Christians, explain this to me please.?

Explain the following, btw, don’t say, because your priest or church says that the trinity is correct, it’s true.

The trinity is not part of the old testament, or anywhere else apart from pagan origins, for example:

All Pagan religions from the time of Babylon have adopted (in one form or another) a…

The trinity is in the Old Testament as Aaron U gave some excellent verses. There are many more but I would like to share on some of your other false statements:
Question: “Are the ideas of Jesus and Christianity borrowed from Mithra and Zoroastrianism?”

Answer: Did Judaism and Christianity borrow the Messiah, the resurrection, and final judgment from Zoroastrianism / Mithra? Many doctrines of the Christian faith have parallels in Zoroastrianism, i.e., the virgin birth, the son of God, and resurrection. Some scholars say that Zarathustra (a.k.a. Zoroaster) lived around 600-500 B.C. If that is the case, David, Isaiah and Jeremiah (all of whom mention the Messiah, the resurrection and the final judgment in their writings), lived and wrote before Zarathustra. Some scholars say that Zoroaster lived sometime between 1500 and 1200 B.C. If that is the case, the case for Christianity borrowing from Zoroastrianism would be stronger, but the fact is we don’t know when Zarathustra lived (hence the disagreement among scholars) and so this argument is speculative at best. The Greek historian Herodotus (5th century B.C.) doesn’t mention him in his treatise on the Medo-Persian religions, though Plato, who was born roughly around the time Herodotus died, does mention him in his Alcibiades (see Wikipedia’s entry on Zoroaster;

But establishing when Zarathustra lived is only the first step. Next, we have to establish what he actually taught (as opposed to what modern Zoroastrianism claims he taught). The only source for Zarathustra’s teachings is the Avesta, and the oldest copies we have of the Avesta date from the 13th century A.D. The late date for this collection of writings lends no support whatsoever to the idea that Christians borrowed from Zoroastrianism (the oldest copies of the Jewish Scriptures which we have today date centuries before Christ and the oldest complete manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures we have date from the 4th century A.D.).

This looks to be another case of skeptics citing a pre-Christian religion, assuming that the post-Christian form of the religion (which we know about) has remained faithful to the pre-Christian form of the religion (which we know nothing about), and speculating that the similarities between the religion and Christianity are due to Christianity borrowing from the religion in question. It’s a philosophical argument without solid evidence to back it up. Have we any good reason not to suppose that it was Zoroastrianism which borrowed from Christianity and not vice versa? We know that Zoroastrianism borrowed freely from the polytheistic faiths of the region in which it became popular. Mithra, for example, was a Persian god who found a prominent role in Zoroastrianism. Mithra’s Hindu counterpart is the god Mitra.

All philosophical arguments aside, we know that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure, that He fulfilled numerous specific prophecies written and preserved hundreds of years before His life, that He died on a cross, and that He was reported to have risen from the dead and interacted with men and women who were willing to suffer horribly and die for this testimony.

I’ve seen this arguement before, and if you don’t mind me asking, what is your background? Are you religious? Agnostic? Or Atheist? Just curious. For starters, I can’t quote specific page numbers, but the trinity is talked about in the New Testament (NT) not specifically ‘trinity’, but Jesus did teach about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost). Interesting what you have said about this Mithra character, but for starters its most generally excepted that Jesus wasn’t born on Dec. 25th, rather sometime in the spring. It’s a well known fact in Christianity that Dec. 25th was chosen to compete with pagan traditions that occurred at the same time. Also, I have heard many interesting theories that could be accepted by most Christians pertaining to the idea that Jesus actually visited different areas of the world under different names/forms at different times in history. It makes sense, after all, why only visit the MIddle East? If you’d like to discuss this or similar ideas, feel free to send me a message.

Hon, “The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity: An Outline Study”
Should answer your questions assuming you actually ARE asking a question you want an answer to.

As to the rest, I find it funny that anti-theists (I’m not religious) bring Mithras, Horus, and many other crucified saviors up frequently and miss the OTHER conclusion:

Maybe God and Jesus DID appear to all cultures and peoples at one time or another.
Some accepting him, others dismissing him utterly.

Did you mean to bring up proof that Jesus’ message was so much more extensive than we thought?

Wow you are spending a lot of time on this Zeitgeist cr@p, mithra was before Christ = true , but fortunately his birth, disciples and all of the other similarities where written over 700 years after Christ. I invite you to find and writings dating back to before the birth of Christ with any of your statements.

Proof of the Trinity

Genesis 1:26-27, which states “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

Notice Our is capitalized, indicating God is speaking to God or the trinity or (our) wouldn’t be capitalized referring to angles.

stay a way from that Zeitgeist stuff

1) All Pagan religions from the time of Babylon have adopted (in one form or another) a Trinity doctrine or a triad or trinity of gods.

