Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by truejew
It is incorrect that oneness began in the 1900's. Even trinitarian scholars will say that it dates back to the 3rd century AD. The truth is that the apostles were oneness. The first bishop of the Roman Church to be trinitarian was Urban in 222AD.

It was dismissed as a heresy when Sabellius was booted out of the church in the Third Century, and apart from isolated examples over the centuries, it didn't emerge as an organized church until the early 1900s. It shares its "oneness" beliefs with a number of other modern religions, including Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Mormons and Unitarians, though they all have a different perspective on who the "one" is.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
It is incorrect that oneness began in the 1900's. Even trinitarian scholars will say that it dates back to the 3rd century AD. The truth is that the apostles were oneness. The first bishop of the Roman Church to be trinitarian was Urban in 222AD.

It was dismissed as a heresy when Sabellius was booted out of the church in the Third Century, and apart from isolated examples over the centuries, it didn't emerge as an organized church until the early 1900s. It shares its "oneness" beliefs with a number of other modern religions, including Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Mormons and Unitarians, though they all have a different perspective on who the "one" is.

edit on 7-5-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)

It was dismissed as a heresy only by the Catholic Church. The true Church was always oneness.

The other groups you mentioned are not oneness. Stop being dishonest.

Evidence that the early Church was oneness, not trinitarian...

Trinity says, "Jesus is not the Father"

Oneness says, "Jesus is the Father"


Ignatius wrote, "Jesus Christ, who was the Father before all ages, and appeared in the end to us" (Magnesians 6.1, Vossius's text).

reply to post by adjensen

It was dismissed as a heresy when Sabellius was booted out of the church in the Third Century, and apart from isolated examples over the centuries, it didn't emerge as an organized church until the early 1900s.

Sabellius' excommunication was more a political move than a theologically motivated one.
Though he was personally made an example of and effectively weakened as a leader of a movement that would question church authority, the belief itself flourished and the church made no concerted efforts to stamp it out.

reply to post by truejew

Ignatius wrote, "Jesus Christ, who was the Father before all ages . . .

Ignatius was not a real person but a character of a work of fiction formatted as if they were letters written by a supposed bishop on the road to martyrdom.
So, the point being, he was not an Apostle or a bishop or anyone who ever knew anyone like that, but someone's ideas of what a person like that might be like, so is not really authoritative concerning what the earliest Christian beliefs were but only reflecting the author's personal views, long after the fact.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by truejew

 

Ignatius wrote, "Jesus Christ, who was the Father before all ages . . .

Ignatius was not a real person but a character of a work of fiction formatted as if they were letters written by a supposed bishop on the road to martyrdom.
So, the point being, he was not an Apostle or a bishop or anyone who ever knew anyone like that, but someone's ideas of what a person like that might be like, so is not really authoritative concerning what the earliest Christian beliefs were but only reflecting the author's personal views, long after the fact.

I've never heard that. Do you have a source?

Originally posted by truejew
The other groups you mentioned are not oneness. Stop being dishonest.

Of course they are. They're not your definition of "oneness", but they're still saying the same thing (only, as I said, differing on who the "one" is,) and you don't own the word "oneness".

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
The other groups you mentioned are not oneness. Stop being dishonest.

Of course they are. They're not your definition of "oneness", but they're still saying the same thing (only, as I said, differing on who the "one" is,) and you don't own the word "oneness".

No, they are not. Again, stop being dishonest.

Originally posted by truejew
Ignatius wrote, "Jesus Christ, who was the Father before all ages, and appeared in the end to us" (Magnesians 6.1, Vossius's text).

I don't know whose translation that is, but three others I found have, not surprisingly, the word "with" in that sentence. Far be it for me to say that you're intentionally misrepresenting something, or that your translator had an agenda for dropping that word, but your quote is not valid.

the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time (Roberts-Donaldson translation)

the diaconate of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the worlds (Lightfoot translation)

the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the world began (Hoole translation)

All cited translations, as well as some other Ignatius resources (including speculation as to his fictional status) are found here.

reply to post by truejew

I've never heard that. Do you have a source?

That comes from different books that I read.
The most opinionated I think is
Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity by Birger A. Pearson
where he describes a competition between the Gnostics and what we consider orthodox Christianity, and they devised a way to give themselves authority by inventing this idea that there were bishopships handed down from the Apostles.
What they did was to create fake lists of past bishops that were in a line of succession from the Apostles, with Ignatius being one of them, and then the subject of some creative story telling.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by truejew

 

I've never heard that. Do you have a source?

