The strongly pagan origin of the Christian Trinity. How and from what did the church create its god? The myth of the Christian God. Scientific and historical facts

by

Table of Contents

Council of Nicaea

Despite the fact that the Council of Nicaea was convened by the Latin-speaking emperor Constantine, the language of the council was Greek , and the Nicene Creed was in Greek, and the council was held in the then Greek-speaking city of Nicaea, which is located in present-day Turkey. However, one can read very interesting things on the English Wikipedia. The Father and the Son are of "the same substance" in the Nicene Creed. The problem, however, is that in Greek, the words for "same" and "similar" substance are almost identical, differing by only two letters. It would be very interesting if the Vatican and the Orthodox Church would declassify and publish the oldest manuscript of the Nicene Creed, and perhaps we would be very surprised to find a text of similar substance that contradicts the teaching of the Holy Trinity and would sound more pagan polytheistic, like separate gods. Not to mention that sometimes it is very difficult to discern small differences in letters from manuscripts. I would not put my hand in the fire for it, but I believe that the original wording of the Council of Nicaea would be heretical from the perspective of contemporary Christian churches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoousion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiousian

The English Wikipedia texts below reveal the strongly pagan origin of Christianity, which many contemporary orthodox Christians would find very difficult to bear psychologically, because it is an extremely unpleasant truth for them that Christianity was so extremely strongly inspired by that dirty, disgusting, satanic paganism. The Wikipedia articles are very well sourced. This is a machine translation, so I apologize for any inaccuracies in the translation.
From Wikipedia, I have selected the most interesting parts of very long articles.
For pagans, it was not a problem at all to correctly understand the teaching of the Divine Trinity, as dual deities were very well known in paganism. Two gods who intertwined, merged, and identified with each other into one god, so it was not clear whether it was one god or several, similar to the current teaching of the Divine Trinity. Note that the Nicene Creed does not speak of a divine trinity but of a divine duality, the Father and the Son, which strikingly resembles pagan dual deities, of which there were many and were well known in Greek and Roman mythology. Worshipping two gods as one was very common. One pagan god worshipped in two persons, if I use the terminology of Christian theology. In dual deities, it was about identifying two gods into one, especially if it was a god with similar characteristics but from different cultures, such as the pair of Roman and Greek gods or the pair of Greek and Egyptian gods, such as the gods Hermes and Thoth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretatio_graeca

A side note:
By the way, it is fascinating that the confession of the First Council of Constantinople (381) speaks of the Holy Spirit, but does not say that it is of the same essence as the Father and the Son, which would be considered heresy from the perspective of contemporary mainstream Christian theology, because it sounds too pagan and polytheistic, because the Holy Spirit is too separate. The Holy Spirit is spoken of in the context as a much lower deity than the Father and the Son, although contemporary mainstream Christian theology speaks of the equality of all persons in the Trinity. Also, the confession does not speak of the Holy Spirit as God but as Lord , which clearly indicates that the Holy Spirit is a much lower deity.
Now I will return to the Nicene Creed. Note that the Father is designated as God and the Son is designated first as Lord and only then in the following lines indirectly as God. By this, the authors of the council made it very clear that the Son is a lower deity, similar to what Tertullian proclaimed. The Nicene Creed is in absolute contradiction with contemporary Christian theology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Side note 2:
In his letter 1 Cor 8, the Apostle Paul explains the term "Lord" in more detail. The Apostle Paul explains that calling Jesus Lord means calling him the Jewish King Messiah, a political ruler in God's kingdom. He puts Jesus as Lord in the context of a secular ruler like an emperor. And the first Christians expected the coming of Christ very soon and thought they would live to see it. By the way, this is also the reason why the Roman emperors were afraid of Christianity, because Christianity had an extremely strong political character. The emperors were not so much bothered by the new religious sect as by the fact that Christians preached that they expected the early coming of the ruler Jesus, who would establish the "Kingdom of God". In the passage, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that by the term "Lord" he does not mean the divinity of Christ.

But I've strayed from the topic.

I also selected quotes from Wikipedia that speak of Greek gods as the Father and the Son. Well, that's very interesting pagan terminology in Christian theology. Although this terminology is also used by the Bible, the authors of the Bible are not Jews, not Jesus' apostles, but converted pagans to Christianity, who still had a very strong pagan mindset.

The pagan god Hermes identified with the Christian god

Hermes, by the way, was also the patron of thieves, a god who helps thieves, because the Greeks believed that gods have very human qualities, including bad ones. This is one of the reasons why Christians distance themselves so much, that the creation of the myth of the Christian god, the creation of the Christian god was inspired by the Greek god of thieves Hermes.
It is very interesting how St. Augustine spoke about Hermes, whom he called a prophet who predicted Christianity. It is very strange that the former Gnostic Augustine was closer to paganism than to Gnosticism, against which he fought so aggressively. The fact that Augustine reduced Hermes to a prophet is not a claim that would be so very contrary to the pagan faith, because pagans believed in pagan prophets who later became gods. It is very strange that Augustine did not designate some other pagan god as a pre-Christian prophet because there were hundreds of them. Well, the reason is very clear why Augustine thought this way – Augustine knew very well that the Nicene Creed about the Divine couple of the Father and the Son is practically identical to the pagan teaching about the couple of united gods Hermes and Thoth.
                      It is truly unbelievable that even though the church certainly did everything to erase its pagan origin from history, it did not completely succeed in doing so even by the 10th century. The author of the medieval encyclopedia Suda from the 10th century openly states that the Divine Trinity was inspired by Hermes.

