Syriac Peshitta, KJVO "pure" line, and the Comma

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Nice to see you acknowledge the heavenly witnesses verse.

Now why would you reject the crucifixion interpretation of the earthly witnesses?

The three in verse 6 (the blood, the water, the Spirit) are the same three in verse 7 (i.e. blood, the water, the Spirit) and the same three (the blood, the water, the Spirit) in verse 8.

The context flows naturally and conceptually through all three verses, from the three in verse 6 to the same three in verse 7 and the same three in verse 8.

The heavenly witnesses are an interpolation.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The three in verse 6 (the blood, the water, the Spirit) are the same three in verse 7 (i.e. blood, the water, the Spirit) and the same three (the blood, the water, the Spirit) in verse 8.
The context flows naturally and conceptually through all three verses, from the three in verse 6 to the same three in verse 7 and the same three in verse 8.
The heavenly witnesses are an interpolation.

So you count three tines that there is blood, water and spirit?
Unusual math.

Again, why do you reject the crucifixion interpretation of the earthly witnesses?

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

Contra Maximinum, Lib. II. C. 22 §3

[Augustine] Three things then we know to have issued from the Body of the Lord when He hung upon the tree: first, the spirit: of which it is written,”And He bowed the head and gave up the spirit:”(John 19:30) then, as His side was pierced by the spear, ”blood and water.”(cf. John 19:34) Which three things if we look at as they are in themselves, they are in substance several and distinct, and therefore they are not one
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
Again, why do you reject the crucifixion interpretation of the earthly witnesses?
Why do you reject the sound orthodox interpretation (including the typical KJV-only interpretation) of the three heavenly witnesses?
Why do you dodge and avoid presenting your interpretation of the heavenly witnesses since you seem to deny that they are three persons?
 

Conan

Active member
Those opposed to heavenly witnesses authenticity will applaud the Bill Brown opposition to authenticity. After all, he is the leader of the pack (vroom, vroom.)

The will not be able to defend his 16 Blunder Verses, falsely claimed to overthrow and refute the grammatical argument.
No one except King James Onlyist accept the extra words from the Vulgate. KJV Onlyist are wrong, it is clear the words do not belong. They are an interpolation and interfere with what John is saying. The fact that all Greek Manuscripts support the Comma's exclusion. Any manuscripts with the Comma were under Latin influence, so are not from the Original Greek Bible. The words are an obvious interpolation, that everyone, except an Onlyist can see.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Again, why do you reject the crucifixion interpretation of the earthly witnesses?
You bring up and discuss the matter of interpretation of the comma in this thread so why do you refuse to present what you think to be the correct interpretation of 1 John 5:7? You appeal to Augustine's interpretation of 1 John 5:8 so whose interpretation of 1 John 5:7 do you accept? Do you possibly accept an interpretation of 1 John 5:7 that may be similar to that of Sabellius?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You bring up and discuss the matter of interpretation of the comma in this thread so why do you refuse to present what you think to be the correct interpretation of 1 John 5:7? You appeal to Augustine's interpretation of 1 John 5:8 so whose interpretation of 1 John 5:7 do you accept? Do you possibly accept an interpretation of 1 John 5:7 that may be similar to that of Sabellius?

Discussed on the John Wesley thread, which starts with his interpretation, and adds Matthew Henry.

John Wesley on the heavenly witnesses
https://forums.carm.org/threads/john-wesley-on-the-heavenly-witnesses.9965/

Are you acknowledging that Sabellius and his opponents had the heavenly witnesses pure scripture verse in their Greek Bibles?
Yes, I agree!
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Discussed on the John Wesley thread,
You did not clearly present nor discuss your supposedly better understanding or interpretation of 1 John 5:7 in that thread. You seemed to start that thread in an effort to divert away from advancing the discussion.

The proper consideration is the meaning and sense of words or the concept represented by words as tried by what the Scriptures state and teach. Oneness advocates including you have offered no better word than person in English to present the sense and concept for how the three are three.

