Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

Originally Posted by BobDylan

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"!!!!

It is because all the information that is found from non-bias historical stand point, points to the fact they were dualist, not Oneness nor Trinitarian. They were considered heretics by the Church, the Oneness church would consider them today. it’s a no brainier.

You would be hard pressed to prove that Irenaeus was a dualist...seriously!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Believer

It is because all the information that is found from non-bias historical stand point, points to the fact they were dualist, not Oneness nor Trinitarian. They were considered heretics by the Church, the Oneness church would consider them today. it’s a no brainier.

You would be hard pressed to prove that Irenaeus was a dualist...seriously!

What are you non-biased references? Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic church calling out heretics? That's a laugh!

Originally Posted by mizpeh

What are you non-biased references? Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic church calling out heretics? That's a laugh!

Did I say or even remotely imply they were Roman Catholic references? When I post something I try to make it a meaningful conversation with facts. I try not to twist what others are saying for the sake of winning an argument. I’m an honest person.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

It is because all the information that is found from non-bias historical stand point, points to the fact they were dualist, not Oneness nor Trinitarian.

What non-biased histories are you reading? Are you reading original and objective research, or are you reading opinions based on other's biased research? Ancient Monarchian Christians, by William Chalfant, is a tremendous resource that examined the original claims and comes to a different "non-biased" conclusion. I challenge you to examine the Key of Truth (statement of faith for the Paulician) and find dualism there. Again, Coneybear said he found NO EVIDENCE of any of the heresies in the Paulician's own statement of faith. Who are you going to believe? Whay the Paulicians said about themselves, or what their detractors and accusers (who murdered over 100,000 of them) said about them? I think I would beleive what I heard them say about themselves, rather than the murderous system that persecuted, tortured, and lied about them. Yes, their detractors accused them of being dualist, but what did they say about themselves.

Originally Posted by Believer

They were considered heretics by the Church, the Oneness church would consider them today. it’s a no brainier.

They were considered heretics by the Roman Catholic church. WE (oneness) were considered heretics by the Roman Catholic church. I think WE (oneness) have alot more in common with the Paulicians that we do the [Roman Catholic] "church" that accused them of heresy. I know at least two oneness studenst of history, both PhD.s, that believe the Paulicians were oneness.

Originally Posted by Believer

You would be hard pressed to prove that Irenaeus was a dualist...seriously!

YOU would be hard pressed to prove that Iraneaus was a trinitarian! You would also be hardpressed to prove that Polycarp, Clement of Rome (95AD), and Ignatius were anything BUT monarchian!

Originally Posted by BobDylan

They were considered heretics by the Roman Catholic church. WE (oneness) were considered heretics by the Roman Catholic church. I think WE (oneness) have alot more in common with the Paulicians that we do the [Roman Catholic] "church" that accused them of heresy. I know at least two oneness studenst of history, both PhD.s, that believe the Paulicians were oneness.

YOU would be hard pressed to prove that Iraneaus was a trinitarian! You would also be hardpressed to prove that Polycarp, Clement of Rome (95AD), and Ignatius were anything BUT monarchian!

"WE" (meaning oneness) weren't considered anything by the Roman Catholics until the 1900s... You could argue that we are similar to Monarchians, but that doesn't mean we are monarchians... we're not...

we might be considered heretics (I'm not even sure) but we weren't considered anything until we existed (recently)

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by redeemedcynic84

"WE" (meaning oneness) weren't considered anything by the Roman Catholics until the 1900s... You could argue that we are similar to Monarchians, but that doesn't mean we are monarchians... we're not...

we might be considered heretics (I'm not even sure) but we weren't considered anything until we existed (recently)

We may not be "modalists", but we are all (oneness believers that is) "monarchian" by definition. The word monarchian simply means "one ruler". In other words, YOU sir are either monarchian, dualist, tritheis, trinitarian, arian etc.... "oneness" is a 20th century term that means "monarchian".

All oneness (monarchians) WERE considered heretics by the Roman Catholic church.

