Early support for 1 John 5:7?

Scott J

You have danced around the issue but never really dealt with it from an objective perspective. The weight of the evidence is heavily against the Comma. You have pretty much exhausted what little support there is... but there is hundreds of times more that could be cited against it

PLEASE DEAL WITH THE INTERNAL GRAMMAR, IF YOU CAN!!!

 

I would actually like to see the words in a Bible that might have been available to them when they wrote their works.

That's a joke. I have acknowledged that there is a small amount of evidence for the Comma. Weak, but none the less existant.

It is you that ignore the mountain of evidence against it... like almost all of the Greek mss and its absence from early church controversies over the Trinity.

If original, it is inconceivable that it would not have been cited to support the Trinity in the early church.

The best you could do is show that "something" should be there. However, I have seen others refute your argument on this.

Why haven't you answered the absence of this reading in support of the Trinity? Why have you not dealt with the absence of this text from the overwhelming majority of the mss evidence for the Bible?

 

Scott J

The best you could do is show that "something" should be there. However, I have seen others refute your argument on this

Show me where this has been refuted, and by whom. And I say that it cannot be!

 

Scott J

Why haven't you answered the absence of this reading in support of the Trinity? Why have you not dealt with the absence of this text from the overwhelming majority of the mss evidence for the Bible?

Because the manuscripts were tampered with by the heretics!

 

Is that "first hand" or conjecture?

BTW, they did an amazing job. The scripture spread quickly during the first two centuries and you would have us believe that the heretics found and destroyed every copy of I John that contained the wording. Talk about unfounded conjecture...

 

Why didn't the early trinitarians use this passage?

 

icthus said:

There you have the facts!

I know who the Cappadocian fathers were. But thank you for assuming I'm a boob.

 

icthus said, quoting Schaff:

Hilary of Poietiers believed that the Spirit, who searches the deep things of God, must be divine, but could find no Scripture passage in which he is called God

Thank you for proving my point for me. The Cappadocians believed the Holy Spirit was divine even if they could not find Scripture that said so unequivocally, and it was them who developed the terminology we use to speak of the nature and relationship of the persons of the Trinity.

 

Icthus,

There is absolutely nothing in this smoke screen full of nonsense that addresses the proof that I posted that the Johannine Coma is not a part of the original text of John. The evidence is conclusive—the Johannine Coma is a scribal gloss, and if you like I can even post the name of scribe that the evidences points to.

 

And Philip Schaff is wrong. Perhaps he lacked the historical documents or he poorly researched this. It is always better to go to the primary source rather than another source which gives false info. All three are considered to be Defenders of the Trinity. To deny this is like saying George Washington fought for the British or Sherman fought for the Confederacy.

Here is Basil the Great own words in Defense of the Deity of the Holy Spirit
http://www.monachos.net/patristics/basil/on_holy_spirit_b.shtml


Gregory of Nazianzen own words in his Defense of the Deity of the Holy Spirit
http://www.piney.com/HsNanzianzen.html

and a short bio on Gregory
http://satucket.com/lectionary/Gregory_Nazianzus.htm

Hilary of Poitiers Bio and info
http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/JEK/01/13.html

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/hilary.html

http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/HILARY.HTM

 

More,

" But we have so much confidence in the Deity of the Spirit Whom we adore, 5 that we will begin our teaching concerning His Godhead by fitting to Him the Names which belong to the Trinity, even though some persons may think us too bold.

The Father was the True Light which lighteneth every man coming into the world. The Son was the True Light which lighteneth every man coming into the world. The Other Comforter was the True Light which lighteneth every man coming into the world. 6 Was and Was and Was, but Was One Thing. Light thrice repeated; but One Light and One God. This was what David represented to himself long before when he said.

In Thy Light shall we see Light. 7 And now we have both seen and proclaim concisely and simply the doctrine 8 of God the Trinity, comprehending out of Light (the Father), Light (the Son), in Light (the Holy Ghost). He that rejects it, let him reject it; 9 and he that doeth iniquity, let him do iniquity; we proclaim that which we have understood. We will get us up into a high mountain, 10 and will shout, if we be not heard, below; we will exalt the Spirit; we will not be afraid; or if we are afraid, it shall be of keeping silence, not of proclaiming."( Gregory Nazianzen On The Holy Spirit)


"Concerning the Holy Spirit I ought not to be silent, and yet I have no need to speak; still, for the sake of those who are in ignorance, I cannot refrain. There is no need to speak, because we are bound to confess Him, proceeding, as He does, from Father and Son." Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 2:29 (A.D. 357).

