The Vedas and the Bible

 

The Vedas and the Bible

[Authored by Brahm Datt Bharti,Reproduced by Dr. Vivek Arya]

Christianity, has been the loudest in condemning Polytheism, while herself supporting the Christian brand of the cult of the plurality of Gods under the very bemusing TRIDEISM. The Christians. need only to be told that they knoweth not what they are doing. Christianity needs hardly to be reminded of the advice that Jesus Christ is reported to have given in His Sermon on the Mount : “Why beholdest thou the mote that is in-thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

 Whenever young Hindu boys and girls go to England or the United States of America for studies they usually share a common experience. Sooner or later they are invited (this happens more readily in the States than elsewhere) to an evening (Christian) church meeting where nearly always an elderly, fatherly looking person puts a question to the young Hindu student, though the person putting the question takes due and predetermined precaution to look and appear as agreeable as possible according to the exigencies of each case. The question that is always asked is : ““What do you think of the Vedas ?” The purpose hidden behind this question is manifold and the enquirer is more than assured in his mind of the inability of an average young mind, whether Indian or British, whether Hindu or Christian, to answer a question of this type. Yet the elderly, fatherly looking person makes it a practice to put the very question which he does not expect to be sufficiently and well answered, to every young Hindu girl or boy student purposefully invited to these (Christian) church meetings. This purpose is shrouded in the confusing impression that is intended to be left on the young mind when he or she finds himself or herself unable adequately to answer the question. That is not ail. The confused young mind is further confounded by the answer which the elderly, fatherly looking person usually offers after pausing for a while. According to the elderly, fatherly looking person the Vedas are primitive by which is meant that they are crude, old fashioned and uncivilised. 

Why is all this done and done so subtly and dramatically is something that would interest all serious students of theo-psychology. It is not difficult at all to understand that the elderly, fatherly looking person while describing the Vedas as primitive only uses the phrase which was first used by Max Muller who in his letter (1866 A.D.) to his wife had admitted (Life and Letters of Frederick Max Muller) : ‘This edition of mine and the translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India. It is the root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last three  thousand years.” The aim of this modern elderly, fatherly looking person is as much to uproot Hinduism as it was of Max Muller. Hence the description of the Vedas as primitive by both. 

The Vedas are described by the Christians as the Bible of the Hindus. Taking, a cue from such definitions the Hindus have now started defining the Bible as the Veda of the Christians. Whatever it might mean, all would agree on the statement which applies equally to both that each set of these books describe; and defines a particular religion—in one case Hinduism and in the other Christianism. A comparison would, therefore, be possible between the Vedas and the Bible only on one plane, viz., of the capacity of each of these two, sets of books to give  true and correct picture of the: Supreme Being whom both the Hindus and the Christians accept to exist unlike the atheists. Apart from this, both can be treated as collection, of so much paper and ink though the one may be less or more old fashioned than the other in respect of the cover and the bindings which hold the pages together. The primitiveness or otherwise of those two sets of religious books can-be better judged, and only, by scrutinizing what each of them teaches in this behalf and this is what we propose doing here. 

We come across the following well known mantra in Rig Veda : 

इंद्रं मित्रं वरुणमग्निमाहुर, अथो दिव्यः स सुपर्णो गरुत्मान, एकं सद्विप्रा बहुधा वदन्त्यग्निं यमं मातरिश्वनमाहुःI ऋग्वेद - 1.164.46

Translated into English this would mean : Supreme Spirit is the protector of all, and pervades and gives light to all bright things. He is called Indra, or the glorious ; Mitra or the friendly ; Varuna or the greatest and the best; Agni or the adorable. Though one, Brahm (He) is called by the learned by many names, such as Agni-(the adorable), Yama (the ruler), Matrishiva- (the mighty). 

In Rig Veda we again get the following to read :

 सु॒प॒र्णं विप्रा॑: क॒वयो॒ वचो॑भि॒रेकं॒ सन्तं॑ बहु॒धा क॑ल्पयन्ति । छन्दां॑सि च॒ दध॑तो अध्व॒रेषु॒ ग्रहा॒न्त्सोम॑स्य मिमते॒ द्वाद॑श ॥ ऋग्वेद - 10.114.5

which ‘means that the learned and the wise describe (and imagine) the One God by many forms of expressions. Speaking of’ Brahm (Him) as the creator of all creatures 

Yajur Veda tells us : 

