• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Early Christians Rejected the Trinity

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
does that not indicate that belief in the Trinity is not a necessary doctrine for faith?
Let us consider following possibility: God has not created the material world, God has not created Universe. Yes, He has created it, but imagine the possible situation, that He has not created neither angels nor Universe. If He is not three in one, then He has no one to talk to, no one to love. He is sad lonely god in depression then.


That comes into conflict with Church dogma [in the view of my religion]:
God does not need anything, God is happy all the time. Thus, God must be Holy Trinity [in the view of my religion]. God is not the source of loneliness, no matter how developed and smart you get, you can always find a perfect partner for conversation:

"A time is coming and in fact has come when you will be scattered, each to your own home. You will leave Me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for My Father is with Me." John 16:32.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The problem with your postilion is that you only pull those people who support your view but never offer the counter points. The reason for the Church Fathers to deal with the subject. That puts you in the "biased" category.

The following knew about the Trinity starting in the first century (not to mention the gospel of John).

Ignatius a.d. 30–107


Justin Martyr a.d. 110–165
For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
The First Apology Chapter LXI

Ireneaus a.d. 120–202

Clement of Alexandria a.d. 153–217
O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, . . .
The Instructor. Book I Chapter VI

Tertullian a.d. 145–220

Origen a.d. 185–254

Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria a.d. 200–265

Cyprian a.d. 200–258

Novatian a.d. 210–280

Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria a.d. 273–326

Augustine of Hippo a.d. 354–430

Quotes from the Early Church Fathers: on the Trinity - Apostles Creed

Calling others bias, you have given a list of people who dont propagate the trinity mate.

How could Ignatius propagate the trinity? Where does he say he is a trinitarian? He says God is one, Jesus is one, the Holy Spirit is one, but he does not say they are a trinity.

Even Tertullian did not believe in the trinity like you thought he used the word trinitas. He was a subordinationist.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I’d just like to point out that even if you do not believe in the trinity there are other options than Islam.

I don’t believe in the trinity but I doubt I’ll ever be Muslim.
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
The problem with your postilion is that you only pull those people who support your view but never offer the counter points. The reason for the Church Fathers to deal with the subject. That puts you in the "biased" category.

The following knew about the Trinity starting in the first century (not to mention the gospel of John).

Ignatius a.d. 30–107


Justin Martyr a.d. 110–165
For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
The First Apology Chapter LXI

Ireneaus a.d. 120–202

Clement of Alexandria a.d. 153–217
O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, . . .
The Instructor. Book I Chapter VI

Tertullian a.d. 145–220

Origen a.d. 185–254

Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria a.d. 200–265

Cyprian a.d. 200–258

Novatian a.d. 210–280

Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria a.d. 273–326

Augustine of Hippo a.d. 354–430

Quotes from the Early Church Fathers: on the Trinity - Apostles Creed

These did there dirty work corrupting the gospel after the Apostles were dead.

But John did say - Little children, it is the last time: and as you have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know it is the last time. They went out from us but they were not of us; for it they had been of us, they would have continued with us. 1 John 2:18-19

The Messiah said he was the first and the last. Indicating that he was the one and only God manifest in the flesh. But they essentially said - no you are just the 2nd person.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
How can I speak for the "Christian God" when I'm not a Christian? After all, I don't believe in the "Christian God".

I believe the Quran teaches that the Jewish, Christian and Islamic God is the same God. I believe God is God, despite the different religions, churches, sects and divisions of religions describe God differently from a cultural perspective.
 
Last edited:

Brian2

Veteran Member
The Trinity doctrine as defined in the Athanasian creed is plainly not evident in any of the Christian Scriptures or any statement of the early Church fathers up to the 2nd century CE. Let me remind you, the Trinity as defined in the Athanasian creed claims that the three persons of the Trinity are uncreated, unlimited, eternal, omnipotent, and perfectly equal to each other. You will be very hard pressed to deduce these ideas from the Christian New Testament, including the Gospel of John.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

This shows that Jesus was uncreated and eternal.

Matt 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

John 3:34 For the One whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.

