Do not forget to SUBSCRIBE to our KZread Channel. We have hundreds of new articles, books, and videos on this topic and others which are being freely posted at www.ApostolicChristianFaith.com

@iamfunnyipromise9605

Жыл бұрын

Do your church have a new website with all the articles, videos and other resources?

I am currently writing a new hardcopy book in which I am documenting the historical evidence proving that there were no true Trinitarians within the first 250 years of Christian history and that the majority of the earliest Christians were Oneness (Modalistic Monarchian) in their theology before the Trinity doctrine was fully developed. We are praying that God will use my future book to have a great impact in reaching our world with the whole truth of the gospel.

@jack7052402

6 жыл бұрын

Global Impact Ministries Any update on your book?

@3-Kashmir

2 жыл бұрын

The life of Jesus (peace be upon him) from a Muslim view. kzread.info/dash/bejne/gpmG1rOop7G7ppc.html.

It would be helpful to your video to cite from Ignatius' writings, rather than just from modern sources. It is still an interesting video.

@boardbill5852

Ай бұрын

Dealing with the texts themselves is always a problem for Modalists.

@approvedofGod

Ай бұрын

@@boardbill5852 But not for Oneness believers.

I would find it interesting if you could make a theology video for Polycarp and Justin Matyr

@globalimpactministries766

7 жыл бұрын

I am definitely planning to make one on Polycarp. Justin clearly held Semi-Arian views which were not very popular at that time (mid second century). I might make a short video on Justin as well.

@globalimpactministries766

7 жыл бұрын

I will try to produce these videos within the next two months.

@globalimpactministries766

7 жыл бұрын

Sorry, but I am busy researching and writing a new book right now so it looks like I am not going to get to producing videos on Polycarp and Justin for quite some time.

How does God the Father appear in time and space if the divine essence is unknowable and unlike created things? So God changes then?

The Spirit is not separate from the Son of God, but distinct, just as humanity is distinct fro the Deity. When Jesus was the word in eternity, it was God Himself, as says Jn. 1:1-2.

I wonder how being modalist or Trinitarian really affect the life of a current practicing Christians? Do current practicing Christians really care? Or they don’t even give a boho over that historical discussion.

@ralphowen3367

24 күн бұрын

Christians do not practice anything-- that is an error which I discovered when I got a Strong's Concordance and looked up each bible verse mentioning "practice". in every case, it refers to an evil endeavor. The non- trinitarian believers are more direct, whereas trins seem to bounce around like a pin ball before being able to utter want they mean. The importance of unlearning the Trinity is to be able to better identify God at his visitation. God blesses those who correctly identify Him according to scripture.

Before these 1st century writings were done we know that the 4 Gospel accounts were complete. Those gospel accounts have Jesus saying that he enjoyed fellowship with the Father before the Creation of the World, he prays to his Father in heaven, refer to the Holy Spirit as a separate entity from himself that must come once he leaves, the Father's voice speaks at Jesus' baptism "this is my beloved Son" etc., the Father speaks to the disciples on a high mountain, the Father speaks to his Son at the Garden of Gethsemane; Matthew 17:4-5, John 17:24; John 12:28; Matthew 3:17. John 16:17 states that Jesus "will send the advocate" to his disciples. I believe this is such a complex teaching that it's not surprising if followers of Christ are confused or make wrong statements. But the gospels trump any teachings of Clement or Ignatius in the event they teach a different gospel.

