Thursday, December 26, 2013

Triquetra and Modalism

On the Tri-Circle (Triquetra)
This symbol is of Celtic origin. 

The triquetra is often found in Insular (Celtic) art, most notably metal work and in illuminated manuscripts like the Book of Kells. It is also found in similar artwork on Celtic crosses and slabs from the early Christian period. The fact that the triquetra rarely stood alone in medieval Celtic art has cast reasonable doubt on its use as a primary symbol of belief. In manuscripts it was used primarily as a space filler or ornament in much more complex compositions, and in knotwork panels it is a design motif integrated with other design elements. Celtic art lives on as both a living folk art tradition and through several revivals. This widely recognized knot has been used as a singular symbol for the past two centuries by Celtic Christians, and by Pagans and agnostics as a sign of special things and persons that are threefold.
Only since the 19th century has the triquetra found a place in Trinitarian theological symbols. However, it falls short of being a representation of the trinity. One should compare it to the three interlocking circles that does, in point of fact, represent the Trinity.
The triquetra is a circle that has been tri folded. 
When I teach about the omnipresence of God I say: God is a circle Whose center is everywhere and Whose circumference is nowhere.
Then, when I teach about the economy of deity, I tri-fold the circle to represent the Father, Word/Son, and Holy Spirit - notice that while the tips of the symbol are separate (demonstrating the distinction between the offices/manifestations/modes) they are all three the same circle; notice that at the center the Father, Word/Son, and Holy Spirit are all three the same individual. In this sense the One God arranges His deity into an economy to facilitate redemption. This configuration is not eternal. God has not always existed in the modes of Father, Word/Son, and Holy Spirit (these modes are necessary to redeem a fallen creation). Furthermore, when the restitution of all things is accomplished the economy of deity will unfold back into the Circle, Whose center is everywhere and Whose circumference is nowhere.
Trinitarians think the triquetra represents a Trinity; however, the triquetra does not adequately represent three separate and distinct persons - as does the three interlocking circles. This fact is an aid in their evangelization, however.  The triquetra brings the truth of the Godhead into sharp focus and is used by those Trinitarians who, in truth, are Modalist but are still using a Trinitarian vocabulary. As I pointed out above, it teaches Modalism much better than it teaches the Trinity.
It is correct that most today see the triquetra as a recent Trinitarian symbol; although it is very ancient in the Church. For example the triquetra was used by the Celtic christians in the early centuries of Christianity as a decorative Celtic knot. It is doubtful that the triquetra was used by the Celts to represent the Godhead because it is never seen standing alone. The Celts  may have used the term Trinity but were by-and-large Modalist. It must be pointed out that Sabellius, himself, used the word Trinity to describe his form of Modalism. The triquetra, however, has only been used to represent the Trinity for the last 200 years; which represents how the view of the Godhead is becoming more and more Modalistic among those who still consider themselves Trinitarians.. 
Some say it is a pagan symbol and should be rejected as having no Christian merit. Other persons would be just as adamant that the cross is evil because it was a symbol used in paganism before it became popular in Christianity. IMHO, a symbol can stand for anything one wants it to stand for. A symbol may represent different things to different groups: e.g. I may employ the rainbow as a covenant symbol, while the gays employ it as their symbol, and Jesse Jackson uses it in yet another way. There is nothing intrinsic in any particular symbol that makes it good or evil - it is the explanation that is put on it. A symbol only has valid meaning within the particular community that is using it.

That the Oneness think the triquetra represents a Trinity of persons only demonstrates how badly we need educated.

Apostolically Speaking
☩☩ Jerry L Hayes
(Mar David Ignatius)

Read other essays from the Bishop on the subject of the Godhead:

"The Dual Nature Of Jesus Of Nazareth"

"The Worlds, Made By The Son"

"Hebrews 13:8 vs 1 Corinthians 15:28"

"Glory With The Father"

"Philippians 2:6-8, Answering Trinitarian Objections"

"How Is God One?"

"Hebrew Monotheism"


"The Apostolic Creed"

"Jesus Is Father God"

"Homoousia And The Creed Of Nicaea"

"The Triquetra And Modalism"

"Modalism, Simultaneous Or Sequential?"

"Micah 5:2-4, An Exegesis"


"Elohim, the Plural form For God"

"Can the Deity of Jesus Be called The Son Of God?"

