| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/13/2010 2:29:14 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poster’s request |
Posted on 07/06/2010 6:54:33 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
The question, though, Buggs, remains an accurate portrayal of the doctrine of God. God IS 3 in 1. The persons are separate, but they are also one.
Absolutely.
So tell me, do you think I have been lying to you?
(It would seem so, based on your previous statements. But I do not wish to put words in your mouth.)
See post 44.
Ha ha!
That was WRITTEN way before there were any CATHOLIC traditions to transmit!
No, OIL is 3 in 1.
The persons are separate, but they are also one.
According to what Scripture?
See above response...
And you're succeeding marvelously.
Jesus Christ, through Revelation to Paul, is trying to tell you something.
For all your bluster, the point still remains that you're telling us that the teaching in the four Gospels does not apply to "real" Christians.
Have fun with your little message, son. I'm not wasting any more time on it.
Bingo...loosey-goosey...except, of course, the numerous Mormon "laws" the Mormons have added on to the 10 Commandments. But if you gave the average Mormon a "test" as to what the 10 most common "laws" the Mormon docs of this generation most often reference, they would likely get 5 or less (a "flunking" grade). So even on their most common absolute laws, which are of absolute necessity to obey, even the Mormon leaders are merky as mud on the second half of those extra "10 commandments..."...they're not on the first half only because they have to do with things like "tithing" and "consecration" and "fasting" (& fasting is linked to $ due to the fast offering).
I did say study it. I guess I could do the mormon thing and pray about it and what ever answer feels right I could go with for now.
(I've got a Romneyco "Bosom-meter" Godzilla which allows you to measure the level of burning. Only $39.95 for the first 100 to...)
But your study would still be worthless logos, because that study is based upon a 'book' based upon a common egyptian prayer scroll that has been proven to be that alledgedly used by smith...
Might be good use for a funeral, 'Zilla...if you were Egyptian, that is...like ancient Egyptian...and did a revised JST-like "re-translation" version of it...like Smith did to the Bible...
I'm thick?
The early Christians were JEWs!
I’m not here to argue the trinity with you.
You’ve done it before.
Here’s a starting point again:
Johannine Comma - 1 John 5:7-8
A Preliminary Examination of the Antiquity and Authenticity of the Johannine Comma
Does a Clear, Biblical Proof Text Exist for the Doctrine of the Trinity?
Jeffrey Khoo, Ph.D.
(Date Posted: 6-2000)
(Dr. Khoo serves as academic dean and lecturer at Far Eastern Bible College in Singapore.)
1 John 5:7-8 in the King James (Authorized) Version reads, “For there are three that bear record (witness) 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.” The italicized words constitute the Johannine Comma (Gk: koptein, “to cut of?). The Comma proves the doctrine of the Holy Trinity that “There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q 6).
Why is this verse seldom used to teach the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? Other references are often cited, but why not 1 John 5:7f? One will often reply, “How can I when my Bible does not have it?” Therein lies the problem. With 1 John 5:7f missing in so many of the modern Bible versions such as the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible, it is no wonder that many Christians are ignorant of this verse. And even if they do know that this verse exists, they hesitate to use it because they have been deceived into thinking that it is not part of Gods Word. The NIV Study Bible, for instance, says that 1 John 5:7f “is not found in any Greek manuscript or New Testament translation prior to the 16th century.” On account of this they argue that 1 John 5:7 is spurious.
It is not true that 1 John 5:7 is absent in all pre-l6th century Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636). Furthermore, there is abundant support for 1 John 5:7 from the Latin translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and many of them contain 1 John 5:7f; the really important ones being the Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions were derived from the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe that 1 John 5:7 has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost. There is also reason to believe that Jeromes Latin Vulgate (AD 340-420), which contains the Johannine Comma, was translated from an untampered Greek text he had in his possession and that he regarded the Comma to be a genuine part of First John. Jerome in his Prologue to the Canonical Epistles wrote, “Irresponsible translators left out this testimony [i. e., 1 John 5:7f] in the Greek codices.” Edward F. Hills concluded, “It was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking church.”
