Your repeated improper attempts to attack the integrity or honesty of others is wrong.However it is limited in effect because you, so far, lack the integrity to call out the Bill Brown Blunder 16.
Your repeated improper attempts to attack the integrity or honesty of others is wrong.However it is limited in effect because you, so far, lack the integrity to call out the Bill Brown Blunder 16.
From pp. 33-34 in Maestroh's thesis:
And how about pg. 31?
I say, you don't fully comprehend (not just understand) the full scope and logical implications of the grammatical argument's that either Bill, or Eugenius', or Gregorios put forward.
You’d do well to simply abandon him altogether given you’ve already admitted we’ve got the very example you insisted didn’t exist in verse 8.
The guy whom you called a world class scholar simply didn’t know diddly.
So where exactly does the Apostle John VISIBLY explain what each one of Eugenius' "symbols" represents, VISIBLY in his Epistle? If it's not an IN-VISIBLE allegorical explanation that Eugenius promoted?
Jerome writing the Vulgate Prologue is extremely consequent.
17 pages of 53 pages of actual text are spent on the grammatical argument.
That's nearly 1/3 of the entire thesis INCLUDING the intro.
Summary of Thesis Contents:
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Evidently that paper is not the 53 page thesis from which another poster quoted. Is it that paper that you read instead of his thesis?The paper that Bill Brown has on Academia.edu on Cyprian is 14 pages.
Perhaps you should practice what you preach instead of wasting time trying to insult others.Try to actually respond in dialogue.
Avery just ditched Bulgaris, because he does not accept his grammatical argument.
Evidently that paper is not the 53 page thesis from which another poster quoted.
And the only reason we have this rabbit trail is because of the LACK of Greek, AND LATIN AND Syriac AND every other language manuscripts in th early period.
What part of the word THESIS is unclear to you? I thought you bought it and read it?The paper that Bill Brown has on Academia.edu on Cyprian is 14 pages.
Why do you use this fallacy in some of your claims if you know that it is wrong?Fallacy of composition.
This proves you've never read Maestroh's thesis.Likely not. His quote is in the 14 page paper.
The longer paper may include Cyprian and the grammatical section.
Thanks for pointing this out!
This is why evidences like Cyprian and Tertullian and Hundredfold Martyrs, the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome, "internal evidences" including the grammatical argument and the hundreds of bishops at Carthage in unity with the verse, and the various 4th century full verse usages like Isaac the Jew and Priscillian and others, and the Old Latin mss from the second century line, and the early allusions, are all so important.
They all point to the heavenly witnesses being used and read from the Bible before the extant language manuscripts.
This proves you've never read Maestroh's thesis.
Wrong. And why not tackle what's IN the excerpt, rather than this diversionary tactic?btw, it was quoted as p. 33-34, when it is p. 35-36.
So do you have a text line category for the Leon Palimpsest and the Frisengensis fragment?
NOTE: Hippolytus lays a competing claim that Noetus was also the first Modalist. Epiphanius says the Gospel of the Egyptians was the source of Sabellius one-ness which Steven claimed was influenced by the Comma, then disowns it when he realized he doesn't have a shred of evidence to prove it.
This is the exact point Daniel Wallace was trying to get across with "written of," not "written that..." (cf. Wikipedia, Johannine Comma, Footnote 54 [which I now discover 17/05/22 has now been conveniently edited out by, most probably, Steven Avery. I have screen shots of the old one anyway.]).
Daniel B. Wallace notes that although Cyprian uses 1 John to argue for the Trinity, he appeals to this as an allusion via the three witnesses—"written of"—rather than by quoting a proof-text—"written that".[56]