951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


The Story Behind 1 John 5.7

  

How the Most Trinitarian Verse in the Bible
Proves that the Bible Does Not Support the Trinity

The most Trinitarian verse in the Bible is found in 1 John 5.7 where the text reads “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.”1 Recently in conversation with an acquaintance, I was challenged to accept the doctrine of the Trinity on the basis of this text. However, this scripture is fraught with difficulties and its history is long and dubious, involving both Greek and Latin manuscripts. Before turning to examine the Latin and Greek histories, I will begin by comparing two of the best known and most influential translations in English and German to more recent ones so as to demonstrate the exact difference between them. The words in bold below are known as the Comma Johanneum (henceforth Comma).

King James Version (1611) English Standard Version (2008)
7 For there are three that beare record in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that beare witnesse in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
Luther’s Translation (1545) Schlachter Version (1951)
7 Denn drei sind, die da zeugen im Himmel: der Vater, das Wort und der Heilige Geist; und diese drei sind eins. 8 Und drei sind, die da zeugen auf Erden: der Geist und das Wasser und das Blut; und die drei sind beisammen. 8 Denn drei sind es, die bezeugen: der Geist und das Wasser und das Blut, und die drei sind einig.

It is hard to estimate how much these two versions, the King James Version (KJV) and Luther’s Bible, have influenced untold multitudes of Christians for centuries. How many countless teachers have pointed to this text to explain the doctrine of the Trinity over the years? How often was it used to silence those who doubted the beloved dogma when they encountered the plethora of monotheistic statements in Scripture? Although these words have cast a great shadow, virtually all modern versions have either deleted them altogether or else relegated them to the footnotes. This is particularly remarkable because almost all translations are completed by scholars who affirm the Trinity. For example, Trinitarian apologist and debater, James White, writes, “Anyone who defends the insertion of the Comma is, to me, outside the realm of meaningful scholarship…”2 One might ask, “How did we get from the two most influential versions in German and English to where we are today?” To put the question this way is to subtly miss the facts of the matter. The question does not concern how and why it was deleted, but rather how and why it was inserted in the first place, and this will be my angle of pursuit in what follows. In order to tackle this question I now turn to examine some of its Latin history.

Latin History

Latin was the legal language of the Roman Empire and eventually became the ecclesiastical language of the Roman Catholic Church. Since most inhabitants of the Roman empire spoke Greek in the first century, and Christianity was an intensely evangelistic movement from the start, the New Testament (NT) was penned in common Greek. Over time, however, the empire came to be increasingly divided between east and west. Once Constantinople was no longer able to retain political control over the west, Latin came to gain more and more popularity there, while Greek continued to flourish in the east. Eventually the catholic (i.e. universal) church became the Roman Catholic Church (in the west) and the Orthodox Church (in the east) until at last Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453. So, although early Christian literature is almost entirely in Greek, Latin came to dominate ecclesiastical matters in Europe. As we will see, this shift from Greek to Latin played a crucial role in the story of the Comma Johanneum. Below I have listed three Latin versions from youngest to oldest:

Nova Vulgata (1986)
Quia tres sunt, qui testificantur: Spiritus et aqua et sanguis; et hi tres in unum sunt. For there are three who testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three are in agreement.
Clementine Vulgate (1589)
Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt. Indeed there are three who give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three who give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.
Stuttgart Vulgate (1983, reconstruction from earliest manuscripts)
quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt For there are three who give testimony: the Spirit and the water and the blood and the three are one.

The Nova Vulgata is a recent version of the Vulgate that is printed and endorsed by See of Rome for use in the Roman rite. This twentieth century text does not include the Comma. However, as we move back to a massively-influential earlier version, the Clementine Vulgate, we observe that the Comma was included. However, if we move still earlier to Jerome’s Vulgate3 (as near as modern critical scholars can get to the 405 edition) the Comma is once again nowhere to be found. This is certainly a strange pattern, but one that makes sense on inspection. The earliest and best manuscripts of the Latin Bible did not contain the Comma. At some point in time the added words crept into a manuscript, which was then used to make new copies. Eventually this variant gained more and more popularity until it became the majority reading. By 1589 the Comma was officially recognized as Scripture by Rome’s choice to include it in the Clementine Vulgate. Centuries later, as the field of textual criticism developed along with archeology and paleography, it became clear that the Comma was not in the original Vulgate so it was taken out. Even though Jerome (347-420) did not include the Comma in his work, it is likely that there was at least one manuscript already floating around by the end of the fourth century since a bishop named Priscillian quoted it.

Priscillian (d. 385) served as the bishop of Ávila in Roman Gallaecia (Spain). He was the first Christian legally executed for heresy. Sulpicius Severus called him, “instructed, a man of noble birth, of great riches, bold, restless, eloquent, learned through much reading, very ready at debate and discussion.”4 He practiced extreme asceticism and drew a large following. In his Liber Apologeticus Priscillian writes the following:

Sicut Iohannes ait: tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra aqua caro et sanguis et haec tria in unum sunt, et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo pater uervum et spiritus et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.5

Thus John says: there are three which declare witness on earth, the water, the flesh, and the blood and these three are one, and there are three which declare witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit and these three are one in Christ Jesus.

According to Bruce Metzger, this is “the earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle.”6 Even though it is undoubtedly a direct quotation, there are significant differences between Priscillian’s version and that preserved in the later Latin manuscripts. For example the Clementine Vulgate names the heavenly witnesses before the earthly ones whereas Priscillian does the opposite. Furthermore Prsicillian’s earthly triplet is different (i.e. “the water, the flesh, and the blood” instead of “the Spirit, and the water, and the blood”). These divergences indicate an unstable text that only became fixed later on. Still, the evidence from Priscillian clearly reveals that at least one Latin manuscript existed no later than 385 containing an early version of the Comma.

Defenders of the Comma often point to the Latin Father Cyprian (d. 258), the bishop of Carthage, who wrote a treatise defending the Trinity in the mid third century. In his treatise On the Unity of the Church, a little after his famed statement that no one can “have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother” he goes on to say:

Dicit Dominus: Ego et Pater unum sumus. Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: Et hi tres unum sunt (Liber de unitate ecclesiae 6)7

“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.’”(On the Unity of the Church 6)8

Did Cyprian have a Latin manuscript that contained the Comma? In order to answer this question we must make a clear distinction between a quotation and an interpretation. The former would indicate that at least one third century manuscript contained the Comma whereas the latter would simply show that at least one third century Christian understood 1 John 5.7-8 (without the Comma) as speaking about the Trinity. There are two reasons why this is not a quotation. Firstly, Cyrpian’s own wording precludes the possibility since he writes “de Patre et Filio et Spiritus sancto” or “concerning (the) Father and (the) Son and (the) Holy Spirit.” The little word de, translated “of,” “concerning,” or “about,” does not necessitate that the text actually mentioned them, rather it merely means that Cyprian thought the text concerned them. Of course, I am not saying that this alone is evidence that the text did not mention them, but I am saying that this cannot be used to prove that his Bible actually did include the Comma. An analogy would be the statement, “There is a passage about the Father speaking to the Son and the Holy Spirit saying ‘Let us make man.’” Of course, Genesis does not actually say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit anywhere, but this does not stop theologians from interpreting it thus. The second reason why this is definitely not a quotation from some lost Latin manuscript is that the Comma reads “Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus” or “(the) Father, (the) Word, and (the) Holy Spirit” whereas Cyprian writes “de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto” or “about (the) Father and (the) Son and (the) Holy Spirit.” Of course switching out Son for Word is a subtle change but it is enough to indicate that this is not a direct quotation.

Even if Cyprian did not quote the later version of 1 John 5.7-8 he did read the earlier version in a Trinitarian sense. He understood the Spirit, the water, and the blood to be referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Daniel Wallace, himself a Trinitarian, writes, “Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5.7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely.”9 From all of this, we can merely conclude that at least one third century Christian read 1 John 5.7-8 in a Trinitarian sense even though the Comma was omitted from the text he had.

Before turning to examine the Greek history of the Comma we must look to Tertullian (160-220), the father of Latin Christianity, who some allege quoted it. Like Cyprian, Tertullian also lived in Carthage and wrote about the Trinity. In his work, Against Praxeas, he writes:

Ita connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohaerentes, alterum ex altero, qui tres unum sint, non unus. Quo modo dictum est: Ego et Pater unum sumus; ad substantiae unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem.10

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.11

As with Cyprian’s reference, we once again need to establish whether or not Tertullian was actually quoting a Latin manuscript with the Comma. The Latin phrase corresponding to the English translation “These three are one essence, not one Person” is “qui tres unum sint, non unus” or, more literally, “which three are one (neuter), not one (masculine).” Recalling that the Clementine Vulgate and Priscillian both had “hi tres unum sunt” (these three are one), an immediate difference can be observed. Secondly, Tertullian did not preface this phrase with a quotation formula whereas his mention of John 10.30 in the very next sentences is preceded by the words “quo modo dictum est” (by which manner it is said). Thirdly, the statement “three are one” is so short and uses such simple vocabulary that we cannot safely say Tertullian depended on 1 John 5.7 to formulate it. (We could probably find many pagan authors who employ this precise phrase as well, but they are not quoting the Bible.) Any one of these three arguments, if take alone, may not suffice to disprove that Tertullian quoted the Comma, but taken together they virtually exclude such a possibility. Thus, we are left with the first evidence of the Comma in a Latin manuscript dating to some time prior to 385.

Metzger suggests someone interpreted the original 1 John 5.7-8 in a Trinitarian way and wrote the Comma in the margin as an explanatory note, which then was copied into the main body of 1 John by a later scribe. He further notes that the text began to be quoted in earnest in the fifth century in North Africa and Italy (Latin speaking areas), and “from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate.”12 In contrast, John Painter suggests “the evidence indicates that the pressures of the Trinitarian controversy, especially in North Africa, led to the addition of the Johannine Comma.”13 Considering the intensity with which Nicene an Arian Christians competed for theological supremacy in the fourth century, it is not at all implausible to think someone concocted the Comma and inserted it to give the Bible an explicit Trinitarian proof- text. Still, if Painter’s idea is correct, it is remarkable that the Comma was limited only to the Latin speaking world whereas the Greek Christians completely ignored it. From the present data, I find it difficult to decide whether the Comma came into this fourth century manuscript by accident and was slowly reproduced (Metzger) or it was a theologically motivated insertion to combat Arianism (Painter).

Read part two here.


Footnotes:
1 New King James Version (NKJV), translated in 1982 by Thomas Nelson.

2 James White, Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog, http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1275 (accessed on 25 May 2011).

3 Damasus I, bishop of Rome, commissioned Jerome to revise the old Latin translations in the late fourth century.

4 Sulpicius Severus, The Sacred History, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Alexander Roberts, vol. 11 (2.46) of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, c. 1900), p. 119.

5 Priscillian, Priscilliani que supersunt in CSEL, vol 18., ed. Georgius Schepss (Vienna: Bibliopola Academiae Literarum Caesareae Vindobonensis 1889), p. 6. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/40048421/CSEL-XVIII)

6 Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002), p. 648.

7 Cyprianus Carthaginensis, Liber de unitate ecclesiae in Patrologia Latina, vol. 4, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne (Paris: Excudebat Sirou, in via Dicta D’Amboise, Pres la Barriere D’Enfer, ou Petit-Montrouge 1844), col. 503A-504A.

8 Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, trans. Ernest Wallis, vol. 5 (1.6) of Ante-Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1896), p. 423.

9 Daniel B. Wallace, The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian (published on bible.org in 2004, http://bible.org/article/Comma-johanneum-and-cyprian), p. 2.

10 Quinti Septimii Florentis Tertulliani, Adversus Praxeam in Patrologia Latina, vol. 2, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne (Paris: Excudebat Sirou, in via Dicta D’Amboise, Pres la Barriere D’Enfer, ou Petit-Montrouge 1844), col. 188A.

11 Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ed. Alan Menzies, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3 (25) of Ante-Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1896), p. 621.

12 Metzger, p. 648.

13 John Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, vol. 18 in Sacra pagina series (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press 2002), p. 308.

133 Responses to “The Story Behind 1 John 5.7”

  1. on 08 Jun 2011 at 11:25 amTim

    I’ve never understood how “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one” supports the trinity. It does not say “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”, or “the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.”

    Has not “the Word” borne witness from the beginning? Has not “the Holy Spirit” borne witness from the beginning?

    It also says nothing about what one-ness means.

    I have always thought that this and John 1:1 do not support the trinity at all, but in fact the opposite.

  2. on 08 Jun 2011 at 5:02 pmXavier

    “The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in any passage of the Bible…except in 1Jn 5.7-8…that’s a pretty explicit statement about the Trinity…[this passage] does not show up in the Greek manuscripts of 1Jn, its in the Latin manuscripts…” Bart Ehrman

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61295LAfQmo

  3. on 08 Jun 2011 at 5:48 pmDoubting Thomas

    Xavier,
    Thanks for the YouTube link. It was very interesting and informative…

  4. on 08 Jun 2011 at 6:29 pmSteve

    Good article Sean.
    In throwing my $0.02 worth, the Codex Sinaiticus (middle 4th century, koine Greek) writes…

    “θεια οτι οι τρειϲ ει ϲιν οι μαρτυρου” – 1 John 5:7
    “τεϲ το πνα και το ϋ δωρ και το αιμα και οι τρειϲ ειϲ το” – 1 John 5:8

    “for they that testify are three” – 1 John 5:7
    “the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one” – 1 John 5:8

    This is what is actually written in this manuscript. I am certain the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Alexandrinus are agree with this.

  5. on 08 Jun 2011 at 8:18 pmSean

    Tim,

    excellent point…it all depends on one’s presuppositions

    Steve,

    you are correct….next week when I post part two I will survey the Greek manuscripts and demonstrate that the Comma exists in none prior to the 15th century. As for the big three: Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus, see below:


    Codex Vaticanus (4th century)


    Codex Sinaiticus (4th century)


    Codex Alexandrinus (5th century)

  6. on 09 Jun 2011 at 2:17 amSteve

    Sean,
    Nice screenshots. Did you get those from some websites? I know there’s an online version of the Sinaiticus, but how about the other 2? Been looking for them for a while now.

    Thanks.

  7. on 09 Jun 2011 at 9:21 amSean

    I got the other two from Daniel Wallace’s Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) a non-profit organization that travels around the world taking hi-res pictures of extant manuscripts for posting on their website for all to access. They have Vaticanus and Alexandrinus.

  8. on 13 Jun 2011 at 6:43 pmGeorge

    I read it,it was very detailed.Is this a part of your schooling?
    From a simple man.

  9. on 13 Jun 2011 at 7:59 pmXavier

    DT

    Thanx. Take the good and throw away the bad with Ehrman. He is doing alot of damage to our faith.

    Sean

    To add your research…Erasmus received a Greek text of the Comma Johanneum at some time between May 1520 and June 1521. This text had been copied from a Codex Britannicus also named, after a later owner, Codex Montfortianus, and now at Trinity College, Dublin (A 421), and designated as minuscule Gregory 61.

    Erasmus assumed that the Codex Britannicus was “recens”. Yet, his writings do not contain any expression from which it would appear that he suspected that the Codex Britannicus had been written especially to induce him to include the Comma Johanneum.

    Erasmus does not mean by this that the Codex Britannicus was interpolated to invalidate his own reading He means that the Codex, like many other manuscripts, contained a text which had been revised after, and adapted to, the Vulgate. This was one of Erasmus’ stock theories, to which he repeatedly referred in evaluating Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. He regarded manuscripts which deviated from the Byzantine text known to him, and showed parallels with the Vulgate, as having been influenced by the Vulgate”. Erasmus believed that the Ecumenical Council of Ferrara and Florence (1438-45), whose chief object had been the reunion of the Latin and Greek churches, had decided in favor of adapting the Greek manuscripts to the Vulgate In 1527 he commented on the adaptation of Greek manuscripts to the Latin as follows…

    It should be pointed out here in passing, that certain Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have been corrected in agreement with those of the Latin Christians. This was done at the time of the reunion of the Greeks and the Roman church. This union was confirmed in writing in the so-called Golden Bull It was thought that this (sc the adaptation of the Greek biblical manuscripts to the Latin) would contribute to the strengthening of unity We too once came across a manuscript of this nature.

  10. […] This is the second half of an article about the Comma Johanneum. To read part one click here. […]

  11. on 13 Aug 2011 at 3:07 pmSteven Avery

    Hi,

    Interesting article.
    Allow me to look first at the Cyprian argument:

    “rather it merely means that Cyprian thought the text concerned them.”

    – the problem here is that you omitted the full wording of Cyprian

    Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5:7
    Martin A. Shue
    http://www.avdefense.webs.com/wallace.html

    Dicit dominus, Ego et pater unum sumus (John x. 30), et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et tres unum sunt

    The Lord says, “I and the Father are One,” and again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: “And the three are One.”

    What you said that Cyprian “thought” Cyprian says “is written” .. and Cyprian uses this phrase for scripture.

    The significance of the Cyprian reference can hardly be overstated. If accepted at face, this acts as a reference-demolition of the arguments against the heavenly witnesses. In the 20th century Lutheran scholar Franz August Otto Pieper (1852 – 1931) understood well the significance.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  12. on 15 Aug 2011 at 9:28 amSean

    Steven,

    I’m not sure you saw my point above about Cyprian (and I did quote it in full). I have no question that the thought what was written in 1 John 5.7 applied to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, this does not mean the comma existed in his copy of the Scriptures. He could have read the Trinity into the text aligning each of the persons with the spirit, water, and blood. This was also Daniel Wallace’s suggestion.