"Mathematical Equation For The Godhead"

"Hebrew Monotheism, Second Edition"

"Jesus, On God's Right Hand"

"The Name of the Deity" (The Tetragrammaton)

"Christology of the Apostolic Church Fathers"

"Christian Modalism challenged by the Greeks"

"The Apologists and the Logos Christology"

"Logos Christology"

"The Seven Spirits of God"

"Historical Numerical Superiority of the Monarchians"

"How Is God One?" Second Edition

"Creed of Nicæa (Creed of the 318) Affirmed"

"Another Comforter (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"Echad vs Yachid (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"The Godhead Teaching of Ignatius of Antioch"

"Hebrews 1:8, (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"Godhead Theology of the Tabernacle of Moses"

"Proper Biblical Understanding of the Word 'Person'"

"Defense of Isaiah 9:6, Answering Objections to Modalism"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2017/04/defense-of-isaiah-96.html

Defense of 1 Timothy 3:16 (Answering Objections to Modalism)


Godhead Theology is a study of Christian Godhead theology. ... Was He God or not? In Godhead Theology Bishop Jerry Hayes follows that debate through the first 300 years of the Church's history. Our book is in five sections: Section One ... demonstrates Modalistic Monarchianism as the original orthodoxy of the Chruch; Section Two introduces the Apostolic Creed ... ; Section Three is an affirmation of Modalistic Monarchianism; Section Four is Modalism's responses to objection from the pluralists Trinitarians, Binitarians, Arians and Semi-Arians. Included are two comprehensive indexes: Subject Index and Scripture Index. 613 pages.

Own this classic book today by ordering from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-4





 THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY
PURCHASING OUR BOOKS OF YOUR LIBRARY



Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:


Posted by at 3 comments:

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Clerical Dress

On Clerical Collar: by Bishop Jerry L Hayes (Mar David Ignatius)
The origin of the clerical collar does not stem from the attire of Roman priests. Its genesis is of Protestant origin.
Bishop Jerry Hayes
In the time of the Reformation, many of the Reformed wanted to distance themselves from what was perceived as Roman clerical attire. ... What they began to do, beginning in the 17th century as far as I can tell, is to begin to wear a neck scarf, called a cravat, tied around the neck to resemble a yoke. Thus common dignified attire was worn by the pastor, supplementing it with this clerical cravat. This style can be seen in many of our famous Reformed divines, one of the more famous of whom being Charles Hodge.

Another objection that might be raised is whether or not this neck band or cravat, such as we see Charles Hodge wearing, was in any way distinctive clerical garb. Several 19th century sources reveal that these cravats were, in fact, considered distinctive clerical garb. The following quote is from a 19th century source called The Domestic Annals of Scotland, Volume 3:

Charles Hodge

In the austerity of feeling which reigned through the Presbyterian Church on its reestablishment there had been but little disposition to assume a clerical uniform or any peculiar pulpit vestments. It is reported that when the noble commissioner of one of the first General Assemblies was found fault with by the brethren for wearing a scarlet cloak he told them he thought it as indecent for them to appear in gray cloaks and cravats. When Mr. Calamy visited Scotland in 1709 he was surprised to find the clergy generally preaching in neckcloths and coloured cloaks. We find at the date here marginally noted that the synod of Dumfries was anxious to see a reform in these respects. The synod – so runs their record – “considering that it’s a thing very decent and suitable so it hath been the practice of ministers in this kirk formerly to wear black gowns in the pulpit and for ordinary to make use of bands do therefore by their act recommend it to all their brethren within their bounds to keep up that custome and to study gravitie in their apparel and every manner of way.”

Here we see several members of the 18th c. Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) having their hackles raised over some ostentatious clergymen wearing scarlet cloaks and cravats. Later they hold a Synod where they decide that they ought to wear black gowns and to make use of neck bands. This paragraph shows us two things: the wearing of cravats was considered to be distinctive clerical garb, and the synod of the kirk decided ultimately that modest use of neckbands was permitted. (There are many more such examples in 19th century sources which can easily be researched on Google Books. I invite the reader to see for himself.) Thus when we see all manner of 17th-19th century Reformed pastors sporting preaching tabs, neck bands, and cravats, we should interpret them to be intentionally sporting distinctive clerical garb. We should also gather that the author of these annals, one Robert Chambers, included this anecdote in his work in order to promote the modest use of bands and clerical garb in his day.

