Why Do You Believe In The Trinity?

[Cright]

Please give me your case for a triune Godg.. Use history, Logic, Scripture, quotes/writings from early church fathers etc...

Thanks,
Carina

[Gear853]

Genesis 1:26 - "And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." KJV

:amen:

[Katakalupto]

1 John 5:7~ For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

[TwinCrier]

1 John 5:7~ For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.A lot of bibles don't have this verse though. :sorry:

I read once that the word Elohim, means three in one. Since during the Baptism od Christ, we have God as Christ in the human form of Jesus' body, and we have the Father God in heaven and the Holy Spirit decending as a dove, it is clear that God exists as 3 and these 3 are one.

[Katakalupto]

A lot of bibles don't have this verse though. :sorry:

I read once that the word Elohim, means three in one. Since during the Baptism od Christ, we have God as Christ in the human form of Jesus' body, and we have the Father God in heaven and the Holy Spirit decending as a dove, it is clear that God exists as 3 and these 3 are one.

I didn't realize that alot of Bible didn't have that verse. But that is why I believe in the trinity, to me it is plainly stated in scripture.

[Dave01]

2 Cor 13:14 (ASV) The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

[eldermike]

Logic:

a priori argument by Moses Lowman, reduced in the following form by Dr. J Pye Smith. (From First lines of Christian Theology, pp 99-101)


Positive existence is possible, for it involves no contradiction.
All possible existence is either necessary, which must be, and in its own nature cannot but be, or contingent, which may be, or may not be.
Some existence is necessary, for if all existence were contingent, all existence might not be, never could be without some other thing as the prior cause of its existence, since every effect must have a cause. If therefore, all possible existence were contingent, all existence would be impossible; because the idea or conception of it would be that of an affect without a cause, which involves a contradiction.
Necessary existence must be actual existence.
Necessary existence must be always.
Necessary existence must be wherever any existence is possible.
There can be but one necessarily existent being, for two (or three) could in no respect differ from each other; that is, they would be one and the same being. (Trinity. My word)
The one necessarily existent being must have all possible perfections.
The one necessarily existent being must be a free agent.
Therefore, there is one necessarily existent being, the cause of all contingent existence, that is, of all other existence besides himself; and this being is eternal, infinite, possessed of all possible perfections, and is an intelligent free agent, that is, this being is God.

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Please give me your case for a triune Godg.. Use history, Logic, Scripture, quotes/writings from early church fathers etc...

Thanks,
Carina


Jesus claimed he was God.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "He who is and He who was and He who is to come, The Almighty."

Revelation 1:17-18 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.


---
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
---



The Disciples claimed he was God.
John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

The actions of everyone, even his enemies, showed that everyone in those days believed he was God, or at least claimed it.

Mark 2:5-7 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

John 10:29-33 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.


God the Father claimed Jesus was God.

Hebrews 1:5-6,8 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Worship which is only meant for God.

Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Revelation 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Matthew 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

John 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

Hebrews 1:5-6 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

---
Isaiah 45:22-23 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Philippians 2:10-11
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father
---

[dave90]

A lot of bibles don't have this verse though. :sorry:

I read once that the word Elohim, means three in one. Since during the Baptism od Christ, we have God as Christ in the human form of Jesus' body, and we have the Father God in heaven and the Holy Spirit decending as a dove, it is clear that God exists as 3 and these 3 are one.



then what bible are in?

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

then what bible are in?

The Textus Receptus manuscripts which is used by Bibles such as the KJV, NKJV and Geneva have the whole verse as posted. It's not in the Majority Text so the EMTV doesn't have it. Also it's not in the "critical" text so the NASB, NIV and many newer translations don't have them.


KJV: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

NKJV: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

Geneva: 1 John 5:7 For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.

EMTV: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness:

NASB: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:

NIV: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:

[dave90]

The Textus Receptus manuscripts which is used by Bibles such as the KJV, NKJV and Geneva have the whole verse as posted. It's not in the Majority Text so the EMTV doesn't have it. Also it's not in the "critical" text so the NASB, NIV and many newer translations don't have them.


KJV: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

NKJV: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

Geneva: 1 John 5:7 For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.