  13. on 16 Aug 2011 at 2:57 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Hi.

    I’d just like to comment that this is an ( excellent ) post! It is obvious you have done your homework and it is well balanced. It is also well written for the average Jo and also for someone who really knows there stuff too. Well done. Top marks.

    But honestly, I think you should do a third part to this series as a follow up to some of the legitimate objections posted. I might suggest you find a Latin dictionary and grammar and translate Cyprian etc. Ltn., “…scriptum est…” = “…[it] is written…” literally: “…of-writing is…”

    But your arguments as a whole still – far – outway these minor points in their favour.

    I am not a Unitarian but I invite you to look at my blog at:

    http://matt13weedhacker.blogspot.com/

    You will find some interesting information against the TRI{3}nity doctrine. I was referred here by another blog an am looking forward to reading the second part on the Greek MSS history. Well done once again.

  14. on 16 Aug 2011 at 3:24 pmSean

    Matt,

    Thanks for taking the time to read my article. What legitimate objections are you referring to? The only one that offered an objection was Steve Avery and his objections were that I didn’t quote enough Cyprian (when I quoted the same amount as he did) and that Cyprian did quote Scripture (which I agreed with in the original article).

    Your objection, if I understand you, is that I mistranslated scriptum est as “it is written” when I should have translated it “of-writing is.” First of all, I didn’t translate the Cyprian passage at all, as you can tell by the footnote next to it. I copied the translation from the standard collection called the Ante-Nicene Fathers (translated by Ernest Wallis). Secondly, I think scriptum is a perfect passive participle (i.e. having-been-written). Please let me know if I am just missing something here.

  15. on 17 Aug 2011 at 1:59 amSteven Avery

    Hi Sean,

    Matt, my apologies for saying you did not quote all of Cyprian. The point stands that Cyrpian uses an expression that refers to scripture, “it is written” and and that what is scripture is specifically applied to:

    “of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” that “these three are one”.

    And only 1 John 5:7 connects those dots, anything else implies Cyprian stumblin away from his usual rather rigorous approach to scripture citation.

    The clear and simple and Ockham reading says that Cyprian had the verse in his Bible, whether you generally affirm the verse or not.

    This is so clear that even Scrivener, rather an opponent of the verse as scripture, acknowledged the strength of the citation. Which is far more than an allusion, while short of a direct, full quote.

    And Scrivener very sensibly stated:
    “surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read verse 7
    in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus that
    the holy bishop was merely putting upon verse 8 a spiritual
    meaning.”

    Arthur Cleveland Coxe referenced Scrivener, nicely said this as ..
    “it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read it in his copies, than to resort to,” etc., the usual explainings away.”

    The idea that Cyprian was mystifying the Trinity in the verse should be obviously very difficult, especially from your understandings. It is the doctrinaire Augustinian Trinitarians of a later period who would awkwardly place that type of strained Trinitarian allegorizing at 250 AD upon the sensible and clear Cyprian. (Facudus did backwards assert that some centuries later, as referenced by Scrivener, Fulgentius was much more straightforward in affirming the Cyprian citation.) And this allegorizing does not fit Cyprian as well. That is why Marty Shue was able to take apart the Daniel Wallace reasoning rather easily.

    There are some other points I hope to make about the two parts of your presentation. There are a number of items that should be covered, if the goal is earnest historical inquiry. Away from the doctrinal fuzz and buzz that often dominates these discussions.

    Thanks for putting the post in, after the lag, I gather blog post systems are at times a bit quirky.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  16. on 17 Aug 2011 at 2:18 amSteven Avery

    Allow me to point out a technical problem:

    “So, although early Christian literature is almost entirely in Greek”

    When this statement is usually made, it is an attempt to explain why the NT books are (generally, Mark is a very possible exception) considered as having been written in Greek. In other words, the period from 30-AD to 70-AD.

    The NT was translated to Latin almost surely by the 2nd century, Old Latin or Italic versions, and Latin writers are common in the early years, including Cyprian, Tertullian, etc.

    The statement above is simply not historically accurate. The inverse is partially true. Later Christian writing (post 700-AD) is almost entirely in Latin. However there was was plenty of Latin in the early years.

    ===========================

    “if we move still earlier to Jerome’s Vulgate (as near as modern critical scholars can get to the 405 edition) the Comma is once again nowhere to be found. ”

    This theory is dubious on many counts. I’ll start with one simple point.

    The earliest extant Vulgate manuscript was done under Victor of Capua, the Codex Fuldensis, around 545 AD, fairly close to the time of Jerome (347-420). This manuscript does not have the heavenly witnesses in the text, however in this volume the Preface to the Canonical Epistles, with solid indications of Jerome authorship (despite harumphs that came up specifically because of the 1 John 5:7 reference.. circularity the jewel) specifically talks about the verse being removed by unfaithful translators ! The fact of the antiquity of this Preface was only discovered in the later part of the 1800s and is usually ignored by modern writers.

    The claim about the original Jerome Vulgate is also dubious because of the Old Latin evidences (which Jerome was updating) , the manuscripts heavily favoring the verse. And also, especially, the use of the verse by Fulgentius, who was very astute on Vulgate issues, even before the Codex Fuldensis. Also the simple fact of the overwhelming appearance of the verse in Vulgate manuscripts (approx 98% of the mss). And the Council of Carthage of 484 AD is extremely strong evidence that the Latin manuscripts in general at the time, Old Latin or Vulgate, had the verse.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  17. on 18 Aug 2011 at 12:00 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    On the fascinating Cyprian citation question, may I suggest a careful read of Tim Dunkin’s section that begins with the words:

    “The next witness for the Comma is Cyprian… ”

    A Defense of the Johannine Comma
    Setting the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8
    http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html
    http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/commadefense.pdf

    This is a few paragraphs, and can really help widen the understanding. Even more so if what you have read is basically Metzger-Wallace 🙂 .

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  18. on 26 Aug 2011 at 5:23 amMatt13weedhacker

    Hi Steven.

    Just a little, but very important Historical point, which is often overlooked about Cyprian.

    He was a disciple of Tertullian i.e., the famous quote: “…give me my Master…” meaning Tertullian.

    But Tertullian was a cult follower of the false prophet Montanus ( when ) he wrote his ( first ) treatise on the TRI{3}nity = Adv. Prax. and had seperated himself from Chrisitianity.

    Chapter one even mentions these false prophets by name: Montanus [= the Paraclete throughout Adv. Prax.], Maximilla, Priscilla.

    And in the second last chapter he promotes the “New Prophecy” movement, that is Montantism, as:

    TERTULLIAN ( 145 to 225.C.E. ): “…THE PREACHER [= MONTANUS ] OF ONE MONARCHY AND ALSO THE INTERPRETER [= MONTANUS ] OF THE ECONOMY FOR THOSE WHO ADMIT THE WORDS OF ( HIS ) [= MONTANUS ] NEW PROPHECY, and the leader into all the truth which is in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…” – (Pages 178-179. Chapter XXX. TERTULLIAN’S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS, Translated by Canon Ernest Evans and published by SPCK, 1948.)

    TERTULLIAN (c. 145 to 225.C.E. ): “…It was the wish of God to give A NEW FORM TO FAITH, SO THAT A NEW BELIEF MIGHT BE HELD concerning his unity through the Son and Holy Ghost…” – (Page 39. Tertulliani adv. Praxeam, c. 30. p. 518. TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. BY THE REV. EDWARD BURTON, D. D. MDCCCXXXI.)

    So under the influence and inspiriation of a demonised false prophet this “…NEW FORM OF FAITH … A NEW BELIEF…” of the TRI{3}ad doctrine infiltrated Christian thinking.

    So against this background trying to defend Cyprians theological views runs into a brick wall.

    The way true Christians viewed the TRI{3}nity is found in Chapter 3 of Adv. Prax:

    TERTULLIAN ( 145 to 225.C.E. ): “…THE MAJORITY OF BELIEVERS, ARE [Ltn., (expavescunt)] STARTLED AT THE DISPENSATION (OF THE THREE IN ONE)…” – (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, III. ANF: Alexander & Donaldson)

    The Latin word used here in Chapter three ( expavescunt ) is not the ordinary word for “fear” in Latin, but an intensive denoting “…GREAT HORROR…” as born out in other translations of the same passage, such as Alexander Souters version.

    So Cyprian is most likely to have been influenced in his views in one way or another by his “…MASTER…” – Tertullian, who was excommunicated and seperated himself from Christianity when he became a Montantist cultist.

    Cyprian may not have joined the movement but it certainly poisoned his thinking.

    Quoting tri{3}nitarian publications made by tri{3}nitarians – for – tri{3}nitarians – HELLO! – of course there gonna come out in support of the forgery in 1st John 5:7.

  19. on 03 Sep 2011 at 1:53 amSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    There is a lot of extrapolation above, and these doctrinal issues can be looked at with various glasses. Tim Dunkin gives one perspective here of the Tertullian issues:

    A Defense of the Johannine Comma
    Setting the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8
    http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html

    And I could writer some paragraphs giving my own interpretation.

    However, textually, none of this is the issue. If it is granted that Cyprian, and perhaps Tertullian and others, had the verse in their Bible around 200 AD, the forgery accusation becomes very difficult, even impossible.

    This was a time where there was little or no formal Trinitarian doctrine, so the idea that e.g. Cyprian (who quoted the Bible quite accurate and respected its authority) would be fooled by a non-scripture is extremely small, and theories of why the Bible would be changed would be very difficult.

    This is why the enemies of the verse invariably try to bypass Cyprian and plow ahead to the 400 AD period. They even developed a rather absurd and quickly-refuted theory of a Priscillian verse creation.

    And savvy writers who accept the Cyprian citation, like Franz August Otto Pieper (1852 – 1931) thus accept the verse as scripture when placed with the consistent Latin line testimony. (Even putting aside the additional probative evidences of the Council of Carthage of 484 and the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome.

    Similarly Charles Forster (1787-1871) in “A New Plea..” remains a good read for the general argument that the verse phrasing was accepted in a way, even in Greek exegesis, that would be impossible without an early scriptural base.

    Once again we see the difficulty of trying to examine the Bible text with doctrinal glasses to change the text. We should first accept the pure Bible, and then our doctrines should be formed by the Bible, rather than trying to reform the Bible to match our doctrines.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  20. on 03 Sep 2011 at 1:38 pmMark C.

    Steven,

    With regard to whether Cyprian and perhaps Tertullian had the verse in their Bibles, please read the following:

    http://godskingdomfirst.org/Comma.htm

  21. on 03 Sep 2011 at 7:38 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Mark,

    That web article is working with the Daniel Wallace material, which is already mentioned in these two articles. The approach of Wallace was carefully disassembled in the Marty Shue and Tim Dunkin articles.

    The Tim Dunkin article is already referenced above.
    The earlier article by Marty Shue is at:

    Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5:7
    by Martin A. Shue
    http://www.avdefense.webs.com/wallace.html

    And I will add a note here about the absurd circularity:

    “the Old Latin text used by Cyprian shows no evidence of this gloss”

    This is patently untrue. Most all Old Latin manuscripts with 1 John 5 have the heavenly witnesses verse, and this is supported by many additional evidences. Including the statement of faith signed by hundreds of bishops at the Council of Carthage in 484 AD.

    For Wallace to use (through Metzger) his own ultra-dubious conclusion as a principle part of his argument is classical circular reasoning.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  22. on 13 Sep 2011 at 6:23 amMatt13weedhacker

    All these defences are very ( retrospective ) and gloss past objections way to quickly.

    Not enough space here to go into greater detail.

    Athenagoras does ( not ) specifically say “…these three are one…” he says “…the Father and the Son being one…” most likely refering to John 10:30 if any scripture at all.

    And Athenagoras speaks of their distinction in Gk., ( taxis ) “…rank…” – there is no “…rank…” among co-equals.

    The context of Tertullian’s “…three are one ( ESSENCE )…” is very clear and refers to John 10:30 – not – 1st John 5:7.

    Cyprian to me is quoting Matt 28:19 “…and of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit…”

    ( Then ) – he adds ( his ) – comments, – ( his ) understanding by saying: “…these three are one…”

    And you still have the difficulty of “…Son…” not “…Word…” to get around,

    Also the addition of “…and…” between Father and Son.

    It smacks of Matt 28:19 rather than the later forgery.

    I would like to do some research on the MSS history of Cyprian’s letter when I get time and look at the full Latin text of this passage.

    These so called proof texts are all what I call: “…sort-of’s, maybe’s, not quite, if you twist it this way…” passages.

    It’s a reading into not out of.

  23. on 13 Sep 2011 at 6:35 amMatt13weedhacker

    Compare the Greek and Latin with Cyprian. Look closely:

    GREEK TEXT: “…ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν…” – (Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550, with accents)

    LATIN TEXT: “…testimonium [7.] dicunt [or: dant] in terra, spiritus [or: spiritus et] aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Iesu. [8.] et tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater verbum et spiritus…” – (Clementine edition of Vulgate.)

    LATIN TEXT: “…Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est. Et hi tres unum sunt…” – (Treatise I. Chapter 6. On the Unity of the Church. Cyprian. MPL.)

    Then compare Matthew 28:19:

    LATIN TEXT: “…euntes ergo docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti…” – (Matt 28:19 Biblia Sacra Vulgata.)

    GREEK TEXT: “…τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος…” – (Matt 28:19 GNT.)

    LATIN TEXT: “…Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est. Et hi tres unum sunt…” – (Treatise I. Chapter 6. On the Unity of the Church. Cyprian. MPL.)

    CYPRIAN (circa. 200-258 C.E.): “…And again “of [the] Father and of [the] Son and of [the] spirit holy” is written. And in this place three are one…” – (Treatise I. On the Unity of the Church. Matt13weedhacker 13/9/11)
    [FOOTNOTE]: Ltn., ( hi ) “…in this place…” or “…here…”

    This version below changes the word order of “…it is written…” to give a closer ( appearence ) to the forgery:

    CYPRIAN (circa. 200-258 C.E.): “…and again it is written: “of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” And these three are one…” – (Treatise I. On the Unity of the Church. The Treatises of Cyprian. Roberts & Donaldson ANF.)

  24. on 13 Sep 2011 at 6:44 amMatt13weedhacker

    It looks like Cyprian is quoting Matthew 28:19 in reference to what “…is written…”

    GREEK TEXT: “…τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος…” – (Matt 28:19 GNT.)

    LATIN TEXT: “…Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est. Et hi tres unum sunt…” – (Treatise I. Chapter 6. On the Unity of the Church. Cyprian. MPL.)

    It is easy for Tri{3}nitarians to put brackets in the English and Latin texts ( retrospectively ).

    “…Of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit…”

    It should be so patently obvious that is what is quoted.

    Not only that but the addition of Ltn., ( de ) “…out of…” or “…from of…” would be a good way in Latin to indicate the Genitive article Gk., ( τοῦ ) in Matt 28:19.

    Which is missing in the Latin version of the forged 1st John 5:7 Clementine recension.

  25. on 13 Sep 2011 at 6:51 amMatt13weedhacker

    No! The whole word order is wrong and back to front and words are added, even changed in Cyprian.

    This is exactly what the forgery was ( designed to do ) in the first place – give an appearance of a Tri{3}nitarian passage in the NT closer to the Church Fathers later apostate teaching.

    Cyprian is a “…sort of, nearly, not quite, just about…” but not there.

    I will do a blog on this and go into far more detail.

  26. on 13 Sep 2011 at 7:08 amMatt13weedhacker

    Note the Greek forgery doesn’t have the Genitive case for Father, Word, Spirit:

    GREEK TEXT: “…ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα…” – (Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550, with accents)

    Whereas Matt 28:19 does:

    GREEK TEXT: “…τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος…” – (Matt 28:19 GNT.)

    Cyprian is translated as genitive in the cited English proof text version:

    CYPRIAN (circa. 200-258 C.E.): “…and again it is written: “of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And these three are one…” – (Treatise I. On the Unity of the Church. The Treatises of Cyprian. Roberts & Donaldson ANF.)

    “…( of ) the … ( of ) the … ( of ) the…”

    Whereas 1st John 5:7 Forgered version is:

    “…( the ) Father, ( the ) Word and ( the ) holy spirit…”

    Missing the “…and…” between Father and “Son” – not – “Word.”

    But the Matt 28:19 Greek corresponds perfectly.

    In Cyprians Latin text “of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” is ( preceeded ) by ( Et iterum ) “…And again…” and afterwards ( followed ) by Ltn., ( scriptum ) perfect passive participle i.e. “…having-been-written…” then ( est ) “…is…” = a finished quotation from the scriptures.

  27. on 13 Sep 2011 at 7:15 amMatt13weedhacker

    According to the Clementine – Cyprian got his quote back to front:

    LATIN TEXT: “…testimonium [7.] dicunt [or: dant] in terra, spiritus [or: spiritus et] aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Iesu. [8.] et tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater verbum et spiritus…” – (Clementine edition of Vulgate.)

    Also the Ltn., ( sancto ) “…holy…” is dropped after the “…spirit…” in this Latin version of the forgery.

    And is a totally different word order to the Greek version of the forgery. Once again a telling mark scribal tampering.

    Cyprian puts the Father “Son” spirit in front of the “these three are one” which disagrees with the Latin.

  28. on 13 Sep 2011 at 7:23 amMatt13weedhacker

    I never take Tri{3}nitarian evidence on face value.

    One must look for ( himself ) and eveluate it carefully from the original languages.

    Not just a biased Tri{3}nitarian translation.

    Iv’e seen it to many times to trust any so-called “proof texts” by anachronistic Tri{3}nitarian apologists.

  29. on 13 Sep 2011 at 2:39 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    All that effort to fight the clear sense of Cyprian.

    “astonishing feats of sophistical fencing”

    were the apt words of Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall (1812-1879) when faced with this type of convoluted denial. Similar to the Scrivener and Arthur Cleveland Coxe comments above.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  30. on 14 Sep 2011 at 2:07 amSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Incidentally, your attempt to unread the clear sense of Cyprian was even a bit humorous.

    Charles Forster and Nathaniel Cornwall emphasized the significance of “et iterum” as showing :

    “the splice between two detached quotations treating on a common topic” – Charles Forster

    … the declaration “et hi tres unum sunt;- “concerning the Father the Son, and the Holy Ghost,” is a direct citation of Holy Scripture.
    For Cyprian not only uses here the common sign of repeated citation, the phrase “et iterum,” but says also, more explicitly, “et
    iterum scriptum est,” “and again it is written.” And the words thus cited “et hi tres unum sunt” “and these three are one” are an exact and complete translation of the Greek words … in the seventh verse of the Received Text (continues)… – Nathaniel Cornwall

    New Plea – (1867)
    Charles Forster
    http://books.google.com/books?id=yXIsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA167

    The Genuineness of I John v. 7 (1874)
    Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall
    http://books.google.com/books?id=0cDSAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA636

    The problem you are having is that you are making opposition to “the Trinity” your motivating factor, rather than simply affirming what is written in the Scripture, and letting that inform your doctrinal sense.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  31. on 14 Sep 2011 at 4:59 amMatt13weedhacker

    Sorry Steven.

    But Cyprian is busted.

    He ( is ) quoting Matthew 28:19 with his own comments added Ltn., ( Et hi tres unum sunt ) “…And in this place three are one…”

    Plus the changed subjects.

    Plus the back to front word order.

    Plus the added words.

    Plus the missing words.

    Plus the contradictions between the Greek version and the Clementine recension forgery.

    You can’t handle that when Cyprians so-called “proof text” is examined under a theological microscope it turns out to be a quotation from another scripture altogether.

    It should be so blatently obvious where “…of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit…” is really from! Matt 28:19.

    And Cleveland Coxe in his ANF translations are notorious for being biased and flat out dishonest in places. As is even evidenced in this case – by his sly rearranging of the word order to make it look more like a quotation of the designer forgery in 1st John 5:7.

    I am sorry to shater your dreams, but go on citing as many references as you like – made ( by ) Tri{3}nitarians ( for ) Tri{3}nitarians – it gets you knowhere.

    They ( are ) missleading and dishonest and un-convincing to honest people who seek the plain truth and who are indeed capable of making a critical evaluation of the evidence for themselves.

    Enjoy your day.

  32. on 15 Sep 2011 at 2:00 amSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    🙂

    You do realize, I hope, that this unique theory is held by virtually nobody but you. It is rather on the desperate side.

    Usually when the hand-waving attempt is made, the opponents of the Cyprian citation try to have Cyprian allegorizing verse 8 of 1 John. Very weak, but at least it does not mangle language and grammar and sense.

    The irony of all this is that the issue has nothing directly to do with “Trinitarians” .. (Cyprian’s section in ‘Unity of the Church’ was not about Christology at all) … it is simply a question of what is the pure Bible text. Yet for some the blinders are so great that they will fight the pure Bible simply because they do not like what they think might be the implications of the Bible text.

    The double irony is that the heavenly witnesses verse has often been seen as discomfiting to orthodox “Trinitarians”.

    May the Lord lift blinders so we can see and read and embrace the pure and perfect word of God. And through the word of God, may all our doctrines be formed and informed.

    Shalom,
    Steven

  33. on 15 Sep 2011 at 11:48 amSarah

    May the Lord lift blinders so we can see and read and embrace the pure and perfect word of God. And through the word of God, may all our doctrines be formed and informed.

    Amen, Steven!

  34. on 15 Sep 2011 at 7:25 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Hi Steven.

    I truly find it amazing that “no one” had recognized before me( where ) – these words:

    “…of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit…” = Matthew 28:19.

    ( ACTUALLY ) come from in scripture.

    It takes the extra-ordinary imagination of biased scholars and laymen like yourself to see:

    “…Of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit…”
    “…the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit…”

    As being ( THE EXACT SAME CITATION & VERSE)!

    The usual argument of retrospective apologists forwarded is this is Cyprians:

    “…interpretation…” or “…paraphrase…” of 1st John 5:7.

    TO TRY AND ACCOUNT FOR – THE ( FACT ) – OF IT ( NOT ) BEING AN ( EXACT ) QUOTATION OF 1ST JOHN 5:7.

    Thus comes in yours and their imagination and theological halucination.

    LATIN TEXT: “…Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est. Et hi tres unum sunt…” – (Treatise I. Chapter 6. On the Unity of the Church. Cyprian. MPL.)

    CYPRIAN (circa. 200-258 C.E.): “…And again “of [the] Father and of [the] Son and of [the] spirit holy” has been written. And here in this place three are one…” – (Treatise I. On the Unity of the Church. Matt13weedhacker 13/9/11 revised 16/9/11)

    The gap between Ltn., ( et iterum ) “…And again:…”

    Then followed by the actual scripture citation from Matt 28:19: “…of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit…”

    Then after that Ltn., ( scriptum ) perfect passive participle i.e. “…having-been-written…” then ( est ) “…is…” = a “perfect” tense or completed citation.

    Is a far more sound theory which takes a real substantiated scripture citation and objective look at the actual words of Cyprian compared to the stretched and “sort of, may-be, not-quite” theories provided by you and the biased reference works cited thus far.

    SUMMARY:

    1.) “And again:” = quotation comming
    2.) Scripture citation = Matt 28:19 = EXACT QUOTATION
    3.) “has been written” = completed quotation
    4.) “And ( here ) in this place” = referring to Matt 28:19 just quoted
    5.) “three are one” = according to his understanding

    As for the Tri{3}nity doctrine, it has everything to do with it. For why else would you be trying to prove this forged verse is genuine? What other doctrine is it supposedly teaching?

  35. on 15 Sep 2011 at 7:30 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Quite frankly I don’t really care if it is a new or “unique” theory I have put forward.

  36. on 15 Sep 2011 at 8:19 pmMatt13weedhacker

    I also suggest you read Sir Issac Newtons level headed and systematic approach:

    In his:

    “Two Noteable Corruptions of Scripture”

    http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00261

    In which he has provided specific and sound testimony against the genuiness of the interpolation of 1st John 5:7.

  37. on 15 Sep 2011 at 10:41 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Here is another far more likely explanation:

    What Cyprian quotes is a mixture of the two scripture citations mentioned in his passage, and mixed with his “Master[s” views, and theology i.e., Tertullian – to arrive at his personal understanding.

    1.) He has already mentioned John 10:30 “…are one…”
    2.) Matthew 28:19 “…and…and…and…”

    Therefore he comes to his conclution Ltn., ( Et hi ) “…And here in this place…” – that is Matt 28:19:

    “…Three are one…”

    Rather than an actual quotation of the hypothetical and imaginary interpolation.

  38. on 16 Sep 2011 at 3:38 amSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Greetings, Sarah ! Good to see some new readers here.

    Matt, your problem is one of simple grammar. Anyone simply reading Cyprian and knowing English picks up on it right away.

    Which is why you end up supporting multiple conflicting attempts, one example of the difficulties of the “usual explainings away”.

    Isaac Newton, to his credit in an often flawed writing, did in fact acknowledge the essential syntax and grammar and meaning of the Cyprian section.

    “These places of Cyprian being, in my opinion, genuine, seem so apposite to prove the testimony of the Three in Heaven, that I should never have suspected a mistake in it, could I but have reconciled it with the ignorance I meet with of this reading in the next age, amongst the Latines of both Africa and Europe, as well as among the Greeks. ”

    In other words, Newton took the circular approach. Some of the other evidences he did not know yet (Council of Carthage and the Fuldensis Prologue and Priscillian and Old Latin mss like the Speculum) and some he hand-waved, like Tertullian. Thus Newton said that he could not accept Cyprian because of other evidences he did not see !

    From this basis he tried the awkward approach of trying to have Cyprian allegorize verse 8, a position easily refuted (e.g. Fulgentius). And totally different than your grammatical mangling, unto a wild theory which Newton had the intelligence to avoid.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  39. on 16 Sep 2011 at 3:52 amSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    For a bit more precision, Isaac Newton did mention the Council of Carthage reference, which had been published in 1599, after the period of the Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza Received Text editions.

    However Newton omitted the context that this was contained within a statement of faith of hundreds of bishops, and the verse emphasized. Thereby making it seem like a minor evidence by Eugenius as an individual.

    Also, interestingly, Newton, like Erasmus, properly accepted the reference by Jerome in the Vulgate Prologue (even without the later Codex Fuldensis discovery). And we see the attempt is then made to make Jerome part of the problem of the supposed insertion of the verse, rather than simply acknowledge that he wrote truthfully about the Latin and Greek manuscripts.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  40. on 17 Sep 2011 at 1:49 amSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Matthew
    “As for the Tri{3}nity doctrine, it has everything to do with it. For why else would you be trying to prove this forged verse is genuine? What other doctrine is it supposedly teaching? ”

    This is the fallacy of the loaded question. If I believed that we did not have a pure and true Bible, and that my Bible contained forged verses, I would not be showing the powerful evidences for the verse. Demonstrating evidences much like I would do for Acts 8:37 or “God was manifest in the flesh..” in 1 Timothy 3:16 or the resurrection appearances of the Lord Jesus in the Gospel of Mark or the Pericope Adultera or the swine running into the sea in Gergesenes rather than the swine marathon from Gadara, 35 miles from the Sea of Galilee.

    In none of these cases do I first ask “do I prefer the doctrines of this version or that version” ? First .. I know by faith and conviction and study the identity of the pure word of God. And I defend God’s word. And I let this word form and inform my doctrine.

    In point of fact, I am often attacked specifically for not affirming the “Trinity” doctrine, and I surely say that I really have no idea what is generally meant by “Trinity”, since it is such a big tent that it includes many widely and wildly differing doctrines.

    As to the modernist atomistic question as to what doctrine the singular verse is teaching, the heavenly witnesses are an integral part of the witness of God and man to the Lord Jesus Christ. One theme of the chapter. And we could write pages about the proper understanding of 1 John, as used to be done before the one-dimensional pro-anti-Trinity glasses was placed upon the verse. Generally, the only powerful expositions of the chapter are those that include verse 7.

    Going into the depth of interpretation would take us a bit afield. So I will leave you for now with the section and poem from John Wesley (1703-1791), who also has an interesting sermon on the verse (a sermon where he speaks a bit about “Trinity” and “persons”). The poem he modified a bit from his friend Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752).

    ====================

    The Mariner’s Compass

    ====================

    5. Who is he that overcometh the world – That is superior to all worldly care, desire, fear? Every believer, and none else. The seventh verse (usually so reckoned) is a brief recapitulation of all which has been before advanced concerning the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It is cited, in conjunction with the sixth and eighth, 1 John v, 6, 8 by Tertullian, Cyprian, and an uninterrupted train of Fathers.

    And, indeed, what the sun is in the world,
    what the heart is in a man,
    what the needle is in the mariner’s compass,
    this verse is in the epistle.

    By this the sixth, eighth, and ninth verses 1 John v, 6, 8, 9 are indissolubly connected; as will be evident, beyond all contradiction, when they are accurately considered. (John Wesley, with appreciation to Bengelius, Explanatory Notes, 1754)

    ====================

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  41. on 17 Sep 2011 at 11:40 amTim (aka Antioch)

    Steven,

    By ‘pure and true Bible’, am I understanding that you believe that to be the King James version?

  42. on 17 Sep 2011 at 3:01 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Hi Steven.

    I don’t have time now, due to faily obligations, but I will answer you points on Sir Issac Newton.

    There is an enourmous amount of evidence which you have omitted to comment on or have selectively quoted and have in part miss-represented Sir Issac on certain points.

    Will come back ot this, when I have time.

    Enjoy your day.

  43. on 17 Sep 2011 at 7:00 pmSteven Avery

    Hi,

    Greetings, Tim.

    Every Reformation Bible edition is pure (and every version from the Horitan Vaticanus-based text is impure, very corrupt). And the Authorized Version is simply the result and highlight and standard of inspiration and preservation, the apex of the process.

    Please note .. the issues around the heavenly witnesses verse stand largely independent of the issues around the Authorized Version. The verse was debated historically as scripture (or not) largely independent of the AV. Even after the AV became the most-used English Holy Bible. e.g. Scholars like Thomas Burgess (1756-1837) were strong on the heavenly witnesses history and evidences, yet mistakenly wanted to “correct” the AV based on the error of misapplying the “Granville Sharp canon”.

    An exception of the independence of the issues is that there is often a dismissive attempt against the purity of the AV based on the superficial modern ‘scholarship’ on the heavenly witnesses.

    Hope that splains.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  44. on 18 Sep 2011 at 1:06 amRay

    It seems to me that it is commonly accepted that I John 1:7 was added by someone who was of some religious zeal, that is to say that it is not part of God breathed scripture. It is something that was added in later by someone else.

    This is not to say that I John 5:7 is not true.

    I am not saying that I John 5:7 is not God breathed.

    It seems that God may inspire men to say or write something, but it’s up to men what they will do with it.

    From what I’ve heard, the words in question are from right after the word “record” in I John 5:7, through to the first use of the word “the” in verse 8.

    If I were to put the words in brackets it would look like this:

    For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,] the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

    That’s the words from the KJV.

    I can read this without reading what’s in the brackets and notice that it speaks of Jesus. I am also reminded by it of the first thing God said in Genesis because of the spirit and the water.

    Everything about Jesus agrees with the Word. Everything about him is in agreement with God.

  45. on 18 Sep 2011 at 9:14 amSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Ray
    “It seems to me that it is commonly accepted that I John 5:7 was added by someone who was of some religious zeal, that is to say that it is not part of God breathed scripture. It is something that was added in later by someone else.”

    “commonly accepted” — as are many mistaken ideas in modern science and textual science/scholarship. Even evolution is “commonly accepted” outside evangelical and fundamentalist Bible believers. Hortianism (Vaticanus as the main ms) is “commonly accepted” in giving a corrupt Bible text, despite its illogic and inconsistency and the errant text it produces.

    And this common error is one reason why the Cyprian citation has taken such a significant role in the debate. By many evidences, the Latin Bibles were carrying the verse at 200 AD, before the formal Trinity doctrines, so it is virtually impossible to come up with a reasonable scenario of textual inclusion. Such as the margin commentary-to-text ideas, which are ideas for the 400s. These ideas are weak for many reasons, like the Old Latin manuscript evidence, but the Cyprian evidence is very upfront for consideration. This is why Daniel Wallace tried so hard to handwave the evidence. Even Tischendorf, in opposition, acknowledged: “gravissimus est Cyprianus..”

    Thus a fine scholar like Franz August Otto Pieper (1852-1931) wrote:

    “Cyprian is quoting John 10:30. And he immediately adds: “Et iterum de Patre et Fillo et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: “Et tres unum sunt'” (“and again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost: ‘And the Three are One’ “) Now, those
    who assert that Cyprian is here not quoting the words 1 John 5:7, are obliged to show that the words of Cyprian: ‘Et tres unum sunt’ applied to the three Persons of the Trinity, are found elsewhere in the Scriptures than 1 John 5. Griesbach counters that
    Cyprian is here not quoting from Scripture, but giving his own allegorical interpretation of the three witnesses on earth. “The Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.” That will hardly do. Cyprian states distinctly that he is quoting Bible passages, not only in the words: ‘I and the Father are one.’ but also in the words: ‘And again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.” These are, in our opinion, the objective facts.”

    You can disagree with the terminology “three persons of the Trinity” above as being unnecessarily doctrinal .. and acknowledge that the analysis of Pieper above is clear, sharp and accurate.

    Once the Cyprian citation is properly accepted, then other evidences and the overall positions need to be fully reexamined.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  46. on 18 Sep 2011 at 11:16 amRay

    Steve,
    Though some people believe that some of the words of I John 5:7-8 were left out, I am one that does not.

    It seems to me that you are of those who believe that it was of some religious zeal that someone left out some of the words as it was copied.

  47. on 18 Sep 2011 at 11:30 amRay

    What I find of interest is that the Word testifies of Christ in the first few verses of Genesis where we find God, the Spirit, and the water.

    The blood also testifies of Jesus throughout the Old Testament.

  48. on 18 Sep 2011 at 1:12 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Briefly:

    “…By many evidences, the Latin Bibles were carrying the verse at 200 AD, before the formal Trinity doctrines…”

    There is no ( actual ) Latin Bible MSS evidence for this ( theory ). No matter how loud and how long you jump up and down saying there is.

    That is the cold hard facts.

    To say otherwise is a lie.

    Need I mention there are no Greek Bible MSS from this period either with the interpolated version of 1st John 5:7.

