This is the most objective historical video on the early church. I see no opinions, speculations or biases. Just events and no commentaries. Other videos are 90% stories and self aggrandizement of presenters.

@dadsonworldwide3238

6 жыл бұрын

Odouls77 yeah it's cause the early chritians worshipped more like protestant disponsasionlist and it goes against the high archy monopoly of God that Jesus faught buy the orthodoxy and catholics become.. The monarchy of the church lol

Thank you very much for such an in depth historic approach. I see people want to go back & forth but you handle it well. I am a newbie to this & I respect the fact that you were thorough and not opinionated. For anyone just wanting to begin this was great. Thank you!

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting and for your very nice compliments. It means a lot! God bless you!

Thank you for this information, looking forward to more posts. Hopefully you can do one on the book of Daniel. Russ from Oregon

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you, Russ. Perhaps in a couple years, I will address Daniel. I might do something similar to my video on The Chronology of the Jews Under Persia. That is, a more historical approach to Daniel. Maybe in a couple years. Is there something specific about Daniel that you had in mind? God bless!

Lots of Unitarians getting triggered here in the comments 😂. You had an excellent, non-bias, and historically accurate approach to these topics. Excellent work

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks for commenting and for the encouragement. :) God bless!

@choicegospelnetwork

4 жыл бұрын

HISTORICAL IS NOT BIBLICAL , We understand the scriptures.. The word is NOT a person !!!

@sidpan8218

4 жыл бұрын

Minister straker why is the word not a person? If I’m simply talking can I say that my word is with me? Dosent make sense does it

@sjappiyah4071

4 жыл бұрын

Minister straker John literally says the word became “ flesh” , how much clearer does it need to be...

@clayton4349

2 жыл бұрын

@@sjappiyah4071 when debating with a dynamic monarchian, such as minister straker, they deny the personhood of the Logos. Although the video does an excellent job covering the modalistic monarchianism, he forgot to cover the dynamic monarchianism.

Oneness Pentecostals seem to forget that the Father and the Holy Spirit we're present at his baptism; separate persons are described. And the Martyrdom of Stephen, in another instance, there are THREE SEPARATE PERSONS described that Stephen saw. NOT one as Monarchianists seem to convince themselves of. Acts 7:55-56 Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven. He saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. He said, “Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God! ”

@PostApostolicChurch

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing. The baptism of Jesus is one of the best Scriptures to show the three Persons of God. Acts 7 is also good! God bless!

@Justinbowling1

5 жыл бұрын

People forget that God is omnipresent. The incarnation of God in flesh did not require God to cease being Omnipresent.

@thebiblerefutesheretics2054

5 жыл бұрын

ZSMH_91 We don’t forget anything. God is Omnipresent. Problem solved.

@briandavid9639

5 жыл бұрын

@@thebiblerefutesheretics2054 Amen.

@holzmann-

5 жыл бұрын

amen

Hey 👋 well ✅ done

King James Isaiah 9:6 For a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful , Counselor, the MIGHTY GOD, The EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace. Amen! It is Finished!

@living4jesuschrist843

3 жыл бұрын

@@starship9629 ask Him he’ll tell you

On a website can you provide timelines and downloadable print outs.!!!! This is so fascinating . We need the truth!!!

I am glad to finally learn the terms of what I believe. I think It is known as dynamic monarchianism. There are 2 kinds of Monarchianism. Modalists are the 2nd kind.

@eunicemurray8482

3 жыл бұрын

Isaiah book along John in the new testaments explain exactly about our one GOD and his son JESUS himself makes it very clear🙏🙏🙏👏👏👏

@mr.e1220

3 жыл бұрын

@@eunicemurray8482 I think it depends on your interpretation. If there was a literal Jesus Christ, he was a man with a God. But, more importantly is WHAT he taught. He said we can do greater works than he and that we must first SEEK the kingdom of God, but taught that it is WITHIN YOU. The temple made without hands. Metaphors, allegory, and parables. Jesus is the FIRST of MANY. I am one of the many brothers.

More Grace Sir. I believe the early fathers understood the The law which says, Fathers shall not be put to death for sons nor sons be put to death for fathers. Deut 24:16 If Christ is the same as the father, then his sacrifice would be unlawful. Because the law of God forbid. God rules

Please make video on the heresy in first century

Could you please do a video about the veneration of saints?? It would be very interesting to hear what early Christians thought about that topic

@PostApostolicChurch

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. That is a great topic. I plan to make a video on that at a much later time. As I read the early Christians, I see how much they honored saints, such as Mary and Polycarp and Clement of Rome. They certainly showed honor to whom they owed honor. However, on the other hand, there are Christians today that go too far in honoring the saints. For some Christians, it has evolved to the point where they worship the saints. If you would like some information about what the Pre-Nicene Christians wrote about people going too far, here is a great video on that topic. God bless you! kzread.info/dash/bejne/nZxql7ivgMuwk7w.html

@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790

2 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch thank u so much for answering and for that video. I really understand your opinion, because even can see that stand of Christians centuries after Nicea. In the council of Frankfurt, the Christians of Francs, Germans, Britishs, Northern Italians, and Even Spanishs, talked about the topics of the icons, they were of course against iconoclasts, but also they didn't see the venerstion of icons as a response or solution, because that veneration it was a beginning of idolatry. And they were right, more that a thousand years after we have now several churches that went to far and now it's very close to idolatry. God help the church. 🙏💙

Trinity is the best explanation of the nature of God..

Ooooooooooo the pentecostals are in troubllllleeee

@clayton4349

Жыл бұрын

To be fair, there’s exist trinitarian pentecostals, very different from the oneness pentecostals.

@St.David7

Жыл бұрын

@@clayton4349 we all know what I meant.

Torah says :only begotten God +angel of God and spirit of God. Trinity already was and is present it's the way God's chose to interact with man. Jesus is all three just like 3 parts of anything can be accumulated to make up one Past present future =time It would be domb to say x3 time lol

Jesus came to fulfill the (old testamental) law and not to abolish. The law has always been about only one God, in one Person, undivided.

Hello! Can you do a video on the Trinity?

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

Yes. I'm not sure if you saw the next video in this series on the Persons of God. Enjoy. kzread.info/dash/bejne/lqyls7mgmZipisY.html

@mr.e1220

4 жыл бұрын

Trinity is horrendous.

@anobleroman8906

4 жыл бұрын

@@mr.e1220 The one true trinity as it was coined by Tertullian is not. Modern "Christians" have perverted the meaning of the word. That their unity makes them literally, numerically one. The Father and the Son are one in their goals and objectives. I can say my father and I are one (that we perfectly agree) but that does not mean we are numerically one, that is silly. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a Holy Trinity but they by no means altogether make up one singular God - there is only one Unbegotten. The New Testament is very clear.

@mr.e1220

4 жыл бұрын

@@anobleroman8906 amen. That is the truth! Many christians i meet, probably over 90% believe in the false version of "trinity"...

@anobleroman8906

4 жыл бұрын

@@mr.e1220 Exactly. And even if they do understand the trinity, they usually accept some other form of heresy. The church needs true unity and fellowship. The denominations have to be destroyed and we have to return to the holy doctrines given to us by Christ, the apostles, and the disciples of the apostles. If you would ever like to talk sometime my discord is Noble Roman#0670 and my email is fultznolan@gmail.com I'm always looking for fellowship. God bless.

our modern first hurdle may simply be how-that by English definition, Spirit cannot be a "person".

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

Yes, it can seem odd to call the Spirit a person. Do you say that because, in English, "Spirit" is a neuter word when "person" is either masculine or feminine?

@TheOrthotom

7 жыл бұрын

"person" by standard definition need be a human being, and as the etymology also points to a body/mask that is able to produce sounds. Consequently, the per-Son, Jesus Christ, may with clarity be defined as a person, while the Father, or the Spirit would require a different or special definition. Many today giving thought, are to abandoning the "persons" viewpoint, especially since God has described Himself differently than 'person' and as above/superior to persons all.

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

I think you are very correct! Interestingly, when the Scriptures refer to the Father and the Spirit in pronouns, the pronouns are masculine. I don't know how that factors into this discussion but I wanted to include it. The early Christians coined the Greek term hypostasis. When translated into English, it could be person or individual. Maybe "individual" is a better term? Instead of using Persons, what term would you use?

@TheOrthotom

7 жыл бұрын

it seems ideal to be refering as the Father, Son, Spirit, or seven Spirits of God [Rev. 4:5] are referred, and-so no need be for adding-to or notating those things already written. Also comforting to consider how the Scriptures neither require nor invite the development of theologic systems or reduction to outlines. curiously to history, the development of theology itself proved little help against false teachers, while the Scriptures themseles in the mouth of God's man have ever shown efficacy.