Eph 4:10 He who descended is the very one who ascended above all the heavens, in order to fill all things.

Jesus is everywhere and is omnipotent.

John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “To this very day My Father is at His work, and I too am working.” 18 Because of this, the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him. Not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

So Jesus is equal in nature to His Father.

There is one Spirit and this Spirit is called the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit. This Spirit comes from the Father and knows the mind of the Father. The Spirit is plainly uncreated and is a distinct person who is as much God as the Father. Indeed the Spirit is said to be the Lord and it is through the Holy Spirit that both the Father and Son come to a believer and abide with him/her.

Acts 5:3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

1Cor 2:11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

Isa 63:10 But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit. So He turned and became their enemy and He Himself fought against them.

2Cor 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
John 14:23 Jesus answered him, "If a man loves me, he will keep my word. My Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our home with him
John 14:26 The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name.

Jesus said John 14:11 "I am in the Father and the Father is in me."

The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ and is the Lord and is in the Father and the Son.
3 distinct persons in one God.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
باسمك اللهم

Let me get right to the point: an early Church father and Christian theologian, Tertullian (d.220 CE), a staunch advocate of the Trinity doctrine, confessed in his writings that the majority of Christians in his time, whom he refers to as “Believers” not only rejected the Trinity, but held it in contempt as nothing more than thinly veiled tritheism: “The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own dispensation. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves preeminently the credit of being worshipers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God)

Source: Against Praxeas; ch. III


Based on this quote, I have some questions for trinitarian Christians:

1. Are those Christians who reject the Trinity still considered ‘Believers’? Tertullian apparently thought so

2. If the answer to the first question is yes, does that not indicate that belief in the Trinity is not a necessary doctrine for faith?

3. If the Trinity is so evident from Scripture and the teachings of the Apostles, why, according to Tertullian, was it rejected by the majority of Christians as late as the 3rd century CE?


In fact, if you study the development of this Trinity doctrine, you will see that the earliest mention of the word Trinity in Christian literature is in the late 2nd century CE by the theologian Theophilus of Antioch (d. 183 CE). But curiously, he defines the Trinity contrary to the so-called orthodox conception of ‘Father, Son, Holy Spirit’, instead claiming that the Trinity is “God, His Word [Logos], and His Wisdom [Sophia]”

Source: Apology to Autolycus


In summary, it is quite apparent to me the Trinity doctrine was developed by certain theologians and then made an essential part of the Christian dogma by powerful Bishops. It was certainly not taught by Jesus of Nazareth or his disciples and apostles. It is certainly not taught in the Hebrew Bible, which zealously affirms unitarian monotheism.
Early Christians' beliefs were diverse.

A sizable number of them actually rejected the God of Abraham and Ishmael:

Marcionism - Wikipedia
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Based on this quote, I have some questions for trinitarian Christians:

1. Are those Christians who reject the Trinity still considered ‘Believers’? Tertullian apparently thought so

2. If the answer to the first question is yes, does that not indicate that belief in the Trinity is not a necessary doctrine for faith?

3. If the Trinity is so evident from Scripture and the teachings of the Apostles, why, according to Tertullian, was it rejected by the majority of Christians as late as the 3rd century CE?

John 16:12 I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth.

Clearly after the Jewish understanding of scripture it would take time for the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit to be accepted fully by the early church. However if we look at the scriptures it is taught there even if the doctrine was not fully developed until much later.
Non trinitarians are not accepted as Christians by trinitarians and visa versa usually, and that is practical as well as theoretical. How could a non trinitarian worship in a place where Jesus and the Holy Spirit are worshipped? How could a trinitarian worship in a place where Jesus is not given His due place as the Son of God who is uncreated and comes from His Father and is equal in nature,,,,,,,and where God's Spirit is seen as a thing?
Nevertheless I don't know how God views the situation. Possibly some of the divides that we men make are no real problem with God who can see someone's heart.
We are each asked to be humble before God.
Micah 6:8 He has shown you, O mankind, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?
Some scriptures could be seen to expand the definition of a Christian greatly.
1John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the Father also loves the one born of Him.
We humans love to see the differences and fight over what seem like small things from the outside of the church,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and sometimes they are small things.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
باسمك اللهم

Let me get right to the point: an early Church father and Christian theologian, Tertullian (d.220 CE), a staunch advocate of the Trinity doctrine, confessed in his writings that the majority of Christians in his time, whom he refers to as “Believers” not only rejected the Trinity, but held it in contempt as nothing more than thinly veiled tritheism: “The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own dispensation. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves preeminently the credit of being worshipers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God)

Source: Against Praxeas; ch. III


Based on this quote, I have some questions for trinitarian Christians:

1. Are those Christians who reject the Trinity still considered ‘Believers’? Tertullian apparently thought so

2. If the answer to the first question is yes, does that not indicate that belief in the Trinity is not a necessary doctrine for faith?

3. If the Trinity is so evident from Scripture and the teachings of the Apostles, why, according to Tertullian, was it rejected by the majority of Christians as late as the 3rd century CE?


In fact, if you study the development of this Trinity doctrine, you will see that the earliest mention of the word Trinity in Christian literature is in the late 2nd century CE by the theologian Theophilus of Antioch (d. 183 CE). But curiously, he defines the Trinity contrary to the so-called orthodox conception of ‘Father, Son, Holy Spirit’, instead claiming that the Trinity is “God, His Word [Logos], and His Wisdom [Sophia]”

Source: Apology to Autolycus


In summary, it is quite apparent to me the Trinity doctrine was developed by certain theologians and then made an essential part of the Christian dogma by powerful Bishops. It was certainly not taught by Jesus of Nazareth or his disciples and apostles. It is certainly not taught in the Hebrew Bible, which zealously affirms unitarian monotheism.

I think that...
Bread is flour and water and yeast. Flour is not bread. Water is not bread. Yeast is not bread. Bread is Bread.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
These did there dirty work corrupting the gospel after the Apostles were dead.

But John did say - Little children, it is the last time: and as you have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know it is the last time. They went out from us but they were not of us; for it they had been of us, they would have continued with us. 1 John 2:18-19

The Messiah said he was the first and the last. Indicating that he was the one and only God manifest in the flesh. But they essentially said - no you are just the 2nd person.
I guess the question is, who really did the dirty work and who really corrupted the gospel.... it goes both ways
 

Cherub786

Member
I’d just like to point out that even if you do not believe in the trinity there are other options than Islam.

I don’t believe in the trinity but I doubt I’ll ever be Muslim.

If you don't believe in the trinity and are looking for another religion, then obviously you are looking for a Religion that is clearly monotheistic. The Baha'i religion believes the founder of their religion is a "manifestation of God". It is obviously not monotheistic.
 

Cherub786

Member
I think that...
Bread is flour and water and yeast. Flour is not bread. Water is not bread. Yeast is not bread. Bread is Bread.

That analogy is definitely contrary to the so-called orthodox conception of the Trinity. Your analogy describes how bread has parts or components, and each component is not the bread itself, i.e., partialism (considered a heresy by orthodox, trinitarian Christians).
 

Cherub786

Member
Early Christians' beliefs were diverse.

A sizable number of them actually rejected the God of Abraham and Ishmael:

Marcionism - Wikipedia

Yes, I'm aware of the diversity of early Christians. However, today's Trinitarians consider Tertullian one of their church fathers, while they condemn Marcion as a heretic. Therefore, I cited Tertullian as a source in my claim that the majority of early Christians (whom Tertullian considers 'Believers') rejected the Trinity doctrine as contrary to the Oneness of God.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Some scriptures could be seen to expand the definition of a Christian greatly.
1John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the Father also loves the one born of Him.
We humans love to see the differences and fight over what seem like small things from the outside of the church, and sometimes they are small things.

