Jerome as author-translator of the full Vulgate New Testament

Unbound68

Well-known member
You're back to your the simple minded refuge of denial Steven.
Because he doesn't actually read the excerpts you provide with any attention at all. He simply looks for key phrases like "three are one," "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," etc. in every resource he happens to stumble upon.

Context? What context? They quoted the Comma! Don't you see?

Next Avery will find a long lost letter from one of Tertullian’s neighbor's son's grandchildren who saw John on the street one day and was told

"I'm going to write this Epistle and include a verse that will be the strongest proof of the Trinity in all of scripture. Now, young man, you watch and see how quickly the [name any anti-trinitarian group] try to remove this "beautiful," "majestic," and "wonderful" verse of scripture from every single Greek copy of my Epistle that will ever exist!"
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Because he doesn't actually read the excerpts you provide with any attention at all. He simply looks for key phrases like "three are one," "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," etc. in every resource he happens to stumble upon.

Context? What context? They quoted the Comma! Don't you see?

Next Avery will find a long lost letter from one of Tertullian’s neighbor's son's grandchildren who saw John on the street one day and was told

"I'm going to write this Epistle and include a verse that will be the strongest proof of the Trinity in all of scripture. Now, young man, you watch and see how quickly the [name any anti-trinitarian group] try to remove this "beautiful," "majestic," and "wonderful" verse of scripture from every single Greek copy of my Epistle that will ever exist!"

Lol.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Sure, bypassing nonsense that goes nowhere, and loaded questions.

And claims from one poster who falsely accused me of lying based on his own difficulties in reading comprehension.

My presentations are clear and straight-forward. I look for honest scholarship. Grantley helped heavenly witnesses scholarship in many ways.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Chapter 25, eisegetically interprets John 10:30 in a Montanist way, in accordance with the Leader of the New Prophecy, whom they gave the title "the Paraclete" (which they derived from Scripture, but illegitimately bestowed) to the man "Montanus" (named in Chapter 1).

The use of the Paraclete in Against Praxeas Chapter 25 is simple normative New Testament, whether you agree with the Trinitarian view or not.

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. Then there is the Paraclete or Comforter, also, which He promises to pray for to the Father, and to send from heaven after He had ascended to the Father. He is called another Comforter, indeed; John 14:16 but in what way He is another we have already shown, He shall receive of mine, says Christ, John 16:14 just as Christ Himself received of the Father's. Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, I and my Father are One, John 10:30 in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.

Sometimes you talk of polysemy, that a word can have more than one sense, yet all of a sudden here your mind goes blank.
 

cjab

Well-known member
The use of the Paraclete in Against Praxeas Chapter 25 is simple normative New Testament, whether you agree with the Trinitarian view or not.

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. Then there is the Paraclete or Comforter, also, which He promises to pray for to the Father, and to send from heaven after He had ascended to the Father. He is called another Comforter, indeed; John 14:16 but in what way He is another we have already shown, He shall receive of mine, says Christ, John 16:14 just as Christ Himself received of the Father's. Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, I and my Father are One, John 10:30 in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.

Sometimes you talk of polysemy, that a word can have more than one sense, yet all of a sudden here your mind goes blank.
Re polysemy in respect of Greek grammar of ἕν:

As I have pointed out before. Tertullian's argument is deeply flawed on account of Deut 6:4, which says God is "one" <masculine>. Without taking Deut 6:4 into account, Tertullian's thesis is untenable.

Tertullian alludes to John 10:30 and to ἕν ("one" - Adj - Neuter Nominative Singular) ("I and the Father are one <neuter>.") But <neuter> in the Greek doesn't have the necessary connotation of <substance> that Tertullian puts on this Greek gender. The grammatical connotations of ἕν are polysemic. Other connotations are <spirit> and <origin> (i.e. approximating to a concept of divine ageny).

Per Winer (SECT. XXVII.] NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. p191) "The Neuter, Singular or Plural, is sometimes employed to denote a person, when the writer purposely expresses himself in general terms, to avoid particularising the individual." So all that can be plausibly adduced is that Jesus and his Father are not "one person."

Agency Connotations of ἕν
As to <spirit>, Eph 4:4 also (i.e. in addition to Deut 6:4) accounts for why the terms "Spirit of Christ" and "Spirit of God" are used interchangeably:

E.g. Romans 8:9 (KJV) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

As to <origin>, John 8:42 "I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me."

_____________________________
Ergo: the argument of Tertullian that Jesus <the man> and his Father are of one <essence/substance> in John 10:30 is not made out. For what is made out by one <essence/substance> is that they aren't distinguishable in any material aspect, even during Jesus's humanity. Yet if this is so, how could "the Father [be] greater than [Jesus]” (John 14:28)? Of course, in (high) Trinitarianism, it can't be true - ever - even during Jesus's humanity; and which is another argument for why Tertullian's argument is wrong.

NB: Deut 6:4 presents a transcendent argument about God, which is that God is denoted and characterized by the Father.
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
The use of the Paraclete in Against Praxeas Chapter 25 is simple normative New Testament, whether you agree with the Trinitarian view or not.



Sometimes you talk of polysemy, that a word can have more than one sense, yet all of a sudden here your mind goes blank.

So, Tertullian's Chapter 25 is a non-Montanist chapter in the midst of thirty one chapters of a Montanist book?

How does that work?

In chapter 8 Tertullian interprets John 10:30, and in chapter 25 Tertullian also interprets John 10:30.

How can his interpretation of this very same verse (John 10:30) about three "persons" being joined together as "one" substance in chapter 25 not be directly related to his interpretation of John 10:30 that the Son is an (προβολη) "emanation" from that very same substance in chapter 8, (in the very same treatise/book) be declared "simple normative New Testament"?

Unless Gnostic emanationism and Sabellianistic One-substance-ness, where, as Tertullian says "the Son will not be separated from him" is "normative" to you?

Tertullian of Carthage

Adversum Praxaen

Translation By Dr. Holmes 1870

Chapter 8


"The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, "I am in the Father;" and is always with God, according to what is written, "And the Word was with God;" and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since "I and the Father are one" [John 10:30]. This will be (προβολη) the prolation, taught by the Truth, the Guardian of the Unity, wherein we declare that the Son is a prolation from the Father, without being separated from Him. For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares..."​

Tertullian's Montanistic-Sabellianistic-hybrid "One-substance-ness" eisegetical interpretation and Gnostic emanationism is certainly not normal to us, and there's certainly nothing "simple" about this interpretation.

P.S. I don't buy into Tertullian's rambling explain aways that follow this either.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
So, Tertullian's Chapter 25 is a non-Montanist chapter in the midst of thirty one chapters of a Montanist book?

The Montanist element is emphasized in about three chapters of the 30. It does not mean that the word Comforter/Paraclete never has the simple Bible meaning. That contention is absurd.

It is fine to criticize the charis-mania element of Montanism, it is silly to try to overlay all the Trinitarian writing of Tertullian with that element.
 
Top