The last bit of history to cover regards the origin of the modern clerical collar. According to several sources, including one cited by the Banner of Truth website (no Romanizing group), the modern clerical collar was invented by a Presbyterian. In the mid 19th century heavily starched detachable collars were in great fashion. This can been seen up through the early part of the 20th century if one has watched any period television shows or movies. If we observe the collar worn by Charles Hodge we can see that at first these collars were not folded down as they are today, but left straight up.

Yet in the mid to late 19th century it became the fashion of the day to turn these collars down. You and I still wear a turned down collar. The origin of the modern clerical collar is simply then to turn or fold the collar down over the clerical cravat, leaving the white cloth exposed in the middle. According to the Glasgow Herald of December 6,1894, the folded down detachable clerical collar was invented by the Rev Dr Donald McLeod, a Presbyterian minister in the Church of Scotland. According to the book Clerical Dress and Insignia of the Roman Catholic Church, “the collar was nothing else than the shirt collar turned down over the cleric’s everyday common dress in compliance with a fashion that began toward the end of the sixteenth century. For when the laity began to turn down their collars, the clergy also took up the mode.”

Yet two questions arise: how did the clerical collar then fall out of use among Presbyterians and how did it come to be so associated with Roman Catholic priests? The answer is that up until the mid 20th century the prescribed dress for all Roman Catholic priests was the cassock, a full length clerical gown. Yet during the 20th century it became custom for Roman Catholic priests to wear a black suit with a black shirt and clerical collar, which collar they appropriated from Protestant use. Owing to the large number of Roman Catholic priests in some areas, and due to the fact that some sort of everyday clerical dress was mandated for all priests at all times when outside their living quarters, the clerical collar became to be associated more with the Roman Catholic Church than with the Protestant churches. It stands to reason that once again a desire to create distance between the Reformed and Roman Catholics and the increasing desire throughout the 20th century for ministers to dress in more informal ways has led to the fact that barely any Reformed pastor wears any distinctive clerical dress these days, though plenty of examples show that our eminent forbearers desired to do so.

It is an important part of a Christian minister's uniform. I can tell by the way many ask that they do not approve. Why is that. If they are of the opinion that it is Roman Catholic, they would be mistaken. In our day when Christianity is so put down, I find it a witness for Christ. When I am about town, so to speak, no one mistakes me for a used car salesman. In fact my appearance announces to all who see me that the Kingdom of God is open for business. According to Apostolic Orthodox custom I am expected to wear clergy apparel whenever outside my home. I do not always do that, however.

Although I do not have to defend my actions concerning clerical dress, the collar especially, I will say this: Clerical dress is not RCC. But, in the name of brotherly love I am happy to help educate the uneducated. Clerical dress is customary with the PAW (Pentecostal Assemblies of the World). Much of my Pentecostal life has been spent in and with that group. I adopted my dress from them. Those who associate the collar with the RCC are un-knowledgeable. Trust me, you are the only ones offended. It is respected by the world we are trying to reach with the gospel.

Here is a prediction: Just as we are beginning to see the term "Bishop" used among the Oneness Pentecostals where we never did before (except in the PAW), clergy garments such as the collar will be seen more and more over the next few decades.

As the Christian faith becomes more disliked and the more society attempts to push us into the shadows the more our ministers will force our visibility by their apparel. it is an "In Your Face" kind of evangelistic move.

Clergy apparel is a personal decision I made which I felt would be pleasing to God.  Today many (most) churches (not OP) are leaving the business suit. In time, say 100 years or so, the Op will still be wearing the black business suit to preach in and it will be just as much clergy apparel as the collar is today -- IMHO.


The prophet Elijah wore specific attire that made him recognizable by all who saw him, and the prophet John the Baptist dressed in the same exact way. Historians report that James the half brother of Christ and the Apostle John (if you accept the John of Ephesus as being the apostle) wore priests garments. And Jesus, Jesus did indeed wear the garments of a religious teacher. And, O, there is this: The NT church is the "Tabernacle of David" rebuild -- according to James. It was in the establishing of the OT tabernacle of David that religious garments were assigned to everyone who served in the house of God. So this is very biblical. Christianity is not something else apart from Judaism, it is Judaism in full bloom.

