Seventh-day Adventists are not Unitarians [to continue to present that that is what I/we are saying is a purposeful distortion upon your own part
; you need to differentiate between persons, or at least acknowledge that I/we do], neither Modalists, not Sabellianists, nor Arians. Jesus, the person of the Son is not talking to Himself. He is talking to several persons, the person of the Father and of the Holy Ghost/Spirit, including the whole world:
I have already clearly stated,
"... JEHOVAH [name, character] Elohiym [3 persons]. At-one-ment. Not a single person, but 3 persons. Not a three-headed hydra. Not one person masquerading as three persons. Not a ventriliquist. ..." -
Non-Trinitarian - The God or a god
The Father and the Holy Ghost/Spirit had been with Jesus up until this point:
John 8:16 KJB - And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
John 8:29 KJB - And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
John 16:32 KJB - Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.
But in the Garden of Gethsemane, the weight of the sin of the world was already being placed upon Him, and He began to feel its weight and separation from His Father, even so much so that Gabriel was sent as a messenger of mercy to strengthen Him for the final battle [and it was this same angel who passed betwen Jesus and the soldiers to come to take Him, that they fell backwards; John 18:5-6 KJB]:
Matthew 26:38 KJB - Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
Mark 14:33 KJB - And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy;
Mark 14:34 KJB - And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.
Luke 22:43 KJB - And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
Luke 22:44 KJB - And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
Therefore, the
"My God [the person of the Father], my God [the person of the Holy Ghost/Spirit], why has thou [together] forsaken me [the person of the Son].", which is a reference to Psalms 22:1. The answer is because of [our] sin that He took upon Himself:
Matthew 27:46 KJB - And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Mark 15:34 KJB - And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Deuteronomy 28:20 KJB - The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.
Psalms 71:11 KJB - Saying, God hath forsaken him: persecute and take him; for there is none to deliver him.
Isaiah 53:3 KJB - He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isaiah 53:4 KJB - Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isaiah 53:5 KJB - But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isaiah 59:2 KJB - But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
2 Corinthians 5:21 KJB - For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
1 Peter 2:24 KJB - Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
Habakkuk 1:13 KJB - Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?
Jesus was alone upon the cross, forsaken by God and man [though people stood around, none understood]:
Matthew 26:56 KJB - But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.
Mark 14:50 KJB - And they all forsook him, and fled.
Isaiah 63:3 KJB - I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.
Hebrews 1:3 KJB - Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
I agree, JEHOVAH Elohiym. JEHOVAH [name, character] Elohiym [3 persons]. At-one-ment. Not a single person, but 3 persons. This was already demonstrated here - [
1]
I agree, one JEHOVAH Jesus Christ. The Koine Greek, reads,
"... κυριος ιησους χριστος ...", and the word "κυριος" is a reference to the Deuteronomy 6:4 KJB text, and the JEHOVAH Elohiym, whereby Paul is explaining that there are multiple person being referred to in it, and thereby showing that Jesus, is JEHOVAH E/Immanuel, the person of the Son. Thus the NT "Lord" [κυριος] is a quote from the OT LORD [יהוה]. This was already shown to you here - [
1] This is why it is written:
John 8:21 KJB - Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.
John 8:24 KJB - 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.
Philippians 2:11 KJB - And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord [a reference to Himself as יהוה the Son], to the glory of God the Father.
1 Corinthians 12:3 KJB - Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord [a reference to Himself as יהוה the Son], but by the Holy Ghost.
I agree, since Jesus is JEHOVAH E/Immanuel, the JEHOVAH Jesus, as shown here [1] and here [2] and most definitely here [3] and here [4].
Let's look at John 20:28 KJB, and context [see also Psalms 35:23 KJB, HOT and so-called LXX, which we have already briefly looked at here [1]:
John 20:24 KJB - But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
John 20:25 KJB - The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe
John 20:26 KJB - And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
John 20:27 KJB - Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
John 20:28 KJB - And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
John 20:29 KJB - Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
The texts of John 20:26-29 KJB are clear in their inspired [2 Timothy 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:21 KJB] statements, and in the very witness [1 John 5:6-9 KJB] of the Apostle Thomas in regards Jesus Christ. He is, “Lord” and “God” of Thomas who, a moment before the revelation, had doubted.
However, there are some which attempt to 'excuse' these words of Thomas by the following [these being the exact words]:
[1] Thomas was surprised when he saw the Lord in their midst. “My God!” was just an expression, a “statement of surprise.”
[2] Thomas was actually addressing both the Father [“My God”] and the Lord Jesus Christ [“My Lord”] when he said, “My Lord and my God.”
[3] It is not a teaching text (non-didactic text); actually Thomas made a mistake when he said, “My Lord and my God.”
[4] Thomas could have been saying my master and judge. The underlying koine Greek word 'theos' is generic and has many meanings and can mean 'judge'.
What is not represented as an answer, is the obvious, that Thomas actually
believed in his affirmative statement that Jesus was indeed “... [his [possessive, 'my']] Lord and [his [possessive, 'my']] God”.
Consider the text itself:
John 20:28 KJB - And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
John 20:28 GNT TR - ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.
While the King James Bible is perfect in the way English reads, the Koine Greek itself undermines the 4 excuses, by reading, “
ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ
ὁ Θεός μου”, which in harsh English, reads, '
the Lord of me and
the God of me'.
In fact, there is an Old Testament text which reads in a similar way, which will help us understand how to read the text:
Psalms 35:23 KJB - Stir up thyself, and awake to my judgment, even unto my cause, my God and my Lord.
Side note, in the so-called LXX [
*Septuagint, the work of Origen in his Hexapla, not the work of 70 or 72 Jewish scholars from the twelve tribes, and definitely not written before AD 100].
Psalms 35:23 (34:23) LXX* - ἐξεγέρθητι, κύριε, καὶ πρόσχες τῇ κρίσει μου, ὁ θεός μου καὶ ὁ κύριός μου, εἰς τὴν δίκην μου.
The understanding is obvious, and the language, other than reversed, is the very same.
The very context of the John 20:28 KJB text is between Jesus and His doubting disciple. Jesus speaks to Thomas, and Thomas' statement [then of new found faith and belief] is directly in response and directed to Jesus Christ Himself because of His appearing after crucifixion, death and burial, now resurrected and alive.
John 20:26 KJB - And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
John 20:27 KJB - Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
John 20:28 KJB - And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
John 20:29 KJB - Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
The words, “behold”, “faithless”, “believing”, “seen”, “believed”, “blessed
are they that have not seen” and “believed” are directly connected to the statement of Thomas to Jesus and His appearing, and also related to the previous week, wherein Thomas had not been present with the others. Jesus is herein specifically designated the “Lord” and “God” of Thomas.
However, not to merely discount the 4 objections, let us now consider each one more closely:
[1] Thomas exclaimed in “surprise” unto “him” [Jesus; vs 26 - “Jesus”, vs 27 - “he”, “my”, “my”, vs 28 - “answered and said unto him”, vs 29 - “Jesus”], when he said, “... my God ...”!
This 'explanation' is that Thomas had an 'outburst', a sudden expression of surprise, likened unto when someone smashes their finger or is caught off guard, a knee-jerk reaction and is sometimes expressed in various translations with an exclamation point [!].
This argument is based upon a punctuation mark, which is not represented in the Koine Greek, neither the English context, nor in several other various translations [which use a period [.] or even semi-colon [;], such as the ASV, Darby's, Douay Rheims, Noah Webster's, etc], including the King James Bible itself.
Yet, even if the majority of translations utilized a period [.], semi-colon [;] or an exclamation point [!], it would not be proof, since truth is not confirmed by majority. Truth is self-confirming.
Moreso, the Koine Greek has no punctuation. Consider the following two examples of sentences, that even punctuation, whether a period [.] or exclamation point [!] would not alter the understanding:
[1] Sample:
“Jesus is the anointed King and Messiah.”
“... It is Jesus.”
Text:
“... My Lord and my God.”
Simply a true statement. A profession of that which is true.
[2] Sample:
“Jesus is the anointed King and Messiah!”
“... It is Jesus!”
Text:
“... My Lord and my God!”
An exclamation of the profound truth.
The question then becomes, “Which of the two sentences, whether period [.] or exclamation point [!], is saying anything that is not true in regards Jesus?” The answer is, “Neither.” Doctrinal understanding is never to be founded upon punctuation, but rather:
Isaiah 28:10 KJB - For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Isaiah 8:20 KJB - To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
The text is not recorded in the same way as if anyone were to simply blurt out, “OUCH!” or “YEOW!”, which would be something that takes very little cognitive ability, but rather what Thomas says, if in exclamation, would be akin to anyone exclaiming “That really, really hurts and smarts!” Clear cognitive reasoning which is much more than that of simply “OW!”
However, there is no exclamation point here, but rather, Thomas “answered” [John 20:28 KJB] Jesus, whom had just spoken to him in John 20:27 KJB. Thomas formulates a complete and complex sentence in response unto Jesus, beginning with “My Lord”, adding unto it, “and”, finally finishing with, “my God.” This is a deep and complex thought formulated into words and not something 'right off of the top of the head'. This is not a 'knee-jerk' reaction, but rather total realization of who it was that stood before him resurrected.
Thomas was actually addressing both the Father [“My God”] and the Lord Jesus Christ [“My Lord”] when he said, “My Lord and my God.”
This “explanation” directly overlooks the nearest immediate context and violates it. The nearest context and scripture reveals that, “And Thomas
answered and
said unto him ...”