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

I agree. It's for those reasons why I wanted to call the nature of God the Divinity (since Paul said it) rather than the Trinity, which came later. yes, the Scriptures are all that is required to silence false teachers. At the same time, theological tools, though they cannot prove anything, can provide a decent degree of help in understanding the things written in Scripture. Thanks for commenting and God bless!

Good job! It's amazing people even debate this issue when it's so clear just from common sense and scripture. I always like to ask those who teach that Jesus is the Father who was Jesus praying to in the Garden before His passion?...Himself? I also ask them to explain 1st Corinthians 15:24-28 to me since it clearly teaches that Christ will rule until all things have been placed under Him, and that the Father is excepted from being put under Christ, and that once that happens even Christ Himself will be put under the Father so that all things are under God. This teaching would be silly and useless if Christ were the Father. Also, who was Satan tempting by offering rewards and benefits to Christ? They would have us believe that The Father was being tempted by the thing which He created which to me is a most wicked sort of blasphemy. On and on you could go and show how Monarchianism creates confusion and makes the Bible into a book full of contradictions and simple logical errors. But we know God is not the author of confusion, therefore Monarchianism is not of God.

@globalimpactministries766

7 жыл бұрын

We do not teach that Jesus is God the Father with us as God the Father. We teach that Jesus is "Immanuel" who is "God with us" as a man who was "made fully human in every way" (Heb. 2:17 NIV). Thus, Jesus never prayed to himself as God praying to God just as Jesus was never tempted as God being tempted of evil. Even Trinitarian theologians teach that the Son was not tempted as God. Before falsely accusing our position I suggest that you go and read what we actually believe. My website has an article under 1 Cor. 15:24-28 on our ARTICLES PAGE and a corresponding video under our VIDEOS PAGE. You can view my books, articles, and videos at Apostolic ChirstianFaith .com Brother Jason Dulle also has many excellent free articles at OnenessPentecostal .com

@priscillajervey6134

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you, I will check it out, because I simply can not understand where you are coming from. You seem to contradict tyourself so much.

@justinmjdell

5 жыл бұрын

@@globalimpactministries766 "We do not teach that Jesus is God the Father with us as God the Father. We teach that Jesus is 'Immanuel' who is 'God with us' as a man who was 'made fully human in every way' (Heb. 2:17 NIV)." This statement makes ZERO sense.

can you do a vid on the view/interpretation of the earliest Christian on Revelations?

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the request! This is something that has been on my mind and heart lately. Very interestingly, the early Christians had a view/interpretation of Revelation VERY different from any view today. The Lord willing, I will begin working on a video about this, but please know that it may be years before it will be ready. I want to do it right and I also want to keep working on the rest of this series on the Divinity. Blessings and so forth.

@traceursebas

7 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church thanks for your reply! Do you have any source where I could read into it myself?

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

A great place to start is Victorinus' commentary on Revelation. It is found in volume 7 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Here are a couple links. Volume 7's Table of Contents. Scroll down to Victorinus. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.toc.html Here is a direct link to the beginning of Victorinus' commentary. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.vi.ii.i.html Blessings!

@ElCineHefe

6 жыл бұрын

Revelation is super easy to understand because it's not a sealed book. It reflects the Gospel prophecy. All you need to do is locate the occurrences of the sign of the coming of the son of man in heaven through out Revelation and it interprets itself.

It is not true that Modalism was refuted at the Council of Nicea in 325 but only the Arianism, in fact the Modalism greatly influenced the Council of Nicea in 325 AD

Analogous to different blind men trying to feel the elephant. Where none really understanding what it really is.

Hippolytus and Origen are always quoted their writings by Trinitarians to counter Oneness theology but they were not Trinitarian at all, they were Semi-Arians who do not believe that the Son is in one substance with the Father and that Jesus is inferior to the Father.

@Andronicus_of_Rhodes

3 жыл бұрын

Proof? Source? This accusation is commonly leveled against Origen, but I don’t buy it

They got problems, because they don't realise, that God have no body and the word of God is not a person. The Trinity, one God in three persons do not solve the problem. And not all details of the other gospels are confirmed by the disciples of John

In spite of this video being nearly 4 years old at this point, I felt the need to comment. I find it interesting that the major issue people seem to have with Monarchianism (as defined by the quotes used in your video) actually seems to be more of an issue with patripassianism (the belief that "since God the Father had become directly incarnate in Christ, that God literally sacrificed Himself on the Cross" - see wikipedia). I think if we were to disentangle patripassianism from monarchian modalism, monarchianism becomes far less heretical. For example, if we truly believe that Jesus was fully man AND fully God, couldn't we also believe that 'Jesus the man' died on the cross (which was the entire point of him being blameless, sinless, and born of a virgin) and that the 'God' aspect of Jesus did not die (because God cannot die)? It is fascinating to see how so many Trinitarians actually believe that God himself died on the cross, but view Jesus' death more like an 'amputated limb that grew back' (I've literally heard this analogy from Christian bible college students). I think it's more appropriate to say that the early Christians, particularly those that you quoted from, viewed patripassianism as the heresy, not necessarily monarchian modalism. As a side note, you may find it interesting that the Presbyterian Church of Canada actually views the Trinity as more akin to the modalists. Their statement of faith says the following: "Belief in the Trinity - God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - is central to the faith. God is the Father to whom we come, the Son through whom we come, and the Spirit by whom we come. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches belief in one God who exists as three “persons” with the word “person” having a different meaning from common usage today. The word comes from the Latin “persona” meaning the mask through which actors spoke in Greek plays; and this word was derived from the Latin words “per” and “sonare” meaning to speak or sound through. The original meaning of the word shows we are concerned not with a mask that hides, but with a medium that reveals. The one God comes to us in three modes." Take care.

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting! I must say: you write very, very well. I appreciate you taking the time to write this and to present your thoughts so clearly. Ever since making these videos, I've found that many of the labels people use (even for themselves) do not accurately match what they actually believe. Your example of a Trinitarian saying that the death of Jesus was more like an amputated limb--this statement cannot be said by a true Trinitarian. Also, I have met some folks who say they are modalists, yet they still see the significant differences between the Father and the Son; in practicality, I would label them Trinitarian. Turns out, it more important for us to discuss the ins-and-outs of the Divinity with each other as individuals. Labels, too often, give us the wrong impression of what someone actually believes. When I was doing research for this video, I did find Patripassianism. What you say might be true: the Pre-Nicene Christians were fighting the monarchianism in their day, which was closer to partipassianism than it is to modalism. However, I would still personally include patripassianism within the overall catagory of monarchianism. And I would include modalism as part of monarchianism also. Of course, I'm sure that Trinitarianism also has its different subsets or groups also. While the Pre-Nicene Christians were direct in saying that monarchianism was heresy, I personally would not do that. If the difference between Trinity and Modalism was such an important, salvation-based issue, then I would think the Scriptures would have been more explicit on which doctrine was the Truth. In other words, I don't think the Scriptures imply that either doctrine is heresy. My point is that I would have no problem calling a Modalist a brother/sister in Christ--even though I disagree with their belief. Thanks for sharing a portion of the Presbyterian Church of Canada's statement of faith. When I read it, it sounds really Trinitarian to me. Maybe they purposely worded it to be ambiguous. That way, the church could embrace both Modalists and Trinitarians. If so, then I applaud their decision. Again, I thank you for the comment that you wrote so very well. I very interested in continuing to discuss things with you. God bless you!

@PeznekPlaysPiano

4 жыл бұрын

​@@PostApostolicChurch Thank you for responding and for your kind words! I agree wholeheartedly with your view that if the difference between the Trinity and Modalism was an issue of one's salvation, one would think the Scriptures would be much clearer on the topic. Unfortunately, most people I've spoken with hold steadfast to the belief that if you don't 'believe in the Trinity', you are going straight to hell. Nevertheless, it's so refreshing to find someone, like yourself, who delves into church history in order to glean a deeper understanding of the biblical context and how we arrived at the doctrines that many of us hold so dear (I particularly love your series on the Septuagint!). It is interesting that, although I lean more towards the 'simultaneous monarchian modalism' category (minus the view that God literally died on the cross, as that's impossible), I still agree with the Presbyterian statement of faith. At least in this case (and very few!), there's a kind of beauty in the ambiguity. I look forward to watching more of your videos!

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

@@PeznekPlaysPiano Again, I really like the way you think. :D I'm glad you really enjoyed the series on the Septuagint! God bless you!

Don't Read the comments... its not worth it.