EMTV: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness:

NASB: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:

NIV: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:

this is the closest one to my Bible.


But why is there so much other different verses for the same verse, the thing is the first three was much different from the lower three.

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

this is the closest one to my Bible.


But why is there so much other different verses for the same verse, the thing is the first three was much different from the lower three.

That is a good question. When it comes to English Bibles you'll see that they are based on usually one set of manuscripts for the New Testament. There are 3 sets out there. This by the way is concerning the New Testament and not the Old Testament. When it comes to the Old Testament the 2 main types are those that are based off the Greek Old Testament and those based off the Hebrew Old Testament.

Textus Receptus - These manuscripts were the ones used commonly around the 1600's and that is why the Geneva and King James Bibles are based on them.

Critical Text - These are based of just a few set of manuscripts that are older and are from the Egypt area. Because they are older many believe they are more reliable and because of that most new translations use these texts. I personally think that is poor logic even when other reasons are given to try to prove they are more reliable. These manuscripts don't have several verses that both the Textus Receptus and Majority Text have. They also change a few words. This is regarding the New Testament by the way, not the Old Testament.

Majority Text - This is what the majority of manuscripts out there say. This is based on a very large number of manuscripts and using those to see what the text actually said. They are close to what the Textus Receptus say but as you can see in this verse they disagree with the Textus Receptus at times. Only a few Bible are based of this text though such as the EMTV.

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

It is plainly taught in Scripture, this is attested to by many ECF, even though some would have us belive that a Council was needed to clear it up....laughable.

Augustine

Unlike the Roman Catholic apologists who argue that the Trinity is unclear in scripture, Augustine considered the doctrine to be taught "plainly and without leaving room for doubt or hesitation" in Matthew 3:16-17:
"For we behold and see as it were in a divine spectacle exhibited to us, the notice of our God in Trinity, conveyed to us at the river Jordan. For when Jesus came and was baptized by John, the Lord by His servant (and this He did for an example of humility; for He showeth that in this same humility is righteousness fulfilled, when as John said to Him, 'I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?' He answered, 'Suffer it to be so now, that all righteousness may be fulfilled'), when He was baptized then, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit came down upon Him in the form of a Dove: and then a Voice from on high followed, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' Here then we have the Trinity in a certain sort distinguished. The Father in the Voice,-the Son in the Man,-the Holy Spirit in the Dove. It was only needful just to mention this, for most obvious is it to see. For the notice of the Trinity is here conveyed to us plainly and without leaving room for doubt or hesitation. For the Lord Christ Himself coming in the form of a servant to John, is doubtlessly the Son: for it cannot be said that it was the Father, or the Holy Spirit. 'Jesus,' it is said, 'cometh;' that is, the Son of God. And who hath any doubt about the Dove? or who saith, 'What is the Dove?' when the Gospel itself most plainly testifieth, 'The Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove.' And in like manner as to that voice there can be no doubt that it is the Father's, when He saith, 'Thou art My Son.' Thus then we have the Trinity distinguished." (Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, 2:1)

Ambrose

Roman Catholics often argue that Trinitarian doctrine is absent from or unclear in scripture. But:
"God, then, is One, without violation of the majesty of the eternal Trinity, as is declared in the instance set before us. And not in that place alone do we see the Trinity expressed in the Name of the Godhead; but both in many places, as we have said also above, and especially in the epistles which the Apostle wrote to the Thessalonians, he most clearly set forth the Godhead and sovereignty of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit....But if you require the plain statement of the words in which Scripture has spoken of the Spirit as Lord, it cannot have escaped you that it is written: 'Now the Lord is the Spirit.' Which the course of the whole passage shows to have been certainly said of the Holy Spirit....So he not only called the Spirit Lord, but also added: 'But where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. So we all with unveiled face, reflecting the glory of the Lord, are formed anew into the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord the Spirit;' that is, we who have been before converted to the Lord, so as by spiritual understanding to see the glory of the Lord, as it were, in the mirror of the Scriptures, are now being transformed from that glory which converted us to the Lord, to the heavenly glory." - Ambrose (On the Holy Spirit, 3:14:94, 3:14:101-102)

Athanasius:

"It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases 'He was not,' and 'before' and 'when,' are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures." (Four Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4:13)

"And let them [the Arians] blame themselves in this matter, for they set the example, beginning their war against God with words not in Scripture. However, if a person is interested in the question, let him know, that, even if the expressions [used by those who oppose Arianism] are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine." (Defense of the Nicene Definition, 5:21)


"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture" (De Synodis, 6)

Peace to u,

Bill

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I should add Dave that the biggest difference between Catholic Bibles and Baptist/Protestant Bibles is that several books are taken out. We don't believe those books are inspired by God. That is not to say that they are of no use. Even the original King James Bible had those books in them because they were useful.

