Monarchians in History

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

This translation is NOT saying that the thoughtless and ignorant are the majority, which Believer tried to tell you. It clearly states the subject "the simple", that I say NOT the thoughtless and ignorant. He is clearly saying that the simple are not thoughtless and ignorant.

It is clearly saying that the simple are not thoughtless and ignorant. yes, I see that. But this translation DOES NOT say the simple are the majority of the believers....see sentence structure, parenthesis, and commas. It is poorly translated. It says the thoughtless and ignorant are the majority of the believers if you read it the way it is written.

If you want it to say the simple people are the majority of the faithful then it should have been worded like this: For all the simple people, that I say not the thoughtless and ignorant, who are always the majority of the faithful.......then you can take out the phrase in the commas and the sentence would still flow and make sense and read the way you want it to.

For all the simple people, that I say not the thoughtless and
ignorant (who are always the majority of the faithful),

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

I would like to say farewell. I see too much hostility on this forum. I'm not learning.

Believer... its been real. I'll stay in contact. Thanks for all the encouragement and the wonderful answers to my questions. You are a God sent. I personally don’t know how you handle the attacks against you!

Willie, can you show where we personally attacked Believer or were we attacking his doctrine?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

I tend to agree with Believer on this. Tertillian is not saying that all simple people were modalist. What he is saying is that ones that do believe, are the simple people. There isn't anything in the text that would imply that "ALL" simple believe one way and the educated believe another way. Also, Tertillian would not have called them "the faithful" if he did.

Break this part of the sentence down by sentence structure if you will and show me why you think the phrase in parenthesis is modifying or referring back to the simple people instead of the thoughtless and ignorant. Truly, this is poorly translated as well as poor use of punctuation. If the translator wanted the phrase in parenthesis to modify the simple people, he has done a poor job in making that clear, IMO.

For all the simple people, that I say not the thoughtless and
ignorant (who are always the majority of the faithful),

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't think so...when he says paraclete he is refering to Montanus. Montanus was called the Paraclete. Montanus was the Holy Spirit embodied to them

He claimed not only to have received a series of direct revelations from the Holy Ghost, but personally to be the incarnation of the paraclete mentioned in the Gospel of John 14:16. Montanus was accompanied by two women, Prisca, sometimes called Priscilla, and Maximilla, who likewise claimed to be the embodiments of the Holy Spirit that moved and inspired them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism

It sounds like the Montanists believed in the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the manifestation of the gifts.

Paraclete, Comforter (L. Consolator; Greek parakletos), an appellation of the Holy Ghost. The Greek word which, as a designation of the Holy Ghost at least, occurs only in St. John (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7), has been variously translated "advocate", "intercessor", "teacher, "helper", "comforter". This last rendering, though at variance with the passive form of the Greek, is justified by the Hellenistic usage, a number of ancient versions, patristic and liturgical authority, and the evident needs of the Johannine context. According to St. John the mission of the Paraclete is to abide with the disciples after Jesus has withdrawn His visible presence from them; to inwardly bring home to them the teaching externally given by Christ and thus to stand as a witness to the doctrine and work of the Saviour. There is no reason for limiting to the Apostles themselves the comforting influence of the Paraclete as promised in the Gospel (Matthew 10:19; Mark 13:11; Luke 12:11, 21:14) and described in Acts 2

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11469a.htm

As for the other quote, I quoted it and made a point. The difference between the two is that Praxeas believed there was no difference between FAther and Son. Tertullian believed in an economic trinity. Look at my quotes. He denies an eternal Son. Believes the Logos was the reason in the mind of God. Check it out Mizpeh.

I really suspect the latin word being used here for person is NOT hypostasis but personal

I suggest you read all of Against Praxeas. It's interesting reading his arguments against Modalism which are exactly the same arguments that Trinitarians today use against Oneness. Tertullian is not a Modalist and he refers to the Son as eternal or at least proceeding from the Father from before the worlds were created. After proceeding from the Father the Son/ Word has a personality all his own SEPARATE from the Father.

[mizpeh]

n/t

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No, go read the quotes. Im telling you guys I think he did NOT use the latin word hypostasis for person. I am thinking he must have used persona (face, mask). Read what I quoted from Tertullian on the logos.

His beef with Praxeas was not that Praxeas was a modalist but that Praxeas believed the Father and Son are NOT plural anythings....forget the word person for a second here. That came up at Nicea with the inclusion of Hypostasis.

It really sounds like Tertullian was modalistic, he saw a three fold ECONOMY. He was an economic Trinitarian, not a Hypostatic Trinitarian.

He seems Modalistic. Praxeas, he is arguing, denies that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three DIFFERENT modes or manifestations.

That is what it sounds like.

And his main beef seems to be fueled by Praxeas extremely successful attacks on Montanus.

