1 John 5:7-8 Johannine Comma - Tertullian Adversus Praxeas 25.1

Steven Avery said:
It looks like you are completely out of your depth on this subject.

This Munich ms. with the Evangelienbuch poem is not related to the Freisinger Fragment with the heavenly witnesses verse.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think I got confused between the Freisinger codex and the fragments. All the authorities on the fragments seem to be in German , except for Grantley who says the the Freisinger Fragment (and Leon Palimpsest) resemble a Vetus Latina in a Spanish liturgy, which however seems to have escaped your attention (cf. Priscillian connection). (However I'm not apologizing as you've been dishing out a lot of wilful misinformation on this.)
 
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Two key words/terms in Tertullian's argumentation were μοναρχία "monarchy", "the rule of/by One single person", and the familial term οἰκονομίαν, denoting a system of household management or administration (i.e. involving the headship principle, with the Father as the Head).
Click to expand...
So do you think that Tertullian is reasonable on these subjects? I personally find these to be amongst the least objectionable parts of his thesis.

It's in his "three are one [neuter], not one [masculine]" that Tertullian seems to go awry in terms of being unable to coherently substantiate his "substance" argument from the bible: if he meant "one in Spirit" (pneuma is grammatically neuter) I suppose it is allowable, as when Jesus said "I and the Father are one" in Jn 10:30, he surely inferred "in agreement per the Holy Spirit" from"The Father is in me and I am in the Father."

But why use "substance" when you meant "spirit" or "unity" or "in agreement"? This is the puzzling thing.
 
cjab said:
So do you think that Tertullian is reasonable on these subjects? I personally find these to be amongst the least objectionable parts of his thesis.

It's in his "three are one [neuter], not one [masculine]" that Tertullian seems to go awry in terms of being unable to coherently substantiate his "substance" argument from the bible: if he meant "one in Spirit" (pneuma is grammatically neuter) I suppose it is allowable, as when Jesus said "I and the Father are one" in Jn 10:30, he surely inferred "in agreement per the Holy Spirit" from"The Father is in me and I am in the Father."

But why use "substance" when you meant "spirit" or "unity" or "in agreement"? This is the puzzling thing.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah. Don't think for one minute that I actually buy into Tertullian's Montanist garbage (just the same way I don't buy into Praxeas moronic reasoning on God).

Tertullian's "one-thing-ed-ness" is all about "substance", the divine stuff-ness.

Tertullian's conception of substance is a quasi-materialistic concept (stuff/thing-ness) mixed with Gnostic emanationism (Adv. Prax. 8) and the interpretations that come from "the Interpreter of the economy" and "his sermons of the New Prophecy" (Adv. Prax. 31).
 
Steven Avery said:
Not really. I’ve noticed that when you like what Tertullian says, there is no mention of Montanan, when you don’t like what he says, it is all Montnist delusion.
Click to expand...
Perhaps he means by Montanist garbage, the summation of the lip service of Tertullian to Montanus & the Paraclete. However I think there is something more: the elevation of the Paraclete to the same "substance" as the Father and the Son by Tertullian (even if the Holy Spirit is "of God").

But does the Holy Spirit really possess the "glory of the Father" in the same way as Christ now does? Can the Holy Spirit be categorized as "of the same substance" as the risen Son? Seems to be meaningless talk by Tertullian. As I suggested above, nothing wrong with "One Spirit." The problem lies in "One substance."
 
Steven Avery said:
Not really. I’ve noticed that when you like what Tertullian says, there is no mention of Montanan, when you don’t like what he says, it is all Montnist delusion.
Click to expand...

And you Steven? Your not deliberately trying to de-emphasize all the subtle and intricate doctrinal and contextual connections with Tertullian's Montanist interpretation of the economy of the Trinity of three person's in one substance, which Tertullian specifically says is simply from (in Adversus Praxean Chapter 25) the Gospel text of John 10:30 (and John 16:14 in the immediate context)?

