Simon Brown.

Proverbs 8:34-36 Blessed is the man who hears me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at my door posts. For whoever finds me finds life, and will obtain favor from Yahweh. But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul. All those who hate me love death.” Psalm 84: 11 For Yahweh God is a sun and a shield. Yahweh will give grace and glory. He withholds no good thing from those who walk blamelessly. 12 Yahweh of Armies, blessed is the man who trusts in you. 1 John 5:5 Now who is the one overcoming the world, except the one believing that Jesus is the Son of God?

Sunday 19 June 2016


Dear friends, you can now join the debate on my first new video below.
As it is good to keep an open mind, and learn and be sure we have not been deceived, as remember what Jesus said, most would be deceived.

For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.
Matthew 24:24. English Standard Version

Which is why Jesus also taught the path to His Kingdom was NARROW, and FEW would find His Kingdom to come.

English Standard Version
"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Matthew 7:13 -14.

Remember Satan is a master deceiver, and he is after our souls. Don't let him get you.

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.
John 10:10.

But instead pray we will not be deceived and be a Berean Jews.

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness,
examining the Scriptures daily
to see if these things were so.
 1 John 5:7.



Monday 6 June 2016


Have we not all one Father? Has not
 created us?
 Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers? 
Malachi 2:10.

But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand. 
Isaiah 64:8.


Friday 3 June 2016

DISCOVER WHAT I DISCOVERED, WHICH NEARLY GAVE ME A HEART ATTACK. Was Sir Isaac Newton Telling The TRUTH, When He Said: The Trinity Was Bogus?

Was Sir Isaac Newton Telling The TRUTH, 
 When He Said:
 The Trinity Was Bogus?
By Simon Brown.
Isaac Newton
https___commons.wikimedia.org_wiki_File_3AGodfreyKneller-IsaacNewton-1689.jpgSir Godfrey Kneller _Public domain__ via Wikimedia Commons
https___commons.wikimedia.org_wiki_File_3AGodfreyKneller-IsaacNewton-1689.jpgSir Godfrey Kneller _Public domain__ via Wikimedia Commons
In my last article I added a small part from Sir Isaac Newton, where he believed and said that he was convinced the doctrine of the Trinity was bogus, a successful deception by St. Athanasius in the fourth century.
How can we learn if Sir Isaac Newton was correct? Should we believe people like him and the claims they make, even though he was a highly influential physicist, astronomer, mathematician, philosopher, alchemist and theologian, including one of the best scientist, Bible scholars and Greek expert in his time.
Dr. Thomas G. Barnes said in his book "Newton was perhaps the greatest biblical scholar of his age."
Book, "Science and Biblical Faith," 1993.
My wife and I are going to visit his home in Grantham, Lincolnshire, England, and then his grave where he is buried near the father of evolution Charles Darwin at Westminster Abbey, London.
I will be doing a massive article on Sir Isaac Newton and sharing the photos with you very soon.
I am endeavouring and determined to do some serous research and try to discover who and why Sir Isaac Newton's research which was exposing the Trinity, was hidden and locked away as if people were trying to hide something.
Here we see yet again some more fishy business going on by dishonest people.

This is why it is so vital and not to late, for our own souls to do our research and open our hearts and minds, constantly praying, humbly going to the ONE TRUE GOD through His ONE TRUE SON Jesus to help us learn the truth and ask Him to help us be a Berean Jew, who examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
1 John 5:7. So it is 'vital to search the scriptures' to see what is true or false.
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence
work out your own salvation
 with fear and trembling. 
Philippians 2:12.
Our destination of our souls depends on making the right moves to be sure we seek out the truth of GOD and His SON Jesus, otherwise we will be one of the millions of foolish virgins who WILL HEAR Jesus say: 
St Paul also made this perfectly clear when he said: 
But examine everything carefully; 
hold fast to that which is good.
 1 Thessalonians 5:21.
Backed up by Jesus when He said:
 seek and you will find. 
 Mathew 7:7.
Was Sir Isaac Newton telling the truth?
The question is, how can we be sure people like Sir Isaac Newton were telling the truth and are correct, and people like him are not deceiving us?
Again always remember Jesus words when He said, SEEK AND YOU WILL FIND. Mathew 7:7.
What I discovered about Sir Isaac Newton?
I decided to see if there was a person known as Athanasius, because this was the person Sir Isaac Newton claimed who was successful in the deception of the Trinity in the fourth century.
Icon of St Athanasius
Public Domain_ https___commons.wikimedia.org_w_index.php_curid_611837.
Icon of St Athanasius
Pope of Alexandria; Confessor and Doctor of the Church
Bornc. 296-298[1]
Alexandria, Egypt
Died2 May 373 (aged 75-79)
Alexandria, Egypt
Venerated inRoman CatholicismOriental OrthodoxyEastern OrthodoxyLutheranismAnglican Communion, and among the Continuing Anglican Movement
Major shrineSaint Mark Coptic Orthodox Cathedral in CairoEgypt
Feast15 May = 7 Pashons, 89 A.M. (Coptic Orthodox)
2 May (Western Christianity)
18 January (Eastern Orthodox Church)
AttributesBishop arguing with a pagan; bishop holding an open book; bishop standing over a defeated heretic
In just a simple 10-second search on the Internet, caused my heart to miss a beat when I watched the page open up to  Athanasius of Alexandria. 

