Hundredfold Martyrs

[Steven Avery]

Is this yet another "mystery" context you just happened to accidentally omit when you posted your cropped snippet on this forum the other day, Steven?
A bit like the other one isn't it?

"Expositio Fidei Catholicae"

Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana I 101 sup. (circa. 7th-8th century A.D./C.E.)

Latin Edition
"Corpus Christianorum Series Latina" Volume 9
Page 347, Lines 1-26

"Credimus unum deum secundum scripturam esse credendum, non sicut Iudaei aut haeretici, solitarium, sed in mysterio trinitatis, id est patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum, tres personas, non tamen tres deos. Personas autem sic dicimus, ut non divinitatem haeretico sensu membris, sicut hominem, conponamus, quia divinitas quae est incorporalis tam inmensa est, tam inextimabilis, ut intra se omnia contineat, ipsa autem circumscribi non possit, sed ut patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum unum et indivisium esse ita in divinitate ac virtute <credamus>, ut tres in personis, id est ut patrem credamus non esse filium, filium vero credamus non esse patrem, spiritum autem sanctum nec patrem esse nec filium; quia pater est ingenitus, filius vero sine initio genitus a patre est, spiritus autem santus processit a patre et accipit de filio, sicut evangelista testatur, quia scriptum est: "Tres sunt, qui dicunt testimonium in caelo : pater, verbum et spiritus, et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu." (1 John 5:7) Non tamen dixit: "Unus est in Christo Iesu." Et in evangelio dicit: "Ite, baptizate gentes in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti." (Matthew 28:19) Et denuo ipse dominus dicit: "Ego et pater unum sumus." (John 10:30) Et in psalmis legimus: "Dicit dominus domino meo : Sede a dextris meis." (Psalm 110:1) Et in evangelio Iohannis sic dicit: "In principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud deum, et deus erat verbum." (John 1:1) Deum ergo dicendum verbum, id est filium qui est apud patrem. Deum bis nominando deum patrem et filium designavit personas."
​

This explains itself quite nicely, simply read it in its English text, no need for you to always bang your head against the wall.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Simply the earliest mavuscript of Cyprian with Unity of the Church.

It does not have the "by these heavenly symbols" verse reference in it (as you are well aware).

But that kind of language sounds very much like Eucherius.

Eucherius of Lyons said: "Plures hic ipsam interpretatione mystica intelligunt Trinitatem..."

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

This explains itself quite nicely, simply read it in its English text, no need for you to always bang your head against the wall.

And with all our conversations and arguments about "mystical interpretation", you just happened to accidentally ? omit that context from those Creeds etc, didn't you Steven?

• Expositio Fidei Catholicae is from an 7th-8th century A.D./C.E. manuscript.
• Symboli Apostolici et Athanasii Enarratio - (Codex Veronensis LIX (57)) is a 6th-7th century A.D./C.E. manuscript.
• Contra Varimadum is (at the earliest I can find at short notice away from my files) from copies, circa 8th-9th century A.D./C.E. manuscripts.

 

[Steven Avery]

Simply the earliest mavuscript of Cyprian with Unity of the Church.

Why not answer the question?

 

[Steven Avery]

And with all our conversations and arguments about "mystical interpretation", you just happened to accidentally

The Trinity doctrine is frequently considered a “mystery”.
Thus, that fact has no affect on the verse references.

Except in the sense that the disciplina arcani likely contributed to the verse drops in the early centuries. And some writers would rather bypass the verse.

Try to stay with facts and sensible interpretations. For you to lose your focus every time you see the word mystery in the vicinity of the word Trinity is quite humorous, but does nothing for the contra position.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

The Trinity doctrine is frequently considered a “mystery”.
Thus, that fact has no affect on the verse references.

Except in the sense that the disciplina arcani likely contributed to the verse drops in the early centuries. And some writers would rather bypass the verse.

