The I John 5: 6-8 Issue

[freelight]

As if 'God' really cared.....

As if 'God' really cared.....

Free, I think I know you well enough to know that you know (I know, that's a lotta "Knows") that this controversy is about much more than just a comma. It has been addressed by others in this thread already but I'll give you a quicky:

Over the years I have come to settle on the Companion Bible which is the King James with textual notes in the margins by Bullinger who was both a Trinitarian and a Dispensationalist ... which I am not ... at least not in the traditional sense. I have found him to be intellectually honest as it concerns textual points by researching them independently. He had this to say about the passage in question:


No matter how well intended, there are penalty provisions within the Bible for doing that sort of thing that I, for one, would not wish to incur.

Hi fzappa,

As you can see if you read all my commentaries on this passage from my blog-portal (here) on this very issue,...I'm pretty well versed in most of the controversy on this, and while not caring so much one way or another, recognize its late origin and only in latin copies pointing to it being an 'interpolation' at best. But hey,...if some folks want to believe it was actually in the greek originals :doh: that's their prerogative. The text does just fine in its natural flow without the 'addition'.

As freely expressed, I enjoy on a practical level working within a more Unitarian over-view, but a traditional-orthodox 'assumption' of the Trinity can be 'speculated' as well,...or an even higher description of the 'Paradise Trinity' given in the Urantia Book as well, they are all just conceptual ways at 'relating'. 'God' or 'Reality' is still 'One'....all else is just commentary, relative de-scriptions, fragmentary, dualistic and differentiated points of view.

Life goes on.......

 

[Zeke]

The statement is true yet not seen in early versions. Who added it and why? The devil does not come at people with both barrels as the "Pentecostals" claim he hides what he is doing. God said so through Moses.

A person wanting the truth of God doesn't knowingly add to the Bible or take from it.

The kingdom being within man Luke 17:20-21 kinda makes all outward focused theology and dogmas irrelevant, dead letter legends being what they are.

 

[fzappa13]

Hi fzappa,

As you can see if you read all my commentaries on this passage from my blog-portal (here) on this very issue,...I'm pretty well versed in most of the controversy on this, and while not caring so much one way or another, recognize its late origin and only in latin copies pointing to it being an 'interpolation' at best. But hey,...if some folks want to believe it was actually in the greek originals :doh: that's their prerogative. The text does just fine in its natural flow without the 'addition'.

As freely expressed, I enjoy on a practical level working within a more Unitarian over-view, but a traditional-orthodox 'assumption' of the Trinity can be 'speculated' as well,...or an even higher description of the 'Paradise Trinity' given in the Urantia Book as well, they are all just conceptual ways at 'relating'. 'God' or 'Reality' is still 'One'....all else is just commentary, relative de-scriptions, fragmentary, dualistic and differentiated points of view.

Life goes on.......

Ah, believe me dear, I have taken note of your scriptural predilections some time ago and let's just say I am disinclined to share your penchant for forgiving textual oversights.

 

[freelight]

Ah, believe me dear, I have taken note of your scriptural predilections some time ago and let's just say I am disinclined to share your penchant for forgiving textual oversights.

In light of all I've shared on this subject already.....

:idunno:

So you agree with Bullinger and myself that this passage is an interpolation. Is this correct? As far as what you mean above, I've not a definite clue at the moment as it seems rather ambiguous.

 

[fzappa13]

In light of all I've shared on this subject already.....

:idunno:

So you agree with Bullinger and myself that this passage is an interpolation. Is this correct? As far as what you mean above, I've not a definite clue at the moment as it seems rather ambiguous.

Interpolation? Yes, it would appear so. No harm done? That would depend on the veracity of the admonitions against doing such.

 

[freelight]

Interpolation? Yes, it would appear so. No harm done? That would depend on the veracity of the admonitions against doing such.

Well maybe.....that depends on how one determines the 'veracity' of such. I have no problems with textual variants since I don't subscribe to any concept of 'biblical inerrancy' which I find ridiculous.