As I read on, not only did Athanasius exist, but also the info about Athanasius proved Sir Isaac Newton was absolutely correct.
My simple search on the Internet took me directly to a person called: Athanasius of Alexandria. He lived in the precise time during the First Council of Nicaea of the Roman emperor Constantine the Great, where the Trinity was finely made into a doctrine, well over 300 years after Jesus and His disciples left the planet earth.
The Wikipedia site tells us:
Saint Athanasius of Alexandria (/ˌæθəˈneɪʃəs/; Greek: Ἀθανάσιος Ἀλεξανδρείας, Athanásios Alexandrías; c. 296-298 - 2 May 373), also called Athanasius the Great, Athanasius the Confessor or, primarily in the Coptic Orthodox Church, Athanasius the Apostolic, was the twentieth bishop of Alexandria (as Athanasius I). His episcopate lasted 45 years (c. 8 June 328 - 2 May 373), of which over 17 were spent in five exiles ordered by four different Roman emperors. 
As I carried on reading the next part below, I felt like screaming out to my wife for a Defibrillation, to give me a controlled electric shock in order to start my heart beating again.

I then discovered Sir Isaac Newton was most certainly telling the truth.
Athanasius is a renowned Christian theologian, a Church Father, the chief defender of Trinitarianism against Arianism, and a noted Egyptian leader of the fourth century.
Conflict with Arius and Arianism as well as successive Roman emperors shaped Athanasius's career. In 325AC, at the age of 27, Athanasius began his leading role against the Arians as a Deacon and assistant to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria during the First Council of Nicaea. Roman emperor Constantine the Great had convened the council in May-August 325 AC to address the Arian position that the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, is of a distinct substance from the Father.[2] Three years after that council, Athanasius succeeded his mentor as archbishop of Alexandria. In addition to the conflict with the Arians (including powerful and influential Arian churchmen led by Eusebius of Nicomedia), he struggled against the Emperors Constantine, Constantius II, Julian the Apostate and Valens. He was known as "Athanasius Contra Mundum" (Latin for Athanasius Against the World).
Nonetheless, within a few years of his death, Gregory of Nazianzus called him the "Pillar of the Church". His writings were well regarded by all Church fathers who followed, in both the West and the East, who noted their rich devotion to the Word-become-man, great pastoral concern, and profound interest in monasticism. Athanasius is counted as one of the four great Eastern Doctors of the Church in the Roman Catholic Church.[3] In the Eastern Orthodox Church, he is labeled the "Father of Orthodoxy". Some Protestants label him "Father of the Canon". Athanasius is venerated as a Christian saint, whose feast day is 2 May in Western Christianity, 15 May in the Coptic Orthodox Church, and 18 January in the other Eastern Orthodox Churches. He is venerated by the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutherans, and the Anglican Communion.
Athanasius of Alexandria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However on my research I also discovered there are more people who go back further in time like Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch who were the first to support the Trinity from about 110AC, which means the trinity was not spoken or heard about for 77 years, since that is, If Jesus was crucified in 33 ad. 

It seems a fact, the trinity doctrine was most certainly not fully developed into a doctrine until the late forth century, and as we have just read by the chief defender of Trinitarianism at the Council of Nicaea.

This fact shocks me to why millions follow a doctrine created by man and not by GOD and His Son Jesus.

Sir Isaac Newton said:
The word God is nowhere in the scriptures used to signify more than one of the three persons at once.
This research takes time, and as I continue seeking out the truth, regarding the first Trinity teachers, I will continue to share my research with you in other coming articles, because I do not want you to be deceived, but be saved.
Join me again in my next article as I am continuing with the many 
Scriptures used by Trinitarians which they clearly use to contradict their own faith by finding scriptures to prove their God is NOT ONE GOD but are THREE Gods, SIDE by SIDE, called the TRINITY.
In the mean time, I would like to leave you with some wonderful research I read recently below under the links below: The History of The Doctrine of the Trinity The True Scriptural Picture.

Is Jesus God_ 
The History of The Doctrine of the Trinity
The True Scriptural Picture

 "For there is ONE GOD and one mediator between God and men,
the MAN Christ Jesus" - 
 1 Tim. 2:5

