TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Can the Trinity be interpreted into "et tres unum sunt" ("and these three are one") Steven?
Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Can the Trinity be interpreted into "et tres unum sunt" ("and these three are one") Steven?
You have no proof that anyone deleted the Comma. Yet this is what you preach. It is a lie unless you can provide reasonable evidence.
The scholarly world has ceased to be interested in the preachers of the Comma. No evidence has been found to substantiate it in the last 150 years,
IMO you are asserting special pleading by inferring that the status of the ECFs justifies the lack of contemporaneous evidence for the Comma in the first 350 years AD. As I have pointed out in the De Cent. thread, there were those such as Jovinian even in the days of Jerome who alleged that many of these ECFs were in actuality pseudo-Manichees.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You have no proof that the heavenly witnesses verse was created as an addition to manuscripts.
All of which demonstrates the uselessness of demands for “proof”.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
You only have a theory, whereas the Comma isn't in the Greek NT, for how long Steven?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Now the heavenly witnesses has been in the Greek New Testament for about 1000-1300 years. Since the Lateran Council and the extant Codex Ottobianus.
And our verse was in the Greek NT for the first hundreds of years. Cyprian and the auxiliary evidences, including the various grammatical and stylistic and internal evidences show the Ante-Nicene era.
The period from about 700-1200 can be considered the era of many Greek mss. without the verse. It is hard to gauge from 400 to 700 with the Athanasius Disputation and the Synopsis of Scripture and many Latins also being Greek-savvy.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The Bible believers have been way ahead of the "scholarly world".
Are you really a supporter of the corruption text of the Westcott-Hort recension?
And there has been tons of new evidence, there is a paper about the late 1800s finds, much more can be added from 1870 to today. You are simply not following the posts or saying whatever is convenient.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Learn textual research. There is no special pleading, as wonderful Bible variants often have small amounts of evidence in the Ante-Nicene era. The Pericope Adulterae is a good example.
The evidence for the heavenly witnesses is thus strong through AD 350, and then absolutely explosive from 350-550. Contras are totally confused about Bible transmission, and they laughably think a new verse just pups up and takes over a language line.
This is one reason why I say they should show some scholastic integrity and switch to an Ante-Nicene creation theory.
The Pericope Adulterae is a diversion, but good evidence that no one would have had the wherewithal to universally exclude a part of the original text from all subsequent manuscripts. If the Pericope Adulterae was excluded, the exclusion was localized to Egypt.
EDITED BY MOD--Language
Last edited by a moderator:
Even if there is a sense in which tres unum sunt that could be imputed to the name of God (ὄνομα - neuter) to account for why Matt 28:19 alludes to only one name, this has nothing to do with there being "three heavenly witnesses." The gnostics didn't understand that they weren't permitted to divide the witness of heaven. Gnosticism is a form of paganism. The three heavenly witnesses is derived from paganism.
Thus (as I have previously alluded to) the Comma involves gnostic theology: the witness of heaven doesn't fall under the Deuteronomic law of Deut 19:15. God isn't subject to the law of mankind. Is a human being subject to the laws of the animal kingdom?
True students of the bible will admit of only one "heavenly witness", i.e. God. You need to face up to the Comma as being based upon gnostic heresy.
When Trinitarians assert the Comma as reflecting their theology, what they are really conceding is their indebtedness to gnosticism. Unfortunately belief in the Comma has become a religion of itself; and you deceive yourself that it epitomizes "biblical theology."
Your post is propaganda.
Last edited:
Proof enough to convince the vast majority of the reputable scholarly world.
Sounds a lot like "I know Greek grammar far better than those who can actually read, write, and speak the language."
? ? ?
Believing in fairy tales to prop up your cult is not the same as being a "Bible believer."
We note how you imply with your comments above that the scholarly world DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY "Bible believers."
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Much better than your gibberish.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The "repoutable scholarly world" that rejects the Pericope Adulterrae and the Mark ending.
The "RCW" that says the New Testament Gospels were written after 70 AD.
The RCW that thinks Sinaiticus was from the 300s.
The RCW that says that many of the NT books are forgeries.
I'll pass on that world, no problemo.
The point is, there is now something of a consensus on the Comma, which is unusual in scholarly circles, given the former antagonism.
Thus I read in Wikipedia "There is no scholarly consensus on the date of composition of the latest New Testament texts."
Speaking of gibberish, why do you omit from your page on Isaac the Jew the very firm opinion of Souter (A STUDY OF AMBROSIASTER 1905) that Isaac the Jew wasn't AMBROSIASTER?
"The recent view, that Isaac, a converted Jew, who was concerned in the disturbances at
the election of Pope Damasus and afterwards relapsed to Judaism,
wrote the commentaries and the Quaestiones V. et N. Testamenti,
is due to Dom Germain Morin, O.S.B., of the Abbaye, Maredsous,
who by his successful researches and independent criticism has
shown himself a worthy follower of his Benedictine predecessors.
Dr Zahn9 and Mr A. E. Burn 10 both called for a fuller treatment of
the subject. This I have endeavoured to supply, as the special
study I had devoted to the language of the commentary seemed
to invite me to the task. I can heartily support Dom Morin's
second suggestion, that Hilary, the Layman, was the author." p.5
In the light of this, it is gibberish to peddle a link between Isaac the Jew and the Commentaries and the Quaestiones V. et N. Testamenti.
As for Confessio fidei Catholicae, it belongs to a class of tracts that are Priscillian in character. If borrowed by Augustine, it may indicate the wider influence of Priscillianism.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
It is fine to disagree with scholarship, but when you only have one source, to call the more recent scholarship "gibberish" shows that you are not an honest evaluator.
There is a lot of scholarship post-Souter, such as Lewis Ayres. However, I am always trying to improve my pages, including my Shorter Summary, so I will do some tweaking. On the Shorter Summary, the first step was to make the name the Confessio fidei Catholicae. All this is an ongoing project. You might ask if this is in the Critical Text apparatus and one of the many full references omitted by the contras.
You like to embarrass yourself with puerile personal attacks.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
They almost universally reject a date before AD 70. In that sense there is a consensus in anti-Christian error.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
I think you are concerned here with Cuthbert Hamilton Turner, following Morin.
You may disagree, but you embarrass yourself again.
On the contrary, the evidence is all one way against the Comma, which is proof in and of itself.
The Comma isn't found in any Greek mss until the time of the Reformation. By default it was added at some point after the NT was completed, starting with a margin note that made its way into the text.
It's not puerile to point out the defectiveness of your page relying on an association between Ambrosiaster and Isaac the Jew that has been firmly repudiated by a later author.