What's new
Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Online forum for sale. Please send Stovebolts PM for details. https://meetchristians.net
  • Guest Just a reminder that we don't discuss politics on this site. We believe that politics are of Man and not God. They are extremely devisive and involve lots of judgemental attitude. Enter Here
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • No longer will OSAS vx OSNAS be allowed to be debated, argued, or discussed in theology forum. Too much time is required to monitor and rescources used to debate this subject which hasn't been definitively decided in 3,000 years.

The Trinity

Free

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
Messages
13,677
Gender
Male
Free, you are ASSUMING this means the Son has no beginning and thus, it MUST mean He is a member of the fabled triune Godhead. The Scriptures say otherwise.
Be careful with your language; you wouldn't want to violate the TOS.

On the contrary, you are presuming that the Son isn't God, and then reading that into Scripture. It is significant that you didn't even address the passage I posted, and until you do, I will not respond to any points you make.

I have said many times in these forums, and will continue to do so, that the trinitarian position best takes into account all that the Scriptures reveal about God. Every other position must either ignore many passages in Scripture or make them say something they are not. In typical fashion, the anti-trinitarians simply post Scriptures that show the humanity of Christ and think they have said something, all the while ignoring the much larger context of the entirety of Scripture which includes not only clear passages showing the deity of Christ, but that he is the embodiment of Israel's God--a theme that flows from beginning to end, throughout all of Scripture.

As a case in point, I will restate the passage from Heb 1 which you didn't even attempt to address:

Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Heb 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions." (ESV)

That is a passage which the writer of Hebrews gives as the Father speaking of the Son, calling him God. Not only that, further support comes from the first instance of those statements:

Psa 45:6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness;
Psa 45:7 you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions; (ESV)

That is the psalmist writing about God, YHWH, but in Hebrews we see it applied directly to the Son, by the Father no less. Your position is completely unable to deal with that, which is most likely why you ignored it and instead posted other passages, none of which show that the Trinity isn't true.
 

Eugene

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
10,778
Gender
Male
Dear Asyncritus, in the following verse of scripture who is saying "Prepare ye the way of the Lord," and Who do you say the Lord being spoken of is there?

Matthew 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
JLB said:
Since he won't answer, I will.

It's YHWH! The Lord of lords!
Amen!

Isaiah 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD (Jehovah), make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD (Jehovah); and beside me there is no Saviour.

Acts 4:12 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Who is Jehovah?

Strong's 03068 hwhy Y@hovah yeh-ho-vaw'

from 01961; TWOT-484a; n pr dei

AV-LORD 6510, GOD 4, JEHOVAH 4, variant 1; 6519

Jehovah="the existing One"

1) the proper name of the one true God
1a) unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136
 
R

rrowell

Guest
Free, you are ASSUMING this means the Son has no beginning and thus, it MUST mean He is a member of the fabled triune Godhead. The Scriptures say otherwise.

The fact that the scriptures never contradict themselves is pointed out in the very context of Christ's claim of being the "Son of God." It is in His defense of this claim that you will find the truth of the matter:

John 10:30 "I and my Father are one.
John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
John 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"



If there is any point in what Christ is saying (and there certainly is), the truth can be found here. Once again "the scriptures cannot be broken." Do you not understand what Christ is saying? What Christ is saying agrees with what the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to tell us:

1 Corinthians 8:6 "But to us there is but one God, the Father [What happened to the Son and the Holy Ghost?], of whom are all things [including the "one Lord Jesus Christ"], and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."


So, as Paul makes so clear in 1 Corinthians 11, Christ is "of God" and we in turn are "by Christ...but all of God." And what does Christ tell us here?:

Revelation 3:14 "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God."


Christ Himself reaffirms Paul's statement that the Father is God and that He, Christ is the "beginning of God's creation." Paul, of course, tells us that after God created the "one Lord Jesus Christ," that it was "by Him" that we were all created.


Revelation 1:8 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."


The Greek word translated 'beginning' here and in Revelation 3:14 is 'arche,' and it literally means "a commencement."


  • ἀρχή - archē - (properly abstract) a commencement, or chief (in applications of order, time, place or rank): - beginning, (at the, the) first, magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.


So it is also properly translated as 'chief,' and 'principalities.'

Ephesians 1:20 "Which he [the Father] wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set [him] at his own right hand in the heavenly [places],
Ephesians 1:21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come."


Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Colossians 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power."



In telling us that he is the beginning of the creation of God, Christ is telling us that He is the head of all principality and power.

God created the heavens and the earth "in the beginning". This word in Genesis 1:1 happens to be the same word which is translated 'firstfruits' in all these verses:

Leviticus 2:12, Leviticus 23:10, Numbers 18:12, Deuteronomy 26:10, 2 Chronicles 31:5, Nehemiah 10:37, Nehemiah 12:44, Proverbs 3:9, Jeremiah 2:3, Ezekiel 20:40, Ezekiel 48:14


Since if Christ is "the firstfruits", then it follows that it was in Him [Christ] that God did all of His creating, and that is exactly what we are told:


1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."



Colossians 1:15 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Colossians 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell."



Paul says:

Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and God head[/B]; so that they are without excuse."

1 Corinthians 11:12 "For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things [including the "one lord Jesus Christ"] of God [the Father]."


Did you catch that? "AS the woman is OF the man... all things are OF God." God the Father is NOT 'of ' Christ. If Christ were not "OF the Father...AS the woman is OF the man," then Christ would be the Father and the head. But what do the Scriptures actually say:

1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God [the Father "of whom are all things"]."


Obviously you did not catch that. You simply do not believe that "AS the woman is OF the man...all things are OF God." You see no point at all in Paul's argument because to you Eve was not really "made for Adam" neither is God really the "head of Christ," but in reality they all "should be understood as one and the same." And rather than relinquish this "idol of your heart" (Ezekiel 14:1-9), you twist, distort, and ADD to the plain words of Scripture so it fits into your preconceived "triune" theory.

I have never seen anyone twist this so bad, what is hard to understand that the scriptures teach before creation there was:

God the Father (of which you seem to have no problem with)

God the Word existing eternally before creation (who would be made "Son of God" because his father was God the Father and be made "Son of Man" because he had an earthly mother, ending up to be the Christ (Here is where you for some unscriptural reason think that Jesus/Christ was here created), not existed as a God before "made flesh" <-- this should be a clue to you, and think he was created like man, if this were true, he simply could have used Paul or any other "man")

God the Spirit existing eternally before creation (of which the scriptures plainly make him a person)

You twist these scriptures trying to make them say what you want, then try (note I said try) to use Greek to make your case... it is what all false doctrine do, they twist the English, then Twist the Greek to "try" to make their man made doctrine fit.

Free has tried to keep you to one or two scriptures, instead you blast him again and again with a mass of scripture that you have twisted knowing if someone were to address you properly would take pages... typical of scripture twisters...

I have very many personal things going on right now (and its not Thanks Giving, that would not stop me here), but when I am done I will be glad to entertain you.
 

Randy

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
1,701
Christian
Yes
Hey Randy

Why not look up what FULNESS means, and let me know?

Thanks

Async

It means Jesus the Son is Not that Fullness. As in the fullness was pleased to dwell IN Him.

Fullness of the Deity

The Father's fullness. As Jesus taught the Father is IN Him.

Why would a being who was God and always was need that fullness to dwell in them? Whose mind "pleased" to dwell in Him? There was no God formed before the Father nor will there be one formed after Him.

Do you want to start again ?

Jesus called the Father the One True God. If Jesus always was and always was God how then do you believe in one God for Jesus stated on the cross "Father into your hands I commit MY SPIRIT" ?

Jesus has always been the Son.

Randy
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
293
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes

As a case in point, I will restate the passage from Heb 1

which you didn't even attempt to address:

Heb. 1:8 But of the Son he

says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness
is
the scepter of your kingdom.


Heb. 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore
God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your
companions." (ESV)






The following is from my own studies and condensed from a larger study from a file on my computer:


But, if we look at some respected trinitarian authorities, we also see a recognition for the “God is thy throne” rendering.

Oxford professor and famed trinitarian Bible translator, Dr. James Moffatt, has been described as “probably the greatest biblical scholar of our day.” His Bible translation renders Heb. 1:8 as:

God is thy throne for ever and ever.”

University of Cambridge professor and noted New Testament language scholar, Dr. C. F. D. Moule reluctantly admits that Heb. 1:8 may conceivably be “construed so as to mean Thy throne is God- p. 32, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.

An American Translation
(Smith-Goodspeed), renders it: “God is your throne....”

And The Bible in Living English (Byington) reads: “God is your throne....”

Noted trinitarian NT scholar Dr. William Barclay, in his translation of the New Testament, has also rendered Hebrews 1:8 as : “God is your throne for ever and ever.” But worse yet (for those wanting evidence of a trinity from the Book of Hebrews), Dr. Barclay comments as follows:
“The letter [of Hebrews] was written to a Church which had had great days and great teachers and leaders.” - p. 6. “Moreover, it was obviously written to a scholarly group [who] ... had long been under instruction and were preparing themselves to become teachers of the Christian faith.” - p. 7.

And just what was this passage that includes Heb. 1:8 (Heb. 1:4-14) intended to prove to this group of long-term dedicated Christian scholars?
“[The author] is concerned to prove [Jesus’] SUPERIORITY OVER THE ANGELS.” - p. 16, The Letter to the Hebrews, Revised Edition, 1976, The Westminster Press.

Yes, this acclaimed trinitarian scholar has (perhaps inadvertently) illuminated the truth of the doctrine of God which was understood by first-century Christians! They had no concept of the 3-in-one God idea which was developed in later centuries. IF these learned first century Christians had really considered Jesus “equally God” (as fourth century Christendom began doing), it certainly would have been nonsensical for the writer of Hebrews to attempt to prove that Jesus was superior to all other angels!

Famed trinitarian (Southern Baptist) New Testament Greek scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson acknowledges that either “Thy throne, O God” orGod is thy throne” may be proper renderings: “Either makes good sense.” - p. 339. He also tells us that the inspired Letter to the Hebrews was written to a church of Jewish Christians whose Jewish neighbors

Again, it would have been absurd for the inspired writer of Hebrews to devote this entire, long letter to proving that Jesus is superior to Moses and the angels if the intended readers, as the spirit-born Christians they were, had already accepted Jesus as God Almighty! And even if they had originally believed that Jesus was God, but were now in doubt, the Bible writer certainly wouldn’t waste any time trying to prove Jesus’ superiority to Moses (or the angels). He would have dedicated the entire letter to proving absolutely that Jesus is God (if he had really believed such a thing himself)!

The American Standard Version (ASV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV),and The New English Bible (NEB) have provided honest alternate readings to the traditional trinitarian rendering of the KJV at Hebrews 1:8. These alternate readings (found in footnotes) agree with Dr. Moffatt’s, Dr. Barclay’s, Smith-Goodspeed’s, and Byington’s renderings of this scripture (“God is your throne”).

Even Young’s Concise Bible Commentary (written by the noted trinitarian author of Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible) admits: “[Heb. 1:8] may be justly rendered ‘God is thy throne ....’”

Just the fact of many TRINITARIAN scholars admitting the possibility of “God is your throne” being the intended translation of Heb. 1:8 makes this a non-example for trinitarian ‘proofs.’

Next we will examine the OT scripture being quoted in Hebrews 1:8, 9.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
293
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Quoted From Ps. 45

In addition to the previous admissions by trinitarian translators concerning Heb. 1:8 itself, we need to look back at the Old Testament Hebrew scripture (Ps. 45:6) that was quoted in Heb. 1:8.

The RSV renders it as “Your Divine throne” and a footnote provides these alternate
readings: “Or your throne is a throne of God, or Thy throne, O God.’”



The NEB says: “Your throne is like God’s throne.”


The Holy Scriptures
(JPS version) says: “Thy throne given of God.”
The Bible in Living English
(Byington) says: “God is your throne.”

The Message
has: "Your throne is God's throne, ever and always.”

The Good News Bible (GNB), Bible, renders it: “The kingdom that God has given you will last

forever and ever.” - ABS, 1976.

The Good News Translation (GNT):
“The kingdom that God has given you will last forever and ever.” – ABS, 1992.

The REB has: “God has enthroned you for all eternity.”

The NJB gives us: “your throne is from God.”

We also find the following statement by respected trinitarian scholars in a footnote for this passage:
45:6 O God. Possibly the king’s throne is called God’s throne because he is God’s appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as ‘god.’ - Ps. 45:6 f.n. in the NIV Study Bible. [Also see footnote in the NAB, St. Joseph ed. quoted above.]

In addition to the above renderings by many respected translators (most of whom are trinitarian), we have the statement by one of the greatest scholars of Biblical Hebrew of all time, H. F. W. Gesenius. In his famous and highly respected Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Gesenius renders Ps. 45:6, “thy throne shall be a divine throne.”

The trinitarian Bible scholar, B. F. Westcott, wrote:
“The LXX [Septuagint] admits of two renderings [at Ps. 45:6, 7]: [ho theos] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (‘thy throne, O God, .... therefore, O God, thy God...’) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (‘God is Thy throne,’ or ‘Thy throne is God...’), and in apposition to [ho theos sou] in the second case (‘Therefore God, even Thy God...’) .... It is scarcely possible that [elohim] in the original can be addressed to the King. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theos] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: ‘God is thy throne(or, ‘Thy throne is God’), that is, ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’” - The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889, pp. 25, 26.

Just the admission by so many trinitarian translators (above) that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated in a non-Trinitarian sense makes any insistence by other trinitarians that this scripture is truly evidence for a trinity doctrine invalid.
 

Disciple539

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
2
Christian
Yes
I would like to jump in here with one verse that I believe sums it up but I understand that if you are a true trinitarian you will disagree.
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.


Notice the verse states that these three are one not in one.
 
A

Asyncritus

Guest
From what TT has said above, and the authorities and translations cited, it seems obvious, Free, that you have leapt off into the distance without due care and attention to the details and source of Heb 1.8

You have done the same with Heb 1.10, which has led you to the position that Jesus is God's Father, and vice versa. That is simply incomprehensible to me, but is the logical outworking of the trinitarian position. I have never heard or read any other writer making such a statement, and that alone should give the other pro-trinity guys serious reason to reconsider their positions.

