Steven Avery

Howdy Amaleq,

Just using the interlinear, etc. the construction is quite different, with the added preposition in verse 8. This changes the phrase in translation (and affects the exegesis, however that is a doctrinal aspect more than textual).

1 John 5:7-8
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.

7 treis eisi heis
8 treis heis to en eisin

Green Literal
7 "and these three one is"
8 "and these three to the one are"

Young Literal
7 "and these -- the three -- are one
8 "and the three are into the one."

Here is another NT verse where the "agree"-ment is implied, in context.

Mark 14:59
But neither so did their witness agree together.

More parsing available at
http://scripturetext.com/1_john/5-8.htm

Discussing a textual variant within verse 7, Matthew Henry
http://www.ccel.org/h/henry/mhc2/MHC62005.HTM
hen eisi --are one;
eis to hen eisin--are to one, or agree in one;

Note that he also does an excellent job in discussing Cyprian.

btw, Ben David has a lot of fascinating early church writer references of which I was at most lightly aware. Theodorus, Tertullian, Athanasius, Cyril, Origen and others, on top of the more accepted references, (including Gregory, Priscillian, Cyprian, Jerome, Council of Carthage).

Also there a few additional references in one article by Robert Jack to the scholars of that era having the Comma in the Greek manuscripts on another article. If I remember John Gill makes a short comment about that as well. Fascinating reading. We tend to ferget that scholars of that day had many manuscripts no longer extant.

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

As to the other discussion, about the falsity of the Metzger claim referenced by JoeW, your discussion can really mix three very different aspects.

1) The false integrity accusation that has been wielded for a century plus.
2) Erasmus methodology and views.
2) The actual evidences for the Comma.

The point of JoeW parrotting the false accusation from Metzger really involves (1), the integrity accusation, while (2) and (3) are discussions in their own right, with (3) being the most important, for sure ... once the integrity accusation is discarded.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

mfjkd

The trinity debates ends here >> http://s8.invisionfree.com/forumz183...?showtopic=182

Net2004

The offense of Christianity against transcendence was even greater.
Islam charged Christianity with extending the nontranscendent concept
to God's "fatherhood of the Jewish kings" to Jesus and giving it, besides
its moral signification of compliance with God's commandments, the
de-transcendentalizing ontological connotation of unity of substance be-
tween God and Jesus. Indeed, Christian catholicity defined itself with
terms of this "substantial" identity of Jesus with God, as distinct from
plurality of their "personalities," characters and consciousness. Obviously,
the source of this new departure from transcendence of the divine being
within the Semitic stream was not the Jewish inheritance of Christianity.
This had given Christianity the concepts, not their connotation. Neither
was gnosticism the source of that departure, whose argument "If he suffer,
he was not God; if he was God, he did not suffer" was hurled against
their fellow Christians in defence of transcendence. The source must
be the non-Semitic influence of the "mystery religions." It was from this
source that Christianity derived its "suffering God" who saves by dying
and returning to life and whose mana (grace) is imparted to the com-
municant thought sacrament.

