Monday, September 14, 2009

History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST (part 1)

(From the RDB Files)

The History of the Development of the Trinity Doctrine
(part 1 of 7) View Entire File

(The earliest parts of this history are somewhat speculative concerning their influence on the trinity doctrine of Christendom. They get more certain as we go along until, when we reach Alexandria near the end of part one below, there is little doubt concerning the overall accuracy.) 

HIST Parts 3-5 examine the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. when the trinity doctrine was forced upon the church.)

1 It is certain that, in spite of the popularity of such concepts in the false religions surrounding them, the faithful Jewish people and prophets of the Old Testament never accepted a three-in-one God. It is true that the unfaithful among the Israelites often borrowed pagan gods, pagan customs, and pagan concepts (including Baal and Astarte) and added them to their God-given religion. But there is no record (scriptural or secular) of a trinity concept even among them.

2 Faithful Israel had only one God and He was always a single individual named Jehovah (possibly pronounced "Yahweh" or "Yehowah" in Hebrew - see the PRONOUNCE study), their Father in heaven - (Deut. 6:4, 5; Is. 64:8; Ps. 83:16-18). That is the concept known as monotheism (meaning "one person alone is God").

"The religion of the [Old Testament] and Judaism is monotheistic and personal. 1. In the [Old Testament] the words el, eloah, and elohim, from related roots, are generic designations of God. Alongside and alternating with them stands the individual, personal name Yahweh [Jehovah]." - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 2, p. 67.

Professor of ecclesiastical history L. L. Paine L. L. Paine, A Critical History Of The Evolution Of Trinitarianism, p. 4, tells us:

"The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there ... is utterly without foundation." [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
And Lohse states:

"From the very beginning, of course, Christians not only believed in God in the sense in which the Jews did, but they also believed in Jesus Christ." - p. 38, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, 1985, Fortress Press.

3 This, then, was the faith that Jesus passed on to his Apostles. This is the truth that the Apostles passed on to their followers (who lived and taught this very same concept up to at least 150 A. D.).
150 A.D.)

"In this period [1st century A.D.] churches were still regarded as synagogues, whose members prayed three times a day and fasted twice a week like Jews... They professed monotheism in the same terms as did the Jews. .... Within individual congregations they continued to think, argue, and act like their Jewish counterparts." - pp. 121-122, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), 1985, Fortress Press.

4 It was not until over 300 years after the death of Jesus that the trinity concept was fully developed, refined, and officially and finally accepted by Christendom through a decree by the Church at Rome. [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26-26a] (Also see the CREEDS study.)

"Speculative thought began to analyze the divine nature until in the 4th century an elaborate theory of a threefoldness in God appears. In this Nicene or Athanasian form of thought God is said to consist of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all equally eternal, powerful and glorious." - Encyclopedia Americana, 1944, v. 6, p. 619, "Christianity".

5 Yes, finally, by the end of the 4th century A.D., the trinity idea had been fully developed. The Roman Church had officially decreed the following points as being necessary for all Christians to believe:

There are said to be three divine persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - in the Godhead.

(1) Each of these separate persons is said to be eternal, none coming before or after the other in time.
(2) Each is said to be almighty, with none greater or lesser than the other.
(3) Each is said to be omniscient, knowing all things.
(4) Each is said to be true God.
(5) However, it is said that there are not three Gods but only one God.

6 But we should understand that in the more than 2,000 years from Abraham to the death of the last Apostle, John, Judaeo-Christianity had only one God, Jehovah ("YHWH"), the Father alone. (Cf. Ps. 83:18, KJV, ASV; Is. 63:16, ASV; and John 17:1, 3 - compare Jer.10:10, ASV).

But what about the powerful religious systems around them which controlled or profoundly influenced the entire known civilized world?

7 Babylon had a union of three gods who together represented all creation. This Babylonian concept was represented by the same equilateral triangle that represents the trinity concept in Christendom today.[27, 28, 29]

8 It is probable that this three-in-one god concept spread to India and Egypt at a very early date. Due to the perishable quality of much of the earliest writings in Egypt we get only glimpses of this concept in that land from a period before 700 B. C.[30, 31, 32] (It is abundantly clear from Egyptian sources in 200 B. C., but this will be covered when we discuss the powerful influence of Alexandria, Egypt.)
Morenz tells us, in fact:

"The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians .... Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology." - Egyptian Religion.

And noted trinitarian scholar Dr. M.G. Easton tells us:

"The Egyptians believed in a resurrection and future life, as well as in a state of rewards and punishments dependent on our conduct in this world. The judge of the dead was Osiris, who had been slain by Set, the representative of evil, and afterwards restored to life. His death was avenged by his son Horus, whom the Egyptians invoked as their "Redeemer." Osiris and Horus, along with Isis, formed a trinity, who were regarded as representing the sun-God under different forms." – Easton's Bible Dictionary, Thomas Nelson Publ.

9 India had a clearly defined trinity concept dating back to 300 B. C. at least.[33] The Brahmanas (probably composed about 800 B. C.) frequently mention the vedic triad.[33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43]

10 Understandably, some members of Christendom refuse to admit the close relationship between ancient triads and pantheism and the "modern" trinity doctrine of Christendom. If we closely examine the ancient Hindu pantheistic triad, however, there is no mistaking its close kinship with the trinity doctrine adopted more recently by Christendom: The One "universal self-existing world soul" is composed of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva who were worshiped equally and were merely different manifestations of the One.
The book The Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals admits, regarding the ancient Hindu trinity that was taught centuries before the first Christians:

"Siva is one of the gods of the Trinity. He is said to be the god of destruction. The other two gods are Brahma, the god of creation and Vishnu, the god of maintenance.... To indicate that these three processes are one and the same the three gods are combined in one form." - Published by A. Parthasarathy, Bombay. (As quoted in ti-E, p. 12.)