The origin of the creation of the Christian God: The divine pair Helius-Apollo, or Helius-Sol

The last pagan emperors of the Roman Empire ordered the worship of Helios as the main god. They did so inspired by Christianity. The pagan emperors believed that the Christian god or gods were real and tried to identify or unite him/them with the god Helios or the divine pair Helios and Apollo.

And one of the most interesting sentences from Wikipedia, which speaks of the Divine Trinity even before Christianity:
Zeus, Hades, Helios-Dionysus, three gods in one divine head!

Articles from Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes

Another syncretism of the Roman imperial era came in the form of Hermanubis , which is the result of the identification of Hermes with the Egyptian god of the dead, Anubis . Hermes and Anubis were psychopomps, the primary attribute leading to their fusion as the same god. Hermanubis is depicted with a human body and a jackal head, holding a caduceus. In addition to his function of leading souls to the afterlife, Hermanubis represented the Egyptian priesthood in the examination of truth. [56] [57]

At the turn of the 1st century AD, a process began by which, in certain traditions, Hermes became euhemerized – that is, interpreted as a historical, mortal figure who became divine or was elevated to a divine status in legends. A number of books of wisdom and magic (including astrology, theosophy, and alchemy) were attributed to this "historical" Hermes, usually identified in his Alexandrian form as Hermes Trismegistus. As a collection, these works are referred to as Hermetica . [58]

In the Middle Ages

Although the worship of Hermes was almost completely suppressed in the Roman Empire after the Christian persecution of paganism under Theodosius I, Hermes continued to be recognized as a mystical or prophetic figure, albeit a mortal one , by 4th-century AD Christian scholars. Early medieval Christians like Augustine believed that the euhemerized Hermes Trismegistus was an ancient pagan prophet who had foretold the advent of Christianity in his writings. [59] [60] Some Christian philosophers during the Middle Ages and Renaissance believed in the existence of a " prisca theologia ", a single thread of true theology that linked all religions. [61] [62] Christian philosophers used hermetic writings and other ancient philosophical literature to support their belief in the prisca theologia, claiming that Hermes Trismegistus was a contemporary of Moses, [63] or that he was the third in a line of important prophets after Enoch and Noah. [64] [65]
In the 10th century, Suda attempted to further Christianize the figure of Hermes, claiming that "he was called Trismegistus for his praise of the trinity, saying that in the trinity there is one divine nature." [66]
****************************************************************

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_Trismegistus

Many Christian writers, including Lactantius , Augustine , Marsilio Ficino , Campanella , and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola , as well as Giordano Bruno , considered Hermes Trismegistus to be a wise pagan prophet who foresaw the coming of Christianity . [16] [17] They believed in the existence of prisca theologia , a single, true theology that permeates all religions. It was given by God to man in ancient times [18] [19] and passed through a series of prophets, including Zoroaster and Plato . To prove the truth of prisca theologia, Christians appropriated Hermetic teachings for their own purposes. Accordingly, Hermes Trismegistus was either a contemporary of Moses [20] or the third in a line of men named Hermes, namely Enoch, Noah, and the Egyptian priest-king known to us as Hermes Trismegistus [21] , to be the greatest priest, philosopher, and king. [21] [22]
Another explanation in the Suda (10th century) is that "he was called Trismegistus for his praise of the Trinity, saying that in the Trinity there is one divine nature." [23]
****************************************************************

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism

Hermetic texts were found in 1945 near the Egyptian city of Nag Hammadi . One of these texts was in the form of a dialogue between Hermes and Asclepius . The second text (entitled On the Ogdoad and Ennead ) spoke of the hermetic mystery schools . It was written in the Coptic language , the latest and final form in which the Egyptian language was written . [31]
According to Geza Vermes, Hermeticism was Hellenistic mysticism from the contemporary Fourth Gospel, and Hermes Trismegistus was a "Hellenized reincarnation of the Egyptian deity Thoth , the source of wisdom, who was believed to deify man through knowledge ( gnosis ). " [32]
****************************************************************
Reincarnation is mentioned in Hermetic texts. Hermes Trismegistus asked:
O son, how many bodies must we pass through, how many bands of demons, how many series of repetitions and cycles of stars, before we hasten to the One? [54] ****************************************************************

The Fall of Man
 Main article: The Fall of Man
Man carefully observed the creation of the nous and received human authority over all creation from God. Man then rose above the paths of the spheres to better see creation. Then he showed the form of the All to Nature. Nature fell in love with the All, and man, seeing his reflection in the water, fell in love with Nature and wanted to dwell in it. Man immediately united with nature and became a slave to its limitations, such as sex and sleep . In this way, man lost speech (lost the "Word") and became a " double ", being a mortal body but immortal in spirit , and had authority over all creation, but was subject to fate. [62]

An alternative description of the fall of man
 An alternative account of the fall of man, preserved in Isis, prophetess to her son Horus , is as follows:

God, who created the universe, created divisions, worlds, and various gods and goddesses, whom he established in certain parts of the universe. Then he took a mysterious transparent substance from which he created human souls. He established the souls in the astral realm, which is just above the physical realm.
Then he assigned souls to create life on Earth. He gave the souls a part of his creative substance and commanded them to contribute to his creation. The souls then used the substance to create various animals and forms of physical life. Soon after, the souls began to overstep their boundaries; they succumbed to pride and longed to be equal to the highest gods.
God was displeased and called upon Hermes to create physical bodies that would imprison the souls as punishment. Hermes created human bodies on Earth, and God then told the souls about their punishment. God decreed that they would suffer in the physical world, but promised them that if their actions on Earth were worthy of their divine origin, their condition would improve, and they would eventually return to the heavenly world. If it did not improve, he would condemn them to repeated reincarnation on Earth. [63]