The difference between Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians is not so simple in history. In fact rather bruttle for non-Trinitarians. Your citation would clearly be exclusivelyTrinitarian without context, and exclude non-Trinitarians.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
باسمك اللهم

Let me get right to the point: an early Church father and Christian theologian, Tertullian (d.220 CE), a staunch advocate of the Trinity doctrine, confessed in his writings that the majority of Christians in his time, whom he refers to as “Believers” not only rejected the Trinity, but held it in contempt as nothing more than thinly veiled tritheism: “The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own dispensation. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves preeminently the credit of being worshipers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God)

Source: Against Praxeas; ch. III


Based on this quote, I have some questions for trinitarian Christians:

1. Are those Christians who reject the Trinity still considered ‘Believers’? Tertullian apparently thought so

2. If the answer to the first question is yes, does that not indicate that belief in the Trinity is not a necessary doctrine for faith?

3. If the Trinity is so evident from Scripture and the teachings of the Apostles, why, according to Tertullian, was it rejected by the majority of Christians as late as the 3rd century CE?


In fact, if you study the development of this Trinity doctrine, you will see that the earliest mention of the word Trinity in Christian literature is in the late 2nd century CE by the theologian Theophilus of Antioch (d. 183 CE). But curiously, he defines the Trinity contrary to the so-called orthodox conception of ‘Father, Son, Holy Spirit’, instead claiming that the Trinity is “God, His Word [Logos], and His Wisdom [Sophia]”

Source: Apology to Autolycus


In summary, it is quite apparent to me the Trinity doctrine was developed by certain theologians and then made an essential part of the Christian dogma by powerful Bishops. It was certainly not taught by Jesus of Nazareth or his disciples and apostles. It is certainly not taught in the Hebrew Bible, which zealously affirms unitarian monotheism.
The Trinitarian concept is just that-- a concept. It is an attempt to try and possibly explain the relationship of Jesus and the Holy Spirit with God using the verses within the Gospel.

A key to understanding this approach is to also try and understand the use of "essence" brought forth to us by the ancient Greeks prior to Jesus being born, especially Aristotle and Plato. We gotta remember that the NT was written in Koine Greek, especially for Church in the diaspora, so they would be familiar with using this approach.

Here: Essence - Wikipedia
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If you don't believe in the trinity and are looking for another religion, then obviously you are looking for a Religion that is clearly monotheistic. The Baha'i religion believes the founder of their religion is a "manifestation of God". It is obviously not monotheistic.
There are other options beside being Baha’i, and other options beside religion.

Take liberalism for example.
There is no need in liberalism to blindly imitate any prophet alleged to have infallible instructions from God.

As a liberal I am free to follow my own path back to God
 

eik

Active Member
The Trinitarian concept is just that-- a concept. It is an attempt to try and possibly explain the relationship of Jesus and the Holy Spirit with God using the verses within the Gospel.

A key to understanding this approach is to also try and understand the use of "essence" brought forth to us by the ancient Greeks prior to Jesus being born, especially Aristotle and Plato. We gotta remember that the NT was written in Koine Greek, especially for Church in the diaspora, so they would be familiar with using this approach.

Here: Essence - Wikipedia
A more sceptical view of this "Trinity" given its role in fomenting strife and division amongst all classes of Christians is that the Trinity is not an attempt to explain anything, but an invidious conflation of the triad philosophies of Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus and Ammonius Saccas (founder of the Neoplatonists - 3rd century AD) with Christian theology for the sake of politcal one-upmanship.

The concept of the "homoousios" is central to philosophical triadism.

Two ancient documents disclose the origination of the homoousios in pagan philosophy and its links to later Christian theology. One is the Poimandres, the first tractate in the Corpus Hermeticum, a body Hellenistic Gnosticism dating back to 1st century BC. A second is the Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia - 6th century AD - which seeks to reconcile pagan philosophies with Christian doctrines.

A sketch of the pagan philosophy is as follows (Pier Franco Beatrice's article
The Word "Homoousios" from Hellenism to Christianity)

In the course of the relevation to Poimandres, Hermes learns that the Nous (mind) is the supreme God and the Logos (word) that proceeds from him is the son of God. Poimandres goes on to reveal that the Nous, who is the androgyne supreme God, by speaking, generated a second Nous, the Demi-urge, god of the fire and spirit, who crafted the seven archons that encompass the sensible world; and that their government is called fate.