This anti-transcendence influence on Christianity at its formative stage
was partly responsible for its success among non-Semitic peoples un-
familiar with the notion of God as "totally-other." It is equally responsi-
ble for the misinterpretation of innocent Hebrew and Aramaic concepts
current among Jesus' contemporaries. Barnash or bar-Adam meant a well-
bred and hence virtuous person. But it acquired in St. Paul a mysterious
metaphysical dimension. Any righteous person could claim what Jesus
did, namely, "I and my father (God) are one," in the sense of total com-
pliance with God's will. Christians, however, took this to mean that Jesus
claimed divine status. Whereas Kurie, D. Kurios, Mar Mari and Maran
were among Semites attributable to anyone in authority, Christians took
this attribution to Jesus by his Semitic disciples as their evidence of assum-
ing him to be God. Finally, Christian theologians, taking all these
elements for granted, searched the Hebrew scripture for evidence of plural
divinity, With tvpical intellectual clumsiness, Augustine, Tertullian and
many others thought they found in the plural pronouns of Genesis, "Let
us create man according to our image" (Genesis: 1:28) the evidence for
three persons in the deity! This has remained a Christian "argument"
to the present day held by such a notable thinker as Karl Barth. Indeed,
Barth shamelessly claimed that maleness and femaleness were intrinsic
to the divine nature because Genesis had reported immediately after the
above-mentioned statement, "Male and female created He them" (Genesis
1:28). Since the former statement ends with the word "image," he thought,
the latter statement must be an apposition to the term and hence indicating
maleness and femaleness as constitutive of the divine image! Chris-
tians have committed themselves to divine non-transcendence so resolute-
ly that it had become with them an idée fixe, enabling Paul Tillich to
declare sub specie eternitatis that the transcendent God is unknown and
unknowable unless He is concretized in an object of nature and history.
Since this was the state of "God's transcendence" in Christianity, the
language expressing it was equally improper. Although Christians never
ceased to claim that God is transcendent, they spoke of Him as a real
man who walked on earth and did all things men do, including the suf-
fering of the agonies of death. Of course, according to them, Jesus was
both man and God. They never took a consistent position on Jesus'
humanity or divinity with accusation of apostasy and heresy. That is
why their language is always confusing, at best. When pinned down,
every Christian will have to admit that his God is both transcendent and
immanent. But his claim of transcendence is ipso facto devoid of grounds.
To maintain the contrary, one has to give up the laws of logic. But Chris-
tianity was prepared to go to this length too. It raised paradox above
self-evident truth and vested it with the status of an epistemological prin-
ciple. But under such principle, anything can be asserted and dis-
cussion becomes idle. The Christian may not claim that the trinity is a way
of talking about God; because if the trinity discloses the nature of God
better than unity, a greater plurality would do the job better. At any rate,
to reduce the "Holy Trinity" to a status of in percipi is heretical as it
denies una substantia as metaphysical doctrine.

Toto

The above is copied and pasted from Mere Islam, and is excerpted from Al Tawhid: Its Implications for Thought and Life . The blogger there notes:

Toto

I have merged these, since the Islamic criticism of the doctrine of the Trinity is something worth considering in this context.

mdarus

Christian theologians generally admit that the plural in the Old Testament does not refer to a plurality of (g)Gods. A plurality of (g)Gods is not consistent with the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity always first asserts the unity and singularity of God. The plural in the Hebrew is sometimes called the royal plural "We (meaning me, the king, hereby decree...". There will always be the believing neophyte who descovers the use of the plural and belives it proves the Trinity.

A thorough study of the Trinity will include a study of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament as well as special angelic appearances sometimes hypotesized as pre-incarnate appearances of the Son. None of this "proves" the Trinity. The Trinity is merely the favored theory to find a unifying explanation for all the biblical data. As you can tell, this depends heavily on the conviction that the information is inter-related, consistent and suited to a unified explanation.

I don't think the motivation for scouring the Old Testament is best described as seeking proof for the Trinity. The theologians were likely trying to make sure that the theory of the Trinity could also explain the Old Testament texts describing God. They required a solution that was consistent with both the Old and New Testaments.

Steven Avery

That is rather an intersting page, using a scholarship language rare on islamic sites. And I tend to agree with the fundamental argument, including scouring, which is expressed quite reasonably.

However I wonder if all the name-dropping and fancy language is a bit of a facade.

""Let us create man according to our image" (Genesis: 1:28) the evidence for
three persons in the deity! This has remained a Christian "argument"
to the present day held by such a notable thinker as Karl Barth."

However, Karl Barth is often noted for his reluctance to allow "three persons in the Deity" to be his formulation. So much so that purist 'orthodox' (Athanasian and Cappadocian) Trinitarians often consider him outside the camp, somewhere over in heresy-pseudo-oneness.

So I wonder whether the fancy language is a mile wide and a millimeter deep ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

IonMic

At the end of the day the reason the Godhead is confusing is the insane idea that god can be one entity in 3 forms. God, jesus, holy spirit are three separate entities with a ONENESS OF PURPOSE.

mdarus

You are closer to truly understanding this concept than most Christians but the oneness is more than a unity of purpose, it is a true unity. It is harder than you think. "insane idea" is pretty synonymous with "baffling mystery."

IonMic

not entirely certain I agree, both physically and spiritually the 3 are separate entities that are united in purpose im not too sure what you mean by 'a true unity'