Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
He's dragging up (wait for it...drum role...) Pseudo-Ambrose now. Surprise surprise!
Straining the gnat, while gulping down the Camel of Ambrose's all pervasive mystery and sacramental, symbolic, and typological interpretations. ?
Straining the gnat, while gulping down the Camel of Ambrose's all pervasive mystery and sacramental, symbolic, and typological interpretations. ?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
He's even managed to quote a translation (not mine) of Ambrose's (guess what?) "On Mysteries" 
, which I posted on one of these forum's some time back, complete with my personal comment (which is not from the translator BTW Mr Avery) about cross referencing Ambrose's sacramental interpretation (DM 1.4.24) with Cyprian's "these heavenly symbols" sacramental interpretation (DU 6.5-6).
, which I posted on one of these forum's some time back, complete with my personal comment (which is not from the translator BTW Mr Avery) about cross referencing Ambrose's sacramental interpretation (DM 1.4.24) with Cyprian's "these heavenly symbols" sacramental interpretation (DU 6.5-6).
Last edited:
The ox that says horned to the donkey.
Why yours myths?:
1) Priscillian who invents the Comma on the basis of Leo I and the council of Toledo: on a single sentence (which can mean everything and the opposite!) Which is not even reflected on the autograph works in addition!
2) The author of Cent is hear hear Priscillian or one of his followers ... handsome on the basis of what? from the second to the fourth century how many heterodox or heretical currents have followed one another of an encratic nature? or that refer to the angels, then `` there is no reference '' to the Comma using a wrong quotation!
3) '' tres unum sunt '' versus '' Dominus unum '' but what do you say on the basis of what? ate these textual confrontations that suddenly take on the character of theological struggle according to the currents `` according to you ''
4) Last '' not yours '': The diacritics of the Vaticanus are from the sixteenth century because a Spanish gentleman would have made annotations on the Vaticanus. Misguided by spectrometric studies
Tell me who builds myths on the basis of nothing !! You attack Avery but in reality you do the same thing because you too have your core beliefs to defend ... Even if you use works by titled authors to do so it does not make the theories you use to fight back less crazy
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
I think your confusing me with someone else.
no i am not confused or just wrong the english term is YOURS not YOUR i also spoke of cjab and the other, as well as with you; i speak at plural not at singular; I have read a bit of nonsense said by various people not only by Avery who, however, says something right too, even if mostly aimed at defending a text that has its errors. this was a small list of various nonsense that struck me most
Last edited:
What is nonsense?
___________________________
Deut 6:4
Vulg: audi Israhel Dominus Deus noster, Dominus unus est. (is one Lord - M)
LXX: Ἄκουε, Ἰσραήλ· Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριος εἷς ἐστιν· (is one Lord - M)
1 John 5:8 (Greek)
τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (these three are in the one - N)
1 John 5:7 (Vulgate)
Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.(these three are one - N)
1 John 5:8 (Vulgate)
Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt. (these three are one - N)
John 10:30 (Greek)
ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν (I and the Father are one - N)
John 10:30 (Vulgate)
ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν (I and the Father are one - N)
Ego et Pater unum sumus (I and the Father are one - N)
_______________________
The origination of the Comma lies in:
(1) A misapplication of John 10:30 to the "Trinity." This was impermissible because the neuter gender in the Greek doesn't always denote a neuter object (i.e. substance / essence) but is used to diversify the meaning where either M or F wouldn't make any sense. (a) As Jesus didn't want to denote himself as the same person as the Father in John 10:30, the neuter was used. (b) Also Jesus wasn't glorified when the words in John 10:30 were spoken, so he couldn't then assert himself as one Lord with the Father per Deut 6:4.
(2) The mistranslation of 1 John 5:8 by the Vulgate/Old Latin. οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν doesn't translate to hi tres unum sunt but more like hi tres in uno sunt.
(3) The carrying over of hi tres unum sunt to 1 John 5:7, so as to conflict with Deut 6:4 Dominus unus est. If 1 John 5:7 were to be forumated along biblical lines it would have to read either (a) hi tres Dominus unus sunt or (b) hi tres in uno sunt.
The hi tres unum sunt of 1 John 5:8 was a mystical application by Tertullian & Cyprian and many others. These applications were then extended into the Comma by replicating 1 John 5:8 pursuant to the gnostic/encratist/pseudo-manichaean idea that the Trinity comprises three heavenly witnesses, as derived from Matt 28:19 and Deut 19:15 and De Cent and Eclogae Propheticae 13.1, which together affirm the gnostic/encratist/pseudo-manichaean origination of the three heavenly witnesses, and indeed the whole Trinity conception as it is currently formulated, where "God" became a description of the divine substance or essence, rather than the title of YHWH (the Father of us - Isaiah 63:16) (the God of us - Deut 6:4 ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν).
