1 John 5:7-8 Johannine Comma - Clement of Alexandria, Eclogae Propheticae 13.1

So far, I have not seen that any writer has questioned its authenticity.

Hundredfold Martyrs is a wonderful textual corroboration of the Ante-Nicene Old Latin text having the heevenly witnesses verse, since scholars generally see it as 3rd century.

It is important enough to get its own thread.
The reference has flown under the radar, partly because the first publication was 1914.

Your simply biased.
 
My observations:
As to (1) above: "......the three Persons are categorically pronounced to be one......." is not made out. Rather, "they" aren't being identified as "three persons" in the passage cited, but rather as "one (deity)" with one tripartite name. This is exactly per Mat 28:19.

One of cjab’s “Trinitarian” claims.
Or maybe “Oneness”.
 
Minge's Latin Text
Rather the sense is "a triad of ones sent forth," being the water, the blood and the Spirit (being the earthly witnesses). It is they who bear testimony to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit ( the unindividuated heavenly Trinity).

The amazing invisible allegory.
 
So is this post trying to deny that Jesus is God?
The phrase "Jesus is God" carries a lot of baggage, propaganda, an unbiblical imputation of sabellianism and a confusion of the separate jurisdictions of heaven and earth. At its most heretical, it entails a reduction of Christ to being analogous to a pagan god in the form of a man (for there were many such pagan gods). There are only two records of men being described as gods in the NT. One is by pagans in Act 14:11, the other is by Christ in John 10:34, but here the OT reference is to men carrying the authority of God. The same idea is denoted by angels in the OT acting with God's authority. As such this excludes the pagan connotation: the ancient languages were able to maintain subtle distinctions here by the use of the article to denote YHWH the person, and the non-usage of the article to denote YHWH working through his appointed agents. In English there isn't any equivalent grammatical structure to denote "God" in this way. "God" carries the same connotation as "[The] God" in Greek and Hebrew (and god infers an idol). Thus in 2Co 5:19, "God was in Christ reconciling....." is used wihout the article in the Greek to denote God working through the agency of Christ.

So the Graecized version of "Jesus is God" would denote "Jesus is The God" i.e. Jesus is the Father. Even if you removed the article is Greek, it would only indicate that God is predicate, similar to Jn 1:1c. But Jn 1:1c is only intelligible when cast along side Jn 1:1b - you can't use Jn 1:1c on its own, because if you do, you're into Sabellianism.

So "Jesus is God" is a very blunt choice of words to denote the deity or rather the heavenly origin of Jesus. Your formulation is attractive to the simple and uneducated, but always to be avoided. For even if its obvious pagan connotations are ignored, it is theologically unsustainable on the grounds of imputed sabellianism or priscillianism, due to the word/title "God" being synonymous with the person of the Father in the mouth of Christ and his apostles.
 
Last edited:
The amazing invisible allegory.
God is invisible; we have to live with it. Allegory: a picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning. I don't think the allegories are invisible.

Christ refers numerous times to water: the allegory to the Father is clear.

Jhn 4:14 "but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.
Rom 6:23, 1 John 5:11 "God gives eternal life in Christ."

Blood: Is synonymous with the life of the flesh. Lev 17:11. So blood denotes the living Word made flesh.

Spirit: The Holy Spirit of God.
 
Even if you removed the article is Greek, it would only indicate that God is predicate, similar to Jn 1:1c.
NB: Removing the article to make "God" a predicate infers the activity or agency or power of God as in Jn 1:1c. Where the article is retained, i.e. Jhn 4:24 ("[The] God is spirit") the person of God is being denoted,

However there are also cases, noted in Winer's Grammer (Omission of the Article before nouns - see below) where even anarthrous θεός will also denote the person of the Father (but not in Jn 1:1c - see further below).

(1) When the genitive θεου is dependent on another (anarthrous)
noun : L. iii. 2, Kom. iii. 5, viii. 9, xv. 7, 8, 32 \_Rec.~], 1 C. iii. 16,
xi. 7, 2 C, i. 12, viii. 5, E. v. 5, 1 Th. ii. 13.2

(2) In the phrases θεός πατήρ, 1 C. i. 3, 2 C. i. 2, G. i. 1, Ph. i. 2,
ii. 11, 1 P. i. 2 ; viol or τέκνα θεου, Mt v. 9, Rom. viii. 14,10, G-. iii.
26, Ph. ii. 15, 1 Jo. iii. 1, 2 (where these governing nouns also are
without the article 3).

