Lets first start with a explanation of the Comma Johanneum and what is claimed. The Comma Johanneum is a comma (a short clause) contained in most translations of the First Epistle of 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.
5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
The resulting passage is an explicit reference to the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Now it does not appear in some Greek manuscripts, nor in the passage as quoted by some of the early Church Fathers. Some claim the words crept into the Latin text of the New Testament during the Middle Ages, "[possibly] as one of those medieval glosses but were then written into the text itself by a careless copyist.

Erasmus the Dutch Renaissance humanist, Catholic priest, and a theologian, omitted them from his first edition; but when a storm of protest arose because the omission seemed to threaten the doctrine of the Trinity, he put them back in the third and later editions, whence they also came into the Textus Receptus, 'the received text'

Erasmus used several Greek manuscript sources because he did not have access to a single complete manuscript. Most of the manuscripts were, however, late Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine textual family and Erasmus used the oldest manuscript the least because "he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text." [25] He also ignored much older and better manuscripts that were at his disposal.[26]

In the 2nd (1519) edition, the more familiar term Testamentum was used instead of Instrumentum. This edition was used by Martin Luther in making his German translation of the Bible for his own religious movement. Together, the first and second editions sold 3,300 copies. Only 600 copies of the Complutensian Polyglot were ever printed. The 1st- and 2nd-edition texts did not include the passage (1 John 5:7–8) that has become known as the Comma Johanneum. Erasmus had been unable to find those verses in any Greek manuscript, but one was supplied to him during production of the 3rd edition. That manuscript is now thought to be a 1520 creation from the Latin Vulgate, which likely got the verses from a fifth-century marginal gloss in a Latin copy of I John. The Roman Catholic Church decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute (June 2, 1927), and it is rarely included in modern scholarly translations.

The 3rd edition of 1522 was probably used by Tyndale for the first English New Testament (Worms, 1526) and was the basis for the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition used by the translators of the Geneva Bible and King James Version of the English Bible. Erasmus published a definitive 4th edition in 1527 containing parallel columns of Greek, Latin Vulgate and Erasmus's Latin texts. He used the now available Polyglot Bible to improve this version. In this edition Erasmus also supplied the Greek text of the last six verses of Revelation (which he had translated from Latin back into Greek in his first edition) from Cardinal Ximenez's Biblia Complutensis. In 1535 Erasmus published the 5th (and final) edition which dropped the Latin Vulgate column but was otherwise similar to the 4th edition. Subsequent versions of Erasmus's Greek New Testament became known as the Textus Receptus.

Now although many traditional Bible translations, most notably the Authorized King James Version (KJV), contain the insertion, modern Bible translations such as the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and others tend to either omit the Comma entirely, or relegate it to the footnotes. The official Latin text of the Catholic Church (a revision of the Vulgate) also excludes it.

Now lets look at a great explanation in this excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland's 'Crowned With Glory':

1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - "These Three Are One"
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

The passage is called the Johannine Comma and is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. [1] However, the verse is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity and should be maintained in our English versions, not only because of its doctrinal significance but because of the external and internal evidence that testify to its authenticity.

The External Support: Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). There are about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not contain the Comma. [2] It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine. The Critical Text considers the reading Iesou (of Jesus) to be the genuine reading instead of Iesou Christou (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7. Yet Iesou is the minority reading with only twenty-four manuscripts supporting it, while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the reading Iesou Christou found in the Textus Receptus. Likewise, in 1 John 2:20 the minority reading pantes (all) has only twelve manuscripts supporting it, while the majority reading is panta (all things) has four hundred ninety-one manuscripts. Still, the Critical Text favors the minority reading over the majority in that passage. This is common place throughout the First Epistle of John, and the New Testament as a whole. Therefore, simply because a reading is in the minority does not eliminate it as being considered original.

While the Greek textual evidence is weak, the Latin textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong. It is in the vast majority of the Old Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts. Although some doubt if the Comma was a part of Jerome's original Vulgate, the evidence suggests that it was. Jerome states:

In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e. of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father; and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is confirmed. [3]

Other church fathers are also known to have quoted the Comma. Although some have questioned if Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, his citation certainly suggests that he did. He writes: "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'." [4] Also, there is no doubt that Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma:

As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." [5]

Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'." [6] Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma. [7] Therefore, we see that the reading has massive and ancient textual support apart from the Greek witnesses.

Internal Evidence: The structure of the Comma is certainly Johannine in style. John is noted for referring to Christ as "the Word." If 1 John 5:7 were an interpretation of verse eight, as some have suggested, than we would expect the verse to use "Son" instead of "Word." However, the verse uses the Greek word logos, which is uniquely in the style of John and provides evidence of its genuineness. Also, we find John drawing parallels between the Trinity and what they testify (1 John 4:13-14). Therefore, it comes as no surprise to find a parallel of witnesses containing groups of three, one heavenly and one earthly.

The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.

Even though Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) does not testify to the authenticity of the Comma, he makes mention of the flawed grammar resulting from its absence. In his Theological Orientations he writes referring to John:

. . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity? [8]

It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton in his book, Doctrine of the Greek Article, argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight. [9]

While the external evidence makes the originality of the Comma possible, the internal evidence makes it very probable. When we consider the providential hand of God and His use of the Traditional Text in the Reformation it is clear that the Comma is authentic.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The first and second editions of Erasmus' Greek text did not contain the Comma. It is generally reported that Erasmus promised to include the Comma in his third edition if a single manuscript containing the Comma could be produced. A Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy) forged a Greek text containing it by translating the Comma from the Latin into Greek. Erasmus was then presented with this falsified manuscript and, being faithful to his word, reluctantly included the Comma in the 1522 edition. However, as has now been admitted by Dr. Bruce Metzger, this story is apocryphal (The Text Of The New Testament, 291). Metzger notes that H. J. de Jonge, a respected specialist on Erasmus, has established that there is no evidence of such events occurring. Therefore, opponents of the Comma in light of the historical facts should no longer affirm this report.

