• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Matthew Henry on 1 John 5:7

C

Conan

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
here again, like on the other thread on the Greek, you seem to think that what others post is wrong, and you are always right!

Yet again you are WRONG! Both Tertullian and Cyprian wrote in the Old Latin from, which Jerome revised for his Vulgate, or common language version, which indeed is different. This means, that both Tertullian and Cyprian, who read and wrote Greek, had this verse in their Greek and Latin First Epistle of John, over ONE HUNDERED YEARS EARLIER!

Tertullian

"Ita connexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit coharentes, alterum ex altere, qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus." (Against Praxeas XXV)

Tertullian uses John 10:30 with 1 John 5:7, which are on the essential unity of the Persons in the Godhead. Secondly, where, if not from 1 John 5:7, does Tertullian get the phrase, “qui tres unum sunt”? Thirdly, what does Tertullian mean with the phrase, “quomodo dictum est” (in the same manner which it was said)? And then quote from John 10:30? Fourthly, though, like Cyprian, Tertullian was of the Latin Church, yet we know that he “wrote particularly in Latin, but also in Greek. He also sometimes used a Latin Bible, sometimes a Greek, probably oftener the former than the latter. It is improbable that his Greek Bible was very different in text from the Greek text underlying his Latin Bible” (A Souter; The Text and canon of the New Testament, p.79). Frederic Kenyon adds, that Tertullian “seems often to have made his own translations from the Greek” (The Text of the Greek Bible, p.136)

Cyprian

“Dicit Dominus, ego et Pater unum sumus, et iterum de Patre, et Filio et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est, et tres unum sunt” (De Unitate Ecclesiae, Op.p.109)

“The Lord said, I and the Father are one, and again of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it is written: and these three are one”

The first quotation is from John 10:30, where our Lord is speaking of the essential unity of Himself and the Father. “I and the Father”, two Persons, which is further shown by the use of the masculine, plural “sumus” (lit. “We are”. It is then followed by the neuter “hen” (lit “one thing”; not the masculine “heis “ ”one person”).

Cyprian then goes on to say, “et iterum...scriptum est”, that is, “and again...it is written”. It must be mentioned here, that whenever Cyprian was referring to, or quoting from a Scripture passage. Where else, besides 1 John 5:7 in the entire Bible do words even similar to these appear?

Now tell me that they are not quoting from 1 John 5:7, in the THIRD century?
Click to expand...
I John 5:8. Also Cyprian wrote in Latin, NOT Greek. There is nothing preserved in Greek, he is only Latin. He is a Latin Church Father, and know that he wrote in Latin.
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Conan said:
I John 5:8. Also Cyprian wrote in Latin, NOT Greek. There is nothing preserved in Greek, he is only Latin. He is a Latin Church Father, and know that he wrote in Latin.
Click to expand...

maybe you can't read English!

THIS is what I wrote, "Both Tertullian and Cyprian wrote in the Old Latin from"

can you see that I have already said that "Tertullian and Cyprian WROTE in the Old Latin from"

BUT, both Tertullian and Cyprian were educated in GREEK. Tertullain translated the GREEK into Latin for himself. As Cyprian knew Greek, there can be no doubt that he had a Greek NT, as Tertullian did. Even the later Latin Church fathers, like Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine, knew Greek and used the Greek NT.

so what you say is nonsense!
 
The Archangel

The Archangel

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
here again, like on the other thread on the Greek, you seem to think that what others post is wrong, and you are always right!

Yet again you are WRONG! Both Tertullian and Cyprian wrote in the Old Latin from, which Jerome revised for his Vulgate, or common language version, which indeed is different. This means, that both Tertullian and Cyprian, who read and wrote Greek, had this verse in their Greek and Latin First Epistle of John, over ONE HUNDERED YEARS EARLIER!