****************************************************************

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios

In late antiquity, Helios accumulated a number of religious, mythological, and literary elements from other deities, especially from Apollo and the Roman sun god Sol . On December 25, 274 AD, the Roman Emperor Aurelianus introduced an official state cult of Sol Invictus (or Helios Megistos , "Great Helios"). This new cult combined images not only associated with Helios and Sol, but also a number of syncretic elements from other deities that were previously considered distinct. Other syncretic materials from this period include the Orphic Hymn to Helios ; the so-called Mithras Liturgy, where Helios is said to rule the elements; spells and incantations invoking Helios among the Greek magical papyri ; Proclus ' Hymn to Helios; Julian's speech to Helios , the last stand of official paganism; and an episode in Nonnus ' Dionysiaca . [439] Helios is often identified in these works not only with deities such as Mithras and Harpokrates , but even with the monotheistic Judeo-Christian God. [440]

The last Roman pagan emperor, Julian, made Helios the primary deity of his restored pagan religion, which combined elements of Mithraism with Neoplatonism . For Julian, Helios was a trinity : The One , who governs the highest realm containing Plato's Forms or intelligible gods; Helios-Mithras, the supreme god of the Intellectual Realm; and the Sun, the physical manifestation of Helios in the Encosmic or visible realm. Because Helios' primary placement in this scheme was the "middle" sphere, Julian considered him a mediator and unifier not only of the three spheres of being but of all things (a concept likely imported from Mithraism and also possibly influenced by the Christian idea of the Logos ). [54] Julian's theological conception of Helios has been described as "practically monotheistic," unlike earlier Neoplatonists such as Iamblichus, [54] although it also included other traditional gods worshipped in the ancient Mediterranean as distinct entities and also certain principles or manifestations that emanate from Helios. [54]

In many papyri, Helios is also strongly identified with Iao, a name derived from the Hebrew god Yahweh , and shares several of his titles, including Sabaoth and Adonai. [14] He is also assimilated as Agathos Daemon (called "Agathodaimon, god of gods"), who is also identified elsewhere in the texts as "the greatest god, lord Horus Harpokrates". [14]
*****************************
In the preserved fragment from the play, Helios accompanies his son on his unfortunate journey to heaven and tries to give him instructions on how to drive the chariot, while he rides a spare horse named Sirius, [121] as someone, perhaps a pedagogue, informs Clymene of Phaethon's fate, who is probably accompanied by slaves:

Take, for example, the passage in which Helios, when handing over the reins to his son, says:
"Keep driving, but avoid the burning Libyan tract;"
Hot, dry air will trigger your remedy:
Towards the seven Pleiades, keep your steady path.
And then-
"It was said that his son fearlessly grabbed the reins,"
Then he struck the sides of the winged racers: they were tied up.
Further on the empty and cavernous air vault.
His father gets on another horse and rides
A warning voice guiding her son. 'Drive there!'
Turn around, turn your car like this.
— Euripides , Phaethon fragment 779 [122]

*****************************
This perception may be derived from the earlier Proto-Indo-European religion , in which the Sun is presumed to have been represented as the eye of * Dyḗus Pḥ a tḗr (see Hvare-khshaeta ). An Orphic proverb, allegedly uttered by the oracle of Apollo, reads:
Zeus, Hades, Helios-Dionysus, three gods in one divine head!
Although the connection of Helios with Zeus seems to have no basis in early Greek cult and writings, there are many examples of direct identification in later times. [494] From the Hellenistic period, Serapis was born, a Greco-Egyptian deity whom the Greeks understood as a chthonic aspect of Zeus, whose solar nature is indicated by the Solar Crown and rays with which the Greeks depicted him. [495] O
***********************
The cult of Helios/Sol had a remarkable function in Eretz Israel ; since the emperor was considered the ruler of the world, the greeting of his figure with the right hand was recognized as a symbol of power; Helios was the patron of Constantine the Great , and so this ruler identified himself with Helios. [544] Constantine in his new capital Constantinople recycled the statue of Helios to represent himself in his portrait, as Nero did with Sol, which was not uncommon among pagans, [545] and the position of the emperors in the Arch of Galerius is comparable to the position of Helios/Sol on the Dieberg plate [546] and also in coin minting. [547]
***********************
***********************
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Hermeticum

***********************
***********************
Related articles
https://filozofia.nett.to/krestanstvo/en/author-bart-d-ehrman-his-works-a-prominent-critic-of-christianity
https://filozofia.nett.to/krestanstvo/en/why-the-bible-is-the-strongest-anti-christian-book-why-the-church-threatened-death-penalty-for-owning-the-bible
https://filozofia.nett.to/krestanstvo/en/nicea-council-was-polytheistic-great-embarrassment-for-the-church
https://filozofia.nett.to/krestanstvo/en/history-what-christ-did-the-first-christians-believe-in
https://filozofia.nett.to/krestanstvo/en/was-yahweh-the-only-god-did-biblical-jews-believe-in-multiple-gods
https://filozofia.nett.to/krestanstvo/en/biblical-passages-directly-questioning-the-divinity-of-christ
https://filozofia.nett.to/krestanstvo/en/manipulation-of-the-bible-on-the-divinity-of-christ-and-the-holy-trinity

Updated 6/9/2025

The development of the Church's teaching on the Divine Trinity. How the Divine Duo became the Divine Trinity

  • The authors of the Bible were Jewish converts to Christianity. The Bible speaks of Christ as a man and there is nothing to support the idea that they considered him a god.
  • When Christianity spread among the pagans, most of the then Christian converts followed the philosophy of syncretism with paganism. They did not fully give up pagan thinking and often participated in Christian and pagan rites in parallel and alternately.
  • For pagans, it was common for the Roman emperor, who was the highest authority of the Roman religion, to declare even ordinary people as gods. For example, Emperor Hadrian, after his gay lover Antinous tragically died, declared him a god and had him worshipped as a god. Historian Bart D. Ehrman speaks of a large number of such examples of how a person became a god in the Roman religion.
  • The idea of making Jesus a god originated among pagan converts to Christianity. Such an idea was very close to the pagans.
  • Divine Trinity vs. Divine Duo . Although divine trinities were not very well known in pagan religion, divine duos were very well known, where two gods merged into one god. These divine duos strikingly resemble the Christian teaching of the divine trinity. The most famous divine duo were the gods Hermes and Thoth . Just as the Christian God the Father and the Son are homoousion (= of the same substance), so in pagan theology it was said that Hermes and Thoth are homoousion.
  • While in the past the pagan religion was ruled by the emperor, Emperor Constantine also decided to rule Christianity. He presided over and directed the Council of Nicaea (325). He declared Christianity to be the main religion. He stopped financially supporting pagan temples, cut off pagans from money, and began to financially support Christianity.
  • High academic authorities claim that the Christian idea of God is inspired by the divine pairs that were very well known in Greco-Roman theology. As the strongest evidence, they state that in the Nicene Creed, they used a 100% pagan theological concept that had never had anything to do with Christianity, homoousion.
  • Christians mistakenly believe that the Nicene Creed speaks of the divine trinity. On the contrary. The Nicene Creed speaks only of the divine pair of the Father and the Son, which is very reminiscent of the inspiration of divine pairs, which were very popular in pagan religion.
  • The Divine Duo : In the Nicene Creed, the Holy Spirit is not designated as God, nor does it follow from the context. Please read the Nicene Creed very carefully and with understanding. Notice the contrast. While the Father and the Son are designated as two united gods, the Holy Spirit is not designated as God. Be very careful to read the actual original Nicene Creed. Read, for example, the English Wikipedia. On the Internet, you will find various later non-original versions of the church creed.
  • The Church falsifies history. Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: In the later Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, whose year of origin is unknown, it is cautiously suggested that the Holy Spirit could also be recognized as God, although it is not explicitly stated there. It is not designated by the word "God" but by the more cautious word "Lord," and it is designated as an entity to be worshipped. For the first time in history, the divine trinity is hinted at. Although the Holy Spirit is designated in this creed as a lower deity that emanates from the Father. For centuries, the Church lied and falsified history, claiming that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed originated from the earlier Council of Constantinople (381), to give the Divine Trinity an older and more credible origin. Modern historians, however, claim the opposite. English Wikipedia states that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was approved no earlier than the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The well-sourced English Wikipedia article "Nicene Creed" even claims that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed has an even younger and later origin than the 451 Council of Chalcedon. Honestly, I would be quite interested to know how the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is taught in individual theological faculties and priestly seminaries, whether falsified or true history is taught there. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed speaks of "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins," from which the doctrine of original sin follows. The first inventor of the doctrine of original sin was Saint Augustine (395 – 430), who was not yet alive at that time and was born later. In ancient times, information did not spread as quickly as today, and we can assume that it took hundreds of years for Augustine's doctrine of original sin to be generally accepted in the church.
  • It is demonstrably and provably based on scientific facts that we have no official church documents from at least the sixth century that speak of the Divine Trinity, but only of the Divine Duo, which is a teaching that so strikingly resembles pagan theology. This is very depressing and bad news for Christian theologians and Christian believers. It is true that some so-called church fathers hinted at the teaching of the Divine Trinity even before the 6th century, but at that time information did not spread as quickly as it does today, and it could have taken many hundreds of years for this teaching to become generally known and accepted in the church.
  • Later, evolutionarily, the divine pair became a divine trinity.
  • many a believer would collapse psychologically from the unpleasant truth that Christianity is inspired by "dirty, disgusting, satanic" paganism to the same extent as Judaism

Related topics

  • The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381) first mentions the virginal conception of Jesus in his Mother Mary. The Bible does not support this version, and therefore Bible translations have been manipulated in this area. Historian Bart D. Ehrman claims that pagan mythology often spoke of the virginal conception of gods. Christians were inspired by paganism in the virginal conception of Mary.
  • The worship of Mary in the Catholic Church is a substitute for the goddesses in the Roman religion. In the Catholic Church, Mary is still considered a demigod, a demigoddess. The cult of Mary is not a coincidence, but a clear inspiration from paganism. Historian Bart D. Ehrman discusses this in more detail.

Updated 21.9.2025

Why is the pagan origin of their god a big problem for Christians?

Christians believe that their God is the authentic and true supreme principle of divine revelation.
In this article, however, they will learn the unpleasant truth that their god has nothing divine in him, does not come from the divine revelation of the Bible, but their god was created by people.
Many Christians will have to get antidepressants prescribed after reading this article when they realize what nonsense they have put so much energy into.
To make matters worse, Christians consider pagan gods to be demons, devils.
From this article, Christians will learn that their God was created from the satanic pagan concept of homoousion. So Christians believe in a "satanic" God. This is a very unpleasant truth they have learned.