One of the other unfortunate consequences is the doctrine that Mary is the mother of God. The catholics have pursued the trinity with logic equal to yours, and have arrived there with little effort. If Jesus was God, and Mary was His mother, then it follows equally logically that Mary is God's mother.

Do you support that view, Free? JLB, smaller, SBG, Eventide, - do you agree with that statement above - that Mary is God's mother?

I would be very surprised if you do agree with it, but you have no logical reason, no logical stopping point, for rejecting it. But I wait to hear from you.

In the meantime, Free, to return to Heb 1.10.

I have 2 main reasons for rejecting your POV.

The first is stated above. Jesus could not possibly be God's Father. He makes no such claim, EVER, and the thinness of your support for that POV is telling.

The second is that you have totally ignored the context of the quotation from Ps 102, just as you have done with the Ps 45 quotation. TT has dealt with Ps 45, and I will now show you the error you're making with Ps 102.

I agree that the way Heb 1.10 is set out could lead you into thinking about it the way you do, but the moment you look at the source of the quotation - which would be well known to all the readers, who probably knew the psalms by heart - you see that your POV could not possibly be correct.

Here it is: a Messianic psalm, concerning the sufferings of Christ as first demonstrated in David's own life.

Hear my prayer, O LORD, and let my cry come unto thee.

2 Hide not thy face from me in the day when I am in trouble; incline thine ear unto me: in the day when I call answer me speedily.
3 For my days are consumed like smoke, and my bones are burned as an hearth.
4 My heart is smitten, and withered like grass; so that I forget to eat my bread.
5 By reason of the voice of my groaning my bones cleave to my skin.
6 I am like a pelican of the wilderness: I am like an owl of the desert.
7 I watch, and am as a sparrow alone upon the house top.
8 Mine enemies reproach me all the day; and they that are mad against me are sworn against me.
9 For I have eaten ashes like bread, and mingled my drink with weeping,
10 Because of thine indignation and thy wrath: for thou hast lifted me up, and cast me down.

Jesus has expressed His hurt, and pain, and mortality, and summarises them in:

11 My days are like a shadow that declineth; and I am withered like grass.

But His hope is in the Lord, who is in the exactly opposite situation He describes thus:

12 ¶ But thou, O LORD, shalt endure for ever; and thy remembrance unto all generations.

It must be obvious that this is not God talking to Jesus, but Jesus talking to God.

The psalm now continues in the same vein:

[...]

23 ¶ He weakened my strength in the way; he shortened my days.
24 I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations.

This is again Messiah, praying to His Father.

AND SO IS THIS:


25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:
27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.

This is the reason why Messiah endured the cross, and despised the shame. His God would endure forever, and would deliver Him from death.

This psalm therefore asserts the eternity of God, and it is that eternity which guarantees that the Son would be delivered from death, and be forever exalted now, above the angels, and above all mankind.

To yank this passage out of its obvious context, and say that suddenly, David is being called God the Father, is unthinkable in the extreme.

David could not possibly be called God the Father. It is therefore just as unreasonable to think that in a prayer to the Almighty, the Almighty would suddenly turn and call His Son 'God the Father'.

The passage comes from a psalm which describes the sufferings of Christ in painful, excruciating detail, and describes the reason for His deliverance, namely His faith in the God of Eternity.

The passage therefore is a PRAYER TO GOD who has delivered Messiah from death, and who would have children - namely, His disciples:

28 The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee.

It is no wonder that the seed of Messiah is now exhorted to be like Him in their own sufferings, just a few verses further on:

2.1 ¶ Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.

He suffered, and is now exalted to the right hand of the Father. So will you be, says Paul:

1 ¶ Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

JCitoL

Guest
Hi joethemechanic,

the trinity is just: the true God Father, the true Lord Jesus Christ and Their joint Spirit wherethrough They operate remotely in the world

Blessings
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
293
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Disciple539:
I would like to jump in here with one verse that I believe sums it up but I understand that if you are a true trinitarian you will disagree.

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.

Notice the verse states that these three are one not in one.
The following is from my own studies and condensed from a larger study from a file on my computer. It may also be found at several places on-line:

1 John 5:7 (Received Text)

A few Bibles follow the KJV tradition and add ““For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one [ἓν in Greek]” at 1 John 5:7.
But the use of the neuter ἓν does not mean what trinitarians want it to mean.

There is no way that Jesus would pray at Jn 17:22 that Christians may be one [ἓν or hen in NT Greek] “just as we (Jesus and the Father) are one” if he were truly God. In that case he would be praying that these Christians become “equally God” with him and the Father!

Instead the neuter hen (ἓν) is understood to mean that all those were to be united in will or purpose.

But even more important is the fact that John did not write the words found at 1 Jn 5:7 in the KJV! And we must consider why trinitarian scholars and copyists felt compelled to add it to the Holy Scriptures.

Highly respected (and highly trinitarian) New Testament Bible scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson writes:

"For there are three who bear witness (hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes).At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus [Received Text], found in no Greek MS. [Manuscript] save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century [1520 A.D.] in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome [famed trinitarian, 342-420 A. D.] did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity [ ? - - see UBS Commentary below] and Priscillian [excommunicated 380 A. D., executed 385 A. D.] has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it [in his next edition of 1522] if a single Greek MS. had it and [ms.] 34 [1520 A.D.] was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en toi ouranoi ho pater, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tei gei (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and the three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to verse 8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition." - p. 240, Vol. VI, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.

The highly respected (and trinitarian) United Bible Societies has published a commentary on the New Testament text. It discusses 1 John 5:5-7 as follows:

"That these words [1 John 5:7 as found in the Received Text and translated in the KJV] are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.

“(A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except four, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. These four manuscripts are ms. 61 [this is ms. 34 in the earlier numbering system used by Robertson above], a sixteenth century manuscript formerly at Oxford, now at Dublin; ms. 88, a twelfth century manuscript at Naples, which has the passage written in the margin by a modern hand; ms. 629 [ms. 162, Robertson], a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican; and ms. 635, an eleventh century manuscript which has the passage written in the margin by a seventeenth century hand.

“(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [certainly at the Nicene Council of 325]). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

“(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A. D. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A. D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vercellensis [ninth century]).

“The earliest instance of the passage is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. .…”

The respected trinitarian reference work, The Expositor's Greek Testament tells us about this verse:

"A Latin interpolation, certainly spurious. (I) Found in no Gk. MS. [Greek Manuscript] except two late minuscules - 162 (Vatican), 15th c., the Lat. Vg. [Latin Vulgate] Version with a Gk. text adapted thereto; 34 (Trin. Coll., Dublin), 16th c. (2) Quoted by none of the Gk Fathers. Had they known it, they would have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [325 A.D.]). (3) Found in none of the early versions - in Vg. but not as it [originally] left the hands of St. Jerome." - p. 195, Vol. 5, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

The following modern trinitarian Bibles do not include the spurious words found in the KJV at 1 Jn 5:7:

Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; American Standard Version; New International Version; New American Standard Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; New American Bible (1970 and 1991 editions); Jerusalem Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; Modern Language Bible; Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version; An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed); and translations by Moffatt; C. B. Williams; William Beck; Phillips; Rotherham; Lamsa; Byington; Barclay; etc.

WHY do so many trinitarians feel it necessary to “preserve” this clearly dishonest King James Version tradition in not only the most-used King James Version itself (which has been revised many times with thousands of changes in its 400-year history while still leaving this spurious verse), but even in at least three modern translations (NKJV, KJIIV, NLV)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Asyncritus

Guest
NET Bible, translators note:

27tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to {udwr kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earthâ€).

This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence – both external and internal – is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places.

The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516.

Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.

The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity.

From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church.

After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it.

Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text.

In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings – even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)?

Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history.

Endquote.

They do go on a bit, but it's pretty obvious that those words should not be in the text.

Sorry, Disciple539, but there it is.

Will you reconsider your position now?
 

JLB

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life
Staff member
Topical Studies Moderator
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
24,406
Gender
Male
NET Bible, translators note:

27tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to {udwr kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”).

This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence – both external and internal – is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places.

The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516.

Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.

The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity.

From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church.

After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it.

Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text.

In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings – even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)?

Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history.

Endquote.

They do go on a bit, but it's pretty obvious that those words should not be in the text.

Sorry, Disciple539, but there it is.

Will you reconsider your position now?

In your understanding, do you confess Jesus Christ to be:


  • A man
  • An Angel
  • God
Which one of these do you say describes what Jesus is?




JLB
 
R

rrowell

Guest
NET Bible, translators note:

27tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to {udwr kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earthâ€).

This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence – both external and internal – is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places.

The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516.

Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.

The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity.

From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church.

After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it.

Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text.

In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings – even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)?

Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history.

Endquote.

They do go on a bit, but it's pretty obvious that those words should not be in the text.

Sorry, Disciple539, but there it is.

Will you reconsider your position now?
There are many problems with your comma theory, here are a few, anyone wishing to see the true side of the comma can see the rest of this by clicking here :

1. Comma-less readings declare an unbiblical doctrine

Verse 6 declares that the Spirit is truth. This is shown by the fact that the Spirit is in agreement with the Father and the Word ("το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν"). In other words, the Spirit is truth because it is one with the source of truth, the divine Father and the Son whose testimonies are in agreement (John 8:18). If the Comma were not present, the Spirit is purported to be truth just because it agrees with two other earthly witnesses ("το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν"). However, this would hardly explain why the Spirit alone is singled out as being truth. If the unity in testimony determines whether a contributing witness is truth, then either the water or the blood could also be truth on the same level as the Spirit. The biblical principle on two or three witnesses is that the matter which is being testified by two or three witnesses is truth (Matthew 18:16). The contributing witnesses themselves are not deemed to be truth just on the basis of participating and being in agreement. The Spirit is truth in a unique sense because it is one with the Godhead, not just because it agrees with two other witnesses.