The history of religion has always been one of degeneration from the originally revealed pure monotheism to various forms of polytheism. "Christianity," as popularly known, has been no exception.
The Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, is very emphatic about the absolute oneness of God. When asked which is the first commandment of all?"
Jesus answered (Mark 12:29) -
"The first of all the commandments is; Hear, O Israel, THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD."
He was quoting from the words of Moses in Deut. 6:4. This is the consistent story of the Bible. There is not a word about three gods in it from beginning to end.
"Christendom" today has degenerated to a belief in four gods, three good ones and one evil one. Some parts of Christendom have five gods, as the Roman Catholic Church, which has added a "Mother of God" who is in their system of belief the supreme deity beside a host of demi-gods, one for every day of the year (and more), all of which mythical and man-invented deities are worshipped and prayed to.
The doctrine of the Trinity is this -
"We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons; nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.
"But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, so is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.
"The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.
"And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal. Also there are not three incomprehensibles, not three uncreated: but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.
"So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.
"So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods: but one God.
"So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords but one Lord.
"For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord; so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.
"The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
"So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
"And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other, none is greater or less than others; but the whole three persons are co- eternal together; and co-equal. So that in all things as is aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
This is the prize and tragic example of the natural mind of man speculating upon divine things rather than being content to humbly accept the simple testimony of Scripture.
In all Scripture, there is nothing to justify this absurd and self-contradictory mizmaze. While truly we can never hope with mortal minds to comprehend God, still the revelations He gives of Himself, and of His Son, and of His Holy Spirit - His power and presence which fills all immensity and works His will - is clear and simple and reasonable and a tremendously satisfying relief from the befuddled speculations as quoted above.
The doctrine of the "Trinity" is nowhere found in the Bible. The following quotations from recognized historians will give the background of the period in which this doctrine was developed, showing the general conditions of Christendom of the time, the philosophic influences at work, the methods of reasoning and argument used and the political forces that finally established the doctrine and enforced it by confiscation, prohibition, punishment and murder.
This will clearly show the frail, human foundation the doctrine of the Trinity rests on, and dissipate the weight it appears to have from centuries of "orthodox" acceptance.
Of the Council of Nicea, 325 A.D., where the doctrine of the Trinity was first officially formulated, the well-known trinitarian historian Mosheim, a Lutheran, admits (Century 4, Part 2, Chapter 3, Section 1)
"....the discussions concerning the three persons in the Godhead, among those who approved the decisions of the council of Nice.
"There is so little clearness and discrimination in these discussions, that they seem to rend the one God into three Gods.
"Moreover, those idle fictions, which a regard for the prevailing opinions of the day had induced most theologians to embrace, even before the time of Constantine, were now in various ways confirmed, extended and embellished.
"Hence it is that we see on every side evident traces of excessive veneration for saints in heaven, of belief in a fire to purify souls on leaving the body, of partiality for priestly celibacy, the worship of images and relics, and for many other opinions which, in process of time, almost banished the true religion, or at least very much obscured and corrupted it.
"Genuine piety was gradually supplanted by a long train of superstitious observances, which were derived partly from a preposterous disposition to adopt profane rites.
"To the temples, to water consecrated with certain forms, and to likenesses of holy men, the same efficacy was ascribed and the same privileges assigned, as had been attributed to the pagan temples, statues and lustrations before the advent of Christ."
This is a trinitarian's description of conditions in the Catholic Church during the time the doctrine of the Trinity was being formulated and imposed.
In the same chapter, Section 5, Mosheim says:
"The doctors who were distinguished for their learning explained the sacred doctrines after the manner of Origen (see notes below on Origen) on whom they fixed their eye - in accordance with the principles of that philosophy which they learned in their youth at school, namely, the Platonic philosophy as corrected by Origen.
"Those who wish to get a full insight into this subject may examine Gregory Nazianzen among the Greeks and Augustine among the Latins who were regarded in the subsequent ages as the only patterns worthy of imitation, and may be fitly styled, next to Origen, the parents and supporters of philosophic or scholastic theology. They were both admirers of Plato."
Plato was the heathen Greek philosopher (around 400 B.C.) who popularized the Egyptian doctrine of the immortality of the soul. He was the brightest star and greatest influence in the pagan system of philosophy that Christianity in its original purity set out to combat (See 1 Cor., chapters 1 and 2).
But Platonic philosophers became dominent in the Catholic Church, and Platonic philosophy has dominated the beliefs of "orthodox" Christendom from the 3rd century A.D. to the present. The earliest Christians bitterly fought heathen philosophy; the later "Christians" adopted it.
Origen, mentioned by Mosheim as influential in this Platonizing movement (around 200-250 A.D.), was one of the greatest (and perhaps the greatest) influences in establishing this trend in the Church. Of him, Mosheim says (Cent. 2, Part 2, Chap. 1, Sec. 5) -
"A new class of philosophers had grown up in Egypt ...they much preferred Plato, and embraced most of his dogmas concerning God, the human soul, and the universe.
"This philosophy was adopted by such of the learned at Alexandria as wished to be accounted Christians, and yet to retain the rank of philosophers. All those who in this century presided in the schools of the Christians at Alexandria are said to have approved it."
Translator's footnote at this place in Mosheim -
"This cultivation of philosophy by Christian teachers greatly displeased those who were attached to the ancient simple faith, as taught by Christ and his apostles; for they feared, what afterwards actually happened, that the purity and excellence of divine truth would suffer by it. The issue of the long contest between them was that the advocates of philosophy prevailed."
Continuing Mosheim, Sec. 7 -
"This mode of philosophizing received some modification when Ammonius Saccas laid the foundation of that sect which is called the New Platonic."
Section 8
"The grand objects of Ammonius, to bring all sects and religions into harmony, required him to do much violence to the sentiments and opinions of all parties, philosophers, priests and Christians - and particularly by allegorical interpretations. He assumed... that the public religions of all nations should be corrected by this ancient (Platonic) philosophy.
Section 9 -
"With these Egyptian notions, he united the philosophy of Plato...Finally, the dogmas of other sects he construed, as far as was possible, by means of art, ingenuity and the aid of allegories into apparent coincidence with Egyptian and Platonic principles"
Section 12