[2] Kurt Aland, in connection with Annette Benduhn-Mertz and Gerd Mink, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: I. Die Katholischen Briefe Band 1: Das Material (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1987), 163-166.

[3] Prologue To The Canonical Epistles. The Latin text reads, "si ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur."

[4] Treatises 1 5:423.

[5] Liber Apologeticus.

[6] Varimadum 90:20-21.

[7] Some other sources include the Speculum (or m of 450 AD), Victor of Vita (489 AD), Victor Vitensis (485 AD), Codex Freisingensis (of 500 AD), Fulgentius (533 AD), Isidore of Seville (636 AD), Codex Pal Legionensis (650 AD), and Jaqub of Edessa (700 AD). Interestingly, it is also found in the edition of the Apostle's Creed used by the Waldenses and Albigensians of the twelfth century.

[8] Fifth Orientation the Holy Spirit.

[9] Actually the 1 John commentary is the work of "Mr. John Reynolds of Shrewsbury," one of the ministers who completed Matthew Henry's commentary, which was left incomplete [only up to the end of Acts] at Henry's death in 1714.

So why would it 'not be found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, or in the passage as quoted by some of the early Church Father'?

Now here is some intereting things I have come across, first lets start with St. Jerome who is best known for his translation of the Bible into Latin, the Vulgate:

'Jerome was commissioned by Damasus, the bishop of Rome, to prepare a standard Latin translation of the Holy Scriptures to replace the former Latin translations which had grown in multiplicity by the late 4th century. Jerome did this, utilizing the Greek as his source for revision of the Latin New Testament for his Vulgate.14 At one point in his work, Jerome noted that the trinitarian reading of I John 5:7 was being removed from Greek manuscripts which he had come across, a point which he specifically mentions. Speaking of the testimony of these verses he writes,


"Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested."[Jerome, Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, from the text of the prologue appended to Codex Fuldensis, Trans. T. Caldwell.]

Thus, we see that Jerome specifically mentioned that this verse was being removed from Greek manuscripts in his day. Logically, we can suppose that for him to recognize the absence of this verse as an omission from the Greek texts, he must have been aware of Greek manuscripts which contained the Comma in the time of his preparation of the Vulgate for the general epistles (395-400 AD), a time much earlier than is suggested by the dating of currently known Comma-containing Greek mss.

Eusebius of Caesarea was the man chosen by Constantine to prepare the "official" copies of the Scriptures that were to be circulated throughout the Empire. Eusebius was likely responsible for the removal of the Comma from the Greek manuscripts which he promulgated for Constantine (Eusebius was in the very least sympathetic to Arianism)16, which formed the basis for such texts as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It is very well possible that even the Byzantine tradition was corrupted by the Arian heretics of the East in the 4th-5th centuries, and that the Eastern Emperors such as Constantius who came under the Arian heresy consciously sought to remove the Comma from the witness of the Greek scriptures of the East. This could answer the question why the Comma is missing from the bulk of the Greek manuscript tradition, but yet is evidenced in other traditions such as those of the Old Latin and the Syriac. Likewise, the systematic process of expunging this verse from new copies of this epistle is suggested by Jerome's complaint, mentioned above. This is especially suggestive when we note that Jerome resided in Bethlehem during the period in which he revised the general epistles for his Vulgate. Bethlehem, of course, is in the region where the Arian domination occurred, and Jerome revised the epistles not very long after orthodox control of the churches was re-established. It is not surprising, then, that he reports the textual corruption represented by the removal of the Comma.

...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 century.25 As such, the Old Latin version is an important foundation for examination of evidence concerning the Comma. This is recognized because, due to its antiquity, it must necessarily have been translated from "young" Greek manuscripts, i.e. those which had not undergone much transmission, possibly even first generation copies. When speaking of the "Old Latin", it must be understood that the version falls into two broad families, the African and European. Both give evidence of the Comma, but the European is of greater weight due to its greater endurance, which yields more evidence for examination.

The African Old Latin textual tradition exists for us today as little more than quotations in the works of early Latin patristic writers, having been displaced by later Latin editions, primarily the Vulgate. However, this was the Latin version which we find used by such men as Tertullian and Cyprian, both of whom were North African authors who either quote or strongly allude to the Johannine Comma in certain of their writings...

It is also known that in his revision of the Latin to produce the Vulgate, while making much use of the Alexandrian type of Greek manuscripts, Jerome concurrently tried to remain true to the readings of the Old Latin texts.30 One would expect from this information, combined with Jerome's explicit statement of corruption concerning the Greek manuscripts of his day due to the removal of the Comma, that it was the Old Latin reading which led to the inclusion of the full I John 5:7 into his Vulgate. Even though we possess no actual copies of the Vulgate from within a century after its production, we can easily surmise both from the aforementioned statement of Jerome (indicating his support for the verse), as well as the secondary witness of several works which cite I John 5:7-8 and which likely used the Vulgate Latin from during that "missing" century31, that the Comma appeared in his original Vulgate edition. '
http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html

Now lets look at the Waldensians:

'Another body of evidence which testifies to the existence of the Comma in the Old Latin is found in the textual tradition passed down through the Waldensians.