Try to stay with facts and sensible interpretations. For you to lose your focus every time you see the word mystery in the vicinity of the word Trinity is quite humorous, but does nothing for the contra position.

So you see no connection between Eucherius saying: “The majority of people, through a mystical interpretation, understand the Trinity itself in this verse" and Creeds speaking of "We believe that there exists one God, who must be believed in, which [belief] conforms to Scripture, but definitely not as a solitary being, as either the Jews or the [Sabellian] heretics [believe], but rather in the mystery of the Trinity, that is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, three persons, yet not three gods..." and "That after the confession of so many mysteries now in the sacrament of our faith we confess..."

You see no connection between a mystical interpretation and/or a mystical understanding of the verse and mystery beliefs?

Of course not Steven!

There's no connection between "mystical interpretation" and "mystical" "understanding" and "mystery" beliefs and sacraments.

Of course. I get it!

 

[Steven Avery]

So you see no connection between Eucherius saying: “The majority of people, through a mystical interpretation, understand the Trinity itself in this verse" and Creeds speaking of "We believe that there exists one God, who must be believed in, which [belief] conforms to Scripture, but definitely not as a solitary being, as either the Jews or the [Sabellian] heretics [believe], but rather in the mystery of the Trinity, that is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, three persons, yet not three gods..." and "That after the confession of so many mysteries now in the sacrament of our faith we confess..."

You see no connection between a mystical interpretation and/or a mystical understanding of the verse and mystery beliefs?
Of course not Steven!
There's no connection between "mystical interpretation" and "mystical" "understanding" and "mystery" beliefs and sacraments.

Of course. I get it!

The context of Eucherius was a specific question about the water, blood and spirit, not a general question about the mystery of the Trinity.

Note that the order of the earthly witnesses is wrong.

Eucherius himself accepts the correct crucifixion understanding (which does not need the false order.)

The others (many, but not necessarily the majority, which has a different Latin word) who see the Trinity could just as well have the heavenly witnesses in their text, and see the earthly group as a Trinity parallel. Eucherius himself may not know what is in their texts, but Augustine's deliberate aversion to our text, as discussed by Fickermann with the Regensburg manuscript, was likely a contributing factor to the stumbling around.

The general idea of the Trinity as a mystery is a fundamental teaching, and exists independent of the heavenly and earthly witnesses verses. Thus I explained how the disciplina arcani contributed to the verse drop in the early centuries, as this Trinity mystery was at times kept out of popular discourse.

As usual, you are confusing diverse elements, pounding your head against a wall. The synapses in your brain seem to frazzle the moment you see a word like mystery or mystical or sacrament.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

The context of Eucherius was a specific question about the water, blood and spirit, not a general question about the mystery of the Trinity.

Exactly Mr Avery!

Thank you for bringing that up.

You agree that the context of Eucherius is very important.

So why do you not tell the internet audience here about the context of Eucherius works, both "Formulae spiritalis intelligentiae" and "Instructionum libri duo" (the two works that have reference to 1 John 5:8 and the mystical interpretation of the Trinity) being in the very same manuscript as "Expositio Fidei Catholicae"?

Why haven't you brought that CONTEXT up?

Don't worry. Is it because you're not aware of it yet?

Go Google Mr Avery!

Get up to speed!

 

[Steven Avery]

So why do you not tell the internet audience here about the context of Eucherius works, both "Formulae spiritalis intelligentiae" and "Instructionum libri duo" (the two works that have reference to 1 John 5:8 and the mystical interpretation of the Trinity) being in the very same manuscript as "Expositio Fidei Catholicae"?

Feel free to share any theory you have as to why this has significance. Be sure to indicate which "Expositio Fidei Catholicae", and if it is the one attributed to Isaac the Jew that has been discussed here, that text is in numerous manuscripts.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Feel free to share any theory you have as to why this has significance. Be sure to indicate which "Expositio Fidei Catholicae", and if it is the one attributed to Isaac the Jew that has been discussed here, that text is in numerous manuscripts.