Thomas was not addressing multiple individuals or persons in this passage. The “him” is
singular and not plural:
John 20:28 GNT-TR+ - καιG2532 CONJ απεκριθηG611 V-ADI-3S οG3588 T-NSM θωμαςG2381 N-NSM καιG2532 CONJ ειπενG3004 V-2AAI-3S αυτωG846 P-DSM οG3588 T-NSM κυριοςG2962 N-NSM μουG1473 P-1GS καιG2532 CONJ οG3588 T-NSM θεοςG2316 N-NSM μουG1473 P-1GS
The “him” is the singular person, Jesus [vs 26 - “Jesus”, vs 27 - “he”, “my”, “my”, vs 28 - “answered and said unto him”, vs 29 - “Jesus”] who had just spoken to Thomas. Thomas “answered” Jesus, and this means to respond to something said, done, etc, just as Jesus had “answered” the devil in the wilderness, or an echo in “answering”.
It is not a teaching text (non-didactic text); actually Thomas made a mistake when he said, “My Lord and my God.”
The first part of this “explanation” ignores the following text:
2 Timothy 3:16 KJB - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
All of scripture is teaching text, especially when the Holy Spirit is the teacher.
The second part of the “explanation” ignores other texts in which Jesus immediately censors and/or rebukes the disciples for saying, thinking, and/or doing foolish things and/or transgressing God's Law:
Matthew 16:23 KJB - But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Matthew 17:25 KJB - He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
Matthew 26:52 KJB - Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Matthew 26:53 KJB - Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Mark 8:33 KJB - But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
Mark 14:6 KJB - And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
Luke 24:25 KJB - Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
John 12:7 KJB - Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.
John 12:8 KJB - For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.
If Thomas had actually blasphemed [scripture deals with our speech, Matthew 5:19; Colossians 4:6; Titus 2:8, etc. KJB] in this instance, he would have received serious rebuke from Jesus who loved Him, as it is written:
Leviticus 19:17 KJB - Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
Leviticus 19:18 KJB - Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Jesus also directly and immediately rebuked the devil:
Matthew 4:10 KJB - Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Luke 4:8 KJB - And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Yet, Jesus receives worship in numerous places [a few samples of hundreds]:
Exodus 3:2 KJB - And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
Exodus 3:3 KJB - And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
Exodus 3:4 KJB - And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.
Exodus 3:5 KJB - And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.
Exodus 3:6 KJB - Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
Acts 7:33 KJB - Then said the Lord to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet: for the place where thou standest is holy ground.
Joshua 5:15 KJB - And the captain of the LORD'S host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.
Thomas could have been saying my master and judge. The underlying koine Greek word 'theos' is generic and has many meanings and can mean 'judge'.
This “explanation” undercuts itself from the beginning by saying, “... could have been ...”, which is entirely unfounded conjecture, as the text reads, “My Lord and my God.”
However, let us consider the second portion in fairness, and give the benefit, in spite of the doubt.
The English word “God” [John 20:28 KJB], is translated from the koine Greek
[G2316] “θεός”, “theos”. It is not once translated “judge” in all of the King James Bible in 1344 times. However, in John 10:35 KJB, it is translated “gods” [lowercase], being a reference to an OT passage [Psalms 82 KJB]:
Psalms 82:1 KJB - A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
Psalms 82:2 KJB - How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
Psalms 82:3 KJB - Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Psalms 82:4 KJB - Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
Psalms 82:5 KJB - They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
Psalms 82:6 KJB - I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Psalms 82:7 KJB - But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Psalms 82:8 KJB - Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
This passage is speaking about the unjust rulers of Israel, the unjust judges, the corrupt leaders, “princes”, the "gods", the "congregation of the mighty", even the "children of the most High" [in fact, Jesus makes perfect use of this text in John 10:30-38 KJB, see below for details
*]. God Himself is the chief judge. Reconsider John 20:28 KJB in that light then.
Genesis 18:25 KJB - That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
Psalms 50:6 KJB - And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself. Selah.
Psalms 75:7 KJB - But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.
Psalms 82:8 KJB - Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
Ecclesiastes 3:17 KJB - I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.
Ecclesiastes 12:14 KJB - For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
Romans 3:6 KJB - God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
Hebrews 12:23 KJB - To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Hebrews 13:4 KJB - Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
God is Judge. Jesus is our, and Thomas', Judge and God:
Romans 14:10 KJB - But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
2 Corinthians 5:10 KJB - For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
John 8:16 KJB - And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
John 5:22 KJB - For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
Revelation 14:7 KJB - Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
Compare: Genesis 2:2-3; Exodus 20:8-11; John 14:15; Exodus 20:6; Colossians 1:16-17, John 1:3, etc. KJB
As stated before, the only “explanation” not given, is the one which is plainly given in the English text of the King James Bible. Jesus is the Lord and God of Thomas; Jesus is my Lord and God [.!] Is He your Lord and God? If not, consider carefully:
John 8:24 KJB - 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.
Amen.
The "ye are gods" texts and explanation:
Citing the texts:
John 10:24 KJB - Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
John 10:25 KJB - Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
John 10:26 KJB - But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
John 10:27 KJB - My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
John 10:28 KJB - And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
John 10:29 KJB - My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
John 10:30 KJB - I and my Father are one.
This speaks of at-one-ment, of heart, purpose, not of persons.
John 10:31 KJB - Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
They did this, because, Jesus just claimed full equality with God, that is, the person of the Father. He had done this before [John 10:25 KJB, "... I told you, and ye believed not ..."], with the same results:
John 5:18 KJB - Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
John 8:57 KJB - Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
John 8:58 KJB - Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
John 8:59 KJB - Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
This would have been blasphemy [Leviticus 24:14; 1 Kings 21:10 KJB], and subject for stoning, had it not been that Jesus was who He said He is.
John 10:32 KJB - Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
Jesus, then knowing that they do not believe His words, mercifully points them to His actions, deeds, the very miracles wrought, the lives of people delivered from satan, sin, disease, death. Many say that actions speak louder than words, and therefore, Jesus turned up the volume for them, that these willingly deaf might hear, and have no excuse for their own evil present course:
John 10:33 KJB - The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
They unwittingly condemn themselves by acknowledging that the works of Jesus were
"good works". They should have recognized then, the source of them, and recognize, that Jesus' actions, were matching His words, and have drawn the conclusion by following the result back to their source and see that the words were undeniably true, yet this they did not do, because they sought to justify themselves, and to justify their idea of what the Messiah/Christ ought to have been, and do. Jesus, having already told them
[1], and shown them
[2], that He was equal to God, that is the person of the Father, and did the very
"good works" that the Father does, now attempts to show them from scripture
[3] itself [rather than His present words, and present actions], who He is:
John 10:34 KJB - Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
John 10:35 KJB - If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Now, Jesus cites the scripture [OT] itself, specifically Psalms 82:1,6, in its context [see also that the priests and rulers of the people are called by God,
"gods" [Exodus 4:16, 7:1, 22:28; Psalms 138:1; Daniel 8:11,25, 11:36; 2 Thessalonians 2:3 KJB]], which in context, meant
"children of the Most High" [Psalms 82:6 KJB], all
"brethren" [Matthew 23:8; Hebrews 2:11 KJB], equally
Kings and Priests, under God:
Psalms 82:1 KJB - A Psalm of Asaph.
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
There is a perfect parallelism:
[1A] "... God ..."
[1B] "... he ..."
[2A] "... standeth in ..."
[2B] "... judgeth among ..."
[3A] "... the congregation of the mighty ..."
[3B] "... the gods ..."
Psalms 82:2 KJB -
How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
Psalms 82:3 KJB -
Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Psalms 82:4 KJB -
Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
Psalms 82:5 KJB -
They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
Psalms 82:6 KJB -
I have said, Ye are gods;
and all of you are children of the most High.
There is a perfect parallelism:
[1A] "I have said ..."
[1B] "... and ..."
[2A] "... Ye are ..."
[2B] "... all of you are ..."
[3A] "... gods ..."
[3B] "... children of the most High."
Psalms 82:7 KJB -
But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Psalms 82:8 KJB -
Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
In so doing, Jesus refers to God Himself, being in the midst of the His people, while He being the true just Judge, they being unjust judges, God defending the poor, fatherless, needy, etc, they turing away from them. The very moment that Jesus cites this reference to the Psalm, is exactly the moment of the contrast between Himself, His words and actions, and their [the Jews, leaders, Pharisees, etc] words and actions. So, Jesus'
[1] words demonstrated/vindicated who He is, and who they were,
[2] His
actions, the
"good works", demonstrated/vindicated who He is, and who they were, and even
[3] the very scripture itself in Psalms 82, demonstrated/vindicated who He is, and who they were. However, more than this, Jesus is drawing a greater argument from the text, notice:
John 10:36 KJB - Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Jesus, said "I am the Son of God", and in John 10:30 KJB, said, "I and my Father are one", which the "Jews" rightly understood Him, to make the claim that He was indeed equal to God, the person of the Father, when they said [John 10:33 KJB], "... thou ... makest thyself God."
Is Jesus backtracking from making the claim to be God [not the person of the Father, but that of the Son], or backtracking from the claim that He was equal with God [person of the Father]?
No. He is making a perfect air-tight case, from scripture, which cannot be broken [John 10:35 KJB], from the 'lesser' to the 'greater'.
Jesus cited Psalms 82, saying that even the scripture called God's own people, "gods", meaning that they were to be just judges, even "children of the most High", and thus were all 'sons of God' in that sense, called to be like Him in character, words, actions, etc. Jesus had claimed to be the actual "Son of God", who from eternity was equal with the Father. Jesus is saying, since the scripture called the adopted persons 'gods', 'children of the most High', which none of them argued with, how much more then does the actual un-adopted, original, eternal, only begotten heir have claim to such, as "Son of God", and they all knew of the person from the OT, see "my fellow" [Zechariah 13:7 KJB], the person at the bush with Moses [Exodus 3 & 4, 23:21 KJB], with Joshua [Joshua 5:13-15 KJB], etc, etc, and the coming "son" [Isaiah 9:6] who was given from the Father.
Therefore, which had the greater claim to the designation and responsibility, the actual Son of God, or those who were later called into the family of God, through adoption, whom were all called "gods", "children of the most High", "sons of God" [Genesis 6:2,4; Hosea 1:10; Ezekiel 16:21 KJB, etc]? How then could they stone Jesus, since the Messiah was the real Son of God, and they all only called and adopted? They would to have as soon stone themselves before they could rightlyfully stone Jesus for the rightful claim, which was superior in everyway to their claim to such. Jesus is not saying that He is not God, nor lessing the arguments and words beforehand made, nor backtracking to save Himself, He, instead is making the perfect unarguable case, from scripture that He is who He said He is, drawing from the 'lesser' to the 'greater' example. Jesus finishes by pointing back again to His actions, which were fulfilling the very scriptures:
John 10:37 KJB - If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
John 10:38 KJB - But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
John 10:39 KJB - Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,
They did not care about all three means by which Jesus sought to show them, because, they were unjust, and proved themselves so and stubbornly wanted to remain so. They could not refute Jesus' words, actions or scripture.
Yes, again, Jesus Christ, is JEHOVAH Jesus, JEHOVAH E/Immanuel, as already cited. I/we agree with what is written here. The "spirit" of Acts 7:59, is the last "breath" of Stephen, entrusting Himself into the arms of His Father [Jesus; Hebrews 2:13; Isaiah 8:16,18 KJB], just as Jesus had done at the Cross, for even in death, Jesus had faith in His Father, even when all looked hopeless, and only thick darkness and loneliness surrounded Jesus. When Stephen saw the person of Jesus standing at the right hand of the person of the Father in Heaven, it signaled the end of the 70 weeks [begun in 457 BC, Daniel 9:24-27; Ezra 6:14; 7-28 KJB, etc], the 490 years [the first portion of the 2,300 day/years of Daniel 8:13,14,26 kJB, et] of Daniel 9:24-27 KJB, and thus the probation for the Jews as a nation, was closed, but individuals could still be delivered, and thus the gospel was to go from Jerusalem, to Judea, to Samaria and the uttermost parts of the earth [through Paul and others]. The parallels to the 3 1/2 years of Jesus beginning with the Holy Spirit at the Jordan in AD 27 unto His death in AD 31, and the 3 1/2 years of the apostles and disciples after Pentecost and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit there unto the death of Stephen in AD 34 are amazing. see Hebrews 2:3 KJB to start with, in conjunction with Daniel 9:27 KJB, in the "confirm the covenant" aspect.
Jesus Christ is the "strength", see Revelation 12:10-12; Romans 5:6; 1 Corinthians 1:24 KJB. Just because He or even th Holy Spirit are called "strength", "wisdom" etc, doesn't mean that they are not persons.
Jesus Christ is indeed the Almighty, not the person of the Father, neither the person of the Holy Ghost/Spirit, but the person of the Son:
Genesis 17:1 KJB - And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
Genesis 35:11 KJB - And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
For it was such He had 'laid down' [chose not to use], and took it back up again:
Matthew 28:18 KJB - And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Luke 10:19 KJB - Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
John 10:18 KJB - No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
John 17:2 KJB - As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
1 Corinthians 5:4 KJB - In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1 Corinthians 15:24 KJB - Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
2 Corinthians 12:9 KJB - And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Ephesians 1:21 KJB - Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
Colossians 2:10 KJB - And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
2 Thessalonians 1:9 KJB - Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
Hebrews 1:3 KJB - Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
2 Peter 1:3 KJB - According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
Revelation 5:12 KJB - Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.
Even the false gods among the pantheons of the various false religions name many of their gods by what are seemingly mere attributes, like "sophia", "phobos", etc. Yet, we know that even those are devils, which are real persons/beings, not non-entities, or mere elemental forces. That is why those beings are called "powers" [Romans 8:38; Ephesians 3:10, 6:12; Colossians 1:16, 2:15].
The Holy Ghost, being also a Person, an eternal Being, is also called "power", just as Christ Jesus and the Father are [they are the Three Greatest Powers of Heaven], and the scriptures even speak of the "power" of the Holy Ghost/Spirit [Luke 1:35; Romans 15:13 KJB, etc].
I pray you do not think I adhere to the errors of Romanism ... I do
not believe the following definition of said word [not that I really use the word anyway, I prefer the scriptural "Godhead", but never-the-less]:
* "We believe then in
the Father who eternally begets the Son, in the Son, the
Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in
the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person
who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love. Thus in the Three Divine Persons, coaeternae sibi et coaequales,[8] the life and beatitude of God
perfectly one superabound and are consummated in the supreme excellence and glory proper to uncreated being, and always "there should be venerated unity in the Trinity and Trinity in the unity."[9]"
[Online Roman Catholic Library; Credo of the People of God; Promulgated by Pope Paul VI on June 30, 1968] - http://www.newadvent...docs_pa06cr.htm
"
...that
the Paraclete "is
not to be considered as unconnected with the Father and the Son, for He is
with Them one in substance and divinity"
...
... Proceeding both from the Father and the Son, the Holy Ghost, nevertheless, proceeds from Them as from a single principle. ... Hence it follows, indeed, that
the Holy Ghost proceeds from the two other Persons, not in so far as They are distinct, but inasmuch as Their Divine perfection is numerically one. Besides,
such is the explicit teaching of ecclesiastical tradition, which is concisely put by St. Augustine (On the Holy Trinity V.14): "As the Father and the Son
are only one God and, relatively to the creature, only one Creator and one Lord, so, relatively to the Holy Ghost,
They are only one principle."
This doctrine was definded in the following words by the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons [Denzinger, "Enchiridion" (1908), n. 460]:
"We confess that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle, not by two spirations, but by one single spiration." The
teaching was again laid down by the Council of Florence (ibid., n. 691), and
by Eugene IV in his Bull "Cantate Domino" (ibid., n. 703 sq.). ...
..."
the Holy Ghost comes from the Father and from the Son not made, not created, not generated,
but proceeding" ... "
[Online Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, Holy Spirit; sections throughout] -
http://www.newadvent...then/07409a.htm
"
The sacrosanct
Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior,
firmly believes, professes, and preaches one true God omnipotent, unchangeable, and eternal, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;
one in essence, three in persons; Father unborn,
Son born of the Father,
Holy Spirit proceeding from Father and Son; that the Father is not Son or Holy Spirit, that Son is not Father or Holy Spirit; that Holy Spirit is not Father or Son; but Father alone is Father, Son alone is Son, Holy Spirit alone is Holy Spirit.
The Father alone begot the Son of His own substance; the Son alone was begotten of the Father alone; the Holy Spirit alone
proceeds at the same time from the Father and Son.
These three persons are
one God, and not three gods, because
the three have one substance, one essence, one nature, one divinity, one immensity, one eternity, where no opposition of relationship interferes.
“Because of this unity the Father is entire in the Son, entire in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entire in the Father, entire in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is entire in the Father, entire in the Son. No one either excels another in eternity, or exceeds in magnitude, or is superior in power. For the fact that
the Son is of the Father is eternal and without beginning; and that
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning.”
Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and
He is the principle without principle.
Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle.
Whatever the Holy Spirit is or has, He has simultaneously from the Father and the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but
one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of the creature, but
one principle. ..."
The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV by Pope Eugene IV -
http://catholicism.o...ate-domino.html
It is rather difficult to tell when you are replying and when you are re-quoting me. But since you highlighted it.
I do not stumble over such a thing, but explained it here [
1].
Indeed [Acts 28:25, which is citing Isaiah 6, etc; and Hebrews 10, is citing Jeremiah 31, etc; Hebrews 3:6-7 KJB], the Holy Ghost speaks [as shown to you already that the Holy Ghost is also JEHOVAH, not the person of Father, neither the person of the Son; [
1]], being that He is a Divine and eternal Person. The Third Person of the Godhead. He speaks unto men and Instructs them and Comforts them, being that He is "another Comforter":
John 14:16 KJB - And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
John 14:16 KJB - και εγω ερωτησω τον πατερα και αλλον παρακλητον δωσει υμιν ινα μενη μεθ υμων εις τον αιωνα
Yes, indeed, "another" like Jesus, a Person, a Being.
Acts 8:29 KJB - Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
A Being that can be grieved, just as cited by yourself [Ephesians 4:30 KJB] and can bear "witness" [Hebrews 10:15 KJB].
The Holy Ghost/Spirit
[as the Father and the Son] is able to resurrect persons to life:
Romans 8:11 KJB - But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
1 Peter 3:18 KJB - For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
Thus:
JEHOVAH Elohiym is the Resurrection and the Life:
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Colossians 2:12
Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 1 Peter 1:21
And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. 1 Corinthians 6:14
Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. Acts 2:24
And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. Acts 3:15
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Acts 13:33
Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Hebrews 13:20
Who raised Jesus from the Dead?
So the Father did:
Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set [him] at his own right hand in the heavenly [places], Ephesians 1:20
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Romans 6:4
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
Galatians 1:1
And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come. 1 Thessalonians 1:10
So Jesus [the Son] did:
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. John 2:19
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. John 10:18
So the Holy Spirit did:
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Romans 8:11
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 1 Peter 3:18
3 Persons working in unison, perfect at-one-ment of action, goal, etc, but each differing Persons.
You need to cite your copy and pastes from websites [which are out of date by the way, and present only half-information].