The author of this video does not know that Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Origen were vastly outnumbered by the Modalistic Monarchians in the second and third centuries. Tertullian admitted that "they that always make up the majority of believers" were Modalistic Monarchian (Tertullian lived from 160 - 225 AD) in the West (Tertullian Against Praxeus 3) and Origen admitted that "the general run of Christians" were Modalistic Monarchian in the East (Origen's Commentary of the Gospel of John, book 1, chapter 23). Tertullian believed that the Son did not exist throughout eternity past (Against Hermogenes 3) when he wrote, "there was a time when neither sin existed with him, nor a Son..." Hippolytus also wrote that the Son was not timeless. Origen in the East wrote that the Modalists were among the multitudes of believers who believed that Jesus is the Most High God while Origen said that the Son was not the Most High (Contra Celsus chapter 8). Therefore the so called Trinitarians of the second and third centuries were denying the deity of Christ while the Oneness Monarchians were the only early Christians who believed in the full deity of Christ before the trinity doctrine was fully developed. Origen visited the Roman Church in the early third century and was rejected by the Christian majority in Rome along with Hippolytus as "di-theists" for believing in two gods. Why were the writings of the Roman bishops destroyed while Hippolytus (an apostate) survived? The historical narrative proves that the later RCC destroyed the writings of the Oneness Monarchians in order to claim apostolic succession. That is why many people who read the extant writings of early Christianity are duped into believing that the Christian majority rejected Monarchianism. See my videos on church history (in the KZread Search) by typing in "The Theology of Ignatius of Antioch", "The Theology of Clement of Rome." "The Theology of Hermas of Rome". "The Theology of Tertullian", "The Theology of Origen." "The Theology of Aristedes of Athens" or view my booklets, articles, and videos under CHURCH HISTORY on my website at ApostolicChristianFaith .com

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for commenting and bringing up great statements from the early Christians. When Tertullian said, "who always constitute the majority of believers," he was not talking about those who believed in Monarchianism/Modalism. He was talking about how the majority of believers do not have a satisfactory understanding of the nature of God. To the average believer, they are not concerned about the nature of God or the Persons of God--that is, how God is three in one. Tertullian is not saying that the average believer believes that in Monarchianism. You can read Tertullian in context here. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.iii.html When Origen talked about the "general run of Christians," he was talking about Christians who say that Jesus' only title is the Word of God. Origen explains that there are many more titles for Jesus than that. Origen is not addressing the nature or Persons of God. You can read Origen in context here. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xv.iii.i.xxiii.html When Tertullian talked about the Son not existing, he was not saying that there was a time when the Logos/the Son/Jesus/the Christ/the Word did not exist. He is saying that there was a time when the Word/Logos was not the Son--because the Word/Logos had not been born of God and Mary. For example, during the times of the Old Testament, there was no Son (though there was Word/Logos). But when Jesus was born of God and Mary, it was at that time that the Word/Logos became the Son. You can read Tertullian in context here. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.v.iii.html It is always important to read the early Christian writings in context. Otherwise, it is all too easy to twist their statements. Besides, one shouldn't accept a handful of questionable statements without regarding their most explicit statements about the nature of God. The following videos clearly show what the early Christians believed about the nature of God. After all, if the majority of Christians were Monarchians, why would nearly all of the early Christian writings we have call Monarchianism heresy? If what you are saying is true, then the early said that the majority of Christians (Monarchians) are both Christians and heretics. Instead, may God's truth always shine forth. Nature of God: kzread.info/dash/bejne/pKB5tLetlLGpo7A.html Monarchianism: kzread.info/dash/bejne/nXZ7ps6ao9iWaNI.html Persons of God: kzread.info/dash/bejne/lqyls7mgmZipisY.html When were Origen and Hippolytus rejected by the Christian majority in Rome? Blessings and so forth.

@globalimpactministries766

7 жыл бұрын

Any honest reader will find that Tertullian had clearly addressed the Modalists throughout his polemic which he entitled, "Against Praxeus," a chief leader among the Modalistic Monarchians. Chapters one through three clearly address Praxeus and the Modalists as the group that was rejecting Tertulian's idea of "the Three in One." Why would Tertullian change his polemic "Against Praxeus" to another non-modalistic group without clearly identifying the other alleged group? "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; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οἰκονομία . The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. THEY ARE CONSTANTLY THROWING OUT AGAINST US THAT WE ARE PREACHERS OF TWO GODS AND THREE GODS (The Gnostics believed in the demiurge as a lesser god), while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God)." QUESTION: What other group beside the Modalists were known as "Monarchians?" Since Praxeus and his theological group were known as "Monarchians", it is clear that Tertullian was discussing the Monarchians (such as the Roman bishops Zephyrinus and Callistus) as the Christian group that was accusing Tertullian and Hippolytus of preaching two and three gods.

@globalimpactministries766

7 жыл бұрын

You are either a very dishonest researcher or you are merely repeating the dishonest research of others. Origen’s wrote (202-253) in his Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, Chapter 23, “I WONDER AT THE STUPIDITY OF THE GENERAL RUN OF CHRISTIANS (the Christian majority) IN THIS MATTER. I do not mince matters; it is nothing but stupidity … THEY PROCEED DIFFERENTLY AND ASK, WHAT IS THE SON OF GOD WHEN CALLED THE WORD? THE PASSAGE THEY EMPLOY IS THAT IN THE PSALMS, ‘MY HEART HAS PRODUCED A GOOD WORD;’ AND THEY IMAGINE THE SON TO BE THE UTTERANCE OF THE FATHER DEPOSITED, as it were, in syllables … THEY DO NOT ALLOW HIM … ANY INDEPENDENT HYPOSTASIS (substance of Being), nor are they clear about His essence. I do not mean that they confuse its qualities, but the fact of His having AN ESSENCE OF HIS OWN (Origen's view). For NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND (among “the general run of Christians”) HOW THAT WHICH IS SAID TO BE THE WORD CAN BE A SON. AND SUCH AN ANIMATED WORD, NOT BEING A SEPARATE ENTITY FROM THE FATHER (Origen’s view) … God the Word IS A SEPARATE BEING AND HAS AN ESSENCE OF HIS OWN.” ” (Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, Chapter 23) Origen contrasted his theological teaching from “the general run of Christians (the Modalists)” by asserting that the Son is of a different essence from the Father because he has "an essence of his own." About one hundred years later the Nicene Creed confessed that the Son is of the same substance of the Father, so Origen would have been categorized as an Arian about 100 years later. Trinitarian scholars themselves admit that Origen was writing against the Modalists who were "the general run of Christians" who affirmed that the substance of being of the Son was the same substance of being (hypostasis) as the Father while the Semi-Arians such as Origen, Hippolytus, and Tertullian were denying Christ’s true deity. Trinitarian historians readily admit that this passage addresses the Modalistic Monarchians as "the general run of Christians" who rejected the Semi-Arian belief about the logos being a distinct god person apart from the Father. Author Andrew Radde Gallwitz cited Trinitarian church historian Ronald E. Hein to show that Origen wrote the first portion of his Commentary on the Gospel of John (books 1 and 2) against the Modalists after being rejected as a heretic by the Modalistic Christian majority in Rome: “The first two books [of the Commentary on John] were written soon after Origen returned from Rome, and are largely structured by the modalist question … the modalist problem appears several times in his exegetical comments on John 1:1-5, and appears to have been much on his mind.’” Andrew Radde Gallwitz wrote that “Origen became particularly sensitive to modalists who denied the separate hypostatic existence of the Son and the Spirit during his visit to Rome during the episcopacy of Zephyrinus (bishop AD 198-217). Thus, despite the fact that in the Commentary on John, the most obvious adversary is the ‘Valentinian’ teacher Heracleon, Origen also spends a consider-able amount of time arguing against modalists, which leads him to insist on the distinct, substantial reality of Son and Spirit. 12 In his Commentary on John 2, Origen (wrote)… ‘the Spirit is made through the Son (as are ‘all things,’ according to John 1.3)’-Origen’s own view …” (Vigiliae Christianae, 65 (2011), © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163 / 157007210X524277 / The Holy Spirit as Agent, not Activity: Origen’s Argument with Modalism and its Afterlife in Didymus, Eunomius, and Gregory of Nazianzus , Pg 232. Department of Theology, Loyola University Chicago,1032 W. Sheridan Rd., Chicago, IL 60660, USA, araddegallwitz@luc.edu) [Footnote: 12) Historian Ronald E. Heine, ‘Christology of Callistus,’ 59: ‘The first two books [of the Commentary on John] were written soon after Origen returned from Rome, and are largely structured by the modalist question. Origen does not, of course, conduct a single-minded polemic against modalists in these books. He also argues against Marcionites (1.253), Gnostics (2.155, 171), and particularly Heracleon (2.100-104, 137-39). Nevertheless, the modalist problem appears several times in his exegetical comments on John 1:1-5, and appears to have been much on his mind.’] Origen clearly revealed that the early Modalists believed that the word (logos) is the divine utterances of the Father deposited in words until the Son was actually born after the fullness of time had come. Origen further admitted that the Modalists believed that the Son is the same substance (hypostasis) of the Father while Origen's Semi-Arian view led him to believe that the Son has an independent "essence of his own (a separate god person)" and that the Holy “Spirit is made through the Son” (Origen’s Commentary of the Gospel of John, book 2). If the Holy Spirit “is made through the Son” then the Holy Spirit could not be timeless and coequal. Thus, Origen actually denied the later Trinitarian coequality of the Father, Son, and Spirit as he affirmed that the Son and the Spirit each have “a separate essence” of their “own” apart from the Father. In contradistinction, the ancient Modalists taught that the Son is the Holy Spirit incarnate who has the same “Essence of Being” (hypostasis - Heb. 1:3) as the Father. Therefore, the Modalists were actually more orthodox to the later Nicene Creed of 325 than Origen and the other Semi-Arians who were in fellowship with each other but not with the Modalists (Note: Hippolytus warmly embraced Origen and his theology at Rome while the Roman Modalist Bishops rejected both Hippolytus and Origen). Hippolytus of Rome and Origen of Alexandria personally knew each other and had the same basic theology as other Semi-Arians throughout the Roman Empire. Hippolytus wrote in “Against All Heresies” Book 9, Part 5, “For in this manner he (Noetus - a modalist) thinks to establish the sovereignty of God, alleging that Father and Son, so called, are one and the same (substance), NOT ONE INDIVIDUAL PRODUCED FROM A DIFFERENT ONE, but Himself from Himself; and that He is styled by name Father and Son, according to vicissitude of times.” Here we see that Hippolytus taught that the Son is a different "substance" or "essence" from the Father. Origen taught the same in his Commentary on the Gospel of John, book 1, chapter 23. We know that Origen visited Rome and was received into fellowship by Hippolytus in the early third century, but the Modalistic Monarchian majority in Rome rejected both Hippolytus and Origen's theology as “ditheism” (a belief in two gods).” Therefore, both Hippolytus and Origen were in fellowship with each other because they believed that the Son was literally "produced" before his birth and that he "has an essence of his own" (Origen on the Gospel of John 1:23). The new “Semi-Arian” professing Christians such as Origen and Hippolytus were in fellowship with each other while the Modalistic Monarchian Christian majority maintained their own fellowship outside of the emerging “Semi-Arian” and “Semi-Trinitarian” minority. It is very unfortunate that virtually all of the writings of the Oneness Modalists of the mid-second century through the fifth century were destroyed by the later Roman Catholic Church. Origen wrote that the Modalists were among the multitudes of believers who called Jesus the Most High God while the Semi-Arian tendencies of Origen denied Christ’s full deity. Origen clearly rejected the deity of Christ because he wrote that Jesus Christ is not the Most High God Himself. Origen wrote in Contra Celsus 8:14, “Grant that there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Savior is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them, but rather believe Him when He says, ‘The Father who sent Me is greater than I.’” Contra Celsus 8:14 More info at ApostolicChristianFaith .com

