PDA

View Full Version : The I John 5: 6-8 Issue



northwye
November 13th, 2015, 09:06 AM
The I John 5: 6-8 Issue

Someone on an Internet site said that the King James Version has the "...unauthorized 1 John 5:7 scripture which has no authoritative Greek manuscript evidence and was added to the New Testament in the 1500's by Erasmus."

Who was it that said I John 5: 7 is not in the Greek manuscripts?

See: http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp

."...we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.

250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)

350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]

350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]

350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione

398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism

415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)

450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]

500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]

550 AD Old Latin ms r has it

550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]

750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it

800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]

1000s AD miniscule 635 has it

1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin

1300s AD miniscule 629 has it

157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse

Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r."

I John 5: 6-8:

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·"

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"

Westcott-Hort 1881 Greek Text:

"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."

OK, lets see what the Textus Receptus says in the Greek for I John 5: 6-8:

"6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους ο 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 7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν 8 και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν."

Based upon the Westcott-Hort Greek text, the New American Standard Bible says for I John 5: 6-8;
"6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth..............7 For there are three that testify:.......8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

And the New International Version for I John 5: 6-8 says "This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

Finally, the King James Version for I John 5: 6-8 says "This is the that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

As happens with many verses in the New Testament, the 4th century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have shorter verse wordings than does the Textus Receptus. For some verses this shortening of the verse wording results in a different doctrine, or in ambiguity. The Textus Receptus spells out and makes more explicit in verses 7 and 8 who exactly the three are. Saying in verse 7 that the three are the Spirit, the water and the blood is not as clear as saying The Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost. It is not that I John 5: 7 is not in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not say clearly who the three are.

The Roman Catholic Church changed from using the Greek texts to using the Vulgate Latin text for the New Testament. But The Vulgate of Jerome is under some influence from the 4th century Vaticanus. The Sinaiticus was not yet discovered when Jerome created the Vulgate Catholic New Testament. The Reformation went back to the Greek texts because the reformers, including Erasmus, believed that the Greek New Testament texts were closer to the original texts. In going back to the Greek texts, Erasmus finally decided to include the longer verse wording for I John 5: 7, which is more explicit in saying who the three are.

fzappa13
November 13th, 2015, 09:48 AM
Instead of swallowing Chick tracts whole you might want to research the matter for yourself ... hopefully casting a little wider net. This offering completely misstates and misrepresents the matters of contention concerning this subject.

Nick M
November 13th, 2015, 10:35 AM
If it is or isn't there isn't really an issue in terms of doctrine. It probably isn't because satan is subtil and appears as an angel of light. The statement is true, but wasn't there. He had it added to discredit it later.

fzappa13
November 13th, 2015, 10:52 AM
If it is or isn't there isn't really an issue in terms of doctrine. It probably isn't because satan is subtil and appears as an angel of light. The statement is true, but wasn't there. He had it added to discredit it later.

Well, I've got to give it to you ... that's a take on the subject I haven't heard before and I've been listening to the various arguments for quite a number of years.

1Mind1Spirit
November 13th, 2015, 11:03 AM
Well, I've got to give it to you ... that's a take on the subject I haven't heard before and I've been listening to the various arguments for quite a number of years.

Kinda makes Jesus a liar when he said a kingdom divided cant stand, hunh?

Instead of Satan disguising himself, he's got him blasting himself.:wazzup:

Nick M
November 13th, 2015, 11:45 AM
Well, I've got to give it to you ... that's a take on the subject I haven't heard before and I've been listening to the various arguments for quite a number of years.

The statement is true yet not seen in early versions. Who added it and why? The devil does not come at people with both barrels as the "Pentecostals" claim he hides what he is doing. God said so through Moses.

A person wanting the truth of God doesn't knowingly add to the Bible or take from it.

themuzicman
November 13th, 2015, 12:08 PM
(1) The use of the Johanine comma in early texts is in the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek manuscripts. It is a traditional phrase, which is why early writers use it.

(2) Erasmus, in his original Greek New Testament, excluded it, saying that if a manuscript could be found that had the Johanine comma, that he would include it. AFTER Erasmus completed the first version of the now dubbed "TR", a manuscript was produced in England with the Johanine comma. And in spite of the ink still being wet, Erasmus included it to keep his word.

This manuscript is the FIRST Greek manuscript to have the Johanine comma in it, and it was produced to preserve the tradition of the Vulgate, not because it was in the original text.

jamie
November 13th, 2015, 01:16 PM
1 John 5:7

No Syriac manuscript of any family — Peshito, Philoxenian, or Harklean — has the three witnesses; and their presence in the printed Syriac Gospels is due to translation from the Vulgate.

So too, the Coptic manuscripts — both Sahidic and Bohairic — have no trace of the disputed part, nor have the Ethiopic manuscripts which represent Greek influence through the medium of Coptic.

The Armenian manuscripts, which favour the reading of the Vulgate, are admitted to represent a Latin influence which dates from the twelfth century; early Armenian manuscripts are against the Latin reading.

Of the Itala or Old Latin manuscripts, only two have our present reading of the three witnesses: Codex Monacensis of the sixth or seventh century; and the Speculum, an eighth or ninth century manuscript which gives many quotations from the New Testament.

Even the Vulgate, in the majority of its earliest manuscripts, is without the passage in question. Witnesses to the canonicity are: the Bible of Theodulph (eighth century) in the National Library of Paris; Codex Cavensis (ninth century), the best representative of the Spanish type of text: Toletanus (tenth century); and the majority of Vulgate manuscripts after the twelfth century.

There was some dispute as to the canonicity of the three witnesses as early as the sixth century: for the preface to the Catholic Epistles in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 541-546) complains about the omission of this passage from some of the Latin versions.

(newadvent.org/ Catholic Encyclopedia/ Epistles of St. John)

aikido7
November 13th, 2015, 01:25 PM
The I John 5: 6-8 Issue

Someone on an Internet site said that the King James Version has the "...unauthorized 1 John 5:7 scripture which has no authoritative Greek manuscript evidence and was added to the New Testament in the 1500's by Erasmus."