"This new species of philosophy, imprudently adopted by Origen and other Christians, did immense harm to Christianity. For it led the teachers of it to involve in philosophic obscurity many parts of our religion which were in themselves plain and easy to be understood; and to add to the precepts of the Savior no few things of which not a word can be found in the holy Scriptures...
"And finally it alienated the minds of many, in the following centuries, from Christianity itself, and produced a heterogeneous species of religion, consisting of Christian and Platonic principles combined. And who is able to enumerate all the evils and injurious changes which arose from this new philosophy - from this attempt to reconcile true and false religions with each other?"
Editor's footnote at this place in Mosheim -
"That philosophy has injured enormously genuine Christianity will be readily conceded by all who rest faith solely upon the rock of Scripture.
"When such persons are asked to account for the existence of religious principles and usages which are incapable of proof from the sacred volume, and even seem at variance with it, they have only to cite the semi-Christian school of philosophy which arose at Alexandria before the second century closed."
(It will be noted from the quotation on pg. 4 that the most distinguished "Christian" teachers of the 4th century looked to Origen and the Platonic philosophy as their model. Any doctrines therefore - such as the Trinity - formulated at this time are bound to be more pagan than Christian.)
Returning to Mosheim's history of the 4th century, he records concerning the conduct and character of the church leaders (Cent.4, Part 2, Chap. 2, Sec. 5) -
"The bishop of Rome took precedence over all others of the episcopal order. He exceeded all other bishops in the splendor of the church over which he presided, in the magnitude of his revenues and possessions, and in the sumptuousness and magnificence of his style of living.
"These marks of power and worldly greatness were so fascinating to the minds of Christians even in this age that often the most obstinate and bloody contests took place at Rome when a new pontiff was to be created.
"A shocking example of this is afforded by the disturbance at Rome in the year 366. The contention caused a cruel war, great loss of life, conflagrations and battles."
Section 8 -
"The vices of the clergy, especially of those who officiated in large and opulent cities, were augmented in proportion to the increase of their wealth, honors and advantages. The bishops had shameful quarrels among themselves respecting the extent of their jurisdiction and boundaries; and while they trampled on the rights of the people and of the inferior clergy, they vied with the civil governors of provinces in luxury, arrogance and voluptuousness."
Cent. 4, Part 2, Chap. 3, Sec. 17:
"When there was nothing any longer to be feared from enemies without; when the character of most bishops was tarnished with arrogance, luxury, effeminacy, animosity, resentments, and other defects; when the lower clergy neglected their proper duties and were more attentive to idle controversies than to the promotion of piety and the instruction of the people; when vast numbers were induced, not by a rational conviction but by the fear of punishment and the hope of worldly advantage to enrol themselves as Christians - how can it surprise us that on all sides the vicious appeared a host, and the pious a little band almost overpowered by them?...
"The more honorable and powerful could sin with impunity, and only the poor and the unfortunate felt the severity of the laws."
Such is a trinitarian historian's testimony concerning the times in which the doctrine of the Trinity was developed on the admitted basis of human speculation and Platonic philosophy. Of the methods of argument and persuasion used by the church leaders of this period, Mosheim says -
Cen. 4, Part 2, Chap. 3, Sec. 7 -
"From the disputes with those who were regarded as opposed to divine truth, the ancient simplicity had nearly taken its flight; and in place of it, dialectical subtleties and quibbles, invectives and other disingenuous artifices had succeeded."
Section 8 -
"With the ancient form of discussion, new sources of argument were in this age combined. For the truth of doctrines was proved by the number of martyrs who had believed so, by prodigies and by the confessions of devils, that is, of persons in whose bodies some demon was supposed to reside.
"The discerning cannot but see that all proofs drawn from such sources are very fallacious, and very convenient for dishonest men who would practice imposition.
"And I greatly fear that most of those who at this time resorted to such proofs, though they might be grave and eminent men, may be justly charged with a dangerous propensity to use deception.
"Ambrose, in controversy with the Arians, brings forward persons possessed with devils, who are constrained, when the relics of Gervasius and Protasius are produced, to cry out that the doctrine of the Nicene council concerning three persons in the Godhead is true and divine, and the doctrine of the Arians false and pernicious.
"This testimony of the prince of darkness Ambrose regards as proof altogether unexceptionable."
 Section 16 -
"To these defects in the moral system of the age must be added two principal errors now almost publicly adopted, and from which afterwards immense evils resulted. The first was that to deceive and lie is a virtue, when religion can be promoted by it.
"This principle had been embraced in the preceding centuries, and it is almost incredible what a mass of the most insipid fables and what a host of pious falsehoods have through all the centuries grown out of it, to the great detriment of true religion.
"If some inquisitive person were to examine the conduct and the writings of the greatest and most pious teachers of this century, I fear that he would find about all of them infected with this leprosy. I cannot except Ambrose, nor Hilary, nor Augustine, nor Gregory Nazianzen, nor Jerome."
Such were the principles of the men who formulated the doctrine of the Trinity, and with the aid of the civil power imposed it upon the whole body of believers on pain of severe punishment, as we shall see in later quotations.
Of the general conditions of worship in this century, Mosheim says (Cent. 4, Part 2, Chap. 4, Sec. 1)
"The Christian bishops introduced, with but slight alterations, into the Christian worship, those rites and institutions by which formerly the Greeks and Romans and others had manifested their piety and reverence toward their imaginary deities; supposing that the people would more readily embrace Christianity if they perceived the rites handed down to them from their fathers still existing unchanged among the Christians, and saw that Christ and the martyrs were worshipped in the same manner as formerly their gods were.
"There was, accordingly, little difference in these times between the public worship of the Christians and that of the Greeks and Romans. In both there were splendid robes, mitres, tiaras, wax-tapers, crosiers, processions, lustrations, images, golden and silver vases, and innumerable other things.
"No sooner had Constantine renounced the religion of his ancestors than magnificent temples were everywhere erected, adorned with pictures and images, and both in external and internal form very similar to the temples of the gods. True religion copied after superstition."
Section 4 -
"The prayers fell off greatly from the ancient simplicity and majesty, a considerable degree of vain inflation being admitted into them. The public discourses, among the Greeks especially, were formed according to the rules for civil eloquence, and were better adapted to call forth the admiration of the rude multitude who love display, than to amend the heart.
"And that no folly or senseless custom might be omitted in their public assemblies, the people were allowed to applaud their orators, as had been practiced in forums and theatres; nay, were bidden to clap besides.
"Who would suppose that men who were appointed to show to others the emptiness of all human things would become so senseless?"
Is it reasonable to expect any sound fruit from such a rotten tree?
The Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th edition, vol. 16, page 774, article "Montanism," says -