Could it be that both men were Modalistic and that Tertullian was just trying to slander Praxeas much like Nestorius was?

Again I wish Chancellor was here. He wrote a book on this.

Again the Trinity we think of was three hypostasis (selfs)...the word persona meant something more like a mask

A persona, in the word's everyday usage, is a social role or a character played by an actor. The word derives from the Latin for "mask" or "character", derived from the Etruscan word "phersu", with the same meaning.

I found this quote by DB
Tertullian (c. 150 - c. 225 A.D.) was the first person recorded by history to use the words trinity (Latin: trinitas), substance (substantia), and person (persona) in relation to God. [92] He was the first to speak of three persons in one substance (Latin: una substantia et tres personae). Tertullian adhered to the economic conception of the trinity. That is, he believed that the trinity exists for the purpose of revelation only, and after this has been accomplished the distinctions between the persons will cease. However, he definitely differed from Irenaeus in that he used the Logos doctrine of the Greek apologists. Tertullian equated the Logos with the Son. He believed the Father brought the Logos into existence for the creation of the world and the Logos was subordinate to the Father. The doctrine of the trinity posed no problem for Tertullian, for his whole theology rested on the thought that the more impossible the object of faith is, the more certain it is. He has been characterized by the statement, "I believe because it is absurd."
There is some question as to what Tertullian actually meant by his trinitarian formulation, especially his use of the Latin word persona. According to a handbook of theological terms, in Roman law the word meant a legal entity or party. [93] In drama it meant a mask worn by an actor or, by extension, a role played by an actor. Neither usage necessarily indicates the modern meaning of person as a self-conscious being. For example, one actor could play several roles (personae) and one legal corporation (persona) could consist of several individuals. On the other hand, presumably the word could also designate individual human beings.
In the fourth century, the Greek word hypostasis was used in the official formulation of trinitarian doctrine. According to Noss, hypostasis was an abstract word meaning subsistence or individualized manifestation. He says, "When this formulation was translated into Latin, the rather abstract Greek for individualized manifestation became the rather concrete word persona, and connotations of distinct and self-contained personality were suggested in a way not intended by the original Greek wording." [94] However, this concrete Latin word was precisely the one Tertullian had used earlier. Another scholar states that by the time hypostasis was translated into persona the two words were basically equivalent, both meaning "individual being." [95]
It is apparent that many people in Tertullian's time opposed his new formulation. By his own admission the majority of believers in his day rejected his doctrine on two grounds: Their Rule of Faith (early creed or statement of belief) prohibited polytheism, and his doctrine divided the unity of God. [96] Our knowledge of the early modalist (Oneness) believers, Noetus and Praxeas, comes from their strong opposition to Tertullian and his strong opposition to them. If Tertullian meant only that God had three roles, masks, or manifestations, there would be no conflict with modalism, especially since Tertullian did not believe in an eternal trinity. Therefore, we conclude that Tertullian did mean three essential differences in God and that persona did connote or imply a distinct personality, as suggested by Noss. In any case, it is clear that in Tertullian's day Oneness believers saw his doctrine as sharply opposed to their own, which was the majority belief of the time.
Here is one final note on Tertullian. He became a follower of Montanus, an early heretic who claimed to be the Paraclete (Comforter) promised in John 14 and the last prophet before the end of the world. Tertullian eventually began to praise celibacy and condemn marriage. In the end, he was excommunicated along with the rest of the Montanists.


Now, here is the thing....rather than Hypostasis..prosopon or persona is used in these ancient texts...the word literally means masks...


Isn't that what WE have been accused of believing? That God wore masks?

Infact the greek prosopon means face literally, not person.

pros'-o-pon
From G4314 and ὤψ ōps (the visage; from G3700); the front (as being towards view), that is, the countenance, aspect, appearance, surface; by implication presence, person: - (outward) appearance, X before, countenance, face, fashion, (men’s) person, presence.

Outward appearance. This word is not referring to the substance or the individual SELF.

It seems to be referring to exactly what we get accused a lot of believing....that these modes are just the manifestation of the person

Thayer
1) the face
1a) the front of the human head
1b) countenance, look
1b1) the face so far forth as it is the organ of sight, and by it various movements and changes) the index of the inward thoughts and feelings
1c) the appearance one presents by his wealth or property, his rank or low condition
1c1) outward circumstances, external condition
1c2) used in expressions which denote to regard the person in one’s judgment and treatment of men
2) the outward appearance of inanimate things