Who was it that said I John 5: 7 is not in the Greek manuscripts?

See: http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp

."...we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.

250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)

350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]

350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]

350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione

398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism

415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)

450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]

500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]

550 AD Old Latin ms r has it

550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]

750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it

800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]

1000s AD miniscule 635 has it

1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin

1300s AD miniscule 629 has it

157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse

Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r."

I John 5: 6-8:

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·"

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"

Westcott-Hort 1881 Greek Text:

"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."

OK, lets see what the Textus Receptus says in the Greek for I John 5: 6-8:

"6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους ο 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 7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν 8 και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν."

Based upon the Westcott-Hort Greek text, the New American Standard Bible says for I John 5: 6-8;
"6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth..............7 For there are three that testify:.......8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

And the New International Version for I John 5: 6-8 says "This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

Finally, the King James Version for I John 5: 6-8 says "This is the that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

As happens with many verses in the New Testament, the 4th century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have shorter verse wordings than does the Textus Receptus. For some verses this shortening of the verse wording results in a different doctrine, or in ambiguity. The Textus Receptus spells out and makes more explicit in verses 7 and 8 who exactly the three are. Saying in verse 7 that the three are the Spirit, the water and the blood is not as clear as saying The Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost. It is not that I John 5: 7 is not in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not say clearly who the three are.

The Roman Catholic Church changed from using the Greek texts to using the Vulgate Latin text for the New Testament. But The Vulgate of Jerome is under some influence from the 4th century Vaticanus. The Sinaiticus was not yet discovered when Jerome created the Vulgate Catholic New Testament. The Reformation went back to the Greek texts because the reformers, including Erasmus, believed that the Greek New Testament texts were closer to the original texts. In going back to the Greek texts, Erasmus finally decided to include the longer verse wording for I John 5: 7, which is more explicit in saying who the three are.The history and development Christianity is characterized by a wide diversity of competing streams of tradition.

It originated in the life and the activity of one Jesus of Nazareth.

When his disciples scattered after the crucifixion, the original faith of the followers was interpreted and practiced by many different people and groups.

Like today, their theologies were different as well as varied.

Careful readers can recognize the disparate and often contradictory traditions in Paul and the four gospels.

The formation of the cannon reveals an interesting history. It did not emerge complete from God to humanity. Interpretation is what it is all about.

Those different interpretations continue today--on TOL as well as the translations and versions of the Bible itself.

northwye
November 13th, 2015, 03:06 PM
The issue of I John 5: 6-7 can be seen clearly if you go to https://unbound.biola.edu/

For Unbound Bible you can enter four texts:

l. English: New American Standard Bible "For there are three that testify:"

2. English: King James Version "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

But I John 5: 8 is also part of John's statement on the trinity. The New American Standard says "the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

And for I John 5: 8 the King James Version says "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

3. Greek: Westcott-Hort "οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες"

4. Greek: Textus Receptus "οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν

The "correct" verse wording for I John 5: 7 is "For there are three that testify:"

This is a direct translation of the Westcott-Hort which is from the 4th century Greek texts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

The "incorrect" verse wording of I John 5: 7 is ""For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This is directly from the Textus Receptus.

It is misleading to say that I John 5: 7 is not in the "best" Greek manuscripts. The shorter version of I John 5; 7 is in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and the longer version is in the Textus Receptus.

Following Isaiah 28: 10, "precept must be upon precept...line upon line; here a little, and there a little..."a scripture is to be understand by use of other scripture.

Now look in a concordance of the New Testament for Spirit, Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, God the Father, Father, Christ, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Word and see if the longer more explicit wording of the Textus Receptus and the King James Version do not better fit what is said about the trinity in other New Testament texts.

Trying to argue that "the Spirit and the water and the blood" in the new Bible versions is a correct statement about God does not fit what the other texts say about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I John 5: 6 in the New American Standard Bible says "This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth." This leaves out God the Father.

jamie
November 13th, 2015, 03:27 PM
Well, we know that the Holy Spirit is Jesus' father.


Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18 NKJV)

But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 1:20 NKJV)

And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35 NKJV)

freelight
November 13th, 2015, 05:32 PM
As happens with many verses in the New Testament, the 4th century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have shorter verse wordings than does the Textus Receptus. For some verses this shortening of the verse wording results in a different doctrine, or in ambiguity. The Textus Receptus spells out and makes more explicit in verses 7 and 8 who exactly the three are. Saying in verse 7 that the three are the Spirit, the water and the blood is not as clear as saying The Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost. It is not that I John 5: 7 is not in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not say clearly who the three are.



In any case,....the older greek versions of this verse-context do FINE without adding a Trinitarian description of 'Father, Word, Spirit',...since the 3 that are testifying of Jesus are the Spirit, water and blood - these "3" are all that are essential in this original text, since Jesus Christ is the one being testified to, the Spirit testifying that he came by water and blood (his incarnation). No 'trinitarian' superimposition or inference is necessary.

I go deeper into the 'Comma Johanneum' in my blog post here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/blog.php?b=2747), with 4 commentary post-links (some with videos). I think any one really interested in this will do the research. Textual-criticism demands honest research here, whether you are a Unitarian or Trinitarian. Even if we add the later passages inbetween the original passage-context,...I don't have a problem with it either, since it reflects a Trinitarian traditional over-view, whether it be an interpolation or part of the original manuscript, but I don't see a lot of evidence for the latter. - in this light, I think its inconsequential. - there are enough passages, creeds and tradition to support a Trinitarian view, but the same could be said for a Unitarian view too ;)

Zeke
November 13th, 2015, 06:05 PM
The statement is true yet not seen in early versions. Who added it and why? The devil does not come at people with both barrels as the "Pentecostals" claim he hides what he is doing. God said so through Moses.

A person wanting the truth of God doesn't knowingly add to the Bible or take from it.

Sounds like the law that deceived Paul, deception by God is also within the scripture so don't be so hard on ole slew foot for doing the same, after all God is said to mold the clay/creation to his specs.

freelight
November 13th, 2015, 06:27 PM
Those different interpretations continue today--on TOL as well as the translations and versions of the Bible itself.