Notice the words "generally absent", not "completely absent". First point against such.
Second point against such, for the latter half is in error, as the words
do not only "appear in the text of four late medieval manuscripts"
[which by the way is only speaking about Koine Greek texts, not Latin, or other languages, as I have shown you at least twice now the full known extent of their appearance from Apostolic times, just based in mss, etc evidences. [
1] and [
2]. Here it is a third time:
"...
Side note:
1 John 5:7 KJB - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 John 5:8 KJB - And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
The evidence:
[1] Manuscripts [MSS]
Cursives [Greek lowercase]:
[01] #61 [aka Codex Montfortianus] - 16th Cent.
[02] #88 [aka Codex Regis [margin, 16th Cent.]] - 12th Cent.
[03] #177 [BSB Codex graeci 211 [margin, 15th Cent.] - 11th Cent.
[04] #221 [margin, 15th/16th Cent.] - 10th Cent.
[05] #429 [aka Codex Wolfenbuttel, margin, 16th Cent.] - 14th Cent.
[06] #629 [aka Codex Ottobonianus] - 14th Cent.
[07] #535 - 11th Cent.
[08] #636 [margin] - 15th Cent.
[09] #918 - 16th Cent.
[10] #2318 - 18th Cent.
[11] #2473 - 18th Cent.
Latin:
[01] c [aka Codex Colbertinus, aka 6, 12th/13th Cent. [1200]]
[02] dem [aka Codex Demidovianus, aka 59, 13th Cent. [1250]]
[03] div [aka Codex Divionensis, aka –, 13th Cent. [1250]]
[04] l [aka Codex Legionensis, aka 67, 7th Cent. [750]]
[05] m [aka Codex Speculum, aka –, 4th-9th Cent.]
[06] p [aka Codex Perpinianensis, aka 54, 12th/13th Cent. [1150]]
[07] q [aka Codex Frisingensis, aka 64, 7h Cent. [650]]
[08] r [aka Codex Frisingensis, aka 64, 5th/6th Cent.]
[09] Vulgate [Clementine edition]
[10] La Cava Bible [aka Codex Cavensis [9th Cent.]]
[11] Codex Ulmensis [9th Cent.]
[12] C [aka Codex Complutensis, 10th Cent.]
[13] T [aka Codex Toletanus, 10th Cent.]
[14] Θ [Codex Theodulphianus, 10th Cent.]
[15] S 907 [aka Codex Sangallensis 907, 8th Cent.]
[16] S 63 [aka Codex Sangallensis 63, 9th Cent.]
“testimonium 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 spirtus.”
[2] “Church Fathers” [so-called]
[01] Tertullian [circa. AD 220]
[02] Cyprian of Carthage [circa. AD 258], Treatises (I 5:423): “... and again it is written of the Father, , and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, , 'And these three are one.' ...”
[03] Priscillan [circa. AD 358]
[04] The Speculum [5th Cent.], Pseudo-Augustine
[05] Creed “Esposito Fidei [5th/6th Cent.]
[06] Old Latin [5th/6th Cent.]
[07] Confession of Faith of Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage [circa. AD 484]
[08] Cassiodoris of Italy [circa. AD 480-570] in Complexiones in Ionis Epist. ad Parthos.
also (these three with some variation), Cyprian, Ps-Cyprian, & Priscillian (died 385) Liber Apologeticus. And Contra-Varimadum, and Ps-Vigilius, Fulgentius of Ruspe (died 527) Responsio contra Arianos
[3] Lectionaries
[01] “some minority variant readings in lectionaries.”
"… “at least four Old Latin manuscripts, over eight ‘Church Fathers’ (including Cyprian who died A.D. 258), four Syriac editions, Slavic and Armenian manuscripts, over 600 distinct editions of the Textus Receptus from 1522 to 1881, 18 pre-Lutheran Bibles, and thousands of Vulgate manuscripts. Among Greek manuscripts which do omit this verse, 97% are late manuscripts, dated from the 10th century and later.”1 …” -
Ridiculous KJV Bible Corrections - 1 John 5:7 Scams
“… Some Syriac Peshitto manuscripts, The Syriac Edition at Hamburg, Bishop Uscan’s Armenian Bible, the Armenian Edition of John Zohrob, the first printed Georgian Bible.
Early Latin witnesses include:
1) Tertullian who died in 220 A.D.
2) Cyprian of Carthage who died in 258 A.D.
3) Priscillan who died in 358 A.D.
4) The Speculum - Fifth century
5) A creed called Esposito Fidei - Fifth or sixth century
6) Old Latin - Fifth or sixth century
7) A Confession of Faith of Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage (484 A.D.)
8) Cassiodoris of Italy (480-570 A.D.)
Nine Manuscripts which contain 1 John 5:7-8:
#61 - Sixteenth century
#88 - Twelfth century
#221 - Tenth century
#429 - Fourteenth century
#629 - Fourteenth century
#535 - Eleventh century
#636 - Fifteenth century
#918 - Sixteenth century
#2318 - Eighteenth century
The evidence is overwhelming for the authenticity of
1 John 5:7-8. Keep in mind that it was Origen who was the father of the false manuscripts who removed this verse as he did verses like Acts 8:37 and
Luke 24:40. The Alexandrian school was no friend of the true manuscripts which were taken from Antioch and mutilated according to Gnostic beliefs.” -
http://www.scionofzion.com/1 john 5 78.htm
Remember, God preserves [
Psalms 12:6,7KJB, etc] by many, few, or even just one. Majority is never the default given. Neither the minorty, or even the one. ..." -
Non-Trinitarian - The God or a god
Therefore, please stop relying upon outdated and half-truth information from a random website. It is overwhelmingly refuted, and even shown to be dishonest. There is no rule that states any given phrase must be found in a frgamentary Koine Greek document. There are other languages into which the scriptures had been meticulously copied into, like Latin, Syriac, etc. The books of Acts proves that the Gospel went into all the world, any by multiple languages [Acts 2:1-13 KJB].
Absolutely falsified by the evidence I gave on 3 occasions now. It is mere erroneous human conjecture and nothing more, a critics analysis who doubts in the preservaion of the word of God. There is 0, Zero, nada, zip, zilch, bubkiss, nothing to substantiate such a wild claim. The documentary evidence proves the opposite.
It existed far prior to "later" or "late medieval" mss. It's even found in the so-called 'patristics' and 'lectionaries' outside of the Latin or Greek mss.
As stated, the very Koine Greek tenses, masculine and neuter require the phrase. Why not address this, you may see that here:
" ... The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at
1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is
oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.:
to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle
oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.
Even though Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) does not testify to the authenticity of the Comma, he makes mention of the flawed grammar resulting from its absence. In his
Theological Orientations he writes referring to John:
. . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity?
[8]
It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book,
The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton in his book,
Doctrine of the Greek Article, argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight.
[9]
While the external evidence makes the originality of the Comma possible, the internal evidence makes it very probable. When we consider the providential hand of God and His use of the Traditional Text in the Reformation it is clear that the Comma is authentic. ..." -
1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - "These Three are One" (Trinity/Godhead)
"...
First, if it be made, the masculine article, numeral, and particle are made to agree directly with three neuters—an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty. But if the disputed words are allowed to stand, they agree directly with two masculines and one neuter noun…where, according to a well known rule of syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected with them…
Second, if the excision is made, the eighth verse coming next to the sixth, gives us a very bald and awkward, and apparently meaningless, repetition of the Spirit’s witness twice in immediate succession.
Third, if the excision is made, then the proposition at the end of the eighth verse [and these three agree in one], contains an unintelligible reference… "And these three agree to that (aforesaid) One"… What is that aforesaid unity to which these three agree? If the seventh verse is exscinded, there is none… Let the seventh verse stand, and all is clear: the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute." [18]
"There is a coherency in the whole which presents a very, strong internal evidence for the genuineness of the received text." [19] ..." -
Why 1 John 5:7-8 is in the Bible
"... This note has nothing to do with the "internal evidence" about which WH have been so eloquent. There is nothing so subjective as transcriptional probability and intrinsic probability meant here, but instead has to do with grammatical, geographical, and logical considerations. Or, in other words, the FACTS of the passage. In this particular case, if we omit the Comma, we are faced with tremendous grammatical difficulties. If we leave the verse as it stands in most Greek texts, we are given "witnesses" (hoy marturountes) in verse 7 which are masculine, with three neuter nouns in verse 8 (to pneuma kai to hudor kai to aima), which are then said to agree as one. In other words, by the rule of Greek syntax known as the "power of attraction" which says that the masculines among a group control the gender of a neuter connected with that group, we are given three masculine witnesses which are supposed to agree as one neuter witness. This is a grammatical impossibility. The genders don't match. On the other hand, if you accept the Comma as a part of the text, you would have two masculine subjects (the Father and the Word, "ho patare, ho logos") to agree with the masculine witnesses. (I hated this stuff when I was taking Greek - I can't believe I'm having to deal with it again!) It is therefore seen that on the basis of internal considerations the inclusion of the text is a must in order to avoid violating basic Greek grammar. ..."-
1 John 5:7
I cited that at least 3 times now, the first two [1] and [2] and the 3rd in this very reply.
Terrible blindness you have, terrible pride that will not let you see, nor hear, nor acknowledge.
First, the statement is not true at all. All scholars do not consider it to be spurious. Only the "critical" [non-bible-preservation-believing-skeptics and doubters, like the Jesuit Carlo Maria Martini, S.J. on the UBS committees, Metzger, Alands, etal., some who do not even believe in inspiration of the text] scholars, and they are the minority among professed beleivers. They are something like the highpriests of evolutionism and uniformitarianism of the world, like Dawkins, Hitchens [dead], Hawking [dead, starting to drop like flies ...], etc.
Indeed, the "critical" editions of only "Greek" text, all corrupted, Jesuit influence editions [and I mean more the C.M. Martini, S.J., I mean peoples like Westcott and Hort, Tregelles, Lightfoot] etc.
You just disproved what you earlier cited in regards the evidences. Also, the "Stuttgart" is
not the received text,
neither the Ben Chayyim Hebrew
; original Masoretic text. The Stuttgart Biblia Hebraica [(as originated by
anti-Semite Rudolf Kittel; a German and whose "son was the theologian and
Nazi apologist
Gerhard Kittel." [
1]] and based on readings in the Leningrad manuscript] text [Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; BHS, BH4], is from Ben Asher a Leningrad codex [
Codex Leningradensis] as known:
A single codex, from a German anti-semitic family is going to be your foundation of rejecting the text?
Nonsense again, since it was never required of any so-called 'patristic' in any language to have cited it to have been original in scripture. There are plethoras of passages in scripture which no such 'patrisitc' cites in any language. Are you going to disclude those passages as they are not cited therein? Foolishness.
Also, in regards the 'Arian' [a rather vague term with broad defintions] controversies [still going on today, hello!, ain't nothing new under the sun], what is Tertullian and others doing quoting the thing? Were they making it up on the fly? If so, where are the thousands of letters rebuking these people from adding to the words of God?
"... [01] Tertullian [circa. AD 220]
[02] Cyprian of Carthage [circa. AD 258], Treatises (I 5:423): “... and again it is written of the Father, , and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, , 'And these three are one.' ...”
[03] Priscillan [circa. AD 358]
[04] The Speculum [5th Cent.], Pseudo-Augustine
[05] Creed “Esposito Fidei [5th/6th Cent.]
[06] Old Latin [5th/6th Cent.] ..."
Sure, in over 300 years, just from Tertullians time up to the "Old Latin" of the 5/6th cent., someone should have commented on these people making stuff up! Where is that evidence?
You do realize that in the 'Arian' controversies, because of what the text says, would not have favoured either side. All sides had basically understood the Eternal person of the Father, some argued about the eternality of the person of the Son, and only minor few ever argued about the personhood of the Holy Spirit. They agreed that the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit were in scripture, but they argued about the latter two persons eternality and the latter final's personhood. They would have no contention as to being in Heaven or being witnesses, as per other texts. Even today's spiritual children of 'arians', the WTS, Jehovah's Witnesses and others do not argue that the Son was not in Heaven before, even though they believe He was created at some point in eternity past, and they do not argue that the Holy Ghost is not a witness, even though they believe that the Holy Ghost is not actually a person. It is how they read into the texts these things.
However, to further compound the problem you have, is that history shows you in error, they did argue:
"Consider, first,
THE THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. “The strength of forgery or interpolation is similarity and not uniqueness. The Trinitarian formula, ‘Father, Word, and Holy Spirit’ is unique not only for John but for all NT writers. The usual formula, ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ would have been assuredly used by a forger. [Incidentally, this argument is an antidote for rationalists who repudiate the authenticity of the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. Peter uses a unique spelling for his name (
Sumeon), which is also the first word of the Epistle, to demonstrate his mark of authorship. What forger would pass three dollar bills? Only the authority, the government, would attempt such a unique action.]” (Dr. Thomas Strouse,
A Critique of D.A. Carson’s The King James Version Debate, 1980).
Another consideration is
THE GRAMMATICAL ARGUMENT. “The omission of the Johannine Comma leaves much to be desired grammatically. The words ‘Spirit,’ ‘water’ and ‘blood’ are all neuters, yet they are treated as masculine in verse 8. This is strange if the Johannine Comma is omitted, but it can be accounted for if it is retained; the masculine nouns ‘Father’ and ‘word’ in verse 7 regulate the gender in the succeeding verse due to the power of attraction principle. The argument that the ‘Spirit’ is personalized and therefore masculine is offset by verse 6 which is definitely referring to the personal Holy Spirit yet using the neuter gender. [I. H. Marshall is a current voice for this argument: ‘It is striking that although Spirit, water, and blood are all neuter nouns in Greek, they are introduced by a clause expressed in the masculine plural ... Here in 1 John he clearly regards the Spirit as personal, and this leads to the personification of the water and the blood’
The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1978), p. 237n.] Moreover, the words ‘that one’ (
to hen) in verse 8 have no antecedent if verse 7 is omitted, [Marshall calls this construction ‘unparalleled,’ p. 237] whereas if verse 7 is retained, then the antecedent is ‘these three are one’ (
to hen)” (Strouse,
A Critique of D.A. Carson’s The King James Version Debate).
The grammatical argument has been treated lightly by modern textual critics, but its importance was understood by GREGORY NAZIANZUS (Oration XXXII: Fifth Theological Oration: “On the Holy Spirit,” A.D. 390; see Michael Maynard,
A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8), FREDERIC NOLAN (
An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, 1815), ROBERT DABNEY (“The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” 1891), THOMAS MIDDLETON (
The Doctrine of the Greek article: applied to the criticism and illustration of the New Testament, 1833), MATTHEW HENRY (Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1706), EDWARD F. HILLS (
The King James Bible Defended: a Space-age Defense of the Historic Christian Faith, 1956), LOUIS GAUSSEN (
The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, 1934), to name a few. I take my stand with these men.
Consider, too,
THE ARGUMENT FROM THE PURPOSE OF JOHN’S WRITINGS AND OF THE NATURE OF THOSE TIMES.
“Regarding the issue at hand, such a distinct literary/historical coherence fully supports the inclusion of the
Johannine Comma. The resounding theme of the Gospel of John is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Such is summed up in
John 10:30, when Jesus says, ‘I and my Father are one.’ This same theme is prevalent in the Epistle, being concisely and clearly stated in 5:7-8.The Comma truly bears coherence with the message of John’s Gospel in this sense. It serves as an occasion to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity as the original readers prepared to study the attached Gospel. Although Christ’s divinity is inferred throughout the epistle, one is not confronted with such succinct declaration as is conveyed in the Comma. If this passage is omitted, it seems that the theme of John's Gospel would lack a proper introduction.
“It is interesting to note that one of the earliest allusions to the
Johannine Comma in church history is promulgated in connection to the thematic statement made by the Lord in
John 10:30. [The fact that this allusion was made less than two centuries after the completion of the New Testament serves as convincing external evidence for the authenticity of the
Johannine Comma.] Cyprian writes around A.D. 250, ‘The Lord says “I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.”’ [
The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926), 5:423.] The theological teaching of the Comma most definitely bears coherence with the overriding theme of John’s Gospel. There is no reason to believe that the verse is not genuine in this sense, for it serves as a proper prelude to the theme of the Gospel which, historically speaking, most likely accompanied the Epistle as it was sent out to its original audience.
“The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the
Johannine Comma. This ‘unethical intellectualism’ had begun to make inroads among churches in John’s day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle. [Robertson, 6:200] Generally speaking, Gnosticism can be described as a variety of syncretic religious movements in the early period of church history that sought to answer the question, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ The Gnostic answer was that a person must possess a secret knowledge. Proponents of Gnosticism claimed to possess a superior knowledge and so were called Gnostics.] One of the major tenets of Gnosticism was the essential evil of matter; the physical body, in other words, was viewed as evil. According to this line of thought, Jesus Christ could not have been fully God and fully man, for this would have required him to posses an evil physical body.
“The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John’s mind in his first epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with the verb ginosko (to know). [
1 John 2:3,
5;
3:16,
19,
24;
4:2,
6,
13;
5:2] This being said, the
Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. Robertson notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while 1 John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity. [Robertson, 6:201] He goes on to say, ‘Certainly both ideas appear in both books.’ If these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John’s polemic. Jesus Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living Word (cf.
John 1:1). The Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bears witness to ‘he that came by water and blood,’ even Jesus Christ (
1 John 5:6). This assertion would have flown right into the face of Gnosticism” (Jesse M. Boyd, “And These Three Are One: A Case for the Authenticity of
1 John 5:7-8,” 1999,
"And These Three Are One" A Case For the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8).
Another consideration is
THE ARGUMENT FROM THE GREEK MANUSCRIPT RECORD. D.A. Carson, probably following Bruce Metzger’s
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (3rd edition corrected, 1975), claims there are only four MSS containing the Johannine Comma. In fact, the UBS 4th Greek N.T. lists 8 manuscripts that contain the comma, four in the text (61, 629, 2318, 918) and four in the margin (88, 221, 429, 636).
When considering the Greek manuscript evidence for or against the
Johannine Comma, it is important to understand that there are only five manuscripts dating from the 2nd to the 7th century that even contain the fifth chapter of 1 John (Michael Maynard,
A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8, Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995). None of the papyrus contains this portion of Scripture.
