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

1. When was Fuldensis ("Jerome’s" prologue CE contained therein, but no Comma Johanneum) written?

2. When did Jerome die?

3. How many mss of the pologue CE are there?

4. How many name Jerome as author rather than being authored by ANONYMOUS?
 
Last edited:
1. When was Fuldensis ("Jerome’s" prologue CE contained therein, but no Comma Johanneum) written?
2. When did Jerome die?
3. How many mss of the pologue CE are there?
4. How many name Jerome as author rather than being authored by ANONYMOUS?

Why would I go into Q&A with a fellow who accuses me twice of being a liar (accusations still outstanding) based on his own inability to read simple and clear English?
 
Why would I go into Q&A with a fellow who accuses me twice of being a liar (accusations still outstanding) based on his own inability to read simple and clear English?
Translation: answering the questions might expose the falsity of my position, so I'm going to try and distract everyone with other stuff.


So you can call me a grammar nazi and I'm still able to respond to your ineptitude, but call you a liar and your fingers suddenly develop rigor mortitis?

If only I would've known that's all it would take to shut you up!
 
Last edited:
Translation: answering the questions might expose the falsity of my position, so I'm going to try and distract everyone with other stuff.
So you can call me a grammar nazi and I'm still able to respond to your ineptitude, but call you a liar and your fingers suddenly develop rigor mortitis? If only I would've known that's all it would take to shut you up!

It all comes down to your bogus liar accusations,
They have made you unclean for forum discussion.

Your grammar foibles are funny, but not a fundamental integrity issue.
Note though that your struggle in reading and understanding simple English did lead to the bogus liar accusations.

Retract the liar accusations, with a mild apology, and we can move into other areas.

Integrity first.
 
Last edited:
1. When was Fuldensis ("Jerome’s" prologue CE contained therein, but no Comma Johanneum) written?

2. When did Jerome die?

3. How many mss of the pologue CE are there?

4. How many name Jerome as author rather than being authored by ANONYMOUS?
1. Fuldensis was written in the A.D. 540s.

2. Jerome died A.D. 420.

3. Fuldensis is 120 years removed from Jerome.

4. There are numerous prologue mss, as painstakingly provided by TNC at his blog:

5. Only 6 out of the 28 listed, if I counted right, attribute authorship of the prologue to Jerome.....none prior to the 9th century, and most added by a later hand -- which is like listing all the Bibles post-1611 that agree with the KJV on the ending of Rev. 17:8 as some sort of authoritative evidence, when "kaiper estin" originated with Erasmus, via printer's error. In other words, late testimony is worthless in ascertaining origination and authenticity.

6. The rest of the prologue mss listed are ANONYMOUSLY authored.

And that leads me to my next question, asked of you more than a couple times by Maestroh, and completely ignored by you (for obvious reasons):

Do you accept Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Laodiceans?
It appears in Fuldensis, just like the prologue CE.

You've played dumb and have run from that question each time it was asked of you, as if you couldn't answer unless Maestroh provided a link to where it was originally asked of you. You avoided answering because you know your answer would utterly destroy your theory concerning Jerome's authorship of the prologue CE.
 
1. Fuldensis was written in the A.D. 540s.

Simple enough.

It all comes down to your bogus liar accusations,
They have made you unclean for forum discussion.

Your grammar foibles are funny, but not a fundamental integrity issue.
Note though that your struggle in reading and understanding simple English did lead to the bogus liar accusations.

Retract the liar accusations, with a mild apology, and we can move into other areas.

Integrity first.
 
1. When was Fuldensis ("Jerome’s" prologue CE contained therein, but no Comma Johanneum) written?

2. When did Jerome die?

3. How many mss of the pologue CE are there?

4. How many name Jerome as author rather than being authored by ANONYMOUS?

Good questions.

There is absolutely no legitimate excuse for not engaging with and answering the questions surrounding these specific facts and the resulting data head on.

He's actively trying to suppress and squash honest discussion about these objections which are just too damaging to his cause, or, for Steven to handle in a rational, polite, and mature way.
 
The likeliest explanation is a split line. Some "Sabellians" using the verse, Eusebius responding that it is often missing in the Greek and is a "heretical" addition. Later Jerome tells us specifically that there was a tendency to drop the verse.
what do you think of priscillian’s view of two realms, that the souls of men were (forcibly) separated from the nature, and substance, of Deity after the fall, by the evil ones, that both realms are represented in men.

rcc did not like it much I see, since they are affiliated (still) to the ‘evil realm’.
 
