WHY THE GODHEAD IS THREE IN ONE

[DAN P]

Hi nto all and in 1 John 5:7 we read , For there are THREE / TREIS that bear record in HEAVEN .

A , N , P , AND M IS IN 1 John 5:7 .

A means that THREE / TREIS is an ADJECTIVE

N means that THREE / TREIS is in the NOMINATIVE CASE in Greek and it means it IDENTIFICATION OF THE SENTENCE

P means that THREE / TREIS is PLURAL or more than one

M means THREE / TREIS is MASCULINE and not FEMININE

Remember that the bible is a book of numbers and just check out BULLINGER'S BOOK on NUMBERS IN SCRIPTURE B and see .

dan p

 

[Tigger 2]

The King James Version (A. D. 1611) says at 1 Jn 5:7: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

Of course even this would not mean the three are the one God as trinitarians want. The word for “one” here is in the neuter form, hen, which cannot mean “one God” since “God” is always in the masculine form in NT Greek, and grammatically adjectives (such as “one”) applied to it must also be masculine (heis ‘one,’ masculine form).

NT Greek words meaning “one”: ἓν; εἷς; μια

- hen (ἓν as written in Greek letters) is the neuter form for “one.”

- heis (εἷς as written in Greek letters) is the masculine form for “one.”

- mia (μια as written in Greek letters) is the feminine form for “one.”

When the neuter “one” (hen) is applied to persons, it means “one thing.” In other words they have become united in some thing such as “purpose,” “will,” etc. That is why Jesus prays to the Father “that they [Jesus’ followers] may be one [hen, ἕν- neuter] just as we are one [hen,ἕν - neuter].” - Jn 17:22. Jesus, the Father, and Jesus’ followers are all one [hen, neuter] in something. Of course they are all united in the Father’s will and purpose! - see my ONE study.

Even though Christians have one will with Jesus and the Father, it certainly is not their wills which dominate; it is the will of the Father (the only true God - Jn 17:1,3) which they make their will also. And Jesus, too, subordinates his will to that of the Father so that, therefore, their will and purpose become one: the Father’s alone. (“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” - Luke 22:42, NIV. cf. Mark 14:36.)

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

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

The only other Bibles which include this passage that I am aware of are the Catholic Douay Version (A. D. 1609), the New Life Version (1993), the New King James Version (1982), and the King James II Version (1982). These last two are modern translations which have as their stated purpose the preservation of the text and traditions of the King James Version and which, therefore, translate from the thoroughly discredited Received Text.

Of these four Bibles the KJIIV at least indicates the unscriptural addition of 1 John 5:7 by writing it in all italics. And buried in the Preface is the admission that 1 Jn 5:7 (among others) is not to be accepted as true Scripture.

Since Greek was the “universal language” at the time the New Testament writers wrote and for many years thereafter, the earliest copies of the manuscripts of the New Testament were most often written in Koine Greek. Therefore the very best manuscripts (and the oldest) of New Testament writings in existence today are the most ancient (4th and 5th century) Greek manuscripts. These early Greek manuscripts were later translated into various other languages, including Latin. Although Bible translators often compare these ancient Greek manuscripts with NT manuscripts of other languages, they nearly always translate from a text that was composed from the oldest and best Greek manuscripts.

Highly respected trinitarian scholar, minister (Trinity Church), Professor (University of Glasgow and Marburg University), author (The Daily Study Bible Series, etc.), and Bible translator Dr. William Barclay states the following about this passage:
Note on 1 John 5:7

“In the Authorized Version [KJV] there is a verse which we have altogether omitted [in Barclay’s NT translation]. It reads, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.”

“The Revised Version omits this verse, and does not even mention it in the margin, and none of the newer translations includes it. It is quite certain that it does not belong to the original text.

“The facts are as follows. First, it does not occur in any Greek manuscript earlier than the 14th century. The great manuscripts belong to the 3rd and 4th centuries [most scholars date them to the 4th and 5th centuries], and it occurs in none of them. None of the great early fathers of the Church knew it. Jerome’s original version of the [Latin]Vulgate does not include it. The first person to quote it is a Spanish heretic called Priscillian who died in A. D. 385. Thereafter it crept gradually into the Latin texts of the New Testament although, as we have seen, it did not gain an entry to the Greek manuscripts." - The Letters of John and Jude, The Daily Study Bible Series, Revised Edition, The Westminster Press, 1976. [Material in brackets and emphasis added by me.]