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

I do not wish to run in circles again and again over the same statements. I have shared what I believe the writers said, and you have shared what you believe the writers said. Let anyone who reads our comments decide for themselves. God's truth will always win out. May we be honest and humble with ourselves to seek God and His truth, no matter how painful it may be. An honest reader will consider everything an author wrote on a subject. Instead, when one pulls out a handful of statements and says, "They mean this!" while ignoring everything else the author wrote, this is called prooftexting. When I read Tertullian, Origen, and all other Pre-Nicene writers, I see that all of them believed in the three Persons of God. If you want to disagree with them in favor of lesser known folks like Praxeas, feel free. I will not force you to accept a certain point of view nor do I want to insult your decision. Even if we didn't have any writings from the Pre-Nicene Christians, the Scriptures are sufficient to prove that there are three Persons of God. To see the peak of the mountain of what the Scriptures have to say, please see my video on the Persons of God. kzread.info/dash/bejne/lqyls7mgmZipisY.html Blessings to you.

@globalimpactministries766

7 жыл бұрын

Did "the truth always win out" when the RCC burned our writings and murdered our brethren? All we know about the teachings of the leading Oneness Modalistic Monarchian leaders of the mid second century onward is from the writings of their Semi-Arian detractors because the historical evidence proves that the later RCC burned their writings. The scriptures themselves prove Oneness Theology. See my new KZread Video entitled "Is God One Person or Three Persons" in the KZread Search or visit my website with hundreds of free books, articles, and videos at ApostolicChristianFaith .com

I disagree with the viewpoints of some early Christians on the diety of Messiah. However, I agree with them that Modalism is a great blasphemy. The Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son.

Why did you ignore Tertullian and Origen saying the the majority did not agree with them and the modalists the majority.

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. I have no ignored anything. Tertullian and Origen did not say that the majority of Christians disagreed with them. Modalists were not part of the Christian church during Tertullian's and Origen's day. God bless!

@Counterpoint_Apologetics

5 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch part of the church? Anybody can make that claim that they are the church. Thats your assertion. Adolph Harnack wrote that “Modalistic Monarchianism” was once “embraced by the great majority of all Christians” (Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma, London: Williams & Norgate, 1897, III, 51-54). Origin stated. “the general run of Christians" Jaroslov Pelikan wrote that “Modalistic Monarchianism” was the “popular Christian belief in ancient Christian theology.” Tertullian, Against Praxeus 3, “…they that always make up the majority of believers reject the economy …Trinity”) Origen’s wrote in his Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, Chapter 23, “… I wonder at the stupidity THE GENERAL RUN OF CHRISTIANS in this matter. I do not mince matters; it is nothing but stupidity … THEY PROCEED DIFFERENTLY AND ASK, WHAT IS THE SO OF GOD WHEN CALLED THE WORD? … AND THEY IMAGINE THE SON TO BE THE UTTERANCE OF THE FATHER DEPOSITED, as it were, in words … THEY DO NOT ALLOW HIM … ANY INDEPENDENT HYPOSTASIS (Essence of Being), nor are they clear about His essence. I do not mean that they confuse its qualities, but the fact of His having an essence of His own (Origen’s view). For NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WHICH IS SAID TO BE THE WORD CAN BE A SON. AND SUCH AN ANIMATED WORD, NOT BEING A SEPARATE ENTITY FROM THE FATHER … God the Word IS A SEPARATE BEING AND HAS AN ESSENCE (homoisious) OF HIS OWN.” (Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, Chapter 23) Origen contrasted his theological teaching from “the general run of Christians (the Modalists)” by saying, “God the Word IS A SEPARATE BEING AND HAS AN ESSENCE ('homoiusias') OF HIS OWN.” Origen identified “the general run of Christians” as those who believed that the Father’s Essence of Being is the same Essence of Being as the Son. Origen did not believe that the Son is the same “homousias” as the Father because Origen taught that the Son has a “homoiusias” of his own - as “a separate entity from the Father.” Therefore Origen clearly taught against the later Nicene Creed of 325 while only the ancient Modalists were affirming the core theology of the Nicene Creed in the centuries preceding the Council of Nicaea. - Ritchie

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

@@Counterpoint_Apologetics Chris Scalf True, it seems that all the different groups of Christians around the world claim that they are the church. It is the responsibility of each Christian to test the spirits and to hold on to what is good. Thank you for sharing that information. I will not comment on Harnack's or Pelikan's statements because I am not able to read their works in context. Regarding Tertullian's quote. That quote is taken out of context by those who want to twist Tertullian's words. Here is a link to see what Tertullian wrote. (www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.iii.html) Here, Tertullian is not saying that the majority of Christians are Monarchians. In context, Tertullian is saying that most Christians are "simple," that is, simple-minded. Most Christians are simple-minded. Tertullian goes on to say that their faith brought them out of the world and its polytheism. These converts came to Christianity, which is monotheistic. They are taught that there is only one God. So as they go deeper into Christianity, they are startled to learn that God has an Economy (dispensation) of Three in One. In short, Tertullian is saying that the simple-minded converts are come from polytheism into a monotheism that has a Divinity of One God in Three Persons. Regarding Orien's quote. Here is a link to the quote. (www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xv.iii.i.xxiii.html) There, Origen write the whole chapter about how inconsistent Christians are when they say that the Son of God's proper name is Word/Logos. Those inconsistent Christians say the Word/Logos is just the Father's spoken utterances--and not a separate Person (Son of God). Origen's point is that the Son of God has many, many names and titles. Word/Logos is just one of many names given to the Son of God. In short, the stupid, inconsistent Christians are saying that the Logos/Word are the utterances and syllables from the Father and not a person... then at the same time say that the Word/Logos is Christ. Of course this is inconsistent! What Origen does NOT say was that the majority of Christians preached that the Son and the Father were the same Person. Both Tertullian and Origen are pointing out how most Christians have trouble understanding the nature of the Divinity. But this does not negate that the teaching of the Trinity was the teaching of the whole church. As you claim, if most Christians were Modalists, then we would have some Christian writings that promoted Modalism in early Christianity. But we do not! Please do not take two quotations out of context and attempt to twist them so that they change the 9 volumes of early Christian writings. God bless.

