the Spirit, the Water, the Blood

[Gregg]

On one hand you say it's a reference to the Trinity.

On the other hand you say verse 7 was added later.

Which is it.

Please post your credentials as a doctorate in Greek study.

At least describe what you believe "came by water" to mean.


JLB

1Jn 5:6-8 does make reference to the Trinity, and

I said only part of 1Jn 5:7 was added.

So 'which is it' you ask - both.

Any paper credentials I have to post would be from other men. Respectfully, here I prefer to let my posts and understanding of Greek speak for themselves.

 

[Gregg]

I would like to return to the OP and 1Jn 5:8, after a discussion of this question:

1Jn 5:6a "This is the One coming [ελθων 2aor /act/part of ερχομαι] through water and blood, Jesus Christ;" The One is Jesus the Son of God (1Jn 5:5); but where is He coming from in 1Jn 5:6?

1. Is Jesus being described as coming from heaven [on His way to the earth], or

2. Is Jesus being described as coming from the earth [on His way to heaven]?

 

[Gregg]

I believe there is a very literal witness within us that comes through the cleansing of our sins by 'the water'. By sins I mean the ones we still commit daily even as His children.

Ever repent of sin? To who? To the Holy Spirit (witness #1 in the verse, the spirit) or Jesus (witness #2, the blood) or is it to Witness #3, The Father? I don't know about others but I repent and ask The Father to forgive, i.e. cleanse me of sin. Matthew 6:12 Father... and forgive us our debts,as we also have forgiven our debtors"

Not that I don't also ask Jesus or the HS also at times, as they are all one. I just feel more comfortable asking my Father to cleanse me most often. I believe John is saying The Father is the present tense witness cleansing us here in verse 7-8 by his reference to "the water":

1 John 1: 9
If we confess our sins, he [The Father] is faithful and just, so that he will forgive us our sins and will cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
​

I believe John has made the point that not only are we indwelled with the spirit (The Holy Spirit) and the blood (The Son) but also The Father (the water). It's why we call each other brothers/sisters, no?

1 John 2: 23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.
​

We literally ARE brothers because we have the same Father.

It's a great study, that of 1 John! Thanks for bringing up this topic.

Thank you for bringing your knowledge and understanding to the table. I also pray to the Father, not to the exclusion of Jesus and the Holy Spirit; same with asking for forgiveness and offering praise to God.

 

[chessman]

Thank you for bringing your knowledge and understanding to the table. I also pray to the Father, not to the exclusion of Jesus and the Holy Spirit; same with asking for forgiveness and offering praise to God.

And when I do pray to The Father for forgiveness of sin and He forgives me and cleanses me of that 'stank' (southern for the stink of sin in our lives) I feel cleansed. And that provides a true witness to the truth that we are The Fathers' children in agreement with His Son and His Spirit, in my opinion. It does for me, anyway.

1 John 3:1 See what sort of love the Father has given to us: that we should be called children of God, and we are! ​

I think that's what John meant in 1 John 5:8 by the true witness of the water. Basically, the cleansing that comes from The Father upon our continuing repentance.

 

[Edward]

..

Prove it...

Good one brother! You're really on it today, aren't you?! That's right up there with because I said so!

JLB's making a pretty darn reasonable point. It may not be your typical mainstream type of line of thinking, but as brothers and sisters in the Lord, we have to be open to looking at different perspectives. This is how we learn and grow.

All things in scripture will not be able to be discerned with the flesh mind. The carnal mind is enmity with God. Some things are only spiritually discerned. Some things in scripture have dual meaning.

It's good for us to discuss different things, and edify each other in the Lord. But when we do not understand this or that, as another sees it...to dig into it scholastically is what is done. I don't think so because this scripture says dah dah dah and seems to indicate...whatever. This type of back and forth is respectable and leads down the path of increased knowledge. But to respond in the manner that you did...prove it...adds nothing and appears juvenile brother. Not only that, but is disrespectful. Not a good color to paint yourself, being a moderator brother.