Noted Trinitarian scholar Daniel B. Wallace admits the same:

https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8#_ftnref3

The highly respected (and trinitarian) United Bible Societies has published a commentary on the New Testament text. It discusses 1 John 5:5-7 as follows [‘Symbol’ font used for Greek portion]:

“After μαρτυροῦντες [“bearing witness”] the Textus Receptus [Received Text] adds the following: εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἐν εἰσι. (8) καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῇ γῆ. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.

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

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

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

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

“(B) INTERNAL PROBABILITIES. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.

“(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.” - pp. 716-718, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.

Notice the comments concerning this disputed passage found in the respected trinitarian reference work, The Expositor's Greek Testament:

　It says in a note for 1 John 5:7 (as found in the Received Text and the KJV):　

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

So, even those who finally added this spurious text to the English Bible translations knew it was not written by John! But, even with many revisions and thousands of changes to the KJV, this trinitarian tampering with the word of God has remained for nearly 400 years!

Trinitarian scholar Robert Young [Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible; Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible; etc.] writes in his Concise Critical Commentary:
“These words are wanting [lacking] in all the Greek MSS except two, in all the oldest Ancient Versions, and in all the quotations of v. 6-8 in the ancient Fathers before A.D. 475” - Note for 1 John 5:7, Baker Book House, 1977.

The following modern trinitarian Bibles do not include the spurious words found in the KJV at 1 Jn 5:7: Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; American Standard Version; New International Version; New American Standard Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; New American Bible (1970 and 1991 editions); Jerusalem Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; Modern Language Bible; Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version; An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed); and translations by Moffatt; C. B. Williams; William Beck; Phillips; Rotherham; Lamsa; Byington; Barclay; etc.

 

[Clete]

The King James Version (A. D. 1611) says at 1 Jn 5:7: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

Of course even this would not mean the three are the one God as trinitarians want. The word for “one” here is in the neuter form, hen, which cannot mean “one God” since “God” is always in the masculine form in NT Greek, and grammatically adjectives (such as “one”) applied to it must also be masculine (heis ‘one,’ masculine form).

NT Greek words meaning “one”: ἓν; εἷς; μια

- hen (ἓν as written in Greek letters) is the neuter form for “one.”

- heis (εἷς as written in Greek letters) is the masculine form for “one.”

- mia (μια as written in Greek letters) is the feminine form for “one.”

When the neuter “one” (hen) is applied to persons, it means “one thing.” In other words they have become united in some thing such as “purpose,” “will,” etc. That is why Jesus prays to the Father “that they [Jesus’ followers] may be one [hen, ἕν- neuter] just as we are one [hen,ἕν - neuter].” - Jn 17:22. Jesus, the Father, and Jesus’ followers are all one [hen, neuter] in something. Of course they are all united in the Father’s will and purpose! - see my ONE study.

Even though Christians have one will with Jesus and the Father, it certainly is not their wills which dominate; it is the will of the Father (the only true God - Jn 17:1,3) which they make their will also. And Jesus, too, subordinates his will to that of the Father so that, therefore, their will and purpose become one: the Father’s alone. (“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” - Luke 22:42, NIV. cf. Mark 14:36.)

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

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

The only other Bibles which include this passage that I am aware of are the Catholic Douay Version (A. D. 1609), the New Life Version (1993), the New King James Version (1982), and the King James II Version (1982). These last two are modern translations which have as their stated purpose the preservation of the text and traditions of the King James Version and which, therefore, translate from the thoroughly discredited Received Text.

Of these four Bibles the KJIIV at least indicates the unscriptural addition of 1 John 5:7 by writing it in all italics. And buried in the Preface is the admission that 1 Jn 5:7 (among others) is not to be accepted as true Scripture.

Since Greek was the “universal language” at the time the New Testament writers wrote and for many years thereafter, the earliest copies of the manuscripts of the New Testament were most often written in Koine Greek. Therefore the very best manuscripts (and the oldest) of New Testament writings in existence today are the most ancient (4th and 5th century) Greek manuscripts. These early Greek manuscripts were later translated into various other languages, including Latin. Although Bible translators often compare these ancient Greek manuscripts with NT manuscripts of other languages, they nearly always translate from a text that was composed from the oldest and best Greek manuscripts.

Highly respected trinitarian scholar, minister (Trinity Church), Professor (University of Glasgow and Marburg University), author (The Daily Study Bible Series, etc.), and Bible translator Dr. William Barclay states the following about this passage:
Note on 1 John 5:7

“In the Authorized Version [KJV] there is a verse which we have altogether omitted [in Barclay’s NT translation]. It reads, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.”

