug, 1923 from Mosheim, in an editorial
footnote.

"Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesurae in Palestine, a man of vast reading and erudition, and one who has
acquired immortal fame by his labors in ecclesiastical history, and in other branches of theological learning.
Chapter 2, 9. .. Till about 40 years of age he lived in great intimacy with the martyr Pamphilus, a learned and
devout man of Caesurae, and founder of an extensive library there, from which Eusebius derived his vast store of
learning." -Dr. Wescott, "General Survey", page 108.

"Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most of what is known of the history of the New Testament."
-Peake Bible Commentary, page 596

"The most important writer in the first quarter of the fourth century was Eusebius of Caesurae. .. Eusebius was a
man of little originality or independent judgment. But he was widely read in the Greek Christian literature of the
second and third centuries, the bulk of which has now irretrievably perished, and subsequent ages owe a deep
debt to his honest, if some-what confused, and at times not a little prejudiced, erudition."
-Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature.

Approximately a hundred writings are either directly cited or referred to as having been read by Eusebius. Many
times he would search entire treatises in order to find one or two historical notices, and many of his searches
undoubtedly proved fruitless. We must ascertain whether or not Eusebius was sincere, and if he tampered with
the materials.   "The sarcasm of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. xvi) is well known. .. The passages to which Gibbon
refers do not bear out his imputation. .. Eusebius contents himself with condemning these sins. .. in general terms,
without entering into details. .. but it leaves no imputation on his honesty." -Mosheim, in another editorial note.

"Eusebius was an impartial historian, and had access to the best helps for composing a correct history which his
age afforded." -Mosheim

"Of the patristic witnesses to the text of the New Testament as it stood in the Greek Manuscripts from about
300-340 A.D., none is so important as Eusebius of Caesurae, for he lived in the greatest Christian Library of that
age, that namely which Origen and Pamphilus had collected. It is no exaggeration to say from this single
collection of manuscripts at Caesurae derives the larger part of the surviving ante-Nicene literature. In his
Library, Eusebius must have habitually handled codices of the gospels older by two hundred years than the
earliest of the great uncials that we have now in our libraries."
-F.C. Conybeare, in the Hibbert Journal, October 1902.

Now that we have established Eusebius as a credible witness, let's take a closer look as it relates to
Matthew 28:19.

The Evidence of Eusebius

"The most serious of all the falsifications denounced by him, is without doubt the traditional reading of Matthew
28:19." -Ludwig Knupfer, editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte.

He later wrote that his source material had been lost: "Through events of war I have lost all of my files and other
materials connected with the magazine." However, many authorities have mentioned works entitled
"Discrepancies in the Gospels", and "The Concluding Sections of the Gospels".

According to Conybeare:

"Eusebius cites this text (Matt. 28:19) again and again in works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long
commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany. .. in his famous history of
the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of
Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: 'Go ye and make disciples
of all the nations in My name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."

In Ploughman's "Demonstratio Evangelica" we read:

"For he did not enjoin them "to make disciples of all the nations" simply and without qualification, but with the
essential addition "in his name". For so great was the virtue attaching to his appellation that the Apostle says,
"God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in
heaven and on earth and under the earth. " It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the
power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, "Go ye, and make
disciples of all the nations in my name." (col. 240, p. 136)

In the Hibbert Journal of 1902, Conybeare wrote:

"It is evident that this was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and
fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text he had never heard and knew
nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works
written in his extreme old age, and entitled, the one 'Against Marcellus of Ancyra,' and the other 'About the
Theology of the Church,' he used the common reading. One other writing of his also contains it, namely a letter
written after the Council of Nice was over, to his seer of Caesurae."

In "Textual Criticism of the New Testament" Conybeare wrote:

"It is clear therefore, that of the manuscripts which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at
Caesurae in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of
baptism or of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It has been conjectured by Dr. David-son, Dr. Martineau, by the Dean
of Westminster, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names of the many) that here the received text could
not contain the very words of Jesus - this long before anyone except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to
himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading."

