Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

But, were they Oneness? That is the question.

I think it would be safe to say that, yes, they were... now there may have been some who were fringe dualistic or something, but the "Key of Truth" from what I understand, has nothing but monarchian theology in it. Some resources say they were dynamic monarchian, others modalistic. Probably depends on whether they were emphasizing the humanity or the deity of Christ. Either way, there were definitlely monarchian, and very ANTI-trinitarian..

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I think it would be safe to say that, yes, they were... now there may have been some who were fringe dualistic or something, but the "Key of Truth" from what I understand, has nothing but monarchian theology in it. Some resources say they were dynamic monarchian, others modalistic. Probably depends on whether they were emphasizing the humanity or the deity of Christ. Either way, there were definitlely monarchian, and very ANTI-trinitarian..

Would you say that would be accepted in the Oneness circles today?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

Would you say that would be accepted in the Oneness circles today?

I know of at least a couple of writers who believe this.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I know of at least a couple of writers who believe this.

But.... would any Oneness pastor allow someone that teaches dualism to preach at their pulpit?

If you know a couple of writers that believe this than they are not Oneness. They are two-atarians.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

But.... would any Oneness pastor allow someone that teaches dualism to preach at their pulpit?

If you know a couple of writers that believe this than they are not Oneness. They are two-atarians.

My statement was the the Paulicians were oneness.... there may have been some fringe elements that leaned toward a twoness, but it cannot be substantiated from their most notable document, "The Key of Truth". In fact, Coneybear, who translated the document in the late 1800's, said "I see no evidence of any of the heresies in their writings"...

Originally Posted by BobDylan

My statement was the the Paulicians were oneness.... there may have been some fringe elements that leaned toward a twoness, but it cannot be substantiated from their most notable document, "The Key of Truth". In fact, Coneybear, who translated the document in the late 1800's, said "I see no evidence of any of the heresies in their writings"...

Paulicians were not Oneness according to history. Someone by the name TheLayman put wikki back to what it was originally. I've seen him in action on CARM. If this is the same guy!

PAULICIANS, a dualistic sect of the Orient, whose name was derived from their respect for the apostle Paul, rather than from their third leader, the Armenian Paul, as Photius and Petrus Siculus affirm.

http://www.medievalchurch.org.uk/h_paul.php

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

Paulicians were not Oneness according to history. Someone by the name TheLayman put wikki back to what it was originally. I've seen him in action on CARM. If this is the same guy!

PAULICIANS, a dualistic sect of the Orient, whose name was derived from their respect for the apostle Paul, rather than from their third leader, the Armenian Paul, as Photius and Petrus Siculus affirm.

http://www.medievalchurch.org.uk/h_paul.php

How do you substantiate your claim that the Paulicians were "dualist"? And furthermore, even if they were "dualist" (which they weren't, they were oneness), what't the difference between dualism and threeism (i.e. trintarianism)?

Iraneaus WAS a true "dualist"!!!!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Believer

Paulicians were not Oneness according to history. Someone by the name TheLayman put wikki back to what it was originally. I've seen him in action on CARM. If this is the same guy!

PAULICIANS, a dualistic sect of the Orient, whose name was derived from their respect for the apostle Paul, rather than from their third leader, the Armenian Paul, as Photius and Petrus Siculus affirm.

http://www.medievalchurch.org.uk/h_paul.php

I read the portion of the link on their doctrine.I'm skeptical that history has misrepresented them.

Anyway the article you reference doesn't mention "The Key of Truth" that BD has been speaking of and which you haven't addressed. :

My statement was the the Paulicians were oneness.... there may have been some fringe elements that leaned toward a twoness, but it cannot be substantiated from their most notable document, "The Key of Truth". In fact, Coneybear, who translated the document in the late 1800's, said "I see no evidence of any of the heresies in their writings"...

The book, The Key of Truth, can be purchase at Amazon for $26.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Believer

Paulicians were not Oneness according to history. Someone by the name TheLayman put wikki back to what it was originally. I've seen him in action on CARM. If this is the same guy!

How are you able to find out who edited the text in Wiki? Is there a log at Wiki that one can look at to see who added or deleted material?