[dave90]

I should add Dave that the biggest difference between Catholic Bibles and Baptist/Protestant Bibles is that several books are taken out. We don't believe those books are inspired by God. That is not to say that they are of no use. Even the original King James Bible had those books in them because they were useful.



yes i know this.

[Abbadon]

Please give me your case for a triune Godg.. Use history, Logic, Scripture, quotes/writings from early church fathers etc...

I believe in God as a first cause, as a basic truth, and as the infinite, not as George Carlin's "invisible man in the sky."

When I say "first cause," I do not mean "big bang" (the big bang would be a direct or indirect result of the first cause), I mean the thing that started the thing that started the thing that started everything (or whatever started that).

When I say "basic truth," I mean the universal constant, the Logos ("the Word" in John), the Tao of the Chinese (Chinese Bibles actually use the word "Tao" in John where our's use "The Word" because the Neoplatonic philosophy* and Taoist philosophy are amazingly similar), the one moral truth.
* Seeing as the term Logos was originally from Greek philosophy, but since it expressed the truth so well, John figured he might as well use it. And this sort of thinking was probably what got some of the Epicurian and Stoic philosophers to listen to Paul.

When I say "infinite," I am not espousing pantheism (punch yourself, a pantheist laughs -- punch a pantheist, the pantheist gets angry...) -- we regard God as ever-present, both in the universe and out. This just seems to me that the universe is contained within God (and God acts throughout the universe).

The Creator would be the basic truth because if the Truth is created by the creator then it is simply the Creator's opinion. If the Creator is bound to some higher truth, then that truth preceded the Creator, and that creator ceases to be the first cause. The Truth must be infinite if it is true everywhere, and since the Infinite is consistent in being existant everywhere, then it must be some basic truth. The Infinite must be the creator, since infinity cannot come from something finite, and the Creator must be infinite, since it is the Truth.

I believe that God the Father is the Creator, God the Son is the Truth, and God the Holy Spirit is the Infinite.

[Salamon]

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.
Well I think these both do a good job showing that there are three persons in the Godhead, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit! Scripture clearly shows it!

[IisJustMe]

A lot of bibles don't have this verse though. :sorry: The verse doesn't say that in the original Greek, which reads thusly:

kaiÊ (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) treiÛv (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5140) eiÎsiÊn (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1526)) oi (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) marturountev (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3140)) eÍn (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722) thÙ÷ (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) gh= (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1093) to (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) pneu=ma (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151) kaiÊ (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) to (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) udwr (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5204) kaiÊ (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) to (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) aima (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=129) kaiÊ (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) oi (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) treiÛv (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5140) eiÎv (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1519) to (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) eÍn (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1520) eiÎsiÊn (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1526)

That, by the way, is the Textus Receptus Greek lexicon, and if you follow the links, you will see the English equivilents, leading to the question, "What were they thinking?" I defy you to find a word in that sentence that corresponds to "Father" or "Word" ... you can't. They aren't there. In English, the verse reads:

... the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

You may feel strongly that the way the KJV structured the sentence in English is somehow "better" or "what John really intended," but the unequivocal truth is, there is nothing in the original Greek that could remotely be considered for translations as the KJV translators did so. They were wrong. Period. No excuses, no if's and's or but's. Wrong. End of story.

