1 John 5:7-8 Johannine Comma - Tertullian Adv. Prax. 25.1 (put in context vs taken out of context)

Steven Avery said:
Nonsense.

I just checked carefully and saw that the Trinitarian exposition in Against Praxeas has nothing doctrinally connected to the Montanist issues.

You just put up a false pretense in order to separate the Tertullian “three are one” from the Cyprian references.
Click to expand...

No. I'm sorry, but you really are in denial (no matter how much you deny it) of Tertullian's Montantism.

GREEK TEXT: “...μισόκαλός γε μὴν ἐς τὰ μάλιστα καὶ φιλοπόνηρος ὢν ὁ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θεοῦ πολέμιος μηδένα τε μηδαμῶς τῆς κατὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπολιπὼν ἐπιβουλῆς τρόπον, αἱρέσεις ξένας αὖθις ἐπιφύεσθαι κατὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐνήργει· ὧν οἳ μὲν ἰοβόλων δίκην ἑρπετῶν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀσίας καὶ Φρυγίας εἷρπον, τὸν μὲν δὴ παράκλητον Μοντανόν, τὰς δ᾿ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γυναῖκας, Πρίσκιλλαν καὶ Μαξίμιλλαν, ὡς ἂν τοῦ Μοντανοῦ προφήτιδας γεγονυίας αὐχοῦντες...” - ( [Βιβλίον Ε´] ΙΔ Περὶ τῶν κατὰ Φρύγας ψευδοπροφητῶν. ΕΥΣΕΒΙΟΥ ΚΑΙΣΑΡΕΙΑΣ, ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΗ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ Eusebius Caesariensis - Historia ecclesiastica.)
http://users.uoa.gr/~nektar/orthodoxy/history/eysebios_ecclesia_historia.htm#%CE%95

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (circa. 260-340 C.E.): “...The enemy of God’s Church, who is emphatically a hater of good and a lover of evil, and leaves untried no manner of craft against men, was again active in causing strange heresies to spring up against the Church. For some persons, like venomous reptiles, crawled over Asia and Phrygia, BOASTING THAT MONTANUS WAS THE PARACLETE, and that the women that followed him, Priscilla and Maximilla, were prophetesses of Montanus...” - (Book 5. Chapter 14,[ XIV ]“The False Prophets of the Phrygians,” in "Ecclesiastical History" or: "History of the Church" Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890.)

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (circa. 260 to 340 C.E. ): “...The enemy of God’s Church, who is emphatically a hater of good and a lover of evil, and leaves untried no manner of craft against men, was again active in causing strange heresies to spring up against the Church.[1564] For some persons, like venomous reptiles, crawled over Asia and Phrygia, BOASTING THAT MONTANUS WAS THE PARACLETE, and that the women that followed him, Priscilla and Maximilla, were prophetesses of Montanus.[1565]...” - (Book 5. Chapter 14,[ XIV ] “The False Prophets of the Phrygians,” in “Ecclesiastical History” or: “History of the Church,” Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890.)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm
[FOOTNOTE 1564]: Cf. Bk. IV. chap. 7, note 3.
[FOOTNOTE 1565]: On Montanus and the Montanists, see chap. 16.
[FOOTNOTE]: Gk., ( τὸν μὲν δὴ παράκλητον Μοντανόν )
[FOOTNOTE]: Gk., ( δή ) = “...Particle used to give greater exactness, to the word or words which it influences (prob. a shortened form of ἤδη, Lat. jam) now, in truth, indeed, surely, really...” - (Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889.)
[FOOTNOTE]: Gk., ( προφήτιδας ) = noun pl fem acc “prophetesses” used of the demon possessed Pythian prophetess at Delphi.
[FOOTNOTE]: Gk., ( γεγονυίας ) = part pl perf act fem acc “become”
[FOOTNOTE]: Gk., ( αὐχοῦντες ) = “...I. like καυχάομαι, to boast, plume oneself, Hdt., Eur.; τινι or ἐπί τινι on a thing, id=Eur., Anth. II. c. acc. et inf. to boast or declare loudly that, protest that, Hdt., Thuc., Eur...” - (Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889.)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xv.html
 