Dr. Chase, Bishop of Ely then raised the objection that Eusebius found the traditional text in his manuscripts, but
substituted the wording in his works so as not to corrupt the "sacred" Trinitarian wording. The same argument
presented 150 years earlier was revived by a modern Bishop in support of the forged text of 1 John 5:7-8:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are
one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one."

In a preface to the "Letters of Porson" we read:

"Bengel. .. allowed that the words (The Three Witnesses) were in no genuine manuscripts. .. Surely then, the
verse is spurious! No! This learned man finds a way of escape. 'The passage was of so sublime and mysterious a
nature that the secret discipline of the Church withdrew it from the public books, till it was gradually lost. ' Under
what a lack of evidence must a critic labor who resorts to such an argument!?"

Conybeare refuted Bishop Ely's argument:

"It is sufficient answer to point out that Eusebius' argument, when he cites the text, involves the text 'in my
name. ' For, he asks, 'in whose name?' and answers that it was the name spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to the
Philippians 2:10."

In conclusion of the evidence of Eusebius, the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics says:

"The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty-one times, either omitting everything
between 'nations' and 'teaching,' or in the form 'make disciples of all the nations in my name,' the latter form
being the more frequent."

Other Early Writings

"The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century so understood them, and dwells at length on 'the
power of the name of Jesus invoked upon a man by Baptism'". -The Author of De Rebaptismate, from Smith's
Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, page 352.

"In Origen's works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation
always stops short at the words 'the nations'; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the
words which followed, 'in my name', struck out. ¨ -Conybeare

"In the pages of Clement of Alexandria a text somewhat similar to Matthew 28:19 is once cited, but from a
Gnostic heretic named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text, but as follows: 'And to the Apostles he
gives the command:Going around preach ye and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and
Holy Spirit. '" - Excerta cap. 76, ed. Sylb. page 287, quote from Conybeare.

"Justin [Martyr]. .. quotes a saying of Christ. .. as a proof of the necessity or regeneration, but falls back upon
the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula. This
certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19."
- Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics.

"In Justin Martyr, who wrote between A. D.130 and 140, there is a passage which has been regarded as a
citation or echo of Matthew 28:19 by various scholars, e. g.Resch in his Ausser canonische Parallelstellen, who
sees in it an abridgement of the ordinary text. The passage is in Justin's dialogue with Trypho 39, p. 258:'God
hath not afflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even today are being made disciples in
the name of his Christ, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy,
being illuminated by the name of this Christ. ' "The objection hitherto to these words being recognized as a
citation our of text was that they ignored the formula 'baptizing them in the name of the Father and Son and Holy
Spirit. ' But the discovery of the Eusebian form of text removes the difficulty:and Justin is seen to have had the
same text as early as the year 140, which Eusebius regularly found in his manuscripts from 300 to 340."
- Conybeare (Hibbert Journal).

"We may infer that the text was not quite fixed when Tertullian was writing, early in the third century. In the
middle of that century Cyprian could insist on the use of the triple formula as essential in the baptism even of the
orthodox. The pope Stephen answered him that the baptisms even of the heretics were valid, if the name of Jesus
alone was invoked. ( This decision did not prevent the popes of the seventh century from excommunicating the
entire Celtic Church for its remaining faithful to the old use of invoking in Jesus name ). In the last half of the
fourth century, the text 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' was used as a battle cry
by the orthodox against the adherents of Macedonius, who were called 'pneumato-machi' or 'fighters against the
Holy Spirit', because they declined to include the Spirit in a Trinity of persons as co-equal, consubstantial and co-
eternal with the Father and Son. They also stoutly denied that any text in the New Testament authorized such a
coordination of the Spirit with the Father and Son. Whence we infer that their texts agreed with that of Eusebius."
- Conybeare (Hibbert Journal).