@Counterpoint_Apologetics

5 жыл бұрын

As usual you assume... because writings where destroyed it means most did not believe. Historians have said such writings where extent but the church burned writings they viewed as heretical later. Historians also have pointed out the modalists signed the creed of 325. You are in a Trinitarian bubble. Trinitarianism was not taught until the late 3rd to 4th century and you using Hippolytus and Justin as examples of Trinitarians is desperate. Co equality was not taught nor an eternal Word. They also taught they are of a different substance. NOT Trinitarian. Simply pointing at 3 somethings is also a challenge because the HS was even later let alone an eternal co-equal Son. Also simply pointing distinction doesnt prove Trinitarianism nor does it bother modalism.

@lalboisingson7399

3 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch Major historians said.... modalist were the major Christians belief in the early century....... Here you modify the text to fit your argument....

THE TRINITY AND THE WORD MONOS IN GREEK whoever believe in the trinity can not be considered a monotheistic person the trinity states that there are separation of persons that means more than one person; Monotheism is a word that means only one God as a person no three persons. THE WORD MONOTHEISM the word : MONOS in the Greek means only one no more than one body. the word : THEISM means God. The word MONOS in Greek never, never is used to Christ as Monos God only to the Father much less to the Holy Spirit. 1 Timothy 6: 15-16; John 17: 3; 1 Timothy 1: 17; Mark 13: 32 it is not possible to be a Trinitarian and monotheistic at the same time. they are two opposites words. we have to understand the Hebrew mentality of the monotheism concept. we also have to understand that the Greek language does not accept separation when the term monos is used, and this term in the bible is only used to the Father never,never to the Son and much less to the Holy Spirit. How a Multipersonal God is by definition a MONOS God; the greek word monos is exclusive and doest not give place to more than one person this is basic grammar in Greek. this word is very key to realize the exclusivity and superiority of the Father over the Son. trinitarian divide the persons not the substance and that is enough to break the etymology meaning of the greek word Monos. I was Trinitarian for many years, it is very hard to accept this after many years but it is the truth the fact that Trinitarian divided God in 3 persons that can not be called monotheism. if you really want to know the definition of any word you have to look at it in etymology way. talking about marriage the word monogamy means that it has only one person We can not say that a person is monogamous and has three people, not really. The word Monkeys in Greek is exclusive and does not give rise to another person, much less to 3 people, this word is the key to realize the exclusivity and superiority of the Father over the Son. Christianity has created a new definition of the Greek term Monos. The only religion that is called monotheistic and has a God that is divided into three people is Christianity, so that the trinity has passed as simulated monotheism, this is part of the scam of the enemy. Etymologically Monos in greek does not accept division of any kind. Trinity is full of tradition.

Its all perfectly described for you...everything you need to know about god is in..gay lesions...

The story's of the saints tell that protestant chritianty was the original chritianty worship

Its safer to keep it in spaghetti like English..

The WORD is never called a Son in scripture until the incarnation. If anyone has a scripture that shows the pre-incarnate WORD was called SON, I would appreciate it ? Thanks. Shalom 🙏

Hippolytus and Origen were not Trinitarian at all, they were Semi-Arians who do not believe that the Son is in one substance with the Father. Origen of Alexandria is only a Semi-Trinitarian that believes that Jesus is inferior to the Father.

@Andronicus_of_Rhodes

3 жыл бұрын

Proof? Source? This accusation is commonly leveled against Origen, but I don’t buy it

The only problem I have with all of this teaching is the use of the word PERSON. I firmly believe in a Trinity but not in the definition the Church uses. The Father & the Holy Spirit are not Persons, only the Son is a Person. To call the Father & the Holy Spirit persons are bringing them down to our level.

@PostApostolicChurch

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. I get what you are saying! Just as you point out, only the Son is a Human. When I call them "Persons," I most certainly do NOT mean They are humans. Instead of "Person," what term would you use? God bless you!

@ablessedman50

3 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch Just a few suggestions when describing the One God, Supreme Elohim, Yahuah.. Beings, Entities, Divisions, Parts, Separations, many choices would be better than Persons. Just another fact you may want to ponder, study, The Father & son speak to each other, but neither ever address the Holy Spirit, nor does the Holy Spirit ever speak to them. Also in almost all introductions/greetings of the Epistles you will see; God the Father & Lord Jesus Christ, but never a greeting with the Holy Spirit. This is because they understood that the Holy Spirit was the Power of Elohim to deal directly with mankind. Yahuah's Blessings

@PostApostolicChurch

3 жыл бұрын

@@ablessedman50 Thanks for the options. I like many of those. Except, I would not use "Divisions" and "Separations." Those make it sound like the Father and the Son are not in unity with each other. I would never use those options. Two reasons why I like using "Persons" is because (1) it is the term used through nearly all of Christian history and (2) I believe in a God who is very personal toward all people. But "Beings" and "Entities" are probably the very best options. I hear what you are saying about the Holy Spirit. Based on how the Spirit operates in the Scriptures, I can see how many would not call the Spirit an Entity of God but a display of the power of God. I don't have a problem with folks believing that. The Pre-Nicene Christians viewed the Spirit as His own Person of God. They have some good reasons why they believed that. I think it is fine to believe either way about who/what the Spirit is.

Hippolytus and Origen were not Trinitarian at all, they were Semi-Arians who do not believe that the Son is in one substance with the Father and that Jesus is inferior to the Father.

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. If what you said is true, please share with me one quotation from them that shows that they rejected the Trinity. God bless you.

Oneness Theology (Modalism) Was the Predominant View of the Early Christians

@bryanlovesjesus2204

Жыл бұрын

Proof?

They are in essence saying that Oneness Pentecostals have blasphemed the Holy Spirit

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. That is sort of true. The early Christians would certainly say that Oneness Pentecostals are heretics in their theology. As you might see in the comments in this video, a lot of Oneness Christians have a problem with it. The early Christians would say that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is something else. God bless!

@curtisculpepper407

4 жыл бұрын

I am specifically referring to the quotation of Hipplytus "for he who blasphemes against the Holy spirit is cast out from the Holy inheritance"

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

@@curtisculpepper407 Ah, good point. Hippolytus does refer to Noetus' beliefs as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I agree with your very first comment. At least Hippolytus considered Oneness theology to be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I will say that this wasn't the only false theology that could be blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. There are other forms blasphemy comes in. Thank you for commenting and for clarifying that! God bless you.

@marcialtaguic296

4 жыл бұрын

Hippolytus and Origen are always quoted their writings by Trinitarians to counter Oneness theology but they were not Trinitarian at all, they were Semi-Arians who do not believe that the Son is in one substance with the Father and that Jesus is inferior to the Father.

Justin, Hippolytus and others where not Trinitarian. They where semi-arians.

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

It appears, from their own words, Justin and Hippolytus and the rest believed in one God in three Persons. Since they completely denied that the Son was a created being, they fully reject Arianism. God bless.

@Counterpoint_Apologetics

5 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch did I say Arians. No I said semi-arians. No, they clearly did not believe in orthodox Trinitarianism. The Son was not of the same substance, subordinate and not eternal. Hippolytus.... God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world. And conceiving the world in mind, and willing and uttering the Word, HE MADE IT; and straightway IT APPEARED, FORMED AS IT HAD PLEASED HIM. For us, then, it is sufficient to know that THERE WAS NOTHING CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH GOD. BESIDE HIM THERE WAS NOTHING; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality. For He was neither without reason, nor wisdom, now power, nor counsel. All things were in Him, and He was the All … He begat the Word [and] uttering the voice first, and begetting Him as Light of Light, He set Him forth to the world as its Lord … And thus THERE APPEARED ANOTHER BESIDE HIMSELF.” (Cited by Trinitarian historian Johannes Quasten, Patrology Vol. 2, Page 200) After citing Hippolytus, Quasten commented on the same page (Page 200), “Thus Pope Callistus was correct in dubbing Hippolytus and his adherents DITHEISTS or worshipers of two gods, although Hippolytus resented this bitterly (Refutation of all Heresies 9:12).” Under Arianism, The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia cited Hippolytus and Tertullian among the "Semi-Arians." Then the New Advent Encyclopedia says, “Semi Arians … affirmed the Word of God to be everlasting, they imagined Him as having become the Son to create the worlds and redeem mankind.” - Ritchie

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

@@Counterpoint_Apologetics Thank you for sharing the definition Semiarians. I found it here. (www.newadvent.org/cathen/13693b.htm) According to this definition, Hippolytus and Tertullian were NOT Semiarians. And that makes sense. Hippolytus and Tertillian taught the same things about the Divinity as did the rest of the church for the 250 years following the apostles. But maybe I missed something. Where does the New Advent Encyclopedia say that Hippolytus and Tertullian were Semiarians?