तदे॒वाग्निस्तदा॑दि॒त्यस्तद्वा॒युस्तदु॑ च॒न्द्रमाः॑। तदे॒व शु॒क्रं तद् ब्रह्म॒ ताऽआपः॒ स प्र॒जाप॑तिः ॥-यजुर्वेद 32.1

Here again we have the same thought. This mantra says that he is Agni (adorable) ; He is Aditya (imperishable) ; He is Vayu (omnipresent) ; He is Chandrama (the giver of happiness); He is Shukra (the creator); He is Brahma (the great) ; He is Apah (all peryading) ; He is Prajapati (the Lord of all -creatures), None can entertain any doubt whatever that the creator of all creatures can be no one but the One Supreme Being and only: the One Being. 

The Yajur Veda again tells us : 

अने॑ज॒देकं॒ मन॑सो॒ जवी॑यो॒ नैन॑द्दे॒वाऽआ॑प्नुव॒न् पूर्व॒मर्ष॑त्। तद्धाव॑तो॒ऽन्यानत्ये॑ति॒ तिष्ठ॒त्तस्मि॑न्न॒पो मा॑त॒रिश्वा॑ दधाति ॥-यजुर्वेद 40.4

He (God) is one, He does not move, and yet is swifter than the mind ; the senses (devas) cannot reach Him, although he is already in them. In the ten mantras (Rig, Mandal 10, Sukta 121, Mantras 1 to 10) we have absolute clarification in support of the monotheism that is preached and taught by the Vedas. The first of these ten, mantras tells us that in, the beginning there was God: He was the One Supreme of all created beings. Is it difficult to understand that beginning means the beginning and not removed in time and space from that that was the beginning. | 

In Rig Veda (X:121:9) we again get the same affirmation that the religion of the Vedas is only monotheism. Here we (His children) take a vow saying that “Unto that Great God alone shall we offer (our) prayers.” In Atharva Veda we read स नः पिता जनिता स उत बन्धुर्धामानि वेद भुवनानि विश्वा ।i.e. He is our father, Only the self-bigoted will refuse to accept that one can have only One father. In Atharva Veda (13:4:20) we are told तमि॒दं निग॑तं॒ सहः॒ स ए॒ष एक॑ एक॒वृदेक॑ ए॒व ॥ that Brahm (Ishwar) is One and truly is One only. Rig Veda (6:36:4)  once again tells us पति॑र्बभू॒थास॑मो॒ जना॑ना॒मेको॒ विश्व॑स्य॒ भुव॑नस्य॒ राजा॑  that He is the master of all the worlds. We know it too well that the master does not mean someone who shares his master ship with any one else. 

Rig Veda advises us (8:92:22) आ त्वा॑ विश॒न्त्विन्द॑वः समु॒द्रमि॑व॒ सिन्ध॑वः । न त्वामि॒न्द्राति॑ रिच्यते ॥ : O Indra 

(the glorious), there is none superior to Thou. Rig Veda says again (1:94:13) दे॒वो दे॒वाना॑मसि मि॒त्रो अद्भु॑तो॒ वसु॒र्वसू॑नामसि॒ चारु॑रध्व॒रे। - that Thou are the greatest (God) of all. The Rig tells us once again (8:96:4) that among those who deserve our respects. Thou are the most respectable of all. 

Anyone who sets out to find for himself the religion of the Vedas is sure to come to the one and only one conclusion that the Religion of the Vedas is a pure and unadulterated Monotheism. However, a bigot, a religious fanatic and someone whose faculty of independent reasoning has been badly tempered in his childhood shall find it difficult, or rather near to impossible, to be objective and detached and impartial in his studies and judgement of the religion of the Vedas. Such people usually start with some preconceived ideas implanted on their immature minds by ecclesiastics who have an axe of their own to grind. Such people have continuously tried to distort the Teachings of the Vedas and present the Vedic Religion as Polytheism or Henotheism. They did this because it suited their theo-political purpose and in their hideous plans they received more than ample support from the Hindus who while watching these depredations of these propagandists did not care to stir and repudiate these false allegations of Polytheism and Henotheism. There is no doubt that an appreciable number of the Hindus worshipped, and still worship, idols. Because some Hindus indulged in idol worship and because the Vedas are of the Hindus some non- Hindus, especially some’' Christian missionaries mischievously suggested that idol worship was permitted by the Vedas and that the religion of the Vedas was Polytheism or Henotheism. This is like saying that homoeopathic system does not rest on the principle of similia similibus curontur (like is cured by like) because, BECAUSE, some homoeopaths use allopathic medicines. What a logic! This is exactly how Christianity tried first to throw Polytheism into the Jap of the Hindus and then accuse Hinduism of believing in Polytheism or Henotheism. This theo-political conspiracy against Hinduism was lent great support by Christian missionaries like Max Muller who on purpose misrepresented and misinterpreted the Vedic Teachings with the sinful and villainous aim of uprooting Hinduism. This intrigue against the Hindus and their monotheistic religion of the Vedas was carried another step forward, and afforded great impetus, by the British East India Company who had then on its staff rabid communalists and religious fanatics like Thomas Babingson Macaulay. These misinterpretations of the Vedas by Max Muller were officially prescribed as text books in schools and colleges with the aim of implanting on the minds of young Indians (Hindus in particular) the harmful and the false idea that the religion of the Vedas was not monotheism and that the Aryans worshipped forces of nature. Side by side the same young people were being constantly told in schools and colleges that monotheism was a discovery of Christianity. That is how by this dual attack Hinduism was desired to be uprooted. 