@globalimpactministries766

5 жыл бұрын

No verse of scripture ever says that Jesus had fellowship with the Father before the creation of the world. Jesus prays to his Father now because he is the only mediator between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5). Nowhere does the Bible say that the Holy Spirit is a "separate entity." John 14:16-18 informs us that Jesus is the Spirit of truth as the only "paraclete" (advocate) between God and men. Yet John 14:26 identifies the Holy Spirit as the "paraclete (advocate). Therefore we can conclude that Christ "the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17) who makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God (Rom. 8:27, 34). Trinitarians cannot explain how an alleged non-incarnate God the Holy Spirit Person can pray for the saints according to the will of God while remaining Almighty and coequal. In like manner, 1 Cor. 2:10 says that "the Spirit searches all things, yes the deep things of God." How can the Spirit search the deep things of God while remaining All-Knowing? The only viable explanation is that Jesus is the Spirit of truth who does not know all things (Mark 13:32) in his true humanity. Ephesians 4:10 and Gal. 4:6 inform us that the human Son of God ascended far above the heavens that he might fill all things. God as God has always filled all things while Emmanuel God with us in full human existence did not fill all things until after his ascension into heaven. This explains how we now have Christ's Spirit interceding within us as NT believers. Of course, the omnipresent nature of our God enables Him to send His own Spirit down without having to vacate heaven to do so. So Christ Jesus as God can send His own Spirit down to earth while remaining in heaven at the same time. Joel 2:28 says that Yahweh will pour out His Spirit upon all flesh but Luke 24:49 says that Jesus sends the promise of the Father. Therefore Jesus is the God of the Hebrew prophets who pours out His own Spirit because his true identity is God (1 John 5:20; John 8:58) in full human existence (Heb. 2:17) who does the very works of God the Father Himself (John 10:38). kzread.info/dash/bejne/X2Rso5l6n6mnqpc.html

@strongwomanofthelord5724

5 жыл бұрын

@@globalimpactministries766 when I say that Jesus had fellowship with his Father, I'm referring to scriptures such as John 17:5-the glory that I had with you before the world began. I'm also thinking of John 1:1 -the Word was with God and was God. How can God be with God if he is only one entity? The meaning behind Jesus being one with the Father goes back to the beginning when God created man in his image, Male and female he created them. God said that Adam and Eve are one flesh. When we see a married couple we don't deny their individuality. In a perfect (unfallen) world married ppl would never be divided. You would see perfect harmony. How can two walk together unless they are agreed? This is the same relationship Christ and the Father have with each other. No division! 1 John 1:2 says, " He was with the Father and then he was revealed to us." Philippians 2:5-9 speaks of Jesus leaving behind his divine privileges but not his equality with God the Father so he did not remain in heaven. If Jesus had stayed in heaven then there would be no real sacrifice for the sin of man. Also just because the Spirit searches all things doesn't mean he is without all knowledge when doing so. We see that God asked Adam, "where are you?" He asked Elijah in 1 Kings 19:13, "what are you doing here?" Do you really think that just because God asks a question that he doesn't know the answer? He is asking because he is engaging us and inviting us into relationship with himself. Also, John 14:16 says that God the Father will send you "another" advocate. Meaning not Jesus but the Holy Spirit. There is a distinction. Otherwise Christ would have plainly said to us that he himself would come again in a new way.

@globalimpactministries766

5 жыл бұрын

@@strongwomanofthelord5724 Jesus informed us that he was addressing "the glory which you have GIVEN ME. For you loved me before the foundation of the world (John 17:24)." Links: www.apostolicchristianfaith.com/single-post/2016/10/23/What-Glory-Did-Jesus-Have-With-The-Father-John-175 kzread.info/dash/bejne/nWhkxtape9a3maQ.html

Good Video

Quit saying that "so and so was taught by the original apostles." I was taught by the original apostles too and I understand the trinity just fine, thank you very much. It's not who taught you that counts, it's what you LEARN.

I will say this...I have Jaroslavs Book and the passages you quoted are from the chapter “The Mystery of the Trinity” and yes, it goes into great disscussion about a widely held misunderstanding (heresy) other wise known as “Sabellianism” or as you are calling it....Modalistic Monarchianism that the church fathers went to great efforts to condemn and correct.

@pklemets

2 жыл бұрын

I also have a heavily noted copy of Pelikans book. You missed the earlier chapters wherein Jaroslav outlines the pagan influence of polytheism was pressing the Monarchists, if we have the call them by a title. They were true believers who refused polytheism therefore a trinity. Sabellius was a believer in one God Jesus the Christ. He was what the author of trinitarian theology would coin as a Monarchist.

We want on Polycarp

Hello,I'am a italian christian(so,sorry for the bad english),that believes in the doctrine of U.P.C.I. However,I reading the epistel to the Trallians VI"...Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power." and the epistel to the Philippians II"...“baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,”1316 not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour." I understand that the oneness doctrine was considered a heresy,but JND Kelly says that Ignatius believes in a monads,and this academic wasn't a oneness theologian,so what is the true meaning of these two epistels?