Mr C. - David K. Bernard has some excellent books supporting Modalistic Monarchianism, such as The Oneness of God.. Both Dynamic and Modalistic Monarchians believe that there is no distinction of personhood in the Godhead. While the DMs believe that God manifest Himself successively as Father, Son and HS, the MM believe that God can be Father, Son and HS simultaneously anytime.

And monarchianism did not start in the 2nd century..... The false trinity doctrine started around the 2nd century and the trinitarian liars in the 2nd century opposed it....turning the non trinitarian truth on the godhead to the trinitarian lie

Your presentation assumes that these early church fathers were telling the truth. History reveals way more than what you are reading. Justin taught that the Son was a second God. Hippolytus was one of the first Trinitarians. He is also the first Anti-Pope in history. Tertullian was not the sound expositor you make him out to be. He left the Catholic Church to join the Montanists. While Catholic he baptized in three titles and three times. He probably followed Hippolytus in his practice of baptizing children, women, and men in the "nude."

@PostApostolicChurch

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. What history are you referring to? The history that is presented on this channel comes from these Christians actual writings. When you read those writings, you find that Justin did not say that the Son was a second God. Hippolytus wasn't the first Trinitarian; they all were Trinitarian until Arius showed up. And Tertullian was highly regarded by the church before he joined the Montanists. In fact, even Cyprian (lived lived about 50 years later), loved Tertullian's writings. Again, I ask: what history are you referring to when you say those things? God bless you!

@r.e.jr.1152

3 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch To the actual writings and everything they taught. I can quote every single example I told you about to prove my point. I am just simply amazed that all you quote is some of their sayings instead of all of their sayings. I do not want to debate you since I suspect that you have your ideas ingrained. Simply want you to know that there are people who see through what you are doing. It is somewhat deceptive to present only one side of what the fathers really believed.

This posting is well done but it is in error for the following reasons: (1) The incarnation allowed God (a Spirit) to manifest Himself in the man Christ Jesus. That did not produce another god. These criticisms ignore the incarnation (Spirit himself manifested in flesh). Malachi 3:1 tells us that God himself came to his Temple (as the man Jesus). (2) There can only be one individual who is God. The Old Testament recognizes no other God. There cannot be three divine persons. God was in Christ (the incarnation) reconciling the world unto HIMSELF (2 Cor 5:19) not unto THEMSELVES. There were not two divine persons doing the reconciling but one. God actually formed a baby in the womb of the virgin, and he himself got in that baby (INCARNATION) and was born of the virgin. God manifest in the flesh. Not three divine persons. It is the error of understanding the incarnation that deceives people into accepting a "trinity" (a term never mentioned by the apostles). Jesus is the "Almighty" (God the Father) manifest in the flesh (Rev. 1:8). There cannot be three "almighties". There is only One and he is not "three persons". God became his own son so he could reconcile the world unto himself. The manufacturing of a "trinity" is a misunderstanding of the incarnation.

The pagan priests of Rome worked overtime to hammer their own pantheon of gods into a Christian context. They still can't do it and call all of the contradictions "a mystery". The mystery of the Trinity is the mystery of iniquity because making our own gods is lawlessness.

LOL early church exposed muslims way back

You rong, GOD is one person not tree only one AKJV+ John 1:1: "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1Jn 1:1" The Word and GOD is the same person, the WORD wase not a SON of the GOD, the bible doesn't say that , the SON was born when the WORD became flesh AKJV+ John 1:14: "14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelled among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, ) full of grace and truth. 1Tim 3:16 Heb 2:14 1Jn 1:2" then the SON OF GOD was born . AKJV+ Psalms 2:7: "7 I will declare the decree: the LORD has said to me, You are my Son; this day have I begotten you. Mat 3:17 Mat 17:5 Mar 1:11 Luk 3:22 Acts 13:33 Heb 1:5 Heb 5:5" here the FATHER says to his SON that today I have begotten you. Sow you rong GOD be came JESUS

Jesus says, God is One. Not two, not 3, but 1.

Is Monarchianism like Modalism? One Being, One Personality, Three Modes? Unlike One Being, Three Personalities, Three Modes for Orthodox Trinitarianism? Tritheism is Three Beings, Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Who at a point in Time Drew Straws in order to see who would play the Role of the Son God. SDA Kinship International Trinity is Three Gay Male God's, Jesus Gay, who had 12 gay friends and Two Gay Father's, the One (HS) Bisexual Who overshadowed and literally impregnated Mary and the Other One Who is just Called Father, 1 Being or 3 Beings determines if this is Trinity or Tritheism.

If you are very honest, if you really talk about a word of God, You should know that the pre-Nicene theology is radically different from the Credo of Nicene. Be honest, and courageous, the promulgation of the Trinity is a big treason, a blasphemy. don't forget the Shema.

@sidpan8218

4 жыл бұрын

kamel alhassani yes the Lord our God is one Lord, and all three persons share that one lordship

@kamelalhassani4609

4 жыл бұрын

@@sidpan8218 are you talking about one god one personne or one god in tree personne. One in monotheism the other is polytheism. It is easy to choose between these two god.

Let’s see what the Bible says when it comes to one God in One person vs 3 persons in one God Trinity:0 Holy One 74(29 times alone in Isaiah) Coequal:0 Coeternal:0 Triune: 0 God in three persons:0 God in one person: 2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Colossians 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Romans 16:27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. (Written to the Romans from Corinthus, and sent by Phebe servant of the church at Cenchrea.) John 10:30 I and my Father are one. John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. John 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. John 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Notice when Jesus speaks of the Father he says that’s who does the works like in John 14:10 he literally says “The words that I speak unto youI speak not of myself:BUT THE FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME, HE DOES THE WORKS” We understand that there’s an ontological difference between the Father and the Son but not as this one is different from that one in terms of “persons” but that it’s natures one nature is Son of Man one is Ancient of days Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? God came to us as a genuine Human being while also still remaining the omnipresent Holy Spirit of God(Ephesians 4:30, John 3:13) Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. When you call God a “Trinity” you are adding to his words when you say there is “One God in Three Persons” you are saying there is a God beside GodIsaiah 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. Do not add to his words you call God something he is not you add to the words! Repent!

The early church, you the Apostles..... They never wrote about the Trinity. Why because they knew that God was ONE single Spirit... They wrote that Jesus Christ was the express image of God (a Spirit)... God robbed in flesh..... They wrote that the Holy Spirit was the Father of Jesus Christ. God the Father is the Holy Spirit.... The flesh body of Jesus Christ was not divine... The Jews, you know them, the people of God.. The ones who where set apart by God... They know that God is ONE single Spirit.

The Word of God is the Word of God , why complicate simple things ?? The word is not a person.. Is your word a person ? There is ONE GOD .... His son is born of a virgin.. psalms 2:7 , Hebrews 5:5, Mark 1:9-11. KNOWLEDGE INCREASED!!!