Sources
The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd Edition, 2003
The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 1996
The Presbyterian Encyclopedia, Alfred Nevin, 1880
The clerical collar has been present in the apostolic movement from the very first as this picture of Bishop David T. Schultz bears witness:



Bishop David T. Schultz 
(Pentecostal Assemblies of the World)
(1889 - 1972)



Read other essays from the Bishop on the Christian's physical appearance:
The Christian Woman's Outward Adorning

Meaning of the Word, “Katastolē” 
(As it pertains to a woman’s attire) ⏤ 1 Timothy 2:9

Biblical Liturgical Dress Requirement For Men and Women





Posted by at 1 comment:

Sunday, November 3, 2013

Is It Peace, or Is It War?




By Mar David Ignatius, Abbot General of the Disciples of the Way (Apostolic)

Many of us were raised on the King James Version of the Bible. As a consequence our biblical memory work was done from that source. I still revere the KJV above all other translation, by and large. There are, however, places where the KJV has not given us the best understanding of the God breathed Scripture. One of those places is Luke 2:14.

We have quoted this passages most every Christmas season and asked ourselves, and our spiritual leaders, “Where is the ‘Peace on Earth’ promised that wondrous night?
Read the different translations of Luke 2:14 in the box below. View the Greek text and the literal translation; you will see that most of us have misunderstood the Angel’s message; perhaps because of pervasiveness of the King James Bible.

page1image8248
(Luke 2:14).
The angel announced "“Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!” (NKJV)

“Glory to God in the highest, And on earth, peace among men with whom He is pleased.” (NASB)

“Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”(NIV)

“Glory to God in the highest Heaven! Peace upon earth among men of goodwill!” (J B Phillips New Testament)

Greek Text:
doxa en upsistois theo kai epi ges eirene en anathropois udokias.
Lit. Glory in the highest to God, and on earth, peace among men of good will.

I have been lightly scolded by well meaning persons concerning my stated position on Islam. I have been told how I was manifesting a contradiction between my salutation of "Peace" and the spirit of antagonism which I display, on a regular bases, toward the Islamic religion.
My first response to that charge is: I am a man full of contradictions at times.
Then I would say: The angel's announcement of "Peace on earth" was not, as most suppose, to all men, but only to those who are men of goodwill toward their follow man. Then I would observe that Islam is a religion of hate and malace toward all; even itself. It is a world religion
that continues to sanction human slavery. A religion, that, once it has subdued all present opposition, turns on its own - even to the point of mutilating the bodies of its women and the enslaving of one half of its population (the females).

The world must understand there is no peace to be had with a religion that has as its goal to "break every cross" (and force, by the sword, the submission of all Christians to the Qur'an), until that religion surrenders its world view - which it cannot do as long as the Qur'an remains its standard for life.

This Christmas season, just as every other Christmas season before it - in recent decades, bombs will be tossed into churches all over the world and the mangled bodies of Christian men, women, and yes - their children, will once again give testimony to the world that Islam does not have "Goodwill toward its fellow man" if that fellow man is non-Muslim. Therefore the House of Islam is not promised "Peace” by the angles; nor can it receive the Christian blessing of "Peace to your house."

 Let us not get it twisted. Concerning the "peace" of the Christian, Jesus taught: "And when you go into a household, greet it. 13 If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!" Mt 10 12-13)

Trust me. I can love the sinner and hate the sin. I do love the Muslim, but hate (with a holy hatred) Islam as a culture and religion. When, I say “Peace," I mean the peace of Christ; not the peace of Islam that is conditional on submission to the Qur'an.

So, Peace to You, if you will receive the Peace of Christ: Christian, Muslim, or Pagan; but, War to the House of Islam. 


Read another essay from the Bishop on Islam:
"Can Christianity and Islam Co-Exist?
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/05/can-christianity-and-islam-co-exist.html





Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Homoousia and the Creed of Nicaea


Homoousia and the Creed of Nicaea
(homoousion to parti)


Many think that by the time of the Council of Nicaea the Monarchian doctrine had all but vanished. What we are about to see will show that thought is far from the truth.
The Arian controversy had reached a fervor, something had to be done, or, it seemed all would be lost. The council was called to forge a document that all the bishops could sign stating an orthodoxy for the Church. Two things were apparent, the orthodox meant to forge a document that would deliver the death blow once and for all to the Arians (followers of Arius). And secondly, the Arian bishops fully intended to remain in fellowship, although they had neither the numbers nor the influence to force an Arian document, they meant to force a creed that was ambiguous enough that they, too, could sign.
According to J. N. D. Kelly, “... it is in the fourth characteristic phrase of the creed, the words “of one substance with the Father, homousion to patri, that the full weight of the Orthodox reply to Arianism was concentrated.” This word “homoousios” asserted the full deity of the Christ. This word implied that the Son shared the very being or essence of the Father. It was a strong word, to be sure; a word with which most were uncomfortable, but by it’s use “subordinationism” was defeated. The word “homoousios” caused most of the bishops concern because it had been, for generations, the watchword of the Modalist Monarchians. That this word was identified as Monarchian is seen from the account of the two Dionysii, a full sixty years before Nicaea. J. N. D. Kelly gives us the account:
“...current interpretation of “homoousios” was provided by the affair of the two Dionysii in the sixties of the third century. Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria, it will be recalled, had been put to much trouble by an outbreak of Sabellianism (Modalist Monarchianism) in the Libyan Pentapolis. When he took forceful measures to eradicate it, the leaders of the ... group made formal complaint to the Roman pontiff, alleging among other things that the bishop of Alexandria declined to say that the Son was “homoousios with God.” There is little doubt that the Sabellians stood for that ancient and, in popular circles, at any rate, widely established brand of Monarchianism which regarded Jesus Christ as the earthly manifestation of the divine Being. To them the Origenist approach, with its distinction of the three hypostases and its tendency to subordinate the Son, was anathema. When they appealed to “homoousios” as their watchword, they meant by it that the being or substance of the Son was identical with that of the Father. The way in which they invoked “homoousios” in their complaint to the Pope is thus highly significant. It suggests, first, that it was already becoming in certain circles a technical term to describe the relation of the Father and the Son, and, secondly, that they expected it would be recognized and approved at Rome.” 
Kelly goes on to say that Pope Dionysius writes to condemn the views reported to him, and that his reply took a markedly Monarchian line.
Along with this event of the two Dionysii, there is Paul of Samosata. In AD 268 Paul of Samosata was condemned by the synod at Antioch on the strength of this very word. Paul invoked ‘homoousios” as his explanation of the oneness of the Father and the Son. For this very word he was condemned. Now, the word that is so identifiable with Monarchianism is being employed in the creed to protect orthodoxy from Arianism.
According to J. N. D. Kelly only a “handful” of the bishops wholeheartedly welcomed the language of the creed (mostly because it was a non-biblical word). These consisted of St. Alexander of Alexandria, St. Eustathius of Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra, Osias of Cordova and a few others. These bishops welcomed the language of the creed because of the identity of substance between the Father and Son which it entailed. It is more than meaningful to me that these bishops mentioned were, themselves, Monarchians. This is a great testimony to the Monarchian influence upon the Creed of Nicaea.
The Monarchian stamp is visible in at least two places in the Creed of Nicaea: (1)  first, in the body of the creed itself, in the word “homoousios,” of the same being or essence; secondly, in the anathema at the end of the creed which states,
“But for those who ...assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or is subject to alteration or change — these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.”
By both of these “characteristic phrases” of the Creed of Nicaea the modern Trinitarian would be placed outside of orthodoxy. Since the Second Council of Constantinople (A. D. 553) (2), the catholic church has taken the position that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are, in point of fact, three different hypostases. If modern Trinintatianism is considered, the Creed of Nicaea is more a statement of Monarchianism than Trinitarianism.




1. The Creed of Nicaea Versus the Nicene Creed
In A. D. 325 there was a true ecumenical council conducted in Nicaea, Asia Minor, with 318 bishops present, both Western and Eastern. The Creed of this Council was revised in the year 381 at Constantinople. This Council of A. D. 381, with 150 Bishops, none of which were from the West, produced a Creed that was quite different from the one formulated in Nicaea, just 56 years earlier. Although the Constantinopolitan Creed was (for all intents and purposes) a different document from the Creed of Nicaea, it was injected into the life stream of the Church as The Nicene Creed. This Creed of 150 Eastern bishops (falsely called The Nicene Creed) was, first of all, not ecumenical, because it excluded the Western bishops; and second, it was not Nicene, because it introduced dogma alien to that of Nicaea:
  • eternally begotten Son 
  • places Mary as an equal partner in the incarnation; 
  • places Jesus in an actual right hand position to God the Father; 
  • has the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father (later "and from the Son" was added, just when is in dispute: at first it was said to be at the First Council of Toledo in 400, but that is based of a forged canon; then it was commonly stated that it was added at the Third Council of Toledo, in 589; but what can be said in truth is that the first documented appearance in the Nicene Creed of the statement "from the Father and the Son" comes in the Twelfth Council of Toledo, 681.)
  • places the Holy Spirit in an equal position of worship with the Father and the Son; 

2.  Nicene Anathema Versus Constantinople Anathema 
At the end of the the Creed of Nicaea (in the year A. D. 325) 318 bishops placed the following anathema, to protect the teaching that Jesus was the same hypostasis (substance, essence, being) as the Father: “Whoso assert that he, the Son of God, is a different hypostasis or ousia, ... Or, changeable or mutable, the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.”  History states that many of the bishops present at Nicaea in A. D. 325 were not happy with the wording concerning the oneness of Christ with the Father. However, the Modalist element was strong enough to retain the concept of one hypostasis for the next 228 years, then enter the Second Council of Constantinople, the year was A. D. 553: “If anyone does not confess that the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three ... hypostases, or persons, let him be anathema.”  In the light of the fact that the Council of Nicaea in 325 anathematizes those bishops of The Second Council of Constantinople (A. D. 553), and the bishops of the Second Council of Constantinople anathematizes those of the Council of Nicaea (A. D. 325), one cannot, in confidence, blindly accept the councils as being from God. (In 228 years this “Catholic” church totally reversed its position on the person of Christ; and anathemas were being flung across the centuries.) 
Apostolically Speaking
☩☩ Jerry L Hayes
(Mar David Ignatius)

Read other essays from the Bishop on the subject of the Godhead:

"The Dual Nature Of Jesus Of Nazareth"

"The Worlds, Made By The Son"

"Hebrews 13:8 vs 1 Corinthians 15:28"

"Glory With The Father"

"Philippians 2:6-8, Answering Trinitarian Objections"

"How Is God One?"

"Hebrew Monotheism"


"The Apostolic Creed"

"Jesus Is Father God"

"The Triquetra And Modalism"

"Modalism, Simultaneous Or Sequential?"

"Micah 5:2-4, An Exegesis"


"Elohim, the Plural form For God"

"Can the Deity of Jesus Be called The Son Of God?"

"Mathematical Equation For The Godhead"

"Hebrew Monotheism, Second Edition"

"Jesus, On God's Right Hand"

"The Name of the Deity" (The Tetragrammaton)

"Christology of the Apostolic Church Fathers"

"Christian Modalism challenged by the Greeks"

"The Apologists and the Logos Christology"

"Logos Christology"

"The Seven Spirits of God"

"Historical Numerical Superiority of the Monarchians"

"How Is God One?" Second Edition

"Creed of Nicæa (Creed of the 318) Affirmed"

"Another Comforter (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"Echad vs Yachid (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"The Godhead Teaching of Ignatius of Antioch"

"Hebrews 1:8, (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"Godhead Theology of the Tabernacle of Moses"

"Proper Biblical Understanding of the Word 'Person'"

"Defense of Isaiah 9:6, Answering Objections to Modalism"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2017/04/defense-of-isaiah-96.html

Defense of 1 Timothy 3:16 (Answering Objections to Modalism)


Godhead Theology is a study of Christian Godhead theology. ... Was He God or not? In Godhead Theology Bishop Jerry Hayes follows that debate through the first 300 years of the Church's history. Our book is in five sections: Section One ... demonstrates Modalistic Monarchianism as the original orthodoxy of the Chruch; Section Two introduces the Apostolic Creed ... ; Section Three is an affirmation of Modalistic Monarchianism; Section Four is Modalism's responses to objection from the pluralists Trinitarians, Binitarians, Arians and Semi-Arians. Included are two comprehensive indexes: Subject Index and Scripture Index. 613 pages.

Own this classic book today by ordering from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-4





 THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY
PURCHASING OUR BOOKS OF YOUR LIBRARY



Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:



Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)