@globalimpactministries766

5 жыл бұрын

irm nkj, In Trallians VI you are reading the longer recension version of Ignatius' Epistle to the Trallians rather than the authentic Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians. The vast preponderance of scholars have proved that the later Roman Catholic Church added substantial words into the text to make Ignatius look like a Trinitarian (late fourth century) because Oneness Modalistic Monarchians still posed a substantial threat to the Roman Catholic Church in the late fourth century. Here is the proof that you are reading the corrupted version of Ignatius rather than the original authentic one. The first paragraph is the authentic letter of Ignatius to the Trallians VI while the second paragraph is the non-authentic corrupted version: Chapter VI.-Abstain from the Poison of Heretics. AUTHENTIC EPISTLE TO THE TRALLIANS I therefore, yet not I, but the love of Jesus Christ, entreat you that ye use Christian nourishment only, and abstain from herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy. For those [that are given to this] mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison, speaking things which are unworthy of credit, like those who administer a deadly drug in sweet wine, which he who is ignorant of does greedily take, with a fatal pleasure leading to his own death. CORRUPTED EPISTLE TO THE TRALLIANS WITH ADDED TEXT I therefore, yet not I, out the love of Jesus Christ, "entreat you that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment." For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not Christians, but Christ-betrayers, bearing about the name of Christ in deceit, and "corrupting the word" of the Gospel; while they intermix the poison of their deceit with their persuasive talk, as if they mingled aconite with sweet wine, that so he who drinks, being deceived in his taste by the very great sweetness of the draught, may incautiously meet with his death. One of the ancients gives us this advice, "Let no man be called good who mixes good with evil." For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power. IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE ME, LOOK IT UP YOURSELF www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-trallians-longer.html You further referenced a spurious Epistle that Ignatius never wrote. The so called Epistle to the Philippians was never written by Ignatius of Antioch. HERE IS THE PROOF from Wiki Encyclopedia Pseudo-Ignatius Epistles attributed to Saint Ignatius but of spurious origin (their author is often called Pseudo-Ignatius in English) include:[25] Epistle to the Tarsians; Epistle to the Antiochians; Epistle to Hero, a Deacon of Antioch; Epistle to the Philippians; The Epistle of Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius; Epistle to Mary at Neapolis, Zarbus; First Epistle to St. John; Second Epistle to St. John; The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary. THE SEVEN AUTHENTIC LETTER OF IGNATIUS DO NOT INCLUDE AN EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS Seven authentic letters: The Letter to the Ephesians, The Letter to the Magnesians, The Letter to the Trallians, The Letter to the Romans, The Letter to the Philadelphians, The Letter to the Smyrnaeans, The Letter to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Please look it up for yourself: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch Please be careful when you read the Epistles of Ignatius because the later Roman Catholic Church under Bishop Damasus (late 4th century) corrupted the original 7 Epistles of Ignatius with spurious additions (Thankfully, earlier extant manuscripts of Ignatius were found which exposed the later Trinitarian corruptions). Also, the later RCC also added completely fictitious books never written by Ignatius. This includes the spurious Epistle to the Philippians that you referenced. Blessings in Jesus!

@irmnkj1169

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks,blessings in Jesus.

@ManlyServant

3 жыл бұрын

@@globalimpactministries766 is this all you can say? whats the Evidence that this is corrupted? you really are trying to CHANGE the history,dont ABUSE ignatius! Trallians VI is AUTHENTIC,THEY ARE THE ONLY SOURCE OF IT,if you say that this is corrupted,PROVE IT,NOT PROOF AT ALL! The reason why Ignatius say in Magnesians 8:2 that One God is manifesting HIMself through HIS son is because He also say that The Son Is HIS word!,John 1:1 Word Is GOD,he never say "Father who is 1 person manifested himself TO BE his own Son" THATS NONSENSE,You ASSUMES that he believe God is 1 person,meanwhile in Trallians VI he AGAINST it And Called It CHRIST-BETRAYER,You have to PROVE that he believe in God who is one person,PROVE IT