Tertullian was not a true Trinitarian. Trinitarian historian Johannes Quasten, (Patrology, vol. II: The Ante-Nicene Literature After Irenaeus Westminster: Christian Classics, 1990, 326-327) wrote that Tertullian believed in the non-Trinitarian idea of "subordinationism." "…Tertullian could not shake off entirely the influence of subordinationism. The old distinction between the Logos endiathetos and the Logos prophorikos, the Word internal or immanent in God and the Word emitted or uttered by God …made him regard the divine generation as taking place gradually. Although Wisdom and Word are identical names for the second person in the Trinity, Tertullian distinguishes between a prior birth as Wisdom before the creation, and a nativitas perfecta at the moment of creation, when the Logos was sent forth and Wisdom became the Word: ‘Hence it was then that the Word itself received its manifestation and its completion, namely sound and voice, when God said: Let there be light. This is the perfect birth of the Word, when it proceeds from God. It was first produced by Him for thought under the name of Wisdom, The Lord established me as the beginning of his ways (Prov. 8, 22). Then he is generated for action: When he made the heavens, I was near Him (Prov. 8, 27). Consequently, making the one of whom He is the Son to be His Father by his procession, He became the first-born, as generated before all, as only Son, as solely generated by God’ (Adv. Prax. 7). Thus the Son as such is not eternal (Hermog. 3 EP 321)…The Father is the whole substance…while the Son is only an outflow and a portion of the whole, as He Himself professes, Because my Father is greater than I (John 14, 28). The analogies by which Tertullian tries to explain the Godhead also indicate his subordinationist tendencies, especially when he states that the Son goes out from the Father as the beam from the sun…(Adv. Prax. 8 ANF). Tertullian and other so called early Trinitarian writers of the first few centuries of the Christian era did not believe in the same Trinitarian theology that Catholics and Protestants hold today. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that Tertulian (credited for coining the word Trinity) denied the alleged eternality of the Son when he wrote, “There was a time when THERE WAS NO SON (Hermognes 3).” Again, the Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “In not a few areas of theology, Tertullian’s views are, of course, completely unacceptable. Thus, for example, his teaching on the Trinity reveals a subordination of Son to Father that in the later crass form of Arianism (Arianism denies the full deity of Christ) the Church rejected as heretical.” Even some of the founding fathers of the Trinity believed that the only true God (the Father) pre-created all things through His own Word, Reason, and Intelligence which later became the Son. Tertullian wrote in AGAINST PRAXEUS CHAPTER 6 "Now, as soon as it pleased God to put forth into their respective substances and forms the things which He had planned and ordered within Himself, in conjunction with His Wisdom's Reason and Word, He first put forth the Word Himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all things might be made through Him through whom they had been planned and disposed, yea, and ALREADY MADE, so far forth as (they were) IN THE MIND AND INTELLIGENCE OF GOD." Tertullian himself admits that the Word (logos) was the Father's own Reason, Word, Mind, and Intelligence in which God the Father "ALREADY MADE" all things "THROUGH WHOM THEY HAD BEEN PLANNED." However, Tertullian wrote that the Son was formed as a pre-incarnate Son (Arianism) when God said, "Let there be light." Tertullian believed that the Word of God the Father assumed a form and voice when God said, "Let there be light in Genesis 1:3. AGAINST PRAXEUS CHAPTER 7 Then, therefore, does THE WORD also Himself ASSUME HIS OWN FORM AND GLORIOUS GARB, HIS OWN SOUND AND VOCAL UTTERANCE, WHEN GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHT (Genesis 1:3) This is the perfect NATIVITY OF THE WORD, when He proceeds forth from God- FORMED BY HIM FIRST to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom ... or by proceeding from Himself HE BECAME HIS FIRST BEGOTTEN SON, because begotten before all things; Colossians 1:15 and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, FROM THE WOMB OF HIS OWN HEART [THE FATHER’S].” Tertullian clearly stated that the Son was BEGOTTEN “from the womb of the Father’s heart” when God said, “Let there be light in” in Genesis 1:3. "THIS IS THE PERFECT NATIVITY OF THE WORD." The definition of "Nativity" is "the occasion of a person's birth" as "the place of my nativity." Hence, Tertullian taught a pre-incarnate created Son who's birth (nativity) occurred prior to the incarnation. Therefore the chief founding father of Trinitarian theology was really an Arian who wrote in Against Hermogenes chapter 3. "God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. FOR HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE FATHER PREVIOUS TO THE SON, nor a judge previous to sin. THERE WAS, HOWEVER, A TIME WHEN NEITHER SIN EXISTED WITH HIM, NOR THE SON; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as HE BECAME THE FATHER BY THE SON, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him.” Tertullian clearly taught that God was not always a Father to the Son but became a Father when the Son was begotten. Any Trinitarian who says otherwise is not being truly honest when reading the writings of Tertullian. More info at ApostolicChristianFaith .com

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

To get a good first grasp on what the Pre-Nicene Christians wrote about the Persons of God and their relation to each other, see my video here. kzread.info/dash/bejne/lqyls7mgmZipisY.html When Tertullian talked about the Son not existing, he was not saying that there was a time when the Logos/the Son/Jesus/the Christ/the Word did not exist. He is saying that there was a time when the Word/Logos was not the Son--because the Word/Logos had not been born of God and Mary. For example, during the times of the Old Testament, there was no Son (though there was Word/Logos). But when Jesus was born of God and Mary, it was at that time that the Word/Logos became the Son. You can read Tertullian in context here. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.v.iii.html

@globalimpactministries766

7 жыл бұрын

Here you have actually denied an "Eternal Son" which is a denial of Trinitarian theology. Trinitarians teach the alleged "coequality" and "coeternality" of the Son as the Son. Under ARIANISM, The New Advent Encyclopedia states that Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, Novatian, Tertullian, and Methodius were semi-Arians. Arianism from an early date affirmed the likeness, either without adjunct, or in all things, or in substance, of the Son to the Father, while denying His (Christ’s) co-equal dignity and co-eternal existence. These men of the Via Media were named Semi-Arians ... The Semi-Arians attempted for years to invent a compromise between irreconcilable views, and their shifting creeds, tumultuous councils, and worldly devices tell us how mixed and motley a crowd was collected under their banner. The point to be kept in remembrance is that, while they affirmed the Word of God to be everlasting, they imagined Him as having BECOME THE SON to create the worlds and redeem mankind (in other words, the Son did not always exist as the Son but HE BECAME THE SON in order to create the worlds and redeem mankind) ... Five ante-Nicene Fathers are especially quoted: Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, and Novatian, whose language appears to involve a peculiar notion of Sonship, AS THOUGH HE DID NOT COME INTO BEING or were not perfect until the dawn of creation. To these may be added Tertullian and Methodius. Cardinal Newman held that their view, which is found clearly in Tertullian, OF THE SON EXISTING AFTER THE WORD, IS CONNECTED WITH THE ANTECEDENT WITH ARIANISM.”Trinitarian scholars themselves identify Tertullian's view as "the antecedent with Arianism."

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

No, I have not denied the eternal Son. I don't think you understood my point about the titles the Scripture has given to Jesus/Logos/Christ at various times of His existence. I really do enjoy whenever you tell me me about what I actually believe. It's great to know someone who knows my mind better than myself. It feel very good to be correct in all things. However, let me share with you a couple Scriptures. It is my hope and prayer that you let go of your pride and be willing to accept correction instead of both speaking for yourself and trying to speak for me. 1Cor 2:11, "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man that is in him?" Please do not speak for me, especially when you aren't trying to understand me. 1Cor 8:2, "If anyone thinks he knows anything, he does not yet know it as he ought to know it." Please be humble in sharing your knowledge. I respectfully ask you to consider those verses in our discussion. Please respect me as I respect you. That way, we can have a healthy discussion.

@globalimpactministries766

7 жыл бұрын

I am not trying to read minds so I would appreciate it if you would stop making foolish comments. I am merely pointing out your own teaching based upon your written words when you said (above), "He (Tertullian) is saying that there was a time when the Word/Logos was not the Son--because the Word/Logos had not been born of God and Mary. For example, DURING THE TIMES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, THERE WAS NO SON (though there was Word/Logos). BUT WHEN JESUS WAS BORN OF GOD AND MARY, IT WAS AT THAT TIME THAT THE WORD/LOGOS BECAME THE SON." You clearly stated "when Jesus was born of God and Mary, IT WAS AT THAT TIME that the Word/Logos BECAME THE SON." Thus, even Trinitarian scholars would agree with me that you have just denied an "eternal Son." Tertullian clearly taught that the Son was formed as a pre-incarnate Son (Arianism) when God said, "Let there be light." AGAINST PRAXEUS CHAPTER 7 Then, therefore, does THE WORD also Himself ASSUME HIS OWN FORM AND GLORIOUS GARB, HIS OWN SOUND AND VOCAL UTTERANCE, WHEN GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHT (Genesis 1:3) This is the perfect NATIVITY (birth) OF THE WORD, when He proceeds forth from God- FORMED BY HIM first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom ... or by proceeding from Himself HE BECAME HIS FIRST BEGOTTEN SON, because begotten before all things; (Colossians 1:15) and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, FROM THE WOMB OF HIS OWN HEART (the Father’s).” Tertullian clearly taught that the Word assumed "his own form and glorious garb, his own sound and vocal utterance, WHEN GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHT." According to Tertullian, this was when "He BECAME HIS FIRST BEGOTTEN SON." Yet you have alleged that Tertullian taught that the Word became the Son at Christ's virgin conception and birth. How is it that you do not see your error? You have either misunderstood Tertullian's theology or you are purposefully twisting his words! Tertullian clearly stated that the Son was BEGOTTEN “from the womb of the Father’s heart” when God said, “Let there be light in” in Genesis 1:3. "THIS IS THE PERFECT NATIVITY OF THE WORD." The definition of "Nativity" is "the occasion of a person's birth" as "the place of my nativity." Hence, Tertullian taught a pre-incarnate created Son whose birth (nativity) occurred prior to the incarnation. Therefore the chief founding father of Trinitarian theology was really an Arian who wrote in Against Hermogenes chapter 3. "God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. FOR HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE FATHER PREVIOUS TO THE SON, nor a judge previous to sin. THERE WAS, HOWEVER, A TIME WHEN NEITHER SIN EXISTED WITH HIM, NOR THE SON; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as HE BECAME THE FATHER BY THE SON, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him.” Here we can clearly see that Tertullian was a “Semi-Arian” who believed that the Word/Son was created at a specific point in time (before the creation of the world). Therefore the Modalists were the only Christians in the early days of Christianity who believed in the full deity of Christ, and not the Semi-Arians who were not true Trinitarians at that time. Protestant scholar Harold Brown wrote in “Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church, Pg. 5, (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody MA, 1988). “It is impossible to document what we now call (Trinitarian) orthodoxy in the first two centuries of Christianity.” This Protestant scholar admitted that he could not document Trinitarian orthodoxy within the first two centuries of Christian history. He could find documentation showing Modalistic Monarchians and Semi-Arians but he could not submit documented evidence to prove so called “orthodox Trinitarianism.” For the clear truth about early Christian history visit ApostolicChristianFaith .com

