Heretick or Divisive?

[GrannyGumbo]

Why BrianT-ick...are you trying to tell me that fat ol'bug is what an MVer really looks like?

Wanna know what we do to "pests" down here in the land of 'gators, guns & grannys?

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
Wanna know what we do to "pests" down here in the land of 'gators, guns & grannys?

Make soup? With possum pie for dessert?

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Thank you Hank for acknowledging that you also believe 1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture and not just a "later addition" to the text.
Will [/QB]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Settled quips:
which only goes to show that KJBO believes that the Minority Text cld be right at times, esp when it's in agreement w the KJB.
see? ANYTHING's possible--if it agrees w the prejudged conclusion!
---------------------------------------------------------------

The only prejudged conclusion I have is that God promised to preserve His inerrant, complete words and God does not lie. Therefore I conclude He must have done this. I examine the existing evidence and come to the sound conclusion that the King James Holy Bible is that preserved word of God.

It is more than a little silly of you to say what you do here. Are you a "Majority man"?No, you don't even know what the Majority readings are. Are you a "minority reading" man? If you prefer the Westcott-Hort based nasb, esv, niv, etc., then you are. Are you a
Whateverist according to your own preferences and understanding who has no infallible, inerrant, inspired and complete words of God? Yes.

Do you believe that no text and no Bible version is totally without error? Yes. You do not believe an inspired, totally accurate and complete Bible exists today.

And then you get upset because there are still some thousands of us around who do believe God did what He said He would do, and hold to the historic position that we have an inspired, inerrant Bible.


To use a couple of trite metaphors, all I hear from you are Sour grapes and comments from the peanut gallery.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Comments on 1 John 5:7

200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
---------------------------------------------------------------

Archy posts:
Here's the actual quote:
"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, “I and my Father are One,” in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number." (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 25.1)


We can see that Tertullian describes the triune nature of God in this passage and clearly quotes Jn. 10:30, but it's not at all obvious that he's quoting the Comma.
Tertullian's alleged citation must be set aside because of its extremely high degree of uncertainty.

Archy, I can see your point here with Tertullian, but even you admit it is not obvious that he is quoting the Comma (1 John 5:7) but the phrase "these three are one" does come from it. Debatable. I will give you this, but I think you really blow it in the next section.

You continue regarding Cyprian:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "it is written, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he get it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, the alleged Cyprian citation is from On the Unity of the Catholic Church 6, and not from the works you cite. Secondly, Cyprian's alleged citation of the Comma is also uncertain because it's not at all clear whether the words he's actually quoting from 1 John are from the disputed Comma or from the undisputed sentence next to it."

Archy, I have heard this argument before. It seem you guys are so prejudiced that you can't even read plain sentences. Notice exactly what he says: "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One"

Arch, it is so obvious. He is not saying "of the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one" - that is the second part of the verse. Just LOOK at what he says!

Will

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Archy posts; And Mr. Maynard is mistaken, because even though Gregory notes an inconsistency in the Greek grammar, he does not object to either the verse as it stands without the Comma or to its theological significance. Even more telling, Gregory does not quote the Comma itself -- which he surely would have done had he known it because it would have proven *exactly* what he was attempting to prove, namely, the unity and consubstantiality of the Trinity. "

Archy, Gregory Nazianzus says in Oration 39 "There is then One God in Three, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE - as we have said."

The only place where "and these three are one" can be found in the N.T. is 1 John 5:7.

Will

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Tim says: I believe Paul did'nt know that what he was writing was going to be called scripture someday. Look at the book of Philemon. It's just a letter from a friend to a friend. But God chose to inspire Paul to write it, Even though Paul didn't know what God had up his sleave that day."


I agree.

You continue:
I know this could open a can of worms, because someone can say the KJV translators were inspired to correctly translate w/o them knowing it. But no where does the Bible say that translators were inspired. But it does say the authors were."

I don't think the Bible says the authors were inspired, but rather it is God's words that are inspired. Inspiration does not cease with the originals being lost. Christ says "My words are spirit and they are life". If we have His true words they are still alive. The word of God liveth and abideth forever.

Will

 

[Orvie]

willie, still not sure how you can make your claim of inerrancy and preservation for the kjv. To take your conclusion logically, it still fails in 1610, and it effectually adds to God's Word because if what you claim is true for the kjv, then God is inconsistent, because He did not do the same with every other language. I read somewhere how you said rightfully about God's preservation of the OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek, and that His preservation of the whole Word today is in the English of the kjv?

I believe that you actually believe not in preservation of God's Word, but that it is "pickled" in the kjv.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

As this thread has reached 12 pages, it will be closed around 9:00 P.M. EST this evening. You have until then to wrap it up.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

Comments on 1 John 5:7

200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
---------------------------------------------------------------

Archy posts:
Here's the actual quote:
"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, “I and my Father are One,” in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number." (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 25.1)

We can see that Tertullian describes the triune nature of God in this passage and clearly quotes Jn. 10:30, but it's not at all obvious that he's quoting the Comma. Tertullian's alleged citation must be set aside because of its extremely high degree of uncertainty.