“The Revised Version omits this verse, and does not even mention it in the margin, and none of the newer translations includes it. It is quite certain that it does not belong to the original text.

“The facts are as follows. First, it does not occur in any Greek manuscript earlier than the 14th century. The great manuscripts belong to the 3rd and 4th centuries [most scholars date them to the 4th and 5th centuries], and it occurs in none of them. None of the great early fathers of the Church knew it. Jerome’s original version of the [Latin]Vulgate does not include it. The first person to quote it is a Spanish heretic called Priscillian who died in A. D. 385. Thereafter it crept gradually into the Latin texts of the New Testament although, as we have seen, it did not gain an entry to the Greek manuscripts." - The Letters of John and Jude, The Daily Study Bible Series, Revised Edition, The Westminster Press, 1976. [Material in brackets and emphasis added by me.]

Noted Trinitarian scholar Daniel B. Wallace admits the same:

https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8#_ftnref3

The highly respected (and trinitarian) United Bible Societies has published a commentary on the New Testament text. It discusses 1 John 5:5-7 as follows [‘Symbol’ font used for Greek portion]:

“After μαρτυροῦντες [“bearing witness”] the Textus Receptus [Received Text] adds the following: εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἐν εἰσι. (8) καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῇ γῆ. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.

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

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

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

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

“(B) INTERNAL PROBABILITIES. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.

“(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.” - pp. 716-718, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.

Notice the comments concerning this disputed passage found in the respected trinitarian reference work, The Expositor's Greek Testament:

　It says in a note for 1 John 5:7 (as found in the Received Text and the KJV):　

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

So, even those who finally added this spurious text to the English Bible translations knew it was not written by John! But, even with many revisions and thousands of changes to the KJV, this trinitarian tampering with the word of God has remained for nearly 400 years!

Trinitarian scholar Robert Young [Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible; Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible; etc.] writes in his Concise Critical Commentary:
“These words are wanting [lacking] in all the Greek MSS except two, in all the oldest Ancient Versions, and in all the quotations of v. 6-8 in the ancient Fathers before A.D. 475” - Note for 1 John 5:7, Baker Book House, 1977.

The following modern trinitarian Bibles do not include the spurious words found in the KJV at 1 Jn 5:7: Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; American Standard Version; New International Version; New American Standard Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; New American Bible (1970 and 1991 editions); Jerusalem Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; Modern Language Bible; Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version; An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed); and translations by Moffatt; C. B. Williams; William Beck; Phillips; Rotherham; Lamsa; Byington; Barclay; etc.

So, basically I John 5:7 doesn't mean what it says because the NIV (and other similar translations) says otherwise.

Great argument!

Of course, that is an intentional over simplification of your comments but I think it accurately conveys the gist of what you've said in terms that people can immediately understand.


There is, of course, a far more thorough response to your arguments. It is, however, a rather complex and rather dull topic to tackle and so rather than going through the drudgery of writing a long response myself (which is my normal habbit, by the way), I offer instead a couple of excerpts from a very well written and thorough article on the topic of what is known as the "Johannine Comma" which is just a name given to specifically reference the whole phrase "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” in I John 5:7-8.

The following is from "A Defense of I John 5:7" by David Cloud
`

Another consideration is THE GRAMMATICAL ARGUMENT. “The omission of the Johannine Comma leaves much to be desired grammatically. The words ‘Spirit,’ ‘water’ and ‘blood’ are all neuters, yet they are treated as masculine in verse 8. This is strange if the Johannine Comma is omitted, but it can be accounted for if it is retained; the masculine nouns ‘Father’ and ‘word’ in verse 7 regulate the gender in the succeeding verse due to the power of attraction principle. The argument that the ‘Spirit’ is personalized and therefore masculine is offset by verse 6 which is definitely referring to the personal Holy Spirit yet using the neuter gender. [I. H. Marshall is a current voice for this argument: ‘It is striking that although Spirit, water, and blood are all neuter nouns in Greek, they are introduced by a clause expressed in the masculine plural ... Here in 1 John he clearly regards the Spirit as personal, and this leads to the personification of the water and the blood’ The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1978), p. 237n.] Moreover, the words ‘that one’ (to hen) in verse 8 have no antecedent if verse 7 is omitted, [Marshall calls this construction ‘unparalleled,’ p. 237] whereas if verse 7 is retained, then the antecedent is ‘these three are one’ (to hen)” (Strouse, A Critique of D.A. Carson’s The King James Version Debate).

