Emusan:


Make me understand



Then who said, 1 John 2:23b and 1 John 5:6 contain Trinity doctrine?
Can you see that you're the very one who didn't understand anything from this thread






Read the lost you quoted again and stop talking nonsense.
Emusan:
Having seen textual variants of 1 John 5:6 the preceding verse before the COMMA in the early manuscripts, let's proceed to next one!

Let's turn to 1 John 2:23b, as it proves two things. First, it proves that a Trinitarian clause could be expunged from 1 John in the majority of manuscripts.

Second, it proves that the Vulgate can sometimes preserve authentic readings more accurately than can the majority of Greek manuscripts.

1 John 2:23 in the King James Bible says:

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."

"πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει" (Textus Receptus, Beza 1598)

The second clause of this Trinitarian verse is supported by the Vulgate, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Porphyrianus and about 70 other Greek manuscripts (Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior: IV Catholic Letters, Text, 2nd Ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013), p. 292). Most modern translations (e.g. NIV, ESV, NASB) follow this reading.

But with there being about 517 extant Greek manuscripts of 1 John and with just over 70 manuscripts having 1 John 2:23b, the clause is a minority reading. Accordingly, the Byzantine Majority Text does not include the clause.

The Majority Text says:

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father."

"πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει" (Byzantine Majority Text)


The Geneva Bible in 1557 followed the majority of manuscripts here and left out the latter clause. If a Trinitarian clause in 1 John 2:23 could be lost in the majority of Greek manuscripts, and the Vulgate can be more reliable here, it is not much of a stretch to believe that the Johannine COMMA was also lost in the majority of Greek manuscripts, and preserved by the Vulgate (as will be discussed below, the Vulgate preserves the COMMA).

.

Emusan, where is the "Trinitarian clause in 1 John 2:23"?
In what portion of your Bible did the Vulgate preserve it ?

I've told you people several times that you should stop spamming my mention. Once you quote me, every knowledgeable person knows my post is being referenced except deluded JWs who must keep repeating my moniker here and there.

Janosky:
where is the "Trinitarian clause in 1 John 2:23"?

Check it it's there!

In what portion of your Bible did the Vulgate preserve it ?

It's even in your demonic translation.

Maximus69:
Walahi Talahi you guys just dey fall my hand!

Why not allow Emusan to find out himself those who have interest in his topic? After all he never mentioned Jehovah's Witnesses and it's not only JWs that worked on 1John 5:7!
Please allow him to continue arguing with other religionsists who have interest in his topics, it's just as if he set a trap and you guys are running into it, giving him the pleasure he wanted namely ARGUING with JWs

Leave him alone, perhaps he will go and force all the tranlators to include what he wanted in their Bibles!

Your conscience keeps beating you hard that's why you keep patrolling this thread even when no one invited you.

You join this thread because you know the implication of COMMA in your doctrines and people who didn't join have no problem with it, that's why they can quote it as a support for Trinity.

But at the sight of it in any post, it's what demon in you people furious about, that is why you people always shout "IT'S A SPURIOUS TEXT"

For you to know that it's not a spurious text and that people quoting it are right to do so, since it's part of the original scripture, is the essence of this thread. That's why I'll present all the fact on this thread for a future reference.

So clamouring for people to ignore me when you can't do so it's a great delusional.

Emusan:


Your conscience keeps beating you hard that's why you keep patrolling this thread even when no one invited you.

You join this thread because you know the implication of COMMA in your doctrines and people who didn't join have no problem with it, that's why they can quote it as a support for Trinity.

But at the sight of it in any post, it's what demon in you people furious about, that is why you people always shout "IT'S A SPURIOUS TEXT"

For you to know that it's not a spurious text and that people quoting it are right to do so, since it's part of the original scripture, is the essence of this thread. That's why I'll present all the fact on this thread for a future reference.

So clamouring for people to ignore me when you can't do so it's a great delusional.