This leads us to the so-called “promise” of Erasmus. Westcott and Hort advocate Bruce Metzger made this claim, which became the popular argument against the Johannine Comma. He wrote, “Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was foundor made to order.” This view against the authenticity of 1 John 5:7f is parroted by many even today. Is this what truly happened? H. J. de Jonge of the faculty of theology, Leiden University, an authority on Erasmus, says that Metzgers view on Erasmus promise “has no foundation in Erasmus work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise.” Yale University professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jong, furnishing proof from Erasmus own writing that Erasmus inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called “promise” but the fact that he believed the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome.” The Erasmian “promise” is thus a myth!
It has been suggested that the Johannine Comma did not come from the apostle John himself but from an unknown person who invented and inserted it into 1 John 5 so that Christianity would have a clear Trinitarian proof text. Up until this point in time, no one has been able to identify this mysterious person who tried to “help” the church. He is probably a fictional character. In any case, it is highly unlikely that 1 John 5:7f is the work of a well-meaning interpolator. When we look at the text itself, the phrase, “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,” naturally reflects Johannine authorship (cf. John 1:1, 14). An interpolator would rather have used the more familiar and perhaps stronger Trinitarian formula”the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” “The Word” or “The Logos” of 1 John 5:7f points to the apostle John as its source, for it is distinctively John who used the term “the Word” to mean “Christ” in all his writings.
There is nothing in the Johannine Comma that goes against the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It is thoroughly Biblical and theologically accurate in its Trinitarian statement. There is no good reason why we should not regard it as authentic and employ it as the clearest proof-text in the Scripture for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
Johannine Comma - 1 John 5:7-8
A Preliminary Examination of the Antiquity and Authenticity of the Johannine Comma
Does a Clear, Biblical Proof Text Exist for the Doctrine of the Trinity?
Jeffrey Khoo, Ph.D.
(Date Posted: 6-2000)
(Dr. Khoo serves as academic dean and lecturer at Far Eastern Bible College in Singapore.)
1 John 5:7-8 in the King James (Authorized) Version reads, “For there are three that bear record (witness) 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.” The italicized words constitute the Johannine Comma (Gk: koptein, “to cut of?). The Comma proves the doctrine of the Holy Trinity that “There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q 6).
Why is this verse seldom used to teach the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? Other references are often cited, but why not 1 John 5:7f? One will often reply, “How can I when my Bible does not have it?” Therein lies the problem. With 1 John 5:7f missing in so many of the modern Bible versions such as the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible, it is no wonder that many Christians are ignorant of this verse. And even if they do know that this verse exists, they hesitate to use it because they have been deceived into thinking that it is not part of Gods Word. The NIV Study Bible, for instance, says that 1 John 5:7f “is not found in any Greek manuscript or New Testament translation prior to the 16th century.” On account of this they argue that 1 John 5:7 is spurious.
It is not true that 1 John 5:7 is absent in all pre-l6th century Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636). Furthermore, there is abundant support for 1 John 5:7 from the Latin translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and many of them contain 1 John 5:7f; the really important ones being the Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions were derived from the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe that 1 John 5:7 has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost. There is also reason to believe that Jeromes Latin Vulgate (AD 340-420), which contains the Johannine Comma, was translated from an untampered Greek text he had in his possession and that he regarded the Comma to be a genuine part of First John. Jerome in his Prologue to the Canonical Epistles wrote, “Irresponsible translators left out this testimony [i. e., 1 John 5:7f] in the Greek codices.” Edward F. Hills concluded, “It was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking church.”
This leads us to the so-called “promise” of Erasmus. Westcott and Hort advocate Bruce Metzger made this claim, which became the popular argument against the Johannine Comma. He wrote, “Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was foundor made to order.” This view against the authenticity of 1 John 5:7f is parroted by many even today. Is this what truly happened? H. J. de Jonge of the faculty of theology, Leiden University, an authority on Erasmus, says that Metzgers view on Erasmus promise “has no foundation in Erasmus work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise.” Yale University professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jong, furnishing proof from Erasmus own writing that Erasmus inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called “promise” but the fact that he believed the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome.” The Erasmian “promise” is thus a myth!
It has been suggested that the Johannine Comma did not come from the apostle John himself but from an unknown person who invented and inserted it into 1 John 5 so that Christianity would have a clear Trinitarian proof text. Up until this point in time, no one has been able to identify this mysterious person who tried to “help” the church. He is probably a fictional character. In any case, it is highly unlikely that 1 John 5:7f is the work of a well-meaning interpolator. When we look at the text itself, the phrase, “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,” naturally reflects Johannine authorship (cf. John 1:1, 14). An interpolator would rather have used the more familiar and perhaps stronger Trinitarian formula”the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” “The Word” or “The Logos” of 1 John 5:7f points to the apostle John as its source, for it is distinctively John who used the term “the Word” to mean “Christ” in all his writings.
There is nothing in the Johannine Comma that goes against the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It is thoroughly Biblical and theologically accurate in its Trinitarian statement. There is no good reason why we should not regard it as authentic and employ it as the clearest proof-text in the Scripture for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
Johannine Comma - 1 John 5:7-8
A Preliminary Examination of the Antiquity and Authenticity of the Johannine Comma
Does a Clear, Biblical Proof Text Exist for the Doctrine of the Trinity?
Jeffrey Khoo, Ph.D.
(Date Posted: 6-2000)
(Dr. Khoo serves as academic dean and lecturer at Far Eastern Bible College in Singapore.)
1 John 5:7-8 in the King James (Authorized) Version reads, “For there are three that bear record (witness) 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.” The italicized words constitute the Johannine Comma (Gk: koptein, “to cut of?). The Comma proves the doctrine of the Holy Trinity that “There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q 6).
Why is this verse seldom used to teach the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? Other references are often cited, but why not 1 John 5:7f? One will often reply, “How can I when my Bible does not have it?” Therein lies the problem. With 1 John 5:7f missing in so many of the modern Bible versions such as the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible, it is no wonder that many Christians are ignorant of this verse. And even if they do know that this verse exists, they hesitate to use it because they have been deceived into thinking that it is not part of Gods Word. The NIV Study Bible, for instance, says that 1 John 5:7f “is not found in any Greek manuscript or New Testament translation prior to the 16th century.” On account of this they argue that 1 John 5:7 is spurious.
It is not true that 1 John 5:7 is absent in all pre-l6th century Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636). Furthermore, there is abundant support for 1 John 5:7 from the Latin translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and many of them contain 1 John 5:7f; the really important ones being the Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions were derived from the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe that 1 John 5:7 has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost. There is also reason to believe that Jeromes Latin Vulgate (AD 340-420), which contains the Johannine Comma, was translated from an untampered Greek text he had in his possession and that he regarded the Comma to be a genuine part of First John. Jerome in his Prologue to the Canonical Epistles wrote, “Irresponsible translators left out this testimony [i. e., 1 John 5:7f] in the Greek codices.” Edward F. Hills concluded, “It was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking church.”
This leads us to the so-called “promise” of Erasmus. Westcott and Hort advocate Bruce Metzger made this claim, which became the popular argument against the Johannine Comma. He wrote, “Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was foundor made to order.” This view against the authenticity of 1 John 5:7f is parroted by many even today. Is this what truly happened? H. J. de Jonge of the faculty of theology, Leiden University, an authority on Erasmus, says that Metzgers view on Erasmus promise “has no foundation in Erasmus work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise.” Yale University professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jong, furnishing proof from Erasmus own writing that Erasmus inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called “promise” but the fact that he believed the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome.” The Erasmian “promise” is thus a myth!
It has been suggested that the Johannine Comma did not come from the apostle John himself but from an unknown person who invented and inserted it into 1 John 5 so that Christianity would have a clear Trinitarian proof text. Up until this point in time, no one has been able to identify this mysterious person who tried to “help” the church. He is probably a fictional character. In any case, it is highly unlikely that 1 John 5:7f is the work of a well-meaning interpolator. When we look at the text itself, the phrase, “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,” naturally reflects Johannine authorship (cf. John 1:1, 14). An interpolator would rather have used the more familiar and perhaps stronger Trinitarian formula”the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” “The Word” or “The Logos” of 1 John 5:7f points to the apostle John as its source, for it is distinctively John who used the term “the Word” to mean “Christ” in all his writings.
There is nothing in the Johannine Comma that goes against the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It is thoroughly Biblical and theologically accurate in its Trinitarian statement. There is no good reason why we should not regard it as authentic and employ it as the clearest proof-text in the Scripture for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
Johannine Comma - 1 John 5:7-8
A Preliminary Examination of the Antiquity and Authenticity of the Johannine Comma
Does a Clear, Biblical Proof Text Exist for the Doctrine of the Trinity?
