Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,153,227 members, 7,818,773 topics. Date: Monday, 06 May 2024 at 02:21 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! (4253 Views)
How To Understand John 5:19 / Pastor Lawrence Onochie Disguised As A Beggar: The Real Story / 1 John 5:7. I Need Explanation (2) (3) (4)
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Scholar8200(m): 1:17pm On Feb 17, 2016 |
AlMuflihah:I have posted a link to one of the books mentioned as evidence in the op; post yours to support the highlighted text. Then concerning history being written by men, as long as what is written is verifiable. However, would you doubt your own holy book and the hadiths on this grounds too without evidence? After all it was not written yesterday but also written by men centuries ago! The article in the op already fairly establishes that some mutilated theirs, bad enough. However, it will be prejudice if you hold to that (because it suits you) and ignore the fact that there were others who preserved it exactly as they received it! It will also be wrong TO READILY BELIEVE THE PART OF THE OP THAT SPOKE ABOUT PEOPLE MUTILATING THE BIBLE BUT QUERY/IGNORE THE PART OF THE OP THAT ESTABLISHES THAT THERE WERE THOSE WHO CHOSE TO DIE THAN CHANGE A WORD IN THE BIBLE! Well, the op fairly presents both sides thus establishing that there was a group that did not tamper with the Bible and that Bible had the verse in question. That settles it. Bring their history here then we can talk on neutrality or whose version is right! You can even start a thread with your op being the history used by the ex-1John 5:7 group. Discussing based on WHAT IF gets us nowhere! The Op stands to be refuted but not without proofs! Once again, bring their evidences here. Also, did you not see the part of the Op that refers to the claims of the ex-1John 5:7? See this: The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all. The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts 2 Likes 2 Shares |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Scholar8200(m): 2:30pm On Feb 18, 2016 |
EVEN THE QURAN AGREES WITH THE OP! As quoted by a NLer:
And if the Quran was completed between 609-632AD/CE, it means the 1John 5:7/Trinity was not a 17th century addition after all but had been there all along! Long before the 6th Century!!! Except if that part of the Quran was added after the 17th Century!!! 1 Like |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by facheux: 2:37pm On Feb 18, 2016 |
What is the consensus of Christian scholars regarding these Bible passages |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Scholar8200(m): 3:38pm On Feb 18, 2016 |
facheux:The focus of the Op is on one verse so which passages are you referring to? If it's 1 John 5:7, the article in the op was written by Bible scholars too with historical evidence to match, now the Quran has inadvertently agreed with them. Repeating this question like you did not read the op and other highlighted texts advises me to ignore your question forthwith! |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by unphilaz(m): 12:26am On Feb 21, 2016 |
AlMuflihah: |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by seemples(f): 6:44am On Feb 21, 2016 |
Can't seem to find where anybody quoted what 1 John5:7said. What's the argument about please? |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Scholar8200(m): 2:08pm On Feb 22, 2016 |
seemples:The allegation is that 1 John 5:7 is not in some early Manuscripts hence was a later addition. |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Nobody: 2:31pm On May 24, 2016 |
Dear Scholar, Based on carbon dating, the Greek and Aramaic manuscripts not containing the Trinity doctrine are actually the oldest available manuscripts for this bible passage. The ones containing it are actually later manuscripts or copies............. |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Scholar8200(m): 4:12pm On May 24, 2016 |
lordnicklaus:But how about the quoting of the same passage by 2nd Century folks, a time when many claim that part was not there yet? |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by dolphinheart(m): 5:08pm On May 24, 2016 |
Scholar8200: the question you asked at the begginING of your writeup(coloured green for easy identification), I can't find the answer in the write up o. pls point it out if it's there. is the translations of 1 john 5:7 as rendered by the kjv in any Greek manuscript before the 1600's? personally I'm of the view that if someone is to claim something was somewhere before, and was later removed, that person must prove it was there before, otherwise those that claim it was not there are right to say it was not there before! correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no proof from your post that it was there before it was removed. you only gave the reasons why you think it was removed , but no actual prove that it was removed. also from the evidence you provided about those church father, are you saying they quoted 1 john 5:7? or are you saying there words can now be found later in some manuscripts? 2 Likes |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Nobody: 2:51pm On May 27, 2016 |
Scholar8200: That I do not know |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Scholar8200(m): 8:46am On Jun 01, 2016 |
lordnicklaus:In fact, the existence of the Sabellianist error invented by Sabellius around the 3rd Century establishes the fact that that passage - 1 John 5:7- was no later addition but had always been a part of the Word. Read about him here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellius What sabellius did is what NL users like bingbagbo and a host of others are trying to do today. |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Nobody: 12:56pm On Jun 01, 2016 |
