Does Oneness theology (Modalism) teach a "sock puppet" view of God's nature?

[just_truth]

I asked a friend of mine with a better knowledge of church history about your claims.

He said:

There have been bishops that held to problematic views historically. But his claim seems off, not only is he referring to a time prior to much trinitarian debate in the first place; but he’s referring explicitly to a view that is seemingly of much later development.

And to clarify, just because an author references “the monarchal role of the Father” does not mean they supported the onness view. That sort of analogy was frequently used to draw explanation for the role of the Father in comparison to the Son and the Spirit.

Origen would be the best example of this early on.

He certainly was not a modalist.

And his reference to Pope Callixtus as one is blatantly false.

Here’s why

Early scholarship often referred to modalism as “Sabellianism” in reference to the first theologian to bring the view to prominence: Sabellius

Early 3rd century

He was excommunicated by the Church of Rome during the papacy of Callixtus I

For his views on the Trinity

Tertullian also made an enemy of the papacy late in life for his support of Montanism

So is the reference authentic idk

But based on what I’m looming at it seems it wouldn’t really mean much.

At any rate, I have no confidence in Oneness Pentecostal scholars having any coherent understanding of church history. This is one of the areas that cultists fail miserably at, and that's why they believe the nonsense they believe.

As you can see there were no true Trinitarians or so-called orthodox Trinity during the time before the Council of Constantinople, but Oneness theologically already stand during that time.

 

[jaybird88]

As you can see there were no true Trinitarians or so-called orthodox Trinity during the time before the Council of Constantinople, but Oneness theologically already stand during that time.

i agree that there were few trins in the early days. it did however become a more mainstream belief later on, later on you either believed it or they burned you alive. thats one way to get a doctrine pushed through.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

It really matters that the majority of Believers were Oneness during that time of persecution of the Church because the Holy Spirit is near to them guiding and comforting in times of their distress.

I should have said it wouldn't make any difference to me whether the majority of PROFESSING believers were Oneness or not.

I don't believe anti-Trinitarians are real believers.

And, majority does not rule correct doctrine. Scripture does.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

As you can see there were no true Trinitarians or so-called orthodox Trinity during the time before the Council of Constantinople, but Oneness theologically already stand during that time.

Keep sipping the Oneness Kool-Aid.

Posting videos by Oneness guys with distorted facts proves nothing.

I could post a bazillion Armstrongite videos (the cult I came from) and it wouldn't make the theology true.

 

[just_truth]

Keep sipping the Oneness Kool-Aid.

Posting videos by Oneness guys with distorted facts proves nothing.

I could post a bazillion Armstrongite videos (the cult I came from) and it wouldn't make the theology true.

Prove to me that those presented references by Oneness are distorted facts?
Be professional enough.

 

[Angela53510]

By the way, for other folks, I will note to you that just_truth has been sending me private messages urging responses to his questions.

Just_truth did the same thing to me. PMed me to tell me to read his posts, always wanting to try and prove he is right and the rest of historical Christianity is wrong.

I had already discussed the pertinent verses as to why he is wrong.

Simple answer-block him! Now, I am not being annoyed by a cultist. Nor more stress!

 

[biker]

You deny that he was a distinct Person along with the Father before the creation, as John 1:1-3 clearly teaches. The word "with" in these verses indicates a face-to-face relationship.

Have you ever actually broken the ancient Greek Down which John wrote in?

Here is the actual Greek for John 1:1 in its oldest known text and with the English translation:

Original
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Translation
At the beginning was the word, and the word was to God, and God was the word.

There is NO MENTION of the word "with."
The word "with" is a KJV add on!

 

[just_truth]

Have you ever actually broken the ancient Greek Down which John wrote in?

Here is the actual Greek for John 1:1 in its oldest known text and with the English translation:

Original
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Translation
At the beginning was the word, and the word was to God, and God was the word.

There is NO MENTION of the word "with."
The word "with" is a KJV add on!

Brother thanks for that information.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Have you ever actually broken the ancient Greek Down which John wrote in?

Here is the actual Greek for John 1:1 in its oldest known text and with the English translation:

Original
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Translation
At the beginning was the word, and the word was to God, and God was the word.

There is NO MENTION of the word "with."
The word "with" is a KJV add on!

With is the translation of the word πρὸς

πρὸς
πρός, a preposition, equivalent to the epic προτί, from πρό and the adverbial suffix τί (cf. the German vor... bin (Curtius, § 381)); it is joined
I. with the accusative, to, toward, Latin ad, denoting direction toward a thing, or position and state looking toward a thing (Winer's Grammar, § 49 h., p. 404 (378)); it is used

You guys are apparently deceived deceivers who are intentionally trying to mislead people.

Additionally, I would ask your credentials regarding Greek. I doubt there are many Oneness people that have much more than a Strong's concordance level of understanding of Greek.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/1/1/t_conc_998001


Now stop telling your lies in an attempt to confuse others.

You are dismissed.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Brother thanks for that information.

Note that this Oneness person affirmed the error of the other...therefore they are intentionally trying to deceive others.

They are not worthy of consideration and are openly displaying their ignorance. Actually I think it goes more than ignorance and is an intentional attempt to deceive.

