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

Steven Avery

Well-known member
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).

Do you accept Matthew 28:19 as scripture?

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost:

2 Corinthians 13:14?

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
The second epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi, a city of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Do you accept Matthew 28:19 as scripture?

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost:

2 Corinthians 13:14?

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
The second epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi, a city of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas.
The above doesn't derogate from "one God/One Lord/One Spirit", which renders a hierarchy of authority, whereas the Comma derogates from hierarchy into a co-equal, even disunified view of deity (just by describing three equal witnesses in heaven), which it then seeks to unify via "three are one substance." Such entails a man-made and philosophical (not a religious view) of deity; and leads to the co-equal Trinity of the schoolmen.

When Jesus said he and the Father were one, he didn't mean the same or co-equal, but principal and agent in single hierarchy of divinity cf 1 Cor 11:3. John 5:19; 14:9,31.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The above doesn't derogate from "one God/One Lord/One Spirit", which renders a hierarchy of authority, whereas the Comma derogates from hierarchy into a co-equal, even disunified view of deity (just by describing three equal witnesses in heaven), which it then seeks to unify via "three are one substance." Such entails a man-made and philosophical (not a religious view) of deity; and leads to the co-equal Trinity of the schoolmen.

When Jesus said he and the Father were one, he didn't mean the same or co-equal, but principal and agent in single hierarchy of divinity cf 1 Cor 11:3. John 5:19; 14:9,31.

None of the three verses have the word “equal”, or “co-equal”, or “substance”.

Deut 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

No reference to Spirit.

No reference to Lord, only LORD.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
None of the three verses have the word “equal”, or “co-equal”, or “substance”.

Deut 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

No reference to Spirit.

No reference to Lord, only LORD.
Exactly. You're not getting the message, I fear. What I am saying is that the Comma doesn't convey a scriptural view of deity, because it is entirely unnecessary, even wrong, to delineate three witnesses in heaven. There is only one: YHWH, and all that he represents.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Exactly. You're not getting the message, I fear. What I am saying is that the Comma doesn't convey a scriptural view of deity, because it is entirely unnecessary, even wrong, to delineate three witnesses in heaven. There is only one: YHWH, and all that he represents.
So you are abandoning your previous objections about “equal”, “co-equal” and “substance”?
 

cjab

Well-known member
So you are abandoning your previous objections about “equal”, “co-equal” and “substance”?
I'm just saying all that is entailed by "three witnesses in heaven" including “equal”, “co-equal” and “substance” (you seem to be misrepresenting what I'm sayings) is not part of the Hebrew scriptures and there is no reason why John would have fabricated it (it's a gnostic / Montanist / heretical enterprise set apart from scripture).
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
The unity of the church.

So Tertullian deliberately (or accidentally?) truncated the Comma from a full two verse (parenthetical text) syntactic parallel because the Montanist "church['s]" unity was being "distract[ed]"?

… specific arguments being made by Tertullian

Tertullian argues about the need to truncate verses into smaller portions in order to protect New Prophecy "unity" in Adversus Praxeam chapter 25.1?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
So Tertullian deliberately (or accidentally?) truncated the Comma from a full two verse (parenthetical text) syntactic parallel because the Montanist "church['s]" unity was being "distract[ed]"?

If he had the verse in front of him, it would be deliberate, if it was from memory it could be accidental.

There is nothing specifically about Montanism in Against Praxeas 25.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
If he had the verse in front of him, it would be deliberate, if it was from memory it could be accidental.

There is nothing specifically about Montanism in Against Praxeas 25.

There's nothing specifically in Adversus Praxeam chapter 25, either, about Tertullian saying there is any sort of need to "truncate" a quotation of either of the two verses that constitute the full Comma verses (7 and 8 KJV-numbering) in John's First Catholic Epistle chapter 5, down to less than an eighth of the full Comma.

There's also nothing written specifically by Tertullian in Adversus Praxeam chapter 25, denying emphatically that John 14:16 (the Scripture he quotes about "the Paraclete") that he does not view the words "the Paraclete" as a title that can apply to Montanus either.

He's says at the beginning of Adversus Praxeam that he's already made his defense and acknowledgement of those views to the Physchii, so he doesn't have to.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
There's nothing specifically in Adversus Praxeam chapter 25, either, about Tertullian saying there is any sort of need to "truncate" a quotation of either of the two verses that constitute the full Comma verses (7 and 8 KJV-numbering) in John's First Catholic Epistle chapter 5, down to less than an eighth of the full Comma.
In hundreds of partial quotes of New Testament verses, the writer never says. “Oh, this is a partial quote of a verse.”
Typical absurdity from TNC.

What happened to your praise for monarchian theory from Tertullian?
 

cjab

Well-known member
So you are reading in some of the Schoolmen considerations anachronistically into the Johannine scripture.
No, I'm just reading Augustine which I determine to adhere to Comma (neo-platonic) theology, rather than to the Hebrew theology of one God. What we can say of Augustine is that even if he didn't acknowledge the Comma, he was an avid devotee of Comma theology, and likely a legitimizer for its introduction in his era, along with Marius Victorinus, who likewise never cites the Comma but relies on its theology. Both these rely on the arguments of Tertullian concerning "substance." For once you posit a "substance" of God, you necessarily posit equality of all who possess that divine substance. This isn't derived from the Hebrew scriptures. Or if it is, show me where.

________________

On the Trinity (Book I)(Ch4)

"7. All those Catholic expounders of the divine Scriptures, both Old and New, whom I have been able to read, who have written before me concerning the Trinity, Who is God, have purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality; and therefore that they are not three Gods, but one God: although the Father has begotten the Son, and so He who is the Father is not the Son; and the Son is begotten by the Father, and so He who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, Himself also co-equal with the Father and the Son, and pertaining to the unity of the Trinity."
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
The full Comma would not distract from Tertullian's argument in Chapter 25, anymore than the three words "tres unum sunt" in Adversus Praxeam.


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."


Listing the distinctive individual titles "the Father, the Word/Logos, and the Holy Spirit" would be of great aid in showing the distinctions of the "persons" of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, united by the substances against Praxeas un-differentiated one and the same confused identity concept.

Realistically, listing the distinguishing titles "the Father, the Word/Logos, and the Holy Spirit" would not be a "distraction" from Tertullian's argument about showing the distinctions between the "persons" of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, whom he says are united by the substances against Praxeas un-differentiated one and the same confused identity concept.

Truncated, or untruncated, Tertullian would take full and unreserved advantage of every single aspect of the entire Comma to the fullest extent possible. Everyone who's ever read Tertullian's writings (and all of his various kinds of ex-egesis, eis-egesis, and his straight out twisting of Scripture when he deems it necessary to his cause) knows that.

It's not an objective, nor reasonable opinion that nay say's this.

It's an opinion colored by Steven's (who named himself "Praxeas" on other forums) peculiar and personal theological bias (imagining the Comma to be the center of the Christian universe in all ages past) that interferes with honest and sound objectivity in Tertullian's particular argument about personal distinctions.

Which is the very substance of Tertullian's argument in Chapter 25 (the very chapter in question), his opening sentence of the chapter:

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

Liber Adversus Praxeam

Translation By Peter Holmes, 1870

Chapter 25.1


"Post Philippum et totam substantiam quaestionis istius, quae in finem Evangelii perseverant in eodem genere sermonis,
quo Pater et Filius in sua proprietate distinguuntur."

"What follows Philip's question, and the Lord's whole treatment of it, 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."​
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
That is your confirmation bias opinion.

Nope.

That's Tertullian's argument.

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

Liber Adversus Praxeam

Translation By Peter Holmes, 1870

Chapter 25.1


"Post Philippum et totam substantiam quaestionis istius, quae in finem Evangelii perseverant in eodem genere sermonis,
quo Pater et Filius in sua proprietate distinguuntur."

"What follows Philip's question, and the Lord's whole treatment of it, 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."
 
Top