Three person God identified in the Bible?

[BB1956]

The Story of an Interpolation—1 John 5:7, 8 Part 2

THE BATTLE RENEWED

Had the final word been said on the “comma Johanneum”? Perhaps it seemed that way as the seventeenth century progressed, dominated by the Authorized Version. But the murmurings never ceased and the search for the mysterious Codex Britannicus continued, for it disappeared after Erasmus was told about it. Toward the end of the century, no less a personage than Sir Isaac Newton turned the attention of his scientifically trained mind to this text. In 1690 he sent John Locke the treatise “An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture.” The tract set out clearly the reasons for rejecting the text as spurious and several copies circulated among friends of Newton, but it was never published until nearly seventy years later and then only imperfectly.

Meanwhile the growth of textual criticism took on new impetus. The text was attacked by Richard Simon, and Dr. John Mill gathered the evidence against the passage, though he remained its defender. But Thomas Emlyn took up Mill’s evidence and urged both houses of Convocation assembled in 1717 to cut the words right out, for he said, “ ’tis never given up fairly, till it be left out of our printed copies.”5 In short order Emlyn was attacked by Mr. Martin, pastor of the French Church at Utrecht, whose voluminous and subtle answer seemed to clear the field. Emlyn’s reply caused Martin to launch a second tirade against him. But Emlyn won many supporters, though the devious windings of the controversy often made it extremely difficult to find out what it was really all about.

In 1729 there appeared here in England a diglot version of the Christian Greek Scriptures by Daniel Mace. In a fourteen-page note he listed the Greek and Latin manuscripts, ancient versions, early Greek and Latin writers that omitted the text and threw it out with this conclusion, “In a word, if this evidence is not sufficient to prove, that the controverted text in St. John is spurious; by what evidence can it be prov’d, that any text in St. John is genuine?”6 Thereafter, other English translations began to omit the verse, such as the one by William Whiston (1745), well known for his translation of Josephus, and that by John Worsley in 1770.

If Edward Gibbon thought the wheel had turned full circle when he published The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1781 he was mistaken. With his usual sarcasm he denounced the passage as a “pious fraud.”7 Up rose another champion, George Travis, an archdeacon, who rushed into action to defend the text. His extreme statements elicited crushing replies from Professor Richard Porson (running to over 400 pages) and Herbert Marsh, a bishop. At last the interpolation was exposed in a minute and most exact manner.

THE LAST STRONGHOLD GIVES WAY

After Porson and Marsh there was little to add. Most scholars of the nineteenth century considered the matter settled, but one stronghold remained, the Roman Catholic Church.

As late as 1897 a papal decree was issued forbidding the faithful to doubt the “comma Johanneum.” In part it said:

“Secretariat of the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Concerning the authenticity of the text of 1 John V. 7. (Wednesday, Jan. 12, 1897).

“In a General Congregation of the Holy Roman Inquisition . . . the following doubtful question was presented:

“‘Whether we may safely deny, or even treat as a matter of doubt, the authenticity of that text (1 John V. 7). . . ’

“All things having been most diligently examined and weighed, and the opinion of the Lords Consultors having been taken, the aforesaid Most Eminent Cardinals gave out ‘the answer is in the negative.’ On Friday the 15th of the aforesaid month and year, in the usual audience granted to reverend father the lord Assessor of the Holy Office, after that he had made an exact report of the aforesaid proceedings to our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, His Holiness approved and confirmed the resolution of these Most Eminent Fathers . . . ”—Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. 29. 1896-7. p. 637.

But Pope Leo soon realized that he had been imposed upon, and in 1902 he established a commission to study Scripture more closely, directing it to begin with 1 John 5:7, 8. Because the report was unfavorable to the earlier decree it had to be put aside, but the pope continued to be worried by the situation right up to his death. Some Roman Catholic scholars began to ignore the decree. Dr. Vogels omitted the text from his Greek Testament published in 1920. Others were at first more cautious.