Jeffrey Khoo, Ph.D.
(Date Posted: 6-2000)
(Dr. Khoo serves as academic dean and lecturer at Far Eastern Bible College in Singapore.)
1 John 5:7-8 in the King James (Authorized) Version reads, “For there are three that bear record (witness) 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.” The italicized words constitute the Johannine Comma (Gk: koptein, “to cut of?). The Comma proves the doctrine of the Holy Trinity that “There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q 6).
Why is this verse seldom used to teach the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? Other references are often cited, but why not 1 John 5:7f? One will often reply, “How can I when my Bible does not have it?” Therein lies the problem. With 1 John 5:7f missing in so many of the modern Bible versions such as the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible, it is no wonder that many Christians are ignorant of this verse. And even if they do know that this verse exists, they hesitate to use it because they have been deceived into thinking that it is not part of Gods Word. The NIV Study Bible, for instance, says that 1 John 5:7f “is not found in any Greek manuscript or New Testament translation prior to the 16th century.” On account of this they argue that 1 John 5:7 is spurious.
It is not true that 1 John 5:7 is absent in all pre-l6th century Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636). Furthermore, there is abundant support for 1 John 5:7 from the Latin translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and many of them contain 1 John 5:7f; the really important ones being the Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions were derived from the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe that 1 John 5:7 has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost. There is also reason to believe that Jeromes Latin Vulgate (AD 340-420), which contains the Johannine Comma, was translated from an untampered Greek text he had in his possession and that he regarded the Comma to be a genuine part of First John. Jerome in his Prologue to the Canonical Epistles wrote, “Irresponsible translators left out this testimony [i. e., 1 John 5:7f] in the Greek codices.” Edward F. Hills concluded, “It was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking church.”
This leads us to the so-called “promise” of Erasmus. Westcott and Hort advocate Bruce Metzger made this claim, which became the popular argument against the Johannine Comma. He wrote, “Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was foundor made to order.” This view against the authenticity of 1 John 5:7f is parroted by many even today. Is this what truly happened? H. J. de Jonge of the faculty of theology, Leiden University, an authority on Erasmus, says that Metzgers view on Erasmus promise “has no foundation in Erasmus work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise.” Yale University professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jong, furnishing proof from Erasmus own writing that Erasmus inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called “promise” but the fact that he believed the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome.” The Erasmian “promise” is thus a myth!
It has been suggested that the Johannine Comma did not come from the apostle John himself but from an unknown person who invented and inserted it into 1 John 5 so that Christianity would have a clear Trinitarian proof text. Up until this point in time, no one has been able to identify this mysterious person who tried to “help” the church. He is probably a fictional character. In any case, it is highly unlikely that 1 John 5:7f is the work of a well-meaning interpolator. When we look at the text itself, the phrase, “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,” naturally reflects Johannine authorship (cf. John 1:1, 14). An interpolator would rather have used the more familiar and perhaps stronger Trinitarian formula”the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” “The Word” or “The Logos” of 1 John 5:7f points to the apostle John as its source, for it is distinctively John who used the term “the Word” to mean “Christ” in all his writings.
There is nothing in the Johannine Comma that goes against the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It is thoroughly Biblical and theologically accurate in its Trinitarian statement. There is no good reason why we should not regard it as authentic and employ it as the clearest proof-text in the Scripture for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
Johannine Comma - 1 John 5:7-8
A Preliminary Examination of the Antiquity and Authenticity of the Johannine Comma
Does a Clear, Biblical Proof Text Exist for the Doctrine of the Trinity?
Jeffrey Khoo, Ph.D.
(Date Posted: 6-2000)
(Dr. Khoo serves as academic dean and lecturer at Far Eastern Bible College in Singapore.)
1 John 5:7-8 in the King James (Authorized) Version reads, “For there are three that bear record (witness) 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.” The italicized words constitute the Johannine Comma (Gk: koptein, “to cut of?). The Comma proves the doctrine of the Holy Trinity that “There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q 6).
