Defending the Trinity

[shturt678]

Sorry did you not read verse 5?

1Jn 5:5 Now who is the person who has conquered the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?


Middle aged purity appreciates your post also

Yes this passage has been trotted out more times than I have had hot breakfasts.

The Greek textual support for this reading is virtually nonexistent. Most modern translations of 1 John 5:7 omit the reference to Father, Word, and Spirit.

I could show you many instances where the interprators false understanding influence the Scrpiture. 1 Chron 21:1 is a classic!

The language in verses 1 John 5:6–8 is so obscure at places that translators, struggling to communicate the meaning of the Greek in English, have resorted to various verse arrangements. This is apparent by comparing the RSV and NRSV:

RSV: 6 This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.

NRSV: 6 This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is truth. 7 There are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.

Clearly the author is trying to communicate core theological content regarding Jesus’ status as God’s Son and the implications of that Christology. The progression of the argument appears in the following textual re-creation with a question that follows from the preceding verses. While the RSV and NRSV put verse 5 with the preceding paragraph, as its conclusion, I suggest that it introduces the exposition to follow.

You will forgive me if I suggest your Trinitarian theology is clearly not here...I mean to draw the type of complexity you require (from this section) even to support the doctrine of incarnation alone is proving impossible for justaname and wormwood simply gave up (and its his thread!).

If you would like an interpretation of this passage I am more than able.

(sometime later.....)

O well, I might as well get your cogs working....

1 John 5:5 The Question and Answer

Who is it that conquers the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? (not God the Son)

1 John 5:6 The Answer Clarified

This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ (sacrificed), not with water only but with the water and the blood. (almost all things a purged with blood)

1 John 5::6–8 The Testimonial Support

And the Spirit (God's Word) is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth (God's Word is truth). There are three that testify: the Spirit (Spirit filed Word) and the water and the blood, and these three agree.

Jesus was justified (made right) by the Spirit and he became the living water through his obedience and the blood is the cleansing element to his sacrifice symbolic of once again an obedient life.

Jesus justified by the Spirit 1 Tim 3:16
Jesus benefited from his own sacrifice Heb 13:20
Jesus sanctified by the Word of God John 17:17

Purity

Thank you for your response!

The textual support for IJn.5:7, 8 is firmed up beginning with Thomas H. Horn's work (1818 or so) Introduction, 7th ed., vol. IV, pp. 448-471 treating the whiole subject exhaustively where Zahn, Introduction, III, 372, adds a few new items in his remarks on the subject, ie, "Comma Joanneum." Resulting in:

IJn.5:7, 8, "Because threee are the ones giving testimony. v.8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are for one thing." Ie, their testimony is one identical thing, the three agree without the least deviation in their one testimony in regard to Jesus and to His deity.

If we're going to back up to IJn.5:5, then we should also construe with Jn.1:1c, "the Word was God." Then fast forward to IJn.1:1-3, 7 firming up the deity of Jesus Christ, the Logos who was with the Father before time even began. Then construing with IJn.2:1, 2, 2, 23; 3:8, 23; 4:9, 10, 15; 5:1 all firming up the diety of our Lord Jesus Christ contextually and grammatically.

Son of God: Only a head's up. God's Son is not identical with the title "Messiah." Was God's Son long before He was the Messiah. Again the Son of God means the co-equal, and the 2nd Person of the Godhead. He was begotten from eternity by the Father, as the Son to whom this Father is in an absolute singular relation.

Thank you again,

Old Jack's opinion

 

[nothead]

Thank you for your response!

The textual support for IJn.5:7, 8 is firmed up beginning with Thomas H. Horn's work (1818 or so) Introduction, 7th ed., vol. IV, pp. 448-471 treating the whiole subject exhaustively where Zahn, Introduction, III, 372, adds a few new items in his remarks on the subject, ie, "Comma Joanneum." Resulting in:

IJn.5:7, 8, "Because threee are the ones giving testimony. v.8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are for one thing." Ie, their testimony is one identical thing, the three agree without the least deviation in their one testimony in regard to Jesus and to His deity.