All are just 'versions' or 'interpretations' of some assumed 'original article' ;)

dialm
November 13th, 2015, 06:36 PM
Satan did not put the Trinity in the Bible. God put the Trinity in the Bible. And only God can take the Trinity out. That is why no one can take the Comma out. It won't come out.

As for the older versions

They are antiques. You don't use antiques. You just look at them and think 'My how quaint'.

freelight
November 13th, 2015, 06:45 PM
Satan did not put the Trinity in the Bible. God put the Trinity in the Bible. And only God can take the Trinity out. That is why no one can take the Comma out. It won't come out.


Thanks to the TR and some older latin manuscripts it "got in". I don't think 'satan' or 'god' really had much to do with it, no matter how you define such 'personalities',...since men are the authors of such texts, and their own biases, interpretations and traditions are sometimes reflected in their 'religious writings'.

fzappa13
November 13th, 2015, 08:14 PM
Kinda makes Jesus a liar when he said a kingdom divided cant stand, hunh?

Instead of Satan disguising himself, he's got him blasting himself.:wazzup:

Well, that falling stuff can sometimes span a goodly number of years so I'm not inclined to summarily dismiss the idea just because we haven't seen it yet. That said, I'm something of a purist as it comes to the original texts and most of the stuff in the OP was not textual and the little that was centered on the Vaticanus in one way or another while ignoring others.

Having come to a belief in the word of God through my own study I don't have a dog in most of the doctrinal fights that have erupted over what the Word of God does or doesn't say. I'm just interested in what it says sans doctrine and there are instances that the only way to get to the bottom of that matter is to consult the original texts. This presents it's own unique dilemma ... namely, which texts do you trust and why? Translations begin to wander off into the realm of opinion and doctrinal dissertations tend to dive into said pool head first.


In my opinion ...;)

freelight
November 15th, 2015, 04:47 PM
Well, that falling stuff can sometimes span a goodly number of years so I'm not inclined to summarily dismiss the idea just because we haven't seen it yet. That said, I'm something of a purist as it comes to the original texts and most of the stuff in the OP was not textual and the little that was centered on the Vaticanus in one way or another while ignoring others.

Having come to a belief in the word of God through my own study I don't have a dog in most of the doctrinal fights that have erupted over what the Word of God does or doesn't say. I'm just interested in what is says sans doctrine and there are instances that the only way to get to the bottom of that matter is to consult the original texts. This presents it's own unique dilemma ... namely, which texts do you trust and why? Translations begin to wander off into the realm of opinion and doctrinal dissertations tend to dive into said pool head first.


In my opinion ...;)

Continuing from here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4518539&postcount=12),....we see it then as merely provisional to certain scribes and a few later manuscript copies whether the Comma Johannum' is an actual part of the original autograph. The NASB renders the passage without it just fine, and all follows naturally within 'context' -


5 Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

- NASB

(note the above flows together naturally/contextually...showing that the Spirit, water and blood all testify of Jesus incarnating as the Son of God on earth, the Spirit bearing witness. There is no need to add any reference to 'The Trinity' as later formulated by theologians, since the "3" being spoken of are already clearly specified).

Adding vs. 7 (the comma johanneum).... {"in heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth:"} is a foreign interpolation IMO, a figurative addition added by a scribe or representing a later 'tradition' in a few later latin manuscripts. But hey,...if you want to read it with-in the text,...no harm done either...as long as you recognize its history.

daqq
November 15th, 2015, 05:07 PM
As for the older versions

They are antiques. You don't use antiques. You just look at them and think 'My how quaint'.

Hahaha, I have seen an "antique" that in a certain critical doctrinal place says PHANERON instead of PHERON and I continue to use that information to this day in my own private "house". However I could never afford to buy it, even if it ever did come up for auction, because it is truly priceless, and likely the only remaining correct version of that line of "antiques", (or at least that particular line of the Epistle to the Hebrews, lol). :crackup:

fzappa13
November 15th, 2015, 05:32 PM
Continuing from here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4518539&postcount=12),....we see it then as merely provisional to certain scribes and a few later manuscript copies whether the Comma Johannum' is an actual part of the original autograph. The NASB renders the passage without it just fine, and all follows naturally within 'context' -



(note the above flows together naturally/contextually...showing that the Spirit, water and blood all testify of Jesus incarnating as the Son of God on earth, the Spirit bearing witness. There is no need to add any reference to 'The Trinity' as later formulated by theologians, since the "3" being spoken of are already clearly specified).

Adding vs. 7 (the comma johanneum).... {"in heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth:"} is a foreign interpolation IMO, a figurative addition added by a scribe or representing a later 'tradition' in a few later latin manuscripts. But hey,...if you want to read it with-in the text,...no harm done either...as long as you recognize its history.

Free, I think I know you well enough to know that you know (I know, that's a lotta "Knows") that this controversy is about much more than just a comma. It has been addressed by others in this thread already but I'll give you a quicky:

Over the years I have come to settle on the Companion Bible which is the King James with textual notes in the margins by Bullinger who was both a Trinitarian and a Dispensationalist ... which I am not ... at least not in the traditional sense. I have found him to be intellectually honest as it concerns textual points by researching them independently. He had this to say about the passage in question:


7 bear record= bear witness, as in v. 6.

in heaven, &c. The texts read, "the Spirit, and the water", &c, omitting all the words from "in heaven" to "in earth" (v. 8) inclusive. The words are not found in any Gr. MS. before the sixteenth century. They were first seen in the margin of some Latin copies. Thence they have crept into the text.


No harm done?

No matter how well intended, there are penalty provisions within the Bible for doing that sort of thing that I, for one, would not wish to incur.

freelight
November 30th, 2015, 02:28 PM
Free, I think I know you well enough to know that you know (I know, that's a lotta "Knows") that this controversy is about much more than just a comma. It has been addressed by others in this thread already but I'll give you a quicky:

Over the years I have come to settle on the Companion Bible which is the King James with textual notes in the margins by Bullinger who was both a Trinitarian and a Dispensationalist ... which I am not ... at least not in the traditional sense. I have found him to be intellectually honest as it concerns textual points by researching them independently. He had this to say about the passage in question:


No matter how well intended, there are penalty provisions within the Bible for doing that sort of thing that I, for one, would not wish to incur.