2. Comma-less readings have no antecedent

Verse 8 says, "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." In Greek, the phrase "these three agree in one" is "οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν" (the three are in the one). There is a definite article that indicates that the "one" is a particular "one" that has been referred to previously in the flow of the argument. If the Comma remains, this demonstrative article has a clear antecedent. The Father, Word, and Holy Ghost are "one," and the three earthly witnesses agree in "the one." Without the Comma there is no clear antecedent ("Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney," The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967, by the Trinitarian Bible Society).

3. Comma-less readings lack an explicit explanation of the "witness of God"

Verse 9 says that if we receive the witness of men (i.e. water of baptism and the blood of crucifixion), the witness of God is greater. This "witness of God" is the Spirit of truth in verse 6 who bears witness of Jesus Christ. To a Trinitarian it might seem obvious that the "witness of the Spirit" is synonymous with "the witness of God." However, the Comma improves the flow of the argument by explaining why the two are synonymous. Since the Spirit is one with the Father and the Word, the Spirit's witness is God's witness.

Johannine parallelism

The repetitive contrastive parallelism of 1 John 5:7-8 is a mark of Johannine authorship. Compare the Comma with the other examples of contrastive parallelisms in the same Epistle:

1 John 5:7-8:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

1 John 1:8-10:

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

1 John 12:13-14:

"I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one."

1 John 4:2b-3a:

"Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:"

1 John 5:12:

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."


Grammar


The inclusion of the Comma improves the grammar of the passage. In 1 John 5:7, the masculine construction, "τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες," introduces three neuter nouns, "το πνευμα," "το υδωρ" and "το αιμα", which is a grammatical anomaly. Anti-Comma scholars have developed several theories to explain away this anomaly.

One theory is that John regarded the "Spirit" as a person, and therefore personified it by giving it the masculine gender. The problem with this theory is that "Spirit" appears in verse 6 and is not personified as it is associated with a neuter article and participle, "το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν." Another theory is that John gave the masculine gender to the Spirit, water and blood because John wanted to indicate that they are all valid witnesses, which in Old Testament law had to be males. The problem with this theory is that the Spirit is already described as a valid witness in verse 6, but is given the neuter gender in that verse.


The inclusion of the Comma fills the gaps to these theories. With respect to the theory that the Spirit in verse 8 is given the masculine gender because of its personification, the weakness of this theory is that the Spirit in verse 6 is not personified. However, with the Comma, the Spirit is personified for the first time in verse 7 as a person of the Godhead. Hence in verse 8 the Spirit retains this personification as a person of the Godhead. This explains why the Spirit is personified in verse 8 but not at verse 6.

With respect to the theory that the three earthly witnesses are given the masculine gender in verse 8 to indicate that they are valid witnesses, the weakness of this theory is that the witnessing Spirit in verse 6 is neuter. But with the Comma, there is an introduction of three naturally male heavenly witnesses. Then it makes sense for the three earthly witnesses in verse 8 to appropriate the gender (and hence the authority) of the heavenly witnesses to indicate that the earthly witnesses are also valid witnesses.


 
A

Asyncritus

Guest
Hey RR

The NET Bible translators, trinitarians one and all, are not arguing about a 'comma'.

The whole verse is called the Johanine Comma - why, I don't know.

But their point, not mine, is that the verse should not be there since it is a forgery. That's their conclusion after examining the evidence they give in their translators' note.

Personally, I can't see any way to argue the toss with them, so I'll have to go with their rejection of the verse.
 
A

Asyncritus

Guest
In your understanding, do you confess Jesus Christ to be:



  • A man
  • An Angel
  • God

Which one of these do you say describes what Jesus is?
To remind you:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth

And in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, our Lord

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit

Born of the virgin Mary...[...]

The rest you know.

So I ask y'all again - is Mary the mother of God?
 

JLB

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life
Staff member
Topical Studies Moderator
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
24,406
Gender
Male
To remind you:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth

And in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, our Lord

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit

Born of the virgin Mary...[...]

The rest you know.

So I ask y'all again - is Mary the mother of God?
Man, that's great!

So what is the answer to my Question?

Number 3 for me!

I confess that Jesus Christ was God, is God will always be God.

What is your confession?


  1. A man
  2. An Angel
  3. God

Is it 1,2 or 3?


JLB
 
R

rrowell

Guest
Hey RR

The NET Bible translators, trinitarians one and all, are not arguing about a 'comma'.

The whole verse is called the Johanine Comma - why, I don't know.

But their point, not mine, is that the verse should not be there since it is a forgery. That's their conclusion after examining the evidence they give in their translators' note.

Personally, I can't see any way to argue the toss with them, so I'll have to go with their rejection of the verse.
There is controversy over the "comma" and the "clause", some texts leave out the clause... the corruption begins in verse 6, and if properly studied, one will find everything fits together with the comma and clause in place:

The corruption of 1 John 5:6

Did you know?