If we're going to back up to IJn.5:5, then we should also construe with Jn.1:1c, "the Word was God." Then fast forward to IJn.1:1-3, 7 firming up the deity of Jesus Christ, the Logos who was with the Father before time even began. Then construing with IJn.2:1, 2, 2, 23; 3:8, 23; 4:9, 10, 15; 5:1 all firming up the diety of our Lord Jesus Christ contextually and grammatically.

Son of God: Only a head's up. God's Son is not identical with the title "Messiah." Was God's Son long before He was the Messiah. Again the Son of God means the co-equal, and the 2nd Person of the Godhead. He was begotten from eternity by the Father, as the Son to whom this Father is in an absolute singular relation.

Thank you again,

Old Jack's opinion

Em whether Old Jack's opinion or not, eternally begotten means no single comprehensive thingy at all, in nothead's humble opinion. Since nothing under the sun is actually ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN, or even a pup who won't come out of it's mother's eternally thrashing throes of birth...

"Eternally begotten" just means a construct made rationally in order to explain how Jesus as eternally God could then be born by God. NOT in Bible and certainly not comprehensible.

Only another incomprehensibility added to another incomprehensibility (Trinity).

And the main reason why 1 Jn 5 Comma Johanneum is an insert is that it was never quoted during the Sabellian/Homoousian controversies.

 

[shturt678]

Em whether Old Jack's opinion or not, eternally begotten means no single comprehensive thingy at all, in nothead's humble opinion. Since nothing under the sun is actually ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN, or even a pup who won't come out of it's mother's eternally thrashing throes of birth...

"Eternally begotten" just means a construct made rationally in order to explain how Jesus as eternally God could then be born by God. NOT in Bible and certainly not comprehensible.

Only another incomprehensibility added to another incomprehensibility (Trinity).

And the main reason why 1 Jn 5 Comma Johanneum is an insert is that it was never quoted during the Sabellian/Homoousian controversies.

Thank you for your coherent and humble response sir.

Will address the more important "Begotten, Only" issue which is above my head however.....

Jn.1:14, "the Only-begotten from the Father," The term monogenes "Only-begotten,: the Greek adjective here being used as a noun (just basic Koine 101 - all Greek to me). We are not to reduce this weighty term to mean no more than "only child'a s when it's used with reference to human parents who either parent have died - reaches back to eternity. The term rises above all such conceptions when we note the combination, "glory as of the Only-begotten." "Glory" contextually affirms the "Athanasius Creed" - the Trinity.

Old Jack that appreciates you good folks.

 

[Purity]

Thank you for your coherent and humble response sir.

Will address the more important "Begotten, Only" issue which is above my head however.....

Jn.1:14, "the Only-begotten from the Father," The term monogenes "Only-begotten,: the Greek adjective here being used as a noun (just basic Koine 101 - all Greek to me). We are not to reduce this weighty term to mean no more than "only child'a s when it's used with reference to human parents who either parent have died - reaches back to eternity. The term rises above all such conceptions when we note the combination, "glory as of the Only-begotten." "Glory" contextually affirms the "Athanasius Creed" - the Trinity.

Old Jack that appreciates you good folks.

Old Jack

In what way do you believe from the divine record was Jesus only-begotten? Clearly you believe you were begotten? I like Job 38:28!

I will be curious to see if you can empty yourself of Trinitarian terminology and provide something more Scriptural.

Consider it a test

 

[nothead]

Thank you for your coherent and humble response sir.

Will address the more important "Begotten, Only" issue which is above my head however.....

Jn.1:14, "the Only-begotten from the Father," The term monogenes "Only-begotten,: the Greek adjective here being used as a noun (just basic Koine 101 - all Greek to me). We are not to reduce this weighty term to mean no more than "only child'a s when it's used with reference to human parents who either parent have died - reaches back to eternity. The term rises above all such conceptions when we note the combination, "glory as of the Only-begotten." "Glory" contextually affirms the "Athanasius Creed" - the Trinity.