Hi fzappa,

As you can see if you read all my commentaries on this passage from my blog-portal (here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/blog.php?b=2747)) on this very issue,...I'm pretty well versed in most of the controversy on this, and while not caring so much one way or another, recognize its late origin and only in latin copies pointing to it being an 'interpolation' at best. But hey,...if some folks want to believe it was actually in the greek originals :doh: that's their prerogative. The text does just fine in its natural flow without the 'addition'.

As freely expressed, I enjoy on a practical level working within a more Unitarian over-view, but a traditional-orthodox 'assumption' of the Trinity can be 'speculated' as well,...or an even higher description of the 'Paradise Trinity' given in the Urantia Book as well, they are all just conceptual ways at 'relating'. 'God' or 'Reality' is still 'One'....all else is just commentary, relative de-scriptions, fragmentary, dualistic and differentiated points of view.

Life goes on.......

Zeke
November 30th, 2015, 04:17 PM
The statement is true yet not seen in early versions. Who added it and why? The devil does not come at people with both barrels as the "Pentecostals" claim he hides what he is doing. God said so through Moses.

A person wanting the truth of God doesn't knowingly add to the Bible or take from it.

The kingdom being within man Luke 17:20-21 kinda makes all outward focused theology and dogmas irrelevant, dead letter legends being what they are.

fzappa13
December 1st, 2015, 12:42 AM
Hi fzappa,

As you can see if you read all my commentaries on this passage from my blog-portal (here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/blog.php?b=2747)) on this very issue,...I'm pretty well versed in most of the controversy on this, and while not caring so much one way or another, recognize its late origin and only in latin copies pointing to it being an 'interpolation' at best. But hey,...if some folks want to believe it was actually in the greek originals :doh: that's their prerogative. The text does just fine in its natural flow without the 'addition'.

As freely expressed, I enjoy on a practical level working within a more Unitarian over-view, but a traditional-orthodox 'assumption' of the Trinity can be 'speculated' as well,...or an even higher description of the 'Paradise Trinity' given in the Urantia Book as well, they are all just conceptual ways at 'relating'. 'God' or 'Reality' is still 'One'....all else is just commentary, relative de-scriptions, fragmentary, dualistic and differentiated points of view.

Life goes on.......

Ah, believe me dear, I have taken note of your scriptural predilections some time ago and let's just say I am disinclined to share your penchant for forgiving textual oversights.

freelight
December 2nd, 2015, 10:58 PM
Ah, believe me dear, I have taken note of your scriptural predilections some time ago and let's just say I am disinclined to share your penchant for forgiving textual oversights.

In light of all I've shared on this subject already.....

:idunno:

So you agree with Bullinger and myself that this passage is an interpolation. Is this correct? As far as what you mean above, I've not a definite clue at the moment as it seems rather ambiguous.

fzappa13
December 3rd, 2015, 02:44 AM
In light of all I've shared on this subject already.....

:idunno:

So you agree with Bullinger and myself that this passage is an interpolation. Is this correct? As far as what you mean above, I've not a definite clue at the moment as it seems rather ambiguous.

Interpolation? Yes, it would appear so. No harm done? That would depend on the veracity of the admonitions against doing such.

freelight
December 11th, 2015, 05:08 PM
Interpolation? Yes, it would appear so. No harm done? That would depend on the veracity of the admonitions against doing such.


Well maybe.....that depends on how one determines the 'veracity' of such. I have no problems with textual variants since I don't subscribe to any concept of 'biblical inerrancy' which I find ridiculous.

fzappa13
December 15th, 2015, 09:24 AM
Well maybe.....that depends on how one determines the 'veracity' of such. I have no problems with textual variants since I don't subscribe to any concept of 'biblical inerrancy' which I find ridiculous.

I guess I should have said, "Time will tell."

Steven Avery
March 11th, 2017, 07:33 PM
While the Chick tract has some good information, much could be updated, correcting from both ends, I will do one or two to get started.


800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.] We do not have Jerome's original Vulgate, and the massive preponderance of Latin Vulgate mss with the verse is a strong indication that the verse was in the original Vulgate. In addition, the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles has a very clear reference and even discussion of the heavenly witnesses, and how it was omitted at times by unfaithful translators (by context, scribes as well.) This is a writing in the first person knowledge, and style and acquaintances of Jerome, and was a major element of the discussions in the time of Erasmus. A rather vapid attempt is made to say that Jerome did not author that Prologue, but once it was discovered in the Codex Fuldensis that attempt should have been abandoned, since it is built on sand and circularity (to denying the heavenly witnesses reference.)


The Vulgate of Jerome is under some influence from the 4th century Vaticanus.Probably not. They have some degree of textual affinity, but also much difference. Direct usage by Jerome is unlikely.


The Sinaiticus was not yet discovered when Jerome created the Vulgate Catholic New Testament.Well, if the Sinaiticus was a 4th century document, it could have been available.

However, it is actually written in the 1800s, and the recent discovery of homoeoteleutons that arose from Claromontanus essentially make the 4th century date impossible.

Steven

CherubRam
March 11th, 2017, 07:53 PM
1 John 5:6-8New International Version (NIV)
6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I+John+5%3A+6-8&version=NIV#fen-NIV-30633a)] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
Footnotes:
1 John 5:8 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I+John+5%3A+6-8&version=NIV#en-NIV-30633) Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)


2 Timothy 4:3 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy+4:3&version=NIV)
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

freelight
March 11th, 2017, 08:02 PM
1 John 5:6-8New International Version (NIV)
6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I+John+5%3A+6-8&version=NIV#fen-NIV-30633a)] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
Footnotes:
1 John 5:8 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I+John+5%3A+6-8&version=NIV#en-NIV-30633) Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)

And as we've shared here, the gloss or commentary added to the text doesn't really take or add to any of the original text, in my observation. Some JKV Only folks fight for its inclusion as being 'original', but a petty endeavor, since its just added commentary imposing a Trinitarian conceptual model.

