tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8836001125267727609.post5220862081996680957..comments2023-09-27T05:12:31.333-04:00Comments on Ancient Christian Witness: 1st John 5:7, & Saint CyprianJnormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8836001125267727609.post-36955276620544344722012-12-10T12:00:37.551-05:002012-12-10T12:00:37.551-05:00Hi,
Thanks for the strong confirmation of the Cyp...Hi,<br /><br />Thanks for the strong confirmation of the Cyprian citation. Excellent. Notice that many solid thinkers, like Franz August Otto Pieper, have very properly seen the strength and significance of this reference.<br /><br />As for the grammatical issues raised in a very confusing manner by Jim, feel free to come on one of the forums like WhichVersion or TC-Alternate for fascinating discussion.<br /><br />Steven Steven Averyhttp://purebible.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8836001125267727609.post-66601628007215421612009-09-19T13:40:14.817-04:002009-09-19T13:40:14.817-04:00Just as proponents of the Comma incorrectly claim ...Just as proponents of the Comma incorrectly claim that Cyprian quoted the Comma instead of 1 John 5:8 in the Latin version of John’s epistle in the third century, when in fact he quoted 1 John 5:8 (et tres unum est), likewise proponents of the Comma incorrectly claim that that Gregory of Nazianzus faulted the grammar in 1 John 5:8 in the nineteenth paragraph in his thirty-second oration (his fifth theological oration) in the fourth century, when in fact Gregory cited 1 John 5:8 as the fourth of four correctly written proof texts from the Bible ([1] Proverbs 30:29-31 [LXX], [2] either Exodus 18-19 or Exodus 37:7-8 [LXX], [3] either Matthew 6:24 or Luke 16:13 and [4] 1 John 5:8 ) in his eighteenth and nineteenth paragraphs to prove his opponent (the person to whom he was writing) wrong in thinking (1) that things that are different in nature are not grouped together under one number and (2) that things of one gender are not grouped together under the number of a different gender. <br /><br />http://www.piney.com/HsNanzianzen.html<br /><br />Gregory is saying to his opponent that 1 John 5:8 proves him (his opponent) wrong. Gregory could not say this if he thought that the grammar in 1 John 5:8 was faulty. Gregory no more faults the non-grammatical-gender-agreement in 1 John 5:8 (the masculine number “three” and the neuter nouns “Spirit” and “water” and “Blood”) than he faults the non-grammatical-gender-agreement in Proverbs 30:29-31 (LXX) (the neuter number “three” and the neuter number “fourth” and the masculine nouns “lion-cub” and “goat” and “rooster” and “king”). After citing these four correctly written proof texts, Gregory refers to a fifth example (three kinds of crab and three kinds of dog). Then he says, “So you see how completely your argument from con-numeration has broken down, and is REFUTED by ALL these instances [ALL five examples].” It is obvious that Gregory does NOT fault the grammar in ANY of these four cited proof texts. Nevertheless, proponents of the Comma incorrectly claim that Gregory faulted the grammar in 1 John 5:8 in the fourth century, just as they incorrectly claim that Cyprian quoted the Comma from a Latin copy of John’s epistle in the third century.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8836001125267727609.post-14000833347416237922009-09-16T13:52:18.550-04:002009-09-16T13:52:18.550-04:00Interesting, and thanks for commenting.
ICXC ...Interesting, and thanks for commenting.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />ICXC NIKAJnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8836001125267727609.post-50846688559533044332009-09-16T05:54:57.594-04:002009-09-16T05:54:57.594-04:00Some Latin versions of John’s first epistle that i...Some Latin versions of John’s first epistle that include the Johannine Comma say this.<br /><br />1 John 5:7 quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus sanctus, ET HI TRES UNUM SUNT, 8 et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus et aqua et sanguis, ET HI TRES UNUM SUNT.<br /><br />5:7 Because three they-are who witness they-give in heaven, Father, Word and Spirit Holy, AND THESE THREE ONE THEY-ARE, 8 and three they-are who witness they-give on earth, Spirit and water and Blood, AND THESE THREE ONE THEY-ARE. <br /><br />http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html <br /><br /><br />Other Latin versions of John’s first epistle that include the Johannine Comma say this. <br /><br />1 John 5:7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus sanctus, ET HI TRES UNUM SUNT, 8 et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus et aqua et sanguis, ET TRES UNUM SUNT. <br /><br />5:7 Because three they-are who witness they-give in heaven, Father, Word and Spirit Holy, AND THESE THREE ONE THEY-ARE, 8 and three they-are who witness they-give on earth, Spirit and water and Blood, AND THREE ONE THEY-ARE. <br /><br />http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=23&c=5 <br /><br /><br />The Latin versions of John’s first epistle that do NOT include the Johannine Comma say this. <br /><br />1John 5:7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant, 8 spiritus et aqua et sanguis, ET TRES UNUM SUNT.<br /><br />5:7 Because three they-are who witness they-give, 8 Spirit and water and Blood, AND THREE ONE THEY-ARE. <br /><br />http://www.drbo.org/lvb/chapter/69005.htm <br /><br /><br />Cyprian says this in Latin regarding John 10:30 and 1 John 5:8 (as quoted by Martin Shue). <br /><br />dicit dominus, ego et pater unum sumus, et iterum de patre et filio et spiritus sancto scriptum est, ET TRES UNUM SUNT. <br /><br />He-says, Lord, I and Father one we-are, and again, of Father and Son and Spirit Holy, written it-is, AND THREE ONE THEY-ARE. <br /><br />http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/wallace.html <br /><br /><br />The factual truth of the matter is that the clause “ET TRES UNUM SUNT” appears ONLY in 1 John 5:8 in the Latin version of John’s first epistle, NOT in the Comma, whereas the clause “ET HI TRES UNUM SUNT” always appears in the Comma in any Latin version of John’s first epistle that includes the Comma. <br /><br />Therefore, the factual truth of the matter is that Cyprian is quoting from 1 John 5:8 in the Latin version of John’s first epistle that was available to him, NOT from the Comma. <br /><br />This is not a matter of personal interpretation. It is a fact. <br /><br />Why did Cyprian quote 1 John 5:8 (“ET TRES UNUM EST”] instead of quoting the Comma (“ET HI TRES UNUM EST”)? <br /><br />The answer is obvious, which is that the Latin version of John’s first epistle that Cyprian was quoting did NOT include the Comma—otherwise, Cyprian would have quoted the Comma—and that Cyprian was giving the phrase “spiritus et aqua et sanguis” (Spirit and water and Blood) in 1 John 5:8, which he was quoting, saying, “et tres unum est” (and three one they-are), the Trinitarian interpretation “patre et filio et spiritus sancto” (Father and Son and Spirit Holy).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8836001125267727609.post-33864175713836500312009-08-20T22:17:02.460-04:002009-08-20T22:17:02.460-04:00"And these three are one.”
occurs in the tex..."And these three are one.”<br /><br />occurs in the text whether or not the larger TR reading is there. The question is whether Cyprian could have interpreted the shorter text to refer to the Father, Son and Spirit.<br /><br />Since the scholarly theory on the longer text is that it was a gloss that found its way into the text, Cyprian doesn't help distinguish between the gloss theory and the idea it was already in the text.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.com