(3) With prepositions : as άπο θεου, Jo. iii. 2, xvi. 30, Rom. xiii. 1
[Rec.], 1 C. i. 30, vi. 19 ; ἐv θεώ, Jo. iii. 21, Rom. ii. 17 ; ἐκ Θεοῦ, A.
v. 39, 2 C. v. 1, Ph. iii. 9 ; κατί θεόν, Rom. viii. 27 ; παρά θεω, 2 Th.
i. 6, 1 P. ii. 4. Similarly with an adjective in 1 Th. i. 9, θεω ζωντι
καϊ άλ-ηθινω.—In Jo. i. 1 (θεός ήν ο λόγος), the article could not have
been omitted if John had wished to designate the λόγος as ό θεός,
because in such a connexion θεός without the article would.be
ambiguous. It is clear, however, both from the distinct antithesis
πρός τόν θεόν, ver. 1, 2,. and from the whole description (Characterisirung)
of the λόγος, that John wrote θεός designedly.
Similarly,
in 1 P. iv. 19 we find πιστός κτίστης without the article.
 
Last edited:
1 Timothy 3:16 (AV)
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.
 
The phrase "Jesus is God" carries a lot of baggage, propaganda, an unbiblical imputation of sabellianism and a confusion of the separate jurisdictions of heaven and earth. At its most heretical, it entails a reduction of Christ to being analogous to a pagan god in the form of a man (for there were many such pagan gods). There are only two records of men being described as gods in the NT. One is by pagans in Act 14:11, the other is by Christ in John 10:34, but here the OT reference is to men carrying the authority of God. The same idea is denoted by angels in the OT acting with God's authority. As such this excludes the pagan connotation: the ancient languages were able to maintain subtle distinctions here by the use of the article to denote YHWH the person, and the non-usage of the article to denote YHWH working through his appointed agents. In English there isn't any equivalent grammatical structure to denote "God" in this way. "God" carries the same connotation as "[The] God" in Greek and Hebrew (and god infers an idol). Thus in 2Co 5:19, "God was in Christ reconciling....." is used wihout the article in the Greek to denote God working through the agency of Christ.

So the Graecized version of "Jesus is God" would denote "Jesus is The God" i.e. Jesus is the Father. Even if you removed the article is Greek, it would only indicate that God is predicate, similar to Jn 1:1c. But Jn 1:1c is only intelligible when cast along side Jn 1:1b - you can't use Jn 1:1c on its own, because if you do, you're into Sabellianism.

So "Jesus is God" is a very blunt choice of words to denote the deity or rather the heavenly origin of Jesus. Your formulation is attractive to the simple and uneducated, but always to be avoided. For even if its obvious pagan connotations are ignored, it is theologically unsustainable on the grounds of imputed sabellianism or priscillianism, due to the word/title "God" being synonymous with the person of the Father in the mouth of Christ and his apostles.

Wow, we are not on the same page at all. So do you believe like JWs that the Word is not God, but some lesser being. There is NOTHING pagan about the Word of God.
 
Wow, we are not on the same page at all. So do you believe like JWs that the Word is not God, but some lesser being. There is NOTHING pagan about the Word of God.
Now you are changing your terms of reference, from earth to heaven, as you mutate "Jesus [the] Christ" (i.e. Jesus the man) back into "[the] Word," and talk about lesser and greater as if it was some heretical doctrine, when it was Jesus himself who said "The Father is greater than I" (if you see that as a heretical statement you are yourself a heretic). Then you introduce the JWs, who espouse an Angelomorphic Christology that I never referred to. As such I feel, the ever expanding remit of your question, and the insulting tones in which it is couched, is unsuited to this thread, and I have no mind to answer you further.
 
As such I feel, the ever expanding remit of your question, and the insulting tones in which it is couched, is unsuited to this thread, and I have no mind to answer you further.
Pretty touchy in response to good questions, from the person who wildly calls various beliefs gnostic.

However, the lady should know that you are not the moderator to declare what is “suited to this thread.”
 
BTW!

Ad Jubaianus.

It's, "cum tres unum s(i)nt."

Not, "cum tres unum s(u)nt."

Nor, "(et) tres unum s(u)nt."

Again, nothing more than a 1 John 5:8 Clause-D focus, surrounded by standard Trinitarian eis-egesis.
 
Back
Top