CherubRam
March 11th, 2017, 08:04 PM
And as we've shared here, the gloss or commentary added to the text doesn't really take or add to any of the original text, in my observation. Some JKV Only folks fight for its inclusion as being 'original', but a petty endeavor, since its just added commentary imposing a Trinitarian conceptual model.
I am not a Trinitarian.

freelight
March 11th, 2017, 08:05 PM
I am not a Trinitarian.

:) cool. I gather even some Trinitarians acknowledge it as spurious. They have plenty of other Trinitarian proof-texts as you know......

CherubRam
March 11th, 2017, 08:14 PM
:) cool. I gather even some Trinitarians acknowledge it as spurious. They have plenty of other Trinitarian proof-texts as you know......
I have a Trinitarian commentary at my website, would you like to read it?

CherubRam
March 11th, 2017, 08:18 PM
Matthew 28:19 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Matt%252028.19) Commentary

In regards to baptism in Matthew 28:19 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Matt%252028.19).

I’m not speaking of Gnostic writings or scribal errors. As a matter of fact, some words in the originals are not translated because they would change the meaning of what we read.
As for what the Church Fathers believed, read this:

"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius of Caesarea. 265 ? AD.– 337 ? AD.

Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. Eusebius informs us of Yahshua’s actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Matt%252028.19).

Quote: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all...

And again Eusebius for example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:

"But the rest of the disciples, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went to all nations to preach the good news, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."


And again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:

"What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name?
Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke these words to his followers, and fulfilled it by that event, saying to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name."

The scripture Eusebius is quoting is not what we read today, and we do find that his quotes does agree with other scriptures.

Acts 2:38 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Acts%25202.38)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Yahshua Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 4:12 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Acts%25204.12)
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 8:16 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Acts%25208.16)
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Yahshua.)

Acts 10:48 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Acts%252010.48)
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:4 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Acts%252019.4)
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Yahshua.

Acts 19:5 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Acts%252019.5)
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Yahshua.

Acts 22:16 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Acts%252022.16)
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Romans 6:3 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Rom%25206.3)
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Yahshua Christ were baptized into his death?

Galatians 3:27 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Gal%25203.27)
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

freelight
March 12th, 2017, 04:25 AM
Matthew 28:19 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Matt%252028.19) Commentary

In regards to baptism in Matthew 28:19 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Matt%252028.19).

I’m not speaking of Gnostic writings or scribal errors. As a matter of fact, some words in the originals are not translated because they would change the meaning of what we read.
As for what the Church Fathers believed, read this:

"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius of Caesarea. 265 ? AD.– 337 ? AD.

Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. Eusebius informs us of Yahshua’s actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Matt%252028.19).

Quote: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all...

And again Eusebius for example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:

"But the rest of the disciples, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went to all nations to preach the good news, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."


And again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:

"What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name?
Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke these words to his followers, and fulfilled it by that event, saying to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name."

The scripture Eusebius is quoting is not what we read today, and we do find that his quotes does agree with other scriptures.

Acts 2:38 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Acts%25202.38)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Yahshua Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 4:12 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Acts%25204.12)
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 8:16 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Acts%25208.16)
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Yahshua.)

Acts 10:48 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Acts%252010.48)
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:4 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Acts%252019.4)
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Yahshua.

Acts 19:5 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Acts%252019.5)
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Yahshua.

Acts 22:16 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Acts%252022.16)
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Romans 6:3 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Rom%25206.3)
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Yahshua Christ were baptized into his death?

Galatians 3:27 (http://redirect.viglink.com?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a 42dd559&u=https%3A//biblia.com/bible/niv/Gal%25203.27)
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

:thumb:

I'm well aware of the Matt. 28:19 controversy, and most of the Unitarian/Trinitarian historical/doctrinal disputes ;)

While sporting a more Unitarian Christology for debate purposes here, I have no major issues with those choosing to believe in a Trinitarian concept of 'God', its just when they get dogmatic over it, like the Athanasian Creed, which says anyone who does not believe its specific formulation, CANNOT BE SAVED, which frankly is ridiculous.

CherubRam
March 12th, 2017, 09:24 AM
:thumb:

I'm well aware of the Matt. 28:19 controversy, and most of the Unitarian/Trinitarian historical/doctrinal disputes ;)

While sporting a more Unitarian Christology for debate purposes here, I have no major issues with those choosing to believe in a Trinitarian concept of 'God', its just when they get dogmatic over it, like the Athanasian Creed, which says anyone who does not believe its specific formulation, CANNOT BE SAVED, which frankly is ridiculous.
I wish those who believe God is a Trinity were more logical about the subject.

freelight
March 12th, 2017, 02:34 PM
I wish those who believe God is a Trinity were more logical about the subject.

Subtle metaphysics within a tri-une concept, allows for diversification within the unity of God, and this concept is revealed in Nature in various associations, and the fact of sub-atomic energy being a universal substance out of which all is made, so we have one infinite Spirit and many forms,...from which also personalities arise. A trinity-concept, being a 'concept' then is not a problem, as trinities exist in nature and various philosophical constructs,...its just how its superimposed in a doctrinal format, and then the making of that 'conceptual model' as some kind of absolute reality, when at best it serves as a 'relational construct'. And still, the traditional-orthodox creeds maintain a staunch MONOTHEISM, none the less. No matter how you slice or dice 'God',...this DEITY is still and always ONE. - all multiples go back to 'square 1' ;)

The Trinity can only be understood, proved or related in an intellectual fashion, while what ever is spiritually true about 'God' or anything, is a matter of spiritual discerning. Since a trinity is a company, its significance is 'relational'.

1Mind1Spirit
March 12th, 2017, 03:15 PM
Subtle metaphysics within a tri-une concept, allows for diversification within the unity of God, and this concept is revealed in Nature in various associations, and the fact of sub-atomic energy being a universal substance out of which all is made, so we have one infinite Spirit and many forms,...from which also personalities arise..

Sub - atomic energy.

Is that God's name now?