"For the present I forbear to expose their license of speculation, some of them holding that the Paraclete Spirit comes from the Father or from the Son. For our Lord has not left this in uncertainty, for after these same words He spoke thus,-- 'I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He shall guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak from Himself: but what things soever He shall hear, these shall He speak; and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine and stroll declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you' (John 16:12-15). Accordingly He receives from the Son, Who is both sent by Him, and proceeds from the Father. Now I ask whether to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father. But if one believes that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, surely to receive from the Son and to receive from the Father will be regarded as one and the same thing." Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 8:20 (A.D. 357).

"One, moreover, is the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the one Son, and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity." Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 18:45 (A.D. 375).

"One, moreover, is the Holy Spirit and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity." Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 18:45 (A.D. 375).

"Thus the way of the knowledge of God lies from One Spirit through the One Son to the One Father, and conversely the natural Goodness and the inherent Holiness and the royal Dignity extend from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit. Thus there is both acknowledgment of the hypostases and the true dogma of the Monarchy is not lost." Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 18:47 (A.D. 375).

 

icthus wrote:

Wrong! There is no participle, masculine or otherwise, in 1 John 5:8. The participle of which you speak is found in verse 7, just as it should be.

No it’s not! You don’t even have the participle in the right verse!

In verse six, the participle is nominative singular neuter because it is modifying the nominative singular neuter noun translated “spirit.”

Participles don’t “support” nouns—they modify them as verbal adjectives. But I suppose your real question is ‘why are three neuter nouns modified by a masculine participle?’ The answer is subject to debate. I believe that John may have been personalizing the three witnesses, adding to their authority. However, whatever may have been John’s purpose, those who believe that the Comma is genuine are faced with the same difficulty because “these three” still have the same three antecedents, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood.

This is absolutely false. The antecedents are the Spirit, and the water, and the blood—and anyone who taken even one semester of college Greek knows this to be an incontrovertible fact.

This is nothing but gobbly goop! The Greek masculine participle oi marturountes agrees with the Greek masculine adjective treis in lending an element of personification to the three witnesses—the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. And oi marturountes is not a clause—it is a phrase, and in New Testament Greek this is a VERY important distinction. Furthermore, this phrase does NOT introduce verse 8 if the Comma is inserted in vv. 7-8, but it DOES introduce verse 8 if the Comma is recognized to be a scribal gloss and removed from the text as it obviously should be.


Dear brother, this is a Christian message board and we are debating the Holy Scriptures. PLEASE be more careful when posting regarding them.

 

icthus wrote,

It appears to me that this is the very thing that you are guilty of. You totally ignore the real evidence, and post nonsense!

 

Craig, instead of coming on here and making a fool of yourself, you should get your facts right in the first place, and then come back to put me right! Maybe, before you start to give Greek grammar lessons, you should take some in the first place, as your arguments are nonsense!

Firstly, you say: "Wrong! There is no participle, masculine or otherwise, in 1 John 5:8. The participle of which you speak is found in verse 7, just as it should be"

First mistake! There is a participle in verse eight, which you choose not to see! What then is "oi marturountes" (who bear witness), if this is not in verse eight? You yourself admit to this towards the end of your note, "The Greek masculine participle oi marturountes agrees with the Greek"! Can you at least KNOW what you are talking about, BEFORE making stupid assertions! By the way, the participle is in the right place, for your information!

You say that the masculine is used because of "Personification". Again, do you know the meaning of this word, or just us it because it is used by some who simply cannot honestly answer the plain fact that they are wrong? To "personify", is "to represent an abstract quality as a human being". Do you know what this means? It means that John was "treating the Holy Spirit as though He were a Person"!!! Do you get it? This is complete nonsense, as the Holy Spirit IS a Person, and not to be "regarded" as One! Again, your "facts" are flawed!

