Bright Future of Independent Baptists.

[FSSL]

From Chick: "Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25."

NOTICE how Tertullian's chapter ACTUALLY reads:

===============
CHAP. 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

Tertullian, ?Against Praxeas,? in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 621.

======================

Tertullian is NOT quoting 1 John. He is quoting from the GOSPEL of JOHN throughout Chapter 25. He NEVER quotes from 1 John in any form in Chapter 25. ALL of the Scripture he quotes are from the GOSPEL.
This is what Tertullian actually says:

These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, ?I and my Father are One,?

Tertullian is not providing "These Three Are One" as a quotation. He is deriving that truth from John 10:30 which is the quoted matter in the sentence.

If the KJVOs cannot understand the difference between the GOSPEL of John and an EPISTLE of John... they are in a world of hurt.

The KJVOs are selectively quoting and editing Tertullian.

 

[FSSL]

Obviously, if the church fathers mentioned it, you're going to automatically claim a paraphrase. But look carefully at Jerome's quote. He referred to "that passage in I John."

1) Where does Jerome use this phrase?
2) What does Jerome quote when he says, "...that passage in the epistle of John?"

 

[Jimmyjammer]

You're assuming it was missing from your oldest Greek MSS. It is in the Latin MSS because the Alexandrians kept it out of the MSS that YOUR Bible because they were influenced by the Gnostics.

The AV translators put in the Johannine comma because the overwhelming evidence pointed to it. I mean really, do you think Erasamus made it up?

Jerome put I John 5:7 in his first edition.

Here is some more proof of the text.

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

Jerome put I John 5:7 in his first edition.

You said: But look carefully at Jerome's quote. He referred to "that passage in I John.?

Are you confused? These two are not the same.

 

[Jimmyjammer]

Jerome put I John 5:7 in his first edition.

You said: But look carefully at Jerome's quote. He referred to "that passage in I John.?

Are you confused? These two are not the same.

No, I'm adding to the fact that Jerome acknowledged the passage.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

1) Where does Jerome use this phrase?
2) What does Jerome quote when he says, "...that passage in the epistle of John?"

Can you provide a cogent, specific answer to these?

 

[Jimmyjammer]

To be honest, this debate about I John 5:7 isn't going to be productive. This battle has been going on for many years. I don't think you and I are going to solve it right here. I believe there is enough evidence to put the text there, you don't. So I don't think we should continue this conversation.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

Your choice. There is a lot of misinformation that the KJVOs and TROs are writing.

Funnily, with all of their straining over mss evidence and how bad Alexandrian mss are supposed to be, this passage gets a pass.

 

[FSSL]

Well... I will answer the last questions,

1) Where does Jerome use this phrase "...that passage in the epistle of John"? The ONLY place Jerome uses this phrase is in his "The Letters of St. Jerome. 51.7

2) What does Jerome quote when he says, "...that passage in the epistle of John?" Here is the quote...

...And let no one be deceived by that passage in the epistle of John, which some readers fail to understand, where he says: ?Now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is.? 1 John 3.2

So.... again, the KJVOs/TROs misquote Jerome. This has ZERO to do with 1 John 5.7.

The amount of deliberate misrepresentation of the early  church fathers and the attempt to make it appear as if they used 1 John 5.7 is absurd. Why, in this day and age, where searching these documents is ultra-easy (if you own the books), would they attempt to make these claims?

 

[Ransom]

To be honest, this debate about I John 5:7 isn't going to be productive.

To be honest, that's because FSSL asked you some questions, and you're dodging them.

Seeing his own answers, I can understand why you'd shy away.

 

[Ransom]

You're assuming it was missing from your oldest Greek MSS.

Do you know better? What Greek manuscripts contain it prior to the 16th century? Present your evidence, if you have any.

 

[Jimmyjammer]

You're assuming it was missing from your oldest Greek MSS.

Do you know better? What Greek manuscripts contain it prior to the 16th century? Present your evidence, if you have any.