Further, it is important to understand that some Greek manuscripts cited by editors in the 16th and 17th centuries are no longer extant. The Complutensian Bible, produced by several Catholic scholars, was based on Greek manuscripts obtained from the Vatican library and elsewhere. They included
1 John 5:7 on the authority of “ancient codices” that were in their possession. Further, Robert Stephens, who produced several editions of the Greek Received Text, obtained ancient Greek manuscripts from the Royal Library at Paris. He refused to allow even one letter that was not supported by what he considered to be the best Greek manuscripts. When he compared these manuscripts to the Complutensian, he found that they agreed. In the margin of the 3rd edition of his Greek N.T. he said seven of the 15 or 16 Greek manuscripts in his possession contained the
Johannine Comma. Theodore Beza borrowed these manuscripts from Robert Stephens’ son Henry and further testified that
1 John 5:7 is found in “some ancient manuscripts of Stephens.”
In the 16th and 17th centuries, both the Catholic and the Reformation editors were convinced of the authenticity of
1 John 5:7 based on the Greek manuscript evidence that was before them.
It is probable that some of this evidence has been lost. Consider the following important statements:
“Erasmus, in his Notes on the place, owns that the Spanish Edition took it from a Vatican MS, and Father Amelote, in his Notes on his own Version of the Greek Testament, affirms, that he had seen this verse in the most ancient copy of the Vatican Library. The learned
Author of the Enquiry into the Authority of the Complutensian Edition of the New Testament [Richard Smalbroke], in a letter to Dr. Bentley, from these and many other arguments, proves it to be little less than certain, that the controverted passage 1 Joh. v.7 was found in the ancient Vatican MS, so particularly recommended by Pope Leo to the Editors at Complutum” (Leonard Twells,
A Critical Examination of the Late New Text and Version of the New Testament, 1731, II, p. 128).
“Can we peruse the account which is given of the labours of Laurentius Valla [he collated the Latin against the Greek in the 15th century], of the Complutensian Editors of the Old and New Testaments, of Robert Stephens, the Parisain printer, and of Theodore Beza, without believing, that they found this passage in several valuable Greek manuscripts? All those learned and honourable men could not surely have combined to assert, in the face of the Christian world, that they had examined and collated manuscripts which contained this verse. Where would be our candour and charity, if we should suppose them capable of such an intentional and deliberate falsification of the Scriptures, and of doing this in concert? Would not this be to rob them of their honest and well-earned reputation, for learning and worth, for probity and honour, and to stigmatize them as cheats and impostors? It is supposed, that those Greek manuscripts which were used by the first editors of the New Testament, have been lost by being neglected, or destroyed after they had been used for this purpose. The manuscripts which were used by the Complutensian Editors, under the direction of Cardinal Ximenes, it is said, were never returned to the library of the Vatican, but are either lost, or lie concealed in some of the libraries in Spain. The manuscripts which were borrowed by Robert Stephens, from the Royal Library at Paris, have never found their way back thither, or at least, they are not now, it is said, in that Library. ... Though, however, it could be proved, that there did not exist at this hour, a single Greek manuscript which exhibited the verse in question, yet still the testimonies of their former existence, which have been produced, should overbalance, it is conceived, in the view of every unprejudiced mind, any unfavourable presumption arising from this circumstance” (Robert Jack,
Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7).
Consider, too,
THE ARGUMENT FROM THE GREEK LECTIONARIES AND PRINTED BIBLES. It is a fascinating fact that though the majority of extant Greek manuscripts do not contain
1 John 5:7, many of the lectionaries of the Greek Orthodox Church do contain it, as do the printed Greek Bibles. The lectionaries are Scripture passages organized to be read in the churches.
The printed lectionaries in the Greek Orthodox Church since the 16th century have often included
1 John 5:7. This is an important fact, because it is not reasonable to believe that the Greek Orthodox Church would “correct” its own text from Latin.
1 John 5:7 was in the
Apostolos or
Collection of Lessons (5th century), “read in the Greek Church, out of the Apostolical Epistles, and printed at Venice, An. 1602.
Velut ab Antiquis seculis recepta Lectio, says Selden de Synedriis, l.2, c.4. Art. 4. This Lectionary is as old as the fifth century. Vide Millii Prol. 1054, and Mr. Martin’s
Dissertation, Part I. c. 13” (Leonard Twells,
A Critical Examination of the Late New Text and Version of the New Testament, 1731, II, p. 129).
1 John 5:7 was in the lectionary
Ordo Romanus (A.D. 730) (Twells, II, p. 133). The Trinitarian text was to be read between Easter and Whitsuntide, “as we learn from Durandus, a writer of the fourteenth century, in his
Rationale of Divine Offices.”
The Greek Orthodox Church’s printed New Testaments, both ancient and modern, contain
1 John 5:7. Again, it not possible to believe that they would include this on the basis of anything other than evidence from Greek. Being keepers of the Greek language, they would despise the Latin.
Another consideration is
THE ARGUMENT FROM THE LATIN MANUSCRIPT RECORD. The majority of Latin New Testament manuscripts from the past 900 years contain
1 John 5:7. Further, some of the most ancient also contain it. “It is not true, that the most ancient Latin MSS. Of the New Testament want the celebrated passage of
1 John 5:7. For the Bible of Charlemagne revised and corrected by the learned Alcuin, has that text by the confession of our adversaries, and they have not been able to produce an older MS. Where it is missing. The only pretended one of this sort, is Mabillon’s Lectionary, which after all is not strictly a MS. of the New Testament, nor written in Latin but in a mixed language, called Teutonick-French, or Gallo-Teutonick” (Twells, II, p. 153).
THE ARGUMENT FROM THE WRITINGS OF ANCIENT CHURCH LEADERS. Following are some quotations that refer to the
Johannine Comma from church writings dating to the first eight centuries of the church age:
Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.) -- “The connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Comforter, makes an unity of these three, one with another, which three are one,--not one person; in like manner as it is said, I and my Father are one, to denote the unity of substance, and not the singularity of number” (
Against Praxeas, II,
Ante-Nicene Fathers). “We find, therefore, that about A.D. 200, not much more than an hundred years after this Epistle was written, Tertullian refers to the verse in question, to prove that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one in essence; a satisfactory evidence, that this doctrine, though asserted by some in our time, to be a dangerous novelty, was really the acknowledged faith of Christians in those early times” (Robert Jack,
Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7).
Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 A.D.) -- “The Lord says ‘I and the Father are one’ and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one’” (
De Unitate Ecclesiae, [
On The Unity of the Church],
The Ante-Nicene Fathers:
Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D.325). Here Cyprian quotes from
John 10:30 and
1 John 5:7. Nowhere else in Scripture do we find the words “and these three are one.” “It is true that Facundus, a 6th-century African bishop, interpreted Cyprian as referring to the following verse, but, as Scrivener (1883) remarks, it is ‘surely safer and more candid’ to admit that Cyprian read the Johannine comma in his New Testament manuscript ‘than to resort to the explanation of Facundus’” (Edward Hills, p. 210). Leonard Twells adds, “This noble testimony invincibly proves, that the passage now under debate, was in approved copies of the third century” (
A Critical Examination of the Late New Text and Version of the New Testament, 1731, II, p. 134).
Athanasius (c. 350 A.D.) quotes
1 John 5:7 at least three times in his works (R.E. Brown,
The Anchor Bible, Epistles of John, 1982, p. 782). “Among the works of Athanasius which are generally allowed to be genuine, is a Synopsis of this Epistle. In his summary of the fifth chapter, he seems plainly to refer to this verse, when he says, ‘The Apostle here teaches, the unity of the Son with the Father’ [Du Pin, Art. “Athanasius,” London Edition, vol. 8, p. 34]. But it would be difficult to find any place in this chapter where this unity is taught, save in the seventh verse” (Jack,
Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7).
Priscillian (380 A.D.), who was beheaded in 385 by Emperor Maximus on the charge of heresy, quoted
1 John 5:7. “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’” (
Liber Apologeticus).
Idacius Clarus (380 A.D.), Priscillian’s principal adversary and accuser, also cited
1 John 5:7 (Hills, p. 210).
Jerome (382 A.D.) -- Jerome not only believed that the
Johannine Comma was Scripture but he testified that “irresponsible translators left out this testimony in the Greek codices” (
Prologue to the Canonical Epistles; quoted from Strouse,
A Critique of D.A. Carson’s “The King James Version Debate”). Jerome said further in his Prologue: “...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” (
Prologue to the Canonical Epistles; quoted from Ben David,
Three Letters Addressed to the Editor of The Quarterly Review
, in which is Demonstrated the Genuineness of The Three Heavenly Witnesses--I John v. 7, London, 1825).
Theodorus (4th century) -- In “A treatise on one God in the Trinity, from the Epistle of John the Evangelist” he stated that John, in his Epistle, presents God as a Trinity (Ben David, “Three Letters Addressed to the Editor of
The Quarterly Review, in which is Demonstrated the Genuineness of The Three Heavenly Witnesses--I John v. 7,” London, 1825). Ben David observes: “This is a remarkable testimony, as it implies the existence and notoriety of the verse about the middle of the fourth century.”
Gregory of Nazanzius (4th century) -- “What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?” (
The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers). “Metzger claims that ‘the passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers.’ Such a bold assertion is also misleading because Gregory of Nazanzius (a Greek Church Father from the fourth century), although not directly quoting the passage, specifically alludes to the passage and objects to the grammatical structure if the Comma is omitted (Metzger, on the other hand, would have one to believe that the Greek Church Fathers knew nothing of the passage)” (Jesse Boyd, “And These Three Are One: A Case for the Authenticity of
1 John 5:7-8,” 1999,
"And These Three Are One" A Case For the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8).
Eucherius of Lyons (434 A.D.) -- “... in a tract, called
Formulae Spiritualis Intelligentiae, c. 11, para. 3, 4. sets down both the seventh and eighth verses of the fifth chapter of St. John’s first epistle, in the same order as our printed editions have them, precluding thereby the common cavil, that the seventh verse is only a mystical explication of the eighth” (Twells, II, p. 135).