Let me give you the low down on the Greek grammar, if you would but listen

If you understand Greek grammar, as you claim to, then you should know that there is something known as "agreemtnt of gender"? In verse six, when dealing with the same nouns as in verse eight, "Spirit, water and blood", John speaks of the "witness of the Holy Spirit". But, note here, that he says: "to pneuma estin to marturoun", which agrees with the gender of the nouns, all in the neuter. This is in accordance with the rules of Greek grammar. Now, when dealing with the same nouns in verse eight, all again in the neuter gender, he would have written: "tria eisi ta marturounta", which is in the neuter gender! He would not have changed to the masculine gender in verse eight, for the sake of Personification, as you put it, as he has already mentioned the Holy Spirit in verse six, where he was content in keeping the language in the neuter! Facts are facts!

You can argue all you like, but the truth of the matter is very simple. Without the masculine nouns "Pater and Logos" in verse seven, there is not a reason in all the world why John would have used the masculine participle in verse eight! Even some who object to the genuineness of verse seven because of the manuscript evidence, admit that the Greek grammar does indeed cause a problem!

On word on the use of the definite article in verse eight "to hen" The Greek scholar who was and remains foremost on Greek grammar, espacially on the use of the Greek article in the New Testament, Bishop Thomas Middleton, says that the use of the article in verse eight must necessarily refer to the use of "hen" in verse seven. And that either both verses are accepted together, or rejected together (see, The Doctrine of the Greek Article, pp.633-653) Or, do you put yourself as a greater Greek authority than Bishop Middleton? It is interesting to see that Dr Daniel Wallace, who is a Greek scholar, has not put out an article to refute the internal evidence of this passage, but instead chose to write one on the testimony of Cyprian, which is incorrect!

As I have said more than once. The Greek grammar of the passage alone will destroy any attempt to rid the passage of verse seven. At least to the honest mind

 

icthus,

Nonsense, utter nonsense!!!

1 John 5:7
hoti = conjunction
treis = adjective, nominative plural masculine
eisin = verb, 3rd person present active indicative plural
hoi = article, nominative plural masculine
marturountes = present active participle, nominative plural masculine

1 John 5:8
to = article, nominative singular neuter
pneuma = noun, nominative singular neuter
kai = conjunction
to = article, nominative singular neuter
hudor = noun, nominative singular neuter
kai = conjunction
to = article, nominative singular neuter
haima = noun, nominative singular neuter
kai = conjunction
hoi = article, nominative plural masculine
treis = adjective, nominative plural masculine
eis = preposition
to = article, accusative singular neuter
hen = adjective, accusative singular neuter
eisin = verb, 3rd person present active indicative plural

Do you think that it is just a coincidence that virtually every New Testament scholar in the entire world believes that the Johannine Comma is a scribal gloss? My suggestions to you:

• Learn how to read Greek and study at least the basics of Greek grammar
• Spend a few hours studying the literature on the Johannine Comma

 

icthus wrote,

Of course he has not put out such an article. As I have demonstrated, there is no internal evidence to refute—nothing at all but a woeful ignorance of the Greek text and the grammatical issues involved.

 

You again prove your ignorance to the facts. To many and millions out there who accept the KJV and NKJV, we accept BOTH VERSES as being part of the original epistle. In this case, if you would open your eyes, the participle, "marturountes" in in BOTH VERSES!!!. Even if we were to accept the shorter reading with verse seven and part of verse eight removed, then why is "treis eisin hoi marturountes" in the masculine gender, where the "rule" in Greek grammar demands that there be an "agreement" in the grammar. But, of course you wilfully do not see this. You have still not shown, why John would deal with the same neuter nouns in verse six, and use the participle in the neuter as well, even though he mentions the Holy Spirit as a Person, and yet, when he comes to verse eight, he finds that he needs to "personify" the "Spirit, water and blood". For what reason? Is this the best that you can do, because it is complete nonsense, and you really must know this!

I want you to deal with the use of the masculine participle in verse eight, when it is used with neuter nouns. I suppose in your own mind, the common rules of Greek grammar were here stepped aside for no reason whatsoever! Please lets deal with facts, and not a hot head!

 

So, as I said, you think yourself a better Greek scholar that Bishop Middleton, who, though did not accept the passage because of the lack of external evidence, yet was honest enough to admit that the internal Greek grammar causes a problem without the words being restored!