There's nothing wrong for brothers and sisters to disagree on little non-salvific issues, we can still have unity within the body if effort is made by all parties to walk in brotherly love and show respect to one another. We all have good days and bad days, and you may be stressed today brother. So I'll pray for you to feel better and may the Spirit guide into brotherly love. I love you brother. May the Lord be with you and give you a wise tongue.

 

[Deborah13]

I just don't see where the Comma Johanneum changes the meaning of scripture.

I'm not sure it does either but it reads more easily and makes more sense without it, I think.
If there are three in heaven and three on earth but one of those is both heaven and earth then that really makes only five. And heaven needs witnesses to Christ? The witnesses on earth are who or what do they signify and in what way?
Just seems kind of muddled. But without those extra words seems to read more smoothly and clearly.
Not that I am sure about what is being said. I just have ideas. :neutral

 

[By Grace]

I just don't see where the Comma Johanneum changes the meaning of scripture.

It doesn't. And that is what matters.

 

[By Grace]

I'm not sure if I'm not understanding you or you are not understanding me and Metzger's words.

That's incorrect according to my understanding AND the source you reference (Metzger). There is a portion of verse 8 that's original text (the green below). I'm not sure if I'm just misunderstanding you or what? But the comma is not the entirety of verse 8 but the early portion of it. In other words, "the comma" was inserted in between verse 7 and 8.

Thank you for the correction; I was in a hurry

 

[Deborah13]

Huh, well I think JLB is partially correct. John 1,2, and 3 is over and over talking about false prophets and false teachers. He clearly addresses those who do not believe that Jesus came in the flesh.
Jesus was conceived by the Spirit and flesh. He was both God and man in the flesh. Flesh and blood.
water - Spirit
blood - flesh

 

[JLB]

Huh, well I think JLB is partially correct. John 1,2, and 3 is over and over talking about false prophets and false teachers. He clearly addresses those who do not believe that Jesus came in the flesh.
Jesus was conceived by the Spirit and flesh. He was both God and man in the flesh. Flesh and blood.
water - Spirit
blood - flesh

water = water

blood = blood.


There isn't any symbolic teaching here in 1 John 5.

John is faced with teaching his people about Jesus as Messiah.

The Spirit is the Spirit of God.

The water is the water from the natural birth of the Word from Mary's womb; The Word became flesh.

The blood is proof of the virgin birth.

John defends this Truth!

JLB

 

[Free]

JLB's making a pretty darn reasonable point. It may not be your typical mainstream type of line of thinking, but as brothers and sisters in the Lord, we have to be open to looking at different perspectives. This is how we learn and grow.

Well, I don't think it is a reasonable point.

This type of back and forth is respectable and leads down the path of increased knowledge. But to respond in the manner that you did...prove it...adds nothing and appears juvenile brother. Not only that, but is disrespectful. Not a good color to paint yourself, being a moderator brother.

It's fair in a debate to ask for proof of an assertion, especially one that is being argued so strongly where no proof has yet been given. So it does add something, is not juvenile nor disrespectful. This is a debate forum and if people can't handle it, then they need not post in here.

 

[JLB]

Well, I don't think it is a reasonable point.


It's fair in a debate to ask for proof of an assertion, especially one that is being argued so strongly where no proof has yet been given. So it does add something, is not juvenile nor disrespectful. This is a debate forum and if people can't handle it, then they need not post in here.

The proof is the context.

Most of us in North America are not familiar with the phrase born of water or came by water.

John 3 says -

5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

There are two births that are being discussed by Jesus Christ.

Natural birth and Spiritual birth.

Born of water = Natural birth - that which is born of flesh is flesh.

Born again = spiritual birth - that which is born of the spirit is spirit.


John uses the phrase born of water as a reference to natural child birth.

1 John 5 uses the phrase came by water to reference natural child birth.

1 John 5 use the phrase came by water and blood to reference supernatural child birth.


Born of water is a reference to birth not Baptism.

No one is born again by Baptism.

People who are born again already get Baptized.

Baptism is a symbol of death, not new birth.


JLB

 

[Edward]

Well, I don't think it is a reasonable point.


It's fair in a debate to ask for proof of an assertion, especially one that is being argued so strongly where no proof has yet been given. So it does add something, is not juvenile nor disrespectful. This is a debate forum and if people can't handle it, then they need not post in here.

You somewhat have a point about it being a debate forum and to ask for substantiating scriptures, however, it is usually accompanied by an alternating view with backing scriptures...and with some manner of politeness rather than arrogance. have some class brother! Wow. These are your brothers and sisters here, not the enemy. Can you handle that?!

 

[By Grace]

Huh, well I think JLB is partially correct. John 1,2, and 3 is over and over talking about false prophets and false teachers. He clearly addresses those who do not believe that Jesus came in the flesh.
Jesus was conceived by the Spirit and flesh. He was both God and man in the flesh. Flesh and blood.
water - Spirit
blood - flesh

What you are doing is making Scripture allegorical and not literal. That is one thing actually meaning another. Indeed, there are some allegorical elements in Scripture, the Passover meal (Seder) is an allegory of the Plan of Redemption. Most often sacred feast in the OT is a type of a NT event, and that is called the "anti type". I have not seen that anything in the NT is a type of something that comes afterwards. So while you may think that Water=Spirit and that blood=flesh" there has to be a reason for creating that sort of reference, AND there must be a clue from Scripture to warrant such a comparison.

Such a construction would create havoc with the Crucifixion/Atonement of Jesus because it ultimately destroys, and reduces to symbolic gestures what Jesus did on the cross. I know that you may not have thought that through when you posted, but because I am "hard wired" to be analytical, I automatically think, "What is the end of such a thought?" Yeah, that gets me in trouble sometimes, and some may think that I am a show-off when I dissect things, but that is THEIR problem, not mine.That is a spiritual gift from God, and it is called discernment.

No, I am not scolding you, nor am I ventilating my frustrations; I am just posting as I see things.

 

[Deborah13]

What you are doing is making Scripture allegorical and not literal. That is one thing actually meaning another. Indeed, there are some allegorical elements in Scripture, the Passover meal (Seder) is an allegory of the Plan of Redemption. Most often sacred feast in the OT is a type of a NT event, and that is called the "anti type". I have not seen that anything in the NT is a type of something that comes afterwards. So while you may think that Water=Spirit and that blood=flesh" there has to be a reason for creating that sort of reference, AND there must be a clue from Scripture to warrant such a comparison.

Such a construction would create havoc with the Crucifixion/Atonement of Jesus because it ultimately destroys, and reduces to symbolic gestures what Jesus did on the cross.

Rather than explaining to me what an allegory is how about just telling HOW what I said 'creates havoc' with the Crucifixion/Atonement of Jesus. HOW does it destroy and reduce to symbolic gestures the Lord's death?

I know that you may not have thought that through when you posted, but because I am "hard wired" to be analytical, I automatically think, "What is the end of such a thought?" Yeah, that gets me in trouble sometimes, and some may think that I am a show-off when I dissect things, but that is THEIR problem, not mine.That is a spiritual gift from God, and it is called discernment.

No, I am not scolding you, nor am I ventilating my frustrations; I am just posting as I see things.

 

[Edward]

What you are doing is making Scripture allegorical and not literal. That is one thing actually meaning another. Indeed, there are some allegorical elements in Scripture, the Passover meal (Seder) is an allegory of the Plan of Redemption. Most often sacred feast in the OT is a type of a NT event, and that is called the "anti type". I have not seen that anything in the NT is a type of something that comes afterwards. So while you may think that Water=Spirit and that blood=flesh" there has to be a reason for creating that sort of reference, AND there must be a clue from Scripture to warrant such a comparison.