Your market will move in the mighty name of Jesus. Aaaaamen!

1 John 4:3 is another example of an early corruption in 1 John.

The verse in the KJV says:

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

This is the reading supported by Codex Sinaiticus, one of the earliest Greek manuscripts of 1 John, and the Byzantine Majority Text:

Sinaiticus:

"and every breath that confesseth not in the flesh is loosed from thy not; and this is the of Antichrist: that we have heard that he cometh now in the world already."

Byzantine Majority Text:

"and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus Christ in the flesh is delivered from God; and this is not the Antichrist's: hear that he cometh now and now in the world."

However, 1 John 4:3 in Nestle-Aland 27, following Alexandrinus and Vaticanus and a few later manuscripts, reads:

"and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus of God is not; and this is that of Antichrist: hear that he cometh now in the world already."

["Jesus Christ in the flesh is delivered from" is omitted.]

From the evidence of one of the earliest manuscripts and the majority of manuscripts, it is reasonable to believe that 1 John 4:3 in the Textus Receptus is the correct reading.  Byzantine Majority Text proponents would agree.  If Sinaiticus and the Majority Text are correct here, 1 John 4:3 is further evidence that a clause could be expunged in the early stage of transmission.

1 John 5:13 was corrupted early

1 John 5:13 is proof that a clause in a parallel construction (such as that in the Comma) could drop out of some early manuscripts.  The proof of 1 John 5:13 may not be convincing to an Alexandrian text proponent, but it should be convincing to a Byzantine text proponent.  The verse in the KJV says:


"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

However, the underlined words are not found in the three earliest witnesses of the verse.  Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus, essentially say:

"these things have I written unto you, that ye may see that ye have everlasting life: they that believe in the name of the son of God."

The Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Majority Text, in agreement with the fourth, fifth, and sixth earliest witnesses of the verse in its entirety, K (9th century), L (9th century), P (9th century), say:

"these things have I written unto you that believe in the name of the son of God, that ye may see that ye have everlasting life, and that ye may believe in the name of the son of God."

QUICK RECAP!

After critical study of different scholarly opinion on why the COMMA shouldn't be part of the Scripture, we came up with three (3) views which are:

1. The COMMA was not found in any Ancient Greek Manuscripts: This view holds that ancient manuscripts are more accurate and reliable than the later manuscripts.

2. The COMMA was only found in the late medieval manuscripts: This views holds that since the COMMA exists only in the late manuscripts then it must be a later insertion by "OVERZEALOUS TRINITARIAN" or by a TRINITARIAN for the support of Trinity.

3. The Majority Vs Minority: This views holds that there are 5000+ Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, manuscripts which contain 1 John 5 are limited to about 480 manuscripts.  Although the majority of these manuscripts lacks the Comma . Of the about 480 manuscripts of 1 John 5, only 12 of these manuscripts are from before the 10th century (Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th revised edition (2006)):

---

Critics of the Comma are almost always silent regarding these textual variants and clause expunged of 1 John 5:6, 1 John 2:23b, 1 John 4:3 and 1 John 5:13 in the early uncials - corruptions that surely diminish the reliability of these early uncials in this portion of the text.  Despite there being this textual variant, none of the footnotes to 1 John 5:6 in the ESV, NIV, NASB, NRSV, NLT & HCSB mention it.  Such silence only serves to protect the undeserving reputation of the so-called "earliest and best manuscripts" and does not help the casual reader who wants the truth.

In line of this, those who hold the argument number 1 above can rethink.

Emusan:


So how come many prominent Christian writers who live long before the council of Nicea quoted and alluded to the same text?

Don't be silly , the tenets of the Trinity says the Father , Son , holy spirit are one . Then any such quote reffering to the Trinity could be misconstrued as though quoted from a verse when it was just an expression of a doctrine.

Emusan:


I didn't say it was inserted earlier than council of Nicea but PEOPLE ARE USING THE TEXT BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF NICEA which nullified you assertion that the text only first appeared during the council of Nicea.