Tertullian

"Ita connexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit coharentes, alterum ex altere, qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus." (Against Praxeas XXV)

Tertullian uses John 10:30 with 1 John 5:7, which are on the essential unity of the Persons in the Godhead. Secondly, where, if not from 1 John 5:7, does Tertullian get the phrase, “qui tres unum sunt”? Thirdly, what does Tertullian mean with the phrase, “quomodo dictum est” (in the same manner which it was said)? And then quote from John 10:30? Fourthly, though, like Cyprian, Tertullian was of the Latin Church, yet we know that he “wrote particularly in Latin, but also in Greek. He also sometimes used a Latin Bible, sometimes a Greek, probably oftener the former than the latter. It is improbable that his Greek Bible was very different in text from the Greek text underlying his Latin Bible” (A Souter; The Text and canon of the New Testament, p.79). Frederic Kenyon adds, that Tertullian “seems often to have made his own translations from the Greek” (The Text of the Greek Bible, p.136)

Cyprian

“Dicit Dominus, ego et Pater unum sumus, et iterum de Patre, et Filio et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est, et tres unum sunt” (De Unitate Ecclesiae, Op.p.109)

“The Lord said, I and the Father are one, and again of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it is written: and these three are one”

The first quotation is from John 10:30, where our Lord is speaking of the essential unity of Himself and the Father. “I and the Father”, two Persons, which is further shown by the use of the masculine, plural “sumus” (lit. “We are”. It is then followed by the neuter “hen” (lit “one thing”; not the masculine “heis “ ”one person”).

Cyprian then goes on to say, “et iterum...scriptum est”, that is, “and again...it is written”. It must be mentioned here, that whenever Cyprian was referring to, or quoting from a Scripture passage. Where else, besides 1 John 5:7 in the entire Bible do words even similar to these appear?

Now tell me that they are not quoting from 1 John 5:7, in the THIRD century?
Click to expand...

Of course they wrote in Latin. But the point I was making is that they--in their Latin translations--are not inspired or infallible. Whether the Greek texts they had use 1 John 5:7 or not is of really no matter since textual criticism is about finding the oldest text. Also, I might add, if you need 1 John 5:7 to argue for or prove the Trinity, then you've likely already lost the battle.

The Archangel
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
The Archangel said:
Of course they wrote in Latin. But the point I was making is that they--in their Latin translations--are not inspired or infallible. Whether the Greek texts they had use 1 John 5:7 or not is of really no matter since textual criticism is about finding the oldest text. Also, I might add, if you need 1 John 5:7 to argue for or prove the Trinity, then you've likely already lost the battle.

The Archangel
Click to expand...

and my point is, not that any translation is "Inspired", as the Original Autographs are, but at this early date, both Tertullian and Cyprian, who read Greek, and no doubt had the First Letter of John in Greek, actually quoted verse 7 as I have shown, which means that at this time the words were in the Greek Epistle. It is like quoting from the KJV, which is English, this does not make the translation unrealible

I am not using 1 John 5:7 to "prove" the Trinity, but showing that, like 1 Timothy 3:16, which is the clearest verse of Jesus Christ as the God-Man, has been corrupted, though in the Original Autographs.
 
The Archangel

The Archangel

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
and my point is, not that any translation is "Inspired", as the Original Autographs are, but at this early date, both Tertullian and Cyprian, who read Greek, and no doubt had the First Letter of John in Greek, actually quoted verse 7 as I have shown, which means that at this time the words were in the Greek Epistle. It is like quoting from the KJV, which is English, this does not make the translation unrealible

I am not using 1 John 5:7 to "prove" the Trinity, but showing that, like 1 Timothy 3:16, which is the clearest verse of Jesus Christ as the God-Man, has been corrupted, though in the Original Autographs.
Click to expand...

Your statements here are logically flawed. At one point you agree that the original manuscripts are inspired. Ok. Good. But then you talk about Tertullian and Cyprian citing 1 John 5:7 in opposition to the originals. Since, elsewhere, you seemed to argue that the older manuscripts don't have 1 John 5:7... I have to ask: which are you holding to as inspired? The originals or the copies of Cyprian and Tertullian. Your argument has thus far been that Cyprian and Tertullian have it right, but they are writing far after the originals were written. So do you trust the oldest manuscripts or only the ones that support your ideas?

The Archangel
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
The Archangel said:
Your statements here are logically flawed. At one point you agree that the original manuscripts are inspired. Ok. Good. But then you talk about Tertullian and Cyprian citing 1 John 5:7 in opposition to the originals. Since, elsewhere, you seemed to argue that the older manuscripts don't have 1 John 5:7... I have to ask: which are you holding to as inspired? The originals or the copies of Cyprian and Tertullian. Your argument has thus far been that Cyprian and Tertullian have it right, but they are writing far after the originals were written. So do you trust the oldest manuscripts or only the ones that support your ideas?

The Archangel
Click to expand...

I only believe that the Original Autographs of the 66 Books of the Holy Bible are θεόπνευστος. NO translation, not even the LXX, has any Divine Inspiration by the Holy Spirit.