  49. on 18 Sep 2011 at 2:40 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Thus you have no other choice but to rely on another ( theory ).

    I.e., Patristic citations.

    “…is one reason why the Cyprian citation has taken such a significant role in the debate…”

    As I have already showed:

    “…are obliged to show that the words of Cyprian: ‘Et tres unum sunt’ applied to the three Persons of the Trinity, are found elsewhere in the Scriptures [other] than 1 John 5…”

    I say it is Matthew 28:19 “…( of )…and…and…”

    Between Ltn., ( et iterum ) “…And again:…”

    Followed by Ltn., ( scriptum ) perfect passive participle i.e. “…having-been-written…” then ( est ) “…is…” = a “perfect” tense or a completed citation.

    Or perhaps paraphrased to give the full grammatical meaning of the perfect passive particle:

    “…having been written stands presently…” or “…stands presently as having been written…”

    Then ( HE ) comments:

    Ltn., ( Et hi ) “…And in this place…” or “…And here…”

    At Matt 28:19.

    “…in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit…”

    CYPRIAN: “…and again it is written: “of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…”

    Cyprians words are ( closer to ) Matt 28:19 than the interpolated version as shown below:

    “…de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto…” (CYP)
    “…Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti…” (Matt 28:19)
    “…Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus…” (CLM-RC)

    Another problem with Cyprian, which has just become apparent to me now is there is a variation in his Latin text.

    Wallace and others say that Ltn., ( hi ) is missing from Cyprians Latin text.

    Whereas Mingne’s text has the Ltn., ( hi ).

    If it is the case, that Ltn., ( hi ) is indeed missing from Cyprians MSS then his hypothetical and presummed quotation becomes even more ( INEXACT & INACCURATE )!

    It becomes:

    LATIN: “…Et tres unum sunt…”

    Literally: “…And three one are…” or “…And three are one…”

    So under minute scrutiny your hypothetical Cyprian proof text is becomming less and less like either the Greek or the Old Latin MSS of the interpolated version.

    For a comparison:

    “…ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι…”
    “…Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt…” (OL).
    “…[de] Patre [et] [Filio] et Spiritu sancto … Et [-] tres unum sunt…” (CYP)

    But is closer to a quotation from Matt 28:19:

    “…de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto…” (CYP)
    “…Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti…” (Matt 28:19VUL)
    “…Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus…” (1JN57LTNi)

    Also as I pointed out before, the English versions often change the word order in there translation to make appear more like the interpolation:

    “…And again it is written…”

    Whereas the actual Latin reads:

    “…And again … [Matt 28:19 Citation] … is written…”

    This is misleading in my opinion.

    And it is either:

    “…is written. And three are one…”

    “…is written. And [Ltn., ( hi )] here in this place three are one…”

    Latin ( Hi ) = “…(1.) in this place, here…” – (Lewis, Charlton, T. An Elementary Latin Dictionary. New York, Cincinnati, and Chicago. American Book Company. 1890.)

    I will still address Sir Isaac Newton later.

  50. on 18 Sep 2011 at 2:52 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Plus you have the weight of Bible MSS in the MAJORITY TEXT.

    Plus it is the MAJORITY TEXT of the Patristic writers which out-weighs.

    And these Patristic texts ( ARE ) – ( EXACT ) citations of the “…blood, water and spirit…” MAJORITY TEXT.

    Not “…nearly, sort-of, not-quite, possibly, if you take this word to represent, in-exact, not totally accurate etc, etc…” citations.

    Nor the ( IMAGINARY ) DESPERATE citations from Athenagoras and Tertullian.

    BISHOP KAYE ON TERTULLIAN: “…In my opinion, the passage in Tertullian, far from containing an allusion to 1st John 5:7, furnishes most decisive proof that he knew nothing of the verse…” – (As quoted on Page 366, “Some Observations On 1st John 5:7.” in the “Southern Presbyterian review,” Volume 2, 1849.)

  51. on 18 Sep 2011 at 5:46 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Matt,
    “There is no ( actual ) Latin Bible MSS evidence for this ( theory ). No matter how loud and how long you jump up and down saying there is. That is the cold hard facts. To say otherwise is a lie.”

    And clearly you do not understand textual evidences, not even on a beginner’s level. There are not extant manuscripts of 1 John 5 in any language at all before the 4th century.

    However, with the manuscripts of the Old Latin line at about 8 to 2 in favor of the verse, that is in fact Latin Bible evidence of antiquity. Strong evidence, and that is not a lie. You are confusing evidence which is crystal clear with proof, which tends to be subjective in evaluation.

    Similarly the hundreds of Bishops at the Council of Carthage in 484 AD who affirmed the verse are strong evidence for the antiquity of the Latin Bible. Similarly evidences like Priscillian and Fulgentius and Cassiodorus and the Vulgate Prologue.

    Matt
    “I say it is Matthew 28:19 “

    Steven
    Yes, you made it clear what you “say” and that you have your own torturous theory 🙂 Leaving Newton and Wallace and the others in the dust, none of whom mangled the language in this way. Not even Kaye, with the “usual explainings away”.

    Shalom,
    Steven

  52. on 18 Sep 2011 at 7:00 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Earlier Patristic citations disagree:

    CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (circa. 130-215 C.E.): “…He [JOHN] says, “This is He who came by water and blood;” and again, “For there are three that bear witness, the spirit,” which is life, “and the water,” which is regeneration and faith, “and the blood,” which is knowledge; “and these three are one.” For in the Saviour are those saving virtues, and life itself exists in His own Son…” – (III.–COMMENTS ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. FRAGMENTS. I.–FROM THE LATIN TRANSLATION OF CASSIODORUS. FRAGMENTS OF CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS. [TRANSLATED BY REV. WILLIAM WILSON, M.A.])
    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-fragments.html

    I have removed the verse and chapter divisions which were added the translator which are not in the Latin text.

    I hope to find the Latin text and post it later.

  53. on 18 Sep 2011 at 7:06 pmMatt13weedhacker

    A contemporary of Cyprian says differently – and is specific in his reference:

    ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA (circa. 185-254 C.E.): “…Now, it may very well be that some one not versed in the various aspects of the Saviour may stumble at the interpretation given above of the Jordan; because John says, “I baptize with water, but He that cometh after me is stronger than I; He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”  To this we reply that, as the Word of God in His character as something to be drunk is to one set of men water, and to another wine, making glad the heart of man, and to others blood, since it is said, “Except ye drink My blood, ye have no life in you,” and as in His character as food He is variously conceived as living bread or as flesh, so also He, the same person, is baptism of water, and baptism of Holy Spirit and of fire, and to some, also, of blood.  It is of His last baptism, as some hold, that He speaks in the words, “I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished?”  And it agrees with this that the disciple John speaks in his Epistle of the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, as being one.  And again He declares Himself to be the way and the door, but clearly He is not the door to those to whom He is the way, and He is no longer the way to those to whom He is the door.  All those, then, who are being initiated in the beginning of the oracles of God…” – (Chapter 26. The Story of Israel Crossing Jordan Under Joshua is Typical of Christian Things, and is Written for Our Instruction. Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. IX, Origen on John, Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book VI by Origen, translated by Allan Menzies.)
    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_IX/Origen_on_John/Origen%27s_Commentary_on_the_Gospel_of_John/Book_VI/Chapter_26

  54. on 18 Sep 2011 at 7:18 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Your focusing on a minority of references.

    Your focusing on older references rather than the earlier.

    The older you get – past Chanceldon 381 – the more likely it is to be interpolated.

    The likes of Rufinus and Jerome have been convicted of tampering with ANF writings. Rufinus even openly admitted doing so.

    The same goes for Cassiodorus. He “…purged…” non-tri{3}nitarian statements (like old Rufy & Hironamo) from Clement of Alexandria’s work cited above. Rufinus even says he was only doing what others had done in his time.

    Not to mention the editing of doxologies which even Basil in his De Spiritu Sancto admitted was happening in his time by fellow tri{3}nitarians. Need I mention the four different recensions of Ignatius of Antioch. Plus the countless psuedo ANF works forged in the name of Tri{3}nity.

  55. on 18 Sep 2011 at 8:19 pmMatt13weedhacker

    SIR ISSAC NEWTON (circa. 1642-1712 C.E.): “…In reconciling this difficulty I consider therefore that the only words of the text quoted by Cyprian in both places are, And these three are one: which words may belong to the eighth verse as well as to the seventh. ffor Eucherius Bishop of Lion in France & contemporary to S. Austin, reading the text without the seventh verse tells us that many then understood the Spirit, the Water & the Blood to signify the Trinity…” – (- (Quoted in Sir Issac Newton’s “Two Noteable Corruptions Of Scripture.”)

    After Chanceldon 381 when Theodosius I, started to ( enforce ) the Tri{3}nity doctrine Empire wide with the ( sword ). It would make complete sense that people would start to re-interpret scripture differently.

    Thus Sir Isaac provided clear proof of this:

    LATIN TEXT: “…Tria sunt quæ testimonium perhibent aqua, sanguis & spiritus…” {HIS INTERPRETATION} “…Plures hic ipsam interpretatione mystica intelligunt Trinitatem, eo quod perfecta ipsa perhibeat testimonium Christo: Aquâ Patrem indicans quia ipse de se dicit. Me dereliquerunt fontem aquæ vivæ; sanguine Christum demonstrans utique per passionis cruorem; spiritu verò sanctum spiritum manifestans…” – ([c.3] Eucher. De Quæst. N. Testi. Quoted in Sir Issac Newton’s “Two Noteable Corruptions Of Scripture.”)
    http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00261

    EUCHERIUS BISHOP OF LYON (circa. 380-449 C.E.): “…We bring forward that there are three that bear witness: “Water, Blood, and Spirit…” {HIS INTERPRETATION} “…Many interpret{1} it here mystically, reading into{2} it [the] Trinity in that particular place. Why? It is held out as a completed testimony of Christ. “Water,” Indicates{3} that is speaks of the Father himself. Lest I forsake the source of living water. “Blood,” Points out{4} that through his suffering blood flowed out of the Christ. “Spirit,” Is plain to see{5} it is truly the holy spirit…” – ([c.3] Eucher. De Quæst. N. Testi. Quoted in Sir Issac Newton’s “Two Noteable Corruptions Of Scripture.” translated by Matt13weedhacker 19/9/11)
    [FOOTNOTE 1]: Ltn., ( interpretatione mystica )
    [FOOTNOTE 2]: Ltn., ( intelligunt ) Or “…seeing into…”
    [FOOTNOTE 3]: Ltn., ( indicans )
    [FOOTNOTE 4]: Ltn., ( demonstrans )
    [FOOTNOTE 5]: Ltn., ( manifestans )

  56. on 18 Sep 2011 at 8:32 pmMatt13weedhacker

    A slightly better revised version:

    EUCHERIUS BISHOP OF LYON (circa. 380-449 C.E.): “…[We] bring forward that there are three that bear witness: “Water, Blood, and Spirit…” {HIS INTERPRETATION} “…Many interpret{1} it here mystically, reading into{2} it [the] Trinity in that particular place. Why? It is held out as a completed testimony of Christ. “Water,” Because it indicates{3} that it speaks of the Father himself. Lest I forsake the source of living water. “Blood,” Points out{4} that through his suffering blood flowed out of Christ. “Spirit,” Is plain to see{5} that it is truly the holy spirit…” – ([c.3] Eucher. De Quæst. N. Testi. Quoted in Sir Issac Newton’s “Two Noteable Corruptions Of Scripture.” translated by Matt13weedhacker 19/9/11 Revised)
    [FOOTNOTE 1]: Ltn., ( interpretatione mystica )
    [FOOTNOTE 2]: Ltn., ( intelligunt ) Or “…seeing into…”
    [FOOTNOTE 3]: Ltn., ( indicans )
    [FOOTNOTE 4]: Ltn., ( demonstrans )
    [FOOTNOTE 5]: Ltn., ( manifestans )

  57. on 19 Sep 2011 at 2:12 amSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    The purpose above was not to do a full review of the heavenly witnesses evidences, since that would take a full book (see e.g. Michael Maynard’s book) and more. Yet even if we stay in the early Ante-Nicene period, I did not work with all the references.

    Basically, the main point above was simply trying to point out the basic issues with Cyprian, where the evidence is very powerful and had been subject to the “usual explainings away” in the blog entries.

    The wealth of information is far too great for a blog entry forum discussion, especially a discussion that some take not so much for inquiry as to the historical studies, but instead for doctrinal posturing.

    Cyprian has a second reference in Jubaianus that is corroborative to the principle reference in Unity of the Church. Corroborative also is the Tertullian reference. And the Jubaianus reference of Cyprian helps strengthen the linguistic argument in the Rebaptism Treatise. (This is discussed in a recent post on the TC-Alternate forum.)

    You might also read Charles Forster (New Plea) for the general understanding of how the language of 1 John 5:7 became the language of the early church writers. Forster builds on the work of Knittel and others.

    As for the Ante-Nicene period, two more simple examples from early writings:

    A scholium on Psalm 122 attributed to Origen says
    “The Lord our God is threefold; for They are one”
    Ta de tria Kurios o Theos emon esti. Oi gar to en eisi.

    Knittel gives you discussion of this here:

    New criticisms on the celebrated text (1785)
    Franz Anton Knittel
    http://books.google.com/books?id=kKsCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA77

    Clement of Alexandria:
    “Every promise is valid before two or three witnesses, before the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; before whom, as witnesses and helpers, what are called the commandments ought to be kept.” (Eclogae propheticae 13.1)

    As early allusion references these two are clear. Ben David (John Jones) points out that the Clement reference was emphasized even by Bengelius, and later by Thomas Burgess.

    Similarly negative references that are not actually homily-style (verse 6 to verse 8 as in a commentary) can be very limited in import. Each reference takes careful study. A reference in the context of baptism is likely to go right to verse 8. The Clement reference you give, through Cassiodorus who quotes the verse, is fascinating for how there is not any of the supposed allegorizing to the Trinity.

    Matt, you tell us that you want to stay before Chalcedon, yet you quickly jump to the Eucherius reference that is after Chalcedon, that has its own long discussion 🙂 . There are complications with the manuscripts, and the grammar aspects are discussed closely as well.

    However when you go past Nicea, then you really have to deal with more immediate and rather astounding evidences like the hundreds of bishops whose statement of faith supported the verse at Carthage in 484 AD. In a hostile environment, they affirmed the heavenly witnesses as the word of God. What Bibles did these hundreds of men read ? Surely primarily the Old Latin Bible, the same Bible which has even today a strong plus for the verse in extant manuscripts.

    Those who want each reference studied in more depth, in the context of correction to the many errors and blunders of the UBS-4 apparatus, I suggest will enjoy the series of posts on the TC-Alternate forum at Yahoogroups. We have not yet gotten to Origen and Clement of Alexandria in that series, and I only touch certain aspects of their references above.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  58. on 19 Sep 2011 at 6:29 amMatt13weedhacker

    How does the “Byzantine Majority Text” stand with you on the subject?

    For it rejects the interpolated reading.

  59. on 19 Sep 2011 at 1:07 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Greetings, Matt.

    This is one of a good number of verses where text dropped from the Byzantine Greek line. Another good example is Acts 8:37, which is almost a sister verse, where most of the Greek manuscripts omitted the verse yet the minority reading was well supported in the Latin and the early church writers and internal evidences.

    Interestingly, the Orthodox who copied the Byzantine Greek texts for centuries de facto acknowledged these omissions by bringing the text into their Bibles from the Received Text.

    Shalom,
    Steven

  60. on 19 Sep 2011 at 2:52 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Just another thought Steven.

    The original Nicene Creed before the Chanceldon amendments were added.

    Was a TWO-IN-ONE creed of a Father-Son-substance.

    This was accepted and propounded by the “Orthodox” zealously and loudly.

    Yet if the THREE-IN-ONE was indeed:

    ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ Α΄ 3:11 Greek NT:
    Ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγγελία ἣν ἠκούσατε ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς …

    1st John 3:11
    “…THE ( MESSAGE ) that was heard ( FROM ) the beginning…”

    How is it possible that the suposed majority of Christians could go from believing a hypothetical THREE-IN-ONE-SUBSTANCE-GOD – backwards – to a TWO-IN-ONE-SUBSTANCE-GOD of Father and Son only?

    This is a historical anomily.

    And may I remind you of the a very telling historical statement:

    Chapter 3 of Tertullians Adv. Prax:

    TERTULLIAN ( 145 to 225.C.E. ): “…THE MAJORITY OF BELIEVERS, ARE [Ltn., (expavescunt)] STARTLED AT THE DISPENSATION ( OF THE THREE-IN-ONE )…” – (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, III. ANF: Alexander & Donaldson)

    The Latin word used here in Chapter three ( expavescunt ) is not the ordinary word for “fear” in Latin, but an intensive denoting:

    “…GREAT HORROR…”

  61. on 19 Sep 2011 at 8:19 pmMatt13weedhacker

    LATIN TEXT: “…Plures hic ipsam interpretatione mystica intelligunt Trinitatem…” – ([c.3] Eucher. De Quæst. N. Testi. Quoted in Sir Issac Newton’s “Two Noteable Corruptions Of Scripture.”)
    http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00261

    Ltn., ( plures ) = “…The greater number, the majority: “plures nesciebant quā ex causā convenissent,” Vulg. Act. 19, 32…” – (A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews’ edition of Freund’s Latin dictionary. revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by. Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and. Charles Short, LL.D. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1879.)