Old Jack that appreciates you good folks.

Only begotten mean he was virginally conceived. No more no less. GLORY was misconstrued ever since the latter day saints stopped receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. And GLORY most then certainly WOULD NOT affirm the Athansian Creed or any variation thereof.

God is one, and no OTHER one. This was said by the scribe in Mark 12 and Jesus affirms him to be just about or exactly the ONLY ONE among Jews dead or alive, CLOSE to them pearly gates.

 

[shturt678]

Old Jack

In what way do you believe from the divine record was Jesus only-begotten? Clearly you believe you were begotten? I like Job 38:28!

I will be curious to see if you can empty yourself of Trinitarian terminology and provide something more Scriptural.

Consider it a test

Thank you for your response!

The exam and question is above my paygrade however.... Jn.1:14's divine record records: "the Only-begotten from the Father" We dare not overlook the fact that the mighty terms Logos, Life, Light, and Jn.1:1 where Jesus = God, which contextually and grammatically run through vs.1-14, and in the same class with the terms that till v.14, Logos, Glory, Only-begotten, Father, Grace, and Truth, all of which reach back to eternity, and all fo them are so interlocked that not one can be singled out and dated from some point in time, correct?

btw I underwent a "born anew," in time, however hopefully was thought about by our Lord God-man Jesus back in eternity (ICor.1:27)?

Old Jack,

One cannot but agape the kabod YHWH revealed in the O.T.

I was hoping you would flatten the Bell-curve a little due to my ol' age.

Only begotten mean he was virginally conceived. No more no less. GLORY was misconstrued ever since the latter day saints stopped receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. And GLORY most then certainly WOULD NOT affirm the Athansian Creed or any variation thereof.

God is one, and no OTHER one. This was said by the scribe in Mark 12 and Jesus affirms him to be just about or exactly the ONLY ONE among Jews dead or alive, CLOSE to them pearly gates.

Thank you for your response!

Jn.1:18, the negative part: "No man hath seen God at any time;" followed by the positive "God Only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he did declare him." Against this strong background of negation is placed the still stronger affimation that the Word made flesh has more than seen God.

"God Only-begotten" cannot date from a point in the course of time, for this would be a contradiction in the very terms, the one term "God" being timeless, eternal, the other term "Only-begotten," being a over 1900 years of course. "God Only-begotten" is such from all eternity, and the adjective predicates the inner Trinitarian mystery of the generatio aeterna, describing the eternal metaphysical relation of the Father and the Son.

Old Jack's opinion

 

[nothead]

Thank you for your response!

Jn.1:18, the negative part: "No man hath seen God at any time;" followed by the positive "God Only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he did declare him." Against this strong background of negation is placed the still stronger affimation that the Word made flesh has more than seen God.

"God Only-begotten" cannot date from a point in the course of time, for this would be a contradiction in the very terms, the one term "God" being timeless, eternal, the other term "Only-begotten," being a over 1900 years of course. "God Only-begotten" is such from all eternity, and the adjective predicates the inner Trinitarian mystery of the generatio aeterna, describing the eternal metaphysical relation of the Father and the Son.

Old Jack's opinion

Your whole paradigm breaks down if the text does not SAY "God only-begotten." This is a textual variant, which it is not good to hang your theology upon. Hint: why does all textual variants have to do with the deity of Jesus? Since the Conspiracy of the Deity of Jesus would be behind?

 

[Wormwood]

Your whole paradigm breaks down if the text does not SAY "God only-begotten." This is a textual variant, which it is not good to hang your theology upon. Hint: why does all textual variants have to do with the deity of Jesus? Since the Conspiracy of the Deity of Jesus would be behind?

nothead,

I see you are still at your nutty ways. There are thousands of textual variants and I assure you they are not all related to the deity of Jesus. However, with some that do point to the deity of Jesus, sometimes the more reliable texts are those that affirm Christ's deity. However, I don't think Jack is suggesting that "God, only begotten" is a textual variant to begin with.

