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

Steven Avery said:
Who are you quoting? Before you had 3 quotes from KJVToday but you wrote “Comma advocates”.
Click to expand...

They say: "Thus the Comma is thoroughly preserved for us today and can be accepted as authentic Scripture." Thus, Comma advocates.

Back (again) to the substance of the questions relating to Tertullian's Adversus Praxeam chapter 25.1 .

About the (apparently) deliberately truncated Comma reference, which is supposedly obscurely translated in English, in which (apparently) Tertullian felt the title "the Word" and the full Comma were too inappropriate to quote fully at Adversus Praxeam chapter 25.1.
 
Last edited:
A general observation for everyone reading this thread.

The "truncated" Comma reference "tres unum sunt" in Tertullian's Adversus Praxeam chapter 25.1 is not even a full clause from the Comma, let alone a full verse (technically verses, plural, 7 and 8 KJV-numbering with "in terra" etc) quotation.

1 John 5:7 (KJV-numbering) Vulgate
[Clause-A] "Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in caelo:
[Clause-C] Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : [Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt."

1 John 5:8 (KJV-numbering) Vulgate
[Clause-A] "Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in terra : [Clause-C] Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis : [Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt."​

It's lacking both the "et" ("and" English) and the "hi".

Therefore it's not even a quarter of verse 7 KJV-numbering, and not even an eighth of the full Comma (verses 7 and 8 KJV-numbering).

That's how much this✌️reference✌️is "truncated".

But that's not the point!

WHY is it "truncated" is what we want an answer for. WHY did Tertullian (apparently) deliberately chop down the Comma in this context?
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Are "they" speaking?

Why not be honest and just give the quote source?
Click to expand...
Interestingly, the diagram at the very end of the source (infra) doesn't even allude to Tertullian, which betrays the author's lack of confidence in Tertullian, albeit alluded to earlier by the source. IMO, the source is a shambolic piece of disinformation.


www.kjvtoday.com

Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) - KJV Today

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (1 John 5:7, KJV) “οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν” (1 John 5:7, 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus) ...
www.kjvtoday.com www.kjvtoday.com
 
Last edited:
That general observation (again) for others (apart from post twister extraordinaire Steven Avery) reading this thread.

The "truncated" Comma reference "tres unum sunt" in Tertullian's Adversus Praxeam chapter 25.1 is not even a full clause from the Comma, let alone a full verse (technically verses, plural, 7 and 8 KJV-numbering with "in terra" etc) quotation.

1 John 5:7 (KJV-numbering) Vulgate
[Clause-A] "Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in caelo: [Clause-C] Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus :
[Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt."

1 John 5:8 (KJV-numbering) Vulgate
[Clause-A] "Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in terra : [Clause-C] Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis :
[Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt."​

It's lacking both the "et" ("and" English) and the "hi".

Therefore it's not even a quarter of verse 7 KJV-numbering, and not even an eighth of the full Comma (verses 7 and 8 KJV-numbering).

That's how much this ✌️reference✌️is "truncated".

But that's not the point!

WHY is it "truncated" is what we want an answer for. WHY did Tertullian (apparently) deliberately chop down the Comma in this context?
 
You don't see any "three baptism text" in Tertullian's writings?

Strange.

Perhaps it's because your not familiar enough with his writings.


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

Adversus Praxeam

Chapter 26.9

"et novissime mandans ut tinguerent in patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum, non in unum :
nam nec semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina, in personas singulas tinguimur."

“And lastly, commanding that we should be immersed in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, not into (unum) the one,
since it is not once, but three times, that we should be immersed for each individual name, in each person individually."​

Compare

The Didache

Chapter 7:1-4

Greek Text, from “The Teaching of the Apostles - Newly Edited, with Facsimile Text and a Commentary,
For the John Hopkins University, Baltimore, From the Ms. of the Holy Sepulchre,
(Convent of the Greek Church) Jerusalem,”
By J. Rendel Harris, 1887

Facsimile of manuscript Folio 78a Codex Hierosolymitanus, Page 117 (113)
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hnnc3z;view=1up;seq=129

Περὶ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, οὕτω βαπτίσατε· ταῦτα πάντα πρειπόντες, βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι. [2.] ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς ὕδωρ ζῶν, εἰς ἄλλο ὕδωρ βάπτισον· εἰ δ’ οὐ δύνασαι ἐν ψυχρῷ, ἐν θερμῷ. [3.] ἐὰν δὲ ἀμφότερα μὴ ἔχῃς, ἔκχεον εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν τρὶς ὕδωρ εἰς ὄνομα Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος. [4.] πρὸ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσμος προνηστευσάτω ὁ βαπτίζων καὶ ὁ βαπτιζόμενος καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι δύναται· κελεύεις δὲ νηστεῦσαι τὸν βαπτιζόμενον πρὸ μιᾶς ἢ δύο.

