Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

Ok, I'm with you now.

Maybe the reason the two were linked together is because both groups were dualists?

Synopsis
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.

The Paulicians were not a branch of the Manichæans, as Photius, Petrus Siculus, and many modern authors have held. Both were dualists.

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

I tried to read through these posts to get the gist of the conversation. If I read this right, Bob is trying link Modalist with Paulicianism. I personally wouldn’t do that. God Bless

Originally Posted by mizpeh

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.

But to link him to Modalist is wrong. He may claimed to believe in God as one person, like the Oneness doctrine does, but to use him to prove there were Oneness in History is desperate. And this is coming from a 2nd generation Oneness.

(I'm not attending any Oneness church now, which is a different story.)

Originally Posted by BobDylan

You are taking excerpts from people who are misrepresenting Hermas, Iraneaus, and Polycarp (all of whom were monarchian). Hermas details his theology and Christology. Again, I have the resources, but not at my immediate disposal, to bring other renderings from "Shepherd" that show's Hermas' monarchian theology.

The problem is that you are appealing to trinitarian biased "historians" for their interpretation of the early writings....

I’ve been lurking for the last few weeks, and I’ve enjoyed reading through some of the discussions. They contain a lot of helpful information, and some very humorous things as well. However, what sparked my attention and inspired me to briefly join were the posts written by the person behind the name “Believer.” He is passionate about what he believes and this far is able to show proof to what he believes, which was not well received. With that said, I want my journey to finding the truth to be as passionate, forthright and honest, even if it hurts.

I'm discouraged by the answers given to “Believer” on the subject “The Early Church Fathers,” as the answers lack any real weight. Answers such as, “all our records were destroyed,” or “that is not what they meant when they said that,” or “the writings were changed by the Catholic heretics” are not valid answers. For one, there isn’t any proof that any records were destroyed, or that all the writings were changed by the Catholic church. By making these assertion without any proof only perpetuate a lie. Their needs to be actual proof, not unfounded information. We should not have to make stuff up in order to be right. That is clearly dishonest. Don’t misunderstand, this is not in support of “Believer” or his doctrine, as it may appear. The truth is not found behind excuses and “pet” answers.

I’m not saying that I have the answers yet, but I want to seek them out, and to do so honestly. I truly believe if the Oneness doctrine was held by the Early Church Christians the answers will be there. God Bless.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

But to link him to Modalist is wrong. He may claimed to believe in God as one person, like the Oneness doctrine does, but to use him to prove there were Oneness in History is desperate. And this is coming from a 2nd generation Oneness.

(I'm not attending any Oneness church now, which is a different story.)

Not all Oneness believers speak the same things. Neither do all Trinitarians. I don't think it is desperate at all. Your being second generation Oneness means nothing. It carries no more authority than me being first generation.

Did you know back in the 1940's being Pentecostal meant you would be ridiculed and persecuted in the USA? They spoke evil of them but perhaps history will not speak so evil since the Catholic church doesn't rule along with political governments as it did then.

I'm very passionate that what I believe from the Bible is the truth. I have no doubts. I have examined it for myself. Because of that I can without hesitation affirm: The Lord is good, his mercy is everlasting and his TRUTH endures to all generations. The truth of the new birth and one God who is singular in number according the word of God has ENDURED to All generations. It may not have made the history books during certain periods of history, but the truth was believed somewhere on this planet. And just like the Chinese Christians have to go underground, I believe Oneness believers did as well. God will reserve himself a remnant.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

I’ve been lurking for the last few weeks, and I’ve enjoyed reading through some of the discussions. They contain a lot of helpful information, and some very humorous things as well. However, what sparked my attention and inspired me to briefly join were the posts written by the person behind the name “Believer.” He is passionate about what he believes and this far is able to show proof to what he believes, which was not well received. With that said, I want my journey to finding the truth to be as passionate, forthright and honest, even if it hurts.

I'm discouraged by the answers given to “Believer” on the subject “The Early Church Fathers,” as the answers lack any real weight. Answers such as, “all our records were destroyed,” or “that is not what they meant when they said that,” or “the writings were changed by the Catholic heretics” are not valid answers. For one, there isn’t any proof that any records were destroyed, or that all the writings were changed by the Catholic church. By making these assertion without any proof only perpetuate a lie. Their needs to be actual proof, not unfounded information. We should not have to make stuff up in order to be right. That is clearly dishonest. Don’t misunderstand, this is not in support of “Believer” or his doctrine, as it may appear. The truth is not found behind excuses and “pet” answers.

I’m not saying that I have the answers yet, but I want to seek them out, and to do so honestly. I truly believe if the Oneness doctrine was held by the Early Church Christians the answers will be there. God Bless.

You are leveling some fairly general accusations here willyjack... nothing too specific in your post per-se either. I am not certain what of Believer's positions he has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you can show me where he has proven conclusively something that he has said, then I would like to see it.

I asked Believer a couple of very valid questions:

1. Where was the fully developed doctrine of the trinity referenced in any writing in the first three centuries of the church?

2. When, where, and by whom was the doctrine of the trinity established as the official dogma of the "real" church?

3. Who and where was the real church between the years of 400AD to 1500AD? Was it the Roman Catholics? The Greek Orthadox? African Orthadox?

Believer never answered any of these question, so I don't see where you can even suggest that he "proved" his point? The only thing he has done is reference trinitarian biased historical writings on the internet.

Back on page 12 or so of this thread, I posted a copy of several writings and church figures throughout history, from 95AD (Clement of Rome) all the way down to the 1800's of people who were monarchian and wrote in favore of the monarchian theology and/or against trinitarianism. I have yet to see any of these citations refuted. Again, how can you suggest that Believer has "proven" his point, when he really hasn't proven anything? I cited a wikipedia article that shows the monarchian and other true doctrines of the Paulicians, and what did Believer do? He goes to wikipedia and "edits" the part he disagreed with. (in the same way the Roman Catholic church has "edited" parts of history it disagrees with). Proof of editing in history? What about the "comma Johanneam"? It is an obvous "edit" in the actual text of the scriptures themselves. But thank God there are thousands of manuscripts that give us a clear picture of the actual text of the scripture. Many of the "historical" texts of the early church fathers are spurious and questionable. They are not inspired, and you cannot base doctrine on those texts. The Bible is really the only thing that can "prove" anything. If Believer is going to "prove" he is right, the only way he is going to be able to do it is from the Bible itself. History, and commentary on history, is ALWAYS subjective to the bias of the commentator...

[BobDylan]

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

Here is what I am saying: the Paulicians were NOT Manicheans. I had a discussion going with Believer, I quoted the Wiki article about Paulicians... the first sentence of the Wiki article as I accessed it was "The Paulicians were a Christian sect that flourished....". Then Believer gets on Wiki, edits the article, and then proceeds to cite the edited article "The Paulicians were a Gnostic and Manichean Christian sect...." So then i go on to show that the Paulicians COULD NOT HAVE BEEN Manichean, because both articles, the original one and the edited one say they anathematized Mani and the Manicheans... are you following this? Ok good...

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Here is what I am saying: the Paulicians were NOT Manicheans. I had a discussion going with Believer, I quoted the Wiki article about Paulicians... the first sentence of the Wiki article as I accessed it was "The Paulicians were a Christian sect that flourished....". Then Believer gets on Wiki, edits the article, and then proceeds to cite the edited article "The Paulicians were a Gnostic and Manichean Christian sect...." So then i go on to show that the Paulicians COULD NOT HAVE BEEN Manichean, because both articles, the original one and the edited one say they anathematized Mani and the Manicheans... are you following this? Ok good...

Excuse me?

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Not all Oneness believers speak the same things. Neither do all Trinitarians. I don't think it is desperate at all. Your being second generation Oneness means nothing. It carries no more authority than me being first generation.

Did you know back in the 1940's being Pentecostal meant you would be ridiculed and persecuted in the USA? They spoke evil of them but perhaps history will not speak so evil since the Catholic church doesn't rule along with political governments as it did then.

I'm very passionate that what I believe from the Bible is the truth. I have no doubts. I have examined it for myself. Because of that I can without hesitation affirm: The Lord is good, his mercy is everlasting and his TRUTH endures to all generations. The truth of the new birth and one God who is singular in number according the word of God has ENDURED to All generations. It may not have made the history books during certain periods of history, but the truth was believed somewhere on this planet. And just like the Chinese Christians have to go underground, I believe Oneness believers did as well. God will reserve himself a remnant.

Have you read the book The Heavenly Man? He played a large part in the starting of the Chinese underground church. His book is an eye opener.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Here is what I am saying: the Paulicians were NOT Manicheans. I had a discussion going with Believer, I quoted the Wiki article about Paulicians... the first sentence of the Wiki article as I accessed it was "The Paulicians were a Christian sect that flourished....". Then Believer gets on Wiki, edits the article, and then proceeds to cite the edited article "The Paulicians were a Gnostic and Manichean Christian sect...." So then i go on to show that the Paulicians COULD NOT HAVE BEEN Manichean, because both articles, the original one and the edited one say they anathematized Mani and the Manicheans... are you following this? Ok good...

But, were they Oneness? That is the question.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Believer

Have you read the book The Heavenly Man? He played a large part in the starting of the Chinese underground church. His book is an eye opener.

I've heard about it but haven't read it.