    The Douay is translated from the Latin which gives this reading of the cross reference from the dictionary:

    Latin: Biblia Sacra Vulgata
    alii autem aliud clamabant erat enim ecclesia confusa et plures nesciebant qua ex causa convenissent

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    Now some cried one thing, some another. For the assembly was confused, and [Ltn., ( plures )] the greater part knew not for what cause they were come together.

    The Greek equivalent is Gk., ( οἱ πλείους ) in this verse meaning:

    “…STRONGS ( 4119 ): pleíōn – the comparative (“-er” form) of 4183 /polýs (“great in number”) meaning “greater in quantity” (comparatively speaking); more than (numerically); abundant (greater in number)…” – (Helps Word Studies.)

    EUCHERIUS BISHOP OF LYON (circa. 380-449 C.E.): “…[Ltn., ( Plures )] A great many interpret{1} it here mystically, reading into{2} it [the] Trinity in that particular place…” – ([c.3] Eucher. De Quæst. N. Testi. Quoted in Sir Issac Newton’s “Two Noteable Corruptions Of Scripture.” translated by Matt13weedhacker 19/9/11 Revised 20/9/11)
    [FOOTNOTE 1]: Ltn., ( interpretatione mystica )
    [FOOTNOTE 2]: Ltn., ( intelligunt ) Or “…seeing into…”

    Why would the Ltn., ( Plures ) “…Greater number…” have to interpret it “…MYSTICALLY…” and “…READING INTO IT THE TRINITY…” if they all supposedly had this verse in their Latin Bibles and not the blood water spirit etc?

    It does not make sense for him or Augistine or Facundus to say the same or similar things after Cyprians time.

    That was the point Sir Isaac was trying to make.

  62. on 19 Sep 2011 at 8:22 pmMatt13weedhacker

    SIR ISSAC NEWTON (circa. 1642-1712 C.E.): “…These passages in Cyprian may receive further light by a like passage in Tertullian, from whence Cyprian seems to have borrowed them. For tis well known that Cyprian (tho otherwise a prudent man) was a great admirer of Tertullians writings & read them frequently, calling Tertullian his Master. The passage is this. a[59] [a Connexus Patris in filio et filij in Paracleto tres {efficit} cohærentes alterum ex altero: qui tres unum sunt (non unus:) quomodo dictum est Ego et Pater unum sumus; ad substantiæ unitatem non ad numeri singularitatem. Tertul. adv. Pra. c. 25.] The connexion of the Father in the Son & of the Son in the Paraclete makes three cohering one from another, which three are one (one thing, not one person:) as it is said, I & the Father are one; denoting the unity of substance, not the singularity of number. Here you see Tertullian says not the father word & holy spirit as the text now has it, but the Father Son & Paraclete, nor cites any thing more of the text then these words; which three are one. Tho this his treatise against Praxeas be wholy spent in discoursing about the Trinity & all texts of scripture are cited to prove it, & this text of Iohn as we now read it would have been one of the most obvious & apposite to have been cited at large, yet Tertullian could find no more words in it for his purpose then These three are one. These therefore he interprets – – These he interprets of the Trinity & enforces the interpretation by that other text I and the Father are one, as if the phrase was of the same importance in both places. So then this interpretation seems to have been invented by the Montanists for giving countenance to their Trinity. ffor Tertullian was a Montanist when he wrote this: & its most likely that so corrupt & forct an interpretation had it’s rise amongst a sect of men accustomed to make bold with the scriptures. Cyprian being used to it in his Master’s writings, it seems from thence to have dropt into his. For this may be gathered from the likeness between their citations. And by the disciples of these two great men it seems to have been propagated amongst those many Latines who (as Eucherius tells us) received it in the next age, understanding the Trinity by the spirit, water & blood. For how without the countenance of some such author an in terpretation so corrupt & strained should come to be received in that age so generally, I do not understand…” – (Quoted in Sir Issac Newton’s “Two Noteable Corruptions Of Scripture.”)
    http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00261

  63. on 19 Sep 2011 at 8:49 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    At this point, we are getting into repetition and long quotes, that is more likely to lose our readership than shed much light on the topic.

    Above, I have referenced Franz Knittel, Charles Forster, Arthur Cleveland Coxe, Franz Pieper and others who responded in depth to these issues (emphasizing Cyprian and Tertullian on this thread) raised by Simon, Newton and Porson.

    And I have tried to give some value-added considerations for perspective, such as discussions of the Council of Carthage of 484 AD, the Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts and the Vulgate Prologue that chastises those who removed the verse.

    So the reader is welcome to study and search out the truth of the pure word of God. As for quotes from Newton and others, I will respond where the specifics really seem to call for a response 🙂 .

    Shalom,
    Steven

  64. on 19 Sep 2011 at 9:17 pmMatt13weedhacker

    No response for the entire – ( concept ) – change at Nicea?

    Going backwards – ( from ) – a hypothetical majority belief in a THREE-IN-ONE-GOD – ( to ) – a TWO-IN-ONE-GOD of father-Son-substance.

    Then changed back again supposedly at Chanceldon?

  65. on 19 Sep 2011 at 11:15 pmSteven Avery

    Hi,

    Not really. Since I defend neither Nicea or Chalcedon I find your expositions a little convoluted and off the topic of the heavenly witnesses verse.

    You would have to carefully spell out a purposed textual history to match your doctrinal stuff. However after your Matthew 28:19 attempt with Cyprian I lost a lot of interest in trying to follow your ideas around the mulberry bush.

    Shalom,
    Steven

  66. on 20 Sep 2011 at 5:44 amMatt13weedhacker

    Do you not understand the idea of a fundemental concept shift.

    ( From ) – your hypothetical and doubtful THREE-IN-ONE

    ( To ) – an undesputed fact of history of a TWO-IN-ONE

    ?

  67. on 20 Sep 2011 at 12:45 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Three in one ?

    The verse says :

    1 John 5:7
    For there are three that bear record in heaven,
    the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
    and these three are one.

    If you do not mind, I would prefer to stay close to the Bible phrasing. Here is a verse with “in”.

    Colossians 2:8-9
    Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men,
    after the rudiments of the world,
    and not after Christ.
    For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    Hopefully you can understand why I do not go afar to councils and phrasings and creeds that I do not affirm. And that includes the Nicean, Athanasian and Chalcedon creeds.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  68. on 20 Sep 2011 at 3:50 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Strange.

    You appeal to the non-biblical Christian writings as proof for your text, and in the next breath you deny that non-biblical writings from in and around the same era are worthless.

  69. on 20 Sep 2011 at 6:32 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Also considering that you said:

    “…There are not extant manuscripts of 1 John 5 in any language at all before the 4th century…”

  70. on 20 Sep 2011 at 7:53 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Matt,

    > Matt
    > You appeal to the non-biblical Christian writings as proof for your text,

    The early church writers are evidence (“proof” is interpretative and can be subjective) to the text that was in their Bible. That can be seen in evidences like Cyprian and Tertullian (who both knew Latin and Greek) and the hundreds of bishops at the Council of Carthage of 484 AD and writers like Fulgentius, who quotes the text many times.

    These evidences are corroborative to manuscript evidences such as the verse being in the Old Latin by heavy preponderance and similarly in the Vulgate line.

    Such early church writer evidences are often far more significant than differing manuscripts here and there, especially when the manuscripts are dated later.

    And if a person can not see that on 1 John 5:7, I suggest as study of Acts 8:37, where the discussion is less charged, although many of the principles are the same.

    > Matt
    > “you deny that non-biblical writings from in and around the same era are worthless.”

    You will have to unpack that one.

    Steven
    “…There are not extant manuscripts of 1 John 5 in any language at all before the 4th century…”

    ie. The earliest extant manuscript is from the 4th century. Do you question that ? When we discuss Cyprian and Tertullian we are discussing their Bibles way before that time.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  71. on 21 Sep 2011 at 12:34 amLORRAINE

    Steve Avery my sentiments exactly, there are no extant manuscripts of Christianity on 1 John 5 writtings before the 4th century as a matter of fact Judaism preceded Christianity its origin is in the 3rd century. Christianity was made in the 4th century and the Nicean and Carthage eras are where it all began for the NT in Greek and Latin in my book. Also, these men bishops and priest never to me prophesized anything from YHWH’s servants or prophets so therefore these writtings in my opinion are all Theologian. Meaning it is writen by man from man and I can see room for mistakes here..Although the scripture that you wrote about Psalms 122, I did not see any three in one of YHWH He Who Creates (Hebrew) and my book is a King James Version, Words in Red, Regency 162M, the only thing in multiple that I see is in verse 5 that says, For there are set thrones of judgment, the thrones of the house of David. Well, you might can tell that I am a true OT person in that I would like to elaborate on the 5th verse of Psalms 122. It tells us that there will be multiple ones who will Sheppard over us in the new kingdom and yet those who believe in the nt always seem to think that it will only be jc to Sheppard over us and as in the scripture of Jeremiah, 33:vs.22 it reads the BRANCH will watch over us. This always have me to wonder about people and their beliefs of how they maybe just listening to their pastors and not really reading this whole book. This going by what the pastors tell us should be ok but as in Jeremiah, 23:vs.1-3 the pastors had to be scrutinized in the days of old and now today they surely should be questioned also, with all of these different writings from Latin to Greek I thought what was supposed to be acknowledged were the writings from the Hebrew bibles correct me if I’m wrong. You guys have all this fancy education but I think I followed through on this subject of 1 John 5 good enough, and it does not matter because I know that if it is not documented in the OT it is probably fabricated anyway or tampered with to some degree as is the OT but when you study the prophets in the OT, and substantiate them with the historical facts you can very much trust in it more that way. But of course this is my personal style of how to get to the truth and everyone has their own way for sure. Thanks for all of the well writen comments of the elitist teachings, and of the forms of language of L. or G. showing the styles of the other books of Christianity it was intriguing. Some of us could only hope for such learning. Praise YHWH, Selah.

  72. on 21 Sep 2011 at 3:05 amSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Lorraine
    “Christianity its origin is in the 3rd century. Christianity was made in the 4th century and the Nicean and Carthage eras are where it all began for the NT in Greek and Latin in my book”

    Greetings, Lorraine. The early church writers of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries disprove this theory (Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, etc. even Paul referring to Luke as scripture) since they were referring to the Bible books already written. Even Josephus verifies the history of the NT and the Christian movement (e.g. read his sections on John the Baptist and the execution of James).

    All sorts of claims can be made that do not stand up to simple, careful, logical historical scrutiny.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  73. on 21 Sep 2011 at 6:25 pmMatt13weedhacker

    This Council of Carthage you keep refering to?

    Can you provide a specific reference please for the whole context and not just the isolated quotation? The writer and Book and Chapter etc?

    Because I would like to examine it closely in its entire context and make my own evaluation.

    Is it a later reference to what happened at the council by a later historian? Or is it the actual words and proceedings written at the time? From what MSS does it come from? What is the date of the copy of this MSS? Or is it an original MSS? What is the condition or state of the text itself? Has it been retouched by later editiors? Who translated it? And what is his doctrinal stand? Trinitarian?

    In my study of the earliest post-biblical writings of the ANF there is no real substantial teaching of a THREE-( IN )-ONE-GOD until you hit Tertullian. Who was a confirmed Montantist at the time his first teaching the Trinity teaching and had seperated himself from “orthodox” christianity and was also excomunicated for his doctrinal stand against the “Church.”

    It appears that the rise of the THREE-IN-ONE or “THREE ARE ONE” (as you prefer) doctrine largely (though not entirely) originates with him and his “Lord” Montanus, which history shows was pased on to his biggest fan and disciple Cyprian – both – being centered in Carthage North Africa.

    Historically speaking the controversy regarding the Trinity eminates mostly (not entirely) from North Africa ie., Carthage, Alexandria etc.

    Thus it is not suprising to see that the doctrinal heirs of Tertullian and Cyprian with the passing of a couple of hundred years embracing a TRI-{3}-NITARIAN CREED or corrupted Trinitarian proof text.

    Which is another inconsistency and anomily in your argument.

    You say you won’t accept the “COUNCILS” and there “CREEDS” but that is in fact – exactly – what you have do by appealing to: “…THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE 484 AD…”

  74. on 21 Sep 2011 at 8:34 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Couldn’t help but notice “…A scholium on Psalm 122 ( ATTRIBUTED TO ) Origen…”

    Once again a very doubtful and obscure reference.

    Yes Ben Davids ( http://www.1john57.com/threeletters3.htm ) letter no 3, reference to Origen is not exact. Which makes it suspicious to start out with.

    And Clement of Alexandria’s Eclogae Propheticae or “Extracts From The Prophets” exists only in:

    QUOTE: “…the manuscript is the eleventh century Laurentainus V 3 (= L ) located in Florence. … As is the case with P, L is full of textual corruptions: errors of names, numbers, omissions, missplaced sentences, as well as the insertion of marginalia into the text…” – (The text of the Gospels in Clement of Alexandria By Carl P. Cosaert 2008.)

    So is wholy untrustworthy to start out with. It is a late and corrupt copy.

    Plus he quotes PSUEDO Athanasius works. Rejected by most scholars as genuine.

    So once again under close scrutiny these so called proof texts for the interpolated text of 1st John 5:7 crumble to bits under close scrutiny.

  75. on 21 Sep 2011 at 10:21 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Matt, you seem to be confused about evidences. The Psalm Scholium (Origen) and Clement references (Scholium discussed by Knittel, Forster and others in addition to Ben David) are simply auxiliary, allusions, and work to counteract a very weak evidence from silence that is used with some authors.

    While I appreciate the manuscript background from Clement, it is still a mild evidence, much like his supposed silence is mild (Note: there is more discussed in his Cassiodorus fragments reference because of the use of “et iterum” ; but we tend to get a bit technical for a blog discussion.)

    The foundational evidences are the

    a) huge majority of Old Latin and
    b) Vulgate Latin verses,
    c) Cyprian and corroborative citations showing ante-Nicene use
    (Cyprian accepted even by UBS-4),
    d) the Council of Carthage with hundreds of bishops
    e) the Vulgate Prologue discussing why the verse dropped out and
    f) a rich heritage of quoting, sometimes doctrinal, sometimes not, including Priscililan, Contra Varimadum (Victor Tapsensis), Fulgentius and Cassiodorus.

    Plus internal evidences – context, style, consistency, majestty and grammar.

    And the simple truth, now largely accepted in textual circles as the Hortian error is rejected, that omissions, accidental and deliberate or both, are far easier than additions.

    As to the general language of the verse, it is good to understand (especially well written from Knittel and Forster) how the wording of the verse effected the church vocabulary.

    In fact, and please listen carefully, a non-Trinitarian could assert that they misused the simple and clear dynamic of the verse. When they morphed into the convoluted constructs of late creedalism. However, that is not the fault of the simple and pure verse:

    1 John 5:7
    For there are three that bear record in heaven,
    the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
    and these three are one.

    that is a problem of the church (Greek) philosophical constructs.

    You totally misunderstand my position on the Council of Carthage, which makes me doubt your sincerity in the discussion. I do not reference the Council to judge pro or con on the statement of faith that was expressed, but simply as an evidence that the verse was in the Bible of the hundreds of bishops and was offered without opposition as a part of their statement fo faith, even in a hostile environment where scripture tampering would be a major cause of offense.

    So, I implore you to please get the basics of the discussion right before you ask me to research this and that. When you misrepresent my position, I lose interest in trying to walk another mile.

    Surely it is not to hard for you to get to the sources. Do you have Michael Maynard’s book ? Raymond Brown can also be helpful, as can your own web search through the historical discussions.

    Understand that you will not find much from Daniel Wallace, James White or even Bruce Metzger, they tend to be very mediocre on these evidentiary topics. You have to start with the basics. I believe I have a post or two on Carthage on one of the textual criticism forums, and they usually pop up on searches.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  76. on 21 Sep 2011 at 10:50 pmLORRAINE

    There is only one Savior. Praise YHWH He Who Creates.

    Steve Avery, if you don’t mind me asking are you Muslim of Islamic belief? Also, to me the Carthage era was a time of barbaric behavior on the organization of slavery so I can’t see how any righteousness could have come from any of these men anyway to have one to believe anything that they have written especially of any Godlike divinity of any sort. This is just my opinion not to say that some of them the popes or bishops or what have you were not good persons but at some point they must have at least acknowledge the slavery that was going on and that it was brutal to do to anything let alone a human being and many people find treating animals cruel to be wrong so I wonder what exactly were their intentions with these writings of religion was it maybe another source of control of people?

  77. on 22 Sep 2011 at 12:16 amSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Lorraine, I am a Bible believer. You can consider me evangelical, messianic, even pentecostal. To put it simply, fairly nicely, I do not think you really follow the discussion.

    Shalom,
    Steven

  78. on 22 Sep 2011 at 1:29 pmLORRAINE

    Steven I am not following the discussion of what I found in the OT as opposed to what is being made up in the nt, but I understand what you mean to follow the teachings and learning of the different biblical books many of you have studied and learned. Therefore I will refrain from my opinions of these biblical books and leave the rest of those to their amusement of the comparative learning of vast knowledge of the origination of religions and beliefs and their documentations. Praise YHWH Peace.