"From the middle of the second century a change began to take place in the outward circumstances of Christianity. Should the church take the decisive step into the world? Or ought she, on the other hand to remain as she had been at first, a society of religious devotees, separated and shut out from the world by a rigorous discipline?
"It was natural that warning voices should then be raised in the church against secular tendencies, that the well-known counsels about the imitations of Christ should be held up in their literal strictness before worldly Christians, that demands should be made for a restoration of the old discipline and severity, and for a return to apostolic simplicity and purity.
"The church as a whole, however, decided otherwise. She marched through the open door into the Roman state. With the aid of its philosophy she created her new Christian theology."
The cornerstone of this "new Christian theology', based on pagan philosophy, is the doctrine of three Gods, three Persons in the "Godhead."
How this doctrine of the Trinity was developed during this period is frankly explained by a trinitarian writer in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th edition, Volume 23, page 240, article "Theism" -
"The propositions constitutive of the dogma of the Trinity - the propositions in the symbols of Nice, Constantinople and Toledo relative to the immanent distinctions and relations in the Godhead - were not drawn directly from the New Testament, and could not be expressed in New Testament terms. They were the products of reason speculating on a revelation to faith.
"They were only formed through centuries of effort, only elaborated by the aid of the conceptions and formulated in the terms of Greek and Roman metaphysics.
"The evolution of the doctrine of the Trinity was far the most important fact in the doctrinal history of the church during the first five centuries of its post- apostolic existence."
Surely the ignorance and audacity of this, from a scriptural point of view, takes our breath away! How terribly true and fitting are the words of Jude -
"It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
And Paul said -
"I have not shunned to declare unto you the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27).
And to the Corinthians -
"Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world, for after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (1 Cor. 1:20).
Poor Jude! Poor Paul! What back numbers they were! Of course they could not understand that there were three Gods. They only had the inspiration of God - they completely lacked that essential aid-Greek and Roman metaphysics, without which the doctrine of three Gods could not be formulated.
The "Greek and Roman metaphysics" from which the doctrine of the Trinity was adopted, are referred to by Gibbon in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" Chapter 21, paragraph 6 -
"The genius of Plato, informed by his own meditation or by the traditional knowledge of the priests of Egypt, had ventured to explore the mysterious nature of the Deity.
"When he had elevated his mind to the sublime contemplation of the first self-existent, necessary cause of the universe, the Athenian sage was incapable of conceiving how the simple unity of his essence could admit the infinite variety of distinct and successive ideas which compose the model of the intellectual world; how a Being purely incorporeal could execute that perfect model, and mould with a plastic hand the rude and independent chaos.
"The vain hope of extricating himself from these difficulties, which must ever oppress the feeble powers of the human mind, might induce Plato to consider the divine nature under the threefold modification-of the first cause, the reason or Logos, and the soul or spirit of the universe. His poetic imagination sometimes fixed and animated these metaphysical abstractions; the three archial or original principles were represented in the Platonic system as three Gods, united with each other by a mysterious and ineffable generation."
It is clear from this, as the trinitarian writer said in the Encyclopedia Britannica, that Christianity had to go to Greek metaphysics (and this term always means Plato, the center of the system) to formulate its doctrine of the Trinity. Surely we are compelled to wonder what Christianity could possibly have done without the help of the indispensable heathen philosopher Plato!
Mosheim (an esteemed, orthodox Lutheran trinitarian) describes the long civil war that attended the development of the doctrine, and its enforcement by civil power, finally ending in trinitarian triumph through the stern and energetic measures of the Emperor Theodosius (Cent. 4, Chap. 5, sec. 14) -
"After the death of Constantine the Great 337 AD) one of his sons, Constantius, the emperor of the East was very partial to the Arian cause, but Constantine and Constans (two other sons) supported, in the western parts where they governed, the decisions of the Nicene council.
"Constantius, being devoted to the Arians, involved the friends of the Nicene council in numerous evils and calamities. The Nicene (trinitarian) party made no hesitation to return the same treatment.
"Julian (the next emperor) had no partialities for either. Jovian espoused the orthodox sentiments. Valentinian adhered to the decisions at Nice, and therefore in the West the Arian sect - a few churches excepted - was wholly extirpated.
"Valens, on the contrary, took sides with the Arians, and hence in the East many calamities befell the orthodox. Gratian restored peace to the orthodox.
"After him, Theodosius the Great, by depriving the Arians of all their churches, caused the decisions of the Nicene council to triumph everywhere, and none could any longer publicly profess Arian doctrines."
This finely settled the question, for all time, as to whether there are three Gods, or one God. The Encyclopedia Britannica' 9th edition, vol. 23, page 259, article "Theodosius," records -
"It was not, however, till his illness at Thessalonica that the emperor received baptism at the hands of Bishop Ascholius, whereupon, says the historian Sozomen, he issued a decree (February, 380) in favor of the faith of St. Peter and Pope Damasus of Rome.
"This was to be the true catholic faith; the adherents of other creeds were to be reckoned as heretics and punished.
"Other edicts forbade the unorthodox to hold assemblies in the towns and enjoined the surrender of all churches to the catholic bishops."
Gibbon records, chap. 27 -
"Theodosius was the first of the emperors baptized into the true faith of the Trinity. As the emperor ascended from the holy font, he dictated a solemn edict:
"Let us believe the sole deity of the Father, the Son and - the Holy Ghost, under an equal majesty and a pious Trinity.
"We authorize the followers of this doctrine to assume the title of Catholic Christians; and as we judge that all others are extravagant madmen, we brand them with the infamous name of Heretics, and declare that their conventicles shall no longer usurp the respectable appellation of churches.
"Besides the condemnation of Divine Justice, they must expect to suffer the severe penalties, which our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom, shall think proper to inflict upon them!
"The emperor convened a synod of 150 bishops who proceeded to complete the theological system which had been established in the council of Nice.
"A final and unanimous sentence was pronounced to ratify the equal Deity of the Holy Ghost.
"Their knowledge of religious truth may have been preserved by tradition, or it may have been communicated by inspiration, but the sober evidence of history will not allow much weight to the personal authority of the Fathers of Constantinople (this synod).
"Many of the same prelates who now applauded the orthodox piety of Theodosius had repeatedly changed, with prudent flexibility, their creeds and opinions, and in the various revolutions of the church and state, the religion of their sovereign was the rule of their obsequious faith.
"In the space of 15 years Theodosius promulgated at least 15 severe edicts against the heretics, more especially against those who rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.
"The rigorous prohibition of conventicles was carefully extended to every possible circumstances in which the heretics could assemble with the intention of worshipping God and Christ according to the dictates of their conscience.
“The sectaries were gradually disqualified for the possession of honorable or lucrative employments..."