GREEK TEXT: “...Τῶν δὲ Ἀπολιναρίου κατὰ τῆς δηλωθείσης αἱρέσεως μνήμην πεποίηται Σεραπίων, ὃν ἐπὶ τῶν δηλουμένων χρόνων μετὰ Μαξιμῖνον ἐπίσκοπον τῆς Ἀντιοχέων ἐκκλησίας γενέσθαι κατέχει λόγος· μέμνηται δ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν ἰδίᾳ ἐπιστολῇ τῇ πρὸς Καρικὸν καὶ Πόντιον, ἐν ᾗ διευθύνων καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν αὐτὴν αἵρεσιν, ἐπιλέγει ταῦτα· «ὅπως δὲ καὶ τοῦτο εἰδῆτε ὅτι τῆς ψευδοῦς ταύτης τάξεως τῆς ἐπικαλουμένης νέας προφητείας ἐβδέλυκται ἡ ἐνέργεια παρὰ πάσῃ τῇ ἐν κόσμῳ ἀδελφότητι, πέπομφα ὑμῖν καὶ Κλαυδίου Ἀπολιναρίου, τοῦ μακαριωτάτου γενομένου ἐν Ἱεραπόλει τῆς Ἀσίας ἐπισκόπου, γράμματα». ἐν ταύτῃ δὲ τῇ τοῦ Σεραπίωνος ἐπιστολῇ καὶ ὑποσημειώσεις φέρονται διαφόρων ἐπισκόπων, ὧν ὁ μέν τις ὧδέ πως ὑποσεσημείωται· «Αὐρήλιος Κυρίνιος μάρτυς ἐρρῶσθαι ὑμᾶς εὔχομαι», ὁ δέ τις τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον· «Αἴλιος Πούπλιος Ἰούλιος ἀπὸ Δεβελτοῦ κολωνίας τῆς Θρᾴκης ἐπίσκοπος· ζῇ ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ὅτι Σωτᾶς ὁ μακάριος ὁ ἐν Ἀγχιάλῳ ἠθέλησε τὸν δαίμονα τὸν Πρισκίλλης ἐκβαλεῖν, καὶ οἱ ὑποκριταὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκαν». καὶ ἄλλων δὲ πλειόνων τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἐπισκόπων συμψήφων τούτοις ἐν τοῖς δηλωθεῖσιν γράμμασιν αὐτόγραφοι φέρονται σημειώσεις. καὶ τὰ μὲν κατὰ τούτους ἦν τοιαῦτα...” - ( [Βιβλίον Ε´] ΙΘ Σεραπίωνος περὶ τῆς τῶν Φρυγῶν αἱρέσεως. ΕΥΣΕΒΙΟΥ ΚΑΙΣΑΡΕΙΑΣ, ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΗ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ Eusebius Caesariensis - Historia ecclesiastica.)
http://users.uoa.gr/~nektar/orthodoxy/history/eysebios_ecclesia_historia.htm#%CE%95