What is this Henotheism which Christianity has tried to force upon the unwilling Hindus? Henotheism is described 5, the Concise Oxford Dictionary as the ‘‘belief in one God without asserting that he is the only God’. A little careful examination of this definition of Henotheism ought to convince any impartial person of the depravity of the mind who first coined this word. If the One God Is not the only God how He can be she One God ? This new word was coined with the explicit purpose of confusing the world and throw something meaning near-to-nothing and suggest an ism between Monotheism and Polytheism. This was thought to be necessary by some Christian missionaries because the enlightened section of Christianity had refused to accept in whole the Christian theory that Polytheism was  the religion of the Vedas. The bigoted section, therefore, decided, as a compromise, to tone down their claim and make it less weeping. With this in mind they invented Henotheism— belief in one God without believing that He is the only one God, which is equal to saying “belief in Monotheism without believing that He is the only Supreme being” !

The Hindus have said it time and again that the religion  of the Vedas is Monotheism but some non-Hindus want them to believe otherwise. They insist on this merely because, according to them, Hindus call God by more than one names like lndra, Agni, Varuna and others. Some of the people who raise this objection do this honestly because majority of them fail to comprehend what the Hindus mean when they address Him by these names. But there are many more who refuse to try to understand because it will go against their ecclesiastical interest. We shall try to explain this riddle allegorically. A man owns a house which has, we arbitrarily fix the number, three rooms. When he thinks of an enemy or thieves attacking him he imagines the house to be a ‘citadel or a fort’. When he sits near the fireplace in the sweet company of his family he calls it his ‘paradise’ and at another time when he is doing his Studies he describes it as his ‘Nalanda’. Now, is there anything wrong with this ? No, because he every time means only the one house that he possesses. He has only different names for it. Do not some parents sometimes have more than one names for their only (one) child? Do these several names mean, then, more than one child ? No, never. Does not a man call his wife by more than one names? Sometimes she is ‘darling’, sometimes ‘dear’, sometimes ‘my love and soul’, sometimes ‘my trouble’, sometimes ‘mother of--.? Does it all mean more than one wives ? No, not; at all. From the foregoing discussion we can come only to one inescapable conclusion, and it is that the Religion of the Vedas is Monotheism. 

Before we try to find out the religion of the Bible one point would need, clarification. The Bible consists of two parts and the second part is known as the New Testament which defines Christianity. In the present discussion we are concerned only with the New Testament because Christians base their religion (Christianity) only on the teachings of Christ and disown the Hebrew part (the old Testament) of the Bible. 

The Christians believe in God the Father, God the Son (Christ) and God the Holy Ghost (Spirit). This is the cornerstone of their belief. They also assert that not only there are three persons (God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost) but also that each God is equal in power and glory and that these Three are One. Is it not analogous to saying that a+b+c =D and also that a and b and c each is equal to D? If a and b and c each is equal in power, then each of the three should be equal to one-third of D in power. Supposing that each a and b and c is equal in power to unity then a+b+c should be equal to 1+1+1, i.e. three, and not unity as is claimed by Christianity. Again if God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are accepted.to be equal in power and glory there must be another Being who must be above them and who must have created them. Or, if no fourth Being created them, then they must have created one another, but the one who is not yet created cannot have the power to create someone else. 