I was referring to the gap from the autographs to what is available today. I wasn't very clear.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[bgwilkinson]

Here is some research by Bruce Metzger on the famous comma.
That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.

(A) External Evidence. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:

61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.

88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.

221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.

429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenb?ttel.

636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.

918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.

2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541?46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)

  (B)Internal Probabilities. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.
For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on 1 John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, ?I. John v. 7 and Luther?s German Bible,? in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458?463.1


Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies? Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (pp. 648?649). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

 

[Jimmyjammer]

Well... I will answer the last questions,

1) Where does Jerome use this phrase "...that passage in the epistle of John"? The ONLY place Jerome uses this phrase is in his "The Letters of St. Jerome. 51.7

2) What does Jerome quote when he says, "...that passage in the epistle of John?" Here is the quote...

...And let no one be deceived by that passage in the epistle of John, which some readers fail to understand, where he says: ?Now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is.? 1 John 3.2

So.... again, the KJVOs/TROs misquote Jerome. This has ZERO to do with 1 John 5.7.

The amount of deliberate misrepresentation of the early  church fathers and the attempt to make it appear as if they used 1 John 5.7 is absurd. Why, in this day and age, where searching these documents is ultra-easy (if you own the books), would they attempt to make these claims?

You're wrong. He mentioned it in his Epilogue. But your red herring fallacy has caused me to lose interest.

I would recommend you to read Edward F. Hills "The King James Version Defended." He points out the grammatical problems with the Johannine comma missing.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

What I find interesting is that you dodge out of this discussion when the Tertullian evidence is irrefutable. You have no answer for it. It is a canard and your warning about owning the volumes only solidifies the fact that you are just sucking the teat of Chick Publications, not consulting the main sources you claim to have. Why don?t you study these things for yourself?

Your problem was not with a supposed red herring. The problem that caused you to leave the discussion was that you had no answer.

The Prologue, ascribed to Jerome has always been questioned as genuine.

 

[Ransom]

I was referring to the gap from the autographs to what is available today. I wasn't very clear.

Yeah, well, your "clarification" doesn't make sense, either.

You originally said, rather unambiguously, that FSSL was assuming the Johannine Comma was not present in the oldest Greek MSS.

It's not clear what part of that unambiguous statement is meant to be replaced with "the gap from the autographs to what is available today." Nor can I grasp what you even mean by it.

 

[Jimmyjammer]

What I find interesting is that you dodge out of this discussion when the Tertullian evidence is irrefutable. You have no answer for it. It is a canard and your warning about owning the volumes only solidifies the fact that you are just sucking the teat of Chick Publications, not consulting the main sources you claim to have. Why don?t you study these things for yourself?

Your problem was not with a supposed red herring. The problem that caused you to leave the discussion was that you had no answer.

The Prologue, ascribed to Jerome has always been questioned as genuine.

So....you get to pick what is irrefutable and declare the rest questionable? This is why this kind of discussion is useless. I can tell by your pattern that you're just a Google theologian and haven't spent enough time studying the subject.

You ask for it. I deliver. You question it. That's the 12 day pattern you rely on.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

I?m not the one pretending to know Latin by using Google translate.

So... no answer about the Tertullian issue? Noted.

 

[Jimmyjammer]

I was referring to the gap from the autographs to what is available today. I wasn't very clear.

Yeah, well, your "clarification" doesn't make sense, either.

You originally said, rather unambiguously, that FSSL was assuming the Johannine Comma was not present in the oldest Greek MSS.

It's not clear what part of that unambiguous statement is meant to be replaced with "the gap from the autographs to what is available today." Nor can I grasp what you even mean by it.

It doesn't make sense to you because you believe  the Alexandrian codicies could in no way be tampered with.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmyjammer]

I?m not the one pretending to know Latin by using Google translate.

So... no answer about the Tertullian issue? Noted.

Sure...the guy who screwed up when he tried to copy/paste and run it thorough Google translate.

So you move away from Jerome (because you once again had your point blown apart) and go BACK to Tertullian? You like getting smacked around don't you? That's what happens when you're a Google theologian.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk