Growth of the Trinity Concept

104:1.1The first Uran­tian rev­e­la­tion lead­ing to the com­pre­hen­sion of the Par­a­dise Trin­ity was made by the staff of Prince Cali­gas­tia about one-half mil­lion years ago. This ear­li­est Trin­ity con­cept was lost to the world in the un­set­tled times fol­low­ing the plan­e­tary re­bel­lion.

104:1.2The sec­ond pre­sen­ta­tion of the Trin­ity was made by Adam and Eve in the first and sec­ond gar­dens. These teach­ings had not been wholly oblit­er­ated even in the times of Ma­chi­venta Mel­chiz­e­dek about thirty-five thou­sand years later, for the Trin­ity con­cept of the Sethites per­sisted in both Mes­o­po­ta­mia and Egypt but more es­pe­cially in In­dia, where it was long per­pet­u­ated in Agni, the Vedic three-headed fire god.

104:1.3The third pre­sen­ta­tion of the Trin­ity was made by Ma­chi­venta Mel­chiz­e­dek, and this doc­trine was sym­bol­ized by the three con­cen­tric cir­cles which the sage of Salem wore on his breast plate. But Ma­chi­venta found it very dif­fi­cult to teach the Pales­tinian Bed­ou­ins about the Uni­ver­sal Fa­ther, the Eter­nal Son, and the In­fi­nite Spirit. Most of his dis­ci­ples thought that the Trin­ity con­sisted of the three Most Highs of Nor­la­ti­adek; a few con­ceived of the Trin­ity as the Sys­tem Sov­er­eign, the Con­stel­la­tion Fa­ther, and the lo­cal uni­verse Cre­ator De­ity; still fewer even re­motely grasped the idea of the Par­a­dise as­so­ci­a­tion of the Fa­ther, Son, and Spirit.

104:1.4Through the ac­tiv­i­ties of the Salem mis­sion­ar­ies the Mel­chiz­e­dek teach­ings of the Trin­ity grad­u­ally spread through­out much of Eura­sia and north­ern Africa. It is of­ten dif­fi­cult to dis­tin­guish be­tween the tri­ads and the trin­i­ties in the later And­ite and the post-Mel­chiz­e­dek ages, when both con­cepts to a cer­tain ex­tent in­ter­min­gled and co­a­lesced.

104:1.5Among the Hin­dus the trini­tar­ian con­cept took root as Be­ing, In­tel­li­gence, and Joy. (A later In­dian con­cep­tion was Brahma, Siva, and Vishnu.) While the ear­lier Trin­ity por­tray­als were brought to In­dia by the Sethite priests, the later ideas of the Trin­ity were im­ported by the Salem mis­sion­ar­ies and were de­vel­oped by the na­tive in­tel­lects of In­dia through a com­pound­ing of these doc­trines with the evo­lu­tion­ary triad con­cep­tions.

104:1.6The Bud­dhist faith de­vel­oped two doc­trines of a trini­tar­ian na­ture: The ear­lier was Teacher, Law, and Broth­er­hood; that was the pre­sen­ta­tion made by Gau­tama Sid­dhartha. The later idea, de­vel­op­ing among the north­ern branch of the fol­low­ers of Bud­dha, em­braced Su­preme Lord, Holy Spirit, and In­car­nate Sav­ior.

104:1.7And these ideas of the Hin­dus and Bud­dhists were real trini­tar­ian pos­tu­lates, that is, the idea of a three­fold man­i­fes­ta­tion of a mono­the­is­tic God. A true trin­ity con­cep­tion is not just a group­ing to­gether of three sep­a­rate gods.

104:1.8The He­brews knew about the Trin­ity from the Ken­ite tra­di­tions of the days of Mel­chiz­e­dek, but their mono­the­is­tic zeal for the one God, Yah­weh, so ec­lipsed all such teach­ings that by the time of Je­sus’ ap­pear­ance the Elo­him doc­trine had been prac­ti­cally erad­i­cated from Jew­ish the­ol­ogy. The He­brew mind could not rec­on­cile the trini­tar­ian con­cept with the mono­the­is­tic be­lief in the One Lord, the God of Is­rael.

104:1.9The fol­low­ers of the Is­lamic faith like­wise failed to grasp the idea of the Trin­ity. It is al­ways dif­fi­cult for an emerg­ing mono­the­ism to tol­er­ate trini­tar­i­an­ism when con­fronted by poly­the­ism. The trin­ity idea takes best hold of those re­li­gions which have a firm mono­the­is­tic tra­di­tion cou­pled with doc­tri­nal elas­tic­ity. The great mono­the­ists, the He­brews and Mo­hammedans, found it dif­fi­cult to dis­tin­guish be­tween wor­ship­ing three gods, poly­the­ism, and trini­tar­i­an­ism, the wor­ship of one De­ity ex­ist­ing in a tri­une man­i­fes­ta­tion of di­vin­ity and per­son­al­ity.

104:1.10Je­sus taught his apos­tles the truth re­gard­ing the per­sons of the Par­a­dise Trin­ity, but they thought he spoke fig­u­ra­tively and sym­bol­i­cally. Hav­ing been nur­tured in He­braic mono­the­ism, they found it dif­fi­cult to en­ter­tain any be­lief that seemed to con­flict with their dom­i­nat­ing con­cept of Yah­weh. And the early Chris­tians in­her­ited the He­braic prej­u­dice against the Trin­ity con­cept.

104:1.11The first Trin­ity of Chris­tian­ity was pro­claimed at An­ti­och and con­sisted of God, his Word, and his Wis­dom. Paul knew of the Par­a­dise Trin­ity of Fa­ther, Son, and Spirit, but he sel­dom preached about it and made men­tion thereof in only a few of his let­ters to the newly form­ing churches. Even then, as did his fel­low apos­tles, Paul con­fused Je­sus, the Cre­ator Son of the lo­cal uni­verse, with the Sec­ond Per­son of De­ity, the Eter­nal Son of Par­a­dise.

104:1.12The Chris­tian con­cept of the Trin­ity, which be­gan to gain rec­og­ni­tion near the close of the first cen­tury af­ter Christ, was com­prised of the Uni­ver­sal Fa­ther, the Cre­ator Son of Neb­a­don, and the Di­vine Min­is­ter of Sal­ving­ton—Mother Spirit of the lo­cal uni­verse and cre­ative con­sort of the Cre­ator Son.

104:1.13Not since the times of Je­sus has the fac­tual iden­tity of the Par­a­dise Trin­ity been known on Uran­tia (ex­cept by a few in­di­vid­u­als to whom it was es­pe­cially re­vealed) un­til its pre­sen­ta­tion in these rev­e­la­tory dis­clo­sures. But though the Chris­tian con­cept of the Trin­ity erred in fact, it was prac­ti­cally true with re­spect to spir­i­tual re­la­tion­ships. Only in its philo­sophic im­pli­ca­tions and cos­mo­log­i­cal con­se­quences did this con­cept suf­fer em­bar­rass­ment: It has been dif­fi­cult for many who are cos­mic minded to be­lieve that the Sec­ond Per­son of De­ity, the sec­ond mem­ber of an in­fi­nite Trin­ity, once dwelt on Uran­tia; and while in spirit this is true, in ac­tu­al­ity it is not a fact. The Mi­chael Cre­ators fully em­body the di­vin­ity of the Eter­nal Son, but they are not the ab­so­lute per­son­al­ity.