 

[nothead]

nothead,

I see you are still at your nutty ways. There are thousands of textual variants and I assure you they are not all related to the deity of Jesus. However, with some that do point to the deity of Jesus, sometimes the more reliable texts are those that affirm Christ's deity. However, I don't think Jack is suggesting that "God, only begotten" is a textual variant to begin with.

The textual variant is his vaunted Jn 1:18

[SIZE=.75em]18 [/SIZE]No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

He has the only begotten GOD, which is in the bosom of the Father...

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (ASV).
No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. (RSV).
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. (ASV).
No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the Bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (Douey-Rheims).
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declaredhim. (KJV).

From the Trinity Delusion Webpage.

 

[shturt678]

The textual variant is his vaunted Jn 1:18

[SIZE=.75em]18 [/SIZE]No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

He has the only begotten GOD, which is in the bosom of the Father...

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (ASV).
No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. (RSV).
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. (ASV).
No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the Bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (Douey-Rheims).
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declaredhim. (KJV).

From the Trinity Delusion Webpage.

Thank you for your repsonse again!

Wiped the dust off my ol' NA-23 and wanted to share an old note regarding Jn.1:18, ie, use an NA-27 today for textual criticism. The quiestion of the true reading is no longer in doubt (Dec. 89) when I was researching this passage. It's monogenes Theos, "God Only-begotten" and not the other varients. The absence of the article bids us to stress the qualitative force of the terms, and the adjective monogenes is attributive, correct? (my ol' buddy Robertson p.856.

Again, "God Only-begotten" cannot date from a point in the course of time, for this would again be a counterdiction in the very terms, the one term "God" being timeless and eternal, correct nothead?

Old Jack's view

 

[nothead]

Thank you for your repsonse again!

Wiped the dust off my ol' NA-23 and wanted to share an old note regarding Jn.1:18, ie, use an NA-27 today for textual criticism. The quiestion of the true reading is no longer in doubt (Dec. 89) when I was researching this passage. It's monogenes Theos, "God Only-begotten" and not the other varients. The absence of the article bids us to stress the qualitative force of the terms, and the adjective monogenes is attributive, correct? (my ol' buddy Robertson p.856.

Again, "God Only-begotten" cannot date from a point in the course of time, for this would again be a counterdiction in the very terms, the one term "God" being timeless and eternal, correct nothead?

Old Jack's view

Well, durn it, these theologians been ahaggling over this variant for centuries, and Ol' Jackster got er done in two sentences. WHOO HOO. NOT.

Good optimism though, over your own abilities to exegete. The lack of definitve article is the kicker? Well kick me upside my nothead. Never thought of that.

How would a lack of definite article prove the God variant, sir?

 

[Wormwood]

nothead,

There are two primary variants for this verse but four total. The first and one most accepted by NA27 is monogenes Theos (one and only God) as it is found in the earliest texts such as P66 (about 200 AD) and P75 and some 4th and 5th century documents. It is also quoted by pretty early church fathers such as Origen, Didymus Cyril.

Next is ho monogenes huios (the one and only Son). The earliest document this is found in dates to the 4th and 5th century. However, it is quoted by some earlier church fathers such as Irenaeus, Clement Hippolytus Origen, etc.

Third is monogenes huios Theou (one and only son of God). It is quoted by Irenaeus and Ambrose.

Finally ho monogenes (the one and only) has just a couple of texts from pretty late.

I think either of the top two are a possibility and it seems the reason many scholars lean toward the first is because its sources are slightly earlier.