Which then leads us to how people get familiar with such a text if its origin not yet known?

Of course, many references of people who quoted or alluded to the text will be provided here when I'm done collating people opinions about their understanding of the COMMA!

People are not using the text, people are expressing a doctrine .

Emusan:


I didn't wait for anyone, rather you're the one who didn't know how it was inserted.

Rather my point still stands, it was already in use before the council of Nicea.



If it was never part of the scripture, that's why I asked, how come people quote or alluded to it before the council of Nicea?

Since you requested for a proof, all you have to do is to sit and relax then wait for your proof.

Just like I said, the lies that has been sold to you is that it was inserted during the council of Nicea, so any evidence of it being used before that time should tell you what could possibly happen to the text.

This is really silly, This three are one is an expression of a doctrine . NOT a Bible quote

Peacefullove:
This is really silly, This three are one is an expression of a doctrine . NOT a Bible quote

See your lying mouth....

Expression of a doctrine but where does the idea comes from, if not because it was originated from somewhere?

It's evident that people are aware of it before the council of Nicea which nullified the lie that the text was first introduced in the 4th century, that's why you want it to be EXPRESSION not direct Bible quote.


You can see you're the very silly one here.

Peacefullove:
Don't be silly , the tenets of the Trinity says the Father , Son , holy spirit are one . Then any such quote reffering to the Trinity could be misconstrued as though quoted from a verse when it was just an expression of a doctrine.

Don't be stupid.

The phrase "THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT" was only used by John and can only be found in the COMMA.

If the tenent of Trinity is the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are one, that's the phrase the COMMA should carry.

The truth is, the COMMA was part of the original writing.

Emusan:


Don't be stupid.

The phrase "THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT" was only used by John and can only be found in the COMMA.

If the tenent of Trinity is the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are one, that's the phrase the COMMA should carry.

The truth is, the COMMA was part of the original writing.

The comma was never there in the first place , the phrase "The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit " is just an expression of a doctrine.

Not even Tertulian quoted it , he only applied John 10:30 to the Trinity . And for Cyprian the phrase " these three are one " also appear in verse 8 , So the argument stands that he was only quoting verse 8 and applying to his Trinity teaching.

Emusan:


See your lying mouth....

Expression of a doctrine but where does the idea comes from, if not because it was originated from somewhere?

It's evident that people are aware of it before the council of Nicea which nullified the lie that the text was first introduced in the 4th century, that's why you want it to be EXPRESSION not direct Bible quote.


You can see you're the very silly one here.

Don't fool yourself . It's an expression
If you are so sure it's a direct Bible quote, why was the verse not included in such quote ??

Tertulian quote

Tertullian's quote, in English, says

"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."

He only quoted John 10:30. This isn't any quote from supposed 1John 5:7. Emusan is just a fraud .

Emusan:


Don't be stupid.

The phrase "THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT" was only used by John and can only be found in the COMMA.

If the tenent of Trinity is the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are one, that's the phrase the COMMA should carry.

The truth is, the COMMA was part of the original writing.

To further burst your bubble , If that was the phrase John used, WHY DID CYPRIAN have a different phrase ?


250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)


This is simply an expression of doctrine ... Such quote never existed at the time , If not Cyprian would have said THE FATHER , THE SON, THE HOLY SPIRIT. He never said this .



Mind you Cyprian evidence is weak, cos that which he said is written appears also at verse 8 . If such a verse existed , he would have quoted it in whole

Peacefullove:

Don't fool yourself . It's an expression
If you are so sure it's a direct Bible quote, why was the verse not included in such quote ??

This alone shows that you lack knowledge of the matter at hand.

He should quote verse, when Bible hasn't been numbered or divided into verses....

Peacefullove:
To further burst your bubble , If that was the phrase John used, WHY DID CYPRIAN have a different phrase ?

You burst your own bubble not mine.

