Monarchians in History

[BobDylan]

Praxeas and Believer: where are you guys getting the resources of the different translations of "Against Praxeas"?

[Praxeas]

I used his link

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

According to Tertullian, Praxeas resisted the Holy Spirit (Paraclete) in the gift of prophecy by calling the Montanists heretics. And he crucified the Father according to Tertullian because "especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person."

Read the first two very short chapters of Against Praxeas to find these quotes. http://www.christiandefense.org/Tertullian.Prax.htm#1

I don't think so...when he says paraclete he is refering to Montanus. Montanus was called the Paraclete. Montanus was the Holy Spirit embodied to them

He claimed not only to have received a series of direct revelations from the Holy Ghost, but personally to be the incarnation of the paraclete mentioned in the Gospel of John 14:16. Montanus was accompanied by two women, Prisca, sometimes called Priscilla, and Maximilla, who likewise claimed to be the embodiments of the Holy Spirit that moved and inspired them.

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

As for the other quote, I quoted it and made a point. The difference between the two is that Praxeas believed there was no difference between FAther and Son. Tertullian believed in an economic trinity. Look at my quotes. He denies an eternal Son. Believes the Logos was the reason in the mind of God. Check it out Mizpeh.

I really suspect the latin word being used here for person is NOT hypostasis but persona

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

What do you think Tertullian believed then? Was he more tritheistic than trinitarian?

No, go read the quotes. Im telling you guys I think he did NOT use the latin word hypostasis for person. I am thinking he must have used persona (face, mask). Read what I quoted from Tertullian on the logos.

His beef with Praxeas was not that Praxeas was a modalist but that Praxeas believed the Father and Son are NOT plural anythings....forget the word person for a second here. That came up at Nicea with the inclusion of Hypostasis.

It really sounds like Tertullian was modalistic, he saw a three fold ECONOMY. He was an economic Trinitarian, not a Hypostatic Trinitarian.

He seems Modalistic. Praxeas, he is arguing, denies that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three DIFFERENT modes or manifestations.

That is what it sounds like.

And his main beef seems to be fueled by Praxeas extremely successful attacks on Montanus.

Could it be that both men were Modalistic and that Tertullian was just trying to slander Praxeas much like Nestorius was?

Again I wish Chancellor was here. He wrote a book on this.

Again the Trinity we think of was three hypostasis (selfs)...the word persona meant something more like a mask

A persona, in the word's everyday usage, is a social role or a character played by an actor. The word derives from the Latin for "mask" or "character", derived from the Etruscan word "phersu", with the same meaning.

I found this quote by DB
Tertullian (c. 150 - c. 225 A.D.) was the first person recorded by history to use the words trinity (Latin: trinitas), substance (substantia), and person (persona) in relation to God. [92] He was the first to speak of three persons in one substance (Latin: una substantia et tres personae). Tertullian adhered to the economic conception of the trinity. That is, he believed that the trinity exists for the purpose of revelation only, and after this has been accomplished the distinctions between the persons will cease. However, he definitely differed from Irenaeus in that he used the Logos doctrine of the Greek apologists. Tertullian equated the Logos with the Son. He believed the Father brought the Logos into existence for the creation of the world and the Logos was subordinate to the Father. The doctrine of the trinity posed no problem for Tertullian, for his whole theology rested on the thought that the more impossible the object of faith is, the more certain it is. He has been characterized by the statement, "I believe because it is absurd."
There is some question as to what Tertullian actually meant by his trinitarian formulation, especially his use of the Latin word persona. According to a handbook of theological terms, in Roman law the word meant a legal entity or party. [93] In drama it meant a mask worn by an actor or, by extension, a role played by an actor. Neither usage necessarily indicates the modern meaning of person as a self-conscious being. For example, one actor could play several roles (personae) and one legal corporation (persona) could consist of several individuals. On the other hand, presumably the word could also designate individual human beings.
In the fourth century, the Greek word hypostasis was used in the official formulation of trinitarian doctrine. According to Noss, hypostasis was an abstract word meaning subsistence or individualized manifestation. He says, "When this formulation was translated into Latin, the rather abstract Greek for individualized manifestation became the rather concrete word persona, and connotations of distinct and self-contained personality were suggested in a way not intended by the original Greek wording." [94] However, this concrete Latin word was precisely the one Tertullian had used earlier. Another scholar states that by the time hypostasis was translated into persona the two words were basically equivalent, both meaning "individual being." [95]
It is apparent that many people in Tertullian's time opposed his new formulation. By his own admission the majority of believers in his day rejected his doctrine on two grounds: Their Rule of Faith (early creed or statement of belief) prohibited polytheism, and his doctrine divided the unity of God. [96] Our knowledge of the early modalist (Oneness) believers, Noetus and Praxeas, comes from their strong opposition to Tertullian and his strong opposition to them. If Tertullian meant only that God had three roles, masks, or manifestations, there would be no conflict with modalism, especially since Tertullian did not believe in an eternal trinity. Therefore, we conclude that Tertullian did mean three essential differences in God and that persona did connote or imply a distinct personality, as suggested by Noss. In any case, it is clear that in Tertullian's day Oneness believers saw his doctrine as sharply opposed to their own, which was the majority belief of the time.
Here is one final note on Tertullian. He became a follower of Montanus, an early heretic who claimed to be the Paraclete (Comforter) promised in John 14 and the last prophet before the end of the world. Tertullian eventually began to praise celibacy and condemn marriage. In the end, he was excommunicated along with the rest of the Montanists.