Did you know that the Letter To The Magnesians 3:3(Archbishop Wake vers.) is translated incorrectly as “Lords day” it was actually saying the Lords way. (Of Life) prof Catholics have no ground on debate on writings that’s not there’s to begin with (to add and change scripture). The context of it was trying to explain was this If you kept the sabbath (judicially)CONTRARIWISE ACCORDING TO LORDS WAY (OF LIFE) ie. if it’s added rules to the sabbaths such as ceremonial, commandments,and precepts like the Pharisees then it is anathema but the disciples kept it and so did Ignatius and Polycarp (This is not a sabbath debate but to show you that easily things can get twisted over time to accomplish a theology goal nor does Ignatius expresses a Catholic Church as a denomination but if you look at the Greek it literally means a universal assembly (Ekklesia:church) also the word ‘Judaical’ is not in the text but translators who transliterated it says that Ignatius in context was trying to convey precepts according to how Jesus kept the sabbath and lived his life not this “Lords Day” the word ‘Day’ is not found in the Greek thus it is speculated that it was an forceful translation to support a dogmatic agenda also Letter To Trallians does not have Antisemitism either all was edited by you guess it Gnostics via Catholics Archbishop wake even confessed that he went through ‘great pains’ trying to find out the original texts for his testimony was that there were many spurious texts baring Ignatius name P.s Jesus kept the sabbath Luke 4:14,31 6:9 but not how Jews(Pharisees,Sadducee) kept it Luke 6:7 Mark 2:24

Sooo true

The Father is the root (unseen), the Son is the Tree (seen in the flesh), the holy spirit is the Fruit (truths given by God/Jesus), however, "These 3 are one" and should not be seen as separate "gods"

@cue_khb

3 жыл бұрын

So the Father is the Spirit and the Son is the expressed image of His person.

It's the fact that Jesus said, in Matthew 28, "All power has been given unto me in heaven and on earth." If Jesus was the Father then why would anything have to be given unto Him? Jesus did something that was rewarded with all power. What did the Father have to do to get that power that He then gave to Jesus? The Father didn't have to do ANYTHING to get that power because He is the Father and "the Father is greater than I", as Jesus said. The whole Jesus Only theology falls apart when you stop listening to unbelievers from the second and third centuries and you just read what was revealed in God's word. It doesn't matter what the disciples of Peter taught or believed. In a Thus saith the LORD economy, it doesn't matter what I think - all that matters is what God said.

Here's what I say to Jesus only people that completely destroys their theology. "Jesus prayed to the Father." If you think about that then you cannot be a Jesus Only person anymore.

That's because most Christian churches were non trinitarians in the 1st and 2nd centuries....not trinitarian junk

@bettesfragrancereviews1994

3 жыл бұрын

Precisely.

The bible doesn't say that the Son was the Son until He was born. When the bible says, "This day I have begotten thee", that indicates that He became the Son at a point in time. I agree that it was when Jesus was conceived because I don't see any evidence prior to that. God is Spirit. That's what Jesus said. Spirits don't have sons and daughters. That's a people thing and not a spirit thing. God impregnated Mary - a virgin - and Jesus (that second person of the Trinity) became flesh. It could be argued that the Father wasn't the Father until Jesus became the Son. I wasn't a father until my kid was born, so...

There's a problem with jamming the Spirit and the Son together because Jesus told His disciples that He would send the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit. Once again, we have to think that Jesus would send Himself - which is imaginable but is hardly a way that one would talk about himself. Wouldn't you say, "I will come to you and live in you"? Jn. 14:17 - Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. Also Acts 10:38 - How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. That verse contains all three of them. God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost. That's as strong as Jesus telling His disciples to baptize in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It's the godhead. You have to kill far too many brain cells to be a Jesus Only person.

@ralphowen3367

24 күн бұрын

How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out-- bible. God sometimes speaks of Himself in the 3 rd person singular "he". God is a relational Being within Himself, who holds council with Himself as in Gen. 21:8 and 1:26. I have come to believe that in Gen. 1:26, Lord is speaking with the light that was spoken into existence on the first day in 1:3. In Isaiah 48:16, The word is saying the Lord and His Spirit hath sent me. But 1 or 2 of the 3 are not aloof while the word gets sent. They are inseparable, and non distinct as trins try and make them distinct.

@GizmoFromPizmo

24 күн бұрын

@@ralphowen3367 - I think that characterization of separate but united is supported by the scriptures. As the husband is one with his wife so also the Godhead is one. Not the same person but the same deity so that a trinitarian can say without contradiction, "There is one God". Read the first chapter of Hebrews, where God is talking to His Son and says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever..." "Therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." That's just way too much for a person to be saying both TO himself and also ABOUT himself. Jesus Only folks do not have a well thought out theology.