Interestingly enough, the way the verse actually reads in English is more powerful than mistranslating it "Father, Word, and Holy Spirit." It actually calls into question the scholarship of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, etc., because they missed these keys to the passage: To the doctrine taught by the apostles, respecting the person and salvation of Christ, there were three testimonies. 1. The Holy Spirit. We come into the world with a corrupt, carnal disposition, which is enmity to God. This being done away by the regeneration and new-creating of souls by the Holy Spirit, is a testimony to the Savior. 2. The water: this sets forth the Savior's purity and purifying power. The actual and active purity and holiness of His disciples are represented by baptism. 3. The blood which He shed: and this was our ransom, this testifies for Jesus Christ; it sealed up and finished the sacrifices of the Old Testament. The benefits procured by His blood, prove that He is the Savior of the world. No wonder if he that rejects this evidence is judged a blasphemer of the Spirit of God. These three witnesses are for one and the same purpose; they agree in one and the same thing.

And that alone should convince you that the preservation of God's word is not in a very good but nonetheless faulty English translation (just as all translation are) but in the sheer overwhelming and unarguably in-agreement manuscripts from which those translations are published.

But it won't. So why did I bother? Good question. Clarity perhaps. Something sadly lacking in the KJVO reasonings.

[Abbadon]

It's the message that matters, not how it is conveyed.

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Huh? Πατήρ is father and Λόγος is Word. I know that without looking up Strongs from my Greek training. The Greek in the TR is:

1 John 5:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος και τὸ ῞Αγιον Πνεύμα, καὶ οὗτοι οι τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι·

The "literal" translation is:

1 John 5:7 For there are three bearing witness in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

So I don't understand how you can say the translators of the Geneva, King James and the New King James Bible got it wrong. We can disagree on the Greek text they used but with what they did use they translated correctly.

The verse doesn't say that in the original Greek, which reads thusly:

kaiÊ (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) treiÛv (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5140) eiÎsiÊn (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1526)) oi (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) marturountev (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3140)) eÍn (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722) thÙ÷ (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) gh= (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1093) to (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) pneu=ma (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151) kaiÊ (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) to (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) udwr (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5204) kaiÊ (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) to (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) aima (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=129) kaiÊ (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) oi (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) treiÛv (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5140) eiÎv (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1519) to (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) eÍn (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1520) eiÎsiÊn (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1526)

That, by the way, is the Textus Receptus Greek lexicon, and if you follow the links, you will see the English equivilents, leading to the question, "What were they thinking?" I defy you to find a word in that sentence that corresponds to "Father" or "Word" ... you can't. They aren't there. In English, the verse reads:

... the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

You may feel strongly that the way the KJV structured the sentence in English is somehow "better" or "what John really intended," but the unequivocal truth is, there is nothing in the original Greek that could remotely be considered for translations as the KJV translators did so. They were wrong. Period. No excuses, no if's and's or but's. Wrong. End of story.

Interestingly enough, the way the verse actually reads in English is more powerful than mistranslating it "Father, Word, and Holy Spirit." It actually calls into question the scholarship of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, etc., because they missed these keys to the passage: To the doctrine taught by the apostles, respecting the person and salvation of Christ, there were three testimonies. 1. The Holy Spirit. We come into the world with a corrupt, carnal disposition, which is enmity to God. This being done away by the regeneration and new-creating of souls by the Holy Spirit, is a testimony to the Savior. 2. The water: this sets forth the Savior's purity and purifying power. The actual and active purity and holiness of His disciples are represented by baptism. 3. The blood which He shed: and this was our ransom, this testifies for Jesus Christ; it sealed up and finished the sacrifices of the Old Testament. The benefits procured by His blood, prove that He is the Savior of the world. No wonder if he that rejects this evidence is judged a blasphemer of the Spirit of God. These three witnesses are for one and the same purpose; they agree in one and the same thing.

And that alone should convince you that the preservation of God's word is not in a very good but nonetheless faulty English translation (just as all translation are) but in the sheer overwhelming and unarguably in-agreement manuscripts from which those translations are published.

But it won't. So why did I bother? Good question. Clarity perhaps. Something sadly lacking in the KJVO reasonings.