The phrase of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is still the same as when WORD was used but "THIS THREE ARE ONE" is the most most important.

250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)

SMH..

See your fraud mouth...

He said..."and again OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST it is written "and the three are One"

So does verse 8 as you claimed has FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST?

This is simply an expression of doctrine ... Such quote never existed at the time , If not Cyprian would have said THE FATHER , THE SON, THE HOLY SPIRIT. He never said this.

It never existed but he said "IT IS WRITTEN"

Everyone can see your lying mouth.

Mind you Cyprian evidence is weak, cos that which he said is written appears also at verse 8 . If such a verse existed , he would have quoted it in whole

Again see how your lying mouth is changing.

Does verse 8 has the wording "THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST?"

He didn't quote it you say...
What does it mean when he said "OF THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST, "IT IS WRITTEN"?

Do you even understand what your lying mouth is saying?

Peacefullove:
Tertulian quote

Tertullian's quote, in English, says

"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."

He only quoted John 10:30. This isn't any quote from supposed 1John 5:7. Emusan is just a fraud .

I've not even started presenting the evidence of the both Greek and Latin fathers yet your blood has started going higher.

Just wait until we get there.

I know you jump in for you to derail this thread but I won't allow you.

Having seeing various textual variants in the proceeding verse before the COMMA and some surrounding verses which nullified the claim oldest = most reliable and we can see the reason why Calvin said "...The Greek copies do not agree"

Then one can ask, if truly the COMMA exists and was ommited, shouldn't there be any evidence for its removal?

I tell you, there is an undeniable fact that the COMMA was removed.

Umlaut in Codex Vaticanus

The oldest manuscript containing 1 John 5:7 demonstrates that a significant textual variant was known for 1 John 5:7 in the 4th century.  In 1995 Philip B. Payne discovered "umlauts" (double dots) in the margins of various places in Codex Vaticanus.

He and many scholars agree that these umlauts indicate lines where a textual variant was known to the scribe.  You can read his work, The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus here.  

Interestingly, an umlaut appears next to the phrase "there are three who bear witness." in Vaticanus.

Payne briefly discusses and seemingly dismisses the significance of the umlaut in 1 John 5:7 (p. 112, footnote 34), but without a doubt the umlaut is there.

There is clearly an umlaut in the margin of verse 7 indicating a textual variant.  The only significant textual variant here is the Comma.


1) The following is a scanned image of 1 John 5:6-8 in Vaticanus:



2) The following is a screen capture of the transcription of the above from the official digitized Nestle-Aland on the University of Munster Institute website. The image below can be viewed by selecting 1 John 5:7 in "B - 03 (Vaticanus)" and selecting "view by page":

Emusan:


You burst your own bubble not mine.

The phrase of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is still the same as when WORD was used but "THIS THREE ARE ONE" is the most most important.



SMH..

See your fraud mouth...

He said..."and again OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST it is written "and the three are One"

So does verse 8 as you claimed has FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST?




It never existed but he said "IT IS WRITTEN"

Everyone can see your lying mouth.



Again see how your lying mouth is changing.

Does verse 8 has the wording "THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST?"

He didn't quote it you say...
What does it mean when he said "OF THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST, "IT IS WRITTEN"?

Do you even understand what your lying mouth is saying?

Your blood Don dey high ?

Does verse 7 has the wording " Son " ??

If comprehension is your problem , be humble enough to ask for help . That which he said is written is the " this three are one" that's the word in QUOTE. And which appears at verse 8

"the Spirit, the water, and the blood— and these three are one. " ISV

NOT OF THE FATHER, THE Son , or Holy ghost ... Those are his own expression of a doctrine, If he was making a direct quote , it would even be Word and not Son. Since that's what the fraud text says


I ask again: If such verse exist, why didn't he Quote it in FULL ?

Emusan:


This alone shows that you lack knowledge of the matter at hand.

