Potamius of Lisbon references the heavenly witnesses in writing to Athanasius

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Steven Avery
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Potamius of Lisbon references the heavenly witnesses in writing to Athanasius

Post by Steven Avery »

The four quotes are extremely clear.

They show Potamius familiar with the heavenly witnesses verse.

You are throwing out a stupid accusation of “dishonesty”, not because you have offered anything substantive, but simply to poison the well.

=======

Potamius never refers to spirit, water and blood, and there are no invisible allegories.

Nenry Thomas Armstrong wrote about similar claims on Cyprian>
"a certain mystical interpretation which he (Cyprian) has not given or alluded to, of a verse which he has not quoted!"

=======
Investigator
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 8:37 am

Re: Potamius of Lisbon references the heavenly witnesses in writing to Athanasius

Post by Investigator »

Steven Avery wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:33 am The four quotes are extremely clear.

They show Potamius familiar with the heavenly witnesses verse.

You are throwing out a stupid accusation of “dishonesty”, not because you have offered anything substantive, but simply to poison the well.

=======

Potamius never refers to spirit, water and blood, and there are no invisible allegories.

Nenry Thomas Armstrong wrote about similar claims on Cyprian>
"a certain mystical interpretation which he (Cyprian) has not given or alluded to, of a verse which he has not quoted!"

=======

Restating your opinion for the third time has not advanced your cause in anyway whatsoever. :goodmorning:

All you have in the real world is 1. the (verse location wise) indeterminate: "et hi tres unum sunt" which is also in verse 8 in the Latin versions, and 2. the context of mention of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit in proximity and not necessarily together in the context of a work of which the theme is: "about the substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (wow suprise)!

Both are very weak and indeterminate. :confusedsmiley:

Your just avoiding a candid yes no intellectually honest answer with regards to how informed you really are when it comes to the Potamius' corpus.

Have you read them (Potamius letter to Ath, and Substance) in there entirety?

Have read Conti's book in its entirety?

Take note, your mere opinion about what you think, never changes the facts of what's in the letters.

Conti references "et hi tres unum sunt" as verse 8 in all four references in his book.

I found out that you presented his translation as verse 7! Changing the four references on your Blog without telling your readers originally (which you provided a link to in a previous post). You were called out on this by someone who checked it with Conti's book.

Is that true Steven? :eek:

Did you misrepresent Conti's translation?

And, grudgingly changed it subsequent to being caught in the act of dishonest misrepresentation?
Last edited by Investigator on Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Investigator
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 8:37 am

Re: Potamius of Lisbon references the heavenly witnesses in writing to Athanasius

Post by Investigator »

I've been reading your blog and what Bill Browns crew have been saying as well. Makes interesting reading.
Steven Avery
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Potamius of Lisbon references the heavenly witnesses in writing to Athanasius

Post by Steven Avery »

There is no need to say more because the argument of Potamius using invisible allegory argument is simply too absurd to waste more time and energy.

Potamius never quotes “spirit, water and blood”, which would be the key to a real allegory claim.

Conti made errors in verse numbers. It becomes best to simply omit the numbers, or show the actual verses. All very minor.

The big issue is simply to see what Potamius wrote, in the four references to the heavenly witnesses. If you think Conti has poignant additional commentary, simply share away. Scholars who accept the corrupt critical text begin with false CT presuppositions, limiting the value of their verse referencing.

The contra attempt here does not even rise to the level of majoring in the minors. Diversion and paltry personal attacks lead to zero and zilch.

Cyprian and Potamius were clearly referencing the heavenly witnesses verse.

This matches well with Priscillian, Isaac the Jew, Tertullian, Origen, Hundredfold Martyrs, Eusebius and other references and allusions extant through the 4th century, and then the incredible Vulgate Prologue of Jerome. And the hundreds of orthodox at the Council of Carthage of 484 AD and auxiliary usages.
Steven Avery
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Potamius of Lisbon references the heavenly witnesses in writing to Athanasiu

Post by Steven Avery »

The general theme of the contra position is that the heavenly witnesses was an interpolation by the orthodox in support of their position in the Arian controversies. Thus they would like to ignore all the references before Priscillian, and have had a wide range of false accusations as to the origin of the verse.

They would like to ignore the internal and stylistic and grammatical evidences. Such as how a Latin supposed interpolation fixes the Greek grammar in back-translation.:)

The references like Cyprian and Potamius destroy the Arian controversies narrative. Thus the contras came up with the absurd invisible allegory argument. A multiplication of nothings.
Investigator
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 8:37 am

Re: Potamius of Lisbon references the heavenly witnesses in writing to Athanasius

Post by Investigator »

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 2:39 am There is no need to say more because the argument of Potamius using invisible allegory argument is simply too absurd to waste more time and energy.