11 Yes, the ancient Hindu religionists who really believed in a single force or God found themselves unable to compete with the popularity of the many gods being worshiped throughout ancient India. So, in order to gain influence over the largest number of their countrymen, they actually compromised their belief and borrowed the trinity concept (probably right from its source in ancient Babylon), selected three of the most popular Indian gods, and incorporated them into their "One True God." - "I, the supreme indivisible Lord am three - Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva."[43]

12 We find that this Babylonian concept was popular with her "daughters" (her religious offspring), including India and Egypt, for hundreds of years while tiny, insignificant Israel stubbornly clung to her one, single-person God. Then, about 550 B. C., the rise of the extremely influential Greek philosophy/mystery religions began. Pythagoras (about 550 B.C.) may have been the founder of Greek philosophy and mystery religions. Certainly he was the earliest of the most influential Greek philosopher/religionists.

13 Pythagoras spent years studying with Egyptian, Babylonian, and Hindu religionists. When he finally returned to Greece, he formed a religious organization based on his knowledge gained in those foreign lands. He promoted a numerical symbolism in which he taught that God is number. More specifically, the Pythagoreans actually worshiped an equilateral triangle composed of dots.[44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50]

14 Although it was a secret religious organization whose "mysteries" were to be known only among its members, we have some clues to Pythagoreanism's deep "mysteries" that were borrowed from the religions of Babylon, India, and Egypt. Medieval numerologists, for example, admitted that they borrowed this mysterious knowledge from Pythagoreanism: The number three stands for "Trinity and extension of Godhead." [51]

Aristotle said (over 300 years before Christ):

"All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bound by threes, for the end, and the middle, and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the trinity."[52]

15 So it appears that this "holy" number three used to "worship the gods" in unity came down from Babylon through Egypt and India, and through the extremely influential Pythagoras to the ancient Greek philosophy/mystery religions and even to Plato himself. [53, 54, 55, 56-56a]

16 From Pythagoras (550 B. C.) until its decline (about 550 A. D.) the great influence of the Greek philosophy/mystery religions was spread by Pythagoreans, Platonists, Neopythagoreans, and finally Neoplatonists.

"NEO-PYTHAGOREANISM...appeared during the first century B. C. [the faithful Jews were still clinging to their faith in a single one-person God, Jehovah the Father] in Rome, whence it traveled to Alexandria (the sect's chief center) where it flourished until Neo-Platonism absorbed it in the 3rd century A. D." [57]

Neo-Pythagoreanism was mainly the old Pythagoreanism with some borrowing from Plato, Aristotle, and Stoicism.

"They appear to have regarded Pythagoras as a divine being [founders of religions tend to `develop' into a divinity or deity for that religion after a period of time] a status which he shared with certain numbers also, particularly one, three, and ten." "Neo-Pythagoreanism's importance consists chiefly in its influence on Neoplatonism ... and on Christian [?] Theology by Clement of Alexandria (150-220 A. D.)." [57, 58]

17 We are now at the point where the links of the trinity chain (from pagan Babylon to pagan India to pagan Greece) become enormously strong in their joining to Christendom: The Alexandria and Neo-Platonism links (along with the Rome influence, of course) were the critical connections that led directly to the Roman Church officially adopting the "Jesus is equally God" doctrine in 325 A. D. at the Council of Nicaea.

18 Yes, even if there had been no previous links leading back to Hindu India (and even Babylon), the study of the critical Alexandrian and Neo-Platonist influences would still be sufficient to expose the completely pagan origin of the trinity doctrine. The two are so intertwined that it is sometimes difficult to know how much one influenced the other and vice versa. In fact, this Alexandrian philosophy as a whole came to be known as Neoplatonism.[59]

19 Alexandria, Egypt, is probably the single most important source of the infiltration of an already popular pagan trinity concept into Christendom. We cannot fully appreciate its importance without a close look at this extremely influential city from its birth in the 4th century B. C. until its successful imposition of a trinity doctrine on the Roman church in the 4th century A. D.

Alexander the Great had the Egyptian city of Alexandria built in 332 B. C. (The Hindu Trinity had been established in India by this time.) Alexander had already stretched his empire into the plains of India, "and brought many [Hindu] native princes under his rule." [60]

As time went on, the ties between Hindu India and Alexandria became even stronger.

"Under the [Roman] Empire, Alexandria became the greatest trade centre in the world. The Roman Alexandrian merchants had numerous settlements in South India. .... Moreover, Clement, Chrysostom, and other early Christian writers speak about the Indians [Hindus] in Alexandria and their cults." [61]

Alexandria, Egypt, had even developed a trinity doctrine of its very own long before Christian times. It appears to have been a blend (not surprisingly) of Egyptian, Hindu, and Greek philosophy/mystery religions.

"This fusing of one god with another is called theocrasia, and nowhere was it more vigorously going on than in Alexandria. Only two peoples resisted it in this period: The Jews, who already had their faith in the one God of heaven and earth, Jehovah, and the Persians, who had a monotheistic sun worship [Mithras]. It was Ptolemy I [who died in 283 B. C.] who set up not only the Museum in Alexandria, but the Serapeum, devoted to the worship of a trinity of gods which represented the result of a process of theocrasia applied more particularly to the gods of Greece and Egypt [with a distinct Hindu flavor].

"This trinity consisted of the god Serapis (= Osiris + Apis), the goddess Isis (= Hathor, the cow-moon goddess), and the child-god Horus. In one way or another almost every god was identified with one or other of these three aspects of the one god, even the sun god Mithras [very important in the religion of Constantine the Great [96, 97, 98] which we shall see when we examine the Nicene Council] of the Persians. and they were each ; THEY WERE THREE, BUT THEY WERE ALSO ONE." - The Outline of History, Wells, vol. 1, p. 307, 1956 ed.