[DeaconDean]

While the word "trinity" is not used in the NT, it nevertheless does not make it so. There are enough verses in the NT for one to deduce it for themselves. For me it really is simple:

"In the beginning God" -Gen. 1:1 (God, the Father)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," -Jn. 1:1 (God the Son)

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;" -Jn. 14:16 (God the Holy Spirit)

And if one wants to see all three represented in one verse together:

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." -Mt. 3:16-17

Here in one place, all three of the God Head are seen together, Jesus in the water, the Holy Spirit desending, God speaking from above.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[IisJustMe]

Huh? Πατήρ is father and Λόγος is Word. I know that without looking up Strongs from my Greek training.Now, would you care to show me in the original Greek where either of those words are in that verse? Perhaps you'd like to borrow my reading glasses? (Sheez, can't believe I just admitted I wear 'em.)

The word in the original Greek is not Πατήρ but udwr (transliterated hudor) which is "water". Also, what you apparently believe is Λόγος is actually aima properly translated "blood" (transliterated haima).

Questions?

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I'm not sure what manuscripts you are using but I have 2 sets of Textus Receptus texts and they both have the word logos and pater in them. You can download E-sword (http://www.e-sword.net/) for free and the Textus Receptus text (http://www.e-sword.net/files/bibles/gnt-tr+.exe) from there if you don't believe me.

Now, would you care to show me in the original Greek where either of those words are in that verse? Perhaps you'd like to borrow my reading glasses? (Sheez, can't believe I just admitted I wear 'em.)

The word in the original Greek is not Πατήρ but udwr (transliterated hudor) which is "water". Also, what you apparently believe is Λόγος is actually aimaproperly translated "blood" (transliterated haima).

Questions?

[Phileoeklogos]

Just some more fuel for the fire, as far as 1John 5:7, goes, if I remember right, Erasmus didn't originally include it in the first 2 editions of the Textus Receptus, as it now appears, but included it in the last edition he produced after much arm twisting, because he only found the present reading in the Latin Vulgate and was only shown one very late text Irish text, Codex Montfortianus, that had that reading, Erasmus was basically coerced into including the longer/present reading in his 3rd edition, I guess I shouldn't have used the term TR for his Gk NT.

Does anyone have a footnote or text with variant listings that mentions what texts the longer reading is found in?

Just curious..................

[BBAS 64]

Just some more fuel for the fire, as far as 1John 5:7, goes, if I remember right, Erasmus didn't originally include it in the first 2 editions of the Textus Receptus, as it now appears, but included it in the last edition he produced after much arm twisting, because he only found the present reading in the Latin Vulgate and was only shown one very late text Irish text, Codex Montfortianus, that had that reading, Erasmus was basically coerced into including the longer/present reading in his 3rd edition, I guess I shouldn't have used the term TR for his Gk NT.

Does anyone have a footnote or text with variant listings that mentions what texts the longer reading is found in?

Just curious..................

Good Day, Phil

I think your memory serves you correct. I am sure some of the textual types here will be forth comming with more info than I could provide.

Interesting side note, from my reading I can find no ECF that point to this verse as a defense for the Trinity.:scratch:

In Him,

Bill

[Phileoeklogos]

1John 5:7 is not a verse I would advise anyone to use as their primary defence of the Trinity, because who would you most likely come into contact with that would bring up the issue of the Trinity, that would lead to that defence?

Knock, Knock....who's there?....Jehovah Witness...... is the longer reading of 1John 5:7 in your NWT?..........NO!, now you'll spend all the time you want to use talking about the Trinity, explaining why your Bible has it and theirs doesn't... ,

but you really don't need to use that verse at all, and I wouldn't try to hang my hat on any one verse alone.

One of the not so funny things you learn as a SS teacher is that most Christians can't give a non-modalist definition of the Trinity, or they believe the Trinity is one of those doctrines that is just to hard to understand,

a good starting place for those who have not studied much on this topic or for new believers who haven't had the opportunity, is to keep it simple and just start with a few basic questions;

1. Is there One God?

2. Does the Bible teach that the Father is God?

3. That Jesus is God?

4. That the Holy Spirit is God.

5. Are the persons separate, ie.. Is the Father a person, is the Son a person, is the Holy Spirit a person, are they the same person?

6. Is there One God?

Search your Bible, answer those questions, and you'll have a pretty good handle on the Trinity, and as a bonus you'll also learn alot about the Deity of Christ as well, I encourage anyone who has not studied the Trinity, or is looking for a great Bible study to do so, it will truly bless you, and I'm sorry if I got a little long winded but this is a topic that I love to get long winded about.........