  79. on 22 Sep 2011 at 2:31 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Lorraine, since you did not understand that Carthage was controlled by Huneric and the Vandals (the ones who took the handles) at the time of the Council of Carthage, I tend to doubt that you have a lot of insight into “comparative learning of vast knowledge of the origination of religions and beliefs and their documentations”. However, if you do, I hope you use your knowledge in service of Messsiah.

    Shalom,
    Steven

  80. on 23 Sep 2011 at 8:48 amLORRAINE

    Steve, I never claimed to have the knowledge of original documentation of religion no I said that I would leave that all up to those who are scholars and students of it. And I also said in one of my post that yes Carthage Africae, or Africa was up for grabs with everyone wanting to take from it for it was the trade auction of the world in those days and even today Africa is full of wealth. The Vandals and the Huneric this of course was another time frame of the defeat of Rome but it was later won and reclaimed again by Rome right? But yes I will leave the comparisons of religion studies to those of you who fancy in them. I will now go on to other posts. Praise YHWH the only Savior, in the book of Isaiah, and in 43:vs.1-18.

  81. on 24 Sep 2011 at 6:45 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    “The Vandals and the Huneric this of course was another time frame of the defeat of Rome but it was later won and reclaimed again by Rome right? ”

    Yes, about 50 years later. However the Council of Carthage 484 AD where the heavenly witnesses was in the statement of faith was toward the height of the Vandal empire.

    It is often pointed out that the usage of the verse would only be done if it was solidly in the Bibles of all parties. Especially considering the fact that the Orthodox contingent was at a severe disadvantage in terms of potential persecution and safety. They would be disinclined to utilize a verse that would be seriously contestable, and be accused of Bible tampering. More corroborative evidence that the Old Latin line was solidly with the heavenly witnesses.

    As an ironic doctrinal note, Johannes Bugenhagen, the pastor, student and friend of Luther, actually blasted the verse as an “Arian blasphemy”. Showing how we should be slow to put on doctrinal glasses too tightly.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  82. on 24 Sep 2011 at 9:10 pmSarah

    If I am following this thread correctly, Sean’s position (based on part two of the original article) is that the Comma is a counterfeit:

    Today, the Comma Johanneum persists in only the KJV, the NKJV, and a smattering of other outdated translations. Mainstream Bibles like the NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NAB, NET, NRSV, RSV, NJB, etc. have eliminated the forgery. In other words, Catholics and Protestants both admit that the Comma should not be considered as legitimate Scripture!

    Steven’s position is that it is legit scripture:

    The foundational evidences are the

    a) huge majority of Old Latin and
    b) Vulgate Latin verses,
    c) Cyprian and corroborative citations showing ante-Nicene use
    (Cyprian accepted even by UBS-4),
    d) the Council of Carthage with hundreds of bishops
    e) the Vulgate Prologue discussing why the verse dropped out and
    f) a rich heritage of quoting, sometimes doctrinal, sometimes not, including Priscililan, Contra Varimadum (Victor Tapsensis), Fulgentius and Cassiodorus.

    Plus internal evidences – context, style, consistency, majestty and grammar.

    Sean, I’m very curious at to your thoughts on Steven’s rebuttal…

  83. on 24 Sep 2011 at 9:11 pmSarah

    p.s. Sorry for the messed up block quotes… hopefully it’s still readable…

  84. on 26 Sep 2011 at 9:55 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Just to antagonize!

    SIR ISAAC NEWTON (circa. 1642-1727 C.E.): “…Having given you an historical account of the corruption of two texts of scripture, I shall now mention some others more briefly. ffor the attempts to corrupt the scriptures have been very many, and; amongst many attempts tis no wonder if some have succeeded. I shall mention those that have not succeeded as well as those that have, because the first will be more easily allowed to be corruptions, and; by being convinced of those, you will cease to be averse from believing the last…” – (“Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture” [1st John 5:7 & 1st Timothy 3:16] The Third Letter (Part 4: ff. 70-83) by Isaac Newton. Source: Ms. 361(4), ff. 70-83, New College Library, Oxford.)

    By the way.

    This account of the Council of Carthage and the Vandals – is (and should be) subject to the usual scrutiny.

    Who wrote the quoted account? What was the entire context? How reliable are the MSS from whence it came? Are there any fanciful and exagerated details in it that make it dubious?

    Most crucially what is the ( date ) of this writing?

    4ht, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th Century etc, etc?

    How many hundred years later was it written?

    Is it from a retrospective Tri{3}nitarian historian writing about a past event?

    What are ( his ) sources? How can we (now, centuries later) verify the reliability of his sources?

    Cosidering the well documented and fact of retrospective re-writing of history by such men as Rufinus and Jerome (who are well known for altering and editing doctrinal and historically related details) – to what extent can we trust what “orthodox” scribes have to say?

    History is written by the victors! Goes the famous proverb. And this case (to do with the Tri{3}nity doctrine and its proof texts) nearly all contrary writings constituting evidence to the contrary have been censored, burn’t and destroyed – starting with Constantine.

    All genuine and valid questions that ( should ) be asked!

    Just as you don’t accept the “…usual expalin aways…” from us – the same standard should be equally true of you.

  85. on 26 Sep 2011 at 11:09 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Looking forward to Sean’s response to Sarah. Yes, Sarah, you seem to have the basics right.

    Shalom,
    Steven

  86. on 26 Sep 2011 at 11:16 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    One other addition I would add. I believe we have been given by God his pure and perfect word, that we really can believe the pure Bible, Genesis to Revelation, every verse.

    That, ultimately, we do not have to play dueling scholars, and get into the morass of every believer making up a new version in their own image.

    This is in some senses a very different issue, yet it is related. I have never found two pure Bible rejectors to agree on the identity of the pure and perfect word of God. They always end up in competitive (snipping) and (correcting) of God’s word. Ultimately they start leaning to philosophies, preferences, humanism, even creedalism .. anything but the simplicity and clarity and authority of the pure word of God. They lose faith and belief and trust in God’s word and look for substitutes.

    For many, this spirit of skepticism, Bible correction, and ultimately veering towards unbelief actually begins with the battle ground of the heavenly witnesses. God has placed a beautiful scripture right there, in the first epistle of John, almost like a scriptural rock that you can accept, or upon which Bible faith can be broken.

    Thank you Lord Jesus for your pure and perfect word.

    Shalom,
    Steven

  87. on 26 Sep 2011 at 11:34 pmLORRAINE

    Matt., yes that Jerome (Eusebius Hieronymous) 405 C.E. fellow was putting in and taking out much information of the KJV, OT and NT, and other documents so now what? I will tell you what is a fact and that is, there are prophets and servants who are today now annointed with the truth from the spirit of YHWH The Lord, and they are with us. YHWH has raised them as his jewels to have the spirit over them to dispell any misrepresentations in the KJV and other documents and this is what is being done as we speak you see just like we did not know of any prophets until now there are those who knows the work of YHWH is not all done yet and these prophets do know who they are and what they must do. Soon we will know them too the day of The Lord YHWH is coming and then we will see everyone will, I Kings 18 and Malachi, 4 are both the prophesies to witness about the end something even Jerome missed so fear not Matt., we are truly redeemed lest we do not turn back unto YHWH The Lord for YHWH knows all. Also, in Malachi, 3:vs.16-18. Praise YHWH. go to YHWH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS is calling us.

  88. on 27 Sep 2011 at 11:30 amSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Arthur Cleveland Coxe (1818-1896) was the learned American editor of many early church writing editions.

    Matt:
    “And Cleveland Coxe in his ANF translations are notorious for being biased and flat out dishonest in places. As is even evidenced in this case – by his sly rearranging of the word order to make it look more like a quotation of the designer forgery in 1st John 5:7.”

    Please show me where this “notoriety” is discussed and some examples (preferably outside 1 John 5:7 where objectivity is not the norm).

    Also, please give examples of what Arthur Cleveland Coxe actually translated that you do not like. The Wikipedia article mentions one translation from Coxe: “He also translated a work by the Abbe Labord, on the Impossibility of the Immaculate Conception”. In the editions I have seen, Coxe does editing and notes, translation is done by Thelwall, Wallis, Holmes, Roberts (Tertullian). Reith & Dods on Justin Martyr, and others.

    Then you can tell us specifically what is “this case” above to which you reference. And why you thought Coxe was the translator.

    Thanks.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  89. on 27 Sep 2011 at 11:33 amSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Oh, I think I understand your accusation. You are assuming your own unique translation of Cyprian, afawk never given by any scholar anywhere. Despite Cyprian being discussed by many dozens of learned writers of all types of doctrinal positions, for and against the verse as scripture.

    From your own unique error, you accuse Coxe.

    Circularity, the jewel.

    Shalom,
    Steven

  90. on 27 Sep 2011 at 12:49 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    “nearly all contrary writings constituting evidence to the contrary have been censored, burn’t and destroyed – starting with Constantine.”

    Please indicate the scholarship sources for this claim re: Constantine. Thanks.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  91. on 27 Sep 2011 at 9:19 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Hi Steven.

    CONSTANTINE THE GREAT (circa. 272-337 C.E.): “…Constantine the King to the Bishops and nations everywhere. Inasmuch as Arius imitates the evil and the wicked, it is right that, like them, he should be rebuked and rejected. As therefore Porphyry, who was an enemy of the fear of God, and wrote wicked and unlawful writings against the religion of Christians, found the reward which befitted him, that he might be a reproach to all generations after, because he fully and insatiably used base fame; so that on this account his writings were righteously destroyed; thus also now it seems good that Arius and the holders of his opinion should all be called Porphyrians, that he may be named by the name of those whose evil ways he imitates: And not only this, but also that all the writings of Arius, wherever they be found, shall be delivered to be burned with fire, in order that not only his wicked and evil doctrine may be destroyed, but also that the memory of himself and of his doctrine may be blotted out, that there may not by any means remain to him remembrance in the world. Now this also I ordain, that if any one shall be found secreting any writing composed by Arius, and shall not forthwith deliver up and burn it with fire, his punishment shall be death; for as soon as he is caught in this he shall suffer capital punishment by beheading without delay…” – (Letter of the same Constantine against the Arians. Epistle of Constantine the King summoning the Bishops from Ancyra to Nicea. EXTRACTS FROM THE SYRIAC MS. NO. 14528 IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. WRITTEN A.D. 501. SYRIAC MISCELLANIES; OR EXTRACTS RELATING TO THE FIRST AND SECOND GENERAL COUNCILS, AND VARIOUS OTHER QUOTATIONS, THEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, & CLASSICAL. TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH FROM MSS. IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM AND IMPERIAL LIBRARY OF PARIS. WITH NOTES by B. H. COWPER. WILLIAMS AND NORGATE,14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON; AND 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. MDCCCLXI.)

    There is a Latin version of this edict somewhere which essentially says the same thing.

    The fact that your not aware of this edict shows to me you don’t have a full knowledge of the historical context from which you argue so assertively; and that you ignore the imense pressures put upon ordinary believers to conform to this new TWO-IN/ARE-ONE-GOD doctrine of Father-Son-substance at Nicea which in turn lead to the speculation on the holy spirit of the mid fourth century which culminated in Chanceldons new THREE-IN/ARE-ONE-GOD.

    Thus you find situations where the slightest hint of Arianism in the fifth century, as fore example the despute between Jerome and Rufinus over Origen – it becomes a life and death situation, as Jerome said of Rufinus, that he was in effect trying to have his own Christian brother murdered, because the death penalty was then in force for holding any veiws or literature that was even remotely Arian, such as Origen in this case.

    Thus these men took it upon themselves to retouch old writings and edit them where passages dissagreed with the new orthodox Trinity doctrine. And it is clear that some copies of the Bible, in some instances, where not exempt from this.

  92. on 27 Sep 2011 at 9:42 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Thus Steven, you have an erasing from history of doctrinal writings contrary to the “…three in/are one…” doctrine. Add to this nearly two millenia of censorship and inquisitions and book burnings and brutal repretion by religious authorities, then you have very little left of such doctrines as Arius. They are only available in the writings of his enimies, seeing they did such a good job of destroying any trace of them.

    Note to, that it was not just Arius himself but all like “…holders of his opinion[s]…” and his: “…wicked and evil doctrine…”

    Were also to: “…be destroyed…” “…that the memory of … his doctrine may be blotted out, that there may not by any means remain … remembrance in the world…”

    I must make a correction to the quoted statement I made before about Cleveland Coxe. I conceed that you are write in one respect. He was the editor. It was in many cases the other translator’s who were biased.

    If the History Channel forums were still up and runing I would recommend you go there to see where I had shown (nearly Six Hundred pages worth) that they were deliberately biased in many specific cases. I can only now recomend to you my Blog: http://matt13weedhacker.blogspot.com/ where you find some posts on the very subject. Although I must say not even a tenth of the info I had in this regard on the History Channel forum is available on there as yet.

    Now, Steven, I have been good enough as to give you specific references to a document you were (and should be) interested in; will you be good enough to return the favor in regard to the Council of Carthage 484 please?

  93. on 27 Sep 2011 at 11:13 pmMatt13weedhacker

    An example of later copyist’s doctoring early historical documents of Chrisitanity – post Chanceldon:

    RUFINUS OF AQUILEIA (circa. 400 C.E.): “…after translating into Latin more than seventy of those treatises of Origen which are styled Homilies and a considerable number also of his writings on the apostles, in which a good many “stumbling-blocks” are found in the original Greek, so smoothed and corrected them in his translation, that a ( Latin ) reader would meet with nothing which could appear discordant with our [TRI{3}NITARIAN] belief…” – (PREFACE TO HIS LATIN TRANSLATION OF ORIGENS “ON FIRST PRINCIPLES”)

    Further on:

    RUFINUS OF AQUILEIA (circa. 400 C.E.): “…If, therefore, we have found anywhere in his writings, any statement opposed to that view, which elsewhere in his works he had himself piously laid down regarding the trinity, we have either omitted it, … or we have brought it forward agreeably to the rule…” – (PREFACE TO HIS LATIN TRANSLATION OF ORIGENS “ON FIRST PRINCIPLES”)

    For historical context.

  94. on 28 Sep 2011 at 1:31 amSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Matt, there many myths about Constantine and Nicea (as pointed out by Roger Pearse at Tertullian.org ) mostly about the formation of the Bible and the canon.

    The major book burning of the era was the Diocletian persecutions before Constantine.

    The bitter back-and-forth with the Arians throughout the 300s is well-known, I thank you for pointing out the edict above, against the Arian books.

    A few years later the emperer was pro-Arian (the position of Eusebius is a big discussion) and then another switcheroo.

    The Bible was already around the world in multiple languages and political regions way before Nicea so these controversies did not hinder providential preservation of the word of God.

    Shalom,
    Steven

  95. on 28 Sep 2011 at 1:54 amSteven Avery

    HI Folks,

    Ok, we agree that Arthur Cleveland Coxe is fine, that you spoke accusatory hastily against the man. “notorious for being biased and flat out dishonest”. And I read up on him today, made a note on the Wikipedia page, and have a lot of respect for his skills and understanding. I have a little “thing” about those deceased being unfairly accused.

    You mention the Rufinus situation, that is well-known and somewhat exceptional and is always considered when looking at writings like Origen Greek through Rufinus. Latin. Jerome and Rufinus were not friends, there is a lot to study there. Rufinus is the exceptional case where one writer specifically says I am overlaying his thoughts with my own, this does not give much evidence of anything.

    Everything I have seen about Jerome indicates a real earnestness and sincerity, even within the sharp disputes and doctrinal foibles. Remember, he took a lot of flak for leaving the corrupt Greek OT and, while living in Bethlehem and using the library at Caesarea, studying with the Jews to properly translate the Tanach from Hebrew to Latin. A very spot-on move.

    There is also a Constantine Decree that is up on a lot of websites (about Sabbath and more) that definitely is not the 4th century Constantine but hundreds of years later. Having researched that, I learned to ask for primary source, or solid secondary-source, quotes.

    I’ve looked at a lot of controversies, and rarely do I see a real translation issue. (I am researching one on a Calvin quote about Athanasius).

    Honestly, Matt, I consider your attempt on Cyprian indicative of your own lack of scholarship, and ask you to go to other Latin experts (of any doctrine, e.g the b-Latin list) and see if anything flies. It is hard to take you seriously on languages after that one.

    And if you have other examples from translations of ECW you have to point me to the article, and I do not want to wade through any ad hoc attempts similar to yours on Cyprian. They have to be written by some one skilled in the languages and says “Tertullian is mis-translated here…” etc. If you have any, even one, I will look at it closely.

    Now an occasional significant doctrinal mistranslation likely exists, I remember seeing a case or two where it looks like a translator improperly translated “God the Son” to match his doctrine. Overall, though, I believe there are a few concerns, the ECW translations seem to be high quality.

    To start .. and I mean start .. with Carthage, you can use the info on my TC-Alternate post.

    [TC-Alternate-list] Council of Carthage, 484 AD, heavenly witnesses in the confession of faith by 100s of bishops – Feb 6, 2011
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/3917

    I’ve been adding recently, after that post, to my own backdrop on the history.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  96. on 28 Sep 2011 at 1:40 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Steven.

    May I point out that saying there is a edict by Constantine that was written (perhaps) by someone else (perhaps) at a later date than his reign about the sabbath etc, has no bearing whatsoever on the historical fact of the doctrinal erasing and editing that did indeed occur.

    Your wrong about Jerome and Rufinus, they were friends, – then – had a falling out over Rufinus doctoring not only his version of Origen, but Eusebius History and within that hsitory many other writers statements, ie., Polycarp’s Martyrdom account, also seperately some of Clement of Rome’s writings.