(It may be of some interest to note the name of the first god of this pagan trinity - Serapis and the name of the temple devoted to the worship of this pagan trinity - the Serapeum. The name of an Egyptian bishop and "a prominent supporter of Athanasius"[62] and "defender of the [trinitarian] Nicene faith at the Council of Sardica in 343 [A. D.]" [63] was Serapion. This name appears to be a praise to the god Serapis.)[64]

20 In addition to its own home-grown pagan trinity (and the trinity in its imported Hindu cults), Alexandria became host to Neo-Platonism (which also incorporated a trinity concept as it came down through Pythagoras, and then Plato, into the western world). From the time of Jesus until about 150 A. D. Christian teachings had been passed down in fairly pure form. As the highly respected (and highly trinitarian) Christian history text, Christianity Through the Centuries, states:

"...the writings of the New Testament were completed just before the end of the first century after Christ. Men who knew the apostles and the apostolic doctrine continued the task of writing Christian literature. These men were known as the Apostolic Fathers. Most of the literary works of these men were produced between 95 and 150. Certain well-defined characteristics appear in their writings. Their utterances are informal simple statements of sincere faith and piety and show little evidence of the philosophical training in pagan philosophy that one notices in the writings of Origen [in Alexandria] and Clement of Alexandria [and most who followed]." - p. 77.

21 The influence of Alexandria upon Christianity became so great that by the time the Apostolic Fathers had passed away (about 150 A. D.) it had "become the seat of Christian erudition and the Orthodox faith and was frequently torn by bloody religious dissensions."[65]

22 Alexandria's most noteworthy feature was its permanent passion for syncretism.[66]  Syncretism (like eclecticism) is a word that describes the way that the early church (after the death of the Apostolic Fathers) chose various ideas and doctrines from pagan religions and philosophies and incorporated them into the "Christian" church. The most influential center (by far) for this practice of borrowing pagan ideas and fusing them into Christendom was in Alexandria, Egypt.[67] It became known as the Alexandrian School[68] and the religious "Christian" philosophy it developed is known as the Alexandrian Philosophy.[69]

"Soon after the middle of the 2nd century [or soon after 150 A. D. when the Apostolic Fathers left the scene] a catechetical school [70] to instruct converts from paganism to Christianity was opened in Alexandria .... The men of the Alexandrian School were anxious to develop a system of theology that by the use of philosophy would give a systematic exposition of Christianity. They had been trained in the classical [pagan] literature and philosophy of the past and thought that it could be used in the formation of Christian theology....

"They developed an allegorical system [70] of interpretation that has plagued Christianity since that time. .... This method of interpretation of the Scriptures has done much harm to the cause of correct interpretation and has resulted in absurd and, often, unscriptural theological ideas." - Christianity Through the Centuries, E. E. Cairns, Ph.D., Zondervan Publishing House, 1977 printing, pp. 119-120.

"Influences were strangely mingled [in the Alexandrian School], the reasoning of the refined and imaginative Greek, the practical, positive Roman, the visionary, idealistic Jew, the mystic Hindu, all brought to bear upon pagan philosophy and the new teachings of Christianity. The outgrowth of this movement was Neo-Platonism, a name sometimes given to Alexandrian philosophy as a whole.... The chief characteristic of Neo-Platonism was the attempt to reconcile Greek philosophy [including, of course, Pythagoreanism] with the teachings of Christianity. In other words, the Alexandrian Philosophy may be described as Christian truth MODIFIED by philosophic speculation." - New Standard Encyclopedia, v. 1, 1952, "Alexandrian School."

(But what is really being done when the Christian truth is being "MODIFIED"?)
We find this understanding confirmed by The Encyclopedia Americana:

"At Alexandria, Egypt ... the first serious attempt was made by Christians [?] to ADJUST the facts and truths of the gospel and the relations of Christian doctrine to reason and philosophy. Tertullian, ... the first [in Christendom] to apply the word `Trinity' to the conception ... of the triune Godhead, and Origen [89] ... are the commanding figures of the period." - 1944, v. 6, p. 609.

(Again, what is really being done when someone attempts to "ADJUST the facts"?)

Remember that the influence of one philosophy/mystery religion became so great in Alexandria during this time that Alexandrian philosophy as a whole came to be known as Neo-Platonism. Let's briefly examine this extremely influential pagan philosophy/mystery religion.

23 As we have already seen - the chief characteristic of Neo-Platonism was the extreme effort to thoroughly mix the leaven of "Greek philosophy with the teachings of Christianity." Let us see what the leaven of the philosophy of Neo-Platonism included.

"Neo-Platonism started as a synthesis [blending] of Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Stoicism, adapted Jewish and Oriental [includes Hindu] religious elements, [and] crept, though professedly pagan, into patristic [early church] Christian theology. .... Its most potent phase [was] from 200 to 550 A. D. wherein it was the chief philosophy of classical paganism." - Encyclopedia Americana, v. 20, pp. 97-98, 1982.

"Neo-Platonism is a blend of almost all the major lines of philosophical thought which preceded its epoch; one of the most remarkable attempts in history to weave all the strands of existing systems into a single web of thought. Its greatest interpreter was Plotinus who was born near Alexandria in 205 A. D. and died in Rome 270. .... The influence of Plotinus and later Neo-Platonists on Christian theology is of immense importance." - An Encyclopedia of Religion, V. Ferm (ed.), 1945, p. 525.

24 Plotinus was a disciple of Ammonius Saccas of Alexandria (about 160-242 A. D.) who is considered to be the founder of Neo-Platonism. Saccas left no writings of his own, but his lectures greatly influenced Plotinus and others.[71]

Plotinus, like the Pythagoreans, had a high respect for the number three; and he makes great use of threefold distinctions." - The Greek Philosophers, Rex Warner, 1958, p. 221.

"Plotinus ... proclaimed that God is revealed in the material world in a trinity of manifestations" - p. 28, Bible Review, Feb., 1997.

"But what is God [in the writings of Plotinus]? `He' too is a triad …" – p. 610, The Story of Civilization, vol. 3, Will Durant, Simon and Schuster, Inc.

25 To make a long story short, Plotinus (and undoubtedly his influential teacher, Ammonius Saccas, before him) included an already popular pagan trinity concept in his very influential teachings of Neo-Platonism.[72, 73, 74, 75] Scholars of Church history constantly emphasize the tremendous influence of Neo-Platonism (which has to include its basic pagan-developed trinity idea) on Christendom which had begun to borrow doctrines, customs, and philosophy from paganism by 200 A. D.[76, 77, 78, 79] The 1983 Academic American Encyclopedia states:

"Neoplatonism had a profound influence on Christian and Islamic philosophy and theology." - p. 85, v. 14.