The grammatical argument has been treated lightly by modern textual critics, but its importance was understood by GREGORY NAZIANZUS (Oration XXXII: Fifth Theological Oration: “On the Holy Spirit,” A.D. 390; see Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8), FREDERIC NOLAN (An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, 1815), ROBERT DABNEY (“The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” 1891), THOMAS MIDDLETON (The Doctrine of the Greek article: applied to the criticism and illustration of the New Testament, 1833), MATTHEW HENRY (Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1706), EDWARD F. HILLS (The King James Bible Defended: a Space-age Defense of the Historic Christian Faith, 1956), LOUIS GAUSSEN (The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, 1934), to name a few. I take my stand with these men. ​

- David Cloud, Way of Life Literature​

and...
`

Another consideration is THE ARGUMENT FROM THE GREEK MANUSCRIPT RECORD. D.A. Carson, probably following Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (3rd edition corrected, 1975), claims there are only four MSS containing the Johannine Comma. In fact, the UBS 4th Greek N.T. lists 8 manuscripts that contain the comma, four in the text (61, 629, 2318, 918) and four in the margin (88, 221, 429, 636).

When considering the Greek manuscript evidence for or against the Johannine Comma, it is important to understand that there are only five manuscripts dating from the 2nd to the 7th century that even contain the fifth chapter of 1 John (Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8, Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995). None of the papyrus contains this portion of Scripture.

Further, it is important to understand that some Greek manuscripts cited by editors in the 16th and 17th centuries are no longer extant. The Complutensian Bible, produced by several Catholic scholars, was based on Greek manuscripts obtained from the Vatican library and elsewhere. They included 1 John 5:7 on the authority of “ancient codices” that were in their possession. Further, Robert Stephens, who produced several editions of the Greek Received Text, obtained ancient Greek manuscripts from the Royal Library at Paris. He refused to allow even one letter that was not supported by what he considered to be the best Greek manuscripts. When he compared these manuscripts to the Complutensian, he found that they agreed. In the margin of the 3rd edition of his Greek N.T. he said seven of the 15 or 16 Greek manuscripts in his possession contained the Johannine Comma. Theodore Beza borrowed these manuscripts from Robert Stephens’ son Henry and further testified that 1 John 5:7 is found in “some ancient manuscripts of Stephens.”

In the 16th and 17th centuries, both the Catholic and the Reformation editors were convinced of the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 based on the Greek manuscript evidence that was before them.

It is probable that some of this evidence has been lost. Consider the following important statements:

“Erasmus, in his Notes on the place, owns that the Spanish Edition took it from a Vatican MS, and Father Amelote, in his Notes on his own Version of the Greek Testament, affirms, that he had seen this verse in the most ancient copy of the Vatican Library. The learned Author of the Enquiry into the Authority of the Complutensian Edition of the New Testament [Richard Smalbroke], in a letter to Dr. Bentley, from these and many other arguments, proves it to be little less than certain, that the controverted passage 1 Joh. v.7 was found in the ancient Vatican MS, so particularly recommended by Pope Leo to the Editors at Complutum” (Leonard Twells, A Critical Examination of the Late New Text and Version of the New Testament, 1731, II, p. 128).

“Can we peruse the account which is given of the labours of Laurentius Valla [he collated the Latin against the Greek in the 15th century], of the Complutensian Editors of the Old and New Testaments, of Robert Stephens, the Parisain printer, and of Theodore Beza, without believing, that they found this passage in several valuable Greek manuscripts? All those learned and honourable men could not surely have combined to assert, in the face of the Christian world, that they had examined and collated manuscripts which contained this verse. Where would be our candour and charity, if we should suppose them capable of such an intentional and deliberate falsification of the Scriptures, and of doing this in concert? Would not this be to rob them of their honest and well-earned reputation, for learning and worth, for probity and honour, and to stigmatize them as cheats and impostors? It is supposed, that those Greek manuscripts which were used by the first editors of the New Testament, have been lost by being neglected, or destroyed after they had been used for this purpose. The manuscripts which were used by the Complutensian Editors, under the direction of Cardinal Ximenes, it is said, were never returned to the library of the Vatican, but are either lost, or lie concealed in some of the libraries in Spain. The manuscripts which were borrowed by Robert Stephens, from the Royal Library at Paris, have never found their way back thither, or at least, they are not now, it is said, in that Library. ... Though, however, it could be proved, that there did not exist at this hour, a single Greek manuscript which exhibited the verse in question, yet still the testimonies of their former existence, which have been produced, should overbalance, it is conceived, in the view of every unprejudiced mind, any unfavourable presumption arising from this circumstance” (Robert Jack, Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7). - ​

David Cloud, Way of Life Literature​

The author goes into far more detail than what is practicle to repost here. It, in my view, stands as a definitive argument in favor of the veracity of the "Johannine Comma" and is well worth the time it takes to read.