Now, here is the thing....rather than Hypostasis..prosopon or persona is used in these ancient texts...the word literally means masks...


Isn't that what WE have been accused of believing? That God wore masks?

Infact the greek prosopon means face literally, not person.

pros'-o-pon
From G4314 and ὤψ ōps (the visage; from G3700); the front (as being towards view), that is, the countenance, aspect, appearance, surface; by implication presence, person: - (outward) appearance, X before, countenance, face, fashion, (men’s) person, presence.

Outward appearance. This word is not referring to the substance or the individual SELF.

It seems to be referring to exactly what we get accused a lot of believing....that these modes are just the manifestation of the person

Thayer
1) the face
1a) the front of the human head
1b) countenance, look
1b1) the face so far forth as it is the organ of sight, and by it various movements and changes) the index of the inward thoughts and feelings
1c) the appearance one presents by his wealth or property, his rank or low condition
1c1) outward circumstances, external condition
1c2) used in expressions which denote to regard the person in one’s judgment and treatment of men
2) the outward appearance of inanimate things

Vines
Face
<1,,4383,prosopon>
denotes "the countenance," lit., "the part towards the eyes" (from pros, "towards," ops, "the eye"), and is used (a) of the "face," Mat_6:16-17; 2Co_3:7, 2nd part (AV, "countenance"); in 2Co_10:7, in the RV, "things that are before your face" (AV, "outward appearance"), the phrase is figurative of superficial judgment; (b) of the look, i.e., the "face," which by its various movements affords an index of inward thoughts and feelings, e.g., Luk_9:51, Luk_9:53; 1Pe_3:12; (c) the presence of a person, the "face" being the noblest part, e.g., Act_3:13, RV, "before the face of," AV, "in the presence of;" Act_5:41, "presence;" 2Co_2:10, "person;" 1Th_2:17 (first part), "presence;" 2Th_1:9, RV, "face," AV, "presence;" Rev_12:14, "face;" (d) the person himself, e.g., Gal_1:22; 1Th_2:17 (second part); (e) the appearance one presents by his wealth or poverty, his position or state, Mat_22:16; Mar_12:14; Gal_2:6; Jud_1:16; (f) the outward appearance of inanimate things, Mat_16:3; Luk_12:56; Luk_21:35; Act_17:26.

To spit in a person's face was an expression of the utmost scorn and aversion, e.g., Mat_26:67 (cp. Mat_27:30; Mar_10:34; Luk_18:32). See APPEARANCE.

The bible calls the Father, Spirit and Son prosopon

But it only calls the Father Hypostasis!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Believer

I got to the part where you said: and realized that you miss quoted so I stopped reading. I don't have the time to spend with those who don't read what is written.

For all the simple people, that I say not the thoughtless and
ignorant (who are always the majority of the faithful),

All Tertuillian is trying to say that the majority of the believers are the simple people, not all the simple people are Modalist. And not simple as in stupid.

The way the translator translated that sentence is confusing, can't you see that? If you read what he wrote without reading what you want it to say, the statements I made are what you would come away with. It's called reading comprehension.

Alexander Souter 1873-1949

3. For all the simple people, that I say not the thoughtless and
ignorant (who are always the majority of the faithful),

If I try to break down what these two phrases mean according to their construction, I come up with:

The simple people are not thoughtless and ignorant.
The majority of the faithful are thoughtless and ignorant.

From the construction I have to believe the translator is using the words in parenthesis in relation to the phrase that contains ' the thoughtless and ignorant' and not 'the simple' . The placement of the commas also relates the words in parenthesis with 'the thoughtless and ignorant' and not with 'the simple'. Why would Tertullian ever say anything so absurd? This is poor translating. It would have made more sense like this: For all the simple people (who are always the majority of the faithful), that I say not the thoughtless and ignorant....

The point I was getting at in the post in which you said I 'misquoted' is that the translation you used is misleading and unclear and a poor choice. I would not read this translator's version of Against Praxeas because Against Praxeas is a polemic that isn't easy reading with a good translation to start with. I can't imagine how much more confusing a poor translation would make it.

And I don't believe you can make your point with this translation either.

since the
Rule of the Faith itself brings <us> over from the many gods of
the world to the one only true God,

The meaning of this phrase is clear but the construction of the sentence by putting this phrase here becomes stilted. It is like the translator interjected this phrase here and it impedes the flow of the thought.

not understanding that while
they must believe in one only <God> yet they must believe in
him along with his economy, shy at the economy.