He should quote verse, when Bible hasn't been numbered or divided into verses....

Does verse 7 says Son if he was even quoting 1John 5:7 ? What happen to the absence of article " THE" in his writing when the text says " The " if it was a direct quote ??

Does verse 8 has this three are one or it doesn't ?

Emusan:


I've not even started presenting the evidence of the both Greek and Latin fathers yet your blood has started going higher.

Just wait until we get there.

I know you jump in for you to derail this thread but I won't allow you.

Tertulian quote is the oldest and sorry to Dissapoint you, it's a quote of John 10:30 not any fraud .

Peacefullove:
Your blood Don dey high ?

When it's obvious you're the one having HPB here

Does verse 7 has the wording " Son " ??

I have told you, that it's interchangeable which is even the reason why some scholars said, he wouldn't have quoted it full because the COMMA has THE WORD instead of THE SON

If comprehension is your problem , be humble enough to ask for help . That which he said is written is the " this three are one" that's the word in QUOTE. And which appears at verse 8

Says the person with low IQ

But he said "IT IS WRITTEN OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST"

Does such appear in verse 8?

"the Spirit, the water, and the blood— and these three are one. " ISV

But he said "OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST"

NOT OF THE FATHER, THE Son , or Holy ghost ... Those are his own expression of a doctrine, If he was making a direct quote , it would even be Word and not Son. Since that's what the fraud text says

IT IS WRITTEN "of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost" it was only verse 7 such text was applied to the three persons of the Trinity.

I ask again: If such verse exist, why didn't he Quote it in FULL ?

Where was the idea of THREE PERSONS said to be ONE comes from if not for the existence of the COMMA?

The next thing you'll ask now, is why didn't him quote the verse

Olodo...

Peacefullove:


Tertulian quote is the oldest and sorry to Dissapoint you, it's a quote of John 10:30 not any fraud .

Tertullian quoted a fraud then because "the three are one" says Tertullian and this is even a quote for Trinity

You can erase it from his work

Emusan:


When it's obvious you're the one having HPB here


I have told you, that it's interchangeable which is even the reason why some scholars said, he wouldn't have quoted it full because the COMMA has THE WORD instead of THE SON

even the article " THE " was interchangeable too ?? stop deluding yourself .

when you make a quote, You make it exactly as it is , If you have any intention to add anything , it will be in bracket . YOU LIED!

Says the person with low IQ

But he said "IT IS WRITTEN OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST"

Does such appear in verse 8?

You are a Liar, that's not what he says ... okay In fact show me " OF THE FATHER " and Tell me why the Article THE was missing in his quote in reference to Son and Holy ghost.

But he said "OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST"

he didn't , read the text again . that which is written is " these three are one " , it's the only word that appears in quote in that Statement .

IT IS WRITTEN "of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost" it was only verse 7 such text was applied to the three persons of the Trinity.

you are a Liar , Quote it the way it is . u this fraud

Where was the idea of THREE PERSONS said to be ONE comes from if not for the existence of the COMMA?

The next thing you'll ask now, is why didn't him quote the verse

Olodo...

The Comma never existed , that's why his words didn't match the acclaimed quote. he was only expressing a doctrine.

Peacefullove:


Does verse 7 says Son if he was even quoting 1John 5:7 ? What happen to the absence of article " THE" in his writing when the text says " The " if it was a direct quote ??

Does verse 8 has this three are one or it doesn't ?

"This three are one" in verse 8 is referencing to "the spirit, water, and blood" without the comma

So if anyone says "it is written OF the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"

Someone with working brain will definitely knows this is not verse 8 but another verse.

---

Let me also tutor you because I know you lack wisdom

This is what appears "τρεις εν εισιν" in the Comma rather than of "τρεις εις το εν εισιν" in verse 8.  The Greek in verse 8 has the preposition "εις". 

Now, show us the Greek writing of Tertullian let's see whether it's in line with the COMMA or verse 8.