[psalm511013]

I'm not sure what manuscripts you are using but I have 2 sets of Textus Receptus texts and they both have the word logos and pater in them. You can download E-sword for free and the Textus Receptus text from there if you don't believe me. ... it is the TR, as shown in the Interlinear Bible on studylight.org. Or did you bother clicking on his link? If the TR manuscripts you're using are showing the words you have posted, they've been back-translated from KJV English into Greek, which is dishonesty at its heighth. But it wouldn't be the first time I've seen that. The actual TR does not contain either words you have posted.

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

... it is the TR, as shown in the Interlinear Bible on studylight.org. Or did you bother clicking on his link? If the TR manuscripts you're using are showing the words you have posted, they've been back-translated from KJV English into Greek, which is dishonesty at its heighth. But it wouldn't be the first time I've seen that. The actual TR does not contain either words you have posted.

Using the website YOU are using I selected the Textus Receptus of 1894 that they have on there and this is what the verse says in Greek.

1 John 5:7
oti (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3754) treiv (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5140) eisin (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1526) oi (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) marturountev (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3140) en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722) tw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) ouranw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3772) o (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) pathr (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3962) o (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) logov (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3056) kai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) to (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) agion (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=40) pneuma (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151) kai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) outoi (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3778) oi (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) treiv (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5140) en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1520) eisin (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1526)

As you can see it has panthr (father) and logov (word). So YOUR website agrees with what I have been saying this whole time. You must have chosen one of the other Greek manuscripts when you made your original claim.

[Dave01]

... it is the TR, as shown in the Interlinear Bible on studylight.org. Or did you bother clicking on his link? If the TR manuscripts you're using are showing the words you have posted, they've been back-translated from KJV English into Greek, which is dishonesty at its heighth. But it wouldn't be the first time I've seen that. The actual TR does not contain either words you have posted.

A lot of people get confused with this section, always crying about the "stupidity of Erasmus" and such, but really Erasmus had nothing to do with it...


"The author perceived, without any labor of inquiry, that it derives its names from that diocese, which has been termed the Italick, as contra-distinguished from the Roman. This is a supposition, which received a sufficient confirmation from the fact that the principal copies of that version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated in Milan. The circumstance is at present mentioned, as the author thence formed a hope that some remains of the primitive Italick version might be found in the early translations made by the Waldenses, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick Church; and who have asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and have ever enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures."

"In the search to which these considerations have led the author, his fondest expectations have been fully realized. It has furnished him with abundant proof on that point to which his inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with an unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses [1 John 5:7 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/search.cgi?t=amp&s=0&sr=1&q=1%20John+5%3A7)] was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate."

F. Nolan, Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p. xvii-xviii


The language of the Old Itala is documented to the second century, by the very language itself, that's why Nolan could say what he said. That is before Jerome's vulgate, any sort of alexandrian manuscript, and definitely before Erasmus. All that Erasmus did was compile those greek texts that aligned with the latin vulgate. That's about all I can see that he did. He didn't create anything at all.

Also, according to many people who read greek, there is nothing wrong grammatically with 1 John 5:7 being retained as original, which is odd if this was an interpolation. In fact, it is claimed that the section clears up grammatical errors in that section in the greek, not the other way around.

So yes, it is a part of the TR.

[BigNorsk]

The problem in 1 John 5:7-8 is known as the Comma Johanneum if anyone wants to look it up. The addition of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was a very common addition among the Latin manuscripts, though it is not contained in the original Vulgate and does not appear in the Douay Rheims translation from the Vulgate. However, one can see it in Wycliffe's translation from the Latin.

When Erasmus came out with his Greek New Testament text, many complained rather vigorously when his text did not have the insertion. He said he would include it if a manuscript could be found to contain it, and just before his third edition, manuscript 61 was produced which contains it. It appears that manuscript 61 was literally produced in order to get the insertion into the Greek text.

To this date, there are only 9 very late Greek manuscripts that contain the Comma Johanneum, and of those 9, 5 have it in the text and 4 in the margin.