No theory. Fact.

Both work's of Eucherius are in the same manuscript as "Expositio Fidei Catholicae".

Why haven't both TWOGG and yourself said a single word about this context?

 

[Steven Avery]

So you do not give this any significance, it is simply an incomplete factoid.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

So you do not give this any significance, it is simply an incomplete factoid.

Yes. It is a fact you omitted, and are not informing anyone about.

Both work's of Eucherius are in the same manuscript as "Expositio Fidei Catholicae".

1. "Formulae spiritalis intelligentiae" and
2. "Instructionum libri duo"

Are in Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana I 101 sup. (circa. 7th-8th century A.D./C.E.) along with "Expositio Fidei Catholicae".

The two works which you uncoincidentally blogged about just the other day, and which both have reference to the Comma-less text of 1 John 5:7-8 and the mystical interpretation of the Trinity.

Important, as you agreed earlier, historical and text-critical context.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

So you do not give this any significance, it is simply an incomplete factoid.

You mean you know the facts about it? Do you?

 

[Steven Avery]

Both work's of Eucherius are in the same manuscript as "Expositio Fidei Catholicae".

1. "Formulae spiritalis intelligentiae" and
2. "Instructionum libri duo"

Are in Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana I 101 sup. (circa. 7th-8th century A.D./C.E.) along with "Expositio Fidei Catholicae".

Still waiting for your theory as to why this is significant.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Still waiting for your theory as to why this is significant.

You dwell on the theories (fantasy land) Steven, we'll keep to the facts!

Both work's of Eucherius are in the same manuscript as "Expositio Fidei Catholicae".

1. "Formulae spiritalis intelligentiae" and
2. "Instructionum libri duo"

Are in Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana I 101 sup. (circa. 7th-8th century A.D./C.E.) along with "Expositio Fidei Catholicae".

The two works which both have reference to the Comma-less text of 1 John 5:7-8 and the mystical interpretation of the Trinity.

Important historical and text-critical context.

 

[Steven Avery]

"Expositio Fidei Catholicae".
The two works which both have reference to the Comma-less text of 1 John 5:7-8 and the mystical interpretation of the Trinity.
Important historical and text-critical context.

You should stick to facts and sensible interpretations.
You seem to be trying to bang your head against a wall.

The Expositio Fidei Catholicae which is ascribed to Isaac the Jew has a clear heavenly witnesses reference:

[Exposition of our Universal Faith] We believe in the one God according to the scripture, are to be believed, do not be like the Jews, or heretics, on its own, but in the mystery of the Trinity, that is, so that we would believe that the Father is not the Son, and certainly we do believe that the Son is not the Father, and certainly the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, because the Father is ingenerate, the Son is certainly generated from the Father without beginning, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son. As the Evangelist testifies, that it is written, ”there are three, that are witnessing in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."

Latin: Expositio Fidei Catholicae
sicut evangelista testatur, quia scriptum est: ”Tres sunt, qui dicunt testimonium in caelo : pater, verbum et spiritus, et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.

Hmmm...

Wake up and smell the herb tea, that is 100% heavenly witnesses, yet you confuse yourself so much you call it Comma-less.

 

[Unbound68]

Why not stick to the facts of what Eucherius actually says?

Exactly. Why don't you do that?

As TNC has already provided:

Eucherius of Lyons said: "Plures hic ipsam interpretatione mystica intelligunt Trinitatem"

English: "Many here understand the Trinity by a mystical interpretation."

So that is what Eucherius "said."

Perhaps you can tell us exactly WHAT was interpreted mystically by many in order to understand the Trinity?

 

[cjab]

Latin: Expositio Fidei Catholicae
sicut evangelista testatur, quia scriptum est: ”Tres sunt, qui dicunt testimonium in caelo : pater, verbum et spiritus, et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.