Emusan:


Tertullian quoted a fraud then because "the three are one" says Tertullian and this is even a quote for Trinity

You can erase it from his work

Now you arrive at my point that Tertullian was expressing a doctrine. he never said he was quoting, that which he alluded to as written was a reference to John 10:30

Emusan:


"This three are one" in verse 8 is referencing to "the spirit, water, and blood" without the comma

So if anyone says "it is written OF the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"

Someone with working brain will definitely knows this is not verse 8 but another verse.

---

Let me also tutor you because I know you lack wisdom

This is what appears "τρεις εν εισιν" in the Comma rather than of "τρεις εις το εν εισιν" in verse 8.  The Greek in verse 8 has the preposition "εις". 

Now, show us the Greek writing of Tertullian let's see whether it's in line with the COMMA or verse 8.

you are a Liar , If that was a direct quote , it's Word that will be there NOT Son. neither will he omit the article " The "


here is the quote



250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)

the bolded is that which is written but applied to his own Trinity doctrine. and the bolded appears at verse 8

Emusan:


"This three are one" in verse 8 is referencing to "the spirit, water, and blood" without the comma

So if anyone says "it is written OF the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"

Someone with working brain will definitely knows this is not verse 8 but another verse.

---

Let me also tutor you because I know you lack wisdom

This is what appears "τρεις εν εισιν" in the Comma rather than of "τρεις εις το εν εισιν" in verse 8.  The Greek in verse 8 has the preposition "εις". 

Now, show us the Greek writing of Tertullian let's see whether it's in line with the COMMA or verse 8.

the funny thing is you admitted he wasn't quoting it FULL earlier which even add more doubts to your claim. if such verse existed, he would have done that .

now here you are claiming Everything he said was Directly Quoted @ bold . contrarily you claimed it wasn't a full quote in a previous post


you are confused .

Here is where your lying mouth will be shut forever!!!

Peacefullove:
even the article " THE " was interchangeable too ?? stop deluding yourself .

Now it's about ARTICLE "The"

when you make a quote, You make it exactly as it is , If you have any intention to add anything , it will be in bracket . YOU LIED!

How many of the early Christian writers usually make QUOTE exactly as it is from the scripture?

You are a Liar, that's not what he says ... okay In fact show me " OF THE FATHER " and Tell me why the Article THE was missing in his quote in reference to Son and Holy ghost.

You're the one who quoted Cyprian yet you didn't see "OF THE FATHER" there...that's wonderful.

Just like I said, you're just looking for a way to derail this thread which is very glaring.

he didn't , read the text again . that which is written is " these three are one " , it's the only word that appears in quote in that Statement .

That's your own fraud to just to twist Cyprian statement.

This is how Wikipedia put

The Lord says, "I and the Father are one"
and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
"And these three are one."[52]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma

Original source puts it this way

"The Lord says, "I and the Father are one; " and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one."

https://books.google.nl/books?id=hMU7AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA382&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

you are a Liar , Quote it the way it is . u this fraud

This is how it is!

"The Lord says, "I and the Father are one; " and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one."

The Comma never existed , that's why his words didn't match the acclaimed quote. he was only expressing a doctrine.

Liar, what you even called expression is called "ALLUDED" hardly early writers' quotes match their quoting WORD FOR WORD.

Majority alluded to the scripture.

Where does the idea of applying "And these three are one" to the three persons if the TRINITY comes from if not from the COMMA?

Peacefullove:
you are a Liar , If that was a direct quote , it's Word that will be there NOT Son. neither will he omit the article " The "

How many early Christians writers make DIRECT quote?

here is the quote

250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)

the bolded is that which is written but applied to his own Trinity doctrine. and the bolded appears at verse 8

Where is your source for this quote?

After I even tutor you about the wording of verse 7 &8 in Greek.

Provide the Greek word let's see whether it correlates with verse 7 or verse 8