Metzger writes,

1:18 μονογενὴς θεός {B}
With the acquisition of P66 and P75, both of which read θεός, the external support of this reading has been notably strengthened. A majority of the Committee regarded the reading μονογενὴς υἱός, which undoubtedly is easier than μονογενὴς θεός, to be the result of scribal assimilation to Jn 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9. The anarthrous use of θεός (cf. 1:1) appears to be more primitive. There is no reason why the article should have been deleted, and when υἱός supplanted θεός it would certainly have been added. The shortest reading, ὁ μονογενής, while attractive because of internal considerations, is too poorly attested for acceptance as the text.

side note {B} means that the committee is "almost certain" monogenes Theos represents the original autograph. That's a fairly high degree of certainty. The reason there isn't such "haggling" over this verse anymore is the discovery of very early texts that attest to monogenes Theos.

 

[nothead]

nothead,

There are two primary variants for this verse but four total. The first and one most accepted by NA27 is monogenes Theos (one and only God) as it is found in the earliest texts such as P66 (about 200 AD) and P75 and some 4th and 5th century documents. It is also quoted by pretty early church fathers such as Origen, Didymus Cyril.

Next is ho monogenes huios (the one and only Son). The earliest document this is found in dates to the 4th and 5th century. However, it is quoted by some earlier church fathers such as Irenaeus, Clement Hippolytus Origen, etc.

Third is monogenes huios Theou (one and only son of God). It is quoted by Irenaeus and Ambrose.

Finally ho monogenes (the one and only) has just a couple of texts from pretty late.

I think either of the top two are a possibility and it seems the reason many scholars lean toward the first is because its sources are slightly earlier.

Metzger writes,


side note {B} means that the committee is "almost certain" monogenes Theos represents the original autograph. That's a fairly high degree of certainty. The reason there isn't such "haggling" over this verse anymore is the discovery of very early texts that attest to monogenes Theos.

Early don't mean uncorrupted. Some Patristic writers predate the earliest manuscripts denoting monogenes Theos.


Ignatius
Bishop of Antioch
Syria

Philippians
II

ca. 110

"only begotten Son"

Long Recension only

Irenaeus
Bishop of Lyons
Gaul

Against Heresies
III, 11.6

ca. 180

"only begotten Son"



Irenaeus
Bishop of Lyons
Gaul

Against Heresies
IV, 20.6

ca. 180

"only begotten Son"



Irenaeus
Bishop of Lyons
Gaul

Against Heresies
IV, 20.11

ca. 180

"only begotten God"

Interpolation

Clement
Alexandria

Pedagogue
I, 3

ca. 200

"only begotten Son"

Head of the School of Alexandria

Clement
Alexandria

Stromata
I, 26

ca. 200

"only begotten Son"



Clement
Alexandria

Stromata
V, 12

ca. 200

"only begotten God"



Hippolytus
Rome

Against Noetus
V

ca. 205

"only begotten Son"

Greek writer

Tertullian
Africa

Against Praxeas
VIII

ca. 212

only begotten Son

"The Son alone knows the Father, and has Himself unfolded the Father's bosom."

Not an explicit quotation of John 1:18 but obviously implied.

Tertullian
Africa

Against Praxeas
XV

ca. 212

"only begotten Son"

Latin writer


Notice the apparent contradictory versions for both Tertullian and Irenaeus who quote both versions in different writings. From the Trinity Delusion website.

Of course a trinitarian has no problem with monogenes theos. So he ain't gonna haggle over this one now is he? Supports his own bias it do.

But good try Wormwood. You almost sound plausible. You ain't MET Jack the Bear yet. Online GIANT and originator of the Trinity Delusion website.

 

[shturt678]

Well, durn it, these theologians been ahaggling over this variant for centuries, and Ol' Jackster got er done in two sentences. WHOO HOO. NOT.

Good optimism though, over your own abilities to exegete. The lack of definitve article is the kicker? Well kick me upside my nothead. Never thought of that.

How would a lack of definite article prove the God variant, sir?

Thank you again for your reponse, however above my paygrade where Wormwood did a good job, and you're not to shabby yourself my Christian brother.

I've alwatys used the ol' syllogistic reasoning method eliminating the spurious going from the general to the specific deductively, for example, the article in the varient o mionogenes Theos would be misleading contextually as indicating that there are several Theoi, one of whom is Only-begotten.

