The Pagan Influence of the Trinity Doctrine by Otto Augustus Wall M.D., Ph.G., Ph.M. 1920
About the time of the beginning of our Era there was a period of great unrest among the thinkers of the world. Greek philosophy, Platonism, Neo-Platonism, Manichaeism, Montanism, Gnosticism, made great inroads on the older faiths, and Judaism underwent many changes. Then, when Christianity came, it too met with all the other competing ideas, and while at first it was fairly free from Pagan ideas, it soon adopted the policy of making converts by adapting itself to their views, so as not to make a change from one of the other faiths to Christianity too abrupt or difficult.
The Christian Church took over everything it possibly could and gave Christian explanations for the Pagan festivals, philosophy, etc.; in this way the simple faith of the early Christians became swamped with foreign ideas, but the church-fathers amalgamated all the ideas into one more or less congruous mass of doctrines, so that it has been fairly said, that "modern Christianity is based on pre-Christian Paganism and post-Christian metaphysics." Much of what modern Christians believe is not based on the Bible, but is derived from other sources.
For instance, at a very early stage of Christianity, they believed in One God; the belief was Unitarian; by about the beginning of the third century the belief that Jesus was a son of God, and was himself a God, prevailed quite generally, and then when a third person, the Holy Ghost, was accepted by the church, the belief was Trinitarian. These two divisions were fairly even in numbers; but the influence of Origen (a fanatical self-castrated zealot) established the theory of the Trinity more and more firmly, until by about 400 A.D. the belief in the Trinity was general.
The philosophical definition of the Trinity varied much; some holding that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were but different names for the same God, but manifesting himself in different phases, and that the Trinity was of the same order as when Plato and the later philosophers said of man that he was a Trinity of Soul, Mind and Body. So God manifested himself as the Creator (Father), the Redeemer (Son), and the Giver of Life (Holy Ghost); but all three were but manifestations of different functions or phases of the same thing, of the same God. Others, and possibly the majority, believed that each of these three was a distinct individuality, and while they still spoke of One God, they really had in mind Three Gods.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyFB37JK-m0
Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents
Joseph Barker writing in Barker's Tracts, 1841:
"There is a passage in the Acts of the Apostles which, as it stands in the common version, reads thus, 'Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.' There is another passage in the first Epistle of John, which reads thus, 'Herein perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us.' If we take these two passages as they stand, we must believe that God Almighty, the immortal and everlasting God, died; that God, who is a spirit, had blood, and shed it to purchase his church. Now our reason revolts at such ideas. Our reason tells us, that it is impossible that God should have flesh and blood; or that God should die. Those who wish us to believe that God died, may tell us that there are three persons in the Godhead, and that it was only one of those persons, the second one, that died, while the other two remained alive. But such an explanation is the work of reason; it is a foolish attempt to reconcile the words with some degree of rationality. The words themselves say nothing about one person in the Godhead only dying, while other two persons in the Godhead remained alive. The words themselves simply say, "The church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood;' 'The love of God, who laid down his life for us;' teaching plainly, if they teach anything in the way of orthodoxy, that it was the one God, the only true God that shed his blood and laid down his life. Besides, the orthodox explanation is monstrous; it is a piece of folly even upon the orthodox theory itself. The orthodox theory, it is true, says there are three persons in the Godhead, but it says that these three persons are still one God, one being. To talk then of one third of the Godhead, one third of a being dying, while the other two thirds remained alive, is folly, is absurdity. But the whole is absurdity together. The proper course to be taken in such a case is, at once to conclude that the words are a mistake, that the passages as they stand are no part of Divine revelation, that the words have been corrupted; that the word God has been substituted for some other words, or inserted for no word at all.
And such in truth is the case."
1 John 3:16: "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." KJV (the words OF GOD are not in the Greek Text.
"By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." RSV
Acts 20:28: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." KJV
"Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood." ASV (see also the NEB and The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Bart Ehrman)
"Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son." RSV