The Logos, Son of God, from the elements that fall downwards, leapt up to the pure craftwork of nature and united with the Nous-Demiurge "because he was of the same substance" (homoousios).

The application of the term "Logos" is further divided between the Nous of the highest power (the supreme God), which is denoted as the "Logos of sovereignty," and the Pneuma. So Logos is something of an ambivalent term.

The concept, if not the term homoousios, characterizes the overall Hermetic conception of the Godhead.

The Poimandres along with other Hermetic tractates, elaborates with the support of Hellenistic philosphical terminology, the pagan doctrine of the Egyptian priests circulated under the name of Thoth-Hermes. In Egyptian religion, the Nous-Demiurge is called by different name Amum, Ptah and Osiris.

The Pneuma was identified by the Eqytians with Amum or Zeus. The Pneuma as a fine breath of the Nous, hovered over the waters of chaos before creation, whilst the Nous is associated with the "essence" of God.

In the Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia, five Eqyptian oracles proclaim the Nous or supreme God (also called Logos) and his son the Logos share divinity with the Pneuma.
 
Last edited:

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
I guess the question is, who really did the dirty work and who really corrupted the gospel.... it goes both ways

One thing is for sure. It wasn't the Apostles. Show me where they taught 3 persons in the Godhead/deity. Show me just one place where trinity is mentioned, or a statement about there being 3 persons in the Godhead.

No, what they taught was God is a Spirit. John 4:24

He did manifest himself in the flesh. But it wasn't another person. It was YHWH himself dwelling in a fleshly body that he took on, in order to shed blood for man's sin.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
A more sceptical view of this "Trinity" given its role in fomenting strife and division amongst all classes of Christians is that the Trinity is not an attempt to explain anything, but an invidious conflation of the triad philosophies of Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus and Ammonius Saccas (founder of the Neoplatonists - 3rd century AD) with Christian theology for the sake of politcal one-upmanship.

The concept of the "homoousios" is central to philosophical triadism.

Two ancient documents disclose the origination of the homoousios in pagan philosophy and its links to later Christian theology. One is the Poimandres, the first tractate in the Corpus Hermeticum, a body Hellenistic Gnosticism dating back to 1st century BC. A second is the Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia - 6th century AD - which seeks to reconcile pagan philosophies with Christian doctrines.

A sketch of the pagan philosophy is as follows (Pier Franco Beatrice's article
The Word "Homoousios" from Hellenism to Christianity)

In the course of the relevation to Poimandres, Hermes learns that the Nous (mind) is the supreme God and the Logos (word) that proceeds from him is the son of God. Poimandres goes on to reveal that the Nous, who is the androgyne supreme God, by speaking, generated a second Nous, the Demi-urge, god of the fire and spirit, who crafted the seven archons that encompass the sensible world; and that their government is called fate.

The Logos, Son of God, from the elements that fall downwards, leapt up to the pure craftwork of nature and united with the Nous-Demiurge "because he was of the same substance" (homoousios).

The application of the term "Logos" is further divided between the Nous of the highest power (the supreme God), which is denoted as the "Logos of sovereignty," and the Pneuma. So Logos is something of an ambivalent term.

The concept, if not the term homoousios, characterizes the overall Hermetic conception of the Godhead.

The Poimandres along with other Hermetic tractates, elaborates with the support of Hellenistic philosphical terminology, the pagan doctrine of the Egyptian priests circulated under the name of Thoth-Hermes. In Egyptian religion, the Nous-Demiurge is called by different name Amum, Ptah and Osiris.

The Pneuma was identified by the Eqytians with Amum or Zeus. The Pneuma as a fine breath of the Nous, hovered over the waters of chaos before creation, whilst the Nous is associated with the "essence" of God.

In the Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia, five Eqyptian oracles proclaim the Nous or supreme God (also called Logos) and his son the Logos share divinity with the Pneuma.
I don't accept the supposed relationship with neighboring philosophies on this, but I do know that there's a compromise of sorts in the Nicene Creed with the intent of reigning in those in Arianism that actually was successful in doing as such. Therefore, if one reads the Creed carefully, they may note that inconsistency, but it is very subtle.
 
Top