Clete

 

[oatmeal]

Hi nto all and in 1 John 5:7 we read , For there are THREE / TREIS that bear record in HEAVEN .

A , N , P , AND M IS IN 1 John 5:7 .

A means that THREE / TREIS is an ADJECTIVE

N means that THREE / TREIS is in the NOMINATIVE CASE in Greek and it means it IDENTIFICATION OF THE SENTENCE

P means that THREE / TREIS is PLURAL or more than one

M means THREE / TREIS is MASCULINE and not FEMININE

Remember that the bible is a book of numbers and just check out BULLINGER'S BOOK on NUMBERS IN SCRIPTURE B and see .

dan p

Glad you brought up EW Bullinger's work.

His Companion Bible makes it clear that there are words in I John 5:7-8 that do not belong there.

The KJV reads as follows,

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.

However, Bullinger points out that the words from "in heaven" to "in earth" inclusive crept into the texts first in the Latin manuscripts.

It should read,

"For there are three that bear record , the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

This is shown in the NIV,

⁷ For there are three that testify: ⁸ the^[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

The ASV

⁷ And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. ⁸ For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

There may be others.

 

[DAN P]

Glad you brought up EW Bullinger's work.

His Companion Bible makes it clear that there are words in I John 5:7-8 that do not belong there.

The KJV reads as follows,

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.

However, Bullinger points out that the words from "in heaven" to "in earth" inclusive crept into the texts first in the Latin manuscripts.

It should read,

"For there are three that bear record , the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

This is shown in the NIV,

⁷ For there are three that testify: ⁸ the^[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

The ASV

⁷ And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. ⁸ For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

There may be others.

Hi and it seem that there are many verses , that question and say they were added , like Mark 16:16-18 and Gen 1:1 and 2 and maybe the HOLY SPIRIT let some spurious verse creep in !!

dan p

 

[Clete]

There isn't sufficient evidence for anyone to rightly conclude that anything was added at all.

 

[oatmeal]

Hi and it seem that there are many verses , that question and say they were added , like Mark 16:16-18 and Gen 1:1 and 2 and maybe the HOLY SPIRIT let some spurious verse creep in !!

dan p

There are other passages that have additions and intentional changes to them. Matthew 28:19, I Timothy 3:16, Ephesians 3:9 are those that come immediately to mind.

 

[oatmeal]

There isn't sufficient evidence for anyone to rightly conclude that anything was added at all.

There isn't sufficient evidence to believe that there were no additions, deletions and other errors

 

[DAN P]

There isn't sufficient evidence to believe that there were no additions, deletions and other errors

Hi and I am sure that many have seen words that are ITALICIZED in the bible ?

Bullinger is the only one that I have seen to write a book on FIGURES of SPEECH .

I believe that those verses that are ITALICIZED gave them fits on how to translate those in ITALIC and to give an English translation .

dan p

 

[genuineoriginal]

The King James Version (A. D. 1611) says at 1 Jn 5:7: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

Can you explain what Jesus meant by praying to the Holy Father to make us Christians one in the exact same manner that Jesus and the Holy Father are one?

John 17:11 11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

 

[Clete]

There isn't sufficient evidence to believe that there were no additions, deletions and other errors

Thank you for conceding the debate!

That is unless you consider the now admitted lack of evidence is a good basis upon which to decide the Johannine Comma is invalid and aught to be removed from the bible.


The fact is that you people who deny the Trinity don't have any real reason to deny the veracity of I John 5:7-8 aside from your pet doctrines.

 

[Clete]

Hi and I am sure that many have seen words that are ITALICIZED in the bible ?

Bullinger is the only one that I have seen to write a book on FIGURES of SPEECH .

I believe that those verses that are ITALICIZED gave them fits on how to translate those in ITALIC and to give an English translation .

dan p

Not really.