Vines
Face
<1,,4383,prosopon>
denotes "the countenance," lit., "the part towards the eyes" (from pros, "towards," ops, "the eye"), and is used (a) of the "face," Mat_6:16-17; 2Co_3:7, 2nd part (AV, "countenance"); in 2Co_10:7, in the RV, "things that are before your face" (AV, "outward appearance"), the phrase is figurative of superficial judgment; (b) of the look, i.e., the "face," which by its various movements affords an index of inward thoughts and feelings, e.g., Luk_9:51, Luk_9:53; 1Pe_3:12; (c) the presence of a person, the "face" being the noblest part, e.g., Act_3:13, RV, "before the face of," AV, "in the presence of;" Act_5:41, "presence;" 2Co_2:10, "person;" 1Th_2:17 (first part), "presence;" 2Th_1:9, RV, "face," AV, "presence;" Rev_12:14, "face;" (d) the person himself, e.g., Gal_1:22; 1Th_2:17 (second part); (e) the appearance one presents by his wealth or poverty, his position or state, Mat_22:16; Mar_12:14; Gal_2:6; Jud_1:16; (f) the outward appearance of inanimate things, Mat_16:3; Luk_12:56; Luk_21:35; Act_17:26.

To spit in a person's face was an expression of the utmost scorn and aversion, e.g., Mat_26:67 (cp. Mat_27:30; Mar_10:34; Luk_18:32). See APPEARANCE.

The bible calls the Father, Spirit and Son prosopon

But it only calls the Father Hypostasis!

That's interesting. If Tertullian was a modalist (I don't think he was, but I am entertaining the thought), and if he was a Montanist (perhaps they believed in modalism as well), and if the Montanists believed in the Holy Ghost and tongues etc... perhaps in the Montanists, we have a Holy Ghost filled, fire baptized, group of oneness believers in the 3rd century AD... Yes, they say Montanist beleived Montanus was the "paraclete", but perhaps this is a distortion of what they really believed... perhaps he simply was "filled" with the paraclete (you know, Holy Ghost filled)?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

I tend to agree with Believer on this. Tertillian is not saying that all simple people were modalist. What he is saying is that ones that do believe, are the simple people. There isn't anything in the text that would imply that "ALL" simple believe one way and the educated believe another way. Also, Tertillian would not have called them "the faithful" if he did.

You're right, Tertullian mentioned nothing about modalist. What he said was that the majority of believers objected to the idea of the trinity. This indicates that they were monarchian!

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Break this part of the sentence down by sentence structure if you will and show me why you think the phrase in parenthesis is modifying or referring back to the simple people instead of the thoughtless and ignorant. Truly, this is poorly translated as well as poor use of punctuation. If the translator wanted the phrase in parenthesis to modify the simple people, he has done a poor job in making that clear, IMO.

You have to understand the entire context in order to understand this. The same with scripture.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

You're right, Tertullian mentioned nothing about modalist. What he said was that the majority of believers objected to the idea of the trinity. This indicates that they were monarchian!

He didn't say that. He didn't mention how many people, or who. He simply made a vague statement directed at a group of people. He was probably talking about those that had followed Parx, but no one really knows for sure. Again, Tertullian would not call these people the faithful or believers.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No, go read the quotes. Im telling you guys I think he did NOT use the latin word hypostasis for person. I am thinking he must have used persona (face, mask). Read what I quoted from Tertullian on the logos.

His beef with Praxeas was not that Praxeas was a modalist but that Praxeas believed the Father and Son are NOT plural anythings....forget the word person for a second here. That came up at Nicea with the inclusion of Hypostasis.

It really sounds like Tertullian was modalistic, he saw a three fold ECONOMY. He was an economic Trinitarian, not a Hypostatic Trinitarian.

He seems Modalistic. Praxeas, he is arguing, denies that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three DIFFERENT modes or manifestations.

That is what it sounds like.

And his main beef seems to be fueled by Praxeas extremely successful attacks on Montanus.

Could it be that both men were Modalistic and that Tertullian was just trying to slander Praxeas much like Nestorius was?

Again I wish Chancellor was here. He wrote a book on this.

Again the Trinity we think of was three hypostasis (selfs)...the word persona meant something more like a mask

A persona, in the word's everyday usage, is a social role or a character played by an actor. The word derives from the Latin for "mask" or "character", derived from the Etruscan word "phersu", with the same meaning.