If these three coexisted, then they must have been so brought into existence by some other Being that they would find it possible to begin to coexist in time. Examined from whatever angle, this theory of three in one and three equal to one falls to ground: For yet further probe we shall again bring in the allegory of the house we introduced earlier while trying to know the religion of the Vedas. This new owner, this time a Christian, ‘appears to be saying something like this : ‘‘I have this house of three rooms. Each room is equal in size and also that each room is equal to the whole house which has three rooms !” There is nothing to prevent likewise Christianism from calling its Trideism (three Deities) by the name of Monotheism ! ‘Christianism might.as well, and with equal indifference, create another dozen, a score or a hundred Gods and still describe it as Monotheism provided it has backing of high pressure publicity which it today enjoys all over the globe. 

There is absolutely no doubting the fact that Christianism worshipped three Gods and that thus the religion of the New Testament was limited Polytheism which we shall call Trideism. It was only when Christianism came in contact with the Vedas that it discovered Monotheism. This discovery made some Christian theologians more than uneasy and over a period they developed, as usually happens in such circumstances, a sort of inferiority complex which soon ended into a strong hatred for the Hinduism and their Vedas, Christianity had preached too long, for about sixteen centuries, this Trideism which she preferred to call Trinitarianism and found now herself incapable of undoing the damage that had already been done. As she could no longer think of rising to the high level of Vedic Monotheism she decided to pull down Hinduism to her own spiritual level, This meant thus either Polytheism or at least Henotheism. 

In 1605 one Robert de Nobili had set his feet on the Indian soil. He was an Italian, then 28 years old, and was a Jesuit. His mission was to convert the Hindus to Christianity and with this in his mind he learnt and studied Tamil and Sanskrit. He studied the Vedas and other religious books and was evidently impressed by the lofty teachings of the Hindu Dharma but as his mind was closed he wanted somehow to convert the Hindus of this country. With this purpose alone he caused a false and concocted fifth Veda to be written so that the Hindus might be mislead off the right Vedic Teachings. He was in constant correspondence with Rome and some other religious centres of Europe. As he himself came from Italy and was a Jesuit he had more intimate contact with the Italian intelligentsia who were interested to know more, and as much as possible, about Hindu Dharma of the Vedas. There is no doubt that Nobili had made the personal discovery that the Vedas taught nothing but pure monotheism. There is no doubt either that he reported this discovery to Rome with a sense of theological surprise. 

In the 16th century there had lived another man in Italy, Laelius Socinus (b. 1525, d. 1582), who had rejected the Christian Trideism as irrational and unacceptable to reason. But since Christianity believed fully in Trideism he was declared a heretic because he preached monotheism. In 1546 he had become a member of a secret society at Vicenzay, formed for the purpose of discussing religious matters and which had arrived at the conclusion that the doctrine of three Gods in one (Trideism) was untenable and that many of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church were repugnant to reason. When the nature of the deliberation of the members of this secret society were made known it was broken up ; several members were put to death and others including Laelius Socinus had to flee to other places of safety. While still in exile he died at Zurich. This Socinus had a nephew, Faustus Socinus, who was born in 1539 and lived till 1604. He too was obliged to leave his town for his heretical views (monotheism). The senior Socinus had written several religious treatises (Dialogue inter Calvinum et Vaticanum De Sacramentis, De Resurrectione Corporum) some of which fell into the hands of Faustus who started publishing these. As the Church regarded all this heretical, Faustus had to flee to Basel to escape the Inquisition. Laelius and Faustus had committed the sin of preaching monotheism which was against the established Trideism of Christianity and the very fact that they were for this reason in constant danger of losing their lives proves beyond doubt that monotheism was not acceptable to Christianity. 

Faustus died in 1604 and Nobili came to India in 1605 when he was 28 years old. Nobili could not have come, therefore, to India without some impressions of the cult of monotheism that was preached by Laelius and Faustus. On arrival in India he found in the Vedas a reconfirmation and reaffirmation of monotheism. As a Jesuit and member of the Catholic organisation which was responsible for the Inquisition, he could not accept monotheism of the Vedas because this was opposed to the Christian theory of three Gods in one, i.e., Trideism. The attempts started being made, therefore, to prove (on false evidence) that the Vedas taught something worse, i.e., Polytheism or Henotheism. Despite all these efforts no one can deny that the Vedic Teachings had their impact on the Christian thinking. There is additional, and sufficient, historical evidence to prove that the Christian Church frowned on anyone, and all, whoever rejected, or did not accept, Trideism or expressed a belief in One God. In 1662 a large number (2000 at least) of clergy were ejected from the Established Church under the Act of Uniformity because they had refused to accept Christian Trideism and professed instead monotheism which they called unitarianism. They considered Christ as a mere mortal and believed in One God. This was not acceptable to the Christian Church and, therefore, in 1658 they were banished from Poland under pain of death in England and on the continent the Unitarians were burnt at stakes. It was only in 1813 that they were freed from these disabilities from which for so long they suffered. All this shows conclusively that Christianity is a religion which believes in three Gods and abhors the idea of monotheism which the Vedas preach. 