First Council of Nicaea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First Council of Nicaea
16th-century fresco depicting the Council of Nicaea
Date20 May to 19 June, AD 325
Accepted by
Next council
First Council of Constantinople
Convoked byEmperor Constantine I
PresidentHosius of Corduba (and Emperor Constantine)[1]
Attendance318 (traditional number)
250–318 (estimates) — only five from Western Church
TopicsArianism, the nature of Christ, celebration of Passover (Easter), ordination of eunuchs, prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and from Easter to Pentecost, validity of baptism by heretics, lapsed Christians, sundry other matters.[2]
Documents and statements
Original Nicene Creed,[3] 20 canons,[4] and a synodal epistle[2]

Biblical canon[edit]

There is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council.[66] The development of the biblical canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written.[67]
In 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople, but little else is known (in fact, it is not even certain whether his request was for fifty copies of the entire Old and New Testaments, only the New Testament, or merely the Gospels), but some scholars believe that this request provided motivation for canon lists. In Jerome's Prologue to Judith[68] he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures", which some have suggested means the Nicene Council did discuss what documents would number among the sacred scriptures, but more likely simply means the Council used Judith in its deliberations on other matters and so it should be considered canonical.
The main source of the idea that the Bible was created at the Council of Nicea seems to be Voltaire, who popularised a story that the canon was determined by placing all the competing books on an altar during the Council and then keeping the ones that didn't fall off. The original source of this story is the Vetus Synodicon, a pseudo-historical account of early Church councils from AD 887:[69]
The canonical and apocryphal books it distinguished in the following manner: in the house of God the books were placed down by the holy altar; then the council asked the Lord in prayer that the inspired works be found on top and--as in fact happened--the spurious on the bottom. (Vetus Synodicon, 35)