Hmmm...

Wake up and smell the herb tea, that is 100% heavenly witnesses, yet you confuse yourself so much you call it Comma-less.

So the last entry on your blog is that from Markus Vinzent that Ps.-athanasii De Trinitate likely originated in Spain (cf. also Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, ed. Angelo Di Berardino, IVP Academic, Downers Grove 2014, vol III, p. 834, ".....the so-called Johannine comma (1 Jn 5:7) (De Trin. I): the presence of the passage seems to indicate the treatise’s belonging to the Spanish milieu of the last decades of the 4th c.").

As your blog points out:, both Ps.-athanasii De Trinitate I, and its replicant (Ps.-athanasii De Trin. X,) bear a remarkable resemblance to the Priscillian bodge in Priscillian's Tractate 1. This may well signify the start of a concerted attempt to translate the Priscillian schema into a bodge palatable to orthodoxy, in order to combat the Arians, whose invasion of Spain & France & ultimately Africa doubtless gave further imepetus to the medley of unorthodox Trinitarian opuscula in Ps.-athanasii De Trinitate.

But consider:

First Council of Toledo:

VI.
Si quis dixerit vel crediderit Christum innascibilem esse anathema sit.
If anyone says or believes that Christ is unborn, let him be anathema.

VII.
Si quis dixerit vel crediderit deitatem nascibilem esse, anathema sit.
If anyone says or believes that a deity can be born, let him be anathema.

XIIII. Si quis dixerit vel crediderit - deitatis et carnis unam (f) in Christo esse naturam (f) -anathema sit.
"If anyone says [inclusive "or"] or believes - the nature of deity and of flesh are one in Christ - let him be anathema."

As you said "Wake up and smell the herb tea......."

The Council of Toledo implicitly rejected this mystical (Priscillian) interpretation "haec tria (pater, verbum et spiritus) unum sunt in Christo Iesu" as unscriptural (as Christo Iesu was born "according to the flesh" Rom ix. 5; cf. VI & VII above).

 

[Steven Avery]

So the last entry on your blog is that from Markus Vinzent that Ps.-athanasii De Trinitate likely originated in Spain (cf. also Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, ed. Angelo Di Berardino, IVP Academic, Downers Grove 2014, vol III, p. 834, ".....the so-called Johannine comma (1 Jn 5:7) (De Trin. I): the presence of the passage seems to indicate the treatise’s belonging to the Spanish milieu of the last decades of the 4th c.").

That was two months back, it is not the "last entry:".
We have been discussing here:

Expositio fidei catholicae
"Isaac the Jew - Ambrosian ms. - Caspari"

Exposition of our Universal Faith, ascribed to Isaac the Jew, which in TWOGIG is under:
Isaac the Jew (circa 366-378 AD)

It has been referenced here a few times recently, beginning here.

Sept 30, 2021

The Ambrosian ms., with the Muratonian canon, has a work Confessio fidei Catholicae, where the author is likely Isaac the Jew, writing around 370, connected with the AD 366 election dispute between Damasus and Urbanus.

[Exposition of our Universal Faith]
As the Evangelist testifies, that it is written, “there are three, that are witnessing in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.”
… sicut evangelista testatur, quia scriptum est:”Tres sunt, qui dicunt testimonium in caelo : pater, verbum et spiritus, et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.”
Expositio Fidei Catholicae (CCSL 9:347, Lines 1-26)

Aug 6, 2022

Your attempt to go wild on Priscillian is a total failure, and typical of contras. He was Bible-centered, and some references can be contra-Priscillian as well as pro. Here are a few that you missed, without even doing much with the super-evidences of Cyprian and Jerome's Vulgate Prologue and the Council of Carthage, and the many quotes in De Trinitate. We can also add the Freisinger Fragment, since its Old Latin text represents a 2nd century line.

===============================

The Witness of God is Greater is the primary source, although I do my value-added study.