Of course, there are passages that are more difficult that others to translate but adding words in one language when translating from any other is not merely expected, it's required. Words convey ideas and ideas are communicated in different ways in different languages. Some concepts might have multiple words associated with it in one language while having very few if any in another. Some languages might have a single word that conveys a very complex idea that requires a whole sentence to communicate in another language. One language might use one word for more than one idea where another language has separate words for those same ideas. There's a whole list of reasons why words that don't appear in the original text might be in a translation.

The use of italicized words is born, not out of a desire to call a passage into question but rather out of an abundance of transparency and loyalty to the original on the part of the translators. It's their way of making sure that no one can accuse them of trying to be tricky or underhanded or otherwise dishonest with their handling of the text.

Clete

 

[DAN P]

Not really.

Of course, there are passages that are more difficult that others to translate but adding words in one language when translating from any other is not merely expected, it's required. Words convey ideas and ideas are communicated in different ways in different languages. Some concepts might have multiple words associated with it in one language while having very few if any in another. Some languages might have a single word that conveys a very complex idea that requires a whole sentence to communicate in another language. One language might use one word for more than one idea where another language has separate words for those same ideas. There's a whole list of reasons why words that don't appear in the original text might be in a translation.

The use of italicized words is born, not out of a desire to call a passage into question but rather out of an abundance of transparency and loyalty to the original on the part of the translators. It's their way of making sure that no one can accuse them of trying to be tricky or underhanded or otherwise dishonest with their handling of the text.

Clete

Hi and where is no EXACT WORD for WORD translation , ITALICIZING is used , and just google , and see .

dan p

 

[Clete]

Hi and where is no EXACT WORD for WORD translation , ITALICIZING is used , and just google , and see .

dan p

And see what? That I was right and you just repeated what I said?

 

[oatmeal]

Thank you for conceding the debate!

That is unless you consider the now admitted lack of evidence is a good basis upon which to decide the Johannine Comma is invalid and aught to be removed from the bible.


The fact is that you people who deny the Trinity don't have any real reason to deny the veracity of I John 5:7-8 aside from your pet doctrines.

That is a strange interpretation of what I said.

Why don't you reread what I wrote?

There isn't sufficient evidence to believe that there were no additions, deletions and other errors

Or more simply, There is plenty of evidence that the texts have been tampered with, and although would prefer to think of the errors to be innocent in motive, I cannot buy into that completely.

It is very clear that the trinitarian error in I John 5:7-8 was deliberately added, which is repugnant to the rest of scripture and causes harm to the doctrines of the word of God.and those who sincerely and humbly desire to live by God's word, rather than by man's idol worship. For the trinity is simply the insertion of pagan beliefs into the word of God.

Yes, the trinity is that erroneous.

 

[Bright Raven]

That is a strange interpretation of what I said.

Why don't you reread what I wrote?

There isn't sufficient evidence to believe that there were no additions, deletions and other errors

Or more simply, There is plenty of evidence that the texts have been tampered with, and although would prefer to think of the errors to be innocent in motive, I cannot buy into that completely.

It is very clear that the trinitarian error in I John 5:7-8 was deliberately added, which is repugnant to the rest of scripture and causes harm to the doctrines of the word of God.and those who sincerely and humbly desire to live by God's word, rather than by man's idol worship. For the trinity is simply the insertion of pagan beliefs into the word of God.

Yes, the trinity is that erroneous.

Which of the following has said something erroneous; Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, or Origen?

​​​​​​Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.

"O Lord God almighty . . . I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.

"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.

"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: . . . one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all . . . '" (Against Heresies X.l)

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority . . . There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).

"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)

"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification . . . " (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

 

[Clete]

That is a strange interpretation of what I said.

Why don't you reread what I wrote?

There isn't sufficient evidence to believe that there were no additions, deletions and other errors

Or more simply, There is plenty of evidence that the texts have been tampered with, and although would prefer to think of the errors to be innocent in motive, I cannot buy into that completely.

Your comments were in direct response to my having stated that there was no such evidence.

I said that there is no evidence to suggest that anything had been added (at least in regard to the passage in question) and you didn't refute that, you simply added the affirmative claim that there was no evidence that things were no added, which is the text book definition of an argument from silence and which would tacitly concede the debate because you're basically saying that your position is based on that argument from silence.

Now, you show up to say, "Ph wait a minute! That's not what I meant!"

Well, whether it's what you meant or not, it is what you said. It is not a "strange interpretation", it's just what you said. I can only read what you type. I'm quite unable to read your mind.