Early Greek manuscripts of 1 John 5:6, the verse preceding the Comma, are corrupt.

We can look even closer to the place of the disputed passage. 1 John 5:6 is the verse immediately preceding the Comma. This verse is corrupt in the early manuscripts. The earliest witnesses of the passage are Codices Sinaiticus (4th century), Vaticanus (4th century), Alexandrinus (5th century) and 0296 (6th century). Uncial 048 (5th century) is lacunae. There are already significant discrepancies among these early witnesses at 1 John 5:6. In the following comparisons, discrepancies are noted in bold-type when a witness departs from the Nestle-Aland 27 (with minor spelling and abbreviations discrepancies exempted):

Nestle-Aland 27:
"6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους χριστος ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και εν τω αιματι και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια 7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες 8 το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν"


Sinaiticus (4th c.):
"6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δια υδατος και αιματος και πνς ις χς ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και τω αιματι και το πνα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνα εστιν η αληθεια 7 οτι οι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες 8 το πνα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν"

Vaticanus (4th c.):
"6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ις χς ουκ εν τω υδατι μονω αλλ εν τω υδατι και εν τω αιματι· και το πνευμα τιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια 7 οτι ··τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες· 8 το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα· και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν·"


Alexandrinus (5th c.):
"6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος και πνς ις χς· ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον· αλλα εν τω υδατι και εν τω πνι· και το πνα εστιν το μαρτυρουν· οτι το πνα εστιν η αληθεια 7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες· 8 το πνα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν"

0296 (6th c.):
6 ουτος ε[στι]ν ο ελθων [δι] υδατος και [π]νς· και αιμα[το]ς ις χς· ουκ [εν] τω υδατι – [αιμα]τ[ι] [κ]αι το [πνα] εστιν το [μαρ]τυρουν· οτι το πνα εστι[ν] η αληθεια· 7 οτ[ι] τρεις οι μαρτυρουντε[ς] 8 το πνα και το υδωρ και το αιμα· και οι τρεις [ει]ς τ[ο] εν [εισιν]

The only early witness that agrees with Nestle-Aland 27 is Codex Vaticanus. Codex Vaticanus says that Jesus Christ came by water and blood. The other witnesses say that Jesus Christ came by water and blood and Spirit. This may appear to be a minor one-word difference, but the theological implications are big. As such, it is likely that this corruption was theologically motivated. The textual variants in verse 6 begin to increase when we include other manuscripts and witnesses:

  • ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος (B, K, Ψ, 049, 056, 0142, 181, 330, 451, 629, 1739*, 1881, 2127, Byz, Lect, it, vg, syrp)
  • ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος (43, 241, 463, 945, 1241, 1831, 1877*, 1891)
  • ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος καὶ αἵματος (P, 81, 88, 442, 630, 915, 2492, arm, eth)
  • ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος καὶ πνεύματος (א, A, 104, 424c, 614, 1739c, 2412, 2495, ℓ598m, syrh, copsa, copbo, Origen)
  • ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου (39, 61, 326, 1837)
Although the earliest Greek witnesses do not have the Comma at 1 John 5:7, we see that these witnesses had scribes who tampered with the text in this general portion of the chapter. By 350 AD this portion of 1 John 5 was already corrupt in the Greek tradition. Since verse 6 is corrupt in Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, and verse 7 in 0296 does not have "εισιν," there are only two manuscripts (Vaticanus and 048) from before the 7th century which read exactly as the Byzantine/Majority Text or the Nestle-Aland from verse 6 to 7:

  • "ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους χριστος ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και εν τω αιματι και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες" (Nestle-Aland 27)

  • "ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους χριστος ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και τω αιματι και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες" (Byzantine/Majority Text 2000)
Critics of the Comma are almost always silent regarding this corruption of 1 John 5:6, a corruption that may have been theologically motivated. When there is clear proof of a theologically motivated corruption at verse 6 in so many early witnesses, it is reasonable to suspect that the corruption extended into verse 7.

The corruption of 1 John 4:3


1 John 4:3 is another example of an early theologically motivated corruption. In fact, 1 John 4:3 is a Trinitarian verse just like the Comma. 1 John 4:3 mentions all three Trinitarian components: "spirit", "Jesus Christ" and "God." The verse in the KJV says:

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."