The simple do not understand that while they must believe in one only God, that they must also believe in him (the one only God) along with his economy (Trinity).
The simple are adverse to believing the economy.

So clearly Tertulllian is saying the simple shy away from the economy (the Trinity) because they find it polytheistic.
The pronoun, they, refers back to its antecedent, the simple..
This is how I comprehend this poor translation. It doesn't prove your point at all.

[mizpeh]

N/T

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Believer

All Tertuillian is trying to say that the majority of the believers are the simple people, not all the simple people are Modalist. And not simple as in stupid.

Believer,

If you read the translation by Souter carefully it does not say the simple are the majority of the believers like you want it to (and which a good translation makes clear. A good translation does imply the simple are the majority of the believers). It says the thoughtless and the ignorant are the majority of the believers. This is a very poor translation. His sentence construction is misleading.

I'm not trying to be difficult but point out how you are trying to use a different translation in which you believe agrees with your POV, but it doesn't do that.

It's obvious why you used this translation because it obscures the reason why the simple shy from the economy due to a different sentence construction and interpretation. The below is the better interpretation and is found on a Trinitarian website,http://christiandefense.org/ . The translation below is clear that the simple are the majority of the believers and the simple are startled at the economy on the ground of their rule of faith which withdraws them from polytheism to monotheism. I can see why you don't like this translation and would go find one that leans mean in your direction but in truth, neither translation agrees with you and the translation you chose is very poor.

The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God;

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The way the translator translated that sentence is confusing, can't you see that? If you read what he wrote without reading what you want it to say, the statements I made are what you would come away with. It's called reading comprehension.



If I try to break down what these two phrases mean according to their construction, I come up with:

The simple people are not thoughtless and ignorant.
The majority of the faithful are thoughtless and ignorant.

From the construction I have to believe the translator is using the words in parenthesis in relation to the phrase that contains ' the thoughtless and ignorant' and not 'the simple' . The placement of the commas also relates the words in parenthesis with 'the thoughtless and ignorant' and not with 'the simple'. Why would Tertullian ever say anything so absurd? This is poor translating. It would have made more sense like this: For all the simple people (who are always the majority of the faithful), that I say not the thoughtless and ignorant....

The point I was getting at in the post in which you said I 'misquoted' is that the translation you used is misleading and unclear and a poor choice. I would not read this translator's version of Against Praxeas because Against Praxeas is a polemic that isn't easy reading with a good translation to start with. I can't imagine how much more confusing a poor translation would make it.

And I don't believe you can make your point with this translation either.



The meaning of this phrase is clear but the construction of the sentence by putting this phrase here becomes stilted. It is like the translator interjected this phrase here and it impedes the flow of the thought.


The simple do not understand that while they must believe in one only God, that they must also believe in him (the one only God) along with his economy (Trinity).
The simple are adverse to believing the economy.

So clearly Tertulllian is saying the simple shy away from the economy (the Trinity) because they find it polytheistic.
The pronoun, they, refers back to its antecedent, the simple..
This is how I comprehend this poor translation. It doesn't prove your point at all.

I tend to agree with Believer on this. Tertillian is not saying that all simple people were modalist. What he is saying is that ones that do believe, are the simple people. There isn't anything in the text that would imply that "ALL" simple believe one way and the educated believe another way. Also, Tertillian would not have called them "the faithful" if he did.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Believer,

If you read the translation by Souter carefully it does not say the simple are the majority of the believers like you want it to (and which a good translation makes clear. A good translation does imply the simple are the majority of the believers). It says the thoughtless and the ignorant are the majority of the believers. This is a very poor translation. His sentence construction is misleading.

I'm not trying to be difficult but point out how you are trying to use a different translation in which you believe agrees with your POV, but it doesn't do that.

It's obvious why you used this translation because it obscures the reason why the simple shy from the economy due to a different sentence construction and interpretation. The below is the better interpretation and is found on a Trinitarian website,http://christiandefense.org/ . The translation below is clear that the simple are the majority of the believers and the simple are startled at the economy on the ground of their rule of faith which withdraws them from polytheism to monotheism. I can see why you don't like this translation and would go find one that leans mean in your direction but in truth, neither translation agrees with you and the translation you chose is very poor.

For all the simple people, that I say not the thoughtless and ignorant (who are always the majority of the faithful),

This translation is NOT saying that the thoughtless and ignorant are the majority, which Believer tried to tell you. It clearly states the subject "the simple", that I say NOT the thoughtless and ignorant. He is clearly saying that the simple are not thoughtless and ignorant.

I would like to say farewell. I see too much hostility on this forum. I'm not learning.

Believer... its been real. I'll stay in contact. Thanks for all the encouragement and the wonderful answers to my questions. You are a God sent. I personally don’t know how you handle the attacks against you!