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
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.