Modalistic Monarchianism
This form of monarchianism existed side-by-side Dynamic Monarchianism, but took a different route. This form of Monarchianism embraced a strict monotheism, and opposed the Subordination doctrine of the day, particularly the logos doctrine espoused by the Greek Apologists. It maintained that God is absolutely one in number, and not one in unity; He is one being, one person. The terms, "Father," "Son," and "Spirit" are three titles for the one God as He reveals Himself to mankind relationally and functionally. There is a three-fold mode of revelation of God, but not a tripersonality within His being.3
The Son is not eternal, but is the Father manifest in flesh for the purpose of redemption. The Holy Spirit is not another personality in the Godhead, nor is He an impersonal force, but is the Father as He works among men for the purpose of sanctification.
The major names attached with this teaching are Noetus, Praxeas, and Sabellius. The latter held to a form of Monarchianism which maintained that the divine monad projected Himself through expansion in successive modes.4 God was known as Father in creation, as Son in redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in bestowing grace on man. This form of Monarchianism became the prominent modalistic view, and thus the belief in Modalism became identified as Sabellianism.
Modalistic Monarchianism is sometimes referred to as Patripassianism, meaning that the Father suffered, because the Modalists said that the Son was the Father, and since the Son suffered on the cross, the Father suffered likewise.
The historic position of Modalism is very similar to the doctrinal position of modern Oneness theology.
Ianone
JoinedPosts by Ianone
-
79
The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1
by Hellrider inyup, i finally did it.
i solved the problem.
this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.
-
-
Ianone
-
79
The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1
by Hellrider inyup, i finally did it.
i solved the problem.
this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.
-
-
Ianone
People here are reading Polytheism into the Torah. Lets be careful and stick with what we know.
Elohim in the Septuagint: theos — the standard Greek word for god, "a transcendent being who exercises extraordinary control in human affairs or is responsible for bestowal of unusual benefits" (BDAG). It specifically refers to the monotheistic God of Israel. Meaning and Derivation: Elohim is translated as "God." The derivation of the name Elohim is debatable to most scholars. Some believe it derived from 'êl which, in turn, originates from the root word, 'wl (which means "strong"). Others think that Elohim is derived from another two roots: 'lh (which means "god") in conjunction with 'elôah (which means "fear"). And still others presume that both 'êl and Elohim come from 'eloah.
I would say that it is not 100% conclusive that the Masoretic text is using "Elohim" in a pluralistic form. As for the Septuagint, there is no indication of plurality for theos. Lets be careful here. -
44
"but we put Jehovah's name BACK in the bible!"
by crankytoe inhello, my bible study conductor has made this statement on several occasions.
is it true?
i've heard that the name was removed from the old testament, but that it doesn't appear in the new testament.
-
-
-
64
Christians - Can you Ever Lose your Salvation?
by gumby inbelow is a common view of a christians viewpoint of salvation.
see if you christians here agree, and answer how you feel about whether salvation can be lost.
section 7: salvation
-
-
Ianone
Universalism ends up defeating itself. Pretty soon it breaks down to nothing and all you are left with is a Relatavist void of nothingness.
-
64
Christians - Can you Ever Lose your Salvation?
by gumby inbelow is a common view of a christians viewpoint of salvation.
see if you christians here agree, and answer how you feel about whether salvation can be lost.
section 7: salvation
-
-
Ianone
Of course salvation can be lost. Free will is the greatest gift we have next to Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
-
79
The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1
by Hellrider inyup, i finally did it.
i solved the problem.
this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.
-
-
Ianone
For you ignoramuses who think you are so clever in that you believe you have discovered the Kabbalist tetragrammtron as being Biblical...ask yourself this. What does YHWH mean? Strange that no one seems to know what the bloody term means. Is God a God of confusion. Does God require SECRET knowledge (Gnosticism)?????? You need to be in tune, mystically and metaphysically to summon "god" by his secret, gnostic tetratrammatron name? Is God a freemason? Think long and hard when you ask yourselves these questions.
-
79
The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1
by Hellrider inyup, i finally did it.
i solved the problem.
this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.
-
-
Ianone
You are confusing the issue. There is no Biblical example of the "tetragrammatron" except in the Pharisees Masoretic translation , which came out many years after the Septuagint and Christ. THe God of the OT was called I AM. Throughout the Torah and Tanakh. YHWH was later added to the Tanakh in the Masoretic Hebrew text and this omited the real name, I AM. A clever trick by the elders of the Sanhedrin to replace the true God and place themselves on Moses seat. Chabad Lubavitch and the vipers den.
-
79
The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1
by Hellrider inyup, i finally did it.
i solved the problem.
this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.
-
-
Ianone
Narkissos would have us believe that the God of the Bible is the Master Mason who needs a secret encoded name by which his adept sages must summon him by. How dare we pion non-Masons dare try to summon god by anything other than the omnific Kabbalist secret encoded tegragrammatron. Wait a minute....YHWH isnt the God of the OT. It could be Satan whom you, the JWs, and Freemasons summon with the witchcraft and sorcery of numerology.
-
79
The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1
by Hellrider inyup, i finally did it.
i solved the problem.
this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.
-
-
Ianone
Hellrider, Poppycock is an expression like, bullocks. You have ignored addressing the scriptures where Jesus identifies Himself as the I AM, the OT God. I do not believe in the mystical tetragrammatron, YHWH, of the Kabbalah, of which the JWs get their JEHOVAH calculation. Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh ( I AM THAT I AM) was what God called Himself in the OT. It is not some mystical secret name, like the Kabbalists and Talmudists would have us believe. It is open to everyone and shows that God is self existent.
-
79
The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1
by Hellrider inyup, i finally did it.
i solved the problem.
this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.
-
-
Ianone
John 8:58 "Verily I say unto you, before Abraham was I AM." I don't believe in the OT God? Poppycock! Jesus is the God of the Old Testament whom Moses and the prophets spoke of.
Who did Moses write about? The OT God?
John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Is Jesus not the I AM who spoke to Abraham, Moses, and the Prophets?