Again above my paygrade, however to encourage you, "God Only-begotten" construed with "who is in the bosom of the Father." really validates the Trinity doctrine. My end point:

The article o wn firms up the Trinity doctrine.

Old Jack, the antithesis of Christian think-tankers, ie, hit in the head too many times due to not ducking.

 

[nothead]

Well, durn it, these theologians been ahaggling over this variant for centuries, and Ol' Jackster got er done in two sentences. WHOO HOO. NOT.

Good optimism though, over your own abilities to exegete. The lack of definitve article is the kicker? Well kick me upside my nothead. Never thought of that.

How would a lack of definite article prove the God variant, sir?

Thank you again for your reponse, however above my paygrade where Wormwood did a good job, and you're not to shabby yourself my Christian brother.

I've alwatys used the ol' syllogistic reasoning method eliminating the spurious going from the general to the specific deductively, for example, the article in the varient o mionogenes Theos would be misleading contextually as indicating that there are several Theoi, one of whom is Only-begotten.

Again above my paygrade, however to encourage you, "God Only-begotten" construed with "who is in the bosom of the Father." really validates the Trinity doctrine. My end point:

The article o wn firms up the Trinity doctrine.

Old Jack, the antithesis of Christian think-tankers, ie, hit in the head too many times due to not ducking.

It is a little hard to understand you train of thought, sir, HO OWN is just "the being" into the bosom of the Father...this being God being in the bosom of God, makes little or no sense...a man being into the bosom of Abraham was idiom, so too would be the words, "bosom of the Father..." not an ontological statement at all.

Heart of the same heart? Blood of the same blood? Not hardly. Not really, not probably.

And I still don't understand how a lack of definite article means monogenes God instead of monogenes Son.

 

[Wormwood]

nothead,

I see you are still diligent on your Google web surfin' studies. Nothin like being convinced of a position and then randomly searching the web until you find "Jack the Bear" that validates what you already have determined to believe regardless of what Scripture and scholars teach.

I can see how you point to Irenaeus and Tertullian for 50% of your sources that validate what you want the text to say. Yet, when they quote the text according to the earliest manuscripts, you shout, "conspiracy." How convenient. When they say what you agree with, they are reliable. When they don't, they aren't.

Anyway, let's look at your list...

1) Ignatius is not considered a reliable witness of significance in textual criticism.
2) The other church fathers you have listed do not predate P66 or P75.
3) "one and only God" and "the one and only God" are attested to by the same early fathers and others. Origen, Dydymus Cyril, Clement, Eusebius, Basil, Gregory-Nyssa, etc.
4) The earliest actual Scripture found with "the one and only Son" is three hundred years later than multiple parchments that contain "one and only God."

So, basically, you have Irenaeus, Clement and Tertullian that reference "one and only Son" and the earliest texts date back to the 5th century.
On the other hand we have Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, and many others who quote "one and only God" as well as multiple early Scriptures that say "one and only God" that date back to 200AD.

So, you can mush the facts around all you want to build your case but the reality is "one and only God" is more reliable.

 

[Purity]

This discussion is futile as all you are doing Wormwood is building a theological paradox and a logical contradiction.

God is visible despite being invisible (Colossian 1:15)- How so?
God is seen but “never seen” (John 1:18, I Timothy 6:16) - Not possible!
God is tempted even though God cannot be tempted (Matthew 4:1-11; cp. James 1:13).

And how do you and other Trinaterians reconcile Jesus being “made like his brothers and sisters in every respect”, which clearly you must say “not being made like his brothers and sisters at all”

“dying” on the cross yet simultaneously eternal (I Timothy 1:17)

You don't have any Bible evidence. If the Trinitarian Jesus pre-existed, he is neither “son of David”, nor “Son of Man”, nor “Son of God.” If he is God, he was not tempted, cannot be seen and was not seen, did not really die, and was therefore not a sacrifice for sin. If his nature was simultaneously human and divine, he was not made like his brothers and sisters in every respect.

Purity

nothead,

I see you are still diligent on your Google web surfin' studies. Nothin like being convinced of a position and then randomly searching the web until you find "Jack the Bear" that validates what you already have determined to believe regardless of what Scripture and scholars teach.

I can see how you point to Irenaeus and Tertullian for 50% of your sources that validate what you want the text to say. Yet, when they quote the text according to the earliest manuscripts, you shout, "conspiracy." How convenient. When they say what you agree with, they are reliable. When they don't, they aren't.

Anyway, let's look at your list...

1) Ignatius is not considered a reliable witness of significance in textual criticism.
2) The other church fathers you have listed do not predate P66 or P75.
3) "one and only God" and "the one and only God" are attested to by the same early fathers and others. Origen, Dydymus Cyril, Clement, Eusebius, Basil, Gregory-Nyssa, etc.
4) The earliest actual Scripture found with "the one and only Son" is three hundred years later than multiple parchments that contain "one and only God."

So, basically, you have Irenaeus, Clement and Tertullian that reference "one and only Son" and the earliest texts date back to the 5th century.
On the other hand we have Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, and many others who quote "one and only God" as well as multiple early Scriptures that say "one and only God" that date back to 200AD.

So, you can mush the facts around all you want to build your case but the reality is "one and only God" is more reliable.

It is well noted here your appeal to a Trinitarian-friendly translation of John 1:18 (nice Wormwood!). It will be interesting to see if you explain your repeated appeal to verses long since abandoned as “proof texts” by professional Trinitarian scholars. Disputed verses are broken reeds (Isaiah 36:6); you would not use them if you had stronger evidence

What we are waiting for is the admission of being bankrupt of reliable evidence.

Purity

 

[nothead]

nothead,

I see you are still diligent on your Google web surfin' studies. Nothin like being convinced of a position and then randomly searching the web until you find "Jack the Bear" that validates what you already have determined to believe regardless of what Scripture and scholars teach.

I can see how you point to Irenaeus and Tertullian for 50% of your sources that validate what you want the text to say. Yet, when they quote the text according to the earliest manuscripts, you shout, "conspiracy." How convenient. When they say what you agree with, they are reliable. When they don't, they aren't.

Anyway, let's look at your list...

1) Ignatius is not considered a reliable witness of significance in textual criticism.
2) The other church fathers you have listed do not predate P66 or P75.
3) "one and only God" and "the one and only God" are attested to by the same early fathers and others. Origen, Dydymus Cyril, Clement, Eusebius, Basil, Gregory-Nyssa, etc.
4) The earliest actual Scripture found with "the one and only Son" is three hundred years later than multiple parchments that contain "one and only God."

So, basically, you have Irenaeus, Clement and Tertullian that reference "one and only Son" and the earliest texts date back to the 5th century.
On the other hand we have Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, and many others who quote "one and only God" as well as multiple early Scriptures that say "one and only God" that date back to 200AD.

So, you can mush the facts around all you want to build your case but the reality is "one and only God" is more reliable.

Up the tree you list P66 and P75 at 200 A.D. give or take. Tertullian, Irenenaeus and Clement are at or before this date. So this item on the list is wrong (2). Nothead may not be able to add good in his head, but he does check others who think they can compare numbers...

My abacus says you wrong, homeboy.

Dating in general only relates to the sanctity of the original manuscript, in your case the Greek. So the earlier date in theory would be more likely STATISTICALLY to be the actual words of the inspired author. But to say this is definitive proof of textual authorial accuracy is wrong, since inserts and corruptions occur anywhere along the chain from the original.

The very fact that two traditions occur, either Son or God in this verse points to an intent to corrupt, even if this was a 'good' intention. Either there was an overriding paradigm of the Godman being turned into the Son, OR conversely a bias that the Son annointed was being converted from the author's intent to be also God.

And contrary to your assertion that the deity of Jesus was at stake, after Nicea Eusebius himself converts Mt 28:19 into the Trinity formulation, whereas he quotes a short version 18 TIMES before Nicea.