The three Witnesses [persons] that bear record in Heaven are one God. The three nouns [Father, Word, and Holy Spirit] are not places or things so what other sound conclusion besides persons is possible? Do oneness advocates suggest that the three nouns refer to things? You present no better words that present the concept for the sense in which these three are three. Without offering better terms to replace them, you in effect admit that persons and Trinity are perfectly good words to represent what the Scriptures teach.

Would your replacement words for the good words "persons" and "Trinity" be possibly considered to suggest heretical concepts instead of orthodox ones? You did not demonstrate nor prove your undefined and unexplained term "economic Trinity" to be better than "Trinity." Perhaps your term "economic Trinity" would suggest one witness instead of three, and thus, it would contradict what is stated in 1 John 5:7.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Here's an interesting point I thought I would also share here, which I shared over here.

This was in a conversation with Avery, the "you" in the text.

Some of the earliest Latin NT manuscript "evidences" (as you call them) only read "the Spirit" (with "HOLY" missing) instead of "the HOLY Spirit" in the Comma/Parenthetical text of 1 John 5:7(Clause-C).

Codex Fuldensis (circa. 7th century A.D.) in the Paratextual commentary to the "Canonical Epistles", only has "Spiritus" in reference to the specific words that are supposedly ✌️"omitted"✌️ (😉 actually "committentes" in the manuscript - See links here and here) in comparison and contradistinction to the words of the psuedographic commentator's eisegetical theological comment in the following sentence of "Patris et Fili ("and the Son") et Spiritus Sanctus" ("and the HOLY Spirit").

Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 6436 (circa. 7th century A.D.) is damaged in the Comma-inclusive text, leaving open the legitimate possibility that it may have only read "SPS" ("Spiritus" abbreviated) instead of "SPS SCS" ("Spiritus Sanctus" abbreviated). Note [ ] bracketed text in printed references to this manuscript.

León, Archivo Catedralicio Ms. 15 (first copied circa. 7th century A.D. and palimpsested 10th century A.D.) is likewise damaged, and similarly may have only read "SPS" ("Spiritus" abbreviated) instead of "SPS SCS" ("Spiritus Sanctus" abbreviated) as well as "XPS est veritas" in verse 6 (see previous post over on Syriac thread). Note [ ] bracketed text in the printed references to these verses in this manuscript.

The next oldest NT manuscript is similar, except more conclusive.

Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare X (8), (circa. 7th-8th century A.D.) 1 John 5:6-8 is found on Folio 131 [Pg 264-265 / 322]. It only reads "SPS" ("Spiritus" abbreviated) instead of "SPS SCS" ("Spiritus Sanctus" abbreviated).

“…hic est qui venit ex aqua et sanguine IHS XPS ; non in aqua solum ; sed [Folio 131] in aqua et sanguinem et SPS est qui testifcator qm XPS est veritas ; qm tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo Pater, Verbum, et SPS, et tres unum sunt ; Si testimonium hominum accipimus, testimonium DI maius est…”

Also, the so-called “earthly witnesses” (Spiritus, aqua, sanguine) have been completely erased and/or supplanted by the heavenly witnesses "Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus".

So, when looking exclusively at the early NT Latin manuscript evidence, it shows potentially that, rather than originality, in verse 7 (Clause-C), the Latin Comma-inclusive version in it's earliest stage of construction and subsequent development actually gives more evidence of remodeling or manipulation and/or adding/constructing onto the original Comma-less text of verse 7, by virtue of the manuscripts mirroring (and/or potentially mirroring) verse 7's original "et Spiritus" reading instead of "Spiritus Sanctus".

This is additional evidence, and strengthens the idea that "the Spirit" (with the context of water + blood) in verse 8 (KJV-numbering) and "the Spirit of the truth" in verse 6 (same context = water + blood) most probably are identical.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
That's an approximate ratio of 22 Comma-less NT manuscripts to 1 ✌️Vetus Latina✌️ manuscript (Friesing, where the Comma first appears in the 7th century, six hundred years after the original, in any ACTUAL extant non-conjectured NT ms, in any language - anywhere) either before the 7th century or contemporary with this 7th century Comma-inclusive manuscript, across multiple geographic boundaries and languages.
Even if we ditched the Fuldensis because of the Prologue, that's still circa 20 to 1.

Here you fave the Freisinger Fragment, the early ms. you omitted was the Leon Palimpsest.

A good number are Syriac, so that is a good way to pad the early ms. numbers.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Care to explain how your distorted representation of my post works?

You claimed there was only one ms. up to your cut-off date, which was around AD 700.

Freisinger Fragment and Leon Palimpsest makes two.
And two of the earliest Latin mss.
Along with Fuldensis, that has the amazing Vulgate Prologue by Jerome, in his first-person writing.

I count 11 of your mss. as Syriac, which pads the numbers.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
You claimed there was only one ms. up to your cut-off date, which was around AD 700.

Freisinger Fragment and Leon Palimpsest makes two.
And two of the earliest Latin mss.
Along with Fuldensis, that has the amazing Vulgate Prologue by Jerome, in his first-person writing.

I count 11 of your mss. as Syriac, which pads the numbers.

All disinformation and counterfactual misinformation and distortions of reality.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
You claimed there was only one ms. up to your cut-off date, which was around AD 700.

Freisinger Fragment and Leon Palimpsest makes two.
And two of the earliest Latin mss.
Along with Fuldensis, that has the amazing Vulgate Prologue by Jerome, in his first-person writing.

I count 11 of your mss. as Syriac, which pads the numbers.

You still haven't disambiguated how you're bending the truth that my count up of manuscripts earlier on this thread, was not directly related BY ME to the subject I posted about concerning "the Spirit" and lack of "Holy" in some of the Latin manuscripts, in connection with 1 John 5:6 as context to 1 John 5:8 on the other thread, which I brought one post (out of many) over here.

You distorted it out of all proportion. But no one's surprised, with your track record.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
And I pointed out many references omitted by TNC.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...and-earthly-witnesses.9748/page-9#post-741686

No reason to have the same conversation on two threads.

TNC simply ignored all the references, except one with a split manuscript line.

Another devious misrepresentation. You don't tell the audience the specifics at all. I didn't bring in ANF/PNF references. YOU DID, as diversion damage control. I was confining my post to Latin NT manuscripts, you let one of your ("helppp I can't answer this") scattergun diversionary fireworks factory explosion here there and everywhere bury the point with as much blatherskite text as possible in quick fire succession.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You still haven't disambiguated how you're bending the truth that my count up of manuscripts earlier on this thread, was not directly related BY ME to the subject I posted about concerning "the Spirit" and lack of "Holy" in some of the Latin manuscripts, in connection with 1 John 5:6 as context to 1 John 5:8 on the other thread, which I brought one post (out of many) over here. You distorted it out of all proportion. But no one's surprised, with your track record.

No, your first count of manuscripts was simply all the early manuscripts, including Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac. You claimed only one with the heavenly witnesses, despite there being two early Latin mss. the Freisinger Fragment and Leon Palimpsest. Plus the Prologue in Fuldensis.

The second group had to do with your bungling attempt to show that the earlier heavenly witnesses Latin mss. did not have Holy. With various "possibilities" and only one definite Holy omission, and leaving out about seven early church writers that generally predated the mss.

Amazingly, you do not even remember your posting.

Since you are more interested in posturing than proper posting, your confusions just fester.

Such as your absurd attempt to say that the Vulgate Prologue is not a first-person writing by Jerome (or a skilled, deceptive forger acting like Jerome). You pretended that the Jerome information came later in some sort of change to the Prologue. Then you throw sand.

Then there were the two simple questions about concord that you would never answer.
 
Top