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (circa. 260 to 340 C.E. ): “...Serapion,[1.] [1651] who, as report says, succeeded Maximinus[1652] at that time as bishop of the church of Antioch, mentions the works of Apolinarius[1653] against the above-mentioned heresy. And he alludes to him in a private letter to Caricus and Pontius,[1654] in which he himself exposes the same heresy, and adds the following words:[1655] [2.] “That you may see that the doings of THIS LYING BAND OF THE NEW PROPHECY, SO CALLED, ARE AN ABOMINATION TO ALL THE BROTHERHOOD THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, I have sent you writings[1656] of the most blessed Claudius Apolinarius, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia.” [3.] In the same letter of Serapion the signatures of several bishops are found,[1657] one of whom subscribes himself as follows: “I, Aurelius Cyrenius, a witness,[1658] pray for your health.” And another in this manner: “Ælius Publius Julius,[1659] Debeltum and Anchialus were towns of Thrace, on the western shore of the Black Sea. bishop of Debeltum, a colony of Thrace. As God liveth in the heavens, the blessed Sotas in Anchialus desired TO CAST THE DEMON OUT OF Priscilla, but the hypocrites did not permit him.”[1660] [4.] And the autograph signatures of many other bishops who agreed with them are contained in the same letter. So much for these persons...” - (Book 5, Chapter 19, [ XIX ], “Ecclesiastical History,” or: “The History of the Church” Subheading: “Serapion on the Heresy of the Phrygians,” Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890.)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm
 
Last edited:
VINCENT OF LERINS (died circa. 445 C.E.): “...The case is the same with Tertullian. For as Origen holds by far the first place among the Greeks, so does Tertullian among the Latins. For who more learned than he, who more versed in knowledge whether divine or human? With marvellous capacity of mind he comprehended all philosophy, and had a knowledge of all schools of philosophers, and of the founders and upholders of schools, and was acquainted with all their rules and observances, and with their various histories and studies. Was not his genius of such unrivalled strength and vehemence that there was scarcely any obstacle which he proposed to himself to overcome, that he did not penetrate by acuteness, or crush by weight? As to his style, who can sufficiently set forth its praise? It was knit together with so much cogency of argument that it compelled assent, even where it failed to persuade. Every word almost was a sentence; every sentence a victory. This know the Marcions, the Apelleses, the Praxeases, the Hermogeneses, the Jews, the Heathens, the Gnostics, and the rest, whose blasphemies he overthrew by the force of his many and ponderous volumes, as with so many thunderbolts. Yet this man also, notwithstanding all that I have mentioned, this Tertullian, I say, too little tenacious of Catholic doctrine, that is, of the universal and ancient faith, MORE ELOQUENT BY FAR THAN FAITHFUL, CHANGED HIS BELIEF, and justified what the blessed Confessor, Hilary, writes of him, namely, that: “By his subsequent error he detracted from the authority of his approved writings.” He also was a great trial in the Church. But of Tertullian I am unwilling to say more. This only I will add, that, contrary to the injunction of Moses, by asserting the novel furies of Montanus which arose in the Church, and those mad dreams of new doctrine dreamed by mad women, to be true prophecies, he deservedly made both himself and his writings obnoxious to the words, "If there arise a prophet in the midst of you," you shall not hearken to the words of that prophet. For why? "Because the Lord your God does make trial of you, whether you love Him or not...” - (Chapter 18:46, "Commonitory" [or "Remembrancer"], Translated by C.A. Heurtley. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.)
[FOOTNOTE]: The date of the writing of the Commonitory is held to be 434 C.E.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm
http://www.voskrese.info/spl/lerins18.html
 
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (circa. 313-386 C.E.): “...Let the Cataphrygians also be your abhorrence, and MONTANUS, THEIR RINGLEADER IN EVIL, AND HIS TWO SO-CALLED PROPHETESSES, MAXIMILLA AND PRISCILLA. For this Montanus, who was out of his mind and really mad (for he would not have said such things, had he not been mad), dared to say that he was himself the Holy Ghost—he, miserable man, and filled with all uncleanness and lasciviousness; for it suffices but to hint at this, out of respect for the women who are present. And having taken possession of Pepuza, a very small hamlet of Phrygia, he falsely named it Jerusalem; and cutting the throats of wretched little children, and chopping them up into unholy food, for the purpose of their so-called mysteries —(wherefore till but lately in the time of persecution we were suspected of doing this, because these Montanists were called, falsely indeed, by the common name of Christians;)— YET HE DARED TO CALL HIMSELF THE HOLY GHOST, filled as he was with all impiety and inhuman cruelty, and condemned by an irrevocable sentence...” - (Lecture 16, Section 8, “On the Article, And in One Holy Ghost, the Comforter, Which Spoke in the Prophets” in “Catechetical Lectures,” Translated by Edwin Hamilton Gifford. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310116.htm
 
Tertullian had definitely become a Montantist.