:crackup:

freelight
March 12th, 2017, 04:58 PM
Sub - atomic energy.

Is that God's name now?

:crackup:

You should know I often get pretty "meta" :)

Indeed,...another 'description' for 'God' is 'Source-Energy' ;)

1Mind1Spirit
March 12th, 2017, 05:30 PM
You should know I often get pretty "meta" :)

Indeed,...another 'description' for 'God' is 'Source-Energy' ;)

Yeah.

Couple years ago I suggested they found God when they split the atom.

Lucky I wasn't burned at the stake.:nuke::chuckle:

freelight
March 12th, 2017, 06:28 PM
Yeah.

Couple years ago I suggested they found God when they split the atom.

Lucky I wasn't burned at the stake.:nuke::chuckle:

Well,...there is the 'god-particle' (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/world/europe/higgs-boson-q-and-a/)(Higgs boson).

CherubRam
March 12th, 2017, 06:50 PM
Subtle metaphysics within a tri-une concept, allows for diversification within the unity of God, and this concept is revealed in Nature in various associations, and the fact of sub-atomic energy being a universal substance out of which all is made, so we have one infinite Spirit and many forms,...from which also personalities arise. A trinity-concept, being a 'concept' then is not a problem, as trinities exist in nature and various philosophical constructs,...its just how its superimposed in a doctrinal format, and then the making of that 'conceptual model' as some kind of absolute reality, when at best it serves as a 'relational construct'. And still, the traditional-orthodox creeds maintain a staunch MONOTHEISM, none the less. No matter how you slice or dice 'God',...this DEITY is still and always ONE. - all multiples go back to 'square 1' ;)

The Trinity can only be understood, proved or related in an intellectual fashion, while what ever is spiritually true about 'God' or anything, is a matter of spiritual discerning. Since a trinity is a company, its significance is 'relational'.

Well said. But as a matter of fact, Trinitarianism was introduced into scriptures by the Gnostic's; whom many were Catholics. If God was indeed a Trinity, then that would have been a teaching in Orthodox Judaism.

freelight
March 13th, 2017, 01:49 AM
Well said. But as a matter of fact, Trinitarianism was introduced into scriptures by the Gnostic's; whom many were Catholics. If God was indeed a Trinity, then that would have been a teaching in Orthodox Judaism.

Remember, I'm kinda 'gnostic' :) - we had our 'Gnostic Cosmology' thread and I do have my own social group the 'Esoteric School of Gnostic Wisdom' (http://theologyonline.com/group.php?groupid=22),...however I use the term 'gnostic' in all-inclusive universal sense, so it can include gnostic elements in the more liberal classic gnostic schools of the first 3 centuries and within the traditional-orthodox Christian vein (Valentinianism, etc.). Today some scholars are even wondering if the term 'gnostic' should be applied since its meaning has become polemicized and splintered somewhat,...however I include its essential meaning of a religio-philosophical system that holds 'gnosis' as essential/fundamental in personal experience, and at least on one level, epistemologically speaking,...'individual experience' is the medium where truth is realized,...there is no other 'field' as it were, outside of 'knowing'. Therefore, 'knowledge' is key, but we should not assume that knowledge trumps the other essentials of 'faith' or 'charity', but perhaps I digress :)

I'm not sure how far we can claim any Gnostic influence in the NT scriptures unless those are specifically shown, beyond an observation or assumption that gnostics tended to give Jesus a divine status (although not necessarily as 'God Almighty'), in fact most Gnostics held Jesus to be a high celestial Aeon within the Plemora (the Fullness), so he was always held his station as a divine Son of the Living Father, who also joined with Mother Sophia in his descent, for they both work to restore divine knowledge to man, so in this sense Jesus gives his life (by descending in form) as a spiritual sacrifice for us, making known to us by such sacrifice of love the True God.

See: Ecclesia Gnostica (http://www.gnosis.org/ecclesia/ecclesia.htm) (English Transmission, American branch).

It just so happens that Gnostics particularly had in their theology a teaching of 3 natures (spiritual, soulical & 'hylic'(material) ), and not particular persons, so that they paved the way by having a 'trinity', which the Orthodox later developed into their own Trinity of a 'Godhead' of 3 persons,...so that what they developed as the Orthodox Trinity is their own formation, since the main Gnostic traditions do NOT have a fundamental or creedal teaching on any Trinitarian God-head. A lot is also confused as to how the 'trinity' was influenced by earlier gnostic concepts by some early church fathers, and later distorted by equivocations along the way. So in some respects, the Gnostics are actually more 'Unitarian' in certain ways and similar to the Arians, in holding to Jesus subordination to the Father, being lower in the divine hierarchy, while it is the Orthodox Trinitarians who are the ones making or defining Jesus as being "eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father". (Nicene Creed).

A most excellent article is here - On the Gnostic Trinity (https://ogdoas.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/on-the-gnostic-trinity/) (very informative).

meshak
March 13th, 2017, 05:26 AM
I wish those who believe God is a Trinity were more logical about the subject.

I know your faith and you will be labeled as bigot soon by freelight.

Be aware of 1M1S and freelight. They are on the fence; they go anywhere for reputation.

CherubRam
March 13th, 2017, 07:17 AM
Remember, I'm kinda 'gnostic' :) - we had our 'Gnostic Cosmology' thread and I do have my own social group the 'Esoteric School of Gnostic Wisdom' (http://theologyonline.com/group.php?groupid=22),...however I use the term 'gnostic' in all-inclusive universal sense, so it can include gnostic elements in the more liberal classic gnostic schools of the first 3 centuries and within the traditional-orthodox Christian vein (Valentinianism, etc.). Today some scholars are even wondering if the term 'gnostic' should be applied since its meaning has become polemicized and splintered somewhat,...however I include its essential meaning of a religio-philosophical system that holds 'gnosis' as essential/fundamental in personal experience, and at least on one level, epistemologically speaking,...'individual experience' is the medium where truth is realized,...there is no other 'field' as it were, outside of 'knowing'. Therefore, 'knowledge' is key, but we should not assume that knowledge trumps the other essentials of 'faith' or 'charity', but perhaps I digress :)

I'm not sure how far we can claim any Gnostic influence in the NT scriptures unless those are specifically shown, beyond an observation or assumption that gnostics tended to give Jesus a divine status (although not necessarily as 'God Almighty'), in fact most Gnostics held Jesus to be a high celestial Aeon within the Plemora (the Fullness), so he was always held his station as a divine Son of the Living Father, who also joined with Mother Sophia in his descent, for they both work to restore divine knowledge to man, so in this sense Jesus gives his life (by descending in form) as a spiritual sacrifice for us, making known to us by such sacrifice of love the True God.

