Which came first monarchianism or modalism?
 

Which came first monarchianism or modalism? If it was monarchianism was it dynamic monarchism or modal? Any thoughts on if monarchianism and or modalism arose from gnosticism? Thanks in advance.

Monarchianistic modalism came first... In the New Testament.

Re: Which came first monarchianism or modalism?
 

Agreed!:highfive

Re: Which came first monarchianism or modalism?
 

First came the Doctrine of Christ.
(Jesus is the Son of God and so God manifest in flesh).
About 200 A.C the doctrine of trinity was not total formed but there was others forms of trinitarian heresies.
Some was Modalism. They teach that God changed modes, So he manifest as Father and at the same time as Son .
That was one of the forst heresies.
Other earlier heresies was that "Jesus is God in flesh ,but that was not a real human flesh"..
at that time came Arianism and then trinity doctrine. Also were some who teaches a economic trinity. That God came as Father first and later as Son and now as Spirit,but never the 3 persons at the same time..
1)The trinity arose form Gnosticism. Some of them teaches a nice human Jesus, that was a simple man. and some of them teaches that was God and so not real human>
Then came other gnostic with more Greek philosophy and they start to say that God is so holy that no way to indwell in flesh. So they came up with a doctrine "God is too holy to communicate with human,so He did a second lesser God and he send him to diy for us"
From that came Arianism (Unitarians) and Trinitarians.
Before 200 A.D all heresies were around one God and His Son and how this can mean One God.
Then came the doctrines about 2-3 Gods ..
(Many times ,persons who are labelled as Modalists etc. were simple Christians who believed in One God.)
Some teachings were just missunderstanding words of believers and som,e were just heresiew from the devil.
All heresies about Godhead with one or an other way,refused the Son of God ,or that God came in flesh.

The bible says God (the Father) came in flesh. That is the nvisible Spirit came in His Son ,the man Jesus Christ. Son of God was named so, because he was born from the Spirit and Mary:The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Heray refuses that ruth by say:
1) Jesus is God the Son. (vs Son of God)
2)Is eternal and ,without Father without mother.(vs born from Mary & God)
3) Was an Angel.(vs Son)
4)Was a second God.(vs Father the one God)
5)was a simple human (vs Son of the living God,God in flesh)
6)Was God but not real human.("For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;)
7)was God himself who became flesh (vs real human born bu God "Son of God" and instinct of God in flesh=God in his Son)

*Μοnarchianism was not just one form.
they were some named like that but in relaity was real Christians.
Mane of them were just blasphemed by later trinitarians and were not presenting that heresies ,while pothers had some teachings like:
"God the Father was in his Son, shed his blood " so people who dont understood the doctrine of Christ said "God died" and came up Patropaschitism...but i doint think that were actual ever a group who believed like that, that was actually the thought of Trinitarians about them, like today they say "Jesus only" because they dont understand the doctrine we teach.
Then came Sabelian who seems to belioeve in One Goid and trying to be an apologist .but his teaching together tith others Modalists was the way upon came the Trinity doctrine.
Actually the doctrine of Trinity came upon the teaching of "faces" .Fce is called person in Greek ,so they build that doctrine of "faces" abd latter came others who gave at those faces personalities and so some did the doctrines of One God who changed faces (persons) and other woith the doctrine of 3 distinct persons....PHILOSOPHY.. :) SO from here you can l;oose your miond if you try to explain what all those persons believed...

Re: Which came first monarchianism or modalism?
 

Both Tertullian and Origen referred to Modalistic Monarchianism (Oneness) as being mainstream prior to the rise of heresies such as Arianism and Trinitarianism.

Re: Which came first monarchianism or modalism?
 

I know the Tertullian reference, but not the Origin one. Could you please point me to it?

Re: Which came first monarchianism or modalism?
 

Sure. Page 181-182 of this link. Origen doesn't call them by the name, but it is obvious he is referring to Modalistic Monarchians rejecting an eternal Son-person. He admits that at that time, they were still the "general run of Christians" (or the majority).

https://aecc8f1b-aa74-498e-a5fb-f7e3...e25a03a49e.pdf

Origen's quote - similar to Tertullian
 

Thanks, a nice quote that flies under the radar.

And I hope to look over more of your writing and youtube.

May I encourage you to look up the difficulties in the pronunciation "yahweh"?

Thanks!

Re: Origen's quote - similar to Tertullian
 

If this is meant in reference to me, thank you. Regarding Yahweh, I of course am aware that the Jews shortened it to the tetragrammaton YHWH, making it difficult to know the exact pronunciation, and then substituting it altogether with Adonai, or LORD. That being said, I've always been comfortable with Yahweh as being basically the correct pronunciation, although I know some people have strong feelings on this. Care to share your thoughts?

Re: Origen's quote - similar to Tertullian
 

Sure. I did start a thread here.

connecting dots - Acts 14 pagan Jupiter is yahweh
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=50557