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

Why do you keep arguing the same things when I have already explained them? You say Tertullian is saying this. Then I say Tertullian is saying that. Then you repeat your first statement about what Tertullian is saying without arguing against what I said. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. I would love to continue our conversation because I love and respect you, but I have a hard time keeping this going when I don't see any potential benefit in our discussion. In another comment, I shared what it would take for me to believe what you believe. Only the Scriptures and the Spirit can convict me. Please see that. I pray God's blessings upon you.

Monarchianism came from the early church. What really arose in the second century was trinitarianism. Not in its full completion, but basics nonetheless. You are reversing history in order to teach your own agenda. The early church of the New Testament did not teach a trinity. Your sources, as known by theologians and historians, were swayed in favor of the Catholic Church and Trinitarian doctrine. In other words, example, if you are Democrat, you are teaching that one view and condemning all others. You are putting Republicans in a bad light.

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

I have no agenda but to share the actual history and the actual faith of the early Christians and to compare their writings to Scripture. You are welcome to disagree with this apostolic teaching. If you weren't so hateful toward Catholics, then you might realize that I have not been convinced by Catholic teaching. My knowledge of history and understanding of Scripture do not come from Catholic sources. A quick word of loving admonishment: I would do Christ and His church more good if you focused more on healthy debate rather than trying to prove everyone wrong. I don't see how one's believe in the nature of God has anything to do with their political stance in the United States. Speaking personally, I am not a Democrat. In Christ, blessings and so forth.

@approvedofGod

7 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church Do you believe in helping anyone who is mistaken about their information? My research stems years on the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and Philo of Alexandria. I have read through most of the ten volume set, so much my eyes have suffered. What you do not understand is that most Protestants have been influenced by Catholic theology. The Trinity is 100% Catholic. Protestants just kept it after the Reformation. I honestly do not hate Catholics. What bothers me are the lies that they keep telling the gullible. There are innocent people being misled by these wicked men. I will not bother you anymore, my friend, but you have been warned.

@globalimpactministries766

7 жыл бұрын

Why do you judge my brother as being "hateful toward Catholics?" He simply stated the fact that the trinity doctrine was developed by the RCC. How is that being "hateful?" The historical evidence proves that the Christian majority was Oneness in theology long before the trinity doctrine was fully developed by the RCC. Tertullian admitted that "they that always make up the majority of believers" were Modalistic Monarchian (Tertullian lived from 160 - 225 AD) in the West (Tertullian Against Praxeus 3) and Origen admitted that "the general run of Christians" were Modalistic Monarchian in the East (Origen's Commentary of the Gospel of John, book 1, chapter 23). Tertullian believed that the Son did not exist throughout eternity past (Against Hermogenes 3) when he wrote, "there was a time when neither sin existed with him, nor a Son..." Hippolytus also wrote that the Son was not timeless. Origen in the East wrote that the Modalists were among the multitudes of believers who believed that Jesus is the Most High God while Origen said that the Son was not the Most High (Contra Celsus chapter 8). Therefore the so called Trinitarians of the second and third centuries were denying the deity of Christ while the Oneness Monarchians were the only early Christians who believed in the full deity of Christ before the trinity doctrine was fully developed. The historical evidence indicates that Origen visited the Roman Church in the early third century and was rejected by the Christian majority in Rome along with Hippolytus as "di-theists" for believing in two gods. Why were the writings of the Roman bishops destroyed while Hippolytus (an apostate) survived? The historical narrative proves that the later RCC destroyed the writings of the Oneness Monarchians in order to claim apostolic succession. That is why many people who read the extant writings of early Christianity are duped into believing that the Christian majority rejected Monarchianism. You think that you are doing "God's service" in your attacks against the true theology of the earliest Christians. But Christ in me is "the Spirit of truth" who says that you are actually opposing Him. May the Lord Himself open your eyes to the truth of the gospel in scripture and in church history.

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

I believe he is hateful toward Catholics because many of his comments attack and even slander Catholics. Also, even when arguing with non-Catholics, he accuses his opponents of being Catholic. This attitude is also called prejudice. Also, even if some group of Christians develop a false doctrine, this does not mean slandering or speaking evil of them excludes us from being hateful. Slander or speaking evil of someone is never acceptable for a Christian. Even for those Christian groups to develop heresies of all kinds, it is a sin to slander or speak evil of them. Tit 3:1-2, Eph 4:29-31, 1Pet 2:1, Jude 9. When Tertullian said, "who always constitute the majority of believers," he was not talking about those who believed in Monarchianism/Modalism. He was talking about how the majority of believers do not have a satisfactory understanding of the nature of God. To the average believer, they are not concerned about the nature of God or the Persons of God--that is, how God is three in one. Tertullian is not saying that the average believer believes that in Monarchianism. You can read Tertullian in context here. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.iii.html When Tertullian talked about the Son not existing, he was not saying that there was a time when the Logos/the Son/Jesus/the Christ/the Word did not exist. He is saying that there was a time when the Word/Logos was not the Son--because the Word/Logos had not been born of God and Mary. For example, during the times of the Old Testament, there was no Son (though there was Word/Logos). But when Jesus was born of God and Mary, it was at that time that the Word/Logos became the Son. You can read Tertullian in context here. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.v.iii.html I'm sorry that you believe that I am opposing God. Whether God's Spirit of Truth resides in me or you, God will show. The one God approves will be recognized by Him and by His people (1Cor 11:18-19). I pray that you and I will continue seeking God's will and truth by being open to His Scripture and His Spirit. May He open the eyes and convict anyone who is in error. Blessings to you.

@approvedofGod

7 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church I believe that you not wanting to know the truth or be corrected is worse. Jesus said, "let the blind lead the blind."

So you quote Trinitarian heretics to try to disprove Oneness Christianity! Where is the logic in that??? Oneness Christians look to the Bible, not to men (church fathers).

@JP-rf8rr

5 жыл бұрын

The video didn't say oneness disproven. It said early Christians on oneness.

@anobleroman8906

4 жыл бұрын

No, you utter idiots look to your foolish teachers for new, recent ideas. Only one of us here sides with God, His Son, the apostles, and the disciples of the apostles.

You clearly don't understand what was going on within the church of the Early Fathers and your commentary is deceitful regardless of whether you know it is or not.

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for commenting. Would you enlighten me? After all, from their writings, it appears they were very unanimous regarding the nature of God.

@JohnQPublic11

7 жыл бұрын

The pre-Nicene Church was divided into 3 major schools of thought on Christ's divinity and several minor schools of thought on the subject. The school of thought that, in the end, produced what has become to be known as the official orthodox version of officialdom had *NOTHING WHATSOEVER* to do with intellectual wisdom and judgment, but rather, was eventually decided by a minority opinion of priests who happened to be under the rule of superior military and political forces that were able to impose their opinions on the subject populace. On top of that, the eventual official view was *ADOPTED FROM* , and based upon, a misunderstanding of the view of their opponents! lol!

@ButlerianG-Haddinun

7 жыл бұрын

doesn't Messiah/Christ mean the anointed? at what point did the Father anoint the Son? The creator did not anoint Himself creator. there's my 2 cents.

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

BibleFire, yes, Messiah/Christ means anointed. When was He anointed? I don't know. But from Acts 10:38 (and context), I believe Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power at His baptism. Of course, there may be a whole lot more to Christ's anointing because anointing is connected to so many things. For example, in the Old Testament, kings, prophets, and priests were anointed. And Christ was all of these. :)

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

John Q, you say there were 3 major schools of thought on Christ's divinity and that one school became official. Now, if all of that were true, there would be evidence for it, correct? So could you share with me what the other two schools of thought were and which early Christians believed them? Thanks in advance. Blessings and so forth.