See: Ecclesia Gnostica (http://www.gnosis.org/ecclesia/ecclesia.htm) (English Transmission, American branch).

It just so happens that Gnostics particularly had in their theology a teaching of 3 natures (spiritual, soulical & 'hylic'(material) ), and not particular persons, so that they paved the way by having a 'trinity', which the Orthodox later developed into their own Trinity of a 'Godhead' of 3 persons,...so that what they developed as the Orthodox Trinity is their own formation, since the main Gnostic traditions do NOT have a fundamental or creedal teaching on any Trinitarian God-head. A lot is also confused as to how the 'trinity' was influenced by earlier gnostic concepts by some early church fathers, and later distorted by equivocations along the way. So in some respects, the Gnostics are actually more 'Unitarian' in certain ways and similar to the Arians, in holding to Jesus subordination to the Father, being lower in the divine hierarchy, while it is the Orthodox Trinitarians who are the ones making or defining Jesus as being "eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father". (Nicene Creed).

A most excellent article is here - On the Gnostic Trinity (https://ogdoas.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/on-the-gnostic-trinity/) (very informative).
Here is the oldest recorded document of Matthew 28:19.

"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius of Caesarea. 265 ? AD.– 337 ? AD.

Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. Eusebius informs us of Yahshua's actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19.

Quote: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all...

And again Eusebius for example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:

"But the rest of the disciples, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went to all nations to preach the good news, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."


And again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:

"What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name?
Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke these words to his followers, and fulfilled it by that event, saying to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name."


The term "Godhead" is an English variant of the word "godhood" and was first introduced by John Wycliffe (1330-1384 C.E.) in English Bible versions as godhede.

The word "Godhead" is a translation of three different Greek words, theion (meaning "divinity, deity", # 2304 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Acts 17:29, and theiotēs (meaning "divinity, divine nature", # 2305 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Romans 1:20, and theotēs (meaning "deity", # 2320 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Colossians 2:9.

To translate three different Greek words as one word is deviously incorrect. This is not unlike having three different names for one street on a map (with the real name hidden), so that when a person used it, he wound up lost. Likewise of those who read Bibles with "Godhead" in it, thereby misleading a person that the trinity is "real".

CherubRam
March 13th, 2017, 07:19 AM
If a person keeps ignoring the facts of a matter, then it is not the truth they are seeking.

freelight
March 13th, 2017, 05:38 PM
If a person keeps ignoring the facts of a matter, then it is not the truth they are seeking.

A student of truth has nothing to lose in researching all the known facts of a matter, and will do all he can to learn such, using every faculty available, both within and without, to come to the closest approximation of truth, and then remain open to keep researching,.... retesting any hypothesis as long any shadow of doubt or more learning could be had on any given subject.

CherubRam
March 13th, 2017, 05:45 PM
A student of truth has nothing to lose in researching all the known facts of a matter, and will do all he can to learn such, using every faculty available, both within and without, to come to the closest approximation of truth, and then remain open to keep researching,.... retesting any hypothesis as long any shadow of doubt or more learning could be had on any given subject.
What you say is true, but a person also needs to cut loose of error, such as mysticism. It is not of God.

freelight
March 13th, 2017, 06:22 PM
What you say is true, but a person also needs to cut loose of error, such as mysticism. It is not of God.

We'll have to disagree on 'mysticism' :) - its simply a path of the soul seeking a deeper more intimate communion with 'God'.

Nothing inherently wrong with 'mysticism', there are wonderful mystics in both eastern and western religious traditions. Some of their works are cherished.

See: Christian Mysticism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism)

I come from a lineage of mystics by spiritual association, most religionists do :)


Mysticism is popularly known as becoming one with God or the Absolute, but may refer to any kind of ecstasy or altered state of consciousness which is given a religious or spiritual meaning. It may also refer to the attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.

The term "mysticism" has Ancient Greek origins with various historically determined meanings. Derived from the Greek word μυω, meaning "to conceal", mysticism referred to the biblical liturgical, spiritual, and contemplative dimensions of early and medieval Christianity. During the early modern period, the definition of mysticism grew to include a broad range of beliefs and ideologies related to "extraordinary experiences and states of mind".

In modern times, "mysticism" has acquired a limited definition, with broad applications, as meaning the aim at the "union with the Absolute, the Infinite, or God". This limited definition has been applied to a wide range of religious traditions and practices, valuing "mystical experience" as a key element of mysticism.

- Mysticism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism) (wiki)

A lover of God by definition, is a 'mystic' IMO. But you don't need to use the 'term',...but understanding the meaning is essential.

CherubRam
March 14th, 2017, 07:55 AM
We'll have to disagree on 'mysticism' :) - its simply a path of the soul seeking a deeper more intimate communion with 'God'.

Nothing inherently wrong with 'mysticism', there are wonderful mystics in both eastern and western religious traditions. Some of their works are cherished.

See: Christian Mysticism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism)

I come from a lineage of mystics by spiritual association, most religionists do :)



- Mysticism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism) (wiki)

A lover of God by definition, is a 'mystic' IMO. But you don't need to use the 'term',...but understanding the meaning is essential.

People also believe the truth can be found in crystals, numerology, and astrology.

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Or: Oppose so called false sciences.

freelight
March 14th, 2017, 02:47 PM
People also believe the truth can be found in crystals, numerology, and astrology.

I do hope you understand what 'mysticism' is, in its entirety, all facets, to understand it, the etymology as well as misconceptions of it. Im using the term in its positive sense, in the context of deeper communion with God, the estoreic exploration of spiritual realities, divine mysteries. A 'mystic' is one who has directly experienced 'God' in some significant way, one who lives in the deeper world of the Spirit, conscious of God's Prensence.