"Exceptions are found which perhaps point to an old practice dying out. Cyprian (Ep. 73) and the 'Apostolic
Canons' (no. 50) combat the shorter formula, thereby attesting to its use in certain quarters. The ordinance of the
Apostolic Canon therefore runs:'If any bishop or presbyter fulfill not three baptisms of one initiation, but one
baptism which is given (as) into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed. ' "This was the formula of the followers
of Eunomius (Socr. 5:24), 'for they baptized not into the Trinity, but into the death of Christ. ' They accordingly
used single immersion only." - Encyclopedia Biblia (Article on "Baptism").

"There is one other witness whose testimony we must consider. He is Aphraates. .. who wrote between 337 and
345. He cites our text in a formal manner, as follows:'Make disciples of all the nations, and they shall believe in
me'. The last words appear to be a gloss on the Eusebian reading 'in my name'. But in any case, they preclude the
textus receptus with its injunction to baptize in the triune name. Were the writing of Aphraates an isolated fact,
we might regard it as a loose citation, but in the presence of the Eusebian and Justinian texts this is impossible. ¨
-Conybeare.

How the Manuscripts Were Changed

The following quotations demonstrate how freely the scribes altered the manuscripts of the "New Testament", in
contrast with the "Old Testament" scribes who adhered to strict accuracy, diligence and reverence for the Holy
Writings. They also show the beginning of a Triune heresy at a time when the Trinity Doctrine was being
formulated, and how the "New Testament" writings were changed to conform.

In the case of Matthew 28:19, it is noteworthy that not a single manuscript or ancient version has been preserved
in its original wording. Dr. C.R.Gregory says: "The Greek Manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were
often altered by scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be
the right readings." -Canon and Text of the N.T. 1907, pg. 424.

"These facts speak for themselves. Our Greek texts, not only of the Gospels, but of the Epistles as well, have
been revised and interpolated by orthodox copyists. We can trace their perversions of the text in a few cases,
with the aid of patristic citations and ancient versions. But there must remain many passages which have been so
corrected, but where we cannot today expose the fraud. It was necessary to emphasize this point, because Dr.
Wescott and Hort used to aver that there is no evidence of merely doctrinal changed having been made in the
text of the New Testament. This is just the opposite of the truth, and such distinguished scholars as Alfred Loisy,
J. Wellhausen, Eberhard Nestle, Adolf Harnack, to mention only four names, do not scruple to recognize the fact.
" While this is perfectly true, nevertheless, "there are a number of reasons why we can feel confident about the
general reliability of our translations." -Peter Watkins, 'Bridging the Gap' in The Christadelphian,
January, 1962, pp. 4-8.

"Codex B. (Vaticanus) would be the best of all existing manuscripts. .. if it were completely preserved, less
damaged, (less) corrected, more easily legible, and not altered by a later hand in more than two thousand places.
Eusebius therefore, is not without ground for accusing the adherents of Athanasius and of the newly arisen
doctrine of the Trinity of falsifying the Bible more than once."
- Fraternal Visitor 1924, page 148, translation from Christadelphian Monatshefte.

"We certainly know of a greater number of interpolations and corruptions brought into the Scriptures. .. by the
Athanasians, and relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity, than in any other case whatsoever. While we have not,
that I know of, any such interpolation or corruption, made in any one of them by either the Eusebians or Arians."
-Whiston, in his Second Letter to the Bishop of London, 1719, p. 15.

"While triune immersion was thus an all but universal practice, Eunomius (circa 360) appears to have been the
first to introduce (again) simple immersion 'unto the death of Christ. ' This practice was condemned on pain of
degradation, by the Canon Apostolic 46 (al 50). But it comes before us again about a century later in Spain; but
then, curiously enough, we find it regarded as a badge of orthodoxy in opposition to the practice of the Arians.
These last kept to the use of triune immersion, but in such a way as to set forth their own doctrine of a gradation
in the three Persons." -Smith's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (Article on Baptism).