The Church falsified Athanasius' confession of faith. The Church falsifies its history.

Another prime example of how the Catholic Church falsifies its history is the so-called Athanasian Creed (Quicunque Vult), which very strikingly resembles the current teaching of the Church on the Divine Trinity. Saint Athanasius lived from 298 to 373. The Church thus falsified its history to give the impression of a very ancient origin of the teaching on the Divine Trinity. The truth is that the teaching on the Divine Trinity is a relatively new invention of the Church, which was completely unknown to early Christians and has no basis in the Bible.
The oldest preserved manuscripts of the Athanasian Creed date back to the end of the 8th century. And it is also questionable whether these manuscripts were preserved in their entirety or only in small fragments, and whether this creed was generally known throughout the church or only to a few individuals at the end of the 8th century.
It is questionable how church professors teach this falsification of history at theological faculties – I would really be interested in that. Perhaps very euphemistically, between the lines, they might suggest in one sentence that "in the past there was a tradition that Athanasius was believed to be the author of the Quicunque Vult creed, and then it was somehow discovered that the author was unknown from some later years." Church professors of theology certainly have knowledge of how the church falsified its own history, but they certainly will not share their knowledge with ordinary believers. The ordinary believer has no idea how the church has deceived and cheated them.

The Church Falsifies the Bible: The Johannine Comma

Catholic theologians also officially admit to the falsification of the Bible, although they do not share this knowledge with ordinary believers. Believers remain deceived by the church in ignorance. This is a text added to the Greek Bible. This clearly proves the desperation of the church, because the Holy Trinity has no support in the Bible.
The English Wikipedia has been taken over by religious fanatics who strongly advocate arguments in favor of the authenticity of this falsified part of the Bible – the views of these extremists are, however, contrary to the mainstream consensus of Christian theologians. The hoax that the oldest version of the Vulgate contains this falsified part is repeated there about 50 times. This is not true. The oldest and the youngest version of the Vulgate does not contain this passage. This passage is only contained in the Latin Vulgate version Clementina from the period of the Pope's conflict with the Protestants.

1 John 5:7–8
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

Why was Islam so successful among Christians?

During the spread of Islam, Christians converted to Islam very quickly. And according to my information, violence was not always necessary for this, and it was often a voluntary conversion. People were disgusted by how the church distorted the Bible, in contradiction to the New Testament of the Bible they declared Christ to be God, in contradiction to the Bible they created the Holy Trinity, and by how the church corrupted political power.
Islam was a certain form of Arianism.
Islam at that time was probably something completely different than it is today – it was a far more liberal faith and there was not as much religious fanaticism in it as there is today.

Since what year has the Holy Spirit been considered God?

There are certainly some statements by the Christian Church Fathers that speak of the Holy Spirit as God, but their teaching was not known to the entire church, to all believers and priests. The definitive recognition of the divinity of the Holy Spirit was probably only at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).
I read the entire Wikipedia article about the Holy Spirit, specifically on the topic of Filioque . It's as long as a whole book. Dozens of council outputs are cited, but not a single mention of whether the Holy Spirit is considered God. It only discusses whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but not a word about whether it is considered God.

Fourth Lateran Council (1215)

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) discusses the topic of the Divine Trinity in great detail. It is probably only in these years that the Church's teaching on the Divine Trinity is truly identical to the current teaching of the Church.
The Fourth Lateran Council labels the polytheistic view of the divine trinity as heresy, which implies that there must have been many ambiguities about the trinity, and many theologians and believers believed in so-called tritheism.
It is incredible that even in the 13th century, believers still did not have a clear idea of what to imagine under the term "God".

There are strong arguments that Augustine's work on the Divine Trinity, De Trinitate, was a forgery by the church and was written at the earliest approximately 500 years after his death.

Augustine's Latin work De Trinitate describes an identical and equally extensive teaching on the Divine Trinity as contemporary Christian churches. The Church can thus argue for a relatively ancient origin of the teaching on the Divine Trinity. However, the Church's version has major flaws.
                 Religious fanatics would be extremely offended by this consideration and would certainly claim that "our amazing" church would certainly not deceive us, and that just thinking about it is a terrible blasphemy against the church and God.
But the facts say something else.
It would be very good if academic authorities dealt with this topic.
When I read a part of the work De Trinitate in Latin, the character of the Latin language seemed extremely suspicious to me. At the beginning of the fifth century, there was no such form of Latin as used in this work, and it very strikingly resembles a contemporary modern understandable language , beautiful pure Latin. On the contrary, in the time of Augustine, Latin was used in the form of a kind of gibberish, which was less understandable, difficult to translate, and with a literal translation, in some sentences, you sometimes have to rack your brains over what the author actually wanted to say.
In contrast, Pope Zosimus from Augustine's time uses a form of Latin in his document Epistola tractoria that is appropriate for the given time.
I am not saying that De Trinitate is definitely a forgery, but the suspicions are so great that it is certainly worth a thorough and precise scientific research to either confirm or refute this hypothesis (of course, it must be done by secular scientists, not church theologians).
It cannot be completely ruled out that De Trinitate was an authentic work, but later scribes made enormous grammatical and stylistic adjustments to this Latin work when transcribing the copy, or added their own content.
Another very unlikely possibility is that Augustine was a super-genius who was ahead of his time and who mastered a form of Latin that was first used 500 years after his death, and his Latin was more beautiful and perfect than the Latin of the Pope's own scribes.
The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) is proof that the development of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was still not completed even in the 13th century. Perhaps the main basis for the creation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity at the Lateran Council was the forgery De Trinitate.
Thomas Aquinas, who lived after the Lateran Council, seems to be a more likely author of De Trinitate than Augustine.