It is very clear that the trinitarian error in I John 5:7-8 was deliberately added, which is repugnant to the rest of scripture and causes harm to the doctrines of the word of God.and those who sincerely and humbly desire to live by God's word, rather than by man's idol worship. For the trinity is simply the insertion of pagan beliefs into the word of God.

Yes, the trinity is that erroneous.

Saying it doesn't make it so. I've posted an argument that no one on this thread had probably even read, never mind refuted or even responded to for that matter.

Based on the strength of that argument, I reitterate my previous statement that there is no reason to believe that Johannine Comma was added. There's no reason to believe it at all unless you need to believe it in order to maintain an a-priori rejection of the Trinity.

 

[Tambora]

There is, of course, a far more thorough response to your arguments. It is, however, a rather complex and rather dull topic to tackle and so rather than going through the drudgery of writing a long response myself (which is my normal habbit, by the way), I offer instead a couple of excerpts from a very well written and thorough article on the topic of what is known as the "Johannine Comma" which is just a name given to specifically reference the whole phrase "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” in I John 5:7-8.

The following is from "A Defense of I John 5:7" by David Cloud
`

Another consideration is THE GRAMMATICAL ARGUMENT. “The omission of the Johannine Comma leaves much to be desired grammatically. The words ‘Spirit,’ ‘water’ and ‘blood’ are all neuters, yet they are treated as masculine in verse 8. This is strange if the Johannine Comma is omitted, but it can be accounted for if it is retained; the masculine nouns ‘Father’ and ‘word’ in verse 7 regulate the gender in the succeeding verse due to the power of attraction principle. The argument that the ‘Spirit’ is personalized and therefore masculine is offset by verse 6 which is definitely referring to the personal Holy Spirit yet using the neuter gender. [I. H. Marshall is a current voice for this argument: ‘It is striking that although Spirit, water, and blood are all neuter nouns in Greek, they are introduced by a clause expressed in the masculine plural ... Here in 1 John he clearly regards the Spirit as personal, and this leads to the personification of the water and the blood’ The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1978), p. 237n.] Moreover, the words ‘that one’ (to hen) in verse 8 have no antecedent if verse 7 is omitted, [Marshall calls this construction ‘unparalleled,’ p. 237] whereas if verse 7 is retained, then the antecedent is ‘these three are one’ (to hen)” (Strouse, A Critique of D.A. Carson’s The King James Version Debate).

The grammatical argument has been treated lightly by modern textual critics, but its importance was understood by GREGORY NAZIANZUS (Oration XXXII: Fifth Theological Oration: “On the Holy Spirit,” A.D. 390; see Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8), FREDERIC NOLAN (An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, 1815), ROBERT DABNEY (“The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” 1891), THOMAS MIDDLETON (The Doctrine of the Greek article: applied to the criticism and illustration of the New Testament, 1833), MATTHEW HENRY (Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1706), EDWARD F. HILLS (The King James Bible Defended: a Space-age Defense of the Historic Christian Faith, 1956), LOUIS GAUSSEN (The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, 1934), to name a few. I take my stand with these men. ​

- David Cloud, Way of Life Literature​

and...
`

Another consideration is THE ARGUMENT FROM THE GREEK MANUSCRIPT RECORD. D.A. Carson, probably following Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (3rd edition corrected, 1975), claims there are only four MSS containing the Johannine Comma. In fact, the UBS 4th Greek N.T. lists 8 manuscripts that contain the comma, four in the text (61, 629, 2318, 918) and four in the margin (88, 221, 429, 636).

When considering the Greek manuscript evidence for or against the Johannine Comma, it is important to understand that there are only five manuscripts dating from the 2nd to the 7th century that even contain the fifth chapter of 1 John (Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8, Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995). None of the papyrus contains this portion of Scripture.

Further, it is important to understand that some Greek manuscripts cited by editors in the 16th and 17th centuries are no longer extant. The Complutensian Bible, produced by several Catholic scholars, was based on Greek manuscripts obtained from the Vatican library and elsewhere. They included 1 John 5:7 on the authority of “ancient codices” that were in their possession. Further, Robert Stephens, who produced several editions of the Greek Received Text, obtained ancient Greek manuscripts from the Royal Library at Paris. He refused to allow even one letter that was not supported by what he considered to be the best Greek manuscripts. When he compared these manuscripts to the Complutensian, he found that they agreed. In the margin of the 3rd edition of his Greek N.T. he said seven of the 15 or 16 Greek manuscripts in his possession contained the Johannine Comma. Theodore Beza borrowed these manuscripts from Robert Stephens’ son Henry and further testified that 1 John 5:7 is found in “some ancient manuscripts of Stephens.”