I think you are reading too much into Ignatius. It seems to me that everything he said could be understood through Justin Martyr’s perspective.

One of the places this guy goes off the rails is when he pushes the doctrine that every reference to "God" in the ?New Testament is a reference to "the Father". This is why he thinks he's so clever by rearranging the word order in John 1. "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and God was the word", is okay except that literally teaches that God was with Himself in the beginning. Was that the doctrine John was going for? God was not alone in the beginning because He had Himself. I guess that's an okay theology but it doesn't really say anything about Jesus. If you read John 1 with an eye on Jesus then you understand that this Jesus was with the Father in the beginning. Was God in the beginning by Himself? No. Jesus was there. Now THAT's a revelation! You can play with word order all you want but the interpretation has way more meaning if you go with how the translators translated it. Otherwise it's just, "So what?" Besides, if you keep reading in John 1, it's clear he's talking about two persons. Saying that a person was together by himself is a non-sequitur. You can't be "with yourself". People don't talk like that. "I and my Father are one." That REQUIRES two persons. You cannot be "one with yourself". Real people don't talk like that. All signs point to (at least) two persons in the godhead.

My latest research into Ignatius and the apostolic fathers shows me that Ignatius was not a successor to the apostle John. On the contrary, his seven short letters reflect the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. This is serious stuff! You probably won't agree as you side with Bernard, but since I consider you a sincere person, I thought I would let you know. Sometimes knowing the truth is more important than siding with church leaders.

@JJLTX

4 жыл бұрын

approvedofGod who are trusted biblical early church fathers?

@boardbill5852

Ай бұрын

What exactly do you believe he has in common between the heresies of Nicolas the ex-deacon? I seriously doubt anything like this is the case. Ignatius was one of the very first bishops of one of the most ancient Christian churches, who was in good standing with many other ancient churches as well as their bishops. And is well respected by the Christians who come after him. While the short-lived doctrines of Nicolas are rejected by the Christians who follow.

@approvedofGod

Ай бұрын

@@boardbill5852 Your seriously doubting does not reveal facts. Study the writings of Ignatius. They have been "interpolated" and many of his letters are spurious or forged.

@boardbill5852

Ай бұрын

@@approvedofGod Forged letter just throws mud into the water. Doesn’t actually bring us to the conclusion that he followed the views of Nicolas and I see no actual reason to suppose he did. And I’m pretty sure the prominent Oneness theology Bernard accepts the letters of the middle recension.

@approvedofGod

Ай бұрын

@@boardbill5852 I can tell by your comments that you have not read Ignatius. I have a video just exclusively on what Ignatius taught in the seven letters that are accepted. They do not reveal Ignatius as apostolic material. His ideas are contrary to the New Testament.

Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of the heavens. There are so many texts that show the Angel of the LORD is YWHW Himself yet YWHW is also in heaven. There is so many things you have missed in your old Testament. Who led the people out of Egypt? God right? Jude 1:5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

@globalimpactministries766

7 жыл бұрын

God appeared through angelic agency in the Hebrew Scriptures. Only the omnipresent God can be both in heaven and on earth at the same time which perfectly explains Gen. 19:24. Jude 1:5 in Greek uses "kurios" and not "Iesous". Jesus not not appear in any Greek text.

@globalimpactministries766

4 жыл бұрын

@borrowed tomb Jesus Christ is God and has always been God before he also became a man.

For all true Christians, this site is hetesy.

You and the other textual critical scholors who claim to "KNOW" what Ignatius's thoughts behind his writings are ridiculous. To me his analogy of the building and christ and the holy spirit in no way point to modelism....follow the teaching of the catholic church and you won't have to continue in your mindless disputations about words,and meanings....follow Paul's teaching on the subject! Its in the new testament....but maybe your textual critical method won't alow you to hear truth...other than your own thoughts!

MODALISM...A TERRIBLE MAN MADE TEACHING. IF YOU DENY THE FATHER AND THE SON AS GOD YOU WILL PERISH FOREVER.

@a-sheepof-christ9027

7 ай бұрын

Modalism does not deny the Father and the Son as God. You are just borderline stupid. (yes, that word was used in scripture) Modalism teaches that the Father and Son are Modes of Being of the ONE TRUE GOD who in eternity in 1 John 1:5 AND Ignatius letter to the magnesians is declared as "undivided Spirit".