In 1813 the Christian Church under pressure of public opinion agreed to accept Unitarianism as one of the many isms in which Christianity believes and is today divided and subdivided. In 1793, on November 11, William Carey (b.176I, d. 1834) had arrived in India as a Christian missionary. He was employed on an indigo plantation and operated in different parts of Bengal. In 1799 another group of Christian missionaries arrived which included Joshua Marshman (b. 1768, d. 1837) and William Ward (b. 1764, d. 1823). These missionaries settled near Calcutta at Serampore where Carey soon joined them. It is from here that the Christian newspaper Friend of India was started and from which the Statesman, now published from Delhi and Calcutta, claims a ‘direct descent’. This group tried very hard to convert Raja Ram Mohan Roy to Christianity and in 1818 (on March 19) another Christian missionary arrived in Serampore to join this group. He was Rev. William Adam. This Adam came in frequent touch with Raja Ram Mohan Roy because it seems he was especially charged with the sacred duty of subverting and perverting the mind of this great Hindu intellectual. What happened is of immense importance and of great historical value. It concerns directly the topic that is under discussion here. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was a Hindu ; he believed in the Vedic Teachings and he was a staunch monotheist. In the course of their (friendly?) discussions the Raja often laughed and made a merry sport of the Christian dogma of three Gods (Trideism) to which Rev. Adam was wedded. He could find no answer to the arguments of Raja Ram Mohan Roy who supported monotheism and then the strange thing happened which usually happens in such circumstances, The Christian missionary, Rey. William Adam, who had set out to convert Raja Ram Mohan Roy to Christian Trideism, gave up (sloughed off) his belief in three Christian Gods and became a monotheist and ultimately a Vedantist. The Christian publicity machine always tries either to conceal this historical news from the public or tries hard to twist it to suit her own purpose. The fact that Raja Ram Mohan Roy did convert this Rev. William Adam was mentioned in Anglo-India, Vol. I, on page 238 and cannot be denied. Rev. William Adam had gone for wool but went away shorn, From this time onward Adam started preaching monotheism or Unitarianism as they call it. This again was unacceptable to the established Christian Church for the reason that it went against the established teachings of limited Polytheism, i.e., ‘Trideism of Christianity. For this sin, therefore, the Rev. William Adam, the Christian missionary, who was especially sent to India to convert the Hindus to Trideism (limited Polytheism), was expelled from the Christian Church ! In the Annual London Report of the Missionary Society, which is dated 20th June 1822, a statement in regard to Adam appears in these words : "We mention with deep regret that Mr. Adam, late one of their number (i.e., of the workers in Calcutta), had embraced opinions derogatory to the honour of the Saviour, denying the proper divinity of ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ’ in consequence of which the connection between him and the Society has been dissolved.” Rev. Adam had to pay this price because he had revolted against Christian Polytheism, disguised cleverly from the view of the common man under the sophisticated name at Trinitarianism. This proves once again and to the hilt that Christianity not only believes in, and practises, the cult of three Gods but also scoffs at and tries to punish all those who show any signs of drifting away from this particular brand of Polytheism. 

Some Christians have been heard to remark that Christians call the one God by the three different names in the same manner as the Hindus call their One Brahm by so many names. This explanation holds no water at all. Firstly, because Christianity accuses for so doing Hinduism of practising the cult of Polytheism or Henotheism. Why then Christianity must fall into the same error knowingly ? Secondly, the Hindus call by different names the One Brahm but Christianity calls by three names three different persons. Christianity admits that these three persons are equal in power and glory. Equal? Who and equal to whom ? When it is a matter of equality, then the comparison must be between two or three separate entities. Father and son are always ‘wo different persons and never one, however anyone might try to quibble. 

Raja Ram Mohan Roy (Rammohun Roy) was engaged, over a long period, in discussions of a religious nature with the Christian missionaries of Serampore, In 1823 he published his Final Appeal to the Christian Public in Defence of “The Precepts of Jesus’. On page 634 we get the following to read : 

‘Lastly, I tender my humble thanks for the Editor's (of Friend of India) kind suggestion in inviting me to adopt the doctrine of the Holy Trinity ; but  I am sorry to find that l am unable to benefit by this advice......I have lone relinquished every idea of a plurality of Gods, or of the persons of the Godhead... Whatever arguments can be adduced against a plurality of Gods strike with equal force against the doctrine of a plurality of persons of the Godhead ; and, on the other hand, whatever excuse may be pleaded in favour of a plurality of persons of the Deity can be offered with equal propriety in defence of Polytheism.'

It is abundantly clear that the Christian missionaries of Serampore who knew thoroughly the Christian scriptures wanted Raja Ram Mohan Roy to adopt only the doctrine of free Gods (Trinitarianism) and not of One God. Since the Raja continued to believe in, and practise, the cult of the One Supreme Being as preached by the Vedas he continued to remain a Hindu as before: he could not be accepted as a Christian as long as he did not accept the theory of three Gods or Godheads ! 

Discussing the same point Raja Ram Mohan Roy wrote on page 612 of his Final Appeal (Ibid) : “I answer, because common sense tells us that a son, as well as a servant, must be acknowledged to be inferior to his father or master. Again, we find David called the son of God, Solomon the son of God, Adam the son of God, and in short the whole children of Israel denominated sons of God; yet represented in scriptures as inferior to God their father; nay, moreover, Jesus the son of God positively declares himself to be inferior to his father....'My father is greater than I.’ Is it not interesting theological history that one of the three persons in the trinity on whose behalf Christianity speaks readily and willingly admits himself to be inferior to the first person in the Trinity but that his followers should insist on disputing his inferiority vis-a-vis the father ? Why ? Because Christianity cannot reconcile itself! to the idea of One God (monotheism),. She is wedded to this limited Polytheism (Trideism) and she has already gone Coo far to retrace her steps, Acceptance of Monotheism so date in the day threatens her of complete extinction as a religion, Can she possibly do this? No, never. The entire hierarchy will rise In revolt to safe guard its vested interests.

The question that remains to be answered is whether or not the Bible (the New Testament) lays down this cult of Trideism. We can very confidently say ‘yes’ and can be sure of receiving the full support of the established Christian Church. Here is what we find on page I15 of the Christian Faith, 1960, by David H.C. Read, D.D.: 

‘There is no question about this emphasis. Not only is the Trinity expressed in creed and catechism, but it is a constantly-recurring note in Christian prayers, hymns, and blessings. We baptise ‘in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost’, we sing ‘Glory be to the Father and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost’, we pray ‘God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost’. All the Churches that are members of the World Council, as well as the Roman Catholic Church, are avowedly and explicitly Trinitarian.'

The author of this book lends a mystical touch to it when he further says:

 ‘‘We find another clue to the importance of this doctrine in a curious feature of Church life and history. It seems to be generally true that the Christian community in every age has been nourished by a belief in the Trinity, so that when this belief has waned the strength of the Church has waned with it... Christian communities that abandoned the doctrine of the Trinity have nearly always tended to die away.” 

A Unitarian when asked to comment on this remarked that it is an age old practice with the Trinitarians to play ‘upon the fear complex of the believers in order to boost up their crumbling creed. Whatever might be the differences between the two it gives us sufficient evidence in support of the assertion already made that Christianity believes in, and practises, Polytheism under cover of Trideism and that the Bible supports this belief in the three Gods or three Godheads. 

We now come back to the beginning of this discussion .The Vedas preach and teach us the cult of One Supreme Deity (Monotheism) and there is no reason to believe the contrary despite the insinuations and misinterpretations purposefully made against the Vedic Teachings by some Christian missionaries. The Vedic Teachings on the Supreme Being are unchangeable now or in the distant future. Writing in Superiority of the Vedic Religion W.D. Brown, the British Philosopher, agreed that “It (Vedic Religion) recognises but One God. It is a thoroughly scientific religion, where religion and science meet hand In hand. 

Here theology is based on Science and Philosophy.” While giving some quotations from the Vedas Count Bjornsjerne said that 

‘‘these truly sublime ideas cannot fail to convince us that the Vedas recognise only one God.” 

As against this the Bible of the Christians teaches (limited) Polytheism (Trideism) and as such spiritually the Biblical teachings are not only very primitive but they also look, in this age, to have already grown stale.