heavenly witnesses - full use in extant writings before Priscillian - Isaac the Jew

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Now you're admitting to a "difference" (oooohhh deary me) in the sentence structure and parallelism between verse 7 and verse 8! We're getting through to you!
Click to expand...

There were always various differences between the heavenly and earthly witnesses.

Your attempt to make that a deal-breaker for the syntactic parallelism is just an example of the poverty of your arguments. A textbook example of contra nonsense.
 
Steven Avery said:
There were always various differences between the heavenly and earthly witnesses.
Click to expand...
Which always signals non-original matter. More Latin evidence against the Comma. All of the Greek is against. And plenty of Latin against it being original to even the Latin. Which of course makes it a non original reading. Not from the Apostle John. Not from God, but an addition by man. An unauthorized edition.
 
  • Clement of Alexandria (symbolic interpretation)
  • Origen of Alexandria ("mystical" interpretations)
  • Tertullian of Carthage (sacramentum "mystery" interpretation and heretical context)
  • Cyprian of Carthage (sacramentum "mystery" interpretation context)

The earliest non-Pseudographic ANF interpretations (which are the more important ones) are all (with the exception of Clement of Alexandria) symbolic and mystical eisegesis of a single clause which happens to be the one that is in verse 8 (Clause-D, KJV-numbering) "et tres unum sunt". None of these definitely quote any other clauses of what might have been the Comma.

There are of course many other contextual considerations that are not listed here, but this is important to remember.

The lack of any definite, 100% bonafide, unmistakable quotations (contra mere generic Father, Son, Spirit, eisegetical phraseology) of the other clauses from the Comma show's that it didn't exist in this period.

1 John 5:8 (Clause-D, KJV-numbering, "earthly witnesses") "et tres unum sunt" did exist then, and therefore multiple interpretations were read into it and out of it, in different ways, in different times, according to each individual's choice and circumstance.
 
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
  • Clement of Alexandria (symbolic interpretation)
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the prophetic extract, that might be Clement of Alexandria or might be Theodotus?

Liturgies and Other Documents of the Ante-Nicene Period (1872)
edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson
https://books.google.com/books?id=CcQUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA121

Selections from the Prophetic Scriptures

"By two and three witnesses every word is established. (Deut xvii.6) By Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, by whose witness and help the prescribed commandments ought to be kept."

(Clement of Alexandria. Prophetic Extracts. (Eclogae Propheticae) 13.1; ANF, vol 8)
Click to expand...
 
Steven Avery said:
Are you referring to the prophetic extract, that might be Clement of Alexandria or might be Theodotus?

Liturgies and Other Documents of the Ante-Nicene Period (1872)
edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson
https://books.google.com/books?id=CcQUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA121
Click to expand...

In short (leaving out other considerations).

One, it's from a late corrupted manuscript of Clement's work's. Two, it's not a quotation of any specific clause of the Comma. Three, the context is Deuteronomy 18:6. Four the context is baptism, and more probably has F+S+HS=3 from Matthew 28:19 in view. Five, in view of the Comma-less (and even after 6th century Trinitarian modifications) commentary on the specific passage, makes it even more unlikely this a Comma allusion. Six, in view of Origen's, Tertullian's, Cyprian's "sacramentum" mystery eisegesis, make's the probability that this has anything to do with Comma, very very unlikely.

You disagree, so I agree to disagree.
 
Steven Avery said:
Was that the passage you had in mind when you wrote Clement of Alexandria?
Click to expand...

Of course I am completely aware of the two other references (one dealt with above).

I'm working right now and posting between jobs and on breaks.

I would post a whole lot more on this if I had access to my files, with manuscript pictures (not possible here) and information you simply don't have. But it's not possible with the limitations I have right now.

The Commentary on 1 John is the determinant touchstone for Clement and the Comma (and by extension the context of Cassiodorus).
 
These six points on that one reference (by no means exhaustive either):

One, it's from a late corrupted manuscript of Clement's work's. Two, it's not a quotation of any specific clause of the Comma. Three, the context is Deuteronomy 18:6. Four the context is baptism, and more probably has F+S+HS=3 from Matthew 28:19 in view. Five, in view of the Comma-less (and even after 6th century Trinitarian modifications) commentary on the specific passage, makes it even more unlikely this a Comma allusion. Six, in view of Origen's, Tertullian's, Cyprian's "sacramentum" mystery eisegesis, make's the probability that this has anything to do with Comma, very very unlikely.

These six points are based facts, i.e. no Comma-inclusive NT manuscripts in Greek before the 14th century, no Comma-inclusive NT manuscripts in Latin before the sixth century, whereas there are several Comma-less Greek NT manuscripts before the 6th century, and several Comma-less Syriac NT manuscripts before the 6th century etc etc.

Your biased assumptions, on the other hand, are pure speculation built on yet other speculative theories taped together with made up conspiracy myths.

The lack of the Comma, and the early presence of the base eisegetical formula "et tres unum sunt" (earthly witnesses) in verse 8 (Clause-D, KJV-numbering) in the earliest NT manuscripts by default weigh the balance against the Johannine Comma (meaning "Parenthetical text") being an original NT manuscript reading from the beginning.
 
Steven Avery said:
Please list all the extant Latin mss. with 1John 5 before the sixth century.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
More research begging from the court jester.

Why don't YOU list them? You've supposedly read Houghton, McDonald, Westcott, Alford, Marshall, Metzger, Brown, Hixson, Thiele, and Snapp, among others whom you love to demonize as "text-crit dupes."

YOU tell US. Show us that you actually know something.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Please list all the extant Latin mss. with 1John 5 before the sixth century.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Until a new discovery is made, no NT manuscript, in any language, has the Comma before the 6th century, therefore, because multiple manuscripts in three different languages without the Comma exist BEFORE the first version of any NT Comma-inclusive manuscript, BY DEFAULT the evidence weighs in favour of the Comma-less text.

The evidence is not in favour of the Comma BY DEFAULT.

That's the starting point for all.
 
Last edited:
Shoonra said:
Even the two Majority Text editions omit the Comma.
Click to expand...

This is well known and has long been known.

The heavenly witnesses is beautiful scripture, however its support is not based on Greek manuscripts.

Majority Text editions also blunder by omission on Acts 8:37, and at least one by the omission of 1 John 2:23b.
 
Steven Avery said:
The heavenly witnesses is beautiful scripture, however its support is not based on Greek manuscripts.
Click to expand...
Yup. After all, why would ANYONE expect New Testament scripture -- originally given, written and copied in Greek -- to be supported by manuscripts written in the language of the New Testament?

And by the way, It doesn't matter how many beautiful, wonderful, and majestic adjectives you put in front of the phrase "heavenly witnesses." Non-scripture is non-scripture.

You're quoted sentence is a tacit admission to the fact that you are adding to the word of God for the sake of your KJV idolatry.
 
Steven Avery said:
Are you referring to the prophetic extract, that might be Clement of Alexandria or might be Theodotus?

Liturgies and Other Documents of the Ante-Nicene Period (1872)
edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson
https://books.google.com/books?id=CcQUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA121

Selections from the Prophetic Scriptures

"By two and three witnesses every word is established. (Deut xvii.6) By Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, by whose witness and help the prescribed commandments ought to be kept."

(Clement of Alexandria. Prophetic Extracts. (Eclogae Propheticae) 13.1; ANF, vol 8)
Click to expand...

Charles Forster has a wonderful section discussing this Clement or Theodotus evidence.

A new plea for the authenticity of the text of the three heavenly witnesses (1883)
Charles Forster
http://books.google.com/books?id=yXIsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA72
p. 72-76
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top