"In the 'Two Ways' of the Didache, the principal duties of the candidates for baptism and the method of
administering it by triple immersion or infusion on the head are outlined. This triple immersion is also attested to
by Tertullian (Adverses Prax 26). .. The most elaborate form of the rite in modern Western usage is in the
Roman Catholic Church." -Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church - pp. 125-126.

"The threefold immersion is unquestionably very ancient in the Church. .. Its object, of course, to honor the three
Persons of the Holy Trinity in whose name it is conferred." -Catholic Encyclopedia - page 262.

"If it be thought, as many critics think, that no manuscript represents more than comparatively late recensions of
the text, it is necessary to set against the mass of manuscript evidence the influence of baptismal practice. It
seems easier to believe that the traditional text was brought about by this influence working on the 'Eusebian'
text, than that the latter arose out of the former in spite of it."
-Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics - Article on "Baptism".

"The exclusive survival (of the traditional text of Matt. 28:19) in all manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, need not
cause surprise. .. But in any case, the conversion of Eusebius to the longer text after the council of Nice indicates
that it was at that time being introduced as a Shibboleth of orthodoxy into all codices. .. The question of the
inclusion of the Holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out, and a text so invaluable to the
dominant party could not but make its way into every codex, irrespective of its textual affinities."
-Conybeare - In the Hibbert Journal.

"Athanasius. .. met Flavian, the author of the Doxology, which has since been universal in Christendom:'Glory be
to the Father, and to the Son, etc. ' This was composed in opposition to the Arian Doxology:'Glory to the Father,
by the Son, in the Holy Spirit'." -Robert Roberts, in "Good Company" (Vol. iii, page 49)

Whiston, in his Second Letter Concerning the Primitive Doxologies, 1719, page 17, wrote:

"The Eusebians. .. sometimes named the very time when, the place where, and the person by whom they (the
forms of doxology) were first introduced. .. Thus Philoflorgius, a writer of that very age, assures us in 'Photius'
Extracts' that in A. D.348 or thereabouts, Flavianus, Patriarch of Antioch, got a multitude of monks together, and
did there first use this public doxology, 'Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit'."

Regarding the alteration of scripture based on liturgical use, Hammond, in
"Textual Criticism Applied to the N.T." (1890) page 23 wrote:

"There are two or three insertions in the New Testament which have been supposed to have their origin in
ecclesiastical usage. The words in question, being familiarly known in a particular connection, were perhaps noted
in the margin of some copy, and thence became incorporated by the next transcriber; or a transcriber's own
familiarity with the words may have led to his inserting them. This is the source to which Dr. Tregelles assigns
the insertion of the doxology at the close of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6, which is lacking in most of the best
authorities. Perhaps also Acts 8:37, containing the baptismal profession of faith, which is entirely lacking in the
best authorities, found its way into the Latin text in this manner."

The above material was referenced from this article about Matthew 28:19 from lightbearer.org.
__________________________________________________________________________

Kabbalah Roots of the Trinity

Although being a Trinitarian, Louis Berkhof, in his book "History of Christian Doctrines," says the earliest
perversion of Christianity was a form of Jewish mysticism: "marked by theosophic speculations and strict
asceticism," "Circumcision and Sabbath were held in honor; ...magic and astrology were practiced among them.
In all probability the epistle to the Colossians and 1st Tim. refer to this heresy." (p. 44)

No wonder, a Jewish mystic had already infiltrated
Christianity with Gnosticism and was viewed by everyone as God:

"But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the
people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:
To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.
And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries."

-Acts 8:9-11

(See "Valentinus: The Gnostic Trinitarian Heretic")

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of
science falsely so-called." -1 Timothy 6:20

The Greek word for “science” here is “gnosis”, meaning esoteric knowledge or wisdom. Those who understand
the Mystery of iniquity should recognize the identifying marks of the Jewish Kabbalah in Berkhof's observations
of theosophic speculations, strict asceticism, magic and astrology in this scripture:

"Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those
things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind." -Colossians 2:18

Paul would be in a position to know that the most deadly system of “profane and vain babblings” that the
Apostolic Christian Congregation faced was the "oppositions of science" from Jewish Gnosticism . One of its
most distinctive trademarks is still thriving today, in the form of Kabbalism/Freemasonry, just as it was 2,000
years ago: The worshipping of angels and the use of magic and astrology in their occult system, attempting to
control the destiny of the universe. The first few chapters Hebrews is another example, correcting the Jew's
emphasis on angels, putting the focus where it belongs - Jesus Christ.