Further arguments in favor of falsification:

  • Given that the Bible contains no texts to support the Divinity of Christ and to support the Divine Trinity, in the newer versions of the Greek Bible manuscripts, the church created forgeries of the Bible manuscripts Textus Receptus. If the church had no problem forging the Bible, how much sooner would it have had no problem forging Augustine's work De Trinitate to falsify the ancient origin of the Divine Trinity?
  • The Catholic Church has officially admitted to fraud and to the creation of a forgery of the Athanasian Creed. Why shouldn't the church have a problem with forging Augustine's work De Trinitate? (The Catholic Church "admitted" in the context that today it is already a consensus among Catholic theologians, professors of theology, that it is a forgery)
  • The suspicion of forgery of De Trinitate is also raised by the excessive theological evolutionary maturity and sophistication of the work on the Divine Trinity for that time; its teaching is identical in scope to the modern theological teaching of the Catholic Church on the Divine Trinity. Even younger and later authors after Augustine did not have such extensive teaching on the Trinity as he did.
  • Other later church authors were unaware of Augustine's teaching.
  • If Augustine's work were true, then so many councils on the subject of the Holy Trinity would not have been necessary after his death.
  • Overly confident and aggressive twisting and misinterpretation of the Bible in favor of the Divine Trinity and in favor of the Divinity of Christ for that time. Such argumentation was typical many hundreds of years after Augustine's death. For example, twisting the meaning of John's Gospel by arguing God=Word=Christ. I am convinced that the first Christians would not have dreamed of understanding the first chapter of John's Gospel as proof of Christ's divinity.
  • The topic of Filioque and the agile argumentation in favor of the Catholic Church's view on this topic is mentioned in De Trinitate with provocative frequency and detail. Augustine would have no reason to discuss this topic in such detail, because at that time the conflict between the Western and Eastern Churches did not yet exist. On the contrary, it makes sense to create a falsification of Augustine's work in favor of the Catholic theological view of Filioque at the time of the escalating conflict between the Eastern and Western Churches in the 11th – 13th centuries.
  • The task of scientists, researchers, and historians is to determine the oldest manuscript of De Trinitate and to better examine whether Augustine's teaching was known to later authors.

Gregory of Nazianzus, the inventor of the Divine Trinity

Gregory of Nazianzus was probably the first to evolutionarily create the Divine Trinity from the Divine Duo. Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389) was the first person after the Council of Nicaea to speak of the Trinity in a way that resembles contemporary Christian theology. Some Church Fathers also spoke of the Trinity before the Council of Nicaea, but in a completely different context and meaning, which had nothing to do with the current Christian teaching on the Trinity.
However, it probably took hundreds of years for the teachings of Gregory of Nazianzus to become known to the entire church.

I quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, also called "the Theologian", entrusts this summary of the Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople:
… I say, and the confession of faith in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Today I entrust it to you. With it, I will immerse you in the cleansing water and lift you out of it. I give it to you as a companion and protector for your entire life: the one deity and power, existing together in the Three and containing the Three in different ways: a deity of the same essence or nature, which is neither increased by greatness nor diminished by subordination… The infinite unity of the Three infinities. Each of them is God, if considered separately…; and God are these Three, if considered together… As soon as I imagined the One in my mind, the Three immediately shone for me. As soon as I begin to distinguish the Three, I am immediately led to the One."

The teaching of the Christian Trinity comes from Roman mythology, scientists claim.

Christians consider their religion to be the only true one and despise other religions. They consider paganism to be something close to Satan. The scholar Pier Franco Beatrice, a prominent and recognized Italian professor of religious studies, revealed that Christians contradict themselves and do not know their history. His work, titled "The Word Homoousios from Hellenism to Christianity," proves with undeniable evidence that the concept of the Christian idea of God, the Divine Trinity, was directly inspired by the pagan Roman religion, which Christians hated. Christians did not come up with anything new with their divine trinity. Roman religion had long known the theology of unified deities into one entity. The Nicene Creed (year 325) speaks of two unified deities, God the Father and God the Son. The Holy Spirit had not yet been declared a god; divinity was attributed to it only later, and through later evolution, the divine trinity arose from the divine duo.
In the Christian encyclopedia Suda from the 10th century, the Christian author himself claims that the teaching of the Divine Trinity comes from the pagan Divine Duo of the god Hermes and the god Thoth.
History is written by the victors. The Church has erased its own history.
In order to conceal its pagan origin, the Church later replaced the pagan theological concept of "ousia" with the word "hypostasis".
The statue of the pagan god Hermes, which you can see in the picture, is still in the Vatican Museum today.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Statue_Hermes_Chiaramonti.jpg/800px-Statue_Hermes_Chiaramonti.jpg

Updated 29.12.2025

The history of the church is an atomic bomb that completely destroys Christianity and Christian dogmas.

The history of the church is an atomic bomb that completely destroys Christianity and Christian dogmas. However, almost all Christians are in deep ignorance and have no idea about their history.

The Nicene Creed was based on the pagan mythology of homoousios of two united gods, the divine couple – the gods Hermes and Thoth, the teaching of two united Christian gods, the Father and the Son, which is also confirmed by scientific research. The Nicene Creed puts the Father and the Son, who are recognized as divine, in stark contrast to the Holy Spirit, who is mentioned in the last sentence and whose divinity is not recognized. In the Nicene Creed, the Holy Spirit is not designated as God.