The origin of the Waldensians, also known as Vallenses or Vaudois (names meaning "of the valleys"), is a topic which has been the subject of much investigation and dispute. The Waldenses themselves claimed very ancient, even Apostolic, descent. Mitchell relates the belief that the Waldenses originated among the Christians of Rome who were driven out of the city and into the hills by the persecutions of Nero.34 Gilly notes the claim made among some of them to descent from the original missionary work of Irenaeus into the Subalpine regions of what are now northern Italy and southeastern France, generally known as the Piedmont.35 Another tradition suggests the descent of the Waldenses from one Leo, a bishop living in the time of the Emperor Constantine and Pope Sylvester I (314-335 AD). Leo, it is said, broke with the Pope over the growing secularization of Christianity and the avarice of Sylvester himself, and drew away the churches of the Piedmont region after him.36 This claim is also supported by Neander.37 A fourth view, also testifying to the extreme antiquity of the Waldenses, is supported by Faber himself. Faber notes that in the time of Jerome, a deacon named Vigilantius led a sect which was opposed to the veneration of saints and martyrs and to the many other superstitious practices creeping into the faith at that time. Jerome specifically attacked this "heresy" in his Heironymus Adversus Vigilantius, giving some geographic clues as to the location of this sect, which was called the Leonists. Faber notes that Jerome located this group in Northern Italy, "between the waves of the Adriatic and the Alps of King Cottius,"38 in other words, the Piedmont. Faber then argues for the connection of the Leonists with the Waldenses on both geographical grounds and also from the fact that Jerome identifies Vigilantius' place of birth as a town near the Pyrenees named Lugdunum Convenarum39, also called Lyons (not the more famous and northerly Lyons), from whence came the name "Leonists". We should note that Faber's attempt to explain Vigilantius as a Leonist on the basis of his place of origin is not necessary. If indeed the followers of Leo were still around less than 75 years after his time (Vigilantius wrote his treatise against superstitions in 406 AD), then Vigilantius was most likely a member of this sect, or else was closely enough allied to it in thought, if not in fact, to be associated with it by Jerome.

None of these suggestions are necessarily mutually exclusive. That the Christians in Rome would have fled to the hills during the Neroan persecution is certainly plausible, both logically and geographically. Likewise, a different part of the Piedmont, and also Languedoc, could very well have been the object of missionary endeavors instigated by Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons. Likewise, the Leonists as they were called, might very well have been the group standing against corruptions in the faith in the 4th and 5th century. There could indeed have been "cross-pollination" between remnants and local bodies of these various groups in these early centuries. Whatever the origin of the Waldenses, it was almost uniformly understood throughout most of European history that they were an extremely old sect. The Roman Catholic inquisitors in the medieval period testified to its antiquity, men who would normally be expected to assert the newness of the Waldensian doctrines and faith as a means of more easily dismissing it to suppression. However, the Austrian inquisitor of the Diocese of Passau, around 1260 AD, noted the various views concerning their antiquity, and seems to indicate an acceptance of this claim to great age for the Waldensian groups.40 He also refers to them as "Leonists", confirming that the link between these two groups extends beyond Faber's somewhat roundabout attempt. Likewise, the inquisitor Reinerius (~1250 AD) indicates the commonly-held belief that the Leonists were a sect older than the Manichaeans or Arians (thus putting them back well into the 4th century at least), and that they were said to have existed "from time immemorial."41

This view of the Waldensians' antiquity is not without its detractors. For example, Neff and Bender say,


"The tempting and romantic theory of apostolic succession from the apostles down to the Anabaptists through successive Old Evangelical groups, which has been very popular with those among Mennonites and Baptists, who feel the need of such an apostolic succession, always include the Waldenses as the last link before the Anabaptists. It has....no basis in fact."42
Other writers echo this sort of view, and accept instead that the Waldensians, both in name and in doctrine, originated from Peter Waldo, a wealthy Lyon merchant who renounced his wealth and preached the way of poverty and humility, beginning around 1170.43 While attractive to those who do not wish to accept an extreme age for the Waldenses, this view fails to explain why the inquisitors had to note the common opinion that the Waldenses were of great antiquity, older even than the Arians, and had been around for "time immemorial" (a statement hardly applicable to a group which only existed for eighty years). It is to be noted that most of the more recent scholars writing on the subject of the Waldensians are either Roman Catholics or liberal and compromising in theology, both of which are particularly predisposed to reject the view of Waldensian antiquity. However, we have already seen that contemporaries of the Waldensians during the times of the Inquisitions noted the common opinion that the Waldensians were an extremely ancient sect, which would not have been the widespread testimony if they had once recently originated as a distinct group. Further, many of those testifying about the Waldenses, even those who be counted as hostile witnesses, readily admitted the purity and honesty of the lives which the "heretics" led. It is unlikely that a people so noted for their piety and honesty would have been involved in a massive deception to invent for themselves an ancient pedigree....

Isolated in their valleys in the Piedmont and Languedoc, the language which the Waldensians spoke, derived from the Latin which dominated since Roman days, had not changed enough to be considered anything more than merely intermediate between the old Latin and the new vernaculars. We see this intermediary language in use, for instance, in the documents containing the Oaths of Strassburg, a treaty of 842, which cemented the division of the Frankish empire of Charlemagne into three kingdoms, one for each of Charlemagne's sons. Owen notes that the treaty was written in three languages - Latin, Frankish (used in the eastern portion of the empire, approximately today's Germany), and in the lingua romana spoken in the Western portion45, roughly today's France, Savoy, and the Piedmont, which was intermediary between Latin and the Old French which gradually came into being around the 12th century. Owen also notes that the reason for the lingua romana in the western portion of the empire was that the Frankish invaders had mixed with the local population and gradually become submerged among the predominately Latin-speaking populace. The Franks first began their invasion of Gaul late in the 4th century, and had completed their conquest of the entire region by the beginning of the 6th. Thus, the linguistic evidence seems to indicate that the language of the inhabitants of the Waldensian areas, as shown by their ancient written records, stemmed from a source older than the 1170 AD given by Catholic scholars as a date for the start of the Waldensian sect. Instead, the Waldensians were thoroughly steeped in a linguistic tradition dating centuries earlier than the time of Peter Waldo.

Indeed, this slowness to change is also seen in the fact that the Waldenses retained the use of the Old Latin text, as opposed to the innovation of Jerome's Vulgate. Among the Waldensians, the Old Latin, or "Italick", type of text had been used in their liturgies and services for centuries.46 Jacobus supports this thesis, stating that the Old Latin Bible was for 900 years the Bible of the Waldenses and other Western Christians who existed at various times outside the Roman Catholic religion.47

Hearkening back to the belief that at least some of the Waldensians traced back to the missionary work of Irenaeus, we note that there is some circumstantial evidence to support this. The writings of Irenaeus (who wrote in Greek) are noted for the affinities they sometimes show for the Italic Old Latin readings versus those appearing in the Greek tradition.48 This suggests that Irenaeus, who would almost certainly have used Latin in his day to day ministrations as Gaul was a Latinized province, was familiar with and used the Old Latin Bible, probably the Italic form. Nolan also confirms both the antiquity of the "Italick" version likely used by Irenaeus and subsequently passed on to the churches of the Piedmont and southern Gaul, and its sequestration from the later Latin Vulgate appearing out of the apostate church of Rome,


"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] was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate."49

The Waldensian Bibles and manuscripts bear a consistent witness to the existence of the Johannine Comma throughout their continued Old Latin textual tradition, this being entirely outside of (and often in studied opposition to) the Vulgate Latin tradition of Roman Catholicism. We should also note at this point that the Old Latin used by the Waldenses would also have been spared from the ravaged of the Arians, which may explain why the testimony to the Comma in the Waldensian sources is so common, despite the lack of the verse in the "oldest and best" Vulgate codices, Fuldensis and Amiatinus.'

Then early church writers:

'we next find a much more definite use of this verse by Tertullian around 200 AD. In his apologetic work Against Praxeas, He makes the statement concerning the Trinity,


"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."62
While Tertullian here quotes John 10:30 so as to elucidate the point he makes about the unity of essence, and not of number, among the Persons of the Godhead, his language concerning all three Persons is strikingly particular to that found in I John 5:7. He quotes "these three are", and then clarifies that the "one" is a one of substance and essence, not person. Quite clearly, this is a reference to the Comma. What is important to keep in mind, also, is that Against Praxeas is a work specifically designed to explain and defend the doctrine of the Trinity against Sabellianism, which is why Tertullian takes pains to note the unity is one of essence and not of person. Thus, it's use nearly a century and a half before the Trinitarian controversies (during which the supposed silence of the patristics on the verse is said to suggest that they did not know of the verse) to defend the doctrine of the Trinity is remarkable in itself, as it shows that the verse DID find witness and was employed on this very subject....

Some have argued, of course, that Tertullian was not speaking of I John 5:7, because this would upset a great number of Critical presuppositions about the verse. Souter, for instance, gives us his opinion that Tertullian's statement is referring to I John 5:8 and the unity is that of the three earthly witnesses.63 This argument hardly seems plausible, however, since we note that at least two of the three earthly witnesses (the water and the blood) are not persons, and hence are not what Tertullian was referring to when he said that the connection of the witnesses produces three coherent persons. Further, the earthly witnesses are not said in the Scripture to be one, but to agree in one, again casting grave doubt on the idea that they could be the three who are one in essence of which Tertullian writes. The more logical position is to simply accept that this is in all likelihood a reference to the Comma, and move on.

The reason that Critical Text supporters are so loath to admit that this language used by Tertullian is in fact referring to I John 5:7 is that admitting this would destroy the precarious foundation upon which they've built their theories concerning the "introduction of the Comma into the text". Remember, the typical line is that the Comma originated at or around the time of Priscillian in 380 AD (and some still claim he is the source, despite this obvious falsehood having been debunked for a century). To find a patristic writer from 200 AD alluding to the verse would turn this claim on its head (as would the next citation, by Cyprian). More particularly to Tertullian, the reference to this verse gives a serious blow to the claim that this verse did not originally exist in the Old Latin. Tertullian likely had access to the Old Latin manuscripts which were then being promulgated in North Africa. Further, the chance that these manuscripts had been corrupted by his time is much less (being only in existence roughly 30 years) than it was much later when we see Augustine referring to the "multiplicity of Latin witnesses". To find the verse even alluded to by Tertullian indicates that it appeared in the very early Old Latin tradition, and not just the European or Italian, but also the African.

The next witness for the Comma is Cyprian, another North African bishop, who specifically cites the verse on or around 250 AD. He writes,


"He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one;' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"64
This is a very clear quotation of I John 5:7, using language that superbly demonstrates the existence of that verse, around 130 years before Priscillian cites it. The critics who attempt to challenge the reality of this being a quotation of the Comma are merely allowing their predisposition against the verse to overtake their reasoning faculties. Cyprian also alludes to the unique construction of the Comma in one of his personal letters.65 Some have argued per Facundus (a 6th century African bishop) that Cyprian is referring to the eighth verse in this passage. Again, this makes no sense, as Cyprian explicitly refers to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and says that they are one....

From Tertullian onward, we see several early Latin witnesses to the Johannine Comma. These witnesses, all located in North Africa, do not exist in a vacuum. While Tertullian's witness from Against Praxeus is less clear, the fact that Cyprian clearly cites the verse, in the same geographical area, a mere five decades later, and makes it significantly more likely that Tertullian did, indeed, have this verse in mind when he used the particular language that he did. So likewise does the testimony of the Treatise on Rebaptism, mentioned earlier, the text of which also dates to this same general time frame and concerns a doctrinal controversy that took place in this specific geographical area. Cyprian is explicitly corroborated, further, by the fact that Fulgentius, the bishop of Ruspe in North Africa around the turn of the 6th century, both cited the verse in his own writings, and pointedly argued in his treatise against the Arians that Cyprian had specifically cited the Heavenly Witnesses. All of these evidences work together synergistically to shown that the Johannine Comma was recognized in the Latin Bibles of North Africa, both before and after the Vulgate revision was made.

Further witness from the 4th century is provided by Idacius Clarus in Spain, who cited it around 350 AD.72

The testimony of Idacius Clarus is doubly important, for not only does his citation of the verse precede the use of the Comma by Priscillian (demonstrating prima facie that Priscillian could not have been the “originator” of the Comma), but we must remember that Idacius Clarus was one of Priscillian’s foremost opponents in the controversies surrounding the latter’s Sabellian-like teachings. It is extremely unlikely that he, of all people, would have used this verse if Priscillian were known or suspected to have inserted the Comma into the biblical text.

The next to rely upon I John 5:7 in his work is Athanasius, the great (Greek) defender of the orthodox faith in the first half of the fourth century. Gill observes that Athanasius, around 350 AD, cited the verse in his writing against the Arians.73 A clear citation of the Comma is also found in the Synopsis, also know as the Dialogue between an Athanasian and an Arian, attributable to Athanasius......

It is only after all of this prior witness that we find Priscillian citing the Comma in I John 5:7, this around 380 AD. So much for the claim that it crept in as a gloss in the text at the end of the 4th century, having first been "discovered" or "invented" by Priscillian.'

That's from a Catholic Bible, "New American Bible". In fact, a Catholic apologetics web site accuse protestants not being unified because some believe in the trinity and others do not.

Some have even accused the Catholics of fabricating the trinity and possibly inserting the text to make it support it.

More evidence that more is not necessarily better.

It is from the King James....and there are others putting all three together...

1 John 5:6-8
King James Version (KJV)

6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

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

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.



Matthew 28:18-20
King James Version (KJV)

18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


2 Corinthians 13:13-14
King James Version (KJV)

13All the saints salute you.

14The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

So are you saying Catholics changed the Bible, but they themselves use the KJV?

The verse is taken from the King James Version, I am not quite sure why you think it is from somewhere else...

1 John 5:6-8
King James Version (KJV)

6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

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

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

No, I'm asking, are you saying Catholics changed the Bible, but they themselves use the KJV?

Or are you saying Catholics didn't change the Bible?

What about the dead sea scrolls? How do they compare on this text?

Without question the Catholics have made changes to the Bible. Ellen White tells us as much, and the Catholics themselves will tell you.

Regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, I learned recently that there was some possible delay in releasing the trove of scrolls on account of not knowing how to explain them. It is possible that they were first tampered with--at least to add some that agreed more with the Alexandrian line. I'm still trying to research this to see if it is factual.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I come from a Catholic background and I can assure you that the Catholic theologians and the overwhelming majority of the members do not use the KJV especially for doctrinal issues.

k: That's from a Catholic Bible, "New American Bible".
R: It is from the King James....
R: I can assure you that the Catholic theologians and the overwhelming majority of the members do not use the KJV

Is the New American Bible from the King James or isn't it?

The facts speak for themselves........

"The American Standard Version is rooted in the work that was done with the Revised Version (RV)....

The Revised Version (or English Revised Version) of the Bible is a late 19th-century British revision of the King James Version of 1611. It was the first and remains the only officially authorized and recognized revision of the King James Bible. The work was entrusted to over 50 scholars from various denominations in Britain. American scholars were invited to cooperate, by correspondence.[1] The New Testament was published in 1881, the Old Testament in 1885, and the Apocrypha in 1894.[1] The best known of the translation committee members were Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort; their fiercest critic of that period was John William Burgon."

Rick, if you were responding to my comment, and thought "New American Bible" was the same as "The American Standard Version" without explaining why it's the same, you kind of blew your credibility with me regarding paying attention to details. Sorry.

Sorry...here is the correct one..'The New American Bible (NAB) is a Catholic Bible translation first published in 1970. It had its beginnings in the Confraternity Bible, which began to be translated from the original languages in 1948.

It was specifically translated into English by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine under the liturgical principles and reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965).'

Ok.....?

From the SDA commentary:

Textual evidence attests the omission of the passage "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth." The resultant reading of vs. 7, 8 is as follows: "For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The passage as given in the KJV is in no Greek MS earlier than the 15th and 16th centuries. The disputed words found their way into the KJV by way of the Greek text of Erasmus. It is said that Erasmus offered to include the disputed words in his Greek Testament if he were shown even one Greek MS that contained them. A library in Dublin produced such a MS (known as 34), and Erasmus included the passage in his text. It is now believed that the later editions of the Vulgate acquired the passage by the mistake of a scribe who included an exegetical marginal comment in the Bible text that he was copying. The disputed words have been widely used in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, but, in view of such overwhelming evidence against their authenticity, their support is valueless and should not be used. In spite of their appearance in the Vulgate A Catholic commentary on Holy Scripture freely admits regarding these words: "It is now generally held that this passage, called the Comma Johanneum, is a gloss that crept into the text of the Old Latin and Vulgate at an early date, but found its way into the Greek text only in the 15th and 16th centuries".

Unfortunately, the SDA Commentary (the Ellen White portions excluded) is not always a credible source of information. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the trinity is easily supported without the Comma Johanneum.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green, so if the SDA commentary is not always a credible source, could your sources not be credible either?

That is, why should any believe you versus me?

If you have evidence that my sources are false, or not credible, then no--you shouldn't accept them. This, however, may be the difference: I already have such evidence with the SDA Commentaries.

Here's one example: The SDA Bible Commentary speaks of the "rapture" verses in Matthew 24 with the following interpretation.


The trouble with the above is that it is wrong on multiple counts, and has exactly the opposite interpretation from the correct one. Multiple Adventist evangelists are now correctly preaching that the "left" are the righteous. And what is this about "the Greek precludes the idea that is it righteous who are 'left'?" It does no such thing! The author of this obviously had not done his homework. The Greek word aphiemi is translated as "forgiven" far more than it is translated as "dismissed" or "sent away." Last time I checked, it is the righteous who are forgiven, and it is the righteous who are called the remnant, or that which is left after all others are taken out.

This is just one of many such poor commentaries that I have encountered. I could name others, but suffice it to say, I have lost confidence in the commentaries for being of much greater value than a pastor's opinion. Only the inspired portions written by Ellen White can be considered reliable.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm not sure you understand the Greek. Take the verse, 1 John 1:9 AKJV If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

The word "forgive" is the Greek work aphiemi. It means to "send away", "remit", "let go", "leave", "forsake", "yeild up", "lay aside", and it often translated "forgive". In 1 John 1:9, this word is used to indicate that sin is send way, remitted, let go. It has nothing to do with the offended person, and everything to do with the offender. The offended person, God, is not changed by our confession of sins. We are the once changed, and God will cleanse us from all unrighteousness. He will "send away" the sin.

There is another Greek word translated often "forgive", and that word is "charizomai". It can mean, "forgive", "pardon", "give" or "grant", "rescue". This is more in line with our common use in English of the word forgive. If we forgive, we grant pardon. Charizomai has to do with the offended.

The above quote of the SDABC holds true. The wicked are sent away.

APL,

The very fact that some Adventist evangelists and Bible students like myself can see a different interpretation from the one you are seeing still means that the SDABC cannot be true. It says "the Greek precludes the idea that it is the righteous who are 'left.'" But, the problem is, it doesn't. The Greek is not that clear. I have a clear argument to the other side, and that is that it is the "paralambano" crowd that are "taken" to destruction, while the "aphiemi" group is that which remains.

Here's the breakdown of ALL the times the word "aphiemi" is translated to English in the KJV:

leave 52, forgive 47, suffer 14, let 8, forsake 6, let alone 6, misc 13

Of the 146 times the word is used in the entire Bible, it only appears as "forsake" 6 times, and if it is ever translated as "send away," it must be in the 13 miscellaneous translations of the word. That doesn't make a very strong case on your side. To the contrary, it is translated as "forgive" at least one third of all the times it is used, with another third being "leave," a neutral term.

Throughout the Bible, "taken" is typically a bad thing. Conversely, "left" is typically a good thing.

It is partly from these facts that I have drawn my conclusions. The other part is really a much larger study which deserves a thread of its own.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Ummmm..... Did you really mean to say that as it stands?

kland,

It would be a bit like the SDABC saying that "the Greek does not permit an acceptance of the Johannine Comma." Trouble is, the Greek has nothing to do with whether or not the Comma is accepted--people do!

Perhaps that clarifies my point.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC - I gave a specific example (1 John 1:9) where you want to "send away" sin, Aphiemi sin, translated in the KJV, "forgive sin". It is SIN that is sent away, not the sinner. Aphiemi is the right term. Charizomai and Aphiemi are both translated "forgive", but mean very different things. /apl

Why is "send away sin" any better than "forgive sin?" That makes no sense to me. It isn't "sent away," it is "forgiven." And then we are "cleansed" of all unrighteousness. If it were "sent away," to where is it sent? I've never heard of anyone speaking of "sending away" sin before. This phraseology is completely foreign to me. I'll stick with the KJV on this one.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Which may not be as bad as I thought you said. But what you are saying is that "more is better".

I think I've already stated on this thread that I take no special side in the debate concerning the Johannine Comma. I find both sides to be untenable. Neither side has proof. However, I have observed that there is nothing in the Comma which would introduce a contradiction with the rest of the Bible. The Comma agrees with the rest of the Bible, and introduces no new information. Therefore, whether or not the Comma was in the original writing, it seems neither to help nor harm by having been inserted. The main harm is the debate itself, for precious time is wasted discussing it.

Mrs. White speaks well of Erasmus' work, and Erasmus included the Comma after seeing a manuscript which contained it. She never uses the verse, however, and indicates to us that there are places in the Bible where people edited things thinking to make them more clear, but instead have muddied it up.



She speaks well of Erasmus' first work. The third edition of this work, which came out in 1522, contained the comma. Mrs. White appears not to mention it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The KJV is English and the Greek may not always come out well in Greek. Take Love for example, four Greek words, with four different meanings, translated as one English word. Just as Charizomai and Ephiemi being translated forgive. As for "sending away" sin, if you idea of sin being just a legal issue, they perhaps I can see your view. But if sin is more that "legal", and real, as EGW has often portrayed it, then the sending away of sin make much more sense. And the cleansing makes much more sense. And sanctification makes more sense.

I don't know that you could conclude that. She said "many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly rendered". It's a better work, but not all that "speaks well" would imply or that you're implying. And leaves plenty of room for remaining errors.

Have you taken a logic class? Seems I recall you know about object-oriented so I'm a little surprised.

Maybe it is more important to see what the text is saying in context than say definitively whether it is a "comma" or not.
Here is a different look at the text, from Bro. Bill Pinto.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7. This is a clear and plain text proving that the Father, Son and Spirit are one God. How can you continue to reject the Trinity in light of this evidence?