Next Page (Part 2)



  1. Matt13weedhacker

    Again! Yes, I know. Your probably getting sick of me by now. Anyway. Here's something you might not know about the origin Christendom's THREE-IN-ONE-GOD(S) concept.

    This something you won't find in the history book's unless you really go out of your way to dig for info on this shady character. His name is SIMON MAGUS. Ring a bell yet? Acts Chap 8 he is described as "a gaul of unrighteousness" who's "heart" is not inline with the truth. Then he dissappears from Bible history. But alot is said about him in the so-called Apostolic Fathers and Apologists.

    To be continued!

  2. Matt13weedhacker


    Justin Martyr ( 110-165 C.E.): 1. "...This man, then, was glorified by many as if he were a god; and he taught that it was himself who appeared among the Jews as the Son, but descended in Samaria as the Father while he came to other nations in the character of the Holy Spirit.He represented himself, in a word, as being the loftiest of all powers, that is, the Being who is the Father over all,...3...and had descended, transfigured and assimilated to powers and principalities and angels, so that he might appear among men to be a man, while yet he was not a man..." 1st Apology? Chapter XXIII.1,3 (Alexander & Donalsons ANF)

    Doesn't that sound interesting? The THREE-IN-ONE-GOD(S) concept taught by Simon Magus as him being a god consisting of "Father, Son, Holy Spirit"?

  3. Matt13weedhacker


    Irenaeus (130-200 C.E.): 1. "He, therefore, was glorified by many as a god; and he taught that it was he himself who, forsooth, appeared among the Jews as the Son, while in Samaria he descended as the Father, and in the rest of the nations he came as the Holy Spirit. That he was the highest power, to wit, the Father over all..." (Contra Haereses, I. xxiii. 1-4). Text: Opera (edidit Adolphus Stieren); Lipsiae, 1848.

    Irenaeus confirms it! SIMON MAGUS the god consisting of "Father, Son, Holy Spirit"!

  4. Matt13weedhacker


    Tertullian (145-225 C.E.): "For Simon the Samaritan also, the purveyor of the Holy Spirit, in the Acts of the Apostles, ... a Tyrian woman Helen from a place of public pleasure, a fit commodity instead of the Holy Spirit. And he pretended that he was the highest Father, ... for the purpose of deceiving whom he transformed himself, and pretended that he was a man to men only, playing the part of the Son in Judaea, and that of the Father in Samaria." Tertullianus (De Anima, 34, 36). Text: _Bibliothec. Patr. Eccles. Select. (curavit Dr. Guil. Bruno Linder), Fasc. iv; Lipsiae, 1859.

    Tertullian's version is slightly differen't he adds a woman as the holy spirit but confirms the basics of the first two!

  5. Matt13weedhacker


    Hippolytus (170-236 C.E.): "...For he said that, as the Angels were misgoverning the world owing to their love of power, he had come to set things right, being metamorphosed and made like unto the Dominions, Principalities and Angels, so that he was manifested as a man although he was not really a man, and that he seemed to suffer[40] in Judaea, although he did not really undergo it, but that he was manifested to the Jews as the Son, in Samaria as the Father, and among the other nations as the Holy Ghost..." (Philosophumena, vi. 19). Text: Refutatio Omnium Haeresium (ediderunt Lud. Duncker et F.G. Schneidewin); Gottingae, 1859.

    Once again SIMON the THREE-IN-ONE false god.

    But wait there's more!

  6. Matt13weedhacker


    Epiphanius ( 2nd/3rd Century?): 1. “From the time of Christ to our own day the first heresy was that of Simon the magician, and though it was not correctly and distinctly one of the Christian name, yet it worked great havoc by the corruption it produced among Christians. … by saying that he was the Great Power of God and had come down from above. And he told the Samaritans that he was the Father, and the Jews that he was the Son...” (Contra Haereses, ii. 1-6). Text: Opera (edidit G. Dindorfius); Lipsiae, 1859.

    SIMON = "Great Power of God from above[=holy spirit], Father, Son"!

  7. Matt13weedhacker


    Origen (2nd/3rd Century?): (5 :62) v.62 “...But Celsus is ignorant that the Simonians in no way confess that Jesus is the Son of God, but they say that Simon is the Power of God, … (6:2) vi. ii. For the former (Simon) pretended he was the Power of God, which is called Great, and the latter (Dositheus) that he too was the Son of God...” Origenes (Contra Celsum, i. 57; v. 62; vi. ii). Text (edidit Carol. Henric. Eduard); Lommatzsch; Berolini, 1846.

    Origen (2nd/3rd Century?): "There was also Simon the Samaritan … he desired to spread the glory of his name, … quoted from the Acts of the Apostles; ...having proved that Simon was in no respect divine." Origen, Contra Celsum (LVII), Schaff 421-422. Accessible online at: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

    While Origen's account does contain other details, he does show he claimed to be "divine" "The Great Power of God" and "The Son of God".

  8. Matt13weedhacker


    Philastrius ( ? ): “Simon, the magician, a Samaritan … saying that he was some Power of God, above all powers. Whom the Samaritans worship as the Father...” (De Haeresibus, i). Text: Patres Quarti Ecclesiae Saeculi (edidit D.A.B. Caillau); Paris, 1842.

    JEROME Hieronymus (4th Century): "Of whom there is one Simon, a Samaritan, whom we read of in the Acts of the Apostles, who said he was some Great Power. And among the rest of the things written in his volumes, he proclaimed as follows: "I am the Word of God; I am the glorious one, I the Paraclete, the Almighty, I the whole of God." (In Matthaeum, IV. xxiv. 5). Text: S. Eusebii Hieronymi Comment.; Migne Patrol. Grec., VII. col. 176.

    Jerome is specific here: SIMON = "The Word, The Paraclete, The Almighty, - the (whole) of God" = TRINITY GOD

  9. Matt13weedhacker


    Theodoretus ( ? ): "...Whereas he called himself the Boundless Power, and (said) that he had appeared to the Jews as the Son, and to the Samaritans he had descended as the Father, and among the rest of the nations he had gone up and down as the Holy Spirit." (Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium, I. i.). Text: Opera Omnia (ex recensione Jacobi Simondi, denuo edidit Joann. Ludov. Schulze); Halae, 176.