Your fighting a loosing battle Steven. Just give up. Your effectively trying to declare heresy, not heresy, and a Montanist interpretation, not a Montanist interpretation, and that a Montanist book, is not a Montanist book, and a self declared Montanist, not a Montanist.

The odds (and the whole tenor of what is written by Tertullian's contemporaries about the Montanists) are heavily against you.
 
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Your fighting a loosing battle Steven. Just give up. Your effectively trying to declare heresy, not heresy, and a Montanist interpretation, not a Montanist interpretation, and that a Montanist book, is not a Montanist book, and a self declared Montanist, not a Montanist.
Click to expand...

Your delusions are expanding. Multiplied by incoherency.

Tertullian is a solid early witness to the heavenly witnesses verse being in the early 3rd century Greek and Latin Bible texts. And is closely connected to the two Cyprian refs.

The doctrinal whining is all your nonsense, I just find your selectivity in picking and choosing Tertullian sentences to embrace or attack hilarious. When you like something, he is a sober Monarchian exegete. When you don’t like something, it is Montanist charisma-mania.
 
cjab said:
How about you finding a list of those who agree with you, to support your contention, in the modern critical era (rather than from bygone ages).
Click to expand...

The modern critical era is a time of textual apostasy. The modern critical "scholars" consider many NT books as forgeries, they late date much of the non-forgery New Testament to after AD 70, and they laughably try to remove the Mark ending and the Pericope Adulterae. Plus, they tend to be abysmally ignorant on the heavenly witnesses.
 
Steven Avery said:
The modern critical era is a time of textual apostasy. The modern critical "scholars" consider many NT books as forgeries, they late date much of the non-forgery New Testament to after AD 70, and they laughably try to remove the Mark ending and the Pericope Adulterae. Plus, they tend to be abysmally ignorant on the heavenly witnesses.
Click to expand...
Not a good answer but an extremely evasive answer. As I have mentioned previously, even in the byone era, from the days of Erasmus, the Comma has been endlessly refuted and doubted. Many of its proponents have been enthusiasts and votaries of high religion without a proper understanding of the subject.

Today rejection of the Comma is near universal. And you still have no evidence it was ever in the Greek NT. It stands in a class of its own, and must be addressed on its own evidence, which is that it was invented by Latins towards the end of the 4th century in places where heretics and gnostics flourished, where the scriptures were translated by anyone who willed, and where the priority was in fighting Arianism, and where the Roman Empire itself was in a state of collapse, and where Christian intellectuals were obsessed with asceticism. In such anarchic times, the Comma appeared. You can't gainsay it.
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
Not a good answer but an extremely evasive answer.
Click to expand...

Ir is a good and true answer.

Your post is repetitive, with errors previously corrected, so I don't see anything that warrants an additional response.

One point, again.

Now that we have the massive full verse evidences from c. AD 380 on, the idea of a fourth-century creation is just a scholastic joke. It might have been an understandable try c. 1700-1800, with great difficulty, now it is simply absurd.
 
Steven Avery said:
Tertullian is a solid early witness to the heavenly witnesses verse being in the early 3rd century Greek and Latin Bible texts. And is closely connected to the two Cyprian refs.
Click to expand...

I don't see any other book, or books of the NT referenced in Tertullian's word's except the Gospel in Chapter 25.

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

"Adversus Praxean"

Peter Holmes Translation 1870

Chapter 25​

"What follows Philip's question, and the Lord's whole treatment of it [i.e. Philip's question], to the end of John's Gospel, continues to furnish us with statements of the same kind, distinguishing the Father and the Son, with the properties of each. [...] We have, moreover, in that other Gospel a clear revelation, i.e. of the Son's distinction from the Father [...] and again, in the third Gospel, [...] Wherefore also does this Gospel, at its very termination, intimate that these things were ever written, if it be not, to use its own words, "that ye might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?" Whenever, therefore, you take any of the statements of this Gospel, and apply them to demonstrate the identity of the Father and the Son, supposing that they serve your views therein, you are contending against the definite purpose of the Gospel. For these things certainly are not written that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Father, but the Son."

I don't see him saying (or writing) "as it says in [his Epistle]".
 
Steven Avery said:
Now that we have the massive full verse evidences from c. AD 380 on, the idea of a fourth-century creation is just a scholastic joke. It might have been an understandable try c. 1700-1800, with great difficulty, now it is simply absurd.
Click to expand...
AD 380 is in the 4th century. The Holy Spirit was identified as the substance of the Father at the First Council of Constantinople (381 AD), where the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one substance and three co-equal persons was formally ratified. It wasn't until the Council of Alexandria in AD 362 that the divinity of the Holy Spirit was asserted and understood to be "consubstantial Trinity."

So it seems to be reasonable to think that the Comma doctrine evolved in the absence of the Comma, starting with Tertullian and those inclined to Greek philosophy (which were many), and then given a strong impetus by these two Councils - just at the time when we see the beginnings of its emergence in scripture, which is over a very prolonged period. All this points tothe Comma being a fabrication catering to proponents of 4th century "orthodoxy," although it was likely semi-schismatics (ascetics, encratites, neo-Manichaeans, monks secreted in their monasteries etc), and those inclined to misplaced "enthusiasm," such as Priscillian, who first originated it.

The decisions of these two Councils (supra) are incomprehensible if the Comma had already existed as the decisions would have been made long before. Rather their decisions anticipate the Comma. The evolution of the Trinity doctrine in the 4th century culminating in the Councils is the most likely explanation for the Comma's emergence.
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
The decisions of these two Councils (supra) are incomprehensible if the Comma had already existed: they would not have been necessary
Click to expand...

Nonsense. There is plenty of evidence that the Greek line was largely lacuna. And that there was lots of controversy about the "three are one" such as the competitive songfests, Arian vs. Orthodox.

Even those who acknowledged the heavenly witnesses could take competing views, such as Sabellian vs. Orthodox, as shown by Eusebius. And even Jerome mentioned the contention in Homily 69.

There is much more, but I can't spend too much time on absurd theories, like the 4th century supposed heavenly witnesses creation.
 
Steven Avery said:
Nonsense. There is plenty of evidence that the Greek line was largely lacuna. And that there was lots of controversy about the "three are one" such as the competitive songfests, Arian vs. Orthodox.

Even those who acknowledged the heavenly witnesses could take competing views, such as Sabellian vs. Orthodox, as shown by Eusebius. And even Jerome mentioned the contention in Homily 69.

There is much more, but I can't spend too much time on absurd theories, like the 4th century supposed heavenly witnesses creation.
Click to expand...
I suppose you are referring to this post of yours. Are you intending to translate these references, or do you expect others to do this work on your behalf? What is the point of referring us to Latin books without translation?
 
He trusts dodgy printed texts of the "Father's" way to much.

He hasn't even addressed the "sint" variant that turns up in his old Victorian, or pre-Victorian, Tertullian Adversus Praxean Chapter 25 commentators.

Which changes the sense of the Tertullian's words, from "they/these are", to "they/these might be" and all the flow on implications that has.
 
cjab said:
I suppose you are referring to this post of yours. Are you intending to translate these references, or do you expect others to do this work on your behalf? What is the point of referring us to Latin books without translation?
Click to expand...

There are two Latin references to the hymns of Marius Victorinus that are quite simple, Bengel and Schmid, here and on PBF I have added the pics.

D. Io. Alberti Bengelii Apparatus criticus ad Novum Testamentum: criseos sacrae compendium, limam, supplementum ac fructum exhibens (1763)
https://books.google.com/books?id=N9w-AAAAcAAJ&pg=RA2-PA462

1663604118516.png


D Christiani Friderici Schmidii ... Historia antiqua et vindicatio canonis sacri Veteris Novique Testamenti (1775)
Christian Friedrich Schmid
http://books.google.com/books?id=d2IUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA555

1663603973028.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top