Why is this verse seldom used to teach the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? Other references are often cited, but why not 1 John 5:7f? One will often reply, “How can I when my Bible does not have it?” Therein lies the problem. With 1 John 5:7f missing in so many of the modern Bible versions such as the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible, it is no wonder that many Christians are ignorant of this verse. And even if they do know that this verse exists, they hesitate to use it because they have been deceived into thinking that it is not part of Gods Word. The NIV Study Bible, for instance, says that 1 John 5:7f “is not found in any Greek manuscript or New Testament translation prior to the 16th century.” On account of this they argue that 1 John 5:7 is spurious.
It is not true that 1 John 5:7 is absent in all pre-l6th century Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636). Furthermore, there is abundant support for 1 John 5:7 from the Latin translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and many of them contain 1 John 5:7f; the really important ones being the Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions were derived from the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe that 1 John 5:7 has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost. There is also reason to believe that Jeromes Latin Vulgate (AD 340-420), which contains the Johannine Comma, was translated from an untampered Greek text he had in his possession and that he regarded the Comma to be a genuine part of First John. Jerome in his Prologue to the Canonical Epistles wrote, “Irresponsible translators left out this testimony [i. e., 1 John 5:7f] in the Greek codices.” Edward F. Hills concluded, “It was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking church.”
This leads us to the so-called “promise” of Erasmus. Westcott and Hort advocate Bruce Metzger made this claim, which became the popular argument against the Johannine Comma. He wrote, “Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was foundor made to order.” This view against the authenticity of 1 John 5:7f is parroted by many even today. Is this what truly happened? H. J. de Jonge of the faculty of theology, Leiden University, an authority on Erasmus, says that Metzgers view on Erasmus promise “has no foundation in Erasmus work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise.” Yale University professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jong, furnishing proof from Erasmus own writing that Erasmus inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called “promise” but the fact that he believed the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome.” The Erasmian “promise” is thus a myth!
It has been suggested that the Johannine Comma did not come from the apostle John himself but from an unknown person who invented and inserted it into 1 John 5 so that Christianity would have a clear Trinitarian proof text. Up until this point in time, no one has been able to identify this mysterious person who tried to “help” the church. He is probably a fictional character. In any case, it is highly unlikely that 1 John 5:7f is the work of a well-meaning interpolator. When we look at the text itself, the phrase, “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,” naturally reflects Johannine authorship (cf. John 1:1, 14). An interpolator would rather have used the more familiar and perhaps stronger Trinitarian formula”the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” “The Word” or “The Logos” of 1 John 5:7f points to the apostle John as its source, for it is distinctively John who used the term “the Word” to mean “Christ” in all his writings.
There is nothing in the Johannine Comma that goes against the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It is thoroughly Biblical and theologically accurate in its Trinitarian statement. There is no good reason why we should not regard it as authentic and employ it as the clearest proof-text in the Scripture for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
Johannine Comma - 1 John 5:7-8
A Preliminary Examination of the Antiquity and Authenticity of the Johannine Comma
Does a Clear, Biblical Proof Text Exist for the Doctrine of the Trinity?
Jeffrey Khoo, Ph.D.
(Date Posted: 6-2000)
(Dr. Khoo serves as academic dean and lecturer at Far Eastern Bible College in Singapore.)
1 John 5:7-8 in the King James (Authorized) Version reads, “For there are three that bear record (witness) 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.” The italicized words constitute the Johannine Comma (Gk: koptein, “to cut of?). The Comma proves the doctrine of the Holy Trinity that “There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q 6).
Why is this verse seldom used to teach the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? Other references are often cited, but why not 1 John 5:7f? One will often reply, “How can I when my Bible does not have it?” Therein lies the problem. With 1 John 5:7f missing in so many of the modern Bible versions such as the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible, it is no wonder that many Christians are ignorant of this verse. And even if they do know that this verse exists, they hesitate to use it because they have been deceived into thinking that it is not part of Gods Word. The NIV Study Bible, for instance, says that 1 John 5:7f “is not found in any Greek manuscript or New Testament translation prior to the 16th century.” On account of this they argue that 1 John 5:7 is spurious.
It is not true that 1 John 5:7 is absent in all pre-l6th century Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636). Furthermore, there is abundant support for 1 John 5:7 from the Latin translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and many of them contain 1 John 5:7f; the really important ones being the Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions were derived from the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe that 1 John 5:7 has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost. There is also reason to believe that Jeromes Latin Vulgate (AD 340-420), which contains the Johannine Comma, was translated from an untampered Greek text he had in his possession and that he regarded the Comma to be a genuine part of First John. Jerome in his Prologue to the Canonical Epistles wrote, “Irresponsible translators left out this testimony [i. e., 1 John 5:7f] in the Greek codices.” Edward F. Hills concluded, “It was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking church.”
This leads us to the so-called “promise” of Erasmus. Westcott and Hort advocate Bruce Metzger made this claim, which became the popular argument against the Johannine Comma. He wrote, “Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was foundor made to order.” This view against the authenticity of 1 John 5:7f is parroted by many even today. Is this what truly happened? H. J. de Jonge of the faculty of theology, Leiden University, an authority on Erasmus, says that Metzgers view on Erasmus promise “has no foundation in Erasmus work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise.” Yale University professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jong, furnishing proof from Erasmus own writing that Erasmus inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called “promise” but the fact that he believed the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome.” The Erasmian “promise” is thus a myth!
It has been suggested that the Johannine Comma did not come from the apostle John himself but from an unknown person who invented and inserted it into 1 John 5 so that Christianity would have a clear Trinitarian proof text. Up until this point in time, no one has been able to identify this mysterious person who tried to “help” the church. He is probably a fictional character. In any case, it is highly unlikely that 1 John 5:7f is the work of a well-meaning interpolator. When we look at the text itself, the phrase, “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,” naturally reflects Johannine authorship (cf. John 1:1, 14). An interpolator would rather have used the more familiar and perhaps stronger Trinitarian formula”the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” “The Word” or “The Logos” of 1 John 5:7f points to the apostle John as its source, for it is distinctively John who used the term “the Word” to mean “Christ” in all his writings.
There is nothing in the Johannine Comma that goes against the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It is thoroughly Biblical and theologically accurate in its Trinitarian statement. There is no good reason why we should not regard it as authentic and employ it as the clearest proof-text in the Scripture for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
A letter written by Ignatius of Antioch to Christians in Smyrna around 106 [-- only 70 some years after the Resurrection --] is the earliest surviving witness to the use of the term Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans.) By Catholic Church Ignatius designated the universal church. Ignatius considered that certain heretics of his time, who disavowed that Jesus was a material being who actually suffered and died, saying instead that "he only seemed to suffer" (Smyrnaeans), were not really Christians. The term is also used in the Martyrdom of Polycarp in 155 and in the Muratorian fragment, about 177.
“GRACE be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.Amen.”
They were ethnically Jews, and then the gentiles started to convert. But all early Christians were Catholic. There was no other Christian Church until 1054. (Unless you want to consider some fanciful “baptist” histories that purport to show a parallel church in the first several centuries, but these “histories” are as believable as the Book of Mormon.)
These are all OT references. None of your NT references refer to the NT itself. See post 1307 and 1309.
Ah, not exactly. Yes, they are all three God in one sense--that is, they are all by nature the Creator and not the creature--but the Biblical and orthodox teaching is that there is One God, who is the Father, from whom is generated (or begotten, though that unfortunately gets confused with the Incarnation) the Son and proceeds the Spirit.
To use an illustration used by Tertullian and Hypolytus--as well as by R. Eliezer to explain what the rabbis call the Sh'khinah, or Divine Presence--we might liken God, aka the Father, to the sun in the sky. Yeshua would be like the light coming from the sun. The sun does not fashion the light, but radiates it as a part of its nature. (None of the above try to fit the Spirit into this model, so I won't either.)
The ray of light is dependent on the sun to generate it, not the other way around, but the sun has the light as a part of its nature--if it did not generate light, it would be something other than a sun. In the same way, God generates the Sh'khinah, the Divine Presence, as a part of His nature, and it is that Sh'khinah, that Word, that Light which became Incarnate as the Messiah.
If the theological term of art "Trinity" causes problems, find another word.
Exactly. And here's the thing: If we say "Trinity" to our Jewish brothers and sisters, ears close. However, we have explained the Sh'khinah-Incarnate concept to anti-missionary teachers and rabbis, including one on the Sanhedrin, and while they don't "buy" it per se, their reaction has almost universally been along the lines of, "Okay, that's Jewish; we can talk."
"Trinity" closes doors. The Sh'khinah of the Echad, while strange-sounding to some of my Sunday-brethrens' ears, opens them.
Shalom.
Truth thru an eyedropper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.