1. When was Fuldensis ("Jerome’s" prologue CE contained therein, but no Comma Johanneum) written?

2. When did Jerome die?

3. How many mss of the pologue CE are there?

4. How many name Jerome as author rather than being authored by ANONYMOUS?

We see further patterns of Scribal tampering and retro-editing in the Comma RELATED evidence here.

1. Retro-editing of the CE-Prologue heading (both beginning and end headings) from an originally anonymous authorship, converting it to both a pseudonymous and pseudographic text by adding the name "Jerome" to the text title, and/or in the margin of the CE-Prologue in later copies.

2. Retro-editing of the Canonical Epistles Capitula referencing both the CE-Prologue start and ending headings that were both originally anonymous, by later Scribes adding the name "Jerome" in later copies.

3. Retro-editing of the key word of the key idea in the Comma related sentence from the original word "committentes" changed to "omittentes" in the CE-Prologue.

4. (Both of the above as part of the overall pattern of) the retro-editing of the Comma text itself from the original Comma-less text, to the parenthetical text being added into the Bible text itself, and/or to the capitula, and/or in the margin of later copies.

5. The CE-Prologue, in the direct context of the actual "words" (see English translations here) and context of the Comma itself being "omitted" itself actually omits the Latin word "Sanctus" (English "Holy") from the corresponding Vulgate manuscripts and later received text of the Comma in both Greek and the KJV 1612 English ?) "Holy Spirit". Which is telling glaring anomaly in the context of complaining about omissions.
 
Last edited:
1. Retro-editing of the CE-Prologue heading (both beginning and end headings) from an originally anonymous authorship,

A book whose author is clearly identified by the recipient and other markers is.not “anonymous” in the sense of an unknown, take a guess, author. Which explains your (2), Jerome’s name being added.

That is why the Prologue must be either:

A) Jerome

B) A skilled, knowledgeable, crafty, deceptive forger.

The scholars failed in their attempts to find a (B).

Your 3-4-5 are exceedingly minor, I am answering the one real question.
 
Last edited:
what do you think of priscillian’s view of two realms, that the souls of men were (forcibly) separated from the nature, and substance, of Deity after the fall, by the evil ones, that both realms are represented in men.

rcc did not like it much I see, since they are affiliated (still) to the ‘evil realm’.

He didn't have a clue about it until you mentioned it (most likely).
 
A book whose author is clearly identified by the recipient and other markers is.not “anonymous” in the sense of an unknown, take a guess, author. Which explains your (2), Jerome’s name being added.

That is why the Prologue must be either:

A) Jerome

B) A skilled, knowledgeable, crafty, deceptive forger.

The scholars failed in their attempts to find a (B).

Your 3-4-5 are exceedingly minor, I am answering the one real question.

Your patent (note patent) repulsion for actually engaging with these specific variant readings of this particular pseudographic Prologue and it's oldest most valuable manuscripts, and the resulting data thereof, is very very telling for all looking on.
 
Last edited:
Your patent (note patent) disengagement with specific variant readings of this particular pseudographic Prologue and it's oldest most valuable manuscripts, and the resulting data thereof, is very very telling.
If there was a fundamental issue, like there is in the non-anonymous issue, I would engage. :)
 
what do you think of priscillian’s view of two realms, that the souls of men were (forcibly) separated from the nature, and substance, of Deity after the fall, by the evil ones, that both realms are represented in men.
rcc did not like it much I see, since they are affiliated (still) to the ‘evil realm’.
An interesting question, not in my normal bailiwick, that really could use a quote from Priscillian.
 
If there was a fundamental issue, like there is in the non-anonymous issue, I would engage. :)

So where does Victor actually say/write the specific name "Jerome" in Latin, if this specific manuscript's authorship attribution in the title headings (both at/in the beginning and the end of the Prologue text on the three folios in which the text covers) is in reality "non-anonymous" compared to the later copies that retro-ad the name "Jerome"?
 
Last edited:
So where does Victor actually say/write the specific name "Jerome" in Latin, if this specific manuscript's authorship attribution in the title headings (both at/in the beginning and the end of the Prologue text on the three folios in which the text covers) is in reality "non-anonymous" compared to the later copies that retro-ad the name "Jerome"?
Anybody familiar with Jerome and his writings would identify his authorship. A particular scribe may or may not add the name.
 
Last edited:
a problem with all these topics is that those who are esau (corrupt souls) have been steering the direction of thought since before Christ. And they do it on purpose, altering His Words - to make scripture impotent. The AV for example is a sorcery directed by John Dee, the occultist.


“About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn
their attention to the Prophecies: and insist upon their literal interpretation;
in the midst of much clamor and opposition.” — Newton

Newton knew …

he belonged to Esau ….
 
Back
Top