Talk:Patripassianism

[Untitled]

Article merged: See old talk-page talk:Patripassionism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Patripassian

I am not sure who the person is who is responsible for putting a lot of lies in this Wiki subject. It is not only unfounded slander, it is an outright sin of bearing false witness. The hate and bigotry that is spewed is easily seen. If you are that person you should be ashamed. You will go to no lengths to post lies. When lies must be used to slander, they can never do trinitarianism a favor. This Wiki subject should not be a place to vent your hate.

This name was first used by Tertullian against the Monarchians (Modalist) when he became a trinitarian Montanist. The Monarchians believed the Father suffered as the Son. They base this belief upon the statement of Jesus that it was the Father in him that did the works he performed. This was added to the statement that the Father departed from the body of the Son upon the Cross, where-upon Jesus cried: "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me." The Father was in the Son up to this forsaking moment. Only a deceiver would claim the Father did not experience the sufferings of the Son during the time he was in the body of the Son.

The Monarchians did not claim the Father died. They did claimed the Father suffered with the son on the Cross until the moment Jesus cried "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me." The false allegations by trinitarians are not proven to be true. They are nothing but copy, cut, and paste hate rants of trinitarians against the Oneness people.

“Kallistos tried to find a compromise formula in this Christological confusion. Father, Son and Logos, he held, are all names of “one indivisble spirit.” Yet Son is also the proper designation of that which was visible, Jesus; while the Father was the spirit in Him. This presence of the Faher in Jesus is the Logos. Kallistos was positive that the Father did not suffer on the cross, but suffered with the sufferings of the Son, Jesus; yet the Father “after He had taken unto Himself our flesh, raised it to the nature of deity, by bringing it into union with Himself, and made it one, so that Fahter, and Son must be styled one God" (History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker, 1949; page75).

The accusation of Patripassian to mean the Father died when the Son died is false. Modalist have never said this. They have been accused of saying this by lying Catholic monks. Other trinitarians accepting the lies of the papacy spread the same hate.

Dr. Gary Reckart has explained what the Patripassians believed. It is time for trinitarians to allow the Oneness Monarchians to explain what they mean by "patripassian" and Dr. Reckart has done that. Has anyone proven the Father was not in the Son? Has anyone proven the Father forsook the body of the Son before he began his sufferings? Isn't it time for trinitarians to end the centuries long libel, hate, and bigotry against Modalist and confess with Pope Calixtus the Father did suffer in the body of the Son?

Proposed merger with Sabellianism

Although it has been awhile it has been suggested this article be merged with Sabellianism. Both articles have serious problems and I am researching these along with others. Please do not merge without discussion. Otr500 (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposed merge with Patripassionism

The articles Patripassianism and Patripassionism have the same subject with different spellings of the same name. Both need work but combined might make a better single article. There is ample justification for a bold merge, and I will if need be, but hopefully there is someone, or a consensus of editors with more experience to explore this. The most common referenced spelling is Patripassianism and unless there are reasons this would be a logical suggestion. Otr500 (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPoV

The article as it stands appears to pronounce on what does and what does not constitute heresy.

This is about as far from a neutral point of view as one can get! ___________________________

For crying out-loud: this is a note, this was not intended to be a part of any article. It was a note about the corruption of the Patripassian article by trinitatians and two-god Oneness. If this is to be censored, they why are comments of trintiarins claiming Oneness are heretics and guilty of heresy are not labeled as "not neutral?" You trinitarians who have the liberty to alter and change things because you are an editor, should not use this power to censor a "NOTE." Leave this as a note and delete all this NPoV write up. It should not be merged any where. Just leave it as a note and let people decide what they want to believe. Thanks.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.208.114 (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

72.76.2.53 (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Sabellianism is the Eastern name for the movement that is called Patripassianism in the West. (from "G. T. Stokes, “Sabellianism,” ed. William Smith and Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines)

Given that they are simply different names for the same thing, it would make sense to merge the two articles.

It appears that this has been suggested several times but there was no consensus. The Patripassianism is the weaker of the two and so should be merged into the article on Sabellianism (but both the articles need a fair amount of work which I am prepared to do).

Taxee (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. @Taxee: you cite an early 20th century definition – in Dictionary of Christianity(1996), one is in the "Modalism" and the other in "Monarchianism" entry. Historical Dictionary of Catholicism (2012) also shows a distinction. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support. @Adasegogisdi: Adasegogisdi (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC) Simplify two viewpoints.

• support why in the world are there two articles on this? Jytdog (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - distinguished in (many) reliable sources.[1][2] In any case, if there was a single article it should be located at modalism. StAnselm (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• support Given that Modalism has already been merged to Sabellianism, this other less popular title should also be merged. However, Modalism is the most general term, Sabellianism the most commonly taught incarnation of the term. --Baynham (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Patripassianism is a distinct form of Sabellianism that arose during the Theopaschite controversy in the 6th century.ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It is strange that the article says nothing of this... Taxee (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Diego Betancor. I just read Treaty 37 of Saint Agustine of Hippo on Saint John's Gospel (year 414) and cleary calls the heresy Patripassianism, also know as Sabellialism because of its founder.