That comes from different books that I read.
The most opinionated I think is
Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity by Birger A. Pearson
where he describes a competition between the Gnostics and what we consider orthodox Christianity, and they devised a way to give themselves authority by inventing this idea that there were bishopships handed down from the Apostles.
What they did was to create fake lists of past bishops that were in a line of succession from the Apostles, with Ignatius being one of them, and then the subject of some creative story telling.

Thanks. I may check it out

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
Ignatius wrote, "Jesus Christ, who was the Father before all ages, and appeared in the end to us" (Magnesians 6.1, Vossius's text).

I don't know whose translation that is, but three others I found have, not surprisingly, the word "with" in that sentence. Far be it for me to say that you're intentionally misrepresenting something, or that your translator had an agenda for dropping that word, but your quote is not valid.

the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time (Roberts-Donaldson translation)

the diaconate of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the worlds (Lightfoot translation)

the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the world began (Hoole translation)

All cited translations, as well as some other Ignatius resources (including speculation as to his fictional status) are found here.

The translator was Archbishop William Wake.

If Ignatius was a real bishop, he also taught that God suffered on the cross in Ephesians 7.

"There is One Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible -- even Jesus Christ our Lord."

Which is a doctrine that trinitarians teach against, but is a part of oneness theology.

reply to post by truejew


I see nothing wrong with that quote. Maybe folks who deny the deity of Christ do.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Trinitarians call him a trinitarian church father, but how can that be since he teaches a doctrine that is called heresy by trinitarians.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Trinitarians call him a trinitarian church father, but how can that be since he teaches a doctrine that is called heresy by trinitarians.

edit on 7-5-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)

What heresy? If you're talking about the quote above, I don't see anything wrong with it. I said I suppose people who deny the deity of Christ would find issue with it.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Trinitarians call him a trinitarian church father, but how can that be since he teaches a doctrine that is called heresy by trinitarians.

edit on 7-5-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)

What heresy? If you're talking about the quote above, I don't see anything wrong with it. I said I suppose people who deny the deity of Christ would find issue with it.

edit on 7-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Trinitarians teach that patripassianism is a heresy.

reply to post by truejew


Well it is. The Father didn't die on the cross, the Son did. Just as Abraham didn't try to sacrifice himself, but Issac.

But the quote above has nothing to do with that doctrine.

Originally posted by truejew
The translator was Archbishop William Wake.

You mean this guy? Yeah, I can see why he'd drop the word "with". Vet your sources in the future.

If Ignatius was a real bishop, he also taught that God suffered on the cross in Ephesians 7.

"There is One Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible -- even Jesus Christ our Lord."

What's wrong with that? Yes, God existed in the flesh, that's called the Incarnation. Yes, God the Son suffered and died on the Cross. No, God the Father did not suffer and die, and Ignatius doesn't say that he did.

reply to post by adjensen

What's wrong with that? Yes, God existed in the flesh, that's called the Incarnation. Yes, God the Son suffered and died on the Cross. No, God the Father did not suffer and die, and Ignatius doesn't say that he did.

I think the problem most have is the fact that nothing Jesus said ever equates himself with the Father... rather the opposite actually... Trinity believers put Jesus as equal to Father... In some cases like NuT... Jesus IS the Father in heaven... In other cases its the three equals one God theory... And recently i've heard the three leaf clover theory.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

What's wrong with that? Yes, God existed in the flesh, that's called the Incarnation. Yes, God the Son suffered and died on the Cross. No, God the Father did not suffer and die, and Ignatius doesn't say that he did.

I think the problem most have is the fact that nothing Jesus said ever equates himself with the Father... rather the opposite actually... Trinity believers put Jesus as equal to Father... In some cases like NuT... Jesus IS the Father in heaven...

Actually, that would be TrueJew's non-Trinitarian theory -- Jesus is his own father, all those conversations between the two notwithstanding.

Arianism put Jesus on a less-equal footing from the Father, that was dismissed as heresy in the Fourth Century.

The Eastern Orthodox broke with the Roman Catholic Church over what they saw as the impression of a hierarchy through the Filoque, though the Catholics say that's not what it means, and the Great Schism was as much a matter of politics as it was theology.