Monarchians in History

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Jaroslav Pelikan,? The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600).? Vol. 1 in The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine.? (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), 177.



I don't have a problem with this statement. The person who is the father (i.e. YHWH), came to earth and was manifest in human flesh. This human being, Jesus Christ, was the exact same person (i.e. YHWH) in real humanity. Thus ineffect, YHWH came to earth as a man, and died on a cross, and as a man was resurrected by the eternal spirit (again, the same YHWH). Tertullian didn't understand and is misrepresenting, or rather not fully representing, the modalist view here. The singular person who is the father from all eternity, took on flesh and became the son, lived, died, and resurrected, not as the father, but as the son. Irregardless, it is the same singular identity (YHWH)that was God from all creation and eternity.



I do not believe it the way it was misreprenten here. But the fundamental theology behind "patripassionism" I have no problem with. The majority didn't believe the "father suffered". The majority believed that the father came to earth as a man, and as a man (i.e. the son) he suffered... Tertullian, in his efforts to disparage and disregard Prax. Noetus, and Sabellian theologies misrepresented their teaching. He was promoting his trinitarian concept to the disregard of the truth!

one of the main problem I see with you is that your only argument is inserting what you THINK, rather than what is there. The only evidence you have is your opinions. That doesn't work...

You said:

The majority didn't believe the "father suffered".

This simply is not true and is unfounded. But, if this is the way you operate, well good luck.