Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

When I have more time I will pick a few of these listed to show that they were not what we would consider "Oneness." Some writers just write things without actually doing any background check for the facts.

I can assure you that Bro. William Chalfant has done PLENTY of background check into his assertions. He holds at least one PHD, and has been a student of early church history since the 70's. I know him personally and have had several conversations with him concerning early church history. Also, Thomas Weiser is an outstanding student of early church history. I am not certain about his formal education, but his writing and scholarship is impeccable.

Originally Posted by Believer

Take Emanuel Swedenborg for example, he's on your list. He rejected the Trinity and believed that God was one person. He was also a Swedish occult member. He talked to demons and angels. Does this make him a Modalist person in history because he believed God was one person? No
Swedish philosopher and occultist Emmanuel Swedenborg claimed to communicate with the spirits of the dead. The New Jerusalem Church, founded by Swedenborg, brought his teachings to America in the late 1700s. John Chapman (Johnny Appleseed) spread his doctrine across early America.

http://www.4truth.net/site/apps/nl/c...4523&ct=983005

I am not certain that your assertion that he "was an occult member that talked to demons and angels" can be substantiated with this resource. And can your resource be trusted to be unbiased? Or perhaps it is another trinitarian or Roman Catholic biased historian that took personal attacks at him instead of grappling with the substance of his theology. I don't know whether your resource here can even be considered to be conclusive.

Also, even if this accusation against Swedenborg is true, doesn't necessarily bring the veracity of the monarch (oneness) of God into question. the fact that he held to one God (even the devils believe in ONE GOD and tremble - Jam. 2:19), simply means that there were monarchian believers present during his time in history. He didn't stumble upon this by himself, seeing as the timeline that I posted shows that from the 1st centurty all the way down to the 20th century, there were oneness believers SOMEWHERE in the world.

Also, if ever goofball that professes to have the truth is put up as the poster boy for a doctrine, then we can do the same with the trinity doctrine. For instance, the fully developed trinity doctrine is the progeny of the Roman Catholic church. Now if we take into account all the doctrines of the roman catholics, i.e. Mary worship, saint worship, infant baptism, purgatory, indulgences, sprinkle baptism... etc., and then you take into account the nefarious history of that doctrinal system, it would seem to indicate that ALL their doctrine should be thrown out... ESPECIALLY THE TRINITY. So you want to bring into question one "oneness" individual who "may" have had a checkered past in order to bring into quesiton the veracity of his doctrine, but you reject doing the same thing with your doctrine. I suggest you come at this from an objective perspective, and examine the implications that in fact that there were oneness believers throughout history, instead of disparaging the historicity of this well established fact.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

Paulicianism was a Gnostic and Manichaean Christian sect that florished between 650 and 872 in Anatolia, outgoing from Armenia and the Eastern Themes of the Byzantine Empire. An ancient Paulician manuscript, The Key of Truth, was discovered in Armenia in 1891. The translator, Fred Conybeare, said "I found nothing that savoured of these ancient heresies... the Manicheans and Mani was anathematized by the Paulician Church." (The Key of Truth, Conybeare, 1898, pg. vi, cxxxi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulicianism

Bob, Please notice on the wiki page to the right where it states "Part of a series on Gnosticism" scroll down until you see "Medieval Gnosticism" there will be a list of Medieval Gnosticism sect list, Paulicianism being one of them.

Medieval Gnosticism
Paulicianism
Tondrakians
Bogomilism
Bosnian Church
Catharism

How in the world can the Paulicians be "Manicheans" if the anathematized Mani and the Manicheans? Your assertion is completely false. The anathematization of Manicheans is proof against your claim (and edited Wiki reference) of them being Manichean. The only think you have to go on now is your claim that they Paulicians were "gnostic". Where is your proof? Can you substantiate it? Again, Conybear translated their teachings "The Key of Truth" in the late 19th century. If there is gnostic teaching them show me!!! Here is the article again from Wiki as it was originally accessed by me:

Paulicianism was a Christian sect that florished between 650 and 872 in Anatolia, outgoing from Armenia and the Eastern Themes of the Byzantine Empire. An ancient Paulician manuscript, The Key of Truth, was discovered in Armenia in 1891. The translator, Fred Conybeare, said "I found nothing that savoured of these ancient heresies... the Manicheans and Mani was anathematized by the Paulician Church." (The Key of Truth, Conybeare, 1898, pg. vi, cxxxi)


