TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
The unity of the church.
Which church?
The unity of the church.
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).
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.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.
The full un-truncated Comma "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" was a distraction for the ….
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.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.
So you are abandoning your previous objections about “equal”, “co-equal” and “substance”?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.
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).So you are abandoning your previous objections about “equal”, “co-equal” and “substance”?
The unity of the church.
… specific arguments being made by Tertullian
I'm just saying all that is entailed by "three witnesses in heaven" including “equal”, “co-equal” and “substance”
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.
In hundreds of partial quotes of New Testament verses, the writer never says. “Oh, this is a partial quote of a verse.”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.
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.So you are reading in some of the Schoolmen considerations anachronistically into the Johannine scripture.
The full Comma would not distract from Tertullian's argument in Chapter 25, anymore than the three words "tres unum sunt" in Adversus Praxeam.
That is your confirmation bias opinion.