Iasion

Greetings,

I think you mean -
"any authorities who disagree with Roger can't be trusted."

Funny how you ignored praxeus' list of authorities - which had numerous false claims in it, but attack my list without checking any facts.

Just what you say for all evidence against your beliefs. But of course you provide no evidence of your own, you can't be bothered to check the facts - even though you run a site covering Tertullian - one of the citations.

I think you know quite well that my list is accurate (I cannot claim to be 100% correct on everything of course) but have to preach for the apologist side.

Your credibility here is about as good as praxeus' Roger.


Iasion

Steven Avery

Toto, congrats on fabricating a cover story. Iasion first does not respond, then he says specifically the early MSS, then he does not respond again, so the moderator comes up with the story that Iasion wasn't really talking about the early MSS (as he specifically said) but hundreds of years earlier than those manuscripts. Good skeptic job, Toto.

You really do need some help here Toto.
I even quoted Iasion's quiet correction.

"only 8 very late Greek MSS have the Comma out of 5300 or so"

Look at the dates of those manuscripts and compare them with Erasmus.

Fairness, accuracy and competence second.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Uhh.. Amaleq, the supposed "quote" of "earliest evidence" is only Toto. Iasion's original post is #23 and did not state "much later" than what. Only after I asked him a couple of times, did he respond with "the early MSS". Even at that late stage Iasion never referred to the "earliest evidence".

It is quite tacky to place a "quote" in somebodies mouth that they never said. Even if the underlying motive is skeptic solidarity.
(In this case to protect them from their own error.)

That would be accurate if there were early Johannine Comma MSS from the 2nd century. I asked Iasion a couple of times what manuscripts he meant and then we had Toto intervene, trying to rescue him, and now you buying the bridge.

And all this to avoid simply saying ..
"oops, I made an error".

Amazing.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Hi Roger, as well they should.

Let me take one reference from the above for consideration.
From the 2nd century a supposed -

"evidence for 1 John WITHOUT the Comma"
[c] Theophilus

Now to be a solid evidence we would see something related to ..
1 John 5:8
And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the Spirit, and the water, and the blood:

And not have any mention of the heavenly witnesses.
1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

Yet afaik, this is not the case for Theophilus.
In fact, he doesn't even have a reference to the chapter at all.
We do have this light Theophilus connection to -

1 John 2:20
But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.i.xii.html
Chapter XII.-Meaning of the Name Christian.
And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God. *

* [Not material oil probably, for it is not mentioned in such Scriptures as Acts viii. 17, xix 6, Heb. vi. 2; but the anointing (1 John ii. 20) of the Holy Ghots. As a symbol, oil was used at an early period, however; and the Latins are not slow to press this in favour of material oil in the chrism, or confirmation.]

And I don't think anybody would remotely stretch that to be an argument for or against the Johannine Comma. So what is the supposed evidence from Theophilus against the Johannine Comma ? Dunno. And you are right to ask.

Or at least many of the references, and all of the most important ones. Also there is another issue... make sure the list is actually asking the right questions That the overall view of omissions and commissions is sensible and meaningful in the context of the discussion.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

This is a tremendous compliment to me.
Thanks, Iasion.

Of course on this thead both Roger and myself
have been quite happy to make our individual points.

Oh.. the moderators were supposedly kaboshing talk of
integrity and credibility (or is one permissable and not the
other?) yet apparently that is only on one side.

Shalom,
Steven
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Amaleq13

I was quoting Iasion from the post immediately preceding my own in which he used the phrase several times.

Are you still pretending that accusations like this only apply to your opponents? All I want is more clarity on the relevant evidence and less focus on appearing to score points against one's opponent.

No, then the claim would have to be that the Comma was added later than the 1st century.

As it stands, I think I should have had 3rd century since Iasion has claimed:
Only the first was mentioned by a moderator as something to be avoided.

Integrity relates to one's honesty which is tantamount to an accusation of lying and, therefore, to be avoided.

Credibility relates to one's capacity to convince others and requires no assumptions about one's honesty. It is not synonymous with "integrity".

Wasting space in this forum commenting on or complaining about moderator activity, however, continues to be prohibited so kindly knock it off.

Thanks in advance,

Doug aka Amaleq13 BC&H moderator

Heidi Guedel

Here we have several human beings spending hours upon hours disagreeing upon the exact composition and translation of NT writings that were supposedly inspired by an omniscient deity, and were apparently written decades, if not centuries, after the occurrance of the supposed facts described therein. These several human beings are now annoyed with each other.

None of these supposed facts have ever been substantiated... yet millions of humans have been arguing about these supposed facts, and the exact meaning and composition of the various writs included in the NT and Wholly Babble for centuries. Often, humans come to blows, and even to the point of bloodshed because of such disagreements. Warfare and terrorism have freguently ensued.

No other species wastes time and energy on such conflicts. No other species engages in life and death contests over religious disputes. No other species invents a fictional character or characters, becomes devoted to him/her/them and then devotes mental energy to supporting their beliefs and to the persecution of those who do not subscribe to these beliefs. Yet believers consider the evidence for man's descent from other species to be extremely degrading (gallows laughter).

What a cosmic joke.

Toto

So what exactly was there hundreds of years before the earliest MSS that have survived? What do you call them? Or are you claiming that gJohn did not exist in manuscript form until the fourth century?

This seems trivially obvious to me - that one can reference the earliest manuscripts, even if they no longer exist and are only referenced in other works.

When did you quote this "correction"? Not in the post I quoted.

And what is it correcting? Iasion dates the MSS to the 16th century - the time of Desiderius Erasmus.Yup

Steven Avery

Looking back, agreed, in post #174.
Technically true but of no mitigation to the shenanigans.

Iasion says way after the "early MSS" multiple times.

Toto the 'moderator' attacks my integrity on #172 without saying when are the early MSS !
Incredible.

Seeing the skeptic protection society, Iasion in #174 changes his story from "early MSS" to "earliest evidences".

And you buy the bridge.
Amazing.

And I hope Toto will receive this correction for when he avoided the specific issue of when are the early MSS and instead came up with such an integrity accusation.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

The first manuscript that has the Johannine Comma section is fourth century. The earliest extant NT full manuscript is 4th century. I asked Iasion a number of times for specifics and he refused to answer -- until you supplied him with your own integrity accusation and a cover to switch. Then Iasion switched to "earliest evidences" (of what?) which is totally different than manuscripts. Your intervention was good protection, but nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto This seems trivially obvious to me - that one can reference the earliest manuscripts, even if they no longer exist and are only referenced in other works.

So if somebody says a reading is in the early MSS it is trivial to you that it really does not have to be in any known manuscripts ? Amazing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto When did you quote this "correction"? Not in the post I quoted.

Post #180. It is still time for you to acknowledge that Iasion was contradicting his earlier claims. As Iasion seems to be incapable of such acknowledgments and you have been his rah-rah fella.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto And what is it correcting? Iasion dates the MSS to the 16th century - the time of Desiderius Erasmus.

Try again. Iasion had earlier claimed that no Greek MSS were before Erasmus (important note: actually this should be 'extant' manuscripts). Look at his list in #174. Then *somebody* should at least acknowledge that he contradicted his earlier statement and we can go on.

Shalom,
Steven Avery