And I can pretty well guarantee that neither of them have formal training in Greek of any significant nature or they wouldn't be Oneness Pentecostals.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Just_truth did the same thing to me. PMed me to tell me to read his posts, always wanting to try and prove he is right and the rest of historical Christianity is wrong.

I had already discussed the pertinent verses as to why he is wrong.

Simple answer-block him! Now, I am not being annoyed by a cultist. Nor more stress!

Angela, you have formal training in Greek.

I am wondering if you would care to break down the claim made here by biker:

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...ew-of-gods-nature.189684/page-16#post-4291277

It is laughable

Never mind that no Greek scholars outside of a cultist would make such a claim and present that sort of translation. I don't even think secular Greek scholars would agree with him

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Prove to me that those presented references by Oneness are distorted facts?
Be professional enough.

No, I'm not wasting my time viewing the videos of cultists. And that is exactly what Oneness Pentecostalism is.

If you want to summarize their arguments in text, I will ask a church history friend to look at them. He may have quick responses. He has already dismissed some of your claims.

I'm not going to spend hours researching cultic claims. I already know from personal experience that cults create a tangled web of deceit to support their false teachings, and part of that involves developing a distorted view of church history.

 

[just_truth]

No, I'm not wasting my time viewing the videos of cultists. And that is exactly what Oneness Pentecostalism is.

If you want to summarize their arguments in text, I will ask a church history friend to look at them. He may have quick responses. He has already dismissed some of your claims.

I'm not going to spend hours researching cultic claims. I already know from personal experience that cults create a tangled web of deceit to support their false teachings, and part of that involves developing a distorted view of church history.

"But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame." -1 Peter 3:15-16

 

[garee]

The Father and Son send the Holy Spirit. This is interpersonal activity. The Holy Spirit intercedes for the believer with the Father.

Intercession is an interpersonal activity requiring three parties.

By the way I already mentioned this.

Regarding the Incarnation that is not an adequate reason.

It seems as if you want to say that the Incarnation explained the interpersonal activity between the Father and the Son without acknowledging distinct personhood of the Father and the Son. It doesn't account for it.

Like I said, I shouldn't be surprised if Oneness Pentecostals think Jesus babbled to himself, since they practice the same activity.

Is oneness Pentecostals the same as oneness Christianity?

Two witnesses working together in perfect harmony and submission as one work of faith ? The law and the prophets. Moses and Elias. He sends us out two by two . . . with his two witnesses the one gospel . Two represents the church. Three represents the end of a matter.

 

[biker]

With is the translation of the word πρὸς

πρὸς
πρός, a preposition, equivalent to the epic προτί, from πρό and the adverbial suffix τί (cf. the German vor... bin (Curtius, § 381)); it is joined
I. with the accusative, to, toward, Latin ad, denoting direction toward a thing, or position and state looking toward a thing (Winer's Grammar, § 49 h., p. 404 (378)); it is used

You guys are apparently deceived deceivers who are intentionally trying to mislead people.

Additionally, I would ask your credentials regarding Greek. I doubt there are many Oneness people that have much more than a Strong's concordance level of understanding of Greek.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/1/1/t_conc_998001


Now stop telling your lies in an attempt to confuse others.

You are dismissed.

Dismissed by a LINEAR, which is a PERSONAL translation, NOT THE REAL and LITERAL translation!


hahahahahaha

Seriously!

You are going with a LINEAR translation hahahahaha

That's like me saying widjbciqerif4wbhfvhehverfqrir means the Moon is pink because I interpreted it to be so hahahahahaha

Dismissed is correct!

You should quit right now!

 

[biker]

Angela, you have formal training in Greek.

I am wondering if you would care to break down the claim made here by biker:

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...ew-of-gods-nature.189684/page-16#post-4291277

It is laughable

Never mind that no Greek scholars outside of a cultist would make such a claim and present that sort of translation. I don't even think secular Greek scholars would agree with him

Why laughable?

This is the actual legit Greek I am using!

I am not using a LINEAR which is someone's own version of it.

Original
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Translation
At the beginning was the word, and the word was to god, and God was the word.

 

[just_truth]

I could post a bazillion Armstrongite videos (the cult I came from) and it wouldn't make the theology true.

It seems that the WCG Armsrongite has something similar in their view of the Godhead with the Trinitarians.
Armstrongite believes that God is Elohim to equate that God is family, while the Trinitarians believe that God is consists of three persons within Elohim.

 

[biker]

The way some, not all, but some trinitarians refuse Mark 12, John 4, and John 14:10, which is the FATHER speaking in all of them, you would think there is an occult within the trinity.

How you can flat out deny the words from GOD HIMSELF over a CREED has to be pure Blasphemy!

 

[biker]

^ At that point, you are saying to GOD, yeah I can read where you confirm your claim and verification that YOU GOD are one person. But this CREED made by man claims you are 3 persons. And I think the Creation is smarter than the CREATOR so I refuse what YOU CLAIM that is specified in the Bible, YOU know, YOUR Holy Word!

 

[biker]

We are under the Grace Dispensation. But does calling God a LIAR fall under Grace come Judgement Day?