Saul/Paul gave us the Biblical definition of Kabbalism or Jewish Gnosticism in Colossians 2:18. A more accurate
description of the entire system of Jewish theosophic speculations ("En Soph" and the "Sephiroths") cannot be
found anywhere: "...Intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind."
This is a perfect example of “going beyond the things written”.

In summary, the apostasy in the early Church and the apostasy or “falling away” of the time right before the
“Day of the Lord” are, at its foundation, both linked to Gnostic Jewish Kabbalah.

Berkhof also described the second perversion of Christianity as Christian Gnosticism. He says "It's original
form was rooted in Judaism, but it ultimately developed into a strange mixture of Jewish elements, Christian
doctrines, and heathen speculative thought." (Pg 45)

Here are some quotes from others who have noted this:

·         "Gnostic ideas, which, though taken over by heretics, were originally Jewish - a fact that has often, oddly
enough, been denied or disregarded." (The "heretics" he speaks of is what history has recorded as the great
Christian heresy - gnosticism) -Gershom Sholem, professor, Hebrew university at Jerusalem.

·        "The great heresy of Gnosticism, which nearly swept Christianity from the earth in the early centuries, is
admittedly Cabalistic." "The Cabala was the basis of Gnosticism." -Elizabeth Dilling.

·         "Gnosticism, which was Jewish before it became Christian, was an attempt to harmonize the New
Testament with heathen speculative thought." -Martin L. Wagner.

·         The Jewish Encyclopedia, speaking of Christian Gnosticism, says: "The principal elements of gnosticism
were derived from Jewish speculation." The Jewish Encyclopedia also notes who led Christianity into
Gnosticism: "It is a noteworthy fact that heads of Gnostic schools and founders of Gnostic systems are
designated as Jews by the early Church fathers."

Now, fellow truth-lovers, we come to the crux of Berkhof’s astute observations: He said that some of
Gnosticism's peculiarities were ... "absorbed by the Church and in course of time came to fruition in the Roman
Catholic Church with it's ... philosophy of a hidden God who should be approached through intermediaries (saints,
angels, Mary) and it's emphasis on asceticism."

The "philosophy of a hidden God" is the distinctive doctrine of the Kabbalah! The mysterious "En Soph" of the
Kabbalah was absorbed by the Church, and the distant, aloof and remote First Person of the Trinity doctrine
emerges through Gnosticism!

Saints and angels are the foundation of Kabbalah. Some examples are:

Metatron, who is actually Enoch, is termed as a saint. Shekinah, the female god of the Kabbalah who is said to
reside in the Most Holy with YHWH, emerges in Catholic theology as the Virgin Mary, who by the way, received
“Queen of Heaven” status after her (Jesuit Enochian Magick) appearance as the Lady of Fatima.

The intermediate, pre-existent Logos emerged into Christianity as the Second Person of Gnostic Trinitarian
theology. Needing a third “person” for the triple godhead, the Holy Spirit, God’s active force, emerges through
isolation of scripture to complete the mysterious "three in one" of the Jewish Kabbalah.

The Catholic Church absorbed the asceticism of the Gnostics, evolving into a system of celibacy (marriage
forbidden) for monks, priests and nuns, and the Catholic doctrine of marriage and divorce for the laity. Monks
and nuns live in recluse like hermits, in monasteries and convents. This is known as Monasticism.