In the 16th and 17th centuries, both the Catholic and the Reformation editors were convinced of the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 based on the Greek manuscript evidence that was before them.

It is probable that some of this evidence has been lost. Consider the following important statements:

“Erasmus, in his Notes on the place, owns that the Spanish Edition took it from a Vatican MS, and Father Amelote, in his Notes on his own Version of the Greek Testament, affirms, that he had seen this verse in the most ancient copy of the Vatican Library. The learned Author of the Enquiry into the Authority of the Complutensian Edition of the New Testament [Richard Smalbroke], in a letter to Dr. Bentley, from these and many other arguments, proves it to be little less than certain, that the controverted passage 1 Joh. v.7 was found in the ancient Vatican MS, so particularly recommended by Pope Leo to the Editors at Complutum” (Leonard Twells, A Critical Examination of the Late New Text and Version of the New Testament, 1731, II, p. 128).

“Can we peruse the account which is given of the labours of Laurentius Valla [he collated the Latin against the Greek in the 15th century], of the Complutensian Editors of the Old and New Testaments, of Robert Stephens, the Parisain printer, and of Theodore Beza, without believing, that they found this passage in several valuable Greek manuscripts? All those learned and honourable men could not surely have combined to assert, in the face of the Christian world, that they had examined and collated manuscripts which contained this verse. Where would be our candour and charity, if we should suppose them capable of such an intentional and deliberate falsification of the Scriptures, and of doing this in concert? Would not this be to rob them of their honest and well-earned reputation, for learning and worth, for probity and honour, and to stigmatize them as cheats and impostors? It is supposed, that those Greek manuscripts which were used by the first editors of the New Testament, have been lost by being neglected, or destroyed after they had been used for this purpose. The manuscripts which were used by the Complutensian Editors, under the direction of Cardinal Ximenes, it is said, were never returned to the library of the Vatican, but are either lost, or lie concealed in some of the libraries in Spain. The manuscripts which were borrowed by Robert Stephens, from the Royal Library at Paris, have never found their way back thither, or at least, they are not now, it is said, in that Library. ... Though, however, it could be proved, that there did not exist at this hour, a single Greek manuscript which exhibited the verse in question, yet still the testimonies of their former existence, which have been produced, should overbalance, it is conceived, in the view of every unprejudiced mind, any unfavourable presumption arising from this circumstance” (Robert Jack, Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7). - ​

David Cloud, Way of Life Literature​

The author goes into far more detail than what is practicle to repost here. It, in my view, stands as a definitive argument in favor of the veracity of the "Johannine Comma" and is well worth the time it takes to read.

Clete

Thanks for that.

Also ......

Cyprian (200-258AD) writes in his De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate 6:

"The Lord says, "I and the Father are one;" and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," And these three are one."​

Notice the underlined.
Cyprian only uses this phrase for what was written in scripture.

 

[oatmeal]

Which of the following has said something erroneous; Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, or Origen?

​​​​​​Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.

"O Lord God almighty . . . I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.

"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.

"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: . . . one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all . . . '" (Against Heresies X.l)

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority . . . There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).

"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)

"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification . . . " (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

Clearly, since the scriptures do not teach a trinity of gods, they all erred.

 

[oatmeal]

Your comments were in direct response to my having stated that there was no such evidence.

I said that there is no evidence to suggest that anything had been added (at least in regard to the passage in question) and you didn't refute that, you simply added the affirmative claim that there was no evidence that things were no added, which is the text book definition of an argument from silence and which would tacitly concede the debate because you're basically saying that your position is based on that argument from silence.

Now, you show up to say, "Ph wait a minute! That's not what I meant!"

Well, whether it's what you meant or not, it is what you said. It is not a "strange interpretation", it's just what you said. I can only read what you type. I'm quite unable to read your mind.


Saying it doesn't make it so. I've posted an argument that no one on this thread had probably even read, never mind refuted or even responded to for that matter.

Based on the strength of that argument, I reitterate my previous statement that there is no reason to believe that Johannine Comma was added. There's no reason to believe it at all unless you need to believe it in order to maintain an a-priori rejection of the Trinity.

I stand by my statement that you quoted, for there is no scriptural evidence for a trinity of gods.

There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the God breathed word has been tampered with by trinitarian scribes and adherents.

Not only in I John 5 but in Matthew and and I Timothy 3:16

If you choose to ignore the evidence, that is your choice and your loss