Vigilius Tapsensis (484 A.D.) -- “... twice in his books concerning the Trinity, printed among the Works of Athanasius (viz. Book first, and seventh) and also in his Tract against Varimadus the Arian, under the name of Idacius Clarus, cites
1 John 5:7” (Twells, II, p. 135).
Victor Vitensis (484 A.D.) -- “... contemporary with Vigilius, writes the
History of the Vandalic Persecution, in which he sets down a Confession of Faith, which Eugenius Bishop of Carthage, and the orthodox bishops of Africa, offered to King Hunnerick, a favourer of the Arians, who called upon those bishops to justify the catholic doctrine of the Trinity. In this Confession, presented Anno 484, among other places of Scripture, they defended the orthodox clause from
1 John 5:7, giving thereby the highest attestation, that they believed it to be genuine. Nor did the Arians, that we can find, object to it. So that the contending parties of those days seem to have agreed in reputing that passage authentic” (Twells, II, pp. 135, 136).
Eugenius at the Council of Carthage (485 A.D.) -- “...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’” (Victor of Vitensis,
Historia persecutionis Africanae, quoted from Michael Maynard,
A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8, p. 43). We will see say more about the significance of this quotation.
Fulgentius Ruspensis (507 A.D.) -- “... another orthodox writer of the same country, cites the controverted words in three several places of his Works. Which further evinces, that the Arians about Hunneric, had not been able to disprove that text. For if they had, no writer for the Catholic side of the question, would have dared to use a baffled testimony, whilst the memory of that defeat was yet recent” (Twells, II, p. 136).
Cassiodorius (550 A.D.) -- “... a patrician of Rome, a person remarkable for zealously recommending the choice of ancient and correct copies of the Bible to the monks under his direction, for their constant use, copies purged from error by collation with the Greek text; and that, in doubtful places, they should consult two or three ancient and correct books. So affectionately concerned was he for the purity of the sacred text, that whilst he left the correcting of other books to his Notaries, he would trust no hand but his own in reforming the Bible. Further, he himself declares, that he wrote his
Treatise of Orthography, purposely to promote the faithful transcribing of the Scripture. It must therefore be of considerable importance, in the present dispute, to know that the reading of his copy,
1 John 5:7. And of all his Tracts, none was so likely to satisfy our curiosity as that entitled
Complexiones, which were short and running notes, on the apostolical epistles and Acts, and the Revelation. ... But Cassiodorius’s
Complexiones were given up for lost, among other treasures of ancient literature, when, soon after the learned and judicious Mr. Martin had ended his labours upon this subject, that piece was unexpectedly found in the Library of Verona, and published at Florence by Scipio Maffeius [Francesco Scipione Maffei (1675-1755)], An. 1721. And from thence we have all the satisfaction we can desire, that the contested passage was in Cassiodorius’s copy. For in his comment on
1 John 5:1 and following verses, he concludes with these words:
Testificantur in Terra tria Mysteria, Aqua, Sanguis, & Spiritus: quae in Passione Domini leguntur completa: in Caelo autem Pater, & Filius, & Spiritus Sanctus, & hi tres unus est Deus. [The three mysteries testify (bear witness) on earth, the water, blood and the spirit, which are read in full in the passion of (our) Lord: likewise, in heaven, the Father, and Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three, one is God.] After which he proceeds to cite and explain the ninth verse of that chapter” (Twells, II, pp. 136, 137).
Maximus, a Greek writer (645 A.D.), author of the
Disputes in the Council of Nice (among the works of Athanasius) cites therein
1 John 5:7 (Twells, II, p. 129).
Isiodore Mercator (785 A.D.) “is supposed to have forged the Decretal Epistles published by him. In the first of Pope Hyginus,
1 John 5:7,
8 are cited, though the present order of them is inverted, as it was probably in Cassiodorius’s copy also. The spurious character of these epistles no way hurts their authority, for the contested text being in the copies of those times” (Twells, II, p. 137).
Ambrosius Authpertus (8th century), “of the same age, wrote a commentary upon the Revelations yet extant, in which the words of
1 John 5:7 are brought in as explicatory of
Revelation 1:5” (Twells, II, p. 138).
In the
Glossa Ordinaria of Walafrid Strabo (9th century), “a work universally approved, we see the passages of the three Witnesses in Heaven, both in the text and the commentary” (Twells, II, p. 138).
“Lastly, we find no one Latin writer complaining of this passage (which appears to have been extant in many copies from the fifth century inclusive) as an interpolation, which is a very good negative evidence, that no just objection could be made to its genuineness. The Preface of Jerome blames some translators for omitting it, but till the days of Erasmus, the insertion of it was never deemed a fault” (Twells, II, p. 138).
THE ARGUMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE. As we have seen, Eugenius, spokesman for the African bishops at the Council of Carthage (485 A.D.), quoted
1 John 5:7 in defense of the deity of Jesus Christ against the Arians. The bishops, numbering three to four hundred, were from Mauritania, Sardinia, Corsica, and the Balearick Isles, and they stood in defense of the Trinity. They “pawned their lives as well as reputation, for the verity of that disputed passage” (Twells, II, p. 147). Eugenius said: “...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’” In spite of claims to the contrary by those who oppose the
Johannine Comma, the fact that
1 John 5:7 was quoted at the fifth century Council of Carthage is a nearly irrefutable argument in favor of its apostolic authenticity. “Charles Butler, in
Horae Biblicae [Part II,
A Short Historical Outline of the Disputes Respecting the Authenticity of the Verse of the Three Heavenly Witnesses of 1 John, 1807], offered an interesting 12-point rebuttal to the opposers of the
Comma. Such is a lengthy treatise and will not be employed word for word but adequately summarized. Butler pointed out that the Catholic Bishops were summoned to a conference where they most certainly expected the tenets of their faith to be attacked by the Arians (the Arians denied the deity of Jesus Christ). Therefore, they would have been very careful about what they included in their proposed confession, seeing as all power was in the hands of their angry Arian adversaries. The bishops included the
Johannine Comma as a first line of defense for their confession of Christ’s deity. If the Arians could have argued what present-day opposers of the verse say (the
Comma was is no Greek copy and in only a few Lain copies), what would the bishops have replied? If we are to believe that they were unable to hold out one Greek copy, no ancient Latin copy, and no ancient father where the verse could be found, THE ARIANS COULD HAVE RIGHTLY ACCUSED THEM ON THE SPOT OF FOLLOWING A SPURIOUS PASSAGE AND BEING GUILTY OF PALPABLE FALSEHOOD. It is almost certain that these bishops would not have exposed themselves to such immediate and indelible infamy. They volunteered to include the
Comma in their confession despite the existence of many long treatises that had been written by the ancient defenders of the Trinity in which the verse had not been mentioned. Such treatises would have served as ample evidence, but the bishops cited
1 John 5:7-8 instead. Obviously, they had no fear that any claim of spuriousness could be legitimately dashed upon them. If the verse were attacked, the bishops could have produced Greek copies, ancient Latin copies, and ancient fathers in its defense. The
Comma, however, was not attacked by the Arians and the Catholic bishops (302 of them) were exiled to different parts of Africa, exposed to the insults of their enemies, and carefully deprived of all temporal and spiritual comforts of life. It is ludicrous to think that these men could undergo such persecution and suffering for their belief of the deity of Jesus Christ only to insert a spurious verse into God’s Word as their first line of defense. THE AFRICAN BISHOPS MUST HAVE HAD WEIGHTY TESTIMONY TO THE
COMMA IN THEIR MANUSCRIPTS. AS A RESULT, THEY WERE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY EMPLOY THE PASSAGE AS THEY DEFENDED THEIR FAITH BEFORE THE ARIAN ACCUSERS” (Jesse Boyd,
And These Three Are One: A Case for the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8 Rooted in Biblical Exegesis, 1999).
THE ARGUMENT FROM THE ASSEMBLY GATHERED BY CHARLEMAGNE. “About the close of the eighth century, the Emperor Charlemagne assembled all the learned men that were to be found in that age, and placed Alciunus, an Englishman of great erudition, at their head; instructing them to revise the manuscripts of the Bible then in use, to settle the text, and to rectify the errors which had crept into it, through the haste or the ignorance of transcribers. To affect this great purpose, he furnished them with every manuscript that could be procured throughout his very extensive dominions. IN THEIR
CORRECTORIUM, THE RESULT OF THEIR UNITED LABOURS, WHICH WAS PRESENTED IN PUBLIC TO THE EMPEROR, BY ALCIUNUS, THE TESTIMONY OF THE THREE (HEAVENLY) WITNESSES IS READ WITHOUT THE SMALLEST IMPEACHMENT OF ITS AUTHENTICITY. This very volume Baronius affirms to have been extant at Rome in his lifetime,* in the library of the Abbey of Vaux-Celles; and he styles is ‘a treasure of inestimable value.’ [* He was born in or about A.D. 1538, and died in A.D. 1607. Du Pin confirms this account of Baronius, v. vi. p. 122. Travis p. 24.] It cannot be supposed, that these divines, assembled under the auspices of a prince zealous for the restoration of learning, would attempt to settle the text of the New Testament, without referring to the Greek original; especially since we know, that there were, at that time, persons eminently skilled in the Greek language. THEY MUST HAVE HAD ACCESS TO PERUSE MANUSCRIPTS WHICH HAVE LONG SINCE PERISHED; AND THEIR RESEARCHES MIGHT IN ALL PROBABILITY EXTEND EVEN TO THE AGE OF THE APOSTLES. Here, then, is evidence, that this verse has been acknowledged as a part of Scripture, during more than a thousand years” (Robert Jack,
Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7). ..." -
A Defense of 1 John 5:7
Again, I already cited the evidence, here it is again:
"... [1] Manuscripts [MSS]
Cursives [Greek lowercase]:
[01] #61 [aka Codex Montfortianus] - 16th Cent.