Answer:

The text from 1 John 5:7 lists the three and says they are one. The Trinitarian will understand that to mean that they are one God. This is done by supplying the word "god" after "one" when the Bible places a full stop. But this is not what is stated there. The actual verse explains that the "one" applies to the record that is borne, not to the persons of God. They are all one in bearing the same record. From the context of the chapter (the whole epistle even) we learn that John is not expounding on the doctrine of who is God (or how many persons/beings). The immediate context of that passage offers the simple answer. Let us read verse 8 where another "three" are listed:
8 "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
The oneness spoken of in this verse does not refer to the nature of the spirit, water and blood. It is rather a oneness in agreement. They are one in that they all bear the same testimony: "agree in one". This is obvious to any reader. This is exactly what John means in verse 7. He uses almost the same words, elaborating more on them in verse 8. "These three" (Father, Word, Spirit) he says, "are one". Not one God (or Godhead, as some call it), as many would like to believe, but ONE IN TESTIMONY. They all agree in giving the one testimony, in bearing one record. This is the plain meaning of the text.
What is that testimony that John seeks to elaborate on in this chapter?
5 "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"
10 "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."
What is the record that God gave of His Son? What is that record that is testified to in heaven and earth?
What is that record that "these three are one" in bearing? Please notice how the Father, the Word, and the Spirit bear the same record:
The Father testified: Matthew 3:17 "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Matthew 17:5 "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."
The Son of God testified: John 10:36 "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"
The Spirit also testified through the Apostles (John 15:26; 1 John 5:10):
Acts 5:32 "And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him."
Acts 8:37 "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Acts 9:20 "And straightway he [Paul] preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God."
34 "(and many, many other similar testimonies given by men moved by the spirit of God)"
Therefore, it is not dividing the word of truth correctly when we attempt to use that text to teach that there are three co-equal, co-eternal divine persons or beings. We are also breaking John's testimony when we deny that the Son of God was begotten (John 3:16) of the Father from the days of eternity (Micah 5:2) being so far back in the ages of eternity that it cannot be computed or calculated (7BC 919, ST, May 3, 1899 par. 4). To teach 3 co-equal, co-eternal beings is to deny the Father-Son relationship. It is to deny that Jesus is the Son of the living God, reducing that noble and ineffable relation to a mere metaphor and role-play! People who use this text to teach a trinity (denying the Son of God) only serve the purpose of obliterating the testimony that heaven is trying to reveal to us!

Another quality Flexesite by Omnifico
Copyright © 2011 Restitution Ministries

Interesting, Geoff. The gentleman makes a few good points, but the conclusion is, unfortunately, incorrect.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No, unfortunately you only have to read our literature to see that the conclusion is correct. Spangler speaks of the members of the Godhead taking on even "interchangeable" roles. When I personally asked a theologian "Was Jesus really the Son of God?"
the answer was "No."

Jude1:3 "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

Like Sunday keeping, trinitarianism did not start to appear till later times and was only established in the church in the 4th century, and more explicitly confirmed a few more centuries later. (Specifically the Trinity).
The trinitarian faith we proclaim today was not the faith once delivered to the saints.

Ephesians 4:13 "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:"

The Holy Spirit is not just a nebulous "non-person" presence of the Father.


If we have a "Third Person," it clearly means we have also a "Second Person" and a "First Person," each of which is distinct from the others. In fact, Mrs. White is even the more clear in other statements.


As for Christ's sonship, it began at His birth in Bethlehem. That He was counted as having been "begotten from eternity" is a tribute to God's unwavering love commitment toward His creatures, even undeserving, fallen ones like us. He was also "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world." But was He slain during Creation Week? I mean, really slain? Of course not. It was only by promise. The same is true of His Sonship.

The word "begotten" in John 3:16 is crucial. It is too bad that it is so lightly treated, frequently misunderstood, and omitted from the modern versions. Though we do not have a better word for it in English, it essentially means "become-son." Jesus is the only member of the Godhead to have ever had the experiencing of becoming a Son. He was not a son before His incarnation. It was then, and only then, that He "became flesh and dwelt among us." Number 23:19 is clear that as of that point in time, God was not a "son." It hadn't happened yet.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

"Soon He must leave them to face the world without the comfort of His visible presence. He knew how bitter hate and unbelief would persecute them, and He desired to prepare them for their trials." {DA 410.3} But He said He would never leave them or forsake them.
He is always with us by His Holy Spirit. In another place she says the Holy Spirit is Himself, divested of the personality of humanity.


"As for Christ's sonship, it began at His birth in Bethlehem. That He was counted as having been "begotten from eternity" is a tribute to God's unwavering love commitment toward His creatures," Your comment.

That is a possibility, but does the evidence support it?

"Angels were expelled from heaven because they would not work in harmony with God. They fell from their high estate because they wanted to be exalted. They had come to exalt themselves, and they forgot that their beauty of person and of character came from the Lord Jesus. This fact the [fallen] angels would obscure, that Christ was the only begotten Son of God, and they came to consider that they were not to consult Christ." {TDG 128.2}

"The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both. About the throne gathered the holy angels, a vast, unnumbered throng--"ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands" (Revelation 5:11.), the most exalted angels, as ministers and subjects, rejoicing in the light that fell upon them from the presence of the Deity. Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father's will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God's plan, but would exalt the Father's glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love." {PP 36.2}

Here is that quote you referred to.

That quote is among the more clear in delineating the personality of the Holy Spirit as being separate from that of Jesus. After all, if the Spirit is really just the presence of Jesus, that would make Jesus omnipresent after all, right? But the Spirit cannot be Jesus, because Jesus is NOT omnipresent, having given that up in His human incarnation, whereas the Spirit is called "the Omnipresent." So they have very distinct, and separate roles.




Again, Jesus was begotten from eternity. What does this mean? Does it not have something to do with the relationship held among the members of the Godhead? Mrs. White also quotes Jesus' prayer in John and expounds on it as having to do with the decision between God the Father and Jesus that gave Him to be our Savior.



Regarding personalities of the Godhead, and their individualities whilst at the same time being "one," Mrs. White says the following:


So Mrs. White clarifies the sort of "oneness" that is spoken of in 1 John 5:7-8.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

"That quote is among the more clear in delineating the personality of the Holy Spirit as being separate from that of Jesus."

I hope you can forgive me if I am blind, but I just cannot see the quote saying what you say.
"The Holy Spirit is Himself divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent."
The "himself" spoken of here is Jesus. The quote is consistent with 2 Cor. 3:17 "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty."

Neither the Bible or the prophet say the Father is the Son, or the Son is the Father, but they both say the Lord is the Spirit. It is also consistent with Psalm 139:7 "Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?" Notice the Hebrew poetry of repeating the same meaning in different words. And the consistency with, "The greatness of God is to us incomprehensible. "The Lord's throne is in heaven" (Psalm 11:4); yet by His Spirit He is everywhere present. He has an intimate knowledge of, and a personal interest in, all the works of His hand." Ed. 14.
"No intangible principle, no impersonal essence or mere abstraction, can satisfy the needs and longings of human beings in this life of struggle with sin and sorrow and pain. It is not enough to believe in law and force, in things that have no pity, and never hear the cry for help. We need to know of an almighty arm that will hold us up, of an infinite Friend that pities us. We need to clasp a hand that is warm, to trust in a heart full of tenderness. And even so God has in His Word revealed Himself." {FLB 54.3}
"Christ said, "It is expedient for you that I go away." No one could then have any preference because of his location or personal contact with Christ. The Saviour would be accessible to all alike, spiritually, and in this sense he would be nearer to us all than if he had not ascended on high." {RH, January 2, 1913 par. 6}
This is also consistent with "What saith our Saviour? "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." ...
When trials overshadow the soul, remember the words of Christ, remember that He is an unseen presence in the person of the Holy Spirit, and He will be the peace and comfort given you, manifesting to you that He is with you, the Sun of Righteousness, chasing away your darkness. "If a man love me," Christ said, "he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." --Letter 124, 1897. {DG 185.2}

"The work of the Holy Spirit is immeasurably great. It is from this source that power and efficiency come to the worker for God; and the holy Spirit is the Comforter, as the personal presence of Christ to the soul. {HM, November 1, 1893 par. 28}

That the Holy Spirit is the personal invisible presence of the Father and Son is further shown in the following.
"To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2. (DA 22)
This is also consistent with,
Matt. 11:27 "All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and [he] to whomsoever the Son will reveal [him]." IF the Holy Spirit was a seperate individual being like the Father and the Son, then surely he also would have known the Father.
So the person of the Holy Spirit is not another individual being, but the personal invisble presence of the Father and the Son. Yes, there is not only a Father and a Son, but a third person, not in the sense of a different person, but in the sense of different manifestation of their personal presence.

It is also interesting how Christ prays that we would be one with Him as He is one with the Father, not one in a Trinity.

geoffm, according to John 14, who do you see is the Holy Spirit?

Sorry Kland, I did not notice your question till this morning.

John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
14:17 [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.
14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you."

Who did they know who had dwelt with them and was going to be in them?

Rev. 3:20 "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."
Col. 1:27 "To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:"

"As by faith we look to Jesus, our faith pierces the shadow, and we adore God for His wondrous love in giving us Jesus the Comforter. . . ." {OFC 26.6}

"The reason why the churches are weak and sickly and ready to die is that the enemy has brought influences of a discouraging nature to bear upon trembling souls. He has sought to shut Jesus from their view as the Comforter, as one who reproves, who warns, who admonishes them, saying, "This is the way, walk ye in it." RC 21. That is exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity does. The Comforter is not Jesus in an invisible form, but someone else.

"Let them study the seventeenth of John, and learn how to pray and how to live the prayer of Christ. He is the Comforter. He will abide in their hearts, making their joy full." RC 200.

That is consistent with; 2 Cor. 3:17 "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty."

"Soon He must leave them to face the world without the comfort of His visible presence. He knew how bitter hate and unbelief would persecute them, and He desired to prepare them for their trials." {DA 410.3} But He has promised that He will never leave us or forsake us. So we will not have the comfort of His visible presence, but we will most certainly have the comfort of His invisible presence.

I see the Comforter of John 14 as both the Father and Jesus dwelling in us.

"As for Christ's sonship, it began at His birth in Bethlehem."

I am puzzled by this comment that seems to be at odds with the evidence of Scripture and S of P.
John 3:17 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."
It does not say He sent a co-worker who became a Son. To be able to send His Son into the world, He must already have a Son.

"While the Son of a human being, He became the Son of God in a new sense. Thus He stood in our world--the Son of God, yet allied by birth to the human race." {1SM 226.2}
He could not become the Son of God in a new sense if He was not already the Son of God.

"Let us group together the blessed assurances of His love as precious treasures, that we may look upon them continually. The Son of God leaving His Father's throne, clothing His divinity with humanity, that He might rescue man from the power of Satan; His triumph in our behalf,... --these are the pictures with which God bids us gladden the chambers of the soul. {LHU 251.5}

"Angels were expelled from heaven because they would not work in harmony with God. They fell from their high estate because they wanted to be exalted. They had come to exalt themselves, and they forgot that their beauty of person and of character came from the Lord Jesus. This fact the [fallen] angels would obscure, that Christ was the only begotten Son of God, and they came to consider that they were not to consult Christ." {TDG 