Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Actually, some have suggested that Praxeas was a "derogatory term" coined by Hyppolytus to refer to Noetus (if I am remembering correctly). The name "Praxeas" simply means "troublemaker"... haha....

The only thing that we know about Noetus and Praxeas' teachings were what the "victors" wrote about them... i.e. Hyppolytus primarily. Again, I have some resources available to me, but not at my immediate disposal, that peices together the doctrine of Noetus and Praxeas from the antagonistic writings against them.

You keep mentioning the 1st and 2nd century writings, I have suggested several times that they were destroyed along with the 3rd and 4th century "heretical" writings... that is "heretical" according to the Roman Catholic church. Now we know that EVERYTHING the Roman Catholic church teaches and holds to are biblical absolutes, and EVERYTHING that disagrees with the Catholic dogma is "heresy" right? Are we in agreement with that?

It would be helpful if you could prove that these document were destroyed. Honestly, it is a weak argument. I agree that the Roman Catholic church teaches some heresies. Which is why we have the reformations, all of which were Trinitairan.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

What truth did the Spirit not bring them to?

Please name some the "hidden" remnants of the 15th, 16th, 17th century and we can use them as springboards.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Believer

because you don't have any proof of what you claim.

And you can't disprove it either. Your argument is from silence and would contain the same holes mine does.

Except I believe Oneness and the new birth are the truth....and truth endures forever.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

And you can't disprove it either. Your argument is from silence and would contain the same holes mine does.

So far I'm the only one that has posted proof and you tell me my argument is from silence.... please!!! End of discussion

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

It would be helpful if you could prove that these document were destroyed. Honestly, it is a weak argument. I agree that the Roman Catholic church teaches some heresies. Which is why we have the reformations, all of which were Trinitairan.

That is because the "Reformations" came our of the Catholic church. Already, it was established by the Catholic church, that unless you believed in trinity in unity, and unity in trinity, you cannot be saved...

But you also had to be a member of the Catholic church. Which the Lutherans weren't, the Epicospals weren't... but they held to the same basic tenets. They sprinkle baptized, believed in the trinity... etc.

Then the "anabaptists" came along, and according to the Roman Catholic church, they were "heretics".... the Calvinists, and the list goes on and on... ANY group that didn't hold to the catholic dogma and look to the pope were heretics.

But now we have a NEW scenario.... ANYONE who holds to the doctrine of the "trinity", are "Catholic" (I believe a pope decreed that some time ago, perhaps John Paul II). So the "mother of harlots" has a lot of baby "harlots", that hold the most fundamental tenet and dogma of the Roman Catholic system, that of the blessed holy (unscriptural) trinity....

Again, I have resources, and I wish I had them at my disposal, but it pieces together very effectively the teachings of the early modalist monarchian. But this resource also cites WRITINGS of dynamic monarchian, and messianic essene writings, that are convincingly monarchian... they held a "dynamic monarchian" concept rather than the later "modalistic" monarchianism held by Noetus and Sabellius, but irregardless, they wre still MONARCHIANS (one -God!!!!)...

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

So far I'm the only one that has posted proof and you tell me my argument is from silence.... please!!! End of discussion

What "proof" have you cited? Because a catholic reposit declared that Noetus was a heretic? Again, I agree with the Catholic church on EVERYONE they have declared as heretics... NOT!!!!!

We can easily scrap history, and just get back to the book and see what the book says about the nature and numerical attributes of God, now couldn't we!!!!!

The reformation was all about getting back to the bible, and forgetting about what the Catholic's decreed. So let's get back to the bible!!!!! Forget noetus, forget Hypolytus, forget Justin....

Let's get back to the bible!!!!!

[Praxeas]

Was there Trinity before the 3rd century? Ignatius did not sound like he was teaching trinity. Could have been arian...for that matter we have Oneness that teach the Logos was with God as God's visible form or something, but not a second person...I don't see the Trinity in doctrine spelled out in those writtings anymore than one would not see Oneness spelled out

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Was there Trinity before the 3rd century? Ignatius did not sound like he was teaching trinity. Could have been arian...for that matter we have Oneness that teach the Logos was with God as God's visible form or something, but not a second person...I don't see the Trinity in doctrine spelled out in those writtings anymore than one would not see Oneness spelled out

Great point Prax.... Where are the trinitarian writings before the 3rd century????

[BobDylan]

Hey guys, this is the first thread on AFF that I actually started!

Originally Posted by BobDylan

That is because the "Reformations" came our of the Catholic church. Already, it was established by the Catholic church, that unless you believed in trinity in unity, and unity in trinity, you cannot be saved...

But you also had to be a member of the Catholic church. Which the Lutherans weren't, the Epicospals weren't... but they held to the same basic tenets. They sprinkle baptized, believed in the trinity... etc.

Then the "anabaptists" came along, and according to the Roman Catholic church, they were "heretics".... the Calvinists, and the list goes on and on... ANY group that didn't hold to the catholic dogma and look to the pope were heretics.

But now we have a NEW scenario.... ANYONE who holds to the doctrine of the "trinity", are "Catholic" (I believe a pope decreed that some time ago, perhaps John Paul II). So the "mother of harlots" has a lot of baby "harlots", that hold the most fundamental tenet and dogma of the Roman Catholic system, that of the blessed holy (unscriptural) trinity....

There is a lot that happen in history, some of which we'll never understand. I don't agree with all that the Catholic church has done. But that doesn’t change the fact that the only Church in recorded history is Trinitarian, not Oneness. History only shows us that there were sporadic list of people that believed that Jesus was the Father. One of these is Emmanuel Swedenborg, and I certain you don't want to use him as an example as David Bernard did ini his book "The Oneness of God."

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Again, I have resources, and I wish I had them at my disposal, but it pieces together very effectively the teachings of the early modalist monarchian. But this resource also cites WRITINGS of dynamic monarchian, and messianic essene writings, that are convincingly monarchian... they held a "dynamic monarchian" concept rather than the later "modalistic" monarchianism held by Noetus and Sabellius, but irregardless, they wre still MONARCHIANS (one -God!!!!)...

Those such as Sabellius and Noetus did not teach the same Oneness theology as what is taught today. The problem I see, maybe you could shed some light here, if today’s Oneness teach that their doctrine is the true doctrine, then how come it doesn't match up with the teaches of the first modalist? which is true Sabellius or todays Oneness Doctrine?