 

[Wormwood]

nothead,

You are so self-contradictory its almost humorous.

First, your very incorrect in your view on textual criticism. It is one thing to have someone quote a verse with a particular wording and another to find an actual NT book or series of books (on multiple occasions) that has it written a particular way.

Early Scriptures were all handwritten and copied in an extremely laborious and expensive process. Moreover, when they wrote the Scriptures they were very careful in their copying the previous text. The degree of accuracy from these texts is staggering. So, if we have a Scripture from 200AD that has monogenes Theos, it means very likely that it was carefully copied from an earlier text that had the same phrase. So essentially, this text is a contemporary of these early church fathers and apologists like Tertullian and Ireneaus and was likely copied from a single text that predated them. So, check you logic homeboy.

Second, we have the same people from the same dates who quote your preferred phrase also quoting monogenes Theos which matches the actual Scriptures we have found from that date. So, nothing you have PREDATES, monogenes Theos. But the multiple actual scriptures we have predate it by hundreds of years and is also quoted many, many times by early Christians.

It seems clear you have realized this and are changing tactics. Previously, you were trying to refute ol' Jack by your early dates acquired from "Jack the (teddy) Bear." Now that I have shown you that these early dates don't hold a candle to the texts we have with monogenes Theos, you have changed your tune to say, "but to say this is definitive proof of textual accuracy is wrong..." Hahaha. You crack me up. One moment you are using dates to prove your point and when that attempt fails, you are running for the escape hatch of "these dates don't prove anything." Too funny.

There is a reason that those who study textual variants for a living are "almost certain" that monogenes Theos represents the original. There is overwhelming e-v-I-d-e-n-c-e. Better jump on Google and see if you can find yet another bucket to bail water from your sinking theology.

 

[shturt678]

It is a little hard to understand you train of thought, sir, HO OWN is just "the being" into the bosom of the Father...this being God being in the bosom of God, makes little or no sense...a man being into the bosom of Abraham was idiom, so too would be the words, "bosom of the Father..." not an ontological statement at all.

Heart of the same heart? Blood of the same blood? Not hardly. Not really, not probably.

And I still don't understand how a lack of definite article means monogenes God instead of monogenes Son.

Thank you for your response again!

All Greek to me, however let's bring Koine 101 aboard: Article: Conceptionalizes, identifies, and specifies (points out - distinguishes) yet does not definitize as pervasively taught tioday (again, lower paygrade stuff), for example, identifies stressing identity of an individual or class. Anarthrous: Stresses mostly "the quality of being" of the identity of an individual or class, eg, stressing the quality of being 'dead,' and not so much regrding a 'dead' individual.

Jn.1:14, "(the) Only-begotten" Anarthrous ergo 'qualitative' Robertson p.794 - "Grammar of the N.T....." "State of Being" emphasized.

Jn.1:18, "God Only-begotten" Anarthrous again......."State of Being" emphasized.


Jn.1:18, God Only-begotten "who is in the bosom of the Father." We have to raise the bar to basic 101 2nd Semester stuff. Again the article o wn does only one thing: it attaches the participle to "God Only-begotten" afer the manner of a relative clause and describes this wonderful person for us. In no way does the article change or limit the timeless force of the participle. This would, indeed, be greatly changed if "God Only-begotten" dates only from the Virgin birth, for then any further modifier would be equally limited.

Anarthrous here would result in the participle, though it's separated from the main verb by ekeinos, "him," would tend to become adverbial, either temporal, "when he was in the bosom," or causal, "since he was in the bosom"; and thus instead of the timelessness we should have the more historical time indicated by the contative aorist eksegesato (Robertson p.829).

These are the assured grammatical facts contextually regarding o wn, which we should not yield when they are modified in the interest of a wrong view of the person who is truly "God Only-begotten."

Old Jack

btw anybody can cut prices, but it takes brains to make a new 'article' - lol with you.