In the Roman Catholic Westminster Version of the New Testament published in 1931 the footnote to 1 John 5:7, 8 after calling attention to its omission in the original text continues, “Until further action be taken by the Holy See it is not open to Catholic editors to eliminate the words from a version made for the use of the faithful.”8 But in the same version republished as one volume in 1947 the interpolation is omitted, editor Cuthbert Lattey citing the Greek text published by Jesuit scholar A. Merk, which also omits it.

So the prospect envisaged by Professor J. Scott Porter in 1848 has come true. “It is to be hoped,” he wrote, after summing up the evidence on 1 John 5:7, 8, “the time will soon come when those who have the charge of preparing editions of the Bible for general circulation, will be ashamed of sending forth a known interpolation as a portion of the sacred text.”9 In recent times the discovery of such Bible manuscripts as the Codex Sinaiticus has confirmed that this particular verse was no part of God’s inspired Word.

In brief summary the words of that well-known textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener can be quoted: “We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”10

Our faith in God’s Word is greatly strengthened when we review the story of this text and reflect on the abundance of evidence from all sources that testifies to the accuracy of the Bible we hold in our hand.

 

[Free]

Trinitarians go by what they claim to be true, but there is no evidence in the Bible to support their claims. So it's kind of historical that a tinitarian would ask for evidence when they haven't given any evidence in the scriptures of the Trinity or that Jesus is God. You make claims. Trinitarians take a scripture out of context or interpret a scripture to mean something completely opposite of what's written down to try to prove what they believe, and I understand they have a right to their interpretations but I don't go by an imperfect individual/individuals interpretations. I rather go by what's written down. I think God is able to inspire men to write down his thoughts accurately so I think the scriptures should interpret themselves since interpretations do belong to God.

I texted the explanation of how 1 John 5:7 was added to scripture

If you go by what is written down, then the doctrine of the Trinity eventually emerges based on plenty of evidence. One thing that becomes immediately evident is that Jesus is God but he is not the Father.

I do agree, though, that 1 John 5:7 as it is in the KJV was a later addition to the text, which is the view of most scholars.

 

[BB1956]

If you go by what is written down, then the doctrine of the Trinity eventually emerges based on plenty of evidence. One thing that becomes immediately evident is that Jesus is God but he is not the Father.

I do agree, though, that 1 John 5:7 as it is in the KJV was a later addition to the text, which is the view of most scholars.

I disagree, too many people ignore scriptures like John 17:3 John 20:17 and the fact that John said at John 20:30, 31 that everything that he was inspired to write down was to influence people to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, not God or some three person in a godhead.

I have found nowhere in scripture that the only begotten Son of God is equal, in authority or power. The power and authority that Jesus has was given to him. No one has ever given the true God his power or authority, he has always had all power and authority.

 

[Free]

I disagree, too many people ignore scriptures like John 17:3 John 20:17 and the fact that John said at John 20:30, 31 that everything that he was inspired to write down was to influence people to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, not God or some three person in a godhead.

No, there is no ignoring those verses. It's about taking it all into account at the same time and making sense of it, since it is all a part of the context. What happens with anti-trinitarians, is proof-texting, in which single verses are taken in isolation, sometimes out of their immediate context, but always out of the greater context. Taken one at a time, such verses will always lead to error.

To be the Son of God is a claim to deity. That is why the Jews tried twice to stone Jesus, because he was making himself equal to God by claiming to be the Son of God.

 

[Soldiers]

Trinitarians go by what they claim to be true, but there is no evidence in the Bible to support their claims. So it's kind of historical that a tinitarian would ask for evidence when they haven't given any evidence in the scriptures of the Trinity or that Jesus is God. You make claims. Trinitarians take a scripture out of context or interpret a scripture to mean something completely opposite of what's written down to try to prove what they believe, and I understand they have a right to their interpretations but I don't go by an imperfect individual/individuals interpretations. I rather go by what's written down. I think God is able to inspire men to write down his thoughts accurately so I think the scriptures should interpret themselves since interpretations do belong to God.

I texted the explanation of how 1 John 5:7 was added to scripture at post #1900 & 1901

You're still making quite unbiblical claims and your argument how 1 John on how that verse was added is practically the same argument that the homosexuals are making to justify their sin, and faith heretics make when trying to assert that the law is evil. and works are evil and James isn't God's word. If your willing to assert a Scripture is made up because it doesn't fit your narrative that you want to believe so badly then the foundational premise of Scripture collapses. Why can't believers just be content with Scripture instead of adding to it or taking it away when it doesn't fit their narrative they want to believe so badly. Your attempts to encapsulate an infinite God into your finite brain are futile.

You have a lot of I thinks and I rather instead of "Thus saith the Lord".

Now since you refuse to prove your point and make excuses, let's break down how Scripture refutes your non-trinitarian heresy.

Colossians 2:9 says, "9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"
John 1:1-4 " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. "

These two verses confirm that Jesus Christ is God, and 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "“There is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus.” Which confirms that Jesus is God AND His own self who is the reconciler between God & humanity. He is both God & his own entity, like a triangle is one but each side is it's own side.

Genesis 1:2 says, "2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
And to confirm the Spirit is God, John 4:24, "For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.”

Matthew 3:16-17 "16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

This passage confirms the individuality of all 3 sides of the triangle but it's still on triangle.

Now what will you say, all those verses I quoted aren't Scripture aren't they?

 

[BB1956]

No, there is no ignoring those verses. It's about taking it all into account at the same time and making sense of it, since it is all a part of the context. What happens with anti-trinitarians, is proof-texting, in which single verses are taken in isolation, sometimes out of their immediate context, but always out of the greater context. Taken one at a time, such verses will always lead to error.

To be the Son of God is a claim to deity. That is why the Jews tried twice to stone Jesus, because he was making himself equal to God by claiming to be the Son of God.

Trinitarians take scripture out of context constantly. They take single verses to try to push their beliefs on them but when these verses are read in context with other scriptures around them they don't mean what trinitarians say they mean.

 

[BB1956]

You're still making quite unbiblical claims and your argument how 1 John on how that verse was added is practically the same argument that the homosexuals are making to justify their sin, and faith heretics make when trying to assert that the law is evil. and works are evil and James isn't God's word. If your willing to assert a Scripture is made up because it doesn't fit your narrative that you want to believe so badly then the foundational premise of Scripture collapses. Why can't believers just be content with Scripture instead of adding to it or taking it away when it doesn't fit their narrative they want to believe so badly. Your attempts to encapsulate an infinite God into your finite brain are futile.

You have a lot of I thinks and I rather instead of "Thus saith the Lord".

Now since you refuse to prove your point and make excuses, let's break down how Scripture refutes your non-trinitarian heresy.

Colossians 2:9 says, "9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"
John 1:1-4 " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. "

These two verses confirm that Jesus Christ is God, and 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "“There is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus.” Which confirms that Jesus is God AND His own self who is the reconciler between God & humanity. He is both God & his own entity, like a triangle is one but each side is it's own side.

Genesis 1:2 says, "2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
And to confirm the Spirit is God, John 4:24, "For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.”

Matthew 3:16-17 "16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

This passage confirms the individuality of all 3 sides of the triangle but it's still on triangle.

Now what will you say, all those verses I quoted aren't Scripture aren't they?

Hey if you want to believe a lie like all thos other people you listed go ahead, but it's a lie you're believing.

 

[Soldiers]

Hey if you want to believe a lie like all thos other people you listed go ahead, but it's a lie you're believing.

Then. Prove. Me. Wrong.

Everyone can see you are defenseless and are pretending your entire argument isn't dead. It's like a soldier who's been fataly wounded but pretends he's still qualified to fight. Humble your pride and repent. Or else prove it because all I see are baseless, elementary, and fallacious opinions.

 

[Free]

Trinitarians take scripture out of context constantly. They take single verses to try to push their beliefs on them but when these verses are read in context with other scriptures around them they don't mean what trinitarians say they mean.

The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be formed by taking one verse at a time. There are many verses in this thread that have been left unaddressed and unaccounted for by the anti-trinitarians. Of course, most of them are Oneness, which at least acknowledges the deity of Christ. But, groups that deny the deity of Christ, ignore verses, or, in the case of JWs, add words into the text which aren't in the Greek in order to change the meaning of what is being said.

Anyway, it's all here in this thread. I've shown these things numerous times.

 

[Free]

Then. Prove. Me. Wrong.

Everyone can see you are defenseless and are pretending your entire argument isn't dead. It's like a soldier who's been fataly wounded but pretends he's still qualified to fight. Humble your pride and repent. Or else prove it because all I see are baseless, elementary, and fallacious opinions with evidence so poor couldn't even buy a snicker at the dollar store.

Let's keep it a bit more civil, shall we?

 

[Cooper]

We are one person, yes, but, as I have stated numerous times, there is not a single verse in the Bible that clearly or explicitly states that God is only one. In fact, the evidence shows that there is a plurality to God.

You said "there is not a single verse in the Bible that clearly states that God is only one." (Free) Are you allowed to misinform? Be careful what you say.

1 Corinthians 8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God

Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!

Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Galatians 3:20 Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.

James 2:19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

Job 23:13 “But He is unique and who can turn Him?

Mark 12:32 The scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that He is One, and there is no one else besides Him;

Romans 3:30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.

Zechariah 14:9 And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one.
.

 

[Free]

You said "there is not a single verse in the Bible that clearly states that God is only one." (Free) Are you allowed to misinform? Be careful what you say.

1 Corinthians 8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God

Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!

Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Galatians 3:20 Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.

James 2:19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

Job 23:13 “But He is unique and who can turn Him?

Mark 12:32 The scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that He is One, and there is no one else besides Him;

Romans 3:30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.

Zechariah 14:9 And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one.
.

As I have stated repeatedly in this thread, and then repeated some more, those are all verses that simply support monotheism and say nothing about the nature of God.

 

[Randy]

Jesus does have a Father...the Spirit who without flesh inhabits eternity...while Jesus is that same Spirit come in human flesh. Jesus is the Son in that He is in flesh.

No, I don't.

Untrue.

How so?

How so? I believe that Jesus is a distinct Person from the Father.

How so?

Again, how so?

How so? I believe that Jesus is a distinct Person from the Father.

You stated "Jesus" began in Mary. The testimony states that God made the creation by Him, through Him, and for Him. Perhaps you should explain how So? You did not value Jesus's own words in asking the Father to glorify Jesus in the Fathers presence with the glory "HE" had with the Father before the world began. In essence He's stating "return to me" that glory. John 1:18 has the only begotten Son in the Fathers presence.

I believe, you can restate if you want, that you stated Jesus is no longer Jesus in heaven. The testimony has a Jesus in Heaven and a Father in heaven. I posted Gods oath in regard to Him a Preist Forever. So is Gods Christ now at Gods right hand? If so who is His Christ.?

 

[Randy]

Your attempt to encapsulate and infinite God quality into a finite brain is futile. God is like a triangle at best, 3 sides yet one triangle. He can be in 3 and in 1 at the same time, it's a divine attribute of being triun. Just like us how we have the flesh, the soul, and the spirit in one human, same as Christ. Please don't confuse the body of Christ.

The question is to those who don't believe the Father and Son are distinct persons. Is that your belief?
I am not attempting to confuse anyone.

 

[justbyfaith]

No, I do not. Please stop misrepresenting my position as that is a violation of the ToS.

I have not "misrepresented your position" here.

It would, but even then, it doesn't mean that Jesus was the Father. Not only does that idea not exist in Scripture, everything is against it.

Hebrews 9:16-22 also teaches Patripassianism. Which is a denial of your contention.

No, they are not the same person. The person spoken of here, "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead," is the only time that person is mentioned. When it switches to "Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered over . . .," is only talking about Jesus.

It is "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" who "was delivered over for our offences and raised again for our justification;" just as the text plainly bears out.