Such a construction would create havoc with the Crucifixion/Atonement of Jesus because it ultimately destroys, and reduces to symbolic gestures what Jesus did on the cross. I know that you may not have thought that through when you posted, but because I am "hard wired" to be analytical, I automatically think, "What is the end of such a thought?" Yeah, that gets me in trouble sometimes, and some may think that I am a show-off when I dissect things, but that is THEIR problem, not mine.That is a spiritual gift from God, and it is called discernment.

No, I am not scolding you, nor am I ventilating my frustrations; I am just posting as I see things.

 

[By Grace]

Your emoticon does not tell me which things you do not understand. Please tell me; I was clear in my own mind. :biggrin

 

[By Grace]

Rather than explaining to me what an allegory is how about just telling HOW what I said 'creates havoc' with the Crucifixion/Atonement of Jesus. HOW does it destroy and reduce to symbolic gestures the Lord's death?

I was not posting to insult; I was posting to explain, not knowing if you or other posters could recall from HS English class what the nature of an allegory was, OK?

Because the nature of an allegory (Plato's Republic which takes place in a cave, and asks the question "Is it always better to be just than unjust?") is that of a fictitious event, like a saga or a myth or a fable calling the things such as water= spirit and blood=flesh is an attack on the Atonement because it reduces it to that of a "good example for all to follow". The entire concept of grace is also obliterated because If the Atonement would be reduced to being an "example to follow", then that would be an impossible and unattainable standard. We would be no different than the Mormons who believe that we are saved by grace AFTER all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23).

So the question for Christians WOULD BECOME "What works that I do are sufficiently meritorious for me to get into heaven? and "Do I need to commit suicide by hanging on a cross to die?". Can you see that, sister?

 

[Deborah13]

I was not posting to insult; I was posting to explain, not knowing if you or other posters could recall from HS English class what the nature of an allegory was, OK?

Because the nature of an allegory (Plato's Republic which takes place in a cave, and asks the question "Is it always better to be just than unjust?") is that of a fictitious event, like a saga or a myth or a fable calling the things such as water= spirit and blood=flesh is an attack on the Atonement because it reduces it to that of a "good example for all to follow".

How so? What do you think I mean by flesh?

The entire concept of grace is also obliterated because If the Atonement would be reduced to being an "example to follow", then that would be an impossible and unattainable standard. We would be no different than the Mormons who believe that we are saved by grace AFTER all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23).

How do you see what I said to be me saying that Jesus was a man, God come in the flesh, being an example to follow. For one thing that's an impossibility. I think you are trying to find some hidden meaning behind what I said.

So the question for Christians WOULD BECOME "What works that I do are sufficiently meritorious for me to get into heaven? and "Do I need to commit suicide by hanging on a cross to die?". Can you see that, sister?

No I cannot see what you are saying. What has works got to do with my words.
Saying that Jesus was God/man, God manifested in the flesh and blood body of a man has absolutely nothing to do with works that we do.
I have no idea how you got there. So please point out exactly my words that lead you to your conclusion. I hate to think that I had presented what I see in this scripture so poorly that I corrupted God's Word to the extent that you believe I have. I need to know.

 

[JLB]

I was not posting to insult; I was posting to explain, not knowing if you or other posters could recall from HS English class what the nature of an allegory was, OK?

Because the nature of an allegory (Plato's Republic which takes place in a cave, and asks the question "Is it always better to be just than unjust?") is that of a fictitious event, like a saga or a myth or a fable calling the things such as water= spirit and blood=flesh is an attack on the Atonement because it reduces it to that of a "good example for all to follow". The entire concept of grace is also obliterated because If the Atonement would be reduced to being an "example to follow", then that would be an impossible and unattainable standard. We would be no different than the Mormons who believe that we are saved by grace AFTER all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23).

So the question for Christians WOULD BECOME "What works that I do are sufficiently meritorious for me to get into heaven? and "Do I need to commit suicide by hanging on a cross to die?". Can you see that, sister?

The work you must do is obey the Gospel.


JLB