 

[fzappa13]

Well maybe.....that depends on how one determines the 'veracity' of such. I have no problems with textual variants since I don't subscribe to any concept of 'biblical inerrancy' which I find ridiculous.

I guess I should have said, "Time will tell."

 

[Steven Avery]

While the Chick tract has some good information, much could be updated, correcting from both ends, I will do one or two to get started.

800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]

We do not have Jerome's original Vulgate, and the massive preponderance of Latin Vulgate mss with the verse is a strong indication that the verse was in the original Vulgate. In addition, the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles has a very clear reference and even discussion of the heavenly witnesses, and how it was omitted at times by unfaithful translators (by context, scribes as well.) This is a writing in the first person knowledge, and style and acquaintances of Jerome, and was a major element of the discussions in the time of Erasmus. A rather vapid attempt is made to say that Jerome did not author that Prologue, but once it was discovered in the Codex Fuldensis that attempt should have been abandoned, since it is built on sand and circularity (to denying the heavenly witnesses reference.)

The Vulgate of Jerome is under some influence from the 4th century Vaticanus.

Probably not. They have some degree of textual affinity, but also much difference. Direct usage by Jerome is unlikely.

The Sinaiticus was not yet discovered when Jerome created the Vulgate Catholic New Testament.

Well, if the Sinaiticus was a 4th century document, it could have been available.

However, it is actually written in the 1800s, and the recent discovery of homoeoteleutons that arose from Claromontanus essentially make the 4th century date impossible.

Steven

 

[CherubRam]

[FONT=&quot]1 John 5:6-8New International Version (NIV)[/FONT]
^{[FONT=&quot]6 [/FONT]}[FONT=&quot]This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. ⁷ For there are three that testify: ⁸ the^[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Footnotes:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. ⁸ And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]2 Timothy 4:3[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.[/FONT]

 

[freelight]

[FONT="]1 John 5:6-8New International Version (NIV)[/FONT][/B]
[SUP][FONT="]6 [/FONT][/SUP][FONT="]This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. [SUP]7 [/SUP]For there are three that testify: [SUP]8 [/SUP]the[SUP][[URL="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I+John+5%3A+6-8&version=NIV#fen-NIV-30633a"]a[/URL]][/SUP] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Footnotes:[/FONT][/B]
[FONT="]1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. ⁸ And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)[/FONT]

And as we've shared here, the gloss or commentary added to the text doesn't really take or add to any of the original text, in my observation. Some JKV Only folks fight for its inclusion as being 'original', but a petty endeavor, since its just added commentary imposing a Trinitarian conceptual model.

 

[CherubRam]

And as we've shared here, the gloss or commentary added to the text doesn't really take or add to any of the original text, in my observation. Some JKV Only folks fight for its inclusion as being 'original', but a petty endeavor, since its just added commentary imposing a Trinitarian conceptual model.

I am not a Trinitarian.

 

[freelight]

I am not a Trinitarian.

cool. I gather even some Trinitarians acknowledge it as spurious. They have plenty of other Trinitarian proof-texts as you know......

 

[CherubRam]

cool. I gather even some Trinitarians acknowledge it as spurious. They have plenty of other Trinitarian proof-texts as you know......

I have a Trinitarian commentary at my website, would you like to read it?

 

[CherubRam]

Matthew 28:19 Commentary

In regards to baptism in Matthew 28:19.

I’m not speaking of Gnostic writings or scribal errors. As a matter of fact, some words in the originals are not translated because they would change the meaning of what we read.
As for what the Church Fathers believed, read this:

"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius of Caesarea. 265 ? AD.– 337 ? AD.

Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. Eusebius informs us of Yahshua’s actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19.

Quote: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all...

And again Eusebius for example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:

"But the rest of the disciples, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went to all nations to preach the good news, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."


And again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:

"What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name?
Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke these words to his followers, and fulfilled it by that event, saying to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name."

