Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

[BobDylan]

Which concept of the Godhead was older? Who were the first writing monarchian teachers, and who were the first writing trinitarian teachers? What does this say for the veracity of modern concepts on the Godhead?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

as were all heretics. But I wasn't talking about the 3th to 4th century. I'm referring to the 1st and 2nd. Off to the other thread.....see you there.

Hyppolutus quoted excerpts of "Praxaeanisms" and "Noetusisms" in his writings. Their teachings were available to Hyppolytus, just not later after they were destroyed!

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Hyppolutus quoted excerpts of "Praxaeanisms" and "Noetusisms" in his writings. Their teachings were available to Hyppolytus, just not later after they were destroyed!

yes, but what did Noetus teach? Who did Noetus believe he was? Remember, this is the first known modalist and Praxeas was his student.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Believer

yes, but what did Noetus teach? Who did Noetus believe he was? Remember, this is the first known modalist and Praxeas was his student.

How can we know? We can only read his beliefs through the eyes of his enemies.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

yes, but what did Noetus teach? Who did Noetus believe he was? Remember, this is the first known modalist and Praxeas was his student.

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?

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.

[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!!!!)...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Which concept of the Godhead was older? Who were the first writing monarchian teachers, and who were the first writing trinitarian teachers? What does this say for the veracity of modern concepts on the Godhead?

Well you know, with the thing about Justin, it seems that one can refer to Monarchians or Modalist monarchaisn and Trinitarians, but literary speaking it does not seem there was any full developed doctrine that resembles either exactly until later.

BTW I have heard refer to Modalist Monarchism as a Trinitarian heresy and then there is Economic Trinitarianism. In fact there were many Trinitarian heresies throughout the centuries. Nestorius was a Trinitarian. The Monophysite controversy was Trinitiarian as far as still seeing three persons in the godhead

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Well you know, with the thing about Justin, it seems that one can refer to Monarchians or Modalist monarchaisn and Trinitarians, but literary speaking it does not seem there was any full developed doctrine that resembles either exactly until later.

BTW I have heard refer to Modalist Monarchism as a Trinitarian heresy and then there is Economic Trinitarianism. In fact there were many Trinitarian heresies throughout the centuries. Nestorius was a Trinitarian. The Monophysite controversy was Trinitiarian as far as still seeing three persons in the godhead

I don't deny there were many within the Trinity church through the centuries that were wrong. If you recall Gnosticism was trying hard to make its way into the church.

[Hesetmefree238]

To the victors belong the spoils of war. Since the Trinitarians eventually
ruled the day (climaxing with the council of Nicea), all of the modalist writers
works were destroyed. This is very sad. I would love to read their perspective
on things, but instead all we are left with for the most part are the writings
of their trinitarian opponents.