Potamius never quotes “spirit, water and blood”, which would be the key to a real allegory claim.

Conti made errors in verse numbers. It becomes best to simply omit the numbers, or show the actual verses. All very minor.

The big issue is simply to see what Potamius wrote, in the four references to the heavenly witnesses. If you think Conti has poignant additional commentary, simply share away. Scholars who accept the corrupt critical text begin with false CT presuppositions, limiting the value of their verse referencing.

The contra attempt here does not even rise to the level of majoring in the minors. Diversion and paltry personal attacks lead to zero and zilch.

Cyprian and Potamius were clearly referencing the heavenly witnesses verse.

This matches well with Priscillian, Isaac the Jew, Tertullian, Origen, Hundredfold Martyrs, Eusebius and other references and allusions extant through the 4th century, and then the incredible Vulgate Prologue of Jerome. And the hundreds of orthodox at the Council of Carthage of 484 AD and auxiliary usages.

1. Potamius never quotes: "because there are three in heaven who give witness", which would be the key to a real "heavenly witnesses" quotation claim. ;)

2. You made the error in dishonestly misrepresenting Conti's verse numbers. It becomes best to simply keep the numbers, and show the actual verse. All very important. :D

3. The big issue is simply to see what Potamius wrote, in the four references to 1 John 5:8. If you think Conti has poignant additional commentary, simply share away Steven. Psuedo-Scholars who accept your corrupt critical TR text begin with pseudo-CT-quackery :thumbup: presuppositions, limiting the value of your verse referencing. :oops:

4. Your attempt here does not even rise to the level of majoring in the minors. Diversion (to Cyprian, Priscillian, Isaac the Jew, Tertullian, Origen, Hundredfold Martyrs, Eusebius and other references and allusions extant through the 4th century, and then the incredible Vulgate Prologue of Jerome, and the hundreds of orthodox at the Council of Carthage of 484 AD and auxiliary usages) and paltry personal attacks lead to zero and zilch. :)

5. Potamius were clearly not referencing the heavenly witnesses verse. :eh: :shock: :? :wtf:
Last edited by Investigator on Tue Jan 11, 2022 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Investigator
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 8:37 am

Re: Potamius of Lisbon references the heavenly witnesses in writing to Athanasiu

Post by Investigator »

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 3:18 am The general theme of the contra position is that the heavenly witnesses was an interpolation by the orthodox in support of their position in the Arian controversies. Thus they would like to ignore all the references before Priscillian, and have had a wide range of false accusations as to the origin of the verse.

They would like to ignore the internal and stylistic and grammatical evidences. Such as how a Latin supposed interpolation fixes the Greek grammar in back-translation.:)

The references like Cyprian and Potamius destroy the Arian controversies narrative. Thus the contras came up with the absurd invisible allegory argument. A multiplication of nothings.

Issues with the way you have represented the context.

Potamius of Lisbon "You must justly admit that, when your poisonous desire of impure slander was inflamed, the venerable fathers transfixed you with pious arrows in that holier council. Here also it is clearly shown that you held before you fetters of malicious distortion, since the Savoir says: "I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent him." (John 6:38) What do you answer, serpent? Is it really possible that you seek to obfuscate the brightness of this [Page 138] pure profession, which they consider to be a very small problem? The occasion has a bearing on the matter. The Lord our Savior appeared to mankind as a human being, since he had clothed himself with a human body. Therefore, he said: "I have come down from heaven not to do my own will." (John 6:38) He denied the exercise of the humanity that was in him. Therefore, he cries out in order to proclaim in himself the predecessor whom he remembers as his Father and begetter. Since the Son is named second, therefore he who precedes is greater: but, because "these three are one" (I John 5:7 [Steven Avery's misrepresentation of Conti's verse numbering dated Jun 21st, 2021]), the substance of him who sends and of him who is sent, in the context of the unity of the Godhead, is one: "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30), and "He sees me, sees the Father." (John 14:9) and, as the Savoir himself said to the Apostles: "I have been so long with you and yet you do not know the Father." (John 14:9)." - (Potamius of Lisbon. "Letter to Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria on the consubstantiality of the Son of God" in the life and works of Potamius of Lisbon edited and translated by Marco Conti, 1998, p. 136 [Pages 136 (page 137 has the Latin text) and 138 for the English translation, Steven Avery couldn't even get Conti's page numbers right (another misrepresentation), dated Jun 21st, 2021])

Issue 1, you represented Conti falsely (posting it on your blog) by changing his verse numbers (as seen in the example above), giving the false impression that Professor Conti printed 1 John 5:7 instead of what was printed in his book, 1 John 5:8.

Issue 2, the context of the reference you present from the "Letter to Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria on the consubstantiality of the Son of God" only makes mention of two out of the three, the Father and the Son, therefore this is not a "three in heaven" context AT ALL! There is no "and the Holy Spirit" mentioned in the context you quote above AT ALL! You mislead your audience by saying all three were actually mentioned in the context. You said all four references referenced the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the immediate context, that's simply not true.

Issue 3, the Latin is "quia tres unum sunt" not "et hi tres unum sunt". The absence of "et hi" makes this quotation even more indeterminate as to the exact verse location, because, both verse 7 and verse 8 have "tres unum sunt", as well as the Latin versions also having the "et hi tres unum sunt," reading.

NOTE: To readers in general, Steven :oops: was called out on his misrepresentation, and subsequently (and as you can see from the attitude in his posts above) grudgingly retro-edited his verse numbering as a consequence. :popcorn:
Last edited by Investigator on Tue Jan 11, 2022 4:14 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Investigator
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 8:37 am

Re: Potamius of Lisbon references the heavenly witnesses in writing to Athanasius

Post by Investigator »

Steven Avery wrote: Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:00 pm
When the context is the Father Son and Holy Spirit, and the "these three are one", it is clearly a reference to the heavenly witnesses, not an invisible allegory to the earthly.

See, just one example on this very forum confirming that you misrepresent the context as having all three (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) in all four references you claim in Potamius, whereas "and the Holy Spirit" is missing totally from the context (as presented by you) in the Epistle to Athanasius. :thumbup:
Last edited by Investigator on Tue Jan 11, 2022 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Investigator
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 8:37 am

Re: Potamius of Lisbon references the heavenly witnesses in writing to Athanasius

Post by Investigator »

Issues with the way you have represented the context.

Potamius of Lisbon: “With good reason John asserts: 'and the three of them are one' (I John 5:7 [Steven Avery's misrepresentation of Conti's verse numbering dated Jun 21st, 2021]) 'Substance ' is the expression of a single entity. In fact the substance of a thing is the totality of that through which a thing exists. Thus 'substance' will set a certain condition under a certain authority, or shows that a certain condition is subjected to it. As a consequence 'substance' is that through which the perplexity of faith is resigned and the unity of the Trinity is bound together." (Potamius of Lisbon. "Letter on the Substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" in the life and works of Potamius of Lisbon edited and translated by Marco Conti, 1998, p. 150)

Issue 1, again you represented Conti falsely :eek: (posting it on your blog :facepalm: ) by changing his verse numbers (as seen in yet another example above), giving the false impression :eek: that Professor Conti printed 1 John 5:7 instead of what was really printed in his book, 1 John 5:8.

Issue 2, the context of the reference you present from the "Letter on the Substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" makes NO specific mention of the additional wording "the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit" from 1 John 5:7 AT ALL!. You have mislead your audience again by saying the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are specifically mentioned in all four references as the context. This is simply not true in the second reference above.

Issue 3, the Latin here is "et tres unum sunt" which makes this quotation again indeterminate as to the exact verse location, because both verse 7 and verse 8 have "et tres unum sunt" in the Latin versions.

Issue 4, Potamius does not quote: "because there are three in heaven who give witness" here, which is a key phrase for connecting any authentic refence to 1 John 5:7, which is also totally absent from the complete Potamius' corpus.
Last edited by Investigator on Tue Jan 11, 2022 4:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Steven Avery
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Potamius of Lisbon references the heavenly witnesses in writing to Athanasius

Post by Steven Avery »

Investigator wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 8:45 am Psuedo-Scholars (sic) who accept your corrupt critical TR text begin with pseudo-CT-quackery :thumbup: presuppositions, limiting the value of your verse referencing. :oops:
This shows that you are a dishonest textual broker.

Plus your tepid attempt at turnabout argumentation shows that you can not really deal with the fundamental issues.

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

As to the verse numbers, I quoted my source, and then passed on to them that it would be better to not change the Conti numbering without explanation. So I was scrupulously honest, and you are a false accuser. No surprise there.

You go that route because the invisible allegory argument is absurd.

A total waste of time, a scholastic embarrassment.
Post Reply