    Starting to see where I'm comming from?

  10. Matt13weedhacker


    The Apocryphal Acts of Peter (ca. 150-200 C.E.): "...Simon, ... further that he said he was a great power of God and without God he did nothing. Is not this the Christ?...Perchance also he will now enter into Rome; for yesterday they besought him with great acclamations, saying unto him: Thou art God in Italy, thou art the saviour of the Romans: haste quickly unto Rome..." (Acts of Peter XII, translated by M.R. James.

    [NOTE: "This being said, small fragments of a work written by him (or by one of his later followers using his name), the Apophasis Megalé ("Great Pronouncement") are still extant, and seem to reveal a fairly well-developed Gnostic metaphysics." [3] G.R.S. Mead. Simon Magus: An Essay on the Founder of Simonianism Based on the Ancient Sources with a Re-evaluation of his Philosophy and Teachings. (Chicago: Ares, 1985), 49-91. Also online as Part III: The Theosophy of Simon. Retrieved May 15, 2008.]

  11. Matt13weedhacker


    This is my main point in sharing this info:

    In the COMPLETE ABSENCE of any mention of a trinity or THREE-IN-ONE-GOD(S) CONCEPT in the completed Bible and of the earliest 13 post-biblical Christian writers, it is amazing that you do find this CONCEPT taught by one of the earlest heretics from Christianity.

    This goes much deeper than Simon Magus to. He was the founder of the Gnostics, which brings me to my next point in the UNOFICIAL HISTORY OF THE TRINITY which you won't find in the main texts books of Christendom.

    VALENTINUS the next link in the Trinity tradition!

  12. Matt13weedhacker


    "Consequently one now began to talk of a divine 'Trinity'. In the Nicene Confession-formula of A.D. 325 this concept had been, significantly, lacking. 'Trinitas'- Trias did not signify a kind of 'unity of three', but simply 'three-ness'. In the adoption of this concept the Gnosticising tendency also showed itself For the ' Trias' -'Trinitas' was first adopted as a doctrinal terminus technicus in the period of the Church's controversy with Gnosticism. As a doctrinal concept, 'trinitas' was of Gnostic origin. Trias - trinitas was one of a number of numerical-concepts employed in Gnostic pleroma speculation, where there was, with the trias, a dyas, tetras, hexas, an ogdoas, dekas, and dodekas. The Valentinian Gnostic had been, accordingly, so far as the existing sources permit us to know, the first Christian theologian to designate the Father, Son and Spirit specifically as a Trias." (The Formation of Christian Dogma, An Historical Study of its Problems; Martin Werner, p252)

    Valentinus the first to call God a "trinity" how interesting!

  13. Matt13weedhacker


    Check this FROIDIAN SLIP which was brought up at the Council of Nicea (325):

    "...These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato..." (Source: Logan A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), 'On the Holy Church': Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ).

    Gnostics "invented" and were the "first" to teach the THREE-IN-ONE-GOD(S)!

  14. Matt13weedhacker

    Note this major FROIDIAN SLIP made by Tertullian!

    "...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..." [Against Praxeas Chap 3, ANF Alexander & Donaldsons]

    "All simple people, not to say the unwise and unprofessional (WHO ALWAYS CONSTITTE THE MAJORITY OF BELIEVERS), since even the rule of faith itself removes them from the plurality of the gods of this world to the one true God, become GREATLY TERRIFIED through their failure to understand that, while He must be believed to be one, it is along with his economy, because they judge that economy, implying a number and arrangement of TRINITY..." [Alexander Souter's translation]


  15. Matt13weedhacker

    So the majority of beleivers were "GREATLY TERRIFIED" at the "TRINITY" of Tertullian.

    Interesting Latin word (expavescunt)translated as "startled at" or "greatly terrified" in Against Praxeas Chapter 3. It is not the ordinary word for fear in Latin, but an intensive word denoting "exceedingly terrified/to dread exceedingly/to be terrified, fear greatly, dread".

    This passage in Tertullian is hardly ever mentioned by trinitarian commentators.

    I wonder why?

  16. Matt13weedhacker


    "...The Father uncovers his bosom, which is the Holy Spirit, revealing his secret. His secret is his Son!..." (Valentinus. Gospel of Truth. Verse 17. English translation by Patterson Brown).

    "...The Cappadocian fathers in formulating the Eastern doctrine of the Trinity did not pull perichoresis out of nowhere. The Trinity had already been put forward as such in the early second century by the pre-eminent Gnostic Christian Valentinus. Perichoresis and coinherence which are the pillars of a true understanding of God, were an experiential reality for a great many people within primitive Christianity who understood the mystery of the Kingdom of God...Ironically, Marcellus of Ancyra one of the participants at the Council of Nicea was also concerned with what he saw as illegitimate Platonic and Hermetic influences within the Church at the time the Nicean Creed was being hammered out. Marcellus, arguing against the direction the Nicean Creed was being steered by the Cappadocian Fathers, warned that the three hypostases and three persons of Father Son and Holy Spirit were in fact a Platonic invention infiltrated into the Church by Valentinus!..." - Baxter Kruger Perichoresis Organisation USA.

  17. Matt13weedhacker


    "....Now the Voice that originated from my Thought exists as three permanences: the Father, the Mother, the Son. Existing perceptibly as Speech, it (Voice) has within it a Word endowed with every , and it has three masculinities, three powers, and three names. They exist in the manner of Three ... -- which are quadrangels -- secretly within a silence of the Ineffable One." (from James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library, revised edition. HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1990.)

    Just another sample of a Gnostic "trinity"

  18. Matt13weedhacker

    Now lets connect the dots!

    Simon Magus is said to be the originator and founder of the Gnostic movement that took Christian ideas and blended them with their own. Valentinus inherited this idea ONE god made up of THREE HYPOSTASIS named "Father, Son, Holy Spirit." Now comes the interesting part. Simon pronounced himself "the Great Power from above" or the "Paraclete".