"our/my God" and "our/my Father" are de facto synonymous in the NT in the mouth of Christ. cf. John 20:17. The gnostic/encratist/pseudo-manichaean "Trinity" destroys the synonymity of "God" and "Father" identified by Christ.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
So this is your answer to my question?
Note that you changed the Latin text.
cjab
Greek- οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἐν εἰσὶν
correct Latin for 5:8 - hi tres in uno sunt
mistranslation - hi tres unum sunt
mistranslation - et tres unum sunt
Just want to try to understand your claims!
(Which no one has ever previously made, afaik.)
Last edited:
I'm reading the Vulgate online. Also see here. Both clearly say "hi tres unum sunt."
Where do you get "the correct Latin" is hi tres in uno sunt from?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
That is your claim. I am only trying to make sense of what you have written about a supposed mistranslation.
And I doubt if any Greek-Latin expert will agree with you.
Last edited:
It's your job to disprove. You've got a lot of work to do.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Nonsense.
You make an absurd allegation of mistranslation with no explanation or evidence or authority.
Nobody has to pay any attention to it, except to point out your scholastic difficulty.
And you build a lot on the nothing.
You have no point to make.
Reference Tertullian Ad Praxeas
This doesn't reflect the Greek "in one" or "in agreement" in respect of the (earthly) witnesses. Tertullian is engaging in heresy at this point.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
So you are accusing Tertullian of mistranslating, (also misinterpreting.)
Is this the only Latin text you accept?
hi tres in uno sunt
So, to you, almost every Latin text is wrong.
Last edited:
Certainly. That "the three are one [thing] (and not one [Lord] per Deut 6:4) is radical and novel per scripture (in the absence of 1 John 5:7).
In 1 John 5:8 it would seem to be the proper translation.
I wouldn't know. It is very likely there are late manuscripts with "hi tres in uno sunt" in them. As to early manuscripts, I don't know.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
And you claim everything else is a mistranslation.
Hardly any usage, ms. or church writer, early or late.
Seems the Greeks liked to reprove the Latins. This example concerning use of unleavened bread by Latins:
____________________________
Acta et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae saeculo undecimo composita extant by Cornelius Will [1861] (topics: Schism of 1054, Byzantine Church, Roman Church, Eleventh Century, Church History, Doctrinal Controversies) we find the following:
"V. NICETAE
PRESBYTERI ET MONACHI MONASTERII STUDII LIBELLUS
CONTRA LATINOS EDITUS ET AB APOCRISIARIIS APOSTOLICAE
SEDIS CONSTANTINOPOLI REPERTUS.
.
.
.
III. Animadvertite et attendite, quia in azymis nulla est vivens virtus, mortua enim sunt; in pane autem, hoc est, corpore Christi, tria sunt viventia et vitam praebentia eis, qui ea digne comedunt: Spiritus, aqua et Sanguis, ceu et ipse, qui super pectus Christi in coena recubuit, Ioannes contestificatur in eo verbo: »Tres sunt, qui testimonium dant, Spiritus, aqua et sanguis et hi tres in uno sunt (1. Joan. V, 8),« videlicet in corpore Christi. Quod et secundum tempus Dominicae crucifixionis declaratum est, cum aqua et sanguis ex immaculata costa ipsius effluxit: lancea percussa carne ipsius sanctus Spiritus vivificusque in deificata carne ejus permansit. Quam comedentes in pane, qui immutatus est per Spiritum et effectus est^ corpus Christi, vivimus in ipso, tanquam vivam et deificatam carnem edentes. Sic autem et sanguinem vivum et calidissimum ejus bibentes cum effluente aqua ex immaculata costa ejus mundamur ab omni delicto, ferventireplemur Spiritu. Calidum enim, ut videtis, velut ex latere Domini, calicem bibimus, quia ex viva carne et calida spiritu Christi calidissimus nobis sanguis et üqua emanavit. Quod in eis, qui azyma comedunt , nequit fieri. "
_______________________________
Journals and writings composed of Greek and Latin church controversies in the eleventh century
"Niketas Choniates?