The scripture Eusebius is quoting is not what we read today, and we do find that his quotes does agree with other scriptures.

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Yahshua Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 8:16
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Yahshua.)

Acts 10:48
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:4
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Yahshua.

Acts 19:5
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Yahshua.

Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Romans 6:3
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Yahshua Christ were baptized into his death?

Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

 

[freelight]

Matthew 28:19 Commentary

In regards to baptism in Matthew 28:19.

I’m not speaking of Gnostic writings or scribal errors. As a matter of fact, some words in the originals are not translated because they would change the meaning of what we read.
As for what the Church Fathers believed, read this:

"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius of Caesarea. 265 ? AD.– 337 ? AD.

Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. Eusebius informs us of Yahshua’s actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19.

Quote: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all...

And again Eusebius for example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:

"But the rest of the disciples, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went to all nations to preach the good news, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."


And again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:

"What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name?
Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke these words to his followers, and fulfilled it by that event, saying to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name."

The scripture Eusebius is quoting is not what we read today, and we do find that his quotes does agree with other scriptures.

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Yahshua Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 8:16
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Yahshua.)

Acts 10:48
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:4
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Yahshua.

Acts 19:5
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Yahshua.

Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Romans 6:3
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Yahshua Christ were baptized into his death?

Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

:thumb:

I'm well aware of the Matt. 28:19 controversy, and most of the Unitarian/Trinitarian historical/doctrinal disputes

While sporting a more Unitarian Christology for debate purposes here, I have no major issues with those choosing to believe in a Trinitarian concept of 'God', its just when they get dogmatic over it, like the Athanasian Creed, which says anyone who does not believe its specific formulation, CANNOT BE SAVED, which frankly is ridiculous.

 

[CherubRam]

:thumb:

I'm well aware of the Matt. 28:19 controversy, and most of the Unitarian/Trinitarian historical/doctrinal disputes

While sporting a more Unitarian Christology for debate purposes here, I have no major issues with those choosing to believe in a Trinitarian concept of 'God', its just when they get dogmatic over it, like the Athanasian Creed, which says anyone who does not believe its specific formulation, CANNOT BE SAVED, which frankly is ridiculous.

I wish those who believe God is a Trinity were more logical about the subject.

 

[freelight]

all mulitiples derive from 1

all mulitiples derive from 1

I wish those who believe God is a Trinity were more logical about the subject.

Subtle metaphysics within a tri-une concept, allows for diversification within the unity of God, and this concept is revealed in Nature in various associations, and the fact of sub-atomic energy being a universal substance out of which all is made, so we have one infinite Spirit and many forms,...from which also personalities arise. A trinity-concept, being a 'concept' then is not a problem, as trinities exist in nature and various philosophical constructs,...its just how its superimposed in a doctrinal format, and then the making of that 'conceptual model' as some kind of absolute reality, when at best it serves as a 'relational construct'. And still, the traditional-orthodox creeds maintain a staunch MONOTHEISM, none the less. No matter how you slice or dice 'God',...this DEITY is still and always ONE. - all multiples go back to 'square 1'

The Trinity can only be understood, proved or related in an intellectual fashion, while what ever is spiritually true about 'God' or anything, is a matter of spiritual discerning. Since a trinity is a company, its significance is 'relational'.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Subtle metaphysics within a tri-une concept, allows for diversification within the unity of God, and this concept is revealed in Nature in various associations, and the fact of sub-atomic energy being a universal substance out of which all is made, so we have one infinite Spirit and many forms,...from which also personalities arise..

Sub - atomic energy.

Is that God's name now?

:crackup:

 

[freelight]

Sub - atomic energy.

Is that God's name now?

:crackup:

You should know I often get pretty "meta"

Indeed,...another 'description' for 'God' is 'Source-Energy'

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

You should know I often get pretty "meta"

Indeed,...another 'description' for 'God' is 'Source-Energy'

Yeah.

Couple years ago I suggested they found God when they split the atom.

Lucky I wasn't burned at the stake.:nuke::chuckle: