Amaleq13

Are you applying a different meaning to "clearly stated" than what one would find in a dictionary? To assert that it is "clearly stated" in the Bible that Jesus is God requires a verse that clearly states "Jesus is God".

Please specify the verse where it is clearly stated that:

Jesus is God

the Holy Spirit is God

Note that I have already explained why 1 John 5:7 does not qualify even if questions of authenticity are ignored.

I reject your characterization of your interpretation of certain passages as being "clearly stated" in those passages. It is disingenuous at the very least.

It still stands that the doctrine of the trinity is not "clearly stated" anywhere in the Bible but one can selectively read that doctrine into certain verses.

S.C.Carlson

Those dates in the Wikipedia article are in AD, which stands for anno domini, not "after death."

Stephen

Heidi Guedel

The following is the inspired word of God, from the Gospel of Bob:

It's prophetic... and that proves it's the word of God! :notworthy: :angel: :notworthy:

Heidi Guedel

Who said AD stood for After Death? Not I. I said "after the crucifixion". Didn't they start counting in AD after the crucifixion and alleged resurrection of JC?

Who said anything about death? Was that a freudian slip, or are you a skeptic, too, Stephen?

greyline

Heidi, he's pointing out that your statement: "The oldest Gospel - the Gospel of Mark has been dated between 60 and 80 years after the crucifixion" is incorrect. Wiki says Mark is dated at 60-80 [AD]. The crucifixion was around 30 AD.

Heidi Guedel

Hmmmm. JC was supposed to have been 33 when he was crucified. What is the decisive event that started all the calendars over at zero for the Christian world then?

Toto

Some centuries later, a monk named Dennis the Short tried to calculate the year of the birth of Jesus, and this year became the agreed upon year 1. (It is now felt that his calculations were in error.)

There is no year 0.

Iasion

Greetings,

Pages and pages of argument and interpretation.
It's not at all clear.

Iasion

TomboyMom

What are the "original manuscripts?"

How can you tell, if you don't have an original manuscript to compare it to?

Quite the contrary. We should apply identical standards.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

1 John 5:5-8
Who is he that overcometh the world,
but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ;
not by water only, but by water and blood.
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness,
because the Spirit is truth.
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.

You are apparently misinformed (mid-3rd century btw) and very un-Ockham. I suggest you read carefully what Cyprian actually said rather than parroting one of your scholars. For a start try the Marty Shue response to Daniel Wallace.

http://kjbbn.net/response_to_daniel_wallace_regarding 1 john 5 7.htm
http://tinyurl.com/j9c9m (use google cache, server problem)
Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5
"I would concur with Wallace that it would indeed be significant if
Cyprian did in fact quote the Comma in the early third century."

http://users.vnet.net/avdefense/1John5-7.html
The Johannine Comma by Martin A. Shue
Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, point 6

“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.").

This Latin reading is important when you compare it to the
Old Latin reading of 1 John 5:7;

“Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo:
Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.”

Cyprian clearly says that it is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost -- ”And the three are One.” His Latin matches the Old Latin reading identically with the exception of ‘hi’. Again, it is important to note that Cyprian said “it is written” when making his remarks ... If Cyprian was not quoting 1 John 5:7 the question must be asked and answered: What was he quoting?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion * Priscillian - 4th Century. Yes - he quotes the Comma.

Priscillian wrote:
http://users.vnet.net/avdefense/1John5-7.html
The Johannine Comma by Martin A. Shue
"As John says, ‘and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.’"

So Iasion, what does this do (along with many other references here) to your theory that the Comma was added way past 400 AD ? Had you been snookered into thinking the Comma was a middle ages creation ? Can you see more clearly now ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion Eugenias at the Council of Carthage - late 4th Century. The Council documents mention teaching of the Trinity, but does NOT quote the Comma at all. I can find no reference to Eugenias at all.

This was a fifth century council. It is especially significant because hundreds of church prelates were in attendance and the verse is used in direct opposition to the Arian doctrine.

Evidences like this one and the Vulgate Prologue simply blow the tricky attempts to claim a late Johannine Comma out of the water.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.co.za/1john572.htm
http://www.ovrlnd.com/Bible/casefor1john57.html
"And These Three Are One"
A Case For the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8 Rooted in Biblical Exegesis

An assembly was called at Carthage where I John 5:7-8 was insisted upon by Eugenius, the spokesman for the African bishops, as he confessed his faith and the faith of his brethren:

. . .and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son.It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, 'there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.[45]

[45]Victor of Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov, 2.82 [3.11]; CSEL 7, 60.Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995), 43.

Latin, "Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus," lines up perfectly with the Old Latin reading.

http://www.puritans.net/news/bibletext070805.htm
THE BIBLE TEXT RE-VISITED By Parnell McCarter
How did 350 prelates .. take a verse to be orthodox that wasn't in the Bible? It had to exist there from the beginning. It was quoted as "Pater, VERBUM, et Spiritus Sanctus".

Remember .. you were even strangely claiming that at this time
the verse had not even been "added" to the Bible !

http://www.1john57.com/threeletters3.htm
LETTER #3 of THREE LETTERS ADDRESSED TO THE EDITOR OF THE QUARTERLY REVIEW IN WHICH IS DEMONSTRATED THE GENUINENESS OF
THE THREE HEAVENLY WITNESSES 1 JOHN v. 7.
By BEN DAVID - Unitarian - John Jones LL.D. (1766? - 1827)

About the latter end of the fourth century, Jerome, at the request of Pope Damasus, undertook a revision of the Vulgate, correcting first the Gospels, then the Epistles, by comparing them with Greek MSS. To the last seven Canonical Epistles he wrote a Prologue, in which he complains of the unfaithfulness of certain interpreters, and exemplifies this complaint by their omission of the three Heavenly Witnesses in their editions. I will first give a version of this Prologue, and then subjoin Mr. Porson's comment.

"The order of these seven Epistles (meaning the Epistles of Peter, James, John, and Jude), in those Greek copyists who think soundly and follow the right faith, is not the same as it is found in the Latin Copies; where, as Peter is first, so his Epistles are placed in order before the rest. But as I have long since corrected the Evangelists (or preachers of the Gospel, meaning the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul, as well as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), according to the rule of truth, so these Epistles I have restored to their proper order; which, if arranged agreeably to the original text, and faithfully interpreted in Latin diction, would neither cause perplexity to the readers, nor would the various readings contradict themselves, especially in that place where we read the unity of the Trinity laid down in the Epistle of John. In this I found translators (or copyists) widely deviating from the truth; who set down in their own edition the names only of the three witnesses, that is, the Water, Blood, and Spirit; but omit the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; by which, above all places, the Divinity of the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is proved to be one. How far my edition differs from those of others, I leave to the discernment of the reader. But whilst thou, O virgin of Christ, demandest of me the truth of Scripture, thou in a manner exposest my old age to the rancorous teeth of those malicious men who hold me forth as faithless and a corrupter of the Sacred Writings. But in such an undertaking, I neither dread the malice of rivals, nor shall I withhold the truth of the Holy scriptures from those who demand it."

Hmm.. were you aware of this in the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles ? Also known as the Letter to Eustochium. The Vulgate was translated likely a bit after 384 (that was when at least the Gospels were presented by Jerome to the Bishop of Rome Damasus). And Jerome was working with both the Old Latin manuscripts and the "fountainhead", the Greek manuscripts.

And Jerome is specifically discussing how some copyists were not faithful, and omitted the Johannine Comma !

You can view the text in Latin at ..
http://prodigi.bl.uk/treasures/gutenberg/search.asp

Cyprian is mid-3rd century. There is also the earlier Tertullian reference which is another discussion (below). Personally I believe it supports the Comma but would claim it only as an evidence, not a direct reference.
The first issue here is that you made an assertion that the Comma was added very late. You were ill-informed.

Now we shall look at how you play with evidences, parroting patently absurd arguments simply because you are not familiar with the evidences yourself.
Not only does this ignore the Council of Carthage reference, the Speculum, Athanasius and Priscillian, various Old Latin manuscripts with the Comma, even the three assertions Metzger gives are all dubious. First, it is nonsense (typical Metzger-parsing, creating categories of convenience for special pleading) for him to try to separate the third century writers from the fourth century and from various early manuscripts in the Old Latin line.

However even in the attempted rigged Metzger construct Cyprian is clearly a strong witness FOR the comma, Tertullian is a good claim to a reference. Leaving a remaining orphan category of one (with many counter-indications) which is itself unclear.

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleve.../1john5n7.html
http://tinyurl.com/h9tuz
A Defence of the Johannine Comma Setting the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8
Given the full statement made by Augustine, it is difficult not to see that he knew of the Johannine Comma and was alluding to it during the course of his exposition above.

In fact you are giving such rigged 'evidence' that Jesse Boyd wrote a whole section exposing the falsity of your fav scholar's assertion. The Augustine discussion above could be added to this excellent Jesse Boyd section.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.co.za/1john572.htm
Metzger's presentation of the evidence from the Old Latin Version is misleading.