See: Christian Mystics Explained (http://www.christianmystics.com/basics/whatis.html)

It is a false-correlation to affiliate crystals, astrology or numerology with 'mysticism' since those are artifacts or studies unto themselves, while mysticism is the study of the deeper realities of God, the hidden truths, the deeper mysteries. Im still am amazed that some here also think my 'spirituality' is more 'new agey' with crystals and such, many mis-correlations exist.

By the way,...minerals/rocks do each have their special properties, energetic qualities so there is nothing wrong with recognizing those in their various affections, I grew up as a rock hound of sorts,...rocks are wonderful. I think there is something to astrology, although I've not dived too deeply into it, and there are different schools, both western/eastern. There is also something about numerology that has significance within its own realm of meanings and relations (theomatics, divine arithmetic, etc.)....but again....mysticism may or may not be associated with these studies.



1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Or: Oppose so called false sciences.

Some schools of knowledge or subjects of study may be more or less useful ;)

But back to 1 John 5:7, its a verse that doesn't really do much to prove the Trinity, but some choose to believe it is God's word. Any more thoughts in that direction?

James Dalton
March 14th, 2017, 03:21 PM
I do hope you understand what 'mysticism' is, in its entirety, all facets, to understand it, the etymology as well as misconceptions of it. Im using the term in its positive sense, in the context of deeper communion with God, the estoreic exploration of spiritual realities, divine mysteries. A 'mystic' is one who has directly experienced 'God' in some significant way, one who lives in the deeper world of the Spirit, conscious of God's Prensence.

See: Christian Mystics Explained (http://www.christianmystics.com/basics/whatis.html)

It is a false-correlation to affiliate crystals, astrology or numerology with 'mysticism' since those are artifacts or studies unto themselves, while mysticism is the study of the deeper realities of God, the hidden truths, the deeper mysteries. Im still am amazed that some here also think my 'spirituality' is more 'new agey' with crystals and such, many mis-correlations exist.

By the way,...minerals/rocks do each have their special properties, energetic qualities so there is nothing wrong with recognizing those in their various affections, I grew up as a rock hound of sorts,...rocks are wonderful. I think there is something to astrology, although I've not dived too deeply into it, and there are different schools, both western/eastern. There is also something about numerology that has significance within its own realm of meanings and relations (theomatics, divine arithmetic, etc.)....but again....mysticism may or may not be associated with these studies.



Some schools of knowledge or subjects of study may be more or less useful ;)

But back to 1 John 5:7, its a verse that doesn't really do much to prove the Trinity, but some choose to believe it is God's word. Any more thoughts in that direction?

Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.

~ http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

All people that believe that God exists and is beyond our natural perception in presence and communication are metaphysical philosophers. This makes all who believe in God, Metaphysicians. The idea that God is everywhere that exists at one time is a metaphysical idea that cannot be labeled anything else. The people that believe God is able to be Father and Son aren't any more metaphysical than the people who say something different.

The questions that are fair to ask about the verse in question is if it even matters if it is there or not. The entire statement of God to the Hebrews was that He wanted to live or dwell with them. By the Bible, does God say He would never dwell with us or that He will dwell with us.

If the person that is metaphysically fearful that saying God has a true form that can be everywhere and in specific places a one time is uncomfortable believing that God is mighty enough to exist in a way that is beyond our comprehension, I wonder why such a person has gone half of the journey through the Bible and suddenly become afraid.

God brings out personal boldness and accomplishment. Does the Bible show that God can be many places at once and manifest Himself in a specific place at the same time? Does God desire to live inside of us as if we were His tabernacle? If that is true, wouldn't this make us far more than believers that God is in three places at once?

David said - “Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.”

Do some people believe God doesn't have an actual right hand that He reaches with?

Metaphysical Jesus?

CherubRam
March 14th, 2017, 05:48 PM
I do hope you understand what 'mysticism' is, in its entirety, all facets, to understand it, the etymology as well as misconceptions of it. Im using the term in its positive sense, in the context of deeper communion with God, the estoreic exploration of spiritual realities, divine mysteries. A 'mystic' is one who has directly experienced 'God' in some significant way, one who lives in the deeper world of the Spirit, conscious of God's Prensence.

See: Christian Mystics Explained (http://www.christianmystics.com/basics/whatis.html)

It is a false-correlation to affiliate crystals, astrology or numerology with 'mysticism' since those are artifacts or studies unto themselves, while mysticism is the study of the deeper realities of God, the hidden truths, the deeper mysteries. Im still am amazed that some here also think my 'spirituality' is more 'new agey' with crystals and such, many mis-correlations exist.

By the way,...minerals/rocks do each have their special properties, energetic qualities so there is nothing wrong with recognizing those in their various affections, I grew up as a rock hound of sorts,...rocks are wonderful. I think there is something to astrology, although I've not dived too deeply into it, and there are different schools, both western/eastern. There is also something about numerology that has significance within its own realm of meanings and relations (theomatics, divine arithmetic, etc.)....but again....mysticism may or may not be associated with these studies.



Some schools of knowledge or subjects of study may be more or less useful ;)

But back to 1 John 5:7, its a verse that doesn't really do much to prove the Trinity, but some choose to believe it is God's word. Any more thoughts in that direction?

Mysticism Divination

Numbers 22:7 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+22:7&version=NIV)
The elders of Moab and Midian left, taking with them the fee for divination. When they came to Balaam, they told him what Balak had said.


Numbers 24:1 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+24:1&version=NIV)
Now when Balaam saw that it pleased the Lord to bless Israel, he did not resort to divination as at other times, but turned his face toward the wilderness.


None of the prophets of God were Mystic’s or Diviners. Only Balaam whom was a Pagan used divination for a short time. God chooses whom He will reveal any mysteries to.

Even though God would answer the high priest with the Urim and the Thummim, that does not mean there was anything mystical about it.
God speaks to whomever He pleases, whenever He pleases. There is no mysticism of divination involved.