Even some Trinitarian conservative theologians admit that the Nicene Creed does not speak of the Divine Trinity but of a divine pair.

I was also very positively surprised by the sincerity of some hardline conservative orthodox theologians, who, while very clearly defending the Divine Trinity, are willing to address one of the most painful topics of Christian theology and at the same time are willing to stick to real historical facts at least 80% of the time and are willing to acknowledge the extremely sad and painful fact for Christians that the Nicene Creed speaks of a Divine Duo, not a Divine Trinity, and that at that time the Holy Spirit was not yet recognized as God. These include, for example, Michael AG Haykin, Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I greatly appreciate every theologian who has at least some sense of truth, because there are few such people. No conservative Christian theologian can accuse Professor Michael AG Haykin of his work being bad or of even hinting at questioning the Divine Trinity.
It is remarkable that Professor Haykin has some understanding for the early Christian "heretics" who refused to add the Holy Spirit to the Divine pair to create the Divine Trinity.

Of course, conservative theologians (who are the vast majority) will try to downplay the seriousness of this church scandal by saying that the Nicene Creed is not in conflict with the Divine Trinity, but that the church only added the Holy Spirit to the Nicene Creed. This is how Athanasius and Basil tried to argue (Athanasius and Basil were skilled in marketing and propaganda to promote their ideology), and this argumentation and propaganda has persisted in the church to this day. But I disagree with that. If any Catholic priest or pastor today were to speak of a Divine Duo, they would be fired the next day and labeled a heretic who needs to be excommunicated.

Many Christians do not realize it, but from the perspective of the current teaching of the church, the Nicene Creed is strongly heretical, even though today all churches recognize the Nicene Creed. A crazy contradiction in the church – that they recognize the Nicene Creed, which is heretical from their point of view.
If we honestly start to study the history of the church, then the whole of Christianity will collapse like a house of cards.

It is very sad and at the same time tragicomic that priests and pastors study theology, including church history, but they were not taught in school that the Nicene Creed speaks of a divine duality and not a trinity. The church falsifies its own history and conceals all unpleasant truth. Priests and pastors live in deep ignorance.

It is a great pity that there is no single continuous scientific study that would put the issue of Hermes Trismegistus and the work of, for example, Professor Haykin into context. It is a great pity that, apart from me, no one has thought of this until now, because it would be a substantially stronger argument against Christianity.

What follows from these facts and what impact do these facts have on contemporary ordinary Christians?

For a secular person, nothing changes, but for practicing Christians, these things are an existential threat; it is an existential problem for them, which can cause a Christian to have a mental/nervous breakdown and depression.
Christians believe that their church is a perfect work of God, but historical facts bring too much of an unpleasant truth, especially about the most sensitive topic, such as the Divine Trinity as the highest principle in which all Christians believe, the idea of God.
The teachings of individual Christian churches may differ, but all Christian churches have the same teaching on the Divine Trinity, and all churches recognize the Council of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed. All churches believe in the Divine Trinity and in the "same God", or more precisely, in the same concept of God.
The fact that historical facts speak of such a crazy controversy, contradictions, and paradoxes in the Nicene Creed is an existential problem for a Christian.
It was not the Divine Trinity that created people, but people who created the concept, the idea, and the contradictory phantasmagoria of the Divine Trinity. It was not the Divine Trinity that created people, but people who created the Divine Trinity.
The Church is not the work of the Holy Spirit but of people.

An Encouragement to Liberal Christianity

Contemporary Christians have an extreme aversion to church reforms, even in cosmetic matters such as the abolition of the ban on contraception or a more accommodating attitude towards LGBT people, while they themselves do not know the history of the church when the church underwent far more drastic changes from monotheism to the Divine Couple, from the Divine Couple to the Divine Trinity. A better knowledge of history can encourage Christians to further reforms of the church.
All Christian churches are strongly exclusivist and proselytizing; Christians have a problem with pride, superiority, and being chosen. If a Christian learns unpleasant historical facts about Christianity and accepts them, it teaches them humility, tolerance, and inclusivism, and they begin to perceive their religion as one of many paths, not as the only correct and best one. This leads to respect for atheists, respect for other religions and the philosophy of yoga, and the recognition of the salvation of non-Christians and the unbaptized.
A humble conservative Christian can turn to liberal Christianity.

Nicene Creed Wikipedia on the divine couple

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Excerpts from the original English article:
The Creed of 325 does mention the Holy Spirit but not as "God" or as "consubstantial with the Father." The 381 revision of the creed at Constantinople (i.e., the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed), which is often simply referred to as the "Nicene Creed," speaks of the Holy Spirit as worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son. [30]

Slovak translation:
The Creed of 325 mentions the Holy Spirit , but not as "God" or as "of one substance with the Father". The revision of the Creed in Constantinople in 381 (i.e. the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed), often simply referred to as the "Nicene Creed", speaks of the Holy Spirit as worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son. [30]
*********
Excerpts from the original English article:
The earlier Apostles' Creed , apparently formulated before the Arian controversy arose in the fourth century, does not describe the Son or the Holy Spirit as "God" or as "consubstantial with the Father." [30]

Slovak translation:
The earlier Apostles' Creed , probably formulated before the Arian controversy in the fourth century, does not describe the Son or the Holy Spirit as "God" or as "one substance with the Father". [30]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed

Old Roman symbol. The Old Roman Creed is an earlier and shorter version of the Apostles' Creed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Roman_Symbol

Michael A.G. Haykin. Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY

https://journal.rts.edu/article/biblical-exegesis-fourth-century-trinitarian-debates-context-contours-ressourcement/

Slovak translation:
The original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, issued by the Council of Nicaea in 325, contained a similar statement about the Son and his divinity, but nothing was said about the Holy Spirit except for the statement "[We believe] in the Holy Spirit". When the divinity of the Spirit was subsequently questioned in the 60s and 70s of the 4th century, it was necessary to expand the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed with a statement about the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This expansion eventually included the elaboration of a new statement of faith at the Council of Constantinople.

