37818
Well-Known Member
As a matter of English grammar. And [in the Greek] as a matter of the Spirit's role as the Comforter, John 16:7-11.
-
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!
The Holy Trinity in 1 John 5:7
- Thread starter SavedByGrace
- Start date
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
really? and how do you know this?
Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD), says this:
". . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity?" (Fifth Orientation the Holy Spirit)
How much Greek grammar do you actually know?
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
He is nonetheless YHWH
37818
Well-Known Member
Oh yes, Isaiah 48:16.
37818
Well-Known Member
My interest in 1John 5:7-8 goes to my first study Bible, Scofield Reference Bible had this note: "It is generally agreed that v.7 has no real authority, and has been inserted."
That was for me my first Bible difficulty. This was in the late 60's. At the time I set the issue aside in my mind. Beginning in 1968 I found out only a few mss supported it. Was still not a settled matter in my mind.
That was for me my first Bible difficulty. This was in the late 60's. At the time I set the issue aside in my mind. Beginning in 1968 I found out only a few mss supported it. Was still not a settled matter in my mind.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
I really don't know why manuscript evidence is seen by some as more important than what the early Christains had in their Bibles? Both Tertullian and Cyprian, in the 3rd century quote from this verse as part of John's Epistle.
Council of Carthage, 484
And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will, he who is most clearly shown to be at work in all things and to bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot exist, for servitude is to be understood in what is created, but power and freedom in the Trinity. And so that we may teach the Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son still more clearly than the light, here is proof from the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: "There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." Surely he does not say "three separated by a difference in quality" or "divided by grades which differentiate, so that there is a great distance between them"? No, he says that the "three are one". But so that the single divinity which the Holy Spirit has with the Father and the Son might be demonstrated still more in the creation of all things, you have in the book of Job the Holy Spirit as a creator: "It is the divine Spirit"
I gave you the link to all of the Greek Manuscripts throught the ages. They do not carry the extra words from The Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. These were Greek scribes who spoke Greek, thought in Greek, and wrote in Greek. They did not have a problem with their language. They did not change their Greek manuscripts to correct their grammar here. Why is that? Do you think you know more Greek grammar than they? Why did they not change their grammar for you? Their witness is against you. That would be every single Greek scribe on this earth. Those very few greek manuscripts which contains the extra words were copied from the latin Vulgate into a Greek Bible.
Where did
This will not do at all. You got this from a KJVOnlyist site. You did not quote the Church Father from an edition. What edition? What book? What page number?
Here is a link to a translation from the New Advent (Catholic) website. This is from the “Fifth Oration, On the Holy Spirit” – rather than "Fifth Orientation.” (I think his Orations are supposed to be after circa AD 372, and of course before his death in AD 390.)
Fifth Theological Oration (Oration 31), Paragraph 19
An earlier possible mention, circa AD 250, is in Treatise 1, On the Unity of the Church by Cyprian of Carthage. He wrote, “He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathers elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. 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.” Cyprian also wrote, “If of the Holy Spirit; since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy either of the Son or of the Father?” This is in his Epistle 72 To Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics (circa 256). Though Cyprian references this part of John’s first epistle, it is not a verbatim quotation of it. Therefore it leaves his use of it somewhat inconclusive and open to debate. (However, Cyprian does say “it is written” in the treatise on the unity of the church – at least in the available English translation.)
The Johannine Comma is mentioned in Priscillian of Avila’s Liber Apologeticus (circa AD 380):
One English translation is:
Some things about this. Priscillian wrote in Latin rather than Greek. He clearly attributes it to John. There are some interesting differences as well.
Another early Christian writer who may have mentioned the “comma” is Athanasius in Disputatio contra Arium. Not conclusive, he mentions baptism in the Triune name and references John saying, “These three are one.”
I did not find an English translation online (at least not yet). Here is the Greek:
[01556] Τί δὲ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀφέσεως τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν παρεκτικὸν, καὶ ζωοποιὸν, καὶ ἁγιαστικὸν λουτρὸν, οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς ὄψεται τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, οὐκ ἐν τῇ τρισµακαρίᾳ ὀνοµασίᾳ δίδοται τοῖς πιστοῖς;
[01557] Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πᾶσιν Ἰωάννης φάσκει·
[01558] Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
If by Athanasius this is possibly circa AD 350, but if by Pseudo-Athanasius, perhaps 100 or 200 years later. Disputatio contra Arium is not classed among the works of Athanasius by Schaff.
I did not find an English translation online (at least not yet). Here is the Greek:
[01556] Τί δὲ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀφέσεως τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν παρεκτικὸν, καὶ ζωοποιὸν, καὶ ἁγιαστικὸν λουτρὸν, οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς ὄψεται τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, οὐκ ἐν τῇ τρισµακαρίᾳ ὀνοµασίᾳ δίδοται τοῖς πιστοῖς;
[01557] Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πᾶσιν Ἰωάννης φάσκει·
[01558] Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
If by Athanasius this is possibly circa AD 350, but if by Pseudo-Athanasius, perhaps 100 or 200 years later. Disputatio contra Arium is not classed among the works of Athanasius by Schaff.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
it is like discussing with a brick wall! until YOU know Greek grammar, there is no point. I personally KNOW Greek grammar, and know 100% that what I have written in the OP is 100% correct! Now YOU prove me wrong from your knowledge of the Greek
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Louis Gaussen, Theopneusty; or, The plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Dr Christopher Wordsworth, The New Testament in the Original Greek
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Thomas Middleton, The Doctrine of the Greek Article Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament
Gregory Nazianzus who was Greek quotes the Greek Bible against you. I realize you were mislead by KJVOnlyist. But you have given false testimony. Gregory quotes the Greek Bible as it is found in all of the Greek manuscripts, not like the KJV. You have given untrue witness. He is also talking about greek grammar not because of the extra words of the KJV of which Gregory was unaware and not discussing, but proving the Spirit is God and part of the trinity. You were wrong and misquoted him because you were mislead by KJVOnlys.
Gregorius Nazianzenus - De spiritu sancto [Schaff] [0329-0390] Full Text at Documenta Catholica Omnia
Page 324 section 19.
I proved you wrong from reading the words of Gregory. Even though you gave no reference so others could look it up for themselves. You misquoted Gregory. Look for yourself.
Gregorius Nazianzenus - De spiritu sancto [Schaff] [0329-0390] Full Text at Documenta Catholica Omnia
Page 324 section 19.
Exactly. Read the Gregory section for yourself. It says the exact opposite of what SavedByGrace said. Gregory quotes the section of first John like found in all Greek Bibles, not like the KJV. He is completely unaware of the extra words from the Latin Vulgate. Page 324 section 19. No Greek writer is aware of the extra words from the Latin Vulgate. This was a false attempt to try and act like a Greek Father was aware of the extra words from the Latin Bible.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
I was showing that even at the time of Gregory, there was a problem seen with the Greek grammar, NOT whether he knew or quoted the disputed words!
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
How about YOU proving the Greek I have discussed in the OP, to be wrong? No point to quoting from others, when you cannot respond yourself and show me to be wrong!
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Both Tertullian and Cyprian, read and wrote in Greek and Latin, and used the Greek New Testament, where Tertullian translated himself the Greek to Latin. Both refer to the words in 1 John 5:7, as I have shown in the OP, both show that this reading was in the GREEK in the 2nd century!
Still seems that the bulk of the external evidence would see that passage as not being found in the originals!