Scholar8200: The real question should be, who added to the account of 1 John 5:7–8, which we refer to as the Johannine Comma? and not that the verse was missing from the Greek manuscripts. This passage is the only passage in the entire Bible that explicitly propagates the doctrine of the Trinity, in the Latin Vulgate, the passage reads: "There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one". Without this verse, the doctrine of the Trinity can only be alluded to from a range of passages combined to show that Christ is God. But what we found in the earliest Greek manuscripts simply read: “There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.” a passage which on its own does not underline the doctrine of the Trinity. So, Where did the words “Father, the Word, and the Spirit” emanate from? They were not contained in any of the earlier manuscripts, yet it is these words that are used to establish firmly the doctrine of the Trinity and its derivative, being the doctrine of the full divinity of Christ, that is the real story. |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Scholar8200(m): 1:04pm On Jun 01, 2016 |
Sarassin:Kindly read the Op and tell us which 'earliest manuscripts' you are referring to. If that part was not there, what was Sabellius (ca215) trying to establish when he came up with his heresy? |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Nobody: 2:24pm On Jun 01, 2016 |
Scholar8200: Your timeline is rather disingenuous. In fact the full verse in the Latin Vulgate is not found in any ancient Greek manuscript that pre-dates the Latin Vulgate, not one! the full verse is likely an insertion by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesaria who was commissioned by Emperor Constantine in 331CE to produce 50 Bibles at state expense, this was the same text relied upon by Jerome to produce the Bible he was commissioned by Pope Damasus which became known as the Latin Vulgate. It’s a bit of a “red herring” making a claim that the passage was removed. It was never there in the first place. 1 Like |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Scholar8200(m): 3:00pm On Jun 01, 2016 |
Sarassin:Which manuscripts were those? And Tertullian (160-220AD) could quote Eusebius(263-339AD), isnt that preposterous!. At least Tertullian mentioned in the Op lived between 160AD-220AD and the book he wrote (quoted above) can be found here: http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/bible_books/?view=book_chapter&chapter=2599 How then would a man quote a non-existent passage yet to be added in his time but would be 'added' over 50 years after his death!!! Besides, around 215AD Sabellius tried to rationalize the Trinity as revealed in 1 John 5:7 and other Scriptures and Tertullian was one of those that pointed out his errors!!! All this time, Eusebius[size=14pt](263-339AD)[/size] was not born! P.S. The periods were all gathered from wikipedia. |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Nobody: 3:40pm On Jun 01, 2016 |
Scholar8200: Here are the relevant words of Tertullian ; ... Qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus, .... In English: "These three are one [thing], not one [Person], as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number." It should be obvious that Tertullian is giving his commentary on the “original verse”. Not quoting a verse, no doubt the doctrine existed….as did others. Evidently Eusebius agreed with Tertullian's thoughts and incorporated the doctrine into the Latin Vulgate, not the other way round as you are trying to impute. Again, I repeat, the full verse did not exist in any extant Greek manuscript, only Latin translations. 1 Like |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Nobody: 3:57pm On Jun 01, 2016 |
I might also add that St. Augustine loved to promote Trinitarian dogma which had become the official teaching of the church by the order of Emperor Theodosius in 380 A.D. In fact, he spent nearly twenty years writing his voluminous work "On the Trinity." He never mentions this verse once. Not once! Augustine also wrote a commentary on 1 John. It is ridiculous to think Augustine would have written such a huge work but somehow knew about this verse yet never mentioned it in his substantially large writings on the Trinity. 2 Likes |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Scholar8200(m): 4:04pm On Jun 01, 2016 |
Sarassin:Indeed, that there was a reference raised as regards the highlighted proves beyond reasonable doubt that that verse was there in Tertullian's time afterall!!! But where is your reference/source? |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Scholar8200(m): 4:07pm On Jun 01, 2016 |
Sarassin:Indeed, you need to carefully re-read the op and see the reaction of the catholic church to the whole matter. |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Scholar8200(m): 4:14pm On Jun 01, 2016 |
And, why was Sabellius[b](ca 215AD)[/b] who misinterpreted that verse to please the intellectuals ,called a heretic by Tertullian and others, if it was not there? |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Nobody: 4:18pm On Jun 01, 2016 |
Scholar8200: Not quite. Your bolded are read in conjunction with the "original" verse the "spirit, water and blood" the full verse did not exist. the source is Adversus Praxeus 25 2 Likes |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Nobody: 4:31pm On Jun 01, 2016 |
Scholar8200:I am not sure why you say I should re-read the OP. And, why was Sabellius[b](ca 215AD)[/b] who misinterpreted that verse to please the intellectuals ,called a heretic by Tertullian and others, if it was not there?Where is the discourse on the misinterpretation by Sabellius? To be clear, I am not disputing that Trinitarian doctrine existed, it did, as did others i.e, Sabellianism, Arianism, Montanism and any other "isms" you can think of, people discussed it, wrote about it and argued about it. But the formal entry of Trinitarian dogma was marked by the production of the Latin Vulgate. 2 Likes |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Nobody: 4:36pm On Jun 01, 2016 |
I would also add that it is an unthinkable proposition to suggest that the eastern Greek speaking church would have let such a passage inadvertently escape from all their Greek manuscripts spread throughout the eastern half of the Roman empire. If 1 John 5:7 had been authentic, the first omission of this verse would have created an immediate outcry and church leaders would have been looking for the culprit. Indeed, blood was spilled over far less in the fourth century. It is an absolutely ludicrous fantasy to suppose the entire eastern Greek speaking Trinitarian church could have allowed 1 John 5:7 to somehow escape from all their Bibles completely unnoticed for over a thousand years. 2 Likes |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Scholar8200(m): 4:43pm On Jun 01, 2016 |
Sarassin:Was Adversus Praxeas 25 a treatise on the spirit, water and the blood or the Trinity? Let other readers decide! Sarassin:I assume the words in parenthesis are your insertions. If they are yours then that was dishonest; if they are there by Tertullian then it proves that verse existed and was the subject! Besides, the highlighted statement accentuates the fact that Tertullian's subject was 1 John 5:7!!! |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Nobody: 5:21pm On Jun 01, 2016 |
Scholar8200: The parenthesis are not mine, they are that of the translator, so we can dispense with the dishonesty tag. You cannot say that the statement proves that the full verse existed, it doesn’t. The second part of the statement reads : as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number." Tertullian is clearly referring to John 10:30. Notice he does not mention the “Holy spirit” in this part of the sentence. 2 Likes |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Scholar8200(m): 5:40pm On Jun 01, 2016 |
Sarassin: Indeed, a reference to John 10:30 will be needed since the subject being considered is about the Same Persons! Logical isnt it?! Besides, Adversus Praexas had the Trinity, not water,blood etc , as its focus! The link is there for any who may wish to verify! |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Nobody: 6:34pm On Jun 01, 2016 |
Scholar8200: You are conflating the two issues; Yes Tertullian did in fact coin the term “Trinity” Tertullian taught that (1) there is one God only; (2) God exists in three distinct persons (whether or not eternally is yet to be seen); (3) these three are equal in being and attributes. But Tertullian’s teachings largely apologetic in nature relied heavily on the relational language of Scripture to demonstrate the unity and yet separateness of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit according to HIM. NOT scriptural verse. The addition to 1 John 5:7-8 came largely as a result of Tertullian’s apologetics. If that verse existed in its entirety why would Tertullian need to append an apologetic for what was self-evident? 1 Like |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Scholar8200(m): 6:47pm On Jun 01, 2016 |
Sarassin:Your assumption that. Because there was many errors eg Sabellianism that were flying around! Now, if there was no direct Scriptural quote -1 John 5:7- an apologetic would be misplaced since it will be taken as his opinion! Besides, Tertullian in Adversus Praexas focused St John's Gospel as the sub-title shows: Against Praxeas by Tertullian Chapter XXV.--The Paraclete, or Holy Ghost He is Distinct from the Father and the Son as to Their Personal Existence. One and Inseparable from Them as to Their Divine Nature. Other Quotations Out of St. John's Gospel I just discovered: ("Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These three are one [thing], not one [Person], as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.". http://www.tertullian.org/works/adversus_praxean.htm My, my, Sarassin! you left out that preceding part and did not include any ellipses in its place neither included a source lest you be discovered!!! Sarassin:UNMISTAKABLY, HE WAS SPEAKING BASED ON 1 JOHN 5:7!!! |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Nobody: 10:08pm On Jun 01, 2016 |
Scholar8200: Not an assumption. Tertullian solidified the thoughts and the technical terminology that became the standard way of speaking about the being of God in the Trinity and the person of Christ, terms such as “Substantia” and “Oikonomia” entered church vocabulary largely down to him. I won’t bore you or other readers with a long winded exegesis on his relational approach, it is recorded for posterity. Because there was many errors eg Sabellianism that were flying around! Now, if there was no direct Scriptural quote -1 John 5:7- an apologetic would be misplaced since it will be taken as his opinion! Besides, Tertullian in Adversus Praexas focused St John's Gospel as the sub-title shows:Sabellianism and others were not errors, they were competing doctrines, Tertullian wrote the tract as a response to someone with a differing opinion to his. The doctrine of Trinity went on to become the dominant theology. I just discovered:My dear Scholar, I never had you down as being such a drama queen! I gave the source as you requested, in fact you posted the original citation in your OP therefore my assumption was that you were familiar with its contents, the error was clearly mine. Perhaps you ought to read Adversus Praxeus Chapter 25 and the preceding Chapter 24 in their entirety to avoid jumping to conclusions. |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Anas09: 11:27am On Oct 13, 2016 |
Now Men are talking, Children have taken back seats. Time for real discussion, the muslims have bowed out. Muslims come over and learn how discussions are done. Facing the issue, no personal insults. Stop making noise in this place pretending to know, wen u know nothing. 3 Likes 1 Share |
Re: 1 John 5:7 : The Real Story! by Anas09: 11:28am On Oct 13, 2016 |
. |
Why Are Most Christians Poor / Dawkins Tells Atheists To "Mock Religion With Contempt," And Ravi's Response / Prosperity Without Sorrow
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 126 |