It's entirely an unnatural and forced reading to say that the first person mentioned is then the one "who was delivered over . . .".

It is a forced reading to say that Jesus is the One who was delivered over. While we know that Jesus was in fact delivered over, the reading of the passage requires that it is "Him who raised Jesus from the dead" who was "delivered over".

We know without a doubt that it was Jesus who died and was raised again.

Yes, this is true. Thus we gain an added insight into biblical truth when we read this passage; as the passage is quite clearly declaring that Jesus is the Father.

So, the natural reading is, whether or not "He" is used, that everything beginning with "Jesus our Lord," is only a reference to Jesus. And "Him who raised," is all that refers to that specific person, God.

You are fighting a losing battle here. The clear meaning of the passage is that "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" (the Father) also "was delivered for our offences and was raised for our justification".

No offense, but you really don't seem to understand the issues with translations. As I have stated, the Greek simply does not have "He" to start verse 25. Period. It isn't even needed in the English but the translators decided to add it. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the KJV is authoritative.

As I said, the "He" does not have to be even in there in order to get the intended meaning that "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" (the Father) also "was delivered up for our offences and was raised for our justification".

And that the kjv is authoritative, indicates that it is to be accepted and that such translations as the ESV do not trump it in its renderings of such passages as Romans 4:24-25.

One thing that becomes immediately evident is that Jesus is God but he is not the Father.

That would indicate more than one God, if the Father be God...and thus a polytheistic theology.

There are many verses in this thread that have been left unaddressed and unaccounted for by the anti-trinitarians.

Really...I believe that I have addressed every verse that has been presented to me on my watch.

Although your statement may indeed be true since I am not an anti-trinitarian.

 

[justbyfaith]

You stated "Jesus" began in Mary. The testimony states that God made the creation by Him, through Him, and for Him. Perhaps you should explain how So? You did not value Jesus's own words in asking the Father to glorify Jesus in the Fathers presence with the glory "HE" had with the Father before the world began. In essence He's stating "return to me" that glory. John 1:18 has the only begotten Son in the Fathers presence.

I believe, you can restate if you want, that you stated Jesus is no longer Jesus in heaven. The testimony has a Jesus in Heaven and a Father in heaven. I posted Gods oath in regard to Him a Preist Forever. So is Gods Christ now at Gods right hand? If so who is His Christ.?

If you had been reading my posts, you would know the answer to your questions.

Jesus, when He ascended, ascended to "fill all things" (Ephesians 4:10), that is, to exist outside of time.

Therefore, He was there, existing side-by-side with the Father, in the beginning.

Yes, Christ is now at God's right hand. The Father is a Spirit without flesh inhabiting eternity. Jesus is that same Spirit dwelling in human flesh.

They are distinct; not separate.

 

[justbyfaith]

As I have stated repeatedly in this thread, and then repeated some more, those are all verses that simply support monotheism and say nothing about the nature of God.

You seem to be very clearly in denial of the truth.

 

[justbyfaith]

Trinitarians take scripture out of context constantly. They take single verses to try to push their beliefs on them but when these verses are read in context with other scriptures around them they don't mean what trinitarians say they mean.

Can you give us a few examples?

 

[justbyfaith]

that a tinitarian would ask for evidence when they haven't given any evidence in the scriptures of the Trinity or that Jesus is God.

As a "Trinitarian of a different sort", I can show you that Jesus is God very easily.

In 1 Corinthians 8:6, we find that there is one Lord Jesus Christ; in Ephesians 4:5 that there is one Lord.

In Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 2 Corinthians 6:17-18, we find that the Father is the Lord.

So, since Jesus is also the Lord, that is two Lords, except the Father and Jesus be the same Lord; which we conclude to be the case since there is one Lord.

If they are the same Lord then they are the same Person.

Thus, Jesus is God, even the Father.

 

[justbyfaith]

I believe, you can restate if you want, that you stated Jesus is no longer Jesus in heaven.

Where did I state that? I don't think that I stated that.