Baptism in Fire

[Mathetes the kerux]

It would do you well to look over some of those names listed.



This has nothing to do with our subject. It's nice to look around at things, but our subject is 1 John 5:7



Here you go,..



I guess Erasmus told Cyprian to say "It is written" in his quote huh?

Erasmus was just one of the first people to compile greek manuscripts.




Really? So we just think grammatical errors in languages are ok? We are able to say stuff like "pass that man her lunch" and things are just fine huh?!?

I've ran into people who have tried to justify the greek as being ok, a good percentage of scholars have already said that the passage goes against basic greek fundamentals unless the passage is inserted in there.

Also, we are talking about GOD's word here, no one just throws things in there and it all of the sudden agrees with everything around it. That doesn't agree with a common sense understanding of a mistake or a corruption. If someone adds something that is not suppose to be in there, then it proves itself to be wrong in context.

Can you prove this to be wrong contextually with the passage added?

Alright . . . Dave this will be my last post to you about this . . . we can open another thread if you would like to debate the 1 John 5 passage further. We have hijacked this thread long enough . . . and I can sense my own frustration . . . meaning that my heart is not right. Please forgive my frustration.

So here is the last . . .
Erasmus used a handful of Byzantine type MSS commonly refered to as the Majority Text the earliest of which he used dates to the 12th cent. (established fact).

He created his own MSS with his own choosing of passages and his own translation of what he felt was the best rendition between the variants of the MSS that he was translating from . . . he didn't even have the last six verses of Revelation. He had to translate from a latin text BACK into Greek what he thought were the appropriate Greek words (established fact).

The name "Textus Receptus" was derived almost a 100 years AFTER Erasmus from a translation done by Bonaveture and Abraham Elzevir . . . which was based on a translation from Beza who translated from Stephanus who in turn translated from Erasmus. The intro to the Elzevir brothers translation said in Latin "the text which is now received by all" and gave birth to the nickname Textus Receptus.

Thus, the TR has roots in the Byzantine . . . but it is NOT the Byzantine NOR the Majority Text . . . but something different. It was NOT quoted by Tertullian or Cyprian or any others that you have given dates for . . . they quoted the Byzantine type MSS. The people who try to say that the TR was quoted by them and goes back to the 2nd Cent. do so only to try to perserve their bias for the KJV. Hardly objective and not even in line with proven and well known history.

These are the facts attested to by virtually every known scholar and historian.

 

[Dave01]

Alright . . . Dave this will be my last post to you about this . . . we can open another thread if you would like to debate the 1 John 5 passage further. We have hijacked this thread long enough . . . and I can sense my own frustration . . . meaning that my heart is not right. Please forgive my frustration.

So here is the last . . .
Erasmus used a handful of Byzantine type MSS commonly refered to as the Majority Text the earliest of which he used dates to the 12th cent. (established fact).

He created his own MSS with his own choosing of passages and his own translation of what he felt was the best rendition between the variants of the MSS that he was translating from . . . he didn't even have the last six verses of Revelation. He had to translate from a latin text BACK into Greek what he thought were the appropriate Greek words (established fact).

The name "Textus Receptus" was derived almost a 100 years AFTER Erasmus from a translation done by Bonaveture and Abraham Elzevir . . . which was based on a translation from Beza who translated from Stephanus who in turn translated from Erasmus. The intro to the Elzevir brothers translation said in Latin "the text which is now received by all" and gave birth to the nickname Textus Receptus.

Thus, the TR has roots in the Byzantine . . . but it is NOT the Byzantine NOR the Majority Text . . . but something different. It was NOT quoted by Tertullian or Cyprian or any others that you have given dates for . . . they quoted the Byzantine type MSS. The people who try to say that the TR was quoted by them and goes back to the 2nd Cent. do so only to try to perserve their bias for the KJV. Hardly objective and not even in line with proven and well known history.

These are the facts attested to by virtually every known scholar and historian.

My focus was on 1 John 5:7, not whether it was Byzantine or something else. Erasmus is not even in the picture when it comes to that verse as we have it dated to the second century.

There is no escaping that,...it is in that old version.

If you wish to stick just by the greek, that is fine, I will stick by the greek and the latin, as they are the two main witnesses given to us by GOD for our bible.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

My focus was on 1 John 5:7, not whether it was Byzantine or something else. Erasmus is not even in the picture when it comes to that verse as we have it dated to the second century.

There is no escaping that,...it is in that old version.

If you wish to stick just by the greek, that is fine, I will stick by the greek and the latin, as they are the two main witnesses given to us by GOD for our bible.

Ok Dave . . . here is the link for a thread for you and I to discuss the superiority of the MSS

http://www.christianforums.com/t497...are-superior-cf-1-john-57-8.html#post32742529

if you so choose

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Ok Dave . . . here is the link for a thread for you and I to discuss the superiority of the MSS

http://www.christianforums.com/t497...are-superior-cf-1-john-57-8.html#post32742529

if you so choose

Not interested Dave? There have already been some pretty good posts . . .

 

[Dave01]

Sorry, I'm not interested in a bunch of games.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Sorry, I'm not interested in a bunch of games.

Out of context . . . really quite revealing.

 

[Jim1]

Matthetes (message #119):

Again the grammatical construction [in 1 John 5:8] is not a convincing argument.


Dave (message #123):

It should be to anyone that reads Greek. Without it [the Johannine Comma], it [1 John 5:8] is grammatically flawed. It has been documented as such, whether you wish to accept it or not, the proof is there.


Matthetes (message #124):

Again . . . you don't seem to get it. John's Greek was BAD. Therefore it follows that his construction will be flawed too . . . as it is elsewhere in ALL his writings. To point this out means nothing.


http://www.christianforums.com/t4874092-13/


Jim:

There is nothing wrong with the grammar in 1 John 5:7-9 (Majority Text). Everything is written as it should be written.

The rule for determining the gender of a substantive (a word or phrase the functions as a noun) in the Greek language is constructio ad sensum (construction according to what makes sense), that is, according to the natural gender (the nature) of the referent (the idea to which the word or phrase refers), either neuter for a thing or things or masculine for a person or persons or feminine for a female person or persons, the same as in English.

Thus, in the first clause in Matthew 5:4, Jesus says, “Blessed [masculine], the ones mourning [masculine] ....” The substantival (functioning as a noun) articular (having an article) participial (having a participle) phrase “the ones mourning” is the subject in this clause. It is a substantive (a word or phrase that functions as a noun). It does not modify anything. It simply names the subject in this clause. The gender of this substantive is masculine because this substantive refers to persons, the same as in English. The word “blessed” in this clause is a predicate adjective, which modifies the subject (which is a substantive) in this clause. The predicate adjective is masculine because it modifies the substantive and thus conforms to the gender of the substantive.

Likewise, in the last clause in Matthew 7:13, Jesus says, “and many [masculine] they are, the ones entering [masculine] through it.” The substantival articular participial phrase “the ones entering” is the subject in this clause. It is a substantive. It does not modify anything. It simply names the subject in this clause. The gender of this substantive is masculine because this substantive refers to persons, the same as in English. The word “many” in this clause is a predicate adjective, which modifies the subject (which is a substantive) in this clause. The predicate adjective is masculine because it modifies the substantive and thus conforms to the gender of the substantive.

Likewise, in Matthew 15:19-20, Jesus says, “15:19 evil thoughts (masculine), murders (masculine) adulteries (feminine), fornication (feminine), thefts (feminine), false witness (feminine), slanders (feminine). 15:20 These things (neuter) are the things defiling (neuter) ....” The substantival articular participial phrase “the things defiling” is the subject in the clause in verse 15:20. It is a substantive. It does not modify anything. It simply names the subject in this clause. The gender of this substantive is neuter because this substantive refers to things, the same as in English. The phrase “these things” in this clause is a predicate nominative demonstrative pronoun. Like the subject in this clause, the predicate nominative in this clause is a substantive. It does not modify anything. It simply names the same things that the subject names. The predicate nominative is neuter because it refers to things, just as the subject is neuter because it refers to things.

The things to which the subject and the predicate nominative in this clause in verse 15:20 refer are represented in the text by the two masculine nouns and the five feminine nouns that are listed in verse 15:19. These seven things that are represented in verse 15:19 by these seven nouns are things, not persons, which is why both the subject and the predicate nominative in the clause in verse 15:20 are neuter (for things). Notice that the grammatical genders of the nouns in verse 15:19 have nothing to do with the gender of the subject and the predicate nominative in the clause in verse 15:20. The gender of the substantives in verse 15:20 is determined by the natural gender (the nature) of the referent (the idea to which each substantive refers), neuter for things, the same as in English, NOT by the grammatical gender of any noun in the text.

Likewise, in 1 John 5:8-9, John says, “5:8 ... three [masculine] they are the ones bearing witness [masculine], the Spirit [neuter] and the water [neuter] and the Blood [neuter] ....” The substantival articular participial phrase “the ones bearing witness” is the subject in the clause in verse 5:8. It is a substantive. It does not modify anything. It simply names the subject in this clause. The gender of this substantive is masculine because this substantive refers to persons, the same as in English. The word “three” in this clause is a predicate adjective, which modifies the subject (which is a substantive) in this clause. The predicate adjective is masculine because it modifies the substantive and thus conforms to the gender of the substantive.

The persons to which the subject in the clause in verse 5:8 refers are represented in the text by the three neuter nouns that are listed in verse 5:8. Notice that the grammatical gender of the nouns that are listed in verse 5:8 have nothing to do with the gender of the subject in the clause in verse 5:8. The gender of the substantive in verse 5:8 is determined by the natural gender (the nature) of the referent (the idea to which the substantive refers), masculine for persons, the same as in English, NOT by the grammatical gender of any noun in the text.

There are various theories regarding why John considers the referents of the three nouns that are listed in verse 5:8 to be persons, not things, hence the masculine gender (for persons) of the subject (which is a substantive) in the clause in verse 5:8.

One theory is that John considered the Spirit in the Spirit and the water and the Blood to be a Person, which means that the Spirit and the water and the Blood are one Person and two things, and that John chose the masculine gender (for persons) in deference to the personhood of the Spirit. On page 237 (and in footnote 20 on this page) in his 1978 book, The Epistles of John, I. Howard Marshall suggests this explanation.

Another theory is that regardless of whether or not John considered the Spirit to be a Person, he chose the masculine gender (for persons) because he considered the Spirit and the water and the Blood to be symbolic of persons.

On page 808 in his 1742 book, The Gnomon of the New Testament, Johann Bengel suggests that the Spirit and the water and the Blood (things) in 1 John 5:8 symbolize the men (persons) in the witness of the men in verse 5:9, hence the masculine gender (for persons) in verse 5:8.

In a letter dated 1780, Eugenius Bulgaris suggests that the Spirit and the water and the Blood (things) in 1 John 5:8 symbolize the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit (Persons) in verse 5:7 (Received Text), hence the masculine gender (for persons) in verse 5:8.

Is it bad grammar to apply masculine gender (in reference to persons) to things? No. There is no rule that says that things cannot be treated AS IF they were persons. This is called personalization or personification. This occurs in the Greek language, just as it occurs in the English language.

In Luke 8:14, Jesus says, “And the thing into the thorns having fallen [neuter], these ones [masculine] they are the ones having heard [masculine] ....” Here, Jesus uses the masculine gender (for persons) to treat things (seed that has fallen into the thorns) as if they were persons. Who are these persons in Luke 8:14 who have heard? They are the persons who are symbolized by the seed (things) that has fallen into the thorns in the same verse.

Likewise, who are these persons who bear witness in 1 John 5:8? They are the persons who are symbolized by the Spirit and the water and the Blood (things) in the same verse.

On page 332 (and in footnote 44 on this page) in his 1996 book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel B. Wallace suggests that the persons who are symbolized by the Spirit and the water and the Blood (things) in 1 John 5:8, hence the masculine gender, are the two or three men prescribed by Moses to bear witness to the truth in any matter, as stated in Deuteronomy 19:15. Moses requires two or three witnesses (men) to establish the truth in any matter, and behold, God has provided two or three witnesses (the Spirit and the water and the Blood) to establish the truth that Jesus is the Son of God in fulfillment of this Mosaic tradition.

Who are the men prescribed by Moses in the witness of the men in 1 John 5:9? They are the ones bearing witness (the men / persons) in verse 5:8, hence the masculine gender. What are the witnesses that comprise the witness of the God in verse 5:9? They are the Spirit and the water and the Blood (things) in verse 5:8. Thus, John is comparing the Spirit and the water and the Blood (things) in 1 John 5:8, which comprise the witness of the God in verse 5:9, to the ones bearing witness (persons) in verse 5:8, who are the men that comprise the witness of the men in verse 5:9, hence the masculine gender (for persons) in verse 5:8.

So the Spirit and the water and the Blood (things) in 1 John 5:8 can symbolize men (persons), hence the masculine gender, just as the seed (things) that falls into the thorns in Luke 8:14 can symbolize men (persons), hence the masculine gender.

In John 8:17-18, Jesus compares the Father and the Son to the two or three men prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 19:15. In 2 Corinthians 13:1, Paul compares his three visits to Corinth (things) to the two or three men (persons) prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 19:15. In Hebrews 10:28-29, the author compares three actions (things), trampling the Son of God and considering His Blood to be ordinary blood and insulting the Spirit, to the two or three men (persons) prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6. In 1 John 5:8-9, John likewise appears to be comparing the Spirit and the water and the Blood (things) to the two or three men (persons) prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 19:15, hence the masculine gender (for persons).

There are only ten opportunities in the Greek New Testament (Majority Text) for the gender of a substantive to conform to the grammatical gender of MULTIPLE nouns (Matthew 15:19-20, Matthew 23:23, John 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Corinthians 13:13, Galatians 5:19-21, Galatians 5:22-23, Colossians 3:5-7, Colossians 3:12-14 and 1 John 5:8), and NON-grammatical-gender-agreement with the MULTIPLE nouns is what occurs in ALL ten instances, even when ALL of the MULTIPLE nouns have the SAME grammatical gender (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Corinthians 13:13, Galatians 5:22-23 and 1 John 5:8). What ALWAYS (ten out of ten times) occurs in the Greek New Testament (Majority Text) is NORMAL grammar.

 

[lilmissmontana]

Welcome to the Pentecostal forum. I read a few posts and thought I'd be helpful and recommend you read the stickied rules. There's quite a lot there you should probably know. Please post in the spirit of the forum and according to the rules ... God bless

 

[Jim1]

Welcome to the Pentecostal forum. I read a few posts and thought I'd be helpful and recommend you read the stickied rules. There's quite a lot there you should probably know. Please post in the spirit of the forum and according to the rules ... God bless

Hi,

Is there a particular rule that I violated? Or are you merely suggesting that I get oriented to this forum? I saw the messages in this thread that I quoted in my first message, and I responded those messages, explaining that there is nothing wrong with the grammar in 1 John 5:8.

Jim

 

[lilmissmontana]

Hi,

Is there a particular rule that I violated? Or are you merely suggesting that I get oriented to this forum? I saw the messages in this thread that I quoted in my first message, and I responded those messages, explaining that there is nothing wrong with the grammar in 1 John 5:8.

Jim

No ... I didn't see where you did any thing wrong ... and it's not up to me if you did ... When you posted you weren't in the Pentecostal forum. There is little to no debating here and arguing is out. Teaching and minor debate only if you are Pentecostal, can't post anything against our beliefs ... etc. It's just that the rules are different and in the spirit of being a good neighbor it seemed a good idea to lead you to the rules. Mostly we fellowship, worship and praise here. The spirit of the forum is Jesus first and we are family respecting each other operating in love. New people are always welcome ... God bless

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The baptism of fire . isn't that the judgment? i've had fiery baptisms of a spiritual nature before . but i am not convinced they were of God by the fruit that came from them . IMHO . I became really legalistic because of it . and i think the end of following that fire almost ended with me dying of a heart attack . but i would like to hear more of positive ending experiences regarding some fire that is of God .

but maybe it purified me after all . who knows?

i sure judge with mercy now