Steven Avery
Well-known member
Four links to the anti-Avery attack threads and forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
heavenly witnesses - full use in extant writings before Priscillian - Isaac the Jew
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
And one link to the anti-everyone-but-Avery attack threads forum.
And why do you feel the need to point out exactly WHERE the links will take the viewer?
Unlike you, some people are actually interested in the research provided. We know you're just embarrassed by those threads.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
A very common error.
Another point is that the non-comma version of 1 John 5:8 is primarily referring to the witnessing of the witnesses (cf. Wallace) and not to the elements and which is why it is in the masculine. In this context, 1 John 5:8 uses the preposition εἰς: καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (and the three are in agreement).
Whereas the Comma version of 1 John 5:7 is also referring to "heavenly witnessing" (whatever a heavenly witness is supposed to entail - something gnostic perhaps as if affording divine powers to the church hierarchy to interpret - one could see why a supremacist church would want a doctrine like this). In contrast, it doesn't use the preposition εἰς: καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. Instead it is aiming for a Sabellian/Trinitarian gloss, which the RC will make use of to assert its Trinitarian supremacy over all others.
So there is now an anachronism: the author is seeking to exploit quasi-parallelism between 5:8 & 5:7 as a legitimizer, but in reality to say something different, which is that the heavenly witnesses are "one", and not as per the witnessing of the earthly witnesses i.e. "in agreement".
So there is an incompatibility which invalidates the argument of Babiniotis here, which you have cited. He said:
"[The masculine gender] is linguistically justified on the ground of syntactic parallelism on the ground that it makes a pattern completely the same - parallel in structure with that of 5:7. So for modern linguistic analysts what is important is not the mere "grammatical gender agreement rule" but the overruling schema of syntactic parallelism which is 'much more stronger' (sic.) than a gender agreement rule. Conclusion: the issue we refer to has more to do with the linguistic style of the passage. It is the result of a stylistic selection which is far beyond the usage of a grammatical/syntatic rule that would lead to a neuter gender and furthermore would elminate 5.7."
The problem now is that there is seen to be no true parallelism, because in 1 John 5:7 it is the witnesses themselves that are being spoken of (i.e. they "are one") whereas in 1 John 5:8 it is the witnessing of the witnesses that is being spoken of (i.e. they "are in common / agreement").
So we can see the artificiality of the Trinitarian gloss in 1 John 5:7, which is directly predicated on importing the grammar of John 10:30, rather than of 1 John 5:8.
Last edited:
You cannot even admit that the evidence is virtually all on one side?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
There are groups of evidences that support omission.
There are groups of evidences that support inclusion.
The dropping of text is far easier than taking over a line with an interpolation.
Afaik, not a single interpolation verse took over the Greek, Latin or Syriac lines.
That is one element of providential preservation.
All fabricated.
You mean ALL the evidence.
The Epistle to the Laodiceans proves you wrong, but you won't touch that bit of damning evidence.
The Comma took over the Latin line. Duh.
ROFLOL!!!!!!
Steven Avery
Well-known member
This is fine in informal English, and some languages have it built-in as an exaggerative degree.
New York City is more populous than Chicago and it is much more populous than Hyde Park, NY.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
This is simply absurd argumentation. The difference between “three are one” and “three agree in one” has no effect on the syntactic parallelism, much less work to “invalidate” the argument.
You come up with the wackiest arguments.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The grammar of the heavenly and earthly witnesses verses are essentially identical, while John 10:30 is totally different than both.
Yet another wacky argument to discard.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Why not just say "identical"?
Instead of "essentially identical"?
This is nothing more than tacit admission to Cjab's point, and an involuntary concession, as well as being a Freudian slip.
Cjab is exactly right, you just won't admit it. But it's there for the readers. ?
Verses 7 and 8 of the Comma are simply NOT 100% syntactically parallel in structure or sense.
The older more original form of the interpolation of the Comma in verse 7, lacking the 'Holy" with "Spirit", is a much closer syntactic (sentence structure) parallel will verse 8's "Spirit", (also lacking "Holy").
Babinotis "schema" (form) emphasis, is unwittingly bringing more attention to the later theological editing of the OLDER more original form of the Comma, and Orthodox Trinitarian theological improvement that took place in the later centuries to become the NEW "Holy" inclusive form of the Comma. ?
Thanks Georgy!
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Can you post the reference for Wallace's comments (or even the comments themselves) pretty please?
I used to have his Grammar Beyond the Basics, but the CD's data corrupted over the years.
If you don't want Avery to see them private message me.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Total nonsense.
The tiny difference in wording makes no difference to the syntactic parallelism.
Contras come up with the most absurd arguments, proving the poverty of their positions and posturing.
Babiniotis - +1
TNC and cjab - negative 1,00
So not only are you not awarding Babi 2 whole points (one for each "contra"), but you are awarding cjab and TNC with......ummmm......whatever negative 1,00 is supposed to be.
In the words of the king of links yourself: "Is English your first language?"
Funny that things like this constantly happen to you when you're pushing a point on the grammar of a language you can't read, write, or speak.
Amazing the lengths Avery will go to in order to justify the "quirkiness" of one he thinks (for the moment at least) is wholly with him.
So there, cjab! No need to highlight perceived grammatical errors from Avery's hero. NOBODY PUTS BABI IN A CORNER!
BTW, your defense of Babi is ridiculous and not even comparable.
Much more POPULOUSER would be on the same level as the ridiculous phrase he used.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Why don't you email Mr Babinotis and tell him about the older more original Latin forms (schema or syntactic structure) of the Comma Johanneum which are lacking the "Holy" with "Spirit"?
And ask him if he thinks "Spirit" without the "Holy" makes a better syntactic parallel with verse 8's "Spirit" without the "Holy"?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Now you're admitting to a "difference" (oooohhh deary me) in the sentence structure and parallelism between verse 7 and verse 8! We're getting through to you!