    Just a side note on Origen, the majority of his homilies, (which constitute the bulk of his extant writings) exist only in Rufinus Latin version, apart from a few small fragments here and there, and most of Origen Peri Archon exists only Rufinus corrupted latin.

    A highly significant and acknowledged example of Historical & Doctrinal tampering by ( both ) Jerome & Rufinus:

    GREEK TEXT: “…Ἐπὶ τῶνδε καὶ Μελίτων τῆς ἐν Σάρδεσιν παροικίας ἐπίσκοπος Ἀπολινάριός τε τῆς ἐν Ἱεραπόλει διαπρεπῶς ἤκμαζον, οἳ  καὶ τῷ δηλωθέντι κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους Ῥωμαίων βασιλεῖ λόγους ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ἰδίως ἑκάτερος ἀπολογίας προσεφώνησαν. τούτων εἰς ἡμετέραν γνῶσιν ἀφῖκται τὰ ὑποτεταγμένα· Μελίτωνος, τὰ Περὶ τοῦ πάσχα δύο καὶ τὸ Περὶ πολιτείας καὶ προφητῶν καὶ ὁ Περὶ ἐκκλησίας καὶ ὁ Περὶ κυριακῆς λόγος, ἔτι δὲ ὁ Περὶ πίστεως ἀνθρώπου καὶ ὁ Περὶ πλάσεως καὶ ὁ Περὶ ὑπακοῆς πίστεως αἰσθητηρίων καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ὁ Περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ηνενοις καὶ ὁ Περὶ λουτροῦ καὶ περὶ ἀληθείας καὶ περὶ κτίσεως [πίστεως] καὶ γενέσεως Χριστοῦ καὶ λόγος αὐτοῦ προφητείας καὶ περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος καὶ ὁ Περὶ φιλοξενίας καὶ ἡ Κλεὶς καὶ τὰ Περὶ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῆς Ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰωάννου καὶ ὁ Περὶ ἐνσωμάτου θεοῦ, ἐπὶ πᾶσι καὶ τὸ Πρὸς Ἀντωνῖνον βιβλίδιον. ἐν μὲν οὖν τῷ Περὶ τοῦ πάσχα τὸν χρόνον καθ᾿ ὃν συνέταττεν, ἀρχόμενος σημαίνει ἐν τούτοις…” – (ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ Δ´BOOK 4:Chapter 26:2, Eusebius Ecclesiastical History.)

    MILETO OF SARDIS (circa. 110-177 C.E.): “…The following works of these writers have come to our knowledge. Of Melito, the two books On the Passover, and one On the Conduct of Life and the Prophets, the discourse On the Church, and one On the Lord’s Day, still further one On the Faith of Man, and one On his Creation, another also On the Obedience of Faith, and one On the Senses; besides these the work On the Soul and Body, and that On Baptism, and the one On Truth, [1290]AND ON THE – ( CREATION ) – AND GENERATION OF CHRIST; his discourse also On Prophecy…” – (Eusebius Church History Book IV: Chapter 26.2. Melito and the Circumstances which he records. ANF Roberts & Donaldson.)
    [FOOTNOTE 1290]:
    Six mss., with Nicephorus, read κτίσεως, “creation,” but five mss., with the Syriac and Rufinus, and possibly Jerome, read πίστεως. The latter reading therefore has the strongest external testimony in its favor, but must be rejected (with Stroth, Otto, Heinichen, Harnack, etc.) as evidently a dogmatic correction of the fourth century, when there was an objection to the use of the word κτίσις in connection with Christ. Rufinus divides the one work On the Creation and Generation of Christ into two,—On Faith and On the Generation of Christ, and his prophecy, connecting the second with the next-mentioned work. Jerome omits the first clause entirely at this point, and translates simply de generatione Christi librum unum. The de fide, however, which he inserts earlier in his list, where there is no corresponding word in the Greek, may be the title which he omits here (see above, note 9), displaced, as the title de sensibus is also displaced. If this be true, he becomes with Rufinus and the Syriac a witness to the reading πίστεως instead of κτίσεως, and like Rufinus divides the one work of Eusebius into two.
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/…npnf201.iii.ix.xxvi.html

  97. on 28 Sep 2011 at 1:50 pmMatt13weedhacker

    What happened to Melito’s entire book on:

    “…THE GENERATION & ( CREATION ) of CHRIST…” ? ? ?

    There are no copies that have survived?

    I wonder why?

    Perhaps Constantine edict on burning writings of like kind to Arius has something to do with it. Perhaps the interceding centuries of others doing the same had something to do with it. It in fact has everything to do with it.

    A book so doctrinally sensitive and devastating to the later, much later Tri{3}nity doctrine would be to dangerous to keep in existence.

    So Jerome is not as innocent as you make him out to be.

    Tampering and literally re-writting history.

    This is the Post -Nicea, Post-Chanceldon historical ( context ) I have been trying to point out.

  98. on 28 Sep 2011 at 2:11 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Your personal attack on my scholarship doesn’t change the simple and overiding fact that the majority of MSS in existence do not support the interpolation.

    A heavy, heavy weight indeed, certainly not in favour of your credibility as a self proclamed expert and authority in this area.

    Your special pleading and the accumulation of repeated refernces to the same citiation by as many different people as possible makes little headway on counterbalancing the contrary MSS evidence or historical evidence of earlier references than Cyprian (ie., Clem Alex, Origen) not supporting your own desperate theories. Nor the well documented doctrinal editing that took place on behalf of the very same “…THREE-IN/ARE-ONE…” doctrine by trinitarians.

    Your focusing your eyes (wearing doctrinal blinders) on – soley the favourable references only – confirms your pre-concieved doctrinal predjudice. The premise that the interpolation is the “pure” word of God in the face of the majority of MSS evidence is a sad sad case in deed.

    I have yet to see an apologetic web-site or forum post all Patristic references and MSS evidence ( both ) – Favourable – and – not favourable yet. Which speaks volumes about the theological motivations driving such people.

    Also the fabulous and fantastical stories of miracles in Victors account of the Vandals, which I have read so far, and the historical innacuracies and anomilies in the preface and footnotes severly undermine it’s believability and credibility as a totally accurate and un-biased witness.

  99. on 28 Sep 2011 at 2:13 pmMatt13weedhacker

    PS: Thanks for the link I will read it with interest!

  100. on 28 Sep 2011 at 7:09 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    “Your wrong about Jerome and Rufinus, they were friends, – then – had a falling out over Rufinus doctoring not only his version of Origen”

    So how was I wrong ? In fact, this shows Jerome’s integrity, if the account is accurate. Did I say they were at odds from childhood ?

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  101. on 28 Sep 2011 at 7:31 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    “Your personal attack on my scholarship doesn’t change the simple and overiding fact that the majority of MSS in existence do not support the interpolation.”

    Two different issues. Your scholarship is deficient in insisting on a private translation of no value. You would do well to research that issue, acknowledge and correct the error and move on. It is hard to take you seriously while you are publicly insisting that Cyprian’s grammar was a reference to Matthew 28:19. You will have a lot more respectability when you research and correct that, as you did with the railing accusation against Arthur Cleveland Coxe.

    Likely the majority of MSS in existence to support the verse, since about 5000 Latin mss support the heavenly witnesses.

    The historical account of Carthage is generally accepted by the savvier scholars, even if they oppose the verse as scripture. See e.g. Brooke and others. Whether Victor was correct or mistaken about miracles, his history stands up very well to corroborative historical knowledge, it is very extensive, there are excellent books about the Vandal situation that use the book as a primary source.

    The basic truth is this:
    Those who want to handwave evidences will always find a reason.
    As we see on the thread.

    “I have yet to see an apologetic web-site or forum post all Patristic references and MSS evidence ( both ) – Favourable – and – not favourable yet. Which speaks volumes about the theological motivations driving such people.”

    The next edition of Michael Maynard’s book should be very helpful in that regard. Nobody has done that yet on any side. Meanwhile, I am happy to work on that direction, as with correcting many apparatus errors of citations of all sides.

    You should understand that qualitatively evidences are quite difference on inclusion/omission verses than in alternate variants (like 1 Timothy 3:16). While an inclusion can be 100% clear, omissions tend to be murky evidences from silence, with the exception of some homily type omissions. The Old Latin evidences of the heavenly witneesses are so deep and extensive and wide-ranging and corroborative one to another that any sharp analysis will realize that accepting a couple (which must be done) really means accepting all.

    That is why the hand-waving becomes so humorous.

    The best gentleman to read about how we have much material and yet much has not weathered through time would be Roger Pearse of Tertullian.org. Your conjectural points above are so convoluted and hard to read that I basically pass them by. In fact, your whole obsession in trying to work through early writers by (3) this and that is very strange and makes you almost unreadable.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  102. on 28 Sep 2011 at 7:52 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Carthage

    Alan England “Brooke and others”

    Raymond Brown, one of the only contras who really cares about the evidences, is a good example. Joseph Pohle, Paul Edward Kretzman and others. The Porson style attack and hand-waving became an embarrassment (even to Westcott) so the general modernist approach to the Council of Carthage is to mask the evidence as if it were a private statement of “Victor-Vita” or “Eugenius” and dance around the significance. You can read the modern contra literature and rarely is the Council of Carthage even mentioned, despite the dynamic nature of hundres of bishops ascribing to the verse within a statement of faith.

    This trick is referenced in my post on TC-Alternate. Overall, I think Charles Forster is one of the best on the Council of Carthage and the verse, overall there are many excellent writers on the Council, including Ben David.

    Shalom,
    Steven

  103. on 28 Sep 2011 at 9:06 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Perhaps you would like to be a bit more up front and ( exact ) in your accusation about my grammar error? Be specific!

    Because there is an ever present pre-disposition not to be ( exact ) in the cited proof texts thus far.

    The earliest evidence out of them all – so far presented – not comming from you the self-proclaimed textual critic and expert – is not your so-called Old Latin MSS from the 4-5th century but the second century quotation from Clement of Alexandria, of which you yourself have so-far –

    How do you normally put it?

    “…hand waved…”!!!

    And

    “…explained away…”

    Clement pre-dates Cyprian.

    Clement being an ( exact ) quotation.

    “…For there are three that bear witness, the spirit,” … “and the water,” … “and the blood,” … “and these three are one.”

    Not a sort of or maybe or a kind of similar but not quite with changed subject names or word order or with ommissions.

    In an actual commentary and on Johns first epistle.

    Not an obscure maybe reference like Cyprian’s.

    Also Origen slightly earlier in age and a contemporary of Cyprian, yet showing a differen’t reading altogether.

    Origen again being exact in his wording of the verse.

    Origen being exact quotation, unlike Cyprian who just said: “The Lord says [at John 10:30] … and again … it is written”

    Written where? He does not say ( exactly )!

    But Origen says: “…the disciple John speaks in his Epistle of the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, as being one…”

    Not Just “…John says…” but “…in his Epistle…”

    Once again in an actual Commentary on Johns writings.

    An exact reference an un-mistakable reference!

    And I would very much like to see you show some balance in quoting the evidence against.

    It is interesting to see how the forgery has actually suceeeded very well in it’s goal in your case. Dupping you into believing it is the real deal.

    Perhaps oen day, an old MSS from the second century may turn up in old Egyption rubbish heap or in an early Chrisitan graveyard and put all this quibbling to rest.

    And it is not so much the “grammar” that is proof of Cyprian quoting Matt 28:19, but:

    1.) The exact same naming of the three subjects
    2.) The exact same word order of the subjects as at Matt 28:19
    3.) Word order of changed in English from the literal Latin

    Thus the translations of Cyprian in English, e.g.

    “…Franz August Otto Pieper (1852-1931): … and again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost: ‘And the Three are One…”

    Whereas if you are ( honest ) you will admitt the literal word order of the Latin is differen’t to how it is presented in English:

    “…Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est. Et hi tres unum sunt…”

    Which can be taken as in two ways:

    1.) For stylistic reasons
    2.) Manipulating a reference to look and appear more like the interpolation

    That’s the cheif points I was trying to get accross in Cyprians obscure maybe citation.

  104. on 28 Sep 2011 at 10:29 pmRay

    I’ve been thinking that if I could certainly and clearly be convinced that it was Jesus who had taught the disciples of Matt 4:21 the fishing knots they used and could explain how it is so to any man I might meet, in a simple way that they too could understand, then maybe I too might become a trinitarian.

    The best I can do right now is to say that I believe it was the Spirit of Christ which taught them how to fish, as the Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of God. For I trust that the Spirit of Christ was in the world. (John 1:10) For to me there is but one Spirit which is of God.

  105. on 28 Sep 2011 at 11:53 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    “usual explainings away” is the excellent phrase of Arthur Cleveland Coxe.

    Is your position that the first time Matthew 28:19 is written .. these three are one, and again .. Matthew 28:19 is written, these three are one ? I really can not make heads or tails of your unique and convoluted ideas on the simple Cyprian phrase.

    Your “chief points”.

    =======

    In posting on these two threads I was responding to a wildly skewed presentation of the evidences against the verse. Did you want me to repeat those negative evidences ? Or simply show how the presentation was very flawed.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  106. on 29 Sep 2011 at 12:16 amLORRAINE

    Ray, there is only one God YHWH google YHWH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS to view video tapes of prophesies and validated scriptures of God YHWH He Who Creates.

  107. on 29 Sep 2011 at 9:25 amSarah

    In posting on these two threads I was responding to a wildly skewed presentation of the evidences against the verse.

    Hi Steven,

    Just curious about your background as it relates to this particular topic? Clearly you have researched the subject extensively.

    Thanks ~ Sarah

  108. on 29 Sep 2011 at 8:11 pmMatt13weedhacker

    There is nothing complicated or difficult to understand about saying that the place ( where ):

    “…of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit…”

    “…is written…”

    That prhase is from Matt 28:19.

    Your argument is that ( what ) and ( where ) it:

    “…is written…”

    You say:

    “…And [Ltn., ( hi )] these three are one…”

    Is ( what ) is quoted.

    I say:

    “…of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit…”

    Is ( what ) is quoted.

    You say 1st John 5:7 interpolated version is ( where ) – ( what ) is quoted.

    I say Matt 28:19 is ( where ) – ( what ) is quoted.

    That is very simple.

    I’m sorry that you struggle so much with such a simple arguement!

  109. on 29 Sep 2011 at 8:14 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Doing a bit further research on the quesion at the moment and will post further points, maybe in a day or two.

  110. on 29 Sep 2011 at 9:09 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Sarah,

    When I began to study the issue of apologetics and the perfection of the Bible, I noticed that the heavenly witnesses was the fulcrum verse.

    (Originally I was reading the NIV and NAS and my sources were double-minded about the verse. I left that world precept upon precept, line upon line.)

    So I studied the issues, Cyprian was one of the first, I found myself quickly entagled in a forum discussion-debate, and I realized there were huge blinders about the basics of the Bible text and transmission.

    So I have put a fair amount of study into the heavenly witnesses, since it is the scripture rock, the Bible verse upon which many have fallen into skepticism, mockery, even guffaws .. against the word of God .. even supposedly learned men fall into bitterness and sarcasm against God’s word.

    They do this often without even knowing and understanding the history of the verse debate and how the heavenly witnesses fitly join together in the epistle, in the Johannine writings, and in the NT as a whole.

    The fact that Michael Maynard’s book came out and could still be found .. and the internet became a rich source (the better material on the verse is off copyright, there is little original and good since 1930) really has helped.

    This is not my one Bible textual interest, it is auxiliary to others, like the purity of the Reformation Bible, the majesty of the AV and individual verses and sections like the sister verse Acts 8:37, the poverty of Hortianism, the resurrection account in Mark and dozens of other verses .. and more.

    However, a lot revolves around this one verse.

    1 John 5:7
    For there are three that bear record in heaven,
    the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
    and these three are one.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  111. on 29 Sep 2011 at 9:16 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Matt, if you really want me to get involved in this (my interest is exceedingly small in your attempt) first I simply wanted you to explain your “et iterum”. What is the original reference, and what is the “and again” reference. And do you agree that the verse says “it is written, these three are one” as a single phrase with a referent .. or do you divide the phrase backwards (ie. it is written having one referent, these three are one another).

    ==============

    What I really want you to do is simply bounce your new idea off of anybody in the world, of any doctrinal suasion, who is truly Latin fluent and is not a personal friend or writer compatriot. Preferably a forum, e.g. with classical and/or biblical Latin scholars. Or any professor or learned individual.

    Would you do that ? If you would, I will simply wait for you to report back, and then continue.

    Thanks.

    ==============

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  112. on 29 Sep 2011 at 10:04 pmSarah

    Steven,

    Thanks for sharing a bit of your research background. I have a few more questions for you:

    This is not my one Bible textual interest, it is auxiliary to others, like the purity of the Reformation Bible, the majesty of the AV and individual verses and sections like the sister verse Acts 8:37, the poverty of Hortianism, the resurrection account in Mark and dozens of other verses .. and more.

    Forgive my ignorance, but what does the “majesty of the AV” refer to? Also, the “poverty of Hortianism”?

    However, a lot revolves around this one verse.

    1 John 5:7
    For there are three that bear record in heaven,
    the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
    and these three are one.

    To clarify, how would you interpret the meaning of this verse? It appears you don’t accept the trinitarian interpretation, so would it be fair to say you consider “these three are one” to mean one in agreement rather than one in substance?