[02] #88 [aka Codex Regis [margin, 16th Cent.]] - 12th Cent.
[03] #177 [BSB Codex graeci 211 [margin, 15th Cent.] - 11th Cent.
[04] #221 [margin, 15th/16th Cent.] - 10th Cent.
[05] #429 [aka Codex Wolfenbuttel, margin, 16th Cent.] - 14th Cent.
[06] #629 [aka Codex Ottobonianus] - 14th Cent.
[07] #535 - 11th Cent.
[08] #636 [margin] - 15th Cent.
[09] #918 - 16th Cent.
[10] #2318 - 18th Cent.
[11] #2473 - 18th Cent. ..."
That is before 1215 and that is just the Greek stuff. Whoever said that God was going to preserve the words in only one language?
Real guesswork in there, "may have been" ... and assertions "Apparently". Again, how did these [below] get it? You do relaize that Tertullian is well before 4th cent. and so also Cyprian of Carthage?
"... [01] Tertullian [circa. AD 220]
[02] Cyprian of Carthage [circa. AD 258], Treatises (I 5:423): “... and again it is written of the Father, , and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, , 'And these three are one.' ...”
[03] Priscillan [circa. AD 358]
[04] The Speculum [5th Cent.], Pseudo-Augustine
[05] Creed “Esposito Fidei [5th/6th Cent.]
[06] Old Latin [5th/6th Cent.] ..."
The response you give is the typical attempt at trying to reduce the entire argument of Jesus' eternality, Godhead/Deity, down to 1 John 5:7's validity.
You could attempt to tear that passage out of every text in the world [you would fail, it is preserved by God; Psalms 12:6,7 KJB, etc.], and it would not help such a cause in dealing with all of the other textual evidences cited, Hebrews 1, Colossians 1, Genesis 17-19; Exodus 3-4; Joshua 5, John 1 & 8, and so on and on. It would not detract one iota from Jesus as the Chief Shepherd who came to seek and save that which is lost, and so on.
But, again, consider the further evidences:
"... THE ARGUMENT FROM ITS PRESERVATION AMONG BIBLE BELIEVERS. The Lord Jesus Christ indicated that His Words would be preserved through the process of the Great Commission, as the Scriptures were received, kept, taught, and transmitted to the next generation by Bible-believing churches (Matt. 28:18-20). This is guaranteed by the Christ’s power and His continual presence among the churches. When we look at church history in this light, the issue of 1 John 5:7 becomes plainer. Consider the versional evidence in favor of this verse:
1 John 5:7 is found in some of the Syriac manuscripts, though not the majority (The New Testament Translated from the Syriac Peshito Version, James Murdock, 1852, note on 1 John 5:7). 1 John 5:7 was printed in Gutbier’s Lexicon Syricum concerdatntiale omnes N.T. Syriaci (1664); it is obvious, therefore, that Gutbier found this important verse in Syriac manuscripts with which he was familiar. It was also printed by E. Hutter in 1599 in the Syriac portion of his polyglot (e-mail from Michael Maynard, May 11, 2005).
1 John 5:7 was in the old Latin that was used by Bible believers in Europe. Dr. Frederick Nolan (1784-1864) spent 28 years tracing the history of the European Italic or Old Latin version and in 1815 published his findings in An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, in which the Greek manuscripts are newly classed, the integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated, and the various readings traced to their origin. Nolan believed that the old Latin got its name Italic from the churches in northern Italy that remained separated from Rome and that this text was maintained by separatist Waldensian believers. He concluded that 1 John 5:7 “was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate” (Nolan, Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. xvii, xviii).
1 John 5:7 was in the Latin “vulgate” that had a wide influence throughout the Dark Ages. The Catholic Church used it, but so did many non-Catholic believers. Bruce Metzger observes that the oldest manuscript of the Jerome vulgate, Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 546), does not include the Johannine Comma; but this fact is overwhelmed by other evidence. For one, we have seen that Jerome himself believed 1 John 5:7 was genuine Scripture and testified that heretics had removed it from some manuscripts. Second, 1 John 5:7 is found in the vast majority of extant Latin manuscripts, 49 out of every 50, according to Scrivener. Third, 1 John 5:7 is found in many of the most ancient Latin manuscripts, such as Ulmensis (c. 850) and Toletanus (988). The Johannine Comma is found “in twenty-nine of the fairest, oldest, and most correct of extant Vulgate manuscripts” (Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8, p. 343).
1 John 5:7 was in the Romaunt or Occitan New Testaments used by the Waldenses dating back to the 12th century. This was the language of the troubadours and men of letters in the Dark Ages. It was the predecessor of French and Italian. The Romaunt Bibles were small and plain, designed for missionary work. “This version was widely spread in the south of France, and in the cities of Lombardy. It was in common use among the Waldenses of Piedmont, and it was no small part, doubtless, of the testimony borne to truth by these mountaineers to preserve and circulate it” (J. Wylie, History of Protestantism, vol. 1, chapter 7, “The Waldenses”). I examined the copy of the Romaunt New Testament located at the Cambridge University Library in April 2005, but it does not have the Epistles of John. The following is from Justin Savino , May 11, 2005: “The Zurich codex I have that is similar to the Dublin a Grenoble (or so I am told) does have 1 John 5:7. The direct quote is "Car trey son que donan testimoni al cel lo payre e lo filh e lo sant spirit e aquesti trey son un." Translated, "but three are there that give testimony in heaven the father and the son and the holy spirit and these three are one.”
1 John 5:7 was in the Tepl, which is an old German translation used by Waldenses from the 14th through the 15 centuries. Comba, who wrote a history of the Waldenses, said the Tepl was a Waldensian translation (Comba, Waldenses of Italy, pp. 190-192). Comba sites two authorities, Ludwig Keller and Hermann Haupt, for this information. Comba also states that the Tepl was based on old Latin manuscripts rather than the Jerome vulgate. The Tepl’s size identifies it with the small Bibles carried by the Waldensian evangelists on their dangerous journeys across Europe.
1 John 5:7 was in the old French translations. A translation of the whole Bible in French first appeared in the 13th century, and “a much used version of the whole Bible was published in 1487 by Jean de Rely” (Norlie, The Translated Bible, p. 52).
1 John 5:7 was in the old German translations, which first appeared in the 13th and 14th centuries. A complete German Bible appeared before the invention of printing (Norlie, p. 53). There were at least 12 different editions of the Bible into German before the discovery of America in 1492. The first printed German Bible appeared in 1466 (Price, The Ancestry of Our English Bible, 1934, p. 243). These were Latin-based versions.
1 John 5:7 was in the Spanish Bibles, beginning with the one printed in Valencia in 1478 by Bonifacio Ferrer (M’Crie, History of the Reformation in Spain, p. 191).
It is probable that 1 John 5:7 was in the Bohemian or Czech Bible printed by the Brethren in 1488.
1 John 5:7 stood uncontested in English Bibles for 500 years. The first English New Testament, completed by John Wycliffe and his co-laborers in 1380, contained this verse. The Johannine Comma was in the Tyndale New Testament of 1526, the Coverdale of 1535, the Matthew’s of 1537, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva of 1557, the Bishops of 1568, and the King James Bible of 1611. The first English Bible of any importance to remove the verse was the Revised Version of 1881 and the first English Bible which had any chance of superseding the KJV to remove 1 John 5:7 was the New International Version of 1973 and this version has still not taken over the sales of the King James Bible. From the time of the British Empire to the present, English has been a prominent world language. It is the international language in these modern times, the language of commerce, aviation, and science. The witness of the English Bible, therefore, has great significance.
Thus we see that the Trinitarian statement of 1 John 5:7 comes down to us by the hands of Bible believers and churches that held the apostolic faith at great cost through the Dark Ages, through the Protestant Reformation, up to our very day. In light of Matthew 28:19-20, this is a strong witness to its apostolic authenticity. ..." - A Defense of 1 John 5:7
Just as I said, a "critic" of God's word. He sat in judgment upon the word of God, and taught others to do that. I reject the UBS and N/A text type
s, they're not the received text, but rather an ecclectic random assortment of fragmentary evidences, stitched together by critics, who do not believe in the preservation of the word of God, but are still in fact, looking for the 'oriingal' texts. They're Alexandrian corruptions, all under the guardianship of the Jesuits. Griesbach, has already been discussed [
1]. If you want German-Vatican critical readings, that's up to you. He has no weight of authority with me what so ever. If I were to choose a scholar's work, I would rather go with someone like Dean Burgon or Benjamin G Wilkinson, Gail Riplinger, Alan O Reilly, Sam Gipp, Jack Moorman, even Peter S. Ruckman, etc, on that issue -
KJV Bible Vindicated
Why do you not go back, and re-read what I have posted already, and look again at what texts I have shown are connected together? Genesis 1:1, the Aleph Tau, the passages on JEHOVAH Jesus, and JEHOVAH E/Immanuel, Hebrews 1, etc, etc?
If you are simply going to argue about the validity of 1 John 5:7, which evidence for is overwhelming, that it never existed except as a 'gloss' [said the devil], that does not even begin to address what I started with. 1 John 5:7 KJB is inclusive within the case, not the foundation of the case.
