First off, only one of Polycarp's writings survived. 2. John was still alive, and the Synoptic Gospels were already done, most likely the Gospel of Mark first. Polycarp, as John would have quoted them, and other writings Until John died or after receiving the Revelation of Jesus Christ. To suggest one is not mentioned as a way to discredit the person is not sound reasoning.
The Trinity.
- Thread starter Aussie52
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Responder says:
With respect valid reasoning comes from evidence from the passages - there is an ABSENCE of evidence from your points to prove your point. Gen & John 1:1 is already covered and what you say has no substance, again an opinion based on WHAT (assumptions) - not evidence?
no issues with the passages quoted.
Show evidence from passages.
However, if Polycarp did not mention John or John mentioned Polycarp. That would not in any Deminish the Gospel of John. John was revealing the Deity of Christ and His Revelation. The Eternal Godhead is well seen in all Gospel, yet The Gospel of John amplifies Jesus as God in the Flesh. John chapter 1. The Father and the Holy Spirit are seen and heard at the Baptism of Christ.
-
1
- Show all
I agree with you to a point. The Eternal Godhead can not be fully comprehended by human intellect. We are limited. The Disciples who walked with Jesus did not understand until the resurrection. This understanding of The Lord Jesus is spiritually discerned human intellect is incapable no more than the unsaved can understand salvation. One must be formally introduced to the Lord Jesus Through The Holy Spirit. One must be convicted and see their need for forgiveness; 2. repent 3. surrender 4. Receive.
Hi this is the response of my colleague;
The majority recognise this passage as being a later "insertion" of the Church and most recent versions of the Bible do NOT have the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: KJV being a few that still do.
The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson says: "This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."
Peake's Commentary on the Bible says
"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."
Many more others are also of the same opinion
The majority recognise this passage as being a later "insertion" of the Church and most recent versions of the Bible do NOT have the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: KJV being a few that still do.
The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson says: "This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."
Peake's Commentary on the Bible says
"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."
Many more others are also of the same opinion
-
1
- Show all
Hi this is the response of my colleague;
The majority recognise this passage as being a later "insertion" of the Church and most recent versions of the Bible do NOT have the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: KJV being a few that still do.
The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson says: "This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."
Peake's Commentary on the Bible says
"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."
Many more others are also of the same opinion
The majority recognise this passage as being a later "insertion" of the Church and most recent versions of the Bible do NOT have the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: KJV being a few that still do.
The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson says: "This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."
Peake's Commentary on the Bible says
"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."
Many more others are also of the same opinion
I recall God adding the entire NT to the bible and the OT. Can they explain why God could not add something to the NT? Perhaps more direct language about the Trinity wasn't meant for the NT at first. Prophecy does speak of knowledge being increased in the end times so this would be one way that could be achieved.
-
1
- Show all
Well, the “Johannine Comma” may not have been in an earlier Greek extant text but it does not mean it is not as authentic as many claim to be, including JW’s Emphatic Diaglot. The counter attestation for the inclusion in the Johannine Cooma are the following:
1. The evidence of certain Greek Texts. Although they were late and had few manuscripts, the question is where did they come from? These few copies are descended from the faithful copies of a master copy. If ascertaining text is based on the "addition", it could be well said it was an "omission" as the style of the writing of John proves the unity of the Godhead.
2. Cyprian quoted this fact. While modern scholarship is trying to disprove this, the fact remains the same. The evidence is quite clear. The updated Nestle-Aland Greek, the NA-28 has it in its footnote of Cyprian and even Primasius.
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." Paragraph 6.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html?scrBook=1John&scrCh=5&scrV=7#iv.v.i-p33.1
Obviously, Cyprian quoted scripture for he says “The Lord says” and giving importance of a written text for he said “it is written”.
3. The Internal evidence which demands Greek rendering necessitates the inclusion of the Johannine Comma . Not familiar with Greek grammars but this one thing is viewed by Greek grammarians that it demands the presence of it. The heavenly witness corresponds to the plural Greek article. Not only that, secular leading Greek expert Georgios Babiniotis justified the need of ”JC” based on its “syntactic parallelism” or stylistic selection. In an email sent to Mr. Nick Sayers here, is what he says:
1. The evidence of certain Greek Texts. Although they were late and had few manuscripts, the question is where did they come from? These few copies are descended from the faithful copies of a master copy. If ascertaining text is based on the "addition", it could be well said it was an "omission" as the style of the writing of John proves the unity of the Godhead.
2. Cyprian quoted this fact. While modern scholarship is trying to disprove this, the fact remains the same. The evidence is quite clear. The updated Nestle-Aland Greek, the NA-28 has it in its footnote of Cyprian and even Primasius.
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." Paragraph 6.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html?scrBook=1John&scrCh=5&scrV=7#iv.v.i-p33.1
Obviously, Cyprian quoted scripture for he says “The Lord says” and giving importance of a written text for he said “it is written”.
3. The Internal evidence which demands Greek rendering necessitates the inclusion of the Johannine Comma . Not familiar with Greek grammars but this one thing is viewed by Greek grammarians that it demands the presence of it. The heavenly witness corresponds to the plural Greek article. Not only that, secular leading Greek expert Georgios Babiniotis justified the need of ”JC” based on its “syntactic parallelism” or stylistic selection. In an email sent to Mr. Nick Sayers here, is what he says:
- I will not discuss the opinion of the really great theologist and scholar (yet not a linguist) bishop Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης as I do not know on what conditions it was formulated. However, linguistically —though with another explanation— Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης is right to consider verse 5.7 obligatory for the existence of verse 5.8.
- What you are asking has two aspects: a theological and a linguistic one. I can only say my own opinion on the linguistic aspect of the specific text within the frame of what is quite often used in regard to the Greek language and passages of New Testament Greek.
- The use of masculine gender and not neuter on 5.8.
- «καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,
- τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα
- καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν»
- is linguistically justified on the pattern of “syntactic parallelism”, i.e. on the ground that it makes a pattern completely the same (“parallel”) in structure with that of 5.7.
- ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,
- ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα
- καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν είσι
- So for Modern Linguistic analysis what is important is not the mere grammatical “gender agreement rule” (which would lead to the usage of neuter gender : «καὶ τρία εἰσὶ τὰ μαρτυροῦντα ἐν τῇ γῇ…»), but the overruling schema of “syntactic parallelism” which is much more stronger than a simple gender agreement rule.
- Conclusion. The issue we refer to has more to do with the linguistic style of the passage; it is the result of a stylistic selection which is far beyond the usage of a grammatical/syntactic rule that would lead to neuter gender and which furthermore would eliminate verse 5.7.
Other than the common arguments, what exactly is in the verse that non-Trinitarians don't agree with? Father, Word and HS are in heaven, and they are one (doesn't that help you anyways?). This isn't the strongest biblical support for the Trinity as there are better verses saying each of those 3 are God.
Well, I do not try to pit passages of scriptures that support Godhead. I just believe they are of equal value. I'm glad many of here in this thread who far more profound in their belief of the trinity.
The passages I posted were just to refute the Gnostic heresies (2:26; 4:1-3) of Ceninthus that this teaching is still with us today for v.7 declares the unity of 3 distinct Persons in one essence while verse 8 refutes Docetic belief by acknowledging the real humanity of Jesus Christ.
The passages I posted were just to refute the Gnostic heresies (2:26; 4:1-3) of Ceninthus that this teaching is still with us today for v.7 declares the unity of 3 distinct Persons in one essence while verse 8 refutes Docetic belief by acknowledging the real humanity of Jesus Christ.