"Now concerning the baptism, baptize in this way: after saying in advance all these things, baptize “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” [Matt. 28:19] in running water. [2.] But if you do not have access to running water, baptize in another kind of water; and if you are not able to [baptize] with cold water, baptize in hot water. [3.] But if you possess [neither], pour water onto the head three times “in the name of a Father and of a Son and of Holy Spirit” [Matt. 28:19 paraphrased]. [4.] Now, before the baptism, the one baptizing and the one being baptized, and if any others are able, let them fast! Now, you must urge the one being baptized to fast for one or two days before.”​
 
Steven Avery said:
Tertullian was giving the part that matches John 10:30 and the concept of unity.

Not very complicated.
Click to expand...

Tertullian was giving the "tres unum sunt" part from verse 8?

1 John 5:8 (KJV-numbering) Vulgate
[Clause-A] "Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in terra : [Clause-C] Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis :
[Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt."​
 
Was Tertullian giving the matching unity concept part from his Latin Bible in verse 8 "tres unum sunt"?

1 John 5:8 (KJV-numbering) Vulgate
[Clause-A] "Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in terra : [Clause-C] Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis :
[Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt."​

Did he build his unity concept out of that part?
 
Steven Avery said:
Tertullian was giving the part that matches John 10:30 and the concept of unity.

Not very complicated.
Click to expand...

Why would he only give "part" of 1 John 5:7 when the whole Comma would not be out of place at all!

It would aid his argument.


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

Adversus Praxeam

Chapter 25.1

“Ita connexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero. ["Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi] tres unum sunt." Non unus, quomodo dictum est, 'Ego et Pater unum sumus,' ad substantiae unitatem non ad numeri singularitatem.”

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, thereby proving that these three [masculine identities [Or: "these three persons"]] are connected together, with each one originating from out of the other. [“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and] these three are one”, not one [masculine identity [Or: " not a singular masculine identity" "not one person"]], even as it says "I and the Father, we are one," by the uniting of the substances, not by the singularity of the numbers."​



It would list the "persons" "individually" - combating beautifully Praxeas undifferentiated One-ness.



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

Adversus Praxeam

Chapter 26.9

"et novissime mandans ut tinguerent in patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum, non in unum :
nam nec semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina, in personas singulas tinguimur."

“And lastly, commanding that we should be immersed in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, not into (unum) the one,
since it is not once, but three times, that we should be immersed for each individual name, in each person individually."​
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Was Tertullian giving the matching unity concept part from his Latin Bible in verse 8 "tres unum sunt"?

1 John 5:8 (KJV-numbering) Vulgate
[Clause-A] "Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in terra : [Clause-C] Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis :
[Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt."​

Did he build his unity concept out of that part?
Click to expand...

Very unlikely, since that verse has no reference to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It would be an invisible allegory.

See also the two Cyprian references.
 
Steven Avery said:
The unity of the church.
Click to expand...
The unity of the Spirit is fundamental to the unity of the church: Eph 4:5. If the Tertullian idea of one substance in common between the three witnesses be taken as a metaphor for unity of spirit, it would be even more relevant to the unity of the church, which is based on unity of spirit. The reality is that the bible only allows "one God/One Lord/One Spirit" (Deut 6:4) and this the apostles were never going to derogate from (cf. Eph 4:5). This is why the very idea of the Comma is wrong, because it tries to unify three divine principals/agents in non-scriptural (philosophical) language.

Where Cyprian went wrong in his overall thesis was in not focusing on unity of spirit, but on political unity ("one church") which doesn't appear in the bible. Hence if unity of spirit be a distraction, then you only admit that Cyprian's whole thesis was misconceived (which those such as Zernov have alleged),
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top