Metzger also says that the Comma does not appear in the Old Latin in its earliest form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine).This too, is a deceptive statement, for both Tertullian (ca. 200 A.D) and Cyprian (ca. 250) cite or make an allusion to the passage.If they did not have it in their Latin manuscripts, where did they get it from? Tertullian is not cited as a witness to the Comma in the critical apparatus of the UBS4. However, less than a century after the death of John the Apostle (possibly as early as A.D. 200), Tertullian wrote:
. . .which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.[56]
This is a clear reference to the teaching found in the Comma.On another occasion, Tertullian, according to John Gill, quotes the passage in question.[57]
Athanasius (ca. 350) is likewise not mentioned in the UBS' critical apparatus.However, according to R.E. Brown, Athanasius quotes the passage at least three times in his works.[58]
Around A.D. 250, Cyprian, as noted, wrote, "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.'"[59]Cyprian, less than two hundred years after the writing of I John, is expressly quoting the Johannine Comma.He must have got it from an early form of the Old Latin in spite of Metzger's claims.It is interesting that even he admits that "Our information concerning the Old Latin translation of the New Testament is very defective . . ."[60]

The Old Latin translations of the New Testament are very important in establishing the authenticity of I John 5:7-8 ...

[56]Tertullian, Against Praxeas, II-- Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971),3: 598.
[57]John Gill,An Exposition on the Old and New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980 [rep.]),907-908.
[58]R.E. Brown, The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1982),782.
[59]Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926),5:423.
[60]Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament Text; Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977),285.

===============
Yet more deceptions. Not only does Metzger craftily ignore the actual discussion of the Comma in the Prologue, Jerome did not "issue.. Codex Fuldensis". There is almost a 150 year gap between Jerome and the Codex ! And our extant Latin manuscripts are split in those early centuries. We do not have a fourth or fifth century manuscript of the Vulgate, and the strongest evidence we have of Jerome's original Comma text is the Prologue, quite compelling evidence. (apparently for this reason folks try to disingenuously non-Jeromeize the Prologue section .. typical modern circularity, transparent).

Please do not deceive yourself and the forum. You cannot claim a "false citation" before I have responded. Clearly you are very unfamiliar with this discussion. Have some integrity.

Please, not only are you struggling with what is above, I specifically referred earlier to "other references".

Here is a reasonably accurate list, not complete but a start (there are a number that I hope to research more). These are up to the 6th century from the early church writers. I have not checked every one, some are certain, a couple are less clear. And I would accept that Tertullian is debatable - imho it is good enough to be included in Peter Kirby's ecatena It is included here because it is early, the more disciplined church writer Bible-citation quoting came later.

EARLY CHURCH WRITER JOHANNINE COMMA REFERENCES

Cyprian (250 AD) - De catholicae ecclesiae unitate. (CSEL 3:215)
Tertullian (3rd c) - Adversus Praxean (25:1; CC2, 1195)
Athanasis (350 AD) - Contra Arium p. 109, De Incarnatione
Idacius Clarus (4th c) - Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina - Migne
Priscillian (385 AD) - Liber Apologeticus
Homily (unknown author) (380 AD) Benedictin edition of Chrysostom .
Jerome (4th c) Prologue Canonical Epistles (Preserved in Codex Fuldensis)
Greek Synopsis of Holy Scripture (4th c)
Contra Varimadum 1.5 (CC90,20-21) (400 A.D) anti-Arian work
Eucharius, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul (c. 434)
John Cassian (435 AD)
Vigilius Tapensis (Thapsus) (5th c) - Three Witnesses in Heaven
Ps-Athanasius (5th c) ’Disputation with Arius’

Victor Vitensis (485 AD) - Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae
-- records Council of Carthage (484 AD, hundreds of Bishops in attendance) -- word of Eugenius

Etherius, Bishop of Uxome (6th century). Quotes the verse against Elpondus.

Cassiodorus (6th c) - Complexionn. in Epistt. Paulinn.
- In Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos.
And this is believed to be a translation from Clement of Alexandria (190)

Fulgentius (520 A.D) Contra Fabianum - (frag. 21.4: CC 91A, 797)
De Trinitate(1.4.1; CC91A 636),
Responsio contra Arianos (Ad 10, CC 91)
(Fulgentius references the Cyprian usage re: three heavenly witnesses)

There are quotes from Basil and Theodorus and Cyril of Alexandria and Euthymius Zigabenus that are evidentiary as well. My hope is to organize these various references in a easy-read fashion (as done with a few other verses and sections).

Early Latin manuscripts
* Speculum ('m') (4th-5th century)
* Codex Monacensis ('r') (q in UBS4) (500-600AD)
* Pal Legionensis (l) - (c.650AD) - Vulgate

There is only one early Latin manuscript that I have heard of that could be placed on the other evidentiary side. It has the text of 1 John 5 and omits the Comma. And that would be Fuldensis, the 6th century manuscript with the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles. Interestingly it has the Comma words "on earth" as well.

Clearly the early Latin manuscript evidence also is very strong for both early centuries and late.

Incidentally the Old Latin line would also influence other Bible texts before Erasmus, such as the Bohemian Tepl (which has the Johannine Comma). Thus the true text was preserved among a good segment of the believers through all the centuries in addition to the Vulgate line and the various writings.

Anyway, I hope this has helped some see that the oft-made claim that the Comma was a late addition to the Bible text should be completely discarded. Then one can discuss more sensibly the various questions as to the true Bible and the Johannine Comma.

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