    Fast-forward to MONTANIST!

    To be continued.

  19. Matt13weedhacker


    Montanus founded a Christian sect calling themselves "THE NEW PROPHECY". He believed he was the "Paraclete" spoken of by Jesus that he would send. One of the Montanist Oracles, spoken by Montanus was:

    "I am the Father and the Son and the Paraclete." (Didymus, De trinitate iii. 41. 1.) (Assembled in P. de Labriolle, La crise montaniste (1913), 34-105, by Bates College, Lewston (Maine) 01/31/06).

    To be continued!

  20. Matt13weedhacker


    Notice the SIMILARITIES in teaching between Simon Magus, Valentinus, and Montanus.

    1. ONE god
    2. Consisting of THREE hypostasis
    3. the three called: (A) Father (B) Son (C) Holy Spirit.

    Montanus believed his "new prophecies" superseded the teaching of the Apostles and Jesus Christ. Tertullian, the FIRST so-called "Christian" to teach a "TRINITY" was a Montanist believer at the time of writing "AGAINST PRAXEAS".

    Proof comming - to be continued!

  21. Matt13weedhacker


    TERTULLIAN ( 145 to 225.C.E. ): "Meanwhile He has received from the Father the promised gift, and has shed it forth, even the Holy Spirit -- the Third Name in the Godhead, and the Third Degree of the Divine Majesty; the Declarer of the One Monarchy of God, but at the same time the Interpreter of the Economy, to every one who hears and receives the words of THE NEW PROPHECY; and "the Leader into all truth," such as is in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, according to the mystery of the doctrine of Christ..." AGAINST PRAXAES CHAPTER 30.

    The "NEW PROPHECY" here mentioned in the second last chapter of Against Praxeas, just happens to be the very name that the Montantist movement went by. Coincidence?

    I don't think so!

  22. Matt13weedhacker


    TERTULLIAN ( 145 to 225.C.E. ): "...if THENCEFORWARD the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not both believed in as Three, and as making One Only God? God was pleased to renew His covenant with man in such a way as that His Unity might be believed in, AFTER A NEW MANNER, through the Son and the Spirit, in order that God might now be known openly," in His proper Names and Persons, who IN ANCIENT TIMES WAS NOT PLAINLY UNDERSTOOD..."

    Another FROIDIAN SLIP by Tertullian, in the very last chapter of AGAINST PRAXEAS!

  23. Matt13weedhacker


    So can you see the link? The REAL ORIGIN of the "trinity"?

    ORIGINATOR = Satan the Devil inspires Simon Magus through his followers to Valentinus which is revived by Montanus = infiltrates Christianity via TERTULLIAN!

    In the COMPLETE ABSENCE of any Christian writer before Tertullian even MENTIONING a "trinity" let alone the full-FLY-blown "THREE-IN-ONE-GOD(S)-CONCEPT" this is a far more credible HISTORY of the Trinity Doctrine than found in the text books of Christendom.

    This based REAL-FACTUAL-EVIDENCE left in the ancient writers, whereas there is NONE for Christendoms claims until Tertullian the Montanist HERETIC!

  24. Matt13weedhacker

    I hope this gives some impetus to you brothers to further expose the UNSCRIPTUAL basis of the trinity. I wrote all this to give you further food for thought.

    I haven't even started on the corruption of the texts and manuscripts of the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists! I have a mountain of evidence that they didn't teach the trinity before Tertullian at least. Sir William Whiston who was Sir Issac Newton's buddy came to the same conclusion about Simon Magus etc. I haven't read his essay on it yet, I'd love to if I could get hold of it. I'm not trying to promote my own ideas this just some of the fruit of my research on the trinity. I hope it inspires you to publish further interesting blogs.

    Have a great day guy's!

  25. Matt13weedhacker


    One of the things trinitarians try to bring forward as proof that Jesus was "worshiped as (G)od" with a capital (G) is Pliny the Younger. It would be early proof indeed, if it were really what they say it is. Lets put it before the court and cross examine it.

    See what you think!

  26. Matt13weedhacker


    Here's a typical English version they will quote, and the Latin text below:

    "GAIUS PLINIUS TO THE EMPEROR TRAJAN...They stated that the sum total of their error or misjudgment, had been coming to a meeting on a given day before dawn, and singing responsively a hymn to CHRIST AS TO GOD, swearing with a holy oath not to commit any crime, never to steal or commit robbery, commit adultery, fail a sworn agreement or refuse to return a sum left in trust." - Translated by William Harris, Prof. Em. Middlebury College,

    PLINY AND THE CHRISTIANS: Lib. X, 96: C: "PLINIUS TRAIANO IMPERATORI ...Affirmabant autem hanc fuisse summam vel culpae suae vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque CHRISTO QUASI DEO dicere secum invicem seque sacramento
    non in scelus aliquod obstringere"

  27. Matt13weedhacker


    On face value this looks like proof from a ancient pagan official that early Christians worshipped Jesus. Case closed for the trinitarians. Right?

    Before drawing any conclusions lets look at more evidence.

    To be continued!

  28. Matt13weedhacker


    Lets look at some other translations before any hasty conclusions are drawn in this case.

    Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96-97
    "They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so." - Early Christian Writings by Peter Kirby

    " Christ (as) to a god" a little bit differen't wouldn't you say? What does he mean by "(as) to"?

    To be continued!

  29. Matt13weedhacker


    To save space I'm just going to quote the relevant sentence instead of the whole section from now on. Here's another translation:

    Plinius Secundus, Epistles, X.96: "...when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god..." - Quoted in McDowell 1979, p. 83.

    Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96-97 "...sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god..."
    - Translation 1998, The School of Tyrannus

    Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96-97 "...singing alternately a hymn to Christ as to a god..." - (Epp. x. 96/97: Lightfoot’s translation)

    To be continued!

  30. Matt13weedhacker


    So far it looks as though the trinitarians might be right. But lets continue with the cross examination, things will become clearer later!

    Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96-97: "...chant verses antiphonally amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god..." - Translation by K. C. Hanson

    Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96-97 "...sing to Christ as if he were a god..." - Unknown Translator.

    I hate quoting sources without the exact refernce but this second one is a legitimate translation as will be bourne out latter.

    Note: "as (if) to a god" This puts a whole new slant on things. To be continued!

  31. Matt13weedhacker


    The critical phrase here is Latin: "carmenque Christo (quasi) deo".

    Now what exactly does (quasi) mean in Latin?

    CASSELL'S LATIN DICTIONARY: [Latin =] quasi = adv. as if. I. Of comparison of whole sentences ; 1, in hypothetical comparisons, as if ; a, corresponding to... b, ... often ironical, as if, just as if, ... 2, in pure comparison, as, like as, II. To compare clauses of words ; 1, to soften an unusual expression, as it were, a sort of ; ... 2, transf., as it were, almost, all but, ..."

    It means "as (if)". Cassel states "often ironical" to boot.

    To be continued!

  32. Matt13weedhacker


    (QUASI) "Latin, Almost as it were; as if; analogous to." ..."In the legal sense, the term denotes that one subject has certain characteristics in common with another subject but that intrinsic and material differences exist between them." [Source]

    A relevant point to keep in mind as we go along is: Would a pagan really understand the sutilties of Christian beliefs? Would he understand Jesus mediatorial role as High priest?

    Now the facts are that no manuscripts of Pliny's actual letter has survived to our day! All texts are based on a HEAVILY EDITED 15th Century printed texts by Avantius & Aldus made from a copy of a MSS that has since perished.

    To be continued!

  33. Matt13weedhacker


    Now this particular passage is quoted by two early Christian writers:

    Tertullian & Eusebius

    Tertullian is the OLDEST SURVIVING reference out of all of them.

    Lets see what he had to say next!

  34. Matt13weedhacker


    This quote from Tertullian, which happens to be the oldest source is virtually NEVER QUOTED by trinitarians!

    I wonder why?

    TERTULLIAN (145 to 225.C.E.): "...singing hymns to Christ and God..." - 1st Apology Book 1; Chap 2;(ANF) Alexander & Donaldson Trnaslated by Cleveland Coxe

    TERTULLIAN (145 to 225.C.E.): "...sing hymns to God and Christ..." - 1st Apology Book 1; Chap 2; - THE APOLOGY OF TERTULLIAN Translated and Annotated by WM. REEVE, A.M. London 1709. 2 vols. ; 8o. Reprinted in a second edition 1716/1717.

    Well, well, well! "to Christ AND GOD"!

    More to come! Evidence of trinitarian cover up!

  35. Matt13weedhacker


    Here's the Latin text of the relevant passage in Tertullians 1st Apology Book 1; Chap 2:

    Tertulliani Liber Apologeticus [II. 6]: "Atquin invenimus inquisitionem quoque in nos prohibitam. Plinius enim Secundus cum provinciam regeret, damnatis quibusdam Christianis, quibusdam gradu pulsis, ipsa tamen multitudine perturbatus, quid de cetero ageret, consuluit tunc Traianum imperatorem, adlegans praeter obstinationem non sacrificandi nihil aliud se de sacramentis eorum conperisse quam coetus antelucanos ad canendum Christo ET DEO, et ad confoederandam disciplinam, homicidium, adulterium, fraudem, perfidiam et cetera scelera prohibentes." - Text edited by F. Oehler, as revised by T. R. Glover.  Scanned by Sally Winchester.  Compared by Roger Pearse with the CETEDOC text 24/3/6. 
    [Source: the Tertullian Project ]

    Critical point: "Christo (et) deo" English: "(to) Christ (AND) God" = Two seperate entities.

    To be continued!

  36. Matt13weedhacker


    The last post was the original Latin text of Tertullian as it (actually) came down to us as far as the 19th Century, until, Hyper-Trinitarians got hold of it.

    Bishop J.B.Lightfoot, a Patristics Scholar who basically was the man responsible for the modern critical texts of the Apostolic Fathers as we no them today, and was a prime mover behind the "Deity of Jesus Christ" movement, could not handle Tertullian's actual reading, because it conflicted with his preconceived ideas and beliefs and actually took the liberty of changing the modern critical text!

    From: "Christo (ET) deo"
    To: "Chisto (UT) deo"

    Latin "et" = "and"
    Latin "ut" = "as"

    To be continued!

  37. Matt13weedhacker


    MODERN EMENDED TEXT = Apologeticum (c. 2) Emended Latin text: "...canendum Christo (ut) deo..."

    ORIGINAL TEXT = Tertulliani Liber Apologeticus
    [II. 6]: "...canendum Christo (et) deo..."

    MODERN TEXT (PLINY) = Lib. X, 96: C: "...carmenque Christo (quasi) deo..."

    TERTULLIAN says: "to Christ (AND) God"
    LIGHTFOOT says: "to Christ (AS) God"
    PLINY says: "to Christ (as-if) a god"

    So once again trinitarians have been caught red handed forging and re-doctoring critical master texts to support MODERN TRINITARIAN BELIEFS!


  38. Matt13weedhacker


    Eusebius did quote this passage, but, my main computer is down at the moment and his translation and original Greek text is not available - at this time. Going by memory, the English translations said: "...singing to Christ as God" but I'm pretty sure the Greek text could be read as "as (of) a god" (theos) was in the genitive case without the article.

    Lightfoot was upset with this reading as well!

    Got to tend to my family now, and other more important responsibilities.

    Hope this has been interesting!

  39. Matt13weedhacker a website dedicated to the studies of Tertullians writings has this information:


    “The first of these 'ERRORS' [in Tertullian's Apology] is the reading Christo et Deo, given by most of the MSS of the Apology, while Pliny (see above) writes Christo quasi Deo.”

    … “Prof. Merrill does well to place little weight on this discrepancy, for, as Lightfoot observes (op. cit. i 57, note), there can be no question that the correct reading is UT. Oehler indeed accepted et, and protested against Scaliger's EMENDATION (followed by Havercamp) as 'contra librorum optimorum et paene omnium fidem.' But the only passage which he adduces in support of the reading which he retains is De Spectac. 25 ἐἰς αἰῶνας ἀπ' αἰῶνος alii omnino dicere nisi Deo et Christo', and here the reversed order is surely decisive against a parallelism."