Tertullian's own words in the first chapter of Adversus Praxaen:

"I, [Tertullian] for my part, was subsequently separated from the natural men [the Church, i.e. Christianity] by
my acknowledgement and defense of the Paraclete [i.e. Montanus]"
​
Word's in brackets added by me.

Second to last chapter:

Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Chapter 30:5(B), Pages 178-179,

“Tertullian's Treatise Against Praxeas,” Translated by Canon Ernest Evans, 1948.

“...This is he who meanwhile has poured forth the gift which he has received from the Father, the Holy Spirit, the third name of the deity and the third sequence of the majesty, THE PREACHER OF ONE MONARCHY AND ALSO THE INTERPRETER OF THE ECONOMY FOR THOSE WHO ADMIT THE WORDS OF >>> HIS <<< [i.e. MONTANUS] NEW PROPHECY, and the leader into all the truth which is in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit according to the Christian mystery....”​
 
Steven Avery said:
Nonsense.

I just checked carefully and saw that the Trinitarian exposition in Against Praxeas has nothing doctrinally connected to the Montanist issues.

You just put up a false pretense in order to separate the Tertullian “three are one” from the Cyprian references.
Click to expand...

Not at all. No false pretenses.

Just history as context.

So explain how Tertullian "acknowledge and defend" (his words) Montanus in Chapter 1, but somehow invisibly disavows being a Montantist in Chapter 25? And then re-avows being a Montantist in the last two chapters of the same book?
 
Based on your mistaken claim on Tertullian, his hypothetical Greek manuscript would have read ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Υἱὸς ["and the Son"], καὶ ὁ Παράκλητος ["and the Paraclete"]·


Adversum Praxaen 25.1

“ita connexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero. Qui tres unum sunt, non unus,
quomodo dictum est, 'Ego et pater unum sumus,' ad substantiae unitatem non ad numeri singularitatem.”

1 John 5:7 KJV-numbering
(Tertullian's hypothetical Greek manuscript reconstructed)

[Part-A] ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [Part-B] εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, [Part-C] ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Υἱὸς, καὶ ὁ Παράκλητος· [Part-D] καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν​

1 John 5:7 TR (Textus Receptus)
[Clause-A] ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [Clause-B] εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, [Clause-C] ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα·
[Clause-D] καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν​


What existing Greek NT manuscripts (contra the imaginary NT manuscripts that Steven dreams of) give any evidence for this reading? None! Why? Because it, and the received Comma, never existed in any Greek NT manuscript in Tertullian's time, or for a millennia to come.
 

Jerome

Letter 84

“To Pammachius and Oceanus”​

[Chapter 2] "It is charged against me that I have sometimes praised Origen. If I am not mistaken I have only done so in two places, in the short preface (addressed to Damasus) to his homilies on the Song of Songs and in the prologue to my book of Hebrew Names. In these passages do the dogmas of the church come into question? Is anything said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? or of the resurrection of the flesh? or of the condition and material of the soul? I have merely praised the simplicity of his rendering and commentary and neither the faith nor the dogmas of the Church come in at all. Ethics only are dealt with and the mist of allegory is dispelled by a clear explanation. I have praised the commentator but not the theologian, the man of intellect but not the believer, the philosopher but not the apostle. But if men wish to know my real judgement upon Origen; let them read my commentaries upon Ecclesiastes, let them go through my three books upon the epistle to the Ephesians: they will then see that I have always opposed his doctrines. How foolish it would be to eulogize a system so far as to endorse its blasphemy! The blessed Cyprian takes Tertullian for his master, as his writings prove; yet, delighted as he is with the ability of this learned and zealous writer he does not join him in following Montanus and Maximilla. [...] [Chapter 4] What must I do then? Deny that I am of Origen's opinion? They will not believe me. Swear that I am not? They will laugh and say that I deal in lies. I will do the one thing which they dread. I will bring forward their sacred rites and mysteries, and will expose the cunning whereby they delude simple folk like myself. Perhaps, although they refuse credence to my voice when I deny, they may believe my pen when I accuse. Of one thing they are particularly apprehensive, and that is that their writings may some day be taken as evidence against their master. They are ready to make statements on oath and to disclaim them afterwards with an oath as false as the first. When asked for their signatures they use shifts and seek excuses. One says: I cannot condemn what no one else has condemned. Another says: No decision was arrived at on the point by the Fathers. It is thus that they appeal to the judgment of the world to put off the necessity of assenting to a condemnation. Another says with yet more assurance: how am I to condemn men whom the council of Nicæa has left untouched? For the council which condemned Arius would surely have condemned Origen too, had it disapproved of his doctrines. They were bound in other words to cure all the diseases of the church at once and with one remedy; and by parity of reasoning we must deny the majesty of the Holy Ghost because nothing was said of his nature in that council. But the question was of Arius, not of Origen; of the Son, not of the Holy Ghost. The bishops at the council proclaimed their adherence to a dogma which was at the time denied; they said nothing about a difficulty which no one had raised. And yet they covertly struck at Origen as the source of the Arian heresy: for, in condemning those who deny the Son to be of the substance of the Father, they have condemned Origen as much as Arius. On the ground taken by these persons we have no right to condemn Valentine, Marcion, or the Cataphrygians, [i.e. Montantists] or Manichæus, none of whom are named by the council of Nicæa, and yet there is no doubt that in time they were prior to it. But when they find themselves pressed either to subscribe or to leave the Church, you may see some strange twisting. They qualify their words, they arrange them anew, they use vague expressions; so as, if possible, to hold both our confession and that of our opponents, to be called indifferently heretics and Catholics. As if it were not in the same spirit that the Delphian Apollo (or, as he is sometimes called, Loxias) gave his oracles to Crœsus and to Pyrrhus; cheating with a similar device two men widely separated in time. To make my meaning clear I will give a few examples."

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001084.htm


Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Chapter 30:5(B), Pages 178-179,

“Tertullian's Treatise Against Praxeas,” Translated by Canon Ernest Evans, 1948.

“...This is he who meanwhile has poured forth the gift which he has received from the Father, the Holy Spirit, the third name of the deity and the third sequence of the majesty, THE PREACHER OF ONE MONARCHY AND ALSO THE INTERPRETER OF THE ECONOMY FOR THOSE WHO ADMIT THE WORDS OF >>> HIS <<< [i.e. MONTANUS] NEW PROPHECY, and the leader into all the truth which is in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit according to the Christian mystery....”​
 
Based on Stevens mistaken claim on Tertullian, that he had a NT Latin manuscript with a form of the Comma in it (variants don't matter right Steven? You - in effect - said so!) his hypothetical Latin manuscript would have most probably read "Pater, Filius ["the Son"], et Paracletus" ["and the Paraclete"]·

Adversum Praxaen 25.1

“ita connexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero. Qui tres unum sunt, non unus,
quomodo dictum est, 'Ego et pater unum sumus,' ad substantiae unitatem non ad numeri singularitatem.”

1 John 5:7 KJV-numbering
(Tertullian's hypothetical Latin manuscript reconstructed)

[Clause-A] Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in cælo : [Clause-C] Pater, Filius, et Paracletus :
[Clause-D] et tres unum sunt.

1 John 5:7 KJV-numbering
Vulgatam Clementinam

[Clause-A] Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in cælo : [Clause-C] Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus :
[Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt.

1 John 5:7 KJV-numbering
(Tertullian's hypothetical Greek manuscript reconstructed)

[Clause-A] ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [Clause-B] εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, [Clause-C] ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Υἱὸς, καὶ ὁ Παράκλητος·
[Clause-D] καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν

1 John 5:7 KJV-numbering
TR (Textus Receptus i.e. "The Recieved Text")

[Clause-A] ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [Clause-B] εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, [Clause-C] ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα·
[Clause-D] καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν​


What existing Latin NT manuscripts (contra the imaginary NT manuscripts that Steven dreams of) before the sixth century give any evidence for this reading in the actual text of 1 John 5:7? None! Why? Because it, and the received Comma, never existed in any Latin NT manuscript in Tertullian's time, or for hundreds of years come.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
What existing Latin NT manuscripts (contra the imaginary NT manuscripts that Steven dreams of) before the sixth century give any evidence for this reading in the actual text of 1 John 5:7? None! Why?
Click to expand...

Typical worthless trickster question from TNC.

Since we have no extant Latin ms. With 1 John 5 extant that are dated before the sixth century, obviously the answer has to be 0.
 
Steven Avery said:
Your idea that Tertullian was thinking of Montanus when he referred to the Holy Spirit in Against Praxeas is another one of your wacky laughers.
Click to expand...

TNC is mixing up two very different questions.

Tertullian Montanist leanings.

Thinking that when Against Praxeas 25 refers to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Tertullian is thinking of Montanist prophecy, not the Holy Spirit as written and explained in the New Testament.

This is just a waste of time by TNC, however it does give a fantastic example of his inability to really deal with context and proper interpretation.
 
Steven Avery said:
TNC is mixing up two very different questions.

Tertullian Montanist leanings.

Thinking that when Against Praxeas 25 refers to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Tertullian is thinking of Montanist prophecy, not the Holy Spirit as written and explained in the New Testament.

This is just a waste of time by TNC, however it does give a fantastic example of his inability to really deal with context and proper interpretation.
Click to expand...

Quoting yourself again.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Quoting yourself again.
Click to expand...

Adding substance.
(Stop whining. You requested my response on this Tertullian thread.)

You are stuck with your absurd and wacky idea about Tertullian. You claim that his references to the Holy Sprit in Against Praxeas 25 are really just references to Montanist prophecy! Amazing.

And since you will not walk it back, (even now the smart thing to do) this conclusively proves that all your posturing about context is worthless.
 
You've stated nothing of new or of substance other than your personal denial of Tertullian's own words in Chapter 1 or "Adersum Praxaen" that he "separated" from the Church and that he was "defend[ing]" Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla.

Listen to his words.

TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE (circa. 145-225.C.E. ): “In divers ways has the Devil shown hostility to the Truth. At times he has tried to shake it by pretending to defend it. He is the champion of the one Lord, the Almighty, the creator of the world, so that he may make a heresy [i.e. the "One-ness" heresy] out of the unity. He says that the Father himself came down into the virgin, himself was born of her, himself suffered, in short himself is Jesus Christ. The serpent has forgotten himself: for when he tempted Jesus Christ after the baptism of John it was as Son of God that he attacked him, being assured that God has a son at least from those very scriptures out of which he was then constructing the temptation : "If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread" [1]: again, "If thou art the Son of God cast thyself down from hence, for it is written that he - the Father, of course – hath given his angels charge concerning thee, that in their hands they should bear thee up, lest in any place thou dash thy foot against a stone." [2] Or will he accuse the gospels of lying, and say, "Let Matthew and Luke see to it: I for my part approached God himself, I tempted the Almighty hand to hand: that was the reason for my approach, that was the reason for the temptation: otherwise, if it had been <only> God's son, perhaps I should not have demeaned myself < to tempt> him"? Nay but he himself rather is a liar from, the beginning,[3] and so is any man whom he has suborned with his own <coin>, like Praxeas. For this person was the first to import to Rome out of Asia this kind of wrong headedness a man generally of restless character, and moreover puffed up with boasting of his confessorship on account of nothing more than a mere short discomfort of imprisonment: though even if he had given his body to be burned he would have profited nothing, since he had not the love of God[4] whose spiritual gifts he also drove out by assault. For at that time the bishop of Rome was on the point of recognizing the prophecies of Montanus and Prisca and Maximilla, and as a result of that recognition was offering peace to the churches of Asia and Phrygia; but this man, by false assertions concerning the prophets themselves and their churches, and by insistence on the decisions of the bishop's predecessors, forced him both to recall the letters of peace already issued and to desist from his project of receiving the spiritual gifts. Thus Praxeas at Rome managed two pieces of the devil's business: he drove out prophecy and introduced heresy: he [Latin "fugavit" ] put to flight the Paraclete and crucified the Father. Praxean tares [1] were sown above the wheat and had germinated here also, while many were asleep in simplicity of doctrine. Thereafter they were brought to light, by whom God would, and seemed even to have been rooted up. In fact the teacher gave security for amendment by return to his former opinions, and his bond remains in the custody of the natural men,[2] in whose presence the transaction was then carried out. After that, silence. I for my part was subsequently [Latin "disiunxit"] separated from the natural men by my acknowledgement and defence of the Paraclete. But those tares had at that time scattered their seed everywhere, and so for a time it lay hid, deceptively dissembling its life, and has now burst forth anew. But it shall also be plucked up anew, if the Lord will, in the time now at my disposal: if not, then in its due time all counterfeit grain will be gathered and, along with other offences, be burned up in unquenchable fire...” - (Chapter 1, Pages 130/131, "TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS," Translated by Canon Ernest Evans, and published by SPCK, 1948.)
[FOOTNOTE 1]: Matt. 4. 3.
[FOOTNOTE 2]: Matt. 4. 6; Ps. 91. 11,12.
[FOOTNOTE 3]: Cf. John 8. 44.
[FOOTNOTE 4]: 1 Cor. 13, 3.
[FOOTNOTE 1]: Matt. 13. 24. ff.
[FOOTNOTE 2]: 1 Cor. 2. 14.

Tertullian had definitely become a Montantist (his words):

"I, [Tertullian] for my part, was subsequently separated from the natural men [the Church, i.e. Christianity] by
my acknowledgement and defense of the Paraclete [i.e. Montanus]"​

As Jerome, said in Paragraph 19, “Against Helvidius”

“Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church..."​


The effect of your words on me? = Flat liner, beeeeppppppppp.....
 
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
You've stated nothing of new or of substance other than your personal denial of Tertullian's own words in Chapter 1 or "Adersum Praxaen" that he "separated" from the Church and that he was "defend[ing]" Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.

There is nothing that says:

“When I describe the Holy Spirit in the Trinity I am actually referring to Montanist prophecy, not the Holy Spirit in the Bible”.

Your position is simply a joke.
And discredits your phony context claims.
 
Steven Avery said:
Wrong again.

There is nothing that says:

“When I describe the Holy Spirit in the Trinity I am actually referring to Montanist prophecy, not the Holy Spirit in the Bible”.

Your position is simply a joke.
And discredits your phony context claims.
Click to expand...
Tertullian, Cyril and Eusebius prove you completely wrong. Why won't you actually read the excerpts TNC has provided very carefully???
 
TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Chapter 1, Pages 130-131

Translated by Canon Ernest Evans, 1948.

"...on the point of recognizing the prophecies of Montanus and Prisca and Maximilla [...] I, [Tertullian] for my part, was subsequently separated from the natural men [the Church, i.e. Christianity] by
my acknowledgement and defence of the Paraclete [i.e. Montanus]"
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top