The adherents of the sect called themselves Christians.[citation needed] The name Paulicians was given by others, derived from their respect for the apostle Paul,[citation needed] rather than from their third leader, the Armenian Paul, as Photius and Petrus Siculus affirm.[citation needed] They especially honoured the Gospel According to Luke, Saint John, and the Letters of St. Paul. They accepted both the Old and New Testaments. There were many that were adoptionists and there were also many among them that adhered to modalistic Monarchianism which they probably inherited from certain Monanists that joined them. Their denial of the Trinity may have resulted in many of them altering their baptismal rite by immersion in the name of Christ as opposed to baptizing into the Trinity. Some may have combined the two forms. Only adults 30 years of age or over were eligible for baptism since this was the age Christ was baptized. The person that performed the baptism had to be pure of heart in order for the baptism to be considered valid. (The Key of Truth, Conybeare)

Some historians [Who says this?]have stated that incidences of prophetic and ecstatic utterances among the Paulicians was actually glossolalia, which when occurring outside of the Church was considered witchcraft.[citation needed]

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

[BobDylan]

Swedenborg, Emanuel, 1688-1772,
Swedish scientist, religious teacher, and mystic. His religious system, sometimes called Swedenborgianism, is largely incorporated in the Church of the New Jerusalem, founded some years after his death. His father was Bishop Swedberg, professor at Uppsala Univ. The name became Swedenborg when the family was ennobled (1719). Emanuel traveled extensively and was made (1716) assessor of the Royal College of Mines; his engineering skill made him widely known. He took active part in the proceedings of the house of nobles, where he showed himself an ardent reformer. A series of scientific works by him began to appear in 1734. The first, Principia, was an attempt to trace the system of the world philosophically. He studied almost every field of scientific investigation and wrote copiously, anticipating in many instances later discoveries and inventions. His studies of man in works on the animal kingdom, the human brain, and psychology were published before 1747, when he resigned his post and gave himself to the contemplation of spiritual matters, especially to the work of making clear to mankind the true inner doctrines of the divine Word as he claimed that they were revealed to him by direct insight into the spiritual world after "heaven was opened" to him in 1745. Visions and communication with spirits and angels helped prepare him to set forth the teachings of what he termed the New Church, the inauguration of which he believed to have taken place in 1757 with the second coming of Christ. He claimed to have received from the Lord himself the true sense of the Scriptures. His expositions of Genesis and Exodus were published as Arcana Coelestia (1749-56). Of the many works that followed, a number have been published in English, among them Heaven and Hell; Divine Love and Wisdom; True Christian Religion, stating fully his system of doctrine; and the Apocalypse Revealed. His writings have been translated into numerous other languages. It was not Swedenborg's intention to establish a new sect. In his mind the New Church might include members of any Christian churches. The latter part of his life he spent partly in London, partly in Amsterdam and Stockholm. In 1810 a society was founded for publishing Swedenborg's works in English. In Stockholm lithographed facsimiles of his manuscripts were issued in 1869-70, and an 18-volume edition of his writings was published between 1901 and 1916.
See R. F. Tafel, ed., Documents Concerning Swedenborg (1857-77); biographies by G. Trobridge (4th ed. 1968) and C. S. Sigstedt (1971); studies by H. A. Keller (1927, repr. 1972), I. Jonsson (tr. 1971), and R. Larsen et al., ed. (1988).

http://www.reference.com/search?q=Swedenborg

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Believer

Take Emanuel Swedenborg for example, he's on your list. He rejected the Trinity and believed that God was one person. He was also a Swedish occult member. He talked to demons and angels. Does this make him a Modalist person in history because he believed God was one person? No

This would make him some type of Oneness believer if he also believed Jesus Christ was that one God made flesh. He would have to affirm the deity of Christ. If he was Unitarian, then no, he would not be considered modalistic in any way.

[mizpeh]

n/t

[mizpeh]

I simply quoted a passage from Wikipedia. And YOU changed part of it.... SHAME ON YOU. I accessed the Wiki article exactly how it was... what I quoted above was exactly what it said when I accessed it. Then you go in there and "edit" the part you don't agree with. This is exactly the same as what the Roman Catholics did with "history" that disagreed with. They felt the liberty to "edit" the part they didn't agree with. You ought to begin to see the paralell... If you cannot, you're blind!

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I can assure you that Bro. William Chalfant has done PLENTY of background check into his assertions. He holds at least one PHD, and has been a student of early church history since the 70's. I know him personally and have had several conversations with him concerning early church history. Also, Thomas Weiser is an outstanding student of early church history. I am not certain about his formal education, but his writing and scholarship is impeccable.



I am not certain that your assertion that he "was an occult member that talked to demons and angels" can be substantiated with this resource. And can your resource be trusted to be unbiased? Or perhaps it is another trinitarian or Roman Catholic biased historian that took personal attacks at him instead of grappling with the substance of his theology. I don't know whether your resource here can even be considered to be conclusive.