Sometimes turning to the observations of those outside the box of Christianity can prove very enlightening.
Albert Pike was the high prophet of Freemasonry, and on the origin of Trinitarianism, in his book “Morals and
Dogma”, he says that Kabbalist "Jews were the direct precursors of Gnosticism", their Kabbalist doctrine being
derived from their long history of "intimate relations" while exiled in Babylon. In the index of the book, under
“Trinity”, you will find: "Trinities of the Kabbalists the origin of the Christian Trinity." Being an insider initiate
on such subversive matters and with the secret avenues he had at his disposal,
he would be in a position to know!

Large portions of the book are devoted to showing how the Sephiroth trinities of the Kabbalah, the mysterious
"three in one," got transposed into Christianity as the Trinity doctrine.   Many researchers have noted that the
one who played a key role in the development of the Trinity was not a Christian but a Jew, and his name was
Philo of Alexandria. Pike referred to him as a Kabbalistic “initiate of the mysteries”.

Ted Pike, in his book “Israel, Our Duty, Our Dilemma” also noted Jewish Gnosticism as the cause of the
confusion, but calls it merely “a subtle influence”. Being a Trinitarian as is Berkhof, he says that the damage it
has done to Christianity is only Catholic “asceticism, celibacy, and monasticism”. He singles out the Kabbalist
Pharisees, the bitter enemies of Jesus:

Paul cued us in on where these ascetic teachings come from:

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith,
giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with
thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." -1 Timothy 4:1-3.

It is no wonder then, that Jesus said "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees!" -Matthew 16:6.

As much as Gnostic Kabbalism has impacted Christianity, that is only one area that comes under the spell of the
Great Whore of Babylon. With her Gnosticism she has infected all the major religions and all other arenas:
politics, economics, all the sciences, philosophy, media, movies, and anything to do with the occult including
astrology. God tells us as much at Revelation 18:23--

"... for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived."

It is noteworthy that the powerful influence of Greek philosophy and the pagan "trinities" of the world also
played their part in the development of the Trinity doctrine. For instance, the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, &
Shiva, also originated in Babylon. However, the names of Brahma, Vishnu, & Shiva were transposed into the
Jewish names of the "sephiroths". It should be noted that the New Age Religion is most closely related to
Hinduism. So, it seems clear that Babylon the Great in her ultimate form will become completely manifest as she
rides upon the back of the political / military beast that she committed fornication with in order to produce a neo-
Babylonian New World Order and One-World Occult Religion.

Now that we see the true source of the unholy Trinity, further study of the Bible reveals the true nature of the
relationship between Jesus and His Father. But before moving on to that subject, let's look at a few scriptures
and facts of history that show beyond a shadow of a doubt that:

THE TRINITY DOCTRINE IS NOT BIBLICAL

While The Church of Latter Day Saints may be a Masonic organization, as is its counterpart The Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society, one of the long lost truths of the Bible that they brought to the light of day was the true
nature of the relationship between God the Father and Jesus. From mormonbeliefs.com we read:

The most popular Christian doctrine on the identity of God is the same that was most popular in Babylon and
Rome . In the early fourth century Constantine took Rome by the sword. He then felt that he should be the
spiritual head of all Romans—God on earth. He was a loyal follower of the sun god. The pagan priests would not
grant him absolution from his terrible atrocities (he even murdered his wife and first born son). A Christian
Bishop told him he could be forgiven through baptism; although no murderer can receive forgiveness in this life.

Constantine resolved to make Christianity the state religion. He reorganized Christianity into Pagan
Christianity. As a loyal follower of the sun god, he could not turn away from pagan tradition. At least ninety
percent of Roman citizens worshipped the Trinitarian gods of Babylon . He saw the way to become God on
earth. As an unbaptized, pagan Roman Emperor, he stood as the absolute head of his new Christian church; as
God on earth. He adopted pagan doctrines, rites, and institutions into Christianity by giving them Christian
names. Those who dissented were either killed or banished. Christian Bishops with their roots in paganism had
already begun changing Christian doctrine to pagan doctrine by the second century. Constantine made them
official Christian doctrine. In time these became Christian tradition. Few turn away from tradition. Most are
content to follow tradition and the masses.

Consider the source. “In the unity of that one Only God of the Babylonians, there were three persons, and to
symbolize that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed, as the discoveries of Layard prove, the equilateral triangle,
just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day. In both cases such a comparison is most degrading
to the King Eternal, and is fitted utterly to pervert the minds of those who contemplate it, as if there was or could
be any similitude between such a figure and Him who hath said, ‘To whom will ye liken God, and what likeness
will ye compare unto Him?’” (The Two Babylons, Rev. Alexander Hislop, p. 16)

Constantine assembled the Council of Nicea in 325 AD; and established the creed which became the center of
Christian belief in God—the Trinity and Virgin Birth. This Creed of St. Athanasius remains the foundation of
Christian belief today. “He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.” In essence it states that
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all three the same god. They are all uncreated, incomprehensible,
eternal, and almighty; and its believers are “compelled by the Christian verity, to acknowledge every Person by
himself to be God and Lord.” Despite the claims of its founder,
it is clearly the doctrine of three gods and not one......

.......Knowledge of God was soon lost after the days of Constantine . There were a few groups, like the Ariens,
who tried to retain their original doctrines. Those who opposed the doctrines of Constantine were condemned to
death for heresy. The renowned ecclesiastical historian Mosheim wrote of the time Constantine turned the
Christian church into paganism. “The rites and institutions, by which the Greeks, Romans, and other nations,
had formerly testified their religious veneration for fictitious deities, were now adopted, with some slight
alterations by Christian bishops, and employed in the service of the true God.”
(Ecclesiastical History, Century 4, Part 2, chap 4:1, 4)

Faith and confidence in GOD is only possible through a correct understanding of His character and perfections.
Faith cannot exist in a being whose identity we have no comprehension. The Creed of St. Athanasius, which is
the foundation of Christian belief in God, states, “The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and
the Holy Ghost incomprehensible… So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in
Unity, is to be worshipped.” Saint Augustine wrote of the teachings of Saint Ambrose (339-397 AD), “when God
is thought of, our thoughts should dwell on no material reality whatsoever.”
(Constantine’s Sword, James Carroll, p. 200)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, Paul had a few things right. He said, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth
not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15). "But to us there is but one God, the
Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
-1 Corinthians 8:6

The Apostle John said: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God,
and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3.) The most powerful warning against falling into the belief of
heretical teaching about the nature of the Father-Son relationship concerns the antichrist:

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?
He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:
(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the
beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." -1 John 2:22-24

Continue on to "Father and Son"

Back to top

Home

Home

Metatron

Metatron being depicted as the
angel that stopped Abraham
from sacrificing Isaac

Superstition and Pharisaic slavery are still rife in Kabbalism today,
enforcing circumcision and keeping the Sabbath, just as in the first
century. As the scripture also indicates, these were merely types or
shadows of the true Church, fulfilled in the Body of Christ.

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have
heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."
-1 John 4:3

The Apostle John also opposed this original form of apostasy. He said
they do not acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, and that
through Jesus, God the Father has also been manifest in the flesh.
(1 Tim. 3:16) This qualifies them as antichrists! History identifies these
as an apostate form of Jewish Christianity who rejected the Deity of
Jesus Christ, and these are the same Kabbalist apostates that Paul
contended with. This Jewish system of mysticism and magic that was
already in the world in John's time is also that spirit of antichrist "that
should come" near the end of the age of Satan’s dominion over the earth.

"Because Jewish gnosticism ultimately spread throughout
the ancient world to become one of the most compelling
philosophies of the first several centuries AD, it is natural
that it exert a subtle influence upon orthodox Christianity.
There can be little doubt that the contempt for the flesh
which resulted in the asceticism, celibacy, and monasticism
of the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD can be laid squarely at the
feet of Gnostic influence. If gnosticism, then, is a Jewish
creation as the Jewish Encyclopedia insists, we are forced to
conclude that the Pharisees introduced an element of
confusion into Christian theology which we still have not
emerged from."