[BobDylan]

Believer, consider this resource:

Modalism was sparked in the 3rd century (c. 215 AD) by a presbyter from Ptolemais named Sabbellius who stood in the belief that God is “one indivisible substance, but with three fundamental activities, or modes[1], appearing successively as the Father (the creator and lawgiver), as the Son (the redeemer), and as the Holy Spirit (the maker of life and the divine presence within men).”[2] This belief is also known as Modalistic Monarchian or Patripassian. Monarchian is a term taken from the Greek words mono + arche, which literally means “one-ruler”. This heresy surfaced in the time when the Church was refuting tritheism (worship of three gods). They were also called Patripassian because their teaching implies that “Father must have died on the cross”.[3] In effect they are really saying (although they will disagree with me) that Jesus the Son, is not God[4] but only the man the Father (the eternal Spirit) dwelt into. Another form of Monarchianism surfaced through the person of Theodotus (c. 190 AD) and Paul of Samosata (c. 260 AD). It was called Dynamic Monarchianism. The Theodotians taught, “Jesus was a man who became the Christ only after his baptism,”[5] while the Paulicians taught, “the Logos came to dwell in Jesus at baptism, but that Jesus possessed no extraordinary nature above other men, the Logos being entirely an attribute of God.”[6]


http://thebereans.net/arm-modal.shtml

This website identifies Paulicians correctly as "dynamic monarchian". This means that they WERE onenss (monarchian). Some call the dynamic monarchians "adoptionists", but this really is a micharacterization of what dynamic monarchians really believe. Dynamic monarchianism is simply a form of oneness that emphasizes the humanity of Christ, whereas Modalistic Monarchianism emphases the deity. Either way, the Paulician were not dualist (two-God), they were monarchian (ONE GOD) people.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Believer, consider this resource:

Modalism was sparked in the 3rd century (c. 215 AD) by a presbyter from Ptolemais named Sabbellius who stood in the belief that God is “one indivisible substance, but with three fundamental activities, or modes[1], appearing successively as the Father (the creator and lawgiver), as the Son (the redeemer), and as the Holy Spirit (the maker of life and the divine presence within men).”[2] This belief is also known as Modalistic Monarchian or Patripassian. Monarchian is a term taken from the Greek words mono + arche, which literally means “one-ruler”. This heresy surfaced in the time when the Church was refuting tritheism (worship of three gods). They were also called Patripassian because their teaching implies that “Father must have died on the cross”.[3] In effect they are really saying (although they will disagree with me) that Jesus the Son, is not God[4] but only the man the Father (the eternal Spirit) dwelt into. Another form of Monarchianism surfaced through the person of Theodotus (c. 190 AD) and Paul of Samosata (c. 260 AD). It was called Dynamic Monarchianism. The Theodotians taught, “Jesus was a man who became the Christ only after his baptism,”[5] while the Paulicians taught, “the Logos came to dwell in Jesus at baptism, but that Jesus possessed no extraordinary nature above other men, the Logos being entirely an attribute of God.”[6]


http://thebereans.net/arm-modal.shtml

This website identifies Paulicians correctly as "dynamic monarchian". This means that they WERE onenss (monarchian). Some call the dynamic monarchians "adoptionists", but this really is a micharacterization of what dynamic monarchians really believe. Dynamic monarchianism is simply a form of oneness that emphasizes the humanity of Christ, whereas Modalistic Monarchianism emphases the deity. Either way, the Paulician were not dualist (two-God), they were monarchian (ONE GOD) people.

why in the world would you claim a group that claimed that Jesus wasn't diety until after his baptism as what you are???

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by redeemedcynic84

why in the world would you claim a group that claimed that Jesus wasn't diety until after his baptism as what you are???

They don't claim that Jesus wasn't deity until after his baptism.... that is a misrepresentation of what they claim.... the one thing that IS historically accurate, that they claimed, was they there was ONE God... and they DO believe that Jesus was divine (i.e. that one God)

[BobDylan]

Here is a link to a website that profoundly represents early monarchians...

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/monarch.php