Also, even if this accusation against Swedenborg is true, doesn't necessarily bring the veracity of the monarch (oneness) of God into question. the fact that he held to one God (even the devils believe in ONE GOD and tremble - Jam. 2:19), simply means that there were monarchian believers present during his time in history. He didn't stumble upon this by himself, seeing as the timeline that I posted shows that from the 1st centurty all the way down to the 20th century, there were oneness believers SOMEWHERE in the world.

Also, if ever goofball that professes to have the truth is put up as the poster boy for a doctrine, then we can do the same with the trinity doctrine. For instance, the fully developed trinity doctrine is the progeny of the Roman Catholic church. Now if we take into account all the doctrines of the roman catholics, i.e. Mary worship, saint worship, infant baptism, purgatory, indulgences, sprinkle baptism... etc., and then you take into account the nefarious history of that doctrinal system, it would seem to indicate that ALL their doctrine should be thrown out... ESPECIALLY THE TRINITY. So you want to bring into question one "oneness" individual who "may" have had a checkered past in order to bring into quesiton the veracity of his doctrine, but you reject doing the same thing with your doctrine. I suggest you come at this from an objective perspective, and examine the implications that in fact that there were oneness believers throughout history, instead of disparaging the historicity of this well established fact.

Hi BobDylan, I did a study on Swedenborg a few years back, and I found that he did dabble in occult practices. I’m trying to go by memory, but I believe that some of his occult practices are used today. I thought it strange beings that he claimed to believe in God. But, demons also believe in God. Just a thought.

wj

Originally Posted by BobDylan

How in the world can the Paulicians be "Manicheans" if the anathematized Mani and the Manicheans? Your assertion is completely false. The anathematization of Manicheans is proof against your claim (and edited Wiki reference) of them being Manichean. The only think you have to go on now is your claim that they Paulicians were "gnostic". Where is your proof? Can you substantiate it? Again, Conybear translated their teachings "The Key of Truth" in the late 19th century. If there is gnostic teaching them show me!!! Here is the article again from Wiki as it was originally accessed by me:

Paulicianism was a Christian sect that florished between 650 and 872 in Anatolia, outgoing from Armenia and the Eastern Themes of the Byzantine Empire. An ancient Paulician manuscript, The Key of Truth, was discovered in Armenia in 1891. The translator, Fred Conybeare, said "I found nothing that savoured of these ancient heresies... the Manicheans and Mani was anathematized by the Paulician Church." (The Key of Truth, Conybeare, 1898, pg. vi, cxxxi)

I'm trying to understand your point here. What you outlined seems to go against the point I believe you're trying to make. It appears that you are contradicting yourself. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You said:

How in the world can the Paulicians be "Manicheans" if the anathematized Mani and the Manicheans?

You underlined:

Fred Conybeare, said "I found nothing that savoured of these ancient heresies... the Manicheans and Mani was anathematized by the Paulician Church."

Your question does not say that Paulicians are Manicheans. It says that the Paulician cured,or

Are you thinking that "Manichaeism" was a form of Modalist?

Manichaeism (in Modern Persian آیین مانی Āyin e Māni; Chinese: 摩尼教) was one of the major dualistic religions, originating in Sassanid Persia.

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

God Bless

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

Hi BobDylan, I did a study on Swedenborg a few years back, and I found that he did dabble in occult practices. I’m trying to go memory, but I believe that some of his occult practices are used today. I thought it strange beings that he claimed to believe in God. But, demons also believe in God. Just a thought.

wj

I am not defending Swedenborg, or even suggesting him as an example of a historical oneness adherent. But consider Spirit filled people today. There were MANY in the early years of pentecost in the last century that suggestion that our "tongue talking" was demonically inspired. I have known pentecostal preachers who suggested they saw demons, and Satan himself, as well as angelic beings. etc. From an outsiders perspective, someone who has never been enlightened in the least bit into the spirit realm, all of this could make US, YOU AND I, look like we are dabbling in spiritism and the occult. I would simply suggest that when you look at swedenborgs life, put the accusations of him as an occultist into perspective. He certainly held to the believe in one God, he called himself a Christian. There are instances where he is attibuted to have spoken in glossalalia... what and where is the solid substantiation that he indeed was involved in the occcult? Is there any more substance to this that the writings and accusations of his detractors?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

I'm trying to understand your point here. What you outlined seems to go against the point I believe you're trying to make. It appears that you are contradicting yourself. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You said:

You underlined:
Your question does not say that Paulicians are Manicheans. It says that the Paulician cured,or

Are you thinking that "Manichaeism" was a form of Modalist?

Manichaeism (in Modern Persian آیین مانی Āyin e Māni; Chinese: 摩尼教) was one of the major dualistic religions, originating in Sassanid Persia.

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

God Bless

He is saying exactly what you see...the Paulicians were NOT Manicheans