I found this quote by DB
Tertullian (c. 150 - c. 225 A.D.) was the first person recorded by history to use the words trinity (Latin: trinitas), substance (substantia), and person (persona) in relation to God. [92] He was the first to speak of three persons in one substance (Latin: una substantia et tres personae). Tertullian adhered to the economic conception of the trinity. That is, he believed that the trinity exists for the purpose of revelation only, and after this has been accomplished the distinctions between the persons will cease. However, he definitely differed from Irenaeus in that he used the Logos doctrine of the Greek apologists. Tertullian equated the Logos with the Son. He believed the Father brought the Logos into existence for the creation of the world and the Logos was subordinate to the Father. The doctrine of the trinity posed no problem for Tertullian, for his whole theology rested on the thought that the more impossible the object of faith is, the more certain it is. He has been characterized by the statement, "I believe because it is absurd."
There is some question as to what Tertullian actually meant by his trinitarian formulation, especially his use of the Latin word persona. According to a handbook of theological terms, in Roman law the word meant a legal entity or party. [93] In drama it meant a mask worn by an actor or, by extension, a role played by an actor. Neither usage necessarily indicates the modern meaning of person as a self-conscious being. For example, one actor could play several roles (personae) and one legal corporation (persona) could consist of several individuals. On the other hand, presumably the word could also designate individual human beings.
In the fourth century, the Greek word hypostasis was used in the official formulation of trinitarian doctrine. According to Noss, hypostasis was an abstract word meaning subsistence or individualized manifestation. He says, "When this formulation was translated into Latin, the rather abstract Greek for individualized manifestation became the rather concrete word persona, and connotations of distinct and self-contained personality were suggested in a way not intended by the original Greek wording." [94] However, this concrete Latin word was precisely the one Tertullian had used earlier. Another scholar states that by the time hypostasis was translated into persona the two words were basically equivalent, both meaning "individual being." [95]
It is apparent that many people in Tertullian's time opposed his new formulation. By his own admission the majority of believers in his day rejected his doctrine on two grounds: Their Rule of Faith (early creed or statement of belief) prohibited polytheism, and his doctrine divided the unity of God. [96] Our knowledge of the early modalist (Oneness) believers, Noetus and Praxeas, comes from their strong opposition to Tertullian and his strong opposition to them. If Tertullian meant only that God had three roles, masks, or manifestations, there would be no conflict with modalism, especially since Tertullian did not believe in an eternal trinity. Therefore, we conclude that Tertullian did mean three essential differences in God and that persona did connote or imply a distinct personality, as suggested by Noss. In any case, it is clear that in Tertullian's day Oneness believers saw his doctrine as sharply opposed to their own, which was the majority belief of the time.
Here is one final note on Tertullian. He became a follower of Montanus, an early heretic who claimed to be the Paraclete (Comforter) promised in John 14 and the last prophet before the end of the world. Tertullian eventually began to praise celibacy and condemn marriage. In the end, he was excommunicated along with the rest of the Montanists.


Now, here is the thing....rather than Hypostasis..prosopon or persona is used in these ancient texts...the word literally means masks...


Isn't that what WE have been accused of believing? That God wore masks?

Infact the greek prosopon means face literally, not person.

pros'-o-pon
From G4314 and ὤψ ōps (the visage; from G3700); the front (as being towards view), that is, the countenance, aspect, appearance, surface; by implication presence, person: - (outward) appearance, X before, countenance, face, fashion, (men’s) person, presence.

Outward appearance. This word is not referring to the substance or the individual SELF.

It seems to be referring to exactly what we get accused a lot of believing....that these modes are just the manifestation of the person

Thayer
1) the face
1a) the front of the human head
1b) countenance, look
1b1) the face so far forth as it is the organ of sight, and by it various movements and changes) the index of the inward thoughts and feelings
1c) the appearance one presents by his wealth or property, his rank or low condition
1c1) outward circumstances, external condition
1c2) used in expressions which denote to regard the person in one’s judgment and treatment of men
2) the outward appearance of inanimate things

Vines
Face
<1,,4383,prosopon>
denotes "the countenance," lit., "the part towards the eyes" (from pros, "towards," ops, "the eye"), and is used (a) of the "face," Mat_6:16-17; 2Co_3:7, 2nd part (AV, "countenance"); in 2Co_10:7, in the RV, "things that are before your face" (AV, "outward appearance"), the phrase is figurative of superficial judgment; (b) of the look, i.e., the "face," which by its various movements affords an index of inward thoughts and feelings, e.g., Luk_9:51, Luk_9:53; 1Pe_3:12; (c) the presence of a person, the "face" being the noblest part, e.g., Act_3:13, RV, "before the face of," AV, "in the presence of;" Act_5:41, "presence;" 2Co_2:10, "person;" 1Th_2:17 (first part), "presence;" 2Th_1:9, RV, "face," AV, "presence;" Rev_12:14, "face;" (d) the person himself, e.g., Gal_1:22; 1Th_2:17 (second part); (e) the appearance one presents by his wealth or poverty, his position or state, Mat_22:16; Mar_12:14; Gal_2:6; Jud_1:16; (f) the outward appearance of inanimate things, Mat_16:3; Luk_12:56; Luk_21:35; Act_17:26.

To spit in a person's face was an expression of the utmost scorn and aversion, e.g., Mat_26:67 (cp. Mat_27:30; Mar_10:34; Luk_18:32). See APPEARANCE.

The bible calls the Father, Spirit and Son prosopon

But it only calls the Father Hypostasis!

And this is how new ideas are born!