What I am saying about Tertullain and Cyprian is this. They both read "οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν", in their Greek and Latin First Letter of John, from which they quote.

You say, "But then you talk about Tertullian and Cyprian citing 1 John 5:7 in opposition to the originals". WHAT ORIGINALS? We have ZERO riginals of ANY of the 66 Books of the Bible! ALL manuscripts are COPIES of COPIES. The OLDEST Greek manuscript for this verse in 1 John 5, is the FOURTH century Codex Siniaticus, which is over a HUNDRED years AFTER Tertullian and Cyprian!

The words in 1 John 5:7 are indeed not any any EXISTING Greek manuscript before the 14th or 15th century, but the fact that both Tertullian and Cyprian quote the words from the Greek, shows that it was in their time!
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
SavedByGrace said:
to me he is!
Click to expand...
Once in discussion with my 5 year old grandson, I realized he thought that what he thought was true, indicating his young mind had not yet developed the appreciation that our grasp of reality may be flawed.
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Van said:
Once in discussion with my 5 year old grandson, I realized he thought that what he thought was true, indicating his young mind had not yet developed the appreciation that our grasp of reality may be flawed.
Click to expand...

judging by what you post on here, you are mostly WRONG!
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
SavedByGrace said:
judging by what you post on here, you are mostly WRONG!
Click to expand...
Yet another taint so post, offering nothing concerning the thread topic as viewed by Dr. Wallace, a heavy weight scholar. Here is a snippet from the NET footnote on the topic:

This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence – both external and internal – is decidedly against its authenticity. ​
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Van said:
Yet another taint so post, offering nothing concerning the thread topic as viewed by Dr. Wallace, a heavy weight scholar. Here is a snippet from the NET footnote on the topic:

This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence – both external and internal – is decidedly against its authenticity. ​
Click to expand...

The Greek evidence shows beyond any doubt to anyone who knows Greek, that the words are part of the Original. So Wallace is WRONG!
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Conan said:
I John 5:8. Also Cyprian wrote in Latin, NOT Greek. There is nothing preserved in Greek, he is only Latin. He is a Latin Church Father, and know that he wrote in Latin.
Click to expand...
Again the onus is on those advocating the Kjvo position of that being the actual record of the Apostle John, as there is no textual evidence to support it was to be included in the Greek text except by Latin references, which were way after originally writing, and most troublesome is that not even Eramus could find support for that in his first 2 greek editions!
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
so the quotations from Tertullian and Cyprian, who both used the Greek and Latin New Testament, is nothing? They are far more important than any Greek manuscripts, which were copied by anyone who had the skill to copy!

As Dr Bruce Metzger says,

"Lucian influenced the form of the New Testament, and parts of the Old Testament which were used, and are still used, by millions who never heard of his name" (Chapters in the History of New Testament textual criticism, p.27)

And the textual scholar, Dr A Souter, on Lucian

"His recension of the New Testament spread from Antioch to Constantinople, and is probably the parent of the great bulk of our Greek MSS." (Dr A Souter; The Text and Canon of the New Testament, p.170)

Lucian was the teacher of the heretic Arius!

History informs us, that, in about the year A.D.331, the Emperor Constantine ordered fifty copies of the Scripture. Hitherto, Scripture was written in scroll form, but, at this time it was replaced by the codex (book form). We also know, that this task of copying from scroll to codex was undertaken by the efforts of one Acacius and Euzoius (about A.D.350), who were working in the library of Pamphilus, at Caesarea. It is almost certain, that the Codex Sinaiticus was one of these fifty Bible's that were copied by these two. (see, Sir Frederic Kenyon; Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp.41, 68; and, Dr Frederick Scrivener; A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, vol.II, p.268-270). Now, for those who known their early Church History, the names Acacius and Euzoius, are known for their stand against the truth of the Holy Trinity, they were both Arians, who went further than Ariusin their "theology"!

Like the Jehovah's Witnesses have tampered with the New Testament, and the Jews to parts of the Old Testament, there is no doubt that many places where the Deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Trinity, have been corrupted in the manuscript evidence.

These are FACTS!
Click to expand...
no support in the Greek, only in Latin references!
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
JesusFan said:
His credentials are well recognized and accepted as a textual expert though!
Click to expand...

then try to disprove what I have shown from the Greek grammar. Even Dr A T Roberston who was a far greater Greek scholar than Wallace, get things wrong! We are fallible humans after all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top