They are:
MSS 221, 10th Century
2318 dated in the 18th century
2473 dated 1634
and with minor variations, 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, 918

Codex 221 the earliest in the 10th century has it in a marginal note and appears to be added after the manuscript was made.
MSS 629 from the 14th century is the earliest with it in the text, but contains several variations not found in the rest.
88,12th Century, 429 14th, and 636, 15th, have the reading as a marginal note.
Any not specifically mentioned are 16th century.

It also appears in 1215 in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council translated from a Latin text

It seems to have originated in a 4th century Latin homily. From which it made it's way into copies of the Latin Vulgate.

Hope that explains it and gives enough info so that people who desire to research it can do so.

Information taken from Appendix VI of the New English Translation and Novum Testamentum Graece New Testament, a diglot of the NET English and the NA27 with special translation notes published by NET Bible Press and Deutsche Biblegesellschaft.

Marv

[Dave01]

When Erasmus came out with his Greek New Testament text, many complained rather vigorously when his text did not have the insertion. He said he would include it if a manuscript could be found to contain it, and just before his third edition, manuscript 61 was produced which contains it. It appears that manuscript 61 was literally produced in order to get the insertion into the Greek text.

The NET Bible may need to re-ascess their position now that Metzger has corrected himself,..

"In the 3rd edition of The Text of the New Testament Bruce Metzger corrected his false assertion about Erasmus as follows: “What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus’ promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion” (Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd edition, p. 291, footnote 2)."

Also, the old itala is documented to the 2nd century, which is prior to Jerome,..


To begin, we must note the presence of this verse in the Old Latin version. The Old Latin (called such because it predates the Vulgate of Jerome) dates to around the middle of the 2nd century24 (http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html#notes).

(24) - see F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to New Testament Criticism, Vol. II, pp. 42-43; H.S. Miller, General Biblical Introduction, p. 236

There are not many extant Old Latin manuscripts which contain I John 5. The few that do, however, contain the Comma.

[bdarien]

John 14:7-9
7. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9. Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
If we know Christ then we know the Father, again Christ placing Himself on an equal footing with God and making a point that HE IS THE FATHER because if we know Jesus then we KNOW THE FATHER because they are one in the same
If we have seen Jesus, then we have seen the Father.
Because He is the father and yet He is still Jesus.
That s the Jesus and God the Father part.

Then He goes on to explain about the Holy Spirit.

John 14:16-18
16. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
He talks of sending a comforter the holy spirit. The spirit of truth but Christ has said He is the truth (cf john 14:6 I am the way the truth and the life). Then He reminds them again I will come to you. Pointing out to them that this spirit of truth, the holy spirit this is not just some kind of ministering angelic being but that this holy spirit is the spirit of God, just as Christ is the arm of the Lord (cf Isaiah 53:1 to who is the arm of the Lord revealed?).

John 14:26. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Again the distinction here between the Father, the Holy Ghost and Christ. And yet He has said that He is all of them, and that He is God.
Conclusion
If we have seen Him then we have seen the Father.
He will send a comforter who is the spirit of Truth after saying that He is the truth, and He reminds them He will come to them.

[bdarien]

John 14:7-9
7. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9. Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
If we know Christ then we know the Father, again Christ placing Himself on an equal footing with God and making a point that HE IS THE FATHER because if we know Jesus then we KNOW THE FATHER because they are one in the same
If we have seen Jesus, then we have seen the Father.
Because He is the father and yet He is still Jesus.
That s the Jesus and God the Father part.

Then He goes on to explain about the Holy Spirit.

John 14:16-18
16. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
He talks of sending a comforter the holy spirit. The spirit of truth but Christ has said He is the truth (cf john 14:6 I am the way the truth and the life). Then He reminds them again I will come to you. Pointing out to them that this spirit of truth, the holy spirit this is not just some kind of ministering angelic being but that this holy spirit is the spirit of God, just as Christ is the arm of the Lord (cf Isaiah 53:1 to who is the arm of the Lord revealed?).

John 14:26. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Again the distinction here between the Father, the Holy Ghost and Christ. And yet He has said that He is all of them, and that He is God.
Conclusion
If we have seen Him then we have seen the Father.
He will send a comforter who is the spirit of Truth after saying that He is the truth, and He reminds them He will come to them.