And does this agree with an article I sent out revealing about Constantine? Lets see below.
Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council.
His instructions were:
"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)
"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly"
(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39).

Eusebius amalgamated the “legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars.

Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story.

Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce,
"fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art"
"These orders," said Eusebius, "were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself ... we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms"
(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36).

They were the “New Testimonies, and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.

Please see more on:
 The Fifty Bibles of Constantine

The council of Nicaea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ. Over a century earlier the use of the term "Trinity" (Τριάς in Greek; trinitas in Latin) could be found in the writings of Origen (185–254) and Tertullian (160–220), and a general notion of a "divine three", in some sense, was expressed in the second century writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. IN NICAEA, QUESTIONS REGARDING THE HOLY SPIRIT WERE LEFT LARGELY UNADDRESSED UNTIL AFTER THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FATHER AND THE SON WAS SETTLED AROUND THE YEAR 362.[70] So the doctrine in a more full-fledged form was not formulated until the Council of Constantinople in 360 AD.[71]

Main article: Constantine the Great
While Constantine had sought a unified church after the council, he did not force the Homoousian view of Christ's nature on the council (see The role of Constantine).
Constantine did not commission any Bibles at the council itself. He did commission fifty Bibles in 331 for use in the churches of Constantinople, itself still a new city. No historical evidence points to involvement on his part in selecting or omitting books for inclusion in commissioned Bibles.
Despite Constantine's sympathetic interest in the Church, he was not baptized until some 11 or 12 years after the council, putting off baptism as long as he did so as to be absolved from as much sin as possible[72] in accordance with the belief that in baptism all sin is forgiven fully and completely.[73]
Disputed matters[edit]
Role of the Bishop of Rome[edit]
See also: Primacy of the Roman pontiff and East-West Schism
Roman Catholics assert that the idea of Christ's deity was ultimately confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, and that it was this confirmation that gave the council its influence and authority. In support of this, they cite the position of early fathers and their expression of the need for all churches to agree with Rome (see Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses III:3:2).
However, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox do not believe the Council viewed the Bishop of Rome as the jurisdictional head of Christendom, or someone having authority over other bishops attending the Council. In support of this, they cite Canon 6, where the Roman Bishop could be seen as simply one of several influential leaders, but not one who had jurisdiction over other bishops in other regions.[74]
According to Protestant theologian Philip Schaff, "The Nicene fathers passed this canon not as introducing anything new, but merely as confirming an existing relation on the basis of church tradition; and that, with special reference to Alexandria, on account of the troubles existing there. Rome was named only for illustration; and Antioch and all the other eparchies or provinces were secured their admitted rights. The bishoprics of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch were placed substantially on equal footing."[75]
There is however, an alternate Roman Catholic interpretation of the above 6th canon proposed by Fr. James F. Loughlin. It involves five different arguments "drawn respectively from the grammatical structure of the sentence, from the logical sequence of ideas, from Catholic analogy, from comparison with the process of formation of the Byzantine Patriarchate, and from the authority of the ancients"[76] in favor of an alternative understanding of the canon. According to this interpretation, the canon shows the role the Bishop of Rome had when he, by his authority, confirmed the jurisdiction of the other patriarchs—an interpretation which is in line with the Roman Catholic understanding of the Pope.[76]

Fifty Bibles of Constantine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Codex Vaticanus

Codex Sinaiticus
The Fifty Bibles of Constantine were Bibles in Greek language commissioned in 331 by Constantine I and prepared by Eusebius of Caesarea. They were made for the use of the Bishop of Constantinople in the growing number of churches in that very new city. Eusebius quoted the letter of commission in his Life of Constantine, and it is the only surviving source from which we know of the existence of the Bibles.[1]

Biblical canon[edit]

It is speculated that this commission may have provided motivation for the development of the canon lists and that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are possible surviving examples of these Bibles.[2] There is no evidence among the records of the First Council of Nicaea of any determination on the canon; however, Jerome, in his Prologue to Judith, makes the claim that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".[3]


According to Eusebius, Constantine I wrote him in his letter:
I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practised in their art.[4]
About accomplishing the Emperor's demand:
Such were the emperor's commands, which were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and elaborately bound volumes of a threefold and fourfold form.[5]
This is the usual way in which Eusebius' text is translated, but there are more possibilities, because the phrase "ἐν πολυτελῶς ἠσκημένοις τεύχεσιν τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσὰ διαπεμψάντων ἡμῶν" has many meanings:
  1. Codices were prepared in three or four volumes – Bernard de Montfaucon;
  2. Codices were sent in three or four boxes – F. A. Heinichen;
  3. Codices were prepared in with three or four folios – Scrivener;
  4. Text of the codices was written in three or four columns per page – Tischendorf, Gebhardt, and Gregory, Kirsopp Lake;
  5. Codices were sent by threes or fours.
Athanasius of Alexandria referred to another request of producing Bible manuscripts: "I sent to him volumes containing the holy Scriptures, which he had ordered me to prepare for him."[6][7]Athanasius could have received this request between 337-339.[8]

Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus[edit]

Constantin von Tischendorf, discoverer of Codex Sinaiticus, believed that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were among these fifty Bibles prepared by Eusebius in Caesarea. According to him, they were written with three (as Vaticanus) or four columns per page (as Sinaiticus).[9][10] Tishendorf's view was supported by Pierre Batiffol.[11]
Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener rejected Tischendorf's speculation because of differences between the two manuscripts. In Sinaiticus, the text of the Gospels is divided according to the Ammonian Sections with references to the Eusebian Canons, but Vaticanus used the older system of division. Vaticanus was prepared in a format of 5 folios in one quire, but Sinaiticus had 8 folios. According to Scrivener, Eusebian Bibles contained three or four folios per quire (Scrivener used a Latin version of Valesius). Scrivener stated that the Eusebian is unclear and should not be used for a doubtful theory.[12]
Westcott and Hort argued the order of biblical books on the Eusebian list of the canonical books, quoted by Eusebius in "Ecclesiastical History" (III, 25), is different from every surviving manuscript. Probably none of the 50 copies survive today.[13]
Caspar René Gregory believed that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written in Caesarea, and they could belong to the Eusebian fifty.[14][15]
According to Victor Gardthausen Sinaiticus is younger than Vaticanus by at least 50 years.[16]
Kirsopp Lake states "copies of three and four columns" is grammatically sound, but there appears not to be good evidence for this technical use of the words. "Sending them by threes of fours" is the most attractive, but there is no evidence that τρισσα can denote "three at a time". Regarding "in three or four columns per page," there is only one known manuscript written in that way – Sinaiticus. Sinaiticus has a curious spelling of the word κραβαττος as κραβακτος; Sinaiticus spells Ισραηλειτης as Ισδραηλειτης, Vaticanus as Ιστραηλειτης; these forms have been regarded as Latin, and they can find in papyri from Egypt. There is no other known Greek district in which these forms were used. The argument for a Caesarean origin of these two manuscripts is much weaker than Egyptian.[17]
According to Heinrich Schumacher, Eusebius instead prepared fifty lectionaries, not Bibles.[18]
Skeat believed that Vaticanus was rejected by the emperor, for it is deficient in the Eusebia canon tables, contains many corrections (made in scriptorium), and lacks the books of Maccabees.[19]
Kurt AlandBruce M. MetzgerBart D. Ehrman doubt that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were copied by Eusebius on the Constantine order.[20]

See also[edit]


  1. Jump up ^ EusebiusThe Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, Bk 4, Ch 36 Constantine's letter of commission
  2. Jump up ^ McDonald & Sanders, pp.414–415
  3. Jump up ^ Wikisource-logo.svg Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Book of Judith". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.: Canonicity: "..."the Synod of Nicaea is said to have accounted it as Sacred Scripture" (Praef. in Lib.). It is true that no such declaration is to be found in the Canons of Nicaea, and it is uncertain whether St. Jerome is referring to the use made of the book in the discussions of the council, or whether he was misled by some spurious canons attributed to that council"
  4. Jump up ^ Vita Constantini, IV,36
  5. Jump up ^ Vita Constantini, IV,37
  6. Jump up ^ Apologia ad Constantium 4
  7. Jump up ^ Apologia Ad Constantium/Chapter 4
  8. Jump up ^ Elliott, p. 284.
  9. Jump up ^ Novum Testamentum Graece ad Antiquissimos Testes Denuo Recensuit, Tischendorf, Editio Octava Critica Maior, Leipzig 1884, vol. III, p. 348
  10. Jump up ^ Price
  11. Jump up ^ Pierre Batiffol, Codex Sinaiticus, w DB. 1, 1883-1886.
  12. Jump up ^ Scrivener, vol. 1. pp. 118-119.
  13. Jump up ^ Westcott & Hort, p.74.
  14. Jump up ^ Gregory, pp.327, 345
  15. Jump up ^ Gregory, Caspar René (1900). Textkritik des Neuen Testaments 1. Leipzig. p. 22.
  16. Jump up ^ Gardthausen, pp.124–125.
  17. Jump up ^ Kirsopp Lake, pp.32-35
  18. Jump up ^ Schumacher, p.47
  19. Jump up ^ Skeat, pp.583–625
  20. Jump up ^ Metzger, Bruce M.; Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th ed.). New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 15–16.

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]