  113. on 29 Sep 2011 at 11:34 pmRay

    Lorraine,

    What might I learn by your instruction in #106 about God that I don’t already know?

  114. on 30 Sep 2011 at 6:00 amMatt13weedhacker

    To balance the evidence.

    Here’s a differen’t opinion on Michael Maynard’s book:

    http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_debate_over_john.htm

    I suggest everybody interested in 1st John 5:7 should read this aswell.

  115. on 30 Sep 2011 at 7:38 amSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Doug’s Kutilek’s review of Michael Maynard’s book is extremely poor, although he makes a couple of valid points. I tend to doubt that he even read the book and reviewed the data. At one point, I thought to review the review, it is that bad, but went into research instead. So if he says something that you find especially interesting, simply share that exact sentence and I will be happy to comment.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  116. on 30 Sep 2011 at 7:44 amSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Sarah, Hortianism refers to a strange group of textual theories that were developed specifically to highlight the ultra corrupt Codex Vatiancus as pure and superior to the Received Text, and could be used as the copy text of a new Greek New Testament. This convoluted group of oddball theories actually developed the Critical Text, initially the first version produced from these theories was the Revision of 1881. Today, dozens of versions are based on Hortianism as the source of their Greek text, although they give a smidgen of lip service to saying “we no longer follow Hort, we are eclectics”.

    The AV is the Authorized Version, or King James Bible, which was developed using the historic Received Text and 50 learned men, truly fluent in the Bible languages, labouring at Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster for 3 years. The produced a Bible that was based on the pure text, translationally accurate and imbued with the best of English (majestic) prose.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  117. on 30 Sep 2011 at 11:00 amSarah

    Thanks for explaining, Steven. It helps to know where you’re coming from.

  118. on 30 Sep 2011 at 2:33 pmLORRAINE

    Matt, The only Father that I know of in the OT is YHWH GOD Our Righteousness, and the only Son I witnessed in the OT is Exodus, 4:vs.22,23 which is said to be Israel and the holy spirit are the anointed ones such as with Cyrus who was anointed and given the grace or spirit of YHWH GOD to conquer the many nations for him. Now although this was written in the nt these three entities I have not seen them in the OT being written or prophesied as to come forth or has been mentioned in the past, for read in the scripture Deut.,18:vs. 22 and read Deut.,vs. 15-22 it tells us that the prophet that will be raised will be of thy brethren from the midst of thee. To my understanding this means that there is a son of man of Israel from the seed of David and the convenant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who are all from a seed and an egg. Praise YHWH GOD. For the Father says in these scriptures of Deut. that if it is not a thing that follow or come to pass said by the prophet then YHWH GOD the Father did not say it.

  119. on 30 Sep 2011 at 6:01 pmSteven Avery

    Welcome, Sarah. I’ll plan on going over your other question shortly.

  120. on 02 Oct 2011 at 7:50 pmMatt13weedhacker

    Steven.

    Thank you for sharing your opinion of Doug’s Kutilek’s review of Michael Maynard’s book. And that’s all it is. An opinion.

    With regard to Cyprian’s hypothetical quote from 1st John 5:7.

    Where he says:

    LATIN TEXT: “…Dicit Dominus: Ego et Pater unum sumus [Joan. 10, 30]. Et iterum…” – (Chap. 6. Unity of the Church. MPL)

    CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (circa. 200-258 C.E.): “…The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” [John x. 30.] and again…” – (Treatise I. On the Unity of the Church. The Treatises of Cyprian. Roberts & Donaldson ANF.)

    ( Who ) exactly does Cyprian quote?

    Ltn., ( Dicit Dominus ) = “…The Lord says:…”

    Words from our Lord Jesus Christ own mouth.

    Then after quoting our Lord’s word’s, Cyprian says:

    And Ltn., ( Et iterum ) = “…And again…”

    Not as the miss-leading quote you posted before:

    QUOTE: “…For Cyprian not only uses here the common sign of repeated citation, the phrase “et iterum,” but says also, more explicitly, “et iterum scriptum est,” “and again it is written.”…” END-QUOTE.

    He does not say at all “…et iterum scriptum est…” in the sentence found in Chapter six. As you very well know!

    It is:

    “…Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est…”

    Whoever it is you quote (Foster or Cornwall) has omitted:

    “…de Patre et Fillio et spiritu sancto…”

    The splices, full stops, speach marks, italics, (such as found in MPL) etc, which we read in our Latin critical texts, are put in at the printing of these texts in Modern times.

    Verse and Chapter numbering, and therefore the references found in our modern critical texts of Cyprian, and the Bible, generally didn’t exist until the Sixteenth Century.

    So, 1400 hundred years plus later, it is left up to the maker of the Critical printed text (i.e., Mingne in this case) to decide what is from where and where the full stops and speech marks etc, are put – retrospectively.

    ( Unless you can show some sort of photographical proof of the source MSS themselves, from which these are taken, I have no reason to believe otherwise. It’s standard procedure for the making of such texts. And texts from printer to printer, and author to author, differ often in these little details, such as mentioned above. )

    But if Cyprian is indeed quoting Ltn., ( iterum ) “…again…” word’s of our Ltn., ( Domin[i] ) “…Lord…”

    Then there is a problem for your quotation of John’s First Epistle theory. Which has been pointed out by many before.

    Because at 1st John Chapter 5:6-8; there is no quotation of what:

    Ltn., ( Dicit Dominus ) = “…The Lord says:…”

    Only what John was originally inspired to write.

    Because it is a fact that Cyprian does not say he is quoting “John’s Epistle” or what “John say’s,” in chapter six.

    But if Cyprian is reffering to the words of our “…Lord…” at Matthew 28:19 then there is no real problem at all.

    He would indeed be quoting the word’s of our Lord Ltn., ( iterum ) = “…again…”

    This is perfectly logical, and more in line with what he actually says in the context.

    And in this he would only be following exactly what his “…Master…” Tertullian has done, as interpreting Matt 28:19 in such a way. Which from a historical and chronological context makes perfect sense.

    It is in reality only the words:

    LATIN TEXT: “…Et hi tres unum sunt…” – (MPL.)

    Or

    LATIN TEXT: “…Et tres unum sunt…” – (Daniel Wallace)

    That you and others have ( interpreted ) by the likeness of the words as being from the counterfiet 1st John 5:7 text.

    Which is only Cyprian’s philosophical interpretation of “…the Lord[s]…” words and Matt 28:19 which he had accepted and absorbed from reading Montantist tracts on a daily basis .

  121. on 02 Oct 2011 at 9:05 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Matt
    “Thank you for sharing your opinion of Doug’s Kutilek’s review of Michael Maynard’s book. And that’s all it is. An opinion.”

    Remember, I offerred to address any point that you found particularly compelling.

    And what did you think of my idea of your taking your Matthew 28:19 unique theory to those fluent in Latin ? You seem to have (snipped) my scholarship idea simply to repeat yourself in a circular fashion. And you can ask such fluent Latin experts if it is grammatically correct to see the sentence of Cyprian as equivalent to “and again it is written.”

    Meanwhile, a simple question. Are you a Latin teacher, or do you claim to have true and full fluency and competence in the language ?

    Shalom,
    Steven

  122. on 02 Oct 2011 at 9:38 pmSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Sarah
    “To clarify, how would you interpret the meaning of this verse? It appears you don’t accept the trinitarian interpretation, so would it be fair to say you consider “these three are one” to mean one in agreement rather than one in substance?”

    Actually, I think that is putting later constructs upon 1st century apostolic writings. The theme of the verse and section is the :

    ** witness of God and the witness of men ** and the witness in heaven and the witness on earth.

    The idea that it was designed as a Christology verse, done in order to plug into later debates, is awkward at best. (Granted , most Arians believing in a lesser God find the verse awkward.) This mis-emphasis has been done by various Trinitarians and Unitarians.

    There really is no one “Trinitarian interpretation”. Some such interpretations are reasonable, since they look at “and these three are one” and say .. ok, no veering to Tritheism, no Social Trinity we should not think of God as three beings.

    To return to your question, “agreement” would be more dubious since it could imply that three different eternal consciousnesses are agreeing. And the text itself only uses “agree” with the earthly witnesses, where the agreement is more simply .. to the same purpose.

    Would I use the word “substance” ? That seems to be from post-Apostolic understandings and debates, and has a lot of baggage. How about simply the scripture .. “and these three are one”.

    Shalom,
    Steven

  123. on 02 Oct 2011 at 10:17 pmSarah

    Steven,

    Thanks for your response, but I’m afraid it’s still unclear to me what you think “these three are one” means. Sounds like you are undecided?

  124. on 02 Oct 2011 at 11:08 pmMatt13weedhacker

    “…as equivalent to “and again it is written.”…”

    Equivalent! It seems the whole sentence is “equivalent” in your imagination.

    All the apologetics I have seen so far – see “…equaivalent[s]…” everywhere!

    They see “equivalent[s]” in – ( any ) – phrase that is remotely close to the counterfeit 1st John 5:7.

    It’s the same with all other so-called tri{3}nitarian “proof texts” or “formula’s” in the ANF. I see it all the time.

    There is that ever present in-exactness I mentioned before.

    You know! What I refer to as the “…if you twist it this way, sort of – but not quite, if you look it with these stain-tinted specticles on, maybe, nearly but just not there, etc, etc…” references.

    But when these are put under close scrutiny as they should, and examined carefully! They fall to bits.

    By the way.

    You should try looking for your “…equivalent…” Ltn., ( et iterium ) in Chapters 2 & 4 of Cyprians very same letter!

    Let me know what you come up with?

  125. on 03 Oct 2011 at 12:08 amSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Sarah, if you mean that I am undecided about choosing between two expressions, neither of which really matches the Bible, sure, I am happy to be undecided.

    Shalom,
    Steven

  126. on 03 Oct 2011 at 12:13 amSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Matt, why the refusal to answer my simple question about your Latin skills and your willingness to ask to those with strong background about your new idea.

    Remember, you are the one proposing a new understanding that is different from all the established English translations. And that has not been given by any of the dozens of experts on all sides of the heavenly witnesses questions.

    So you should stop trying to posture and answer my two simple questions.

    1) The depth of your Latin skills

    2) Your interest and willingness to take your new ideas to those with strong Latin background.

    Till you answer those two questions, simply to repeat harumphs is not a way to look like you are really searching for the truth of the scriptures and the church writer history.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  127. on 03 Oct 2011 at 12:27 amSteven Avery

    Hi Folks,

    Matt, what is really confusing you the most is your stereotype of something about “Trinitarian proof-texts”. In terms of our conversation, I have no idea what you are talking about. This may be the first time in years that I have been accused of trying to support the Trinity with a “proof-text” 🙂 .

    The heavenly witnesses verse is pure scripture, it has been seen as “Trinitarian”, as “Oneness” (Sabellian) and even as an “Arian blasphemy” (by Luther’ pastor). I grant that Bugenhagen’s idea is questionable, but otherwise you should recognize that the Christological spins have to be examined with great caution, especially if they place things like late creedal philosophical convolutions (e.g. the Athanasian Creed) over simple and clear and powerful Apostolic writing.

    The heavenly witnesses verse has amazingly excellent internal and external evidences.

    Now you are reduced to harping about an equivalence that is simply recognizing the standard English translation-construction.

    ““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.’”

    In simple English grammar what is written is the words “these three are one” and those are written about “the Father, etc.”.

    You can claim the English translation is wrong, that is fine, and always possible. However then you should subject your new belief to careful examination. That is what I ask you again and again above, your background and willingness to have those skilled in Latin examine your idea of a retranslation.

    And you refuse, instead reverting to polemic sans substance.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  128. on 06 Aug 2012 at 12:33 pmRON

    if there was a trinity in christianity before the apostacy of rome and attempted mergence into christianity. why was nobody baptized into the ma 28:19 scripture in alll the bible? Clearly the Apostles new Exactly who the Father , Son and Holy Ghost was and is, His name is Jesus the Christ.i am so glad to know the truth . i look at 1 jn 5:7 thru the light of truth in scripture, not thru a shaded ,veiled corrupt papal authority, note rev. ch 17 about MOTHER, .
    Isaiah already wrote that the Father would become the son ,
    Not that there is 3 but One, Is.9:6.
    God became flesh is not confusing in the least, but very simple.
    Jesus went on record and said (John 8:24 KJV) “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”

    (John 8:25 KJV) “Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.”

    Jesus mostly spoke in parables, but sometimes went right at the heart of ther matter as in jn 14:9.

    (John 14:7 KJV) “If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.”

    (John 14:8 KJV) “Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.”

    (John 14:9 KJV) “Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?”

    Knowing who Jesus is Is salvation to them that continue in His Word.
    Everybody born into the new testament church passed thru the door at Pentecost of Acts 2:38. Birthed thru the water of Jesus name Baptism ,cause they new exactly who Jesus was and Is, the Everlasting Father,
    bY the way Jesus is the Holy Ghost also according to Acts 20: 28.

    (Acts 20:27 KJV) “For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.”

    (Acts 20:28 KJV) “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

    (Acts 20:29 KJV) “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.”

    (Acts 20:30 KJV) “Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”

    (Acts 20:31 KJV) “Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.”

    Paul had great revelatory fore knowledge by the Spirit of God, He knew the junk that would try to creep into the church and wrote about it.

    Trere were triads or trinities surrounding christianity many nations had them, Paul and Jesus new about them, they never engrafted there triads into christianity, that happened at Rome.

  129. on 27 Oct 2013 at 10:34 pmBitter Truth

    False teaching of Roman Church noticeable after the Jew – Roma war 70 A.D; heavily influenced by Paul-ine doctrine that Jesus have a rather ‘special’ Father as compared to the ‘typical’ Father mentioned by Prophet Isaiah and Prophet David.

    Also, none of the Church Fathers were shown to quote Matthew 28:19 or 1John5:7 in their early days, however in the 4th century ‘three in oneness’ were added to the original texts of Matthew 28:19 and 1John 5:7 thus showing how twisted were the minds of men inventing lies. YHWH is One God. But Roman Christians replace YHWH with a Greek word; Kyrios meaning Lord.The reason is so that the doctrine of Trinity can be easily explained, as when Lord is used, it may refers to a man when one reads the sentence. Seize from saying YHWH is in triune.

  130. on 28 Oct 2013 at 9:11 amSean

    “Bitter Truth”, please use a real name in future posts.

    thanks

  131. on 19 May 2015 at 6:59 amSteven Avery

    Actually, Matthew 28:19 is one of the very best supported verses in the Ante-Nicene period.

    Matthew 28:19
    Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
    baptizing them in the name of the Father,
    and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

    [textualcriticism] Matthew 28:19 – the most attested verse ? – early church writers (ECW)
    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/topics/5899

    ==========================================

    INDEX OF REFERENCES

    Ignatius (110 AD)
    Epistle to the Philadelphians

    Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD)
    First Apology

    Irenaeus – (2nd century)
    Against Heresies

    Diatessoran (Tatian, c.175 AD)

    Didache (c. 2nd century)

    Apostolic Teachings (2nd Century) (x references)

    The Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles

    Tertullian – (c. 200 AD)
    On Baptism.– Chapter XIII.
    Against Praxeas
    Prescription against Heretics

    Hippolytus (c.200 AD)
    Against the Heresy of One Noetus

    Cyprian (c. 230 AD)
    Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews
    Epistle LXXII.1 To Jubaianus

    The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian
    Lucius of Castra Galbae
    Munnulus of Girba
    Euchratius of Thenae
    Bishop Vincentius of Thibaris

    Origen (c.250 AD)
    Commentary on Romans
    Origen de Principiis Book I

    Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 250 AD)
    A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII

    Treatise Against Novatian by an Anonymous Bishop. (c.255)

    Treatise on Rebaptism (c 250)

    Victorinus (c.300AD)

    ==========================================

    It is time to drop the myth that this is a non-attested verse.

    Steven Avery

  132. on 31 May 2015 at 1:36 pmRay

    I have no idea whether or not the words in question or discussion were added or not. I’ve learned some from the past to not pay much attention to people who want to remove something that’s written in my KJV, and likely reacted because of that.

    I learned to trust the translators of the KJV more than people around me, and I think that has turned out to be good for me lately.

    What I find of interest in this verse is that the water, spirit, and the blood testify of Jesus, because in the beginning of creation, we have the spirit and the water, and I found that it seemed to parallel Luke 1:35 so well, as well as coincide with Jesus’ talk with Nicodemus about being born of the spirit.

    No doubt every real Christian will agree that The Father, Jesus, and the Spirit of God agree as one, and as far as dwelling together are one.

    I trust that this dwelling together is deeper than we can often comprehend.

    As far as how all these words came about, I find myself not so interested in that at this time. Maybe someday I will find a reason to look into it in much more depth.

  133. on 02 Jun 2015 at 11:26 pmTimoteo

    Ray,

    You are becoming the last man standing on this Kingdom Ready blog.

    I still remember reading your comments.

    The King James English is still the spoken language of my stomping grounds[urban figure], the South East Bible Belt, USA. By the way, the aboriginal American Indians continue to dance the “Stomp Dance” at their stomping grounds.

    My Indians friends, the Seminoles and Micosukies, now have their, still unconquered, stomping grounds in the Southern Florida Everglades. My Seminole friends are now Southern Baptist Christians.

    Ray,please, continue to stand!

  

Leave a Reply