    Just some extra confirmation.

  40. Matt13weedhacker

    So, it appears as though the "great deity proclamation" is not so "great" after all!

  41. Matt13weedhacker REQUESTED REFERENCES Elijah!

    Justin Martyr 1st Apology Chap 23:1,2;
    Irenaeus Against Heresies Bk 1; Chap 23:1-4;
    Tertullian On the Soul Chap 34, 36; = De Anima
    Hippolytus Refutation of all Heresies 6:9 = Philosphumena
    Epiphanius Panarion 2:1-6 = Contra Haereses
    Origen Against Celcus 5:62; 6:2;
    Philastrius Episcopus Liber De Haeresibus Bk 1; Chap 57? = Possibly Hippolytus? = “I am not sure of this reference!”
    Jeromes Commentary on Matthew Bk 5; Chap 24:5; = In Matthew
    Theodoretus (Theodoret? Christian Historian?) Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium 1:1 = “Not sure of this reference either!”
    Apocraphal Acts of Peter Chap 12;
    If can't find, do a search online on “Simon Magus and the trinity”.

  42. Matt13weedhacker REQUESTED REFERENCES Elijah!

    Martin Werner - “The Formation of Christian Dogma, An Historical Study of its Problems” Page 252
    Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo Anthimus) “On The Holy Church” verses 8, 9;
    Tertullian Against Praxeas Chapter 3
    Valentinus Gospel of Truth verse 17;
    Perichoresis Organisation USA = Search on line under “Perichoresis Valentinus and Macellus of Ancyra” etc, or “Perichoresis Organisation USA” and just search the site for the reference.
    Trimorphic Protennoia – Nag Hammadi Library
    Montanus Oracle = has the reference, see under trinity or Valentinus.
    Tertullian Against Praxeas Chapter 30 = Second last chapter
    Tertullian Against Praxeas Chapter 31 = Last chapter
    Pliny And The Christians = Pliny Letters 10:96, 97;
    Tertullian 1st Apology Chapter 2; = See or do a search for “The Tertullian Project.” by Roger Pearse for any info on Tertullian.
    Let me know how you go!

  43. Matt13weedhacker

    THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The dogma of the Trinity: “...The information we possess regarding another heresy — that of Montanus — supplies us with further proof that the doctrine of the Trinity was the Church's teaching in A.D. 150. Tertullian affirms in the clearest terms that what he held as to the Trinity when a Catholic he still holds as a Montanist (Against Praxeas 2); and in the same work he explicitly teaches the Divinity of the Three Persons, their distinction, the eternity of God the Son (Against Praxeas 27). Epiphanius in the same way asserts the orthodoxy of the Montanists on this subject (Haer., lxviii). Now it is not to be supposed that the Montanists had accepted any novel teaching from the Catholic Church since their secession in the middle of the second century. Hence, inasmuch as there was full agreement between the two bodies in regard to the Trinity, we have here again a clear proof that Trinitarianism was an article of faith at a time when the Apostolic tradition was far too recent for any error to have arisen on a point so vital....” - (Proof of the doctrine from tradition: The Church Fathers: (4) As contrasted with heretical teachings) APA citation. Joyce, G. (1912). The Blessed Trinity. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved February 11, 2010 from New Advent:

  44. Matt13weedhacker

    The Catholic encyclopedia confirms several points from the posts above:

    1.Tertullian was a Montanist when he wrote Against Praxaes
    2.Montanus did teach a trinity paralel with what is NOW accepted as Christendoms “Orthodoxy”

    Although the Encyclopedia argues that the trinity was taught before then by the so-called “Orthodox” Christians, there is absolutely NO MENTION of the word “trinitas” = “Trinity” by any other ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN writer prior to Tertullian in Against Praxaes. Not to mention they admit he was BY THEIR OWN STANDARDS A HERETIC AT THE TIME!

    So where did the doctrine come from? A MONTANIST HERETIC!

  45. Matt13weedhacker

    The Catholic Encyclopedia argues that Montanus did not receive his doctrine of the “trinty” FROM the Catholic Church, which is true!

    But there is absolutely no PROOF that any Christian writer previous to this taught, believed in, preached, and mentioned a “trinity”.

    The appeal to as proof a so-called orthodox writer Epiphanius of Salamis who lived from approxiamately (320 to 403) meaning he was born 100 years after Tertullian died!

    Is this really proof that the trinity was “ORTHODOX” teaching BEFORE Tertullian?

  46. Matt13weedhacker

    Not to mention what Tertullian himself stated in the very book they appeal to as proof in the article, that supposedly ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVED IN A TRINITY BEFORE TERTULLIAN:

    "...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..." [Against Praxeas Chap 3, ANF Alexander & Roberts

    Other translations say the MAJORITY of Christians were: "GREATLY TERRIFIED" or "horrified" at the TRINITY!

  47. Matt13weedhacker

    It rather appears to be THE REVERSE!

    The Catholics got there doctrines FROM the Montanist FROM TERTULLIAN!

  48. Hi, Matt.

    Please do me a favor. Every time you reference ANF, please make sure you write Roberts and Donaldson as its editors. You often have ALEXANDER and Donaldson. In the reference above you have ALEXANDER and ROBERTS.

  49. Matt13weedhacker

    Sorry! Will try not to let happen again!

    For some reason I always tend to go by memory when quoting these guy's, and I've somehow got it in my head "Alexander". I think that's one of their first names.

    I don't have a print version of the ANF and my CD-rom version won't run on my current LINUX operating system and my main computer is down.

    Can you tell me what the proper reference should be when I quote this version of the ANF in the future?

  50. ANF [Vol. 1-10, p.?], Roberts and Donaldson (ed.).

  51. When I use the initials ANF, I try to show in its first use in my study or post that it stands for 'Ante-Nicene Fathers' by Roberts and Donaldson. Then in further use in the same post or study I may use the above method [e.g., ANF, vol.5, p.344] or ANF 5:344 (as used in the footnotes for the Creeds study).