Athanasius' defense of the divinity of the Spirit in his letters to Serapion helped him realize that the formulation of the faith from the Council of Nicaea needed to be supplemented by a declaration about the Spirit. Therefore, at the Alexandrian Council, held in 362 and presided over by Athanasius, it was declared:
All who desire peace with us [should]… anathematize the Arian heresy, confess the faith confessed by the holy Fathers in Nicaea, and also anathematize those who say that the Holy Spirit is a creature and separate him from the being of Christ. For the true turning away from the abominable heresy of the Arians is this: [the rejection] of dividing the Most Holy Trinity or saying that any of its members is a creature. For those who pretend to confess the faith confessed in Nicaea, but who dare to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, do nothing more than deny the Arian heresy in words, while firmly holding to it in their minds. [46]

Those who, in this era, opposed the extension of the Nicene Creed to include the confession of the divinity of the Spirit, became known as Pneumatomachi.

Basil:
Therefore, let us strive for nothing more than to present the Nicene faith to those brothers who wish to join us. And if they accept it, then let us also demand that they do not call the Holy Spirit a creature and that those who do so are not admitted to communion.

He seems to have gladly confirmed the Nicene Creed in its current form, but he had a deep aversion to its extension by a dogmatic statement concerning the Spirit. For lack of a better term, he leaned towards binitarism, which was hostile to any unification of the Spirit with the Father and the Son.
**********
Excerpts from the original English article:
The original Nicene Creed, issued by the Council of Nicaea in 325, had made a similar statement about the Son and his deity, but nothing had been said about the Holy Spirit beyond the statement "[We believe] in the Holy Spirit." When the deity of the Spirit was subsequently questioned in the 360s and 370s, it was necessary to expand the Nicene Creed to include a statement about the deity of the Holy Spirit. In the end this expansion involved the drafting of a new creedal statement at the Council of Constantinople.

Athanasius' defense of the Spirit's divinity in the letters to Serapion helped him realize that the creedal formulation of Nicaea needed to be supplemented by a statement about the Spirit. Thus at the Council of Alexandria, held in 362 and over which Athanasius presided, it was declared:
All who desire peace with us [ought]… to anathematize the Arian heresy, to confess the faith that was confessed by the Holy Fathers at Nicaea, and also to anathematize those who say the Holy Spirit is a creature and separate him from the being of Christ. For a true departure from the loathsome heresy of the Arians is this: [a refusal] to divide the Holy Trinity, or to say that any member of it is a creature. For those who pretend to profess the faith confessed at Nicaea, but who dare to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, do nothing more than deny the Arian heresy in words, while they hold it fast in thought. [46]

Those who opposed an expansion of the Nicene Creed to include a confession of the Spirit's deity during this era became known as Pneumatomachi.

Basil:
Therefore, let us seek nothing more beyond proposing the faith of Nicaea to those brothers who wish to join us. And if they accept that, then let us demand also that they must not call the Holy Spirit a creature and that those who do so should not be received into communion.

He appears to have been quite happy to affirm the Nicene Creed as it stood, but he had a deep aversion to expanding it to include a dogmatic assertion with regard to the Spirit. He was, for lack of a better term, committed to a Binitarianism that was hostile to any conglorification of the Spirit with the Father and the Son.
******************
Pneumatomachi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatomachi

D. Blair Smith. Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology. Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte – Conservative Line of the Presbyterian Church

https://journal.rts.edu/article/trinitarian-relations-fourth-century/

Excerpts from the original English article:
To strike some of these notes, while opening up the divine relations to include the Spirit , we now turn to Basil of Caesarea.
Basil of Caesarea & a Fully Trinitarian Vision

Attention to the Spirit, and the fullness of a Trinity of persons, had the consequence of expanding the pro-Nicene vision of Trinitarian relations.

The inseparable operations among the Father and Son are clearly extended to the Spirit as well, beginning with Athanasius' writings on the Holy Spirit.

Giving attention to the Spirit and his relationship with the Father draws out something not already expressed in the Son's relationship with the Father.
*********
Slovak translation:
To capture some of these tones and at the same time open divine relations with the Spirit , we will now turn to Basil of Caesarea.
Basil of Caesarea and the fully Trinitarian vision

The attention paid to the Spirit and the fullness of the persons of the Trinity resulted in the expansion of the pro-Nicene vision of Trinitarian relations.

The inseparable action between the Father and the Son clearly extends to the Spirit, starting with Athanasius' writings on the Holy Spirit.

Paying attention to the Spirit and His relationship with the Father brings out something that has not yet been expressed in the Son's relationship with the Father.

AI-generated content about the divine duo in the Nicene Creed

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BNb8IGOfA2BXN981rluI94wvPjPsGBAmJKJK9Y9GvHk/edit?usp=sharing