Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
They don't have to.
Eis-egesis >>> IS <<< the interpretation!
Click to expand...

Any Trinitarian, allegorical interpretation of the spirit, water and blood to the Trinity is eisegesis.

Calling it eisegesis has no effect on the allegorical aspect.

So, we have about 10 writers where Grantley and you claim this invisible allegory. They do not even mention the supposed supposed source of the allegory text.
 
Steven Avery said:
Any Trinitarian, allegorical interpretation of the spirit, water and blood to the Trinity is eisegesis.

Calling it eisegesis has no effect on the allegorical aspect.

So, we have about 10 writers where Grantley and you claim this invisible allegory. They do not even mention the supposed supposed source of the allegory text.
Click to expand...

Your deliberately confounding eis-egesis with "allegory".

What's the definition of eis-egesis Steven?
 
Steven Avery said:
Any Trinitarian, allegorical interpretation of the spirit, water and blood to the Trinity is eisegesis.

Calling it eisegesis has no effect on the allegorical aspect.

So, we have about 10 writers where Grantley and you claim this invisible allegory. They do not even mention the supposed supposed source of the allegory text.
Click to expand...
The individual symbols can be construed in an orthodox manner: Blood = Christ = Word, Father = Eternal life = Water, Spirit = Holy Spirit.

I seem to recall mentioning Servian in a sermon, In illud, In principio erat uerbum, saying:

"For it is necessary to concede the Holy Trinity to the chorus of the ones sent forth, which the Father announces. The triad of the ones sent forth is the witness/testimony of the heavenly Trinity."

If this is an allusion to 1 John 5:8, it is witness to the application of the allegorical method. Not sure what else it can mean (the only problem with this interpretation is that Severian has replaced the word "witness" in 1 John 5:8 with "apostle" or "one sent forth" but the sense is made out). It can't be an allusion to 1 John 5:7, because it refers to the jurisdiction of the earth.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Now you are running backwards.
So why not tell us if you have changed your position.
Click to expand...

Progressing forwards ? in the process of continuing study.

What I've discovered (and continuing to discover - among other things) is the Clause-D focused references (and even some of the full quotation references) are often found within, either the immediate or wider context of symbolic, sacramental, figurative, or mystery (i.e. "mystical") interpretations. So what I've discovered in recent times is that there are multiple kinds of interpretations. Thus my advanced ? understanding.

Potamius described his interpretation as "the hidden figurative meanings that lye beneath". Cyprian described "et tres unum sunt" as "these heavenly symbols". Origen said his was a "mystical" (Com. On Matt.) interpretation. Tertullian's was guided by "the Interpreter of the economy" (Adv. Prax. 31) and "his New Prophecy" (note "his" meaning clearly Montanus) and also in terms of a "mystery" as well.
 
Last edited:
Cassiodorus (circa. 485–585 C.E.)

Complexiones In Epistollis Apostolorum, Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos

Chapter 10

“Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria : aqua, sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta: in caelo autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus; et hi tres unus est Deus.”

“Summarized Explanations in the Epistles of the Apostles, the Epistle of St. John, at Parthos.”

Chapter 10

“To which legal matter is he testifying to? On earth, the three mysteries, “the water, the blood, and the Spirit,” which we are to read [Or: “which we interpret”] as having a fulfillment in the suffering of the Lord, but [fulfilled] in heaven (on the other hand) as the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, “and these three” persons constitute the one God.”​
 
Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana ms I 101 sup., (circa. 8th century A.D./C.E.)

Expositio Fidei Catholicae.

"Credimus unum Deum secundum Scripturam esse credendum, non sicut Iudaei aut haeretici, solitarium, sed in mysterio Trinitatis, id est Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum, tres personas, non tamen tres deos."

"We believe that there is one God, which conforms with Scripture, which must be believed in, but not as a solitary being, in the way that the Jews or the [Sabellian] heretics do, but instead we must believe in the mystery of the Trinity, which consists of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, three persons, yet not three gods..."​

This is a mystical interpretation context.

Cassiodorus (circa. 485–585 C.E.)

Complexiones In Epistollis Apostolorum, Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos

Chapter 10

“Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria : aqua, sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta: in caelo autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus; et hi tres unus est Deus.”

“Summarized Explanations in the Epistles of the Apostles, the Epistle of St. John, at Parthos.”

Chapter 10

“To which legal matter is he testifying to? On earth, the three mysteries, “the water, the blood, and the Spirit,” which we are to read [Or: “which we interpret”] as having a fulfillment in the suffering of the Lord, but [fulfilled] in heaven (on the other hand) as the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, “and these three” persons constitute the one God.”​
 
Potamius described his interpretation as "the hidden figurative meanings that lye beneath" (LBS chap. 2). But he also spoke of "the three-fold one-ness [Or: "unity"] of the mystery" (LBS chap. 1).
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Potamius described his interpretation as "the hidden figurative meanings that lye beneath" (LBS chap. 2). But he also spoke of "the three-fold one-ness [Or: "unity"] of the mystery" (LBS chap. 1).
Click to expand...

Was Potamius saying that this changed Johannine scripture in his four references to the heavenly witnesses verse?
 
Steven Avery said:
Was Potamius saying that this changed Johannine scripture in his four references to the heavenly witnesses verse?
Click to expand...

Potamius said that his previous treatise, written in three volumes, one about the Father, one about the Son, one about the Holy Spirit was where he gathered together "ALL" the Scripture verses that he said were "capable of explanation" on the subject of the Trinity.

Now if "because there are three who are giving witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit" was written in his Bible, this would be an easily explainable verse.

That's simple.

But he said this letter was contrasted with the previous one, and that this one was specifically about verses that have "hidden figurative meanings that lye underneath".

So the entire letter was in that genre (i.e. that was the context).

Three out of the four references are in this letter that. That being the case, the one in the letter to Athanasius will be the same kind of interpretation.

“The Life and Works of Potamius of Lisbon,” edited and translated by Marco Conti, (1998)

Page 52, Part Three, Commentaries

Commentary on the “Epistula Ad Athanasium”

"Potamius supports his doctrinal reflections with three quotations from the Gospel of John: Ioh. 10,30; 14,9 (twice) and one from the first letter of John: 1 Ioh. 5,8. This last quotation is the most interesting since Potamius “applique à la Trinité l'affirmation de ce verset sur l'unité des trois témoins terrestres: l'esprit, l'eau et le sang” (Montes Moreira, Potamius, 222) [Translated: “He asserts that the statement in this verse about the unity of the three earthly witnesses: the spirit, the water and the blood applies to the Trinity”] .
For a discussion of Ioh. 14,9 cf. p. 123 at lines 27,5-9."​

Conti did not see this as quoting the Comma, either in the translation text, or in the preface, or in the commentary.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
The majority of your earliest references (which are the most important) are simply 1 John 5:8 Clause-D quotations and Clause-D focused eis-egesis.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the fantasy theory of Grantley Robert McDonald, except now in your version of the theory you are trying to avoid using the word allegorical.

There are legitimate explanatory allegories starting with Augustine and Eucherius, but that was largely because the heavenly witnesses was in the manuscript line. Facundus is in this mix, but his repeatedly writing of "in earth" shows that his manuscript line included the heavenly witnesses.

You once put Hesychius of Jerusalem in this mix, but did not give a source, and fell silent when I asked for one.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/tho...search-on-1-john-5-7.5539/page-58#post-423240
You had Hesychius a few times, also using an errant spelling, Hysechius twice (the posts below.)

These are your anachronistic attempts to use late Latin explanatory allegories, after the heavenly witnessers is known to be in the Latin line, to claim various wide-ranging early Latin and Greek invisible allegories.

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
The later history of mysterious and spiritual interpretations (Ambrose of Milan, Hysechius of Jerusalem, Augustine, Eucherius) also confirm this is not a theory or fancy, but based on facts and written evidence.
Click to expand...

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
The contemporary and later history to some of the writers above is the mysterious and spiritual interpretations by Ambrose of Milan, Hysechius of Jerusalem, Augustine, Eucherius etc, that also confirm this is not a theory or fancy, but based on facts and written evidence.
Click to expand...

Ambrose of Milan is also curious, did he have a spot where the water and spirit and blood are allegorized to the Trinity? In general, I should give him a page.

=================

Richard Simon, followed by Isaac Newton, tried to claim that a couple of Greek manuscripts supported the Trinitarian allegory idea of the spirit, water and blood. At the time they were ms. 2247 and 871, and you have a page about the Simon mss.

However, Simon actually gave an opposite interpretation of the truth, the manuscripts show an awareness in the Greek transmission of the heavenly witnesses.

The other special Greek manuscript is the Matthaei scholium where the Tinity was used as the excuse for the solecism.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Yes, this is the fantasy theory of Grantley Robert McDonald, except now in your version of the theory you are trying to avoid using the word allegorical.

There are legitimate explanatory allegories starting with Augustine and Eucherius, but that was largely because the heavenly witnesses was in the manuscript line. Facundus is in this mix, but his repeatedly writing of "in earth" shows that his manuscript line included the heavenly witnesses.

You once put Hesychius of Jerusalem in this mix, but did not give a source, and fell silent when I asked for one.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/tho...search-on-1-john-5-7.5539/page-58#post-423240
You had Hesychius a few times, also using an errant spelling, Hysechius twice (the posts below.)

These are your anachronistic attempts to use late Latin explanatory allegories, after the heavenly witnessers is known to be in the Latin line, to claim various wide-ranging early Latin and Greek invisible allegories.





Ambrose of Milan is also curious, did he have a spot where the water and spirit and blood are allegorized to the Trinity? In general, I should give him a page.

=================

Richard Simon, followed by Isaac Newton, tried to claim that a couple of Greek manuscripts supported the Trinitarian allegory idea of the spirit, water and blood. At the time they were ms. 2247 and 871, and you have a page about the Simon mss.

However, Simon actually gave an opposite interpretation of the truth, the manuscripts show an awareness in the Greek transmission of the heavenly witnesses.

The other special Greek manuscript is the Matthaei scholium where the Tinity was used as the excuse for the solecism.
Click to expand...

Your methodology is flawed in innumerable ways.

Your premise is flawed to start with, so, your conclusion, obviously.

You spend your time making up myths, we spend our time examining the facts.

You spend most of your time trying to prove (via cut and paste level research) that the pseudographa is not falsely attributed work, we simply point out, ah daa, there's a reason why it's got the prefix "Pseudo"!

Nothing you've said or posted anywhere on the internet has moved the dial for us, not a nano-milimeter.

Enjoy your day Mr Avery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top