THE BOOK OF THE PRIESTS AND MONKS OF THE MONASTERY
PUBLISHED AGAINST THE LATINS AND BY THE APOSTOLIC APOCRISIARIES
THE SEAT OF CONSTANTINOPLE WAS FOUNDED
"III. Observe and pay attention, because there is no living virtue in unleavened bread, for it is dead; but in the bread, that is, in the body of Christ, there are three living things and giving life to those who eat them worthily: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, or even himself, who reclined on the breast of Christ in the supper, John contradicts in that word: "There are three , who bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are in one (1 John 5:8), namely in the body of Christ. And this was declared according to the time of Sunday's crucifixion, when water and blood flowed from his immaculate rib; As we eat bread, which is changed by the Spirit and is the result of the body of Christ, we live in him, as if we were eating living and deified flesh. And so, drinking his living and most warm blood with the water flowing from his immaculate rib, we are cleansed from all sin, we are filled with the boiling Spirit. For, as you see, we drink the cup warm, as if from the side of the Lord, because from the living flesh and warm spirit of Christ, the warmest blood and water emanated for us. This cannot happen in those who eat unleavened bread."
Next piece of text, immediately following on from above (same passage):
"IV. Si autem mortuum infermentatum comeditis, o sapientissimi, ut sermo declaravit, cujus rei gratia gloriamini, dicentes: »Quia non sicut vos sale et fermento atque aqua farinam temperamus et sic facimus oblationem azymorum nostrorum, sed aqua sola et farina et igni azymum conficimus et in tribus his puram facimus nostram oblatio- nem ;« percontamur * igitur vos, haectria, aquam et farinam et ignem , ad quid accipitis; et cujus * effipiem esse haec aestimatis? Carnis Domini? Sed non inquit dilectus Christo Ioannes »Tres sunt, qui testimonium perhibent (I. John.V, 8),« aqua et farina et ignis. Sed quid? »Spiritus et aqua et sanguis, et hi tres,in uno sunt (Jbid.), « videlicet in corpore Christi, ut dictum est, quod nos comedentes unimur incarnato propter nos et immolato Christo concorporati ei velut caro ejus sumus ex carne ipsius et os ex ossibus ejus, sicut scriptum est. Si autem ad increatam et incorpoream naturam sanctae Trinitatis assumitis, erratis cadentes in haeresim eorum, qui asserunt Deum passum, qui dicunt compassum Verbum fuisse* carni et eandem ipsam deitatem sustinuisse passionem. Non enim pariter Trinitas incarnata est, Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, ut conspiciantur in ea haec tria, aqua, ut dicitur, et farina et ignis, et ut in figura ipsius faciatis azymum et sacrificium offeratis: sed unus ex Trinitate Filius et Verbum Dei incarnatum est ex castissimis sanctae Virginis carnibus homo effectus; et omnia ordinationis suae perficiens crucifixus est carne, non passa divinitate ipsius. Carne igitur crucifixus tradidit nobis edere per panem carnem suam, quam in spiritu sancto ita vivam dicimus: »Accipite*, comedite, hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis fractum est, in remissionem peccatorum (Matth. XXVI, 26—28.)"
________________________-
IV. But if you eat the unleavened dead, O most wise, as he declared in the sermon, concerning glorious grace, saying: "For we do not season the flour with salt and leaven and water as you do, and so we make the offering of our unleavened bread, but we make the unleavened bread with water alone and flour and fire, and in to these three we make our pure offering; and whose image do you think these are? Lord's flesh? But John, beloved of Christ, does not say, "There are three who bear witness" (1 John 5:8), "water, flour, and fire." But what? "Spirit and water and blood, and these three are in one" (Jbid.) namely, in the body of Christ, as it has been said, that in eating we are united to the incarnated and sacrificed Christ for our sake, incorporated into him as his flesh, we are from his flesh and a bone from his bones, as it is written. But if you assume the uncreated and incorporeal nature of the Holy Trinity, you fall into the error of the heresy of those who assert that God suffered, who say that the Compassionate Word was made flesh and that the same deity endured suffering. For the Trinity was not incarnated at the same time, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so that these three may be seen in it, water, as it is said, and meal and fire, and that in his image you should make unleavened bread and offer a sacrifice: but one of the Trinity, the Son and the Word of God man was incarnated from the most chaste flesh of the holy Virgin; and accomplishing all his ordinances He was crucified in the flesh, not in his divinity. Therefore he who was crucified in the flesh gave us to eat his flesh through bread, which we say so alive in the Holy Spirit: "Take, eat, this is my body, which was broken for you, for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:26-28).
"IV. Si autem mortuum infermentatum comeditis, o sapientissimi, ut sermo declaravit, cujus rei gratia gloriamini, dicentes: »Quia non sicut vos sale et fermento atque aqua farinam temperamus et sic facimus oblationem azymorum nostrorum, sed aqua sola et farina et igni azymum conficimus et in tribus his puram facimus nostram oblatio- nem ;« percontamur * igitur vos, haectria, aquam et farinam et ignem , ad quid accipitis; et cujus * effipiem esse haec aestimatis? Carnis Domini? Sed non inquit dilectus Christo Ioannes »Tres sunt, qui testimonium perhibent (I. John.V, 8),« aqua et farina et ignis. Sed quid? »Spiritus et aqua et sanguis, et hi tres,in uno sunt (Jbid.), « videlicet in corpore Christi, ut dictum est, quod nos comedentes unimur incarnato propter nos et immolato Christo concorporati ei velut caro ejus sumus ex carne ipsius et os ex ossibus ejus, sicut scriptum est. Si autem ad increatam et incorpoream naturam sanctae Trinitatis assumitis, erratis cadentes in haeresim eorum, qui asserunt Deum passum, qui dicunt compassum Verbum fuisse* carni et eandem ipsam deitatem sustinuisse passionem. Non enim pariter Trinitas incarnata est, Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, ut conspiciantur in ea haec tria, aqua, ut dicitur, et farina et ignis, et ut in figura ipsius faciatis azymum et sacrificium offeratis: sed unus ex Trinitate Filius et Verbum Dei incarnatum est ex castissimis sanctae Virginis carnibus homo effectus; et omnia ordinationis suae perficiens crucifixus est carne, non passa divinitate ipsius. Carne igitur crucifixus tradidit nobis edere per panem carnem suam, quam in spiritu sancto ita vivam dicimus: »Accipite*, comedite, hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis fractum est, in remissionem peccatorum (Matth. XXVI, 26—28.)"
________________________-
IV. But if you eat the unleavened dead, O most wise, as he declared in the sermon, concerning glorious grace, saying: "For we do not season the flour with salt and leaven and water as you do, and so we make the offering of our unleavened bread, but we make the unleavened bread with water alone and flour and fire, and in to these three we make our pure offering; and whose image do you think these are? Lord's flesh? But John, beloved of Christ, does not say, "There are three who bear witness" (1 John 5:8), "water, flour, and fire." But what? "Spirit and water and blood, and these three are in one" (Jbid.) namely, in the body of Christ, as it has been said, that in eating we are united to the incarnated and sacrificed Christ for our sake, incorporated into him as his flesh, we are from his flesh and a bone from his bones, as it is written. But if you assume the uncreated and incorporeal nature of the Holy Trinity, you fall into the error of the heresy of those who assert that God suffered, who say that the Compassionate Word was made flesh and that the same deity endured suffering. For the Trinity was not incarnated at the same time, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so that these three may be seen in it, water, as it is said, and meal and fire, and that in his image you should make unleavened bread and offer a sacrifice: but one of the Trinity, the Son and the Word of God man was incarnated from the most chaste flesh of the holy Virgin; and accomplishing all his ordinances He was crucified in the flesh, not in his divinity. Therefore he who was crucified in the flesh gave us to eat his flesh through bread, which we say so alive in the Holy Spirit: "Take, eat, this is my body, which was broken for you, for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:26-28).
Steven Avery
Well-known member
This was interesting. The Witness of God is Greater discusses his view of the Athanasius Disputation. I think more will be added from the above.
Nova Vulgata (1986): (of Second Vatican Council / Pope John Paul II): 1 John 5:8 Quia tres sunt, qui testificantur: Spiritus et aqua et sanguis; et hi tres in unum sunt.
Can you believe it? After circa 1900 years of mistranslating 1 John 5:8, and after circa 1200 years of including the erroneous Comma, the See of Rome finally publishes a version of the text that includes the correct translation of 1 John 5:8 and omits the Comma.
Can you believe it? After circa 1900 years of mistranslating 1 John 5:8, and after circa 1200 years of including the erroneous Comma, the See of Rome finally publishes a version of the text that includes the correct translation of 1 John 5:8 and omits the Comma.
NOVA VULGATA
Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio
SACROSANCTI OECUMENICI CONCILII VATICANI II
RATIONE HABITA
IUSSU PAULI PP. VI RECOGNITA
AUCTORITATE IOANNIS PAULI PP. II PROMULGATA
Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio
SACROSANCTI OECUMENICI CONCILII VATICANI II
RATIONE HABITA
IUSSU PAULI PP. VI RECOGNITA
AUCTORITATE IOANNIS PAULI PP. II PROMULGATA