Archy, I can see your point here with Tertullian, but even you admit it is not obvious that he is quoting the Comma (1 John 5:7) but the phrase "these three are one" does come from it. Debatable. I will give you this, but I think you really blow it in the next section.

Actually, the phrases "the three are one" and "these three are one" are natural and normal expressions which would be used to describe the unity of three things. Chrysostom used such a phrase to describe the unity of a man, woman, and child:

"Behold again a third ground of obligation; for he shows that a man leaving them that begat him, and from whom he was born, is knit to his wife; and that then the one flesh is, father, and mother, and the child, from the substance of the two commingled. For indeed by the commingling of their seeds is the child produced, so that THE THREE ARE ONE flesh." (Chrysostom, Homily 20 on Ephesians).

Was Chrysostom quoting the Comma here? I don't think so.

You continue regarding Cyprian:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "it is written, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he get it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, the alleged Cyprian citation is from On the Unity of the Catholic Church 6, and not from the works you cite. Secondly, Cyprian's alleged citation of the Comma is also uncertain because it's not at all clear whether the words he's actually quoting from 1 John are from the disputed Comma or from the undisputed sentence next to it."

Archy, I have heard this argument before. It seem you guys are so prejudiced that you can't even read plain sentences. Notice exactly what he says: "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One"

Arch, it is so obvious. He is not saying "of the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one" - that is the second part of the verse. Just LOOK at what he says!

Sorry, but it's not at all obvious. I'm looking at what Cyprian says, and more importantly, what he *doesn't* say. Cyprian is giving a Trinitarian interpretation to 1 Jn. 5:8, and in the way he has structured his sentence he distinguishes his own interpretive comment from the part he is actually citing from Scripture. He does not say, "It is written, [OPEN QUOTATION]: 'the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: and the three are one.'"[CLOSE QUOTATION]. Instead, he says "of (i.e., "about, concerning," in his opinion) the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit it is written, [OPEN QUOTATION] 'And the three are one'" [CLOSE QUOTATION]. The formula "it is written" introduces the actual quotation from 1 Jn. 5:8; what precedes are Cyprian's own remarks. Elsewhere in his writings Cyprian does the same thing -- he sets off the actual words of Scripture with the formula "it is written," but prefaces the quotation with a comment of his own which gives his interpretation of what the verse is about. In one instance his introductory comment gives Jesus' words in Jn. 3:5 a baptismal interpetation even though there is nothing in the Biblical text explicitly mentioning water baptism:

'And therefore it behoves those to be baptized who come from heresy to the Church, that so they who are prepared, in the lawful, and true, and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”' (Epistle 72.21)

In another instance Cyprian understands Song of Sol. 5:2 as referring to the Christian Church even though the Biblical passage is from a Hebrew love poem which says absolutely nothing explicit about the Christian Church:

'...the Christian, even though he is asleep with his eyes, ought to be awake with his heart, as it is written in the person of the Church speaking in the Song of Songs,” I sleep, yet my heart waketh.”' (On The Lord's Prayer 31)

Given that Cyprian clearly adds such interpretive comments elsewhere, it's simple to see how he could have taken John's words about the "Spirit, the water, and the blood" and given them a Trinitarian "spin" in a passage where he holds up the unity of the Godhead as an example for the unity of the Church.

Bottom line: it's not at all clear that Cyprian is quoting the Comma.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

Archy posts; And Mr. Maynard is mistaken, because even though Gregory notes an inconsistency in the Greek grammar, he does not object to either the verse as it stands without the Comma or to its theological significance. Even more telling, Gregory does not quote the Comma itself -- which he surely would have done had he known it because it would have proven *exactly* what he was attempting to prove, namely, the unity and consubstantiality of the Trinity. "

Archy, Gregory Nazianzus says in Oration 39 "There is then One God in Three, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE - as we have said."

The only place where "and these three are one" can be found in the N.T. is 1 John 5:7.

Think this through, Will. Given that there are only so many ways of describing the Trinity, then in the absence of any clear indications that Gregory was quoting 1 John, the mere usage of the phrase "these three are one" can hardly be taken as a clear citation of the Comma. Earlier in the same work Gregory writes: "For the Godhead is one in three, and THE THREE ARE ONE, in whom the Godhead is, or to speak more accurately, Who are the Godhead." (Oration 39.11). Is this a quotation of the Comma as well? Or this? -- "THE THREE ARE ONE in Godhead, and the One Three in properties; so that neither is the Unity a Sabellian one, nor does the Trinity countenance the present evil distinction." (Oration 5.9). Or this? -- "And I say different Elements, because it is the reverse of what is the case in the Trinity; for There we acknowledge different Persons so as not to confound the persons; but not different Elements, for THE THREE ARE ONE and the same in Godhead" (Letter to Cledonius). Are these all quotations of the Comma? Or are they just standard descriptions of the Trinity?

Bottom line: Gregory's statement is as much a clear quotation of the Comma as "Mary had a little lamb / its fleece was white as snow" is a clear quotation of Rev. 1:14.