===============================

[Exposition of our Universal Faith] As the Evangelist testifies, that it is written, "there are three, that are witnessing in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."
Expositio Fidei Catholicae (CCSL 9:347, Lines 1-26)

This may be Isaac the Jew in the mid-4th century.

===============================

Aug 6, 2022

[Exposition of our Universal Faith] As the Evangelist testifies, that it is written, "there are three, that are witnessing in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."
Expositio Fidei Catholicae (CCSL 9:347, Lines 1-26)

The question is when it was written. One very strong theory is Isaac the Jew in the 4th century. Other theories go into the fifth century.

|Confessio fidei Catholicae - The Ambrosian ms. that has the Muratonian Canon. Lewis Ayres in Augustine and the Trinity (2014) p. 99-100 says this is connected to Damasus and Urbinus. Cuthbert Hamilton Turner showed this similarly in 1900, "the rival elections in 366 of Damasus and Ursinus. ... Dom Morin has solved one of the great problems of patristic literature." And Theodor Zahn agreed.

Aug 6, 2022

Alexander is talking only of Priscillian, not the Exposition.

And the Exposition is very non-Monarchian:

[Exposition of our Universal Faith] We believe in the one God according to the scripture, are to be believed, do not be like the Jews, or heretics, on its own, but in the mystery of the Trinity, that is, so that we would believe that the Father is not the Son, and certainly we do believe that the Son is not the Father, and certainly the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, because the Father is ingenerate, the Son is certainly generated from the Father without beginning, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son. As the Evangelist testifies, that it is written,”there are three, that are witnessing in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.”

... And in the Gospel of John this is said,”In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”Saying, therefore, that the Word is God, that is: the Son who is with the Father. By naming God twice he designated God the Father and Son as persons.

August 8, 2022

The Expositio Fidei Catholicae which is ascribed to Isaac the Jew has a clear heavenly witnesses reference:

[Exposition of our Universal Faith] We believe in the one God according to the scripture, are to be believed, do not be like the Jews, or heretics, on its own, but in the mystery of the Trinity, that is, so that we would believe that the Father is not the Son, and certainly we do believe that the Son is not the Father, and certainly the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, because the Father is ingenerate, the Son is certainly generated from the Father without beginning, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son. As the Evangelist testifies, that it is written, ”there are three, that are witnessing in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."

Latin: Expositio Fidei Catholicae
sicut evangelista testatur, quia scriptum est: ”Tres sunt, qui dicunt testimonium in caelo : pater, verbum et spiritus, et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.

 

[Steven Avery]

None of them precede Priscillian : prove it otherwise.

Proof is impossible on either side.
Have you ever heard of a level playing field?
Nahhh.

Lewis Ayres has acknowledged that the Expositio ascribed to Isaac the Jew looks to be preceding Priscillian.

There is a similar situation with the writing in De Trinitate ascribed to Eusebius Vercelli.

In both cases, it is not possible to prove the theorized author.
The conclusion is simple, the three works are close in time to each other, and any one of the three may actually be the earliest. This does not fit the common contra narrative that likes, since c. 1910, Priscillian to have the special focus.

==========================

What I do on my PBF forum is sound scholarship, I show both sides of an issue, so e.g. you might see the arguments for Italy and for Spain for a work. Contras generally avoid that type of scholastic honesty. You always cherry-pick your arguments, ignoring scholarship that would counter and refute your contention.

==========================

Your Karl Kunstle style Spanish obsession is noted, it has long been refuted, and is really nothing more than a joke at this time. And I even explained to you that we do not have libraries in North Africa and the Meditteranean region with the early Latin Bibles used there, including the amazing quote representing 400+ bishops at the AD 484 Council of Carthage. Also, I show you above anti-Priscillianist usage. This contra-Priscillian aspect has long been understood, even when one writing was ascribed to Idacius Clarus.