This is the reading supported by Codex Sinaiticus, the earliest Greek manuscript of 1 John, and the Byzantine Majority Text:

Sinaiticus:


"και παν πνα ο μη ομολογει ιν κν εν σαρκι εληλυθοτα εκ του θυ ουκ εστιν και τουτο εστιν το του αντιχριστου οτι ακηκοαμεν οτι ερχεται και νυν εν τω κοσμω εστιν ηδη"


Byzantine Majority Text:


"και παν πνευμα ο μη ομολογει ιησουν χριστον εν σαρκι εληλυθοτα εκ του θεου ουκ εστιν και τουτο εστιν το του αντιχριστου ο ακηκοατε οτι ερχεται και νυν εν τω κοσμω εστιν ηδη"


However, 1 John 4:3 in Nestle-Aland 27, following Alexandrinus and Vaticanus and a few later manuscripts, reads:

"και παν πνευμα ο μη ομολογει τον ιησουν του θεου ουκ εστιν και τουτο εστιν το του αντιχριστου ο ακηκοατε οτι ερχεται και νυν εν τω κοσμω εστιν ηδη"



["ιησουν χριστον εν σαρκι εληλυθοτα εκ" is omitted.]


From the evidence of the earliest manuscript and the majority of manuscripts, it is reasonable to believe that 1 John 4:3 in the Textus Receptus is the correct reading. Byzantine Majority Text proponents would agree. If Nestle-Aland proponents disagree with the Sinaiticus reading, then it is clear that Nestle-Aland proponents have no objective criteria for determining original readings based on the "earliest manuscripts". If Sinaiticus and the Majority Text are correct here, 1 John 4:3 is further evidence that a clause in a Trinitarian verse could be expunged in the early stage of transmission.


The corruption of 1 John 5:13


1 John 5:13 is proof that a clause in a parallel construction (such as that in the Comma) could drop out of some early manuscripts. The proof of 1 John 5:13 may not be convincing to an Alexandrian text proponent, but it should be convincing to a Byzantine text proponent. The verse in the KJV says:

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

The clause, though appearing to be redundant at first, makes perfect sense. The present-tense subjunctive phrase "that ye may believe..." expresses a wish that the action continue. John is wishing that those who currently believe on the name of the Son of God would continue to do so. However, the underlined words are not found in the three earliest witnesses of the verse. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus, essentially say:


"ταυτα εγραψα υμιν ινα ειδητε οτι ζωην εχετε αιωνιον τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονομα του υιου του θεου"

The Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Majority Text, in agreement with the fourth, fifth, and sixth earliest witnesses of the verse in its entirety, K (9th century), L (9th century), P (9th century), say:

"ταυτα εγραψα υμιν τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονομα του υιου του θεου ινα ειδητε οτι ζωην αιωνιον εχετε και ινα πιστευητε εις το ονομα του υιου του θεου"

Text of 1 John: Conclusion


The examples of 1 John 2:23b, 1 John 5:6, 1 John 4:3 and 1 John 5:13 show that the transmission of 1 John is marked by demonstrable corruptions. These examples are related to the Comma in one way or the other. Some of these examples concern the Trinity. Others concern the omission of a clause in a parallel construction. One thing is certain: the text of 1 John underwent corruption long before the alleged "fabrication" of the Comma. With there being these other demonstrable examples of early textual corruptions, it is reasonable to suppose that the omission of the Comma was also an early textual corruption.
 
R

rrowell

Guest
In your understanding, do you confess Jesus Christ to be:



  • A man
  • An Angel
  • God

Which one of these do you say describes what Jesus is?




JLB
Hey RR

The NET Bible translators, trinitarians one and all, are not arguing about a 'comma'.

The whole verse is called the Johanine Comma - why, I don't know.

But their point, not mine, is that the verse should not be there since it is a forgery. That's their conclusion after examining the evidence they give in their translators' note.

Personally, I can't see any way to argue the toss with them, so I'll have to go with their rejection of the verse.
And on a side note, I too would like to see your answer to JLB's question asked (quoted above)?
 
O

Osgiliath

Guest
Originally Posted By rrowell,

I have very many personal things going on right now (and its not Thanks Giving, that would not stop me here), but when I am done I will be glad to entertain you.
Well, let's do it rrowell. Start by dissecting my post (the one you quoted) Scripturally, piece by piece, documenting EVERYTHING with Scripture. Using only Scripture, explain and document everything that you believe is a distortion of Scripture. I will then do the same with your Biblical analysis. If you are intellectually and Scripturally dishonest, or immature in our thorough analysis, game off. Only Scripture is to be used, as if no external writings or creeds exist. We'll keep the Word of God unleavened. Original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic is encouraged.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

rrowell

Guest
Well, let's do it rrowell. Start by dissecting my post (the one you quoted) Scripturally, piece by piece, documenting EVERYTHING with Scripture. Using only Scripture, explain and document everything that you believe is a distortion of Scripture. I will then do the same with your Biblical analysis. If you are intellectually and Scripturally dishonest, or immature in our thorough analysis, game off. Only Scripture is to be used, as if no external writings or creeds exist. We'll keep the Word of God unleavened. Original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic is encouraged.
Before we begin, I would like to know where you stand, do you believe Jesus is God or only a man, do you believe Jesus was ever a God before he was a man, answer those two questions
 

Help support cf.net

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Top