It’s obvious from this statement that
a – you are making things up
b – you have not researched the matter from anything remotely resembling a reliable source

There are hundreds of religions “from the time of Babylon” that did not have triple deities.

More importantly: nothing resembling the Christian concept of “trinity” has been discovered by appropriately-accredited scholars to pre-exist its invention by Christians. **Appropriately-accredited scholars** (i.e. anthropologists and historians) credit Christianity with the invention of the doctrine of trinity.

In other words: NO religion that we know had a “trinity” doctrine before Christianity. HUNDREDS of religions that we know that existed “from the time of Babylon” had no triple deities, directly contradicting your claim in that regard.

Your statement is simply wrong – on both counts.

2) Long before the Christian era, numerous variations of the trinity existed, and they were found in a host of pagan religions and mythologies

Untrue. Please read from a **reliable source** about the history of the concept of trinity. The concept is **completely unknown in history** prior to its development in Christianity.

3) There is no evidence the Apostles of Jesus ever heard of a Trinity.

Agreed. The concept of trinity – as far as history has been able to determine – **did not exist at that early date anywhere in the World**. However, the “trinitarian formula” – namely, “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” – is found in the Gospels. This is evidence of – not the trinity doctrine itself – but of a sort of primitive, pre-trinitarian Christian doctrine. That is: based on the Biblical gospels, the earliest (first century) Christians recognized Jesus as God and recognized the Holy Spirit as some especially important (equally authoritative or not?) supernatural personage. However, as far as history knows the concept of “trinity” was not explicitly expressed until more than 100 years after the gospels were written, and that makes it very likely that trinity was not taught by the early (first century) Christian church.

4) The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity.

Actually, the doctrine of trinity is logically (necessarily) deduced from the Biblical texts. So: though you are correct in stating that the Bible does not explicitly teach the doctrine of trinity, the New Testament Biblical texts are indisputably the source of that doctrine.

5) Neither the word Trinity itself, nor such language as one in three, three in one, one essence or substance or three persons, is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient Church, taken not from the Bible but from classical Greek philosophy.

Again: please read about this from a **reliable** source. The word “trinity” was – as far as scholars can determine – invented by a Christian who was referring not to “classical Greek philosophy” but – rather – to Christian religious concepts.

6) Long before the founding of Christianity the idea of a triune god or a god-in-three persons was a common belief in ancient religions. Although many of these religions had many minor deities, they distinctly acknowledged that there was one supreme God who consisted of three persons or essences.

Again: this simply is untrue. You are **inaccurately** ascribing one trait of trinity to the pre-Christian triple deities – a trait that, as far as scholars are able to determine, NONE of those pre-Christian triple deities possessed. You are (intentionally, it seems) confusing a *triad relationship* with a *triune nature*.

7) That there was no formal, established doctrine of the Trinity until the fourth century is a fully documented historical fact.

That is correct. Though the Christian doctrine of trinity was being written about and disseminated in the early 3rd century (maybe or maybe not even earlier, but definitely by then), it was not **formally** established as a universal doctrine of Christianity until the end of the 4th century.

8) The modern belief in the trinity originated in the 4th century at the Council of Nicaea

Clearly your source of information is **full of error**. Please – please! – read a **reliable, scholarly source** regarding the history of the doctrine of trinity. The doctrine of trinity was NOT an issue at that council!

The Mithra stuff is pure malarky – irrelevant to the preceding discussion.

– Jim,

“The trinity is not part of the old testament,”


Proverbs 30:4 – “Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?”

Psalms 2:12 – “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.”

Isaiah 7:14 – “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Proverbs 89:27-28 – “And I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.”

Daniel 3:25 – “Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”


Isaiah 63:10-11 – “But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them. Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?”

Psalms 51:11 – “Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.”

Genesis 41:38 – “And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?”

Then God said, “LET US make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” Genesis 1:26

Let Us….Who is us? This proves the trinity. If this isn’t solid evidence then there must be multiple gods because we were made in the image of god.

its through the Jewish Race that God will save His people. Christians follow Christ. Not many people (including me) have ever heard of “Mithra” sounds mythical (anti-God even???) but why is it the whole world has heard of Jesus? Its because He is real the humanist of humans the One True God who cares for His flock. Dont follow false shepards youll get all mucked up

your correct, but have you ever thought that maybe Satan and his demons believe it. Think about it, the demon were kicked out of heaven for coming to earth and having sex/children with the woman on earth., so if they can claim that the holy spirit is a person it would have committed fornication with Mary therefore committing the same sin they did therefore God would be a hypocrite in others eyes. Horrible I know but satan would do anything to try to hurt Jehovah’s name. Two Babylons by Alexander Hissop is great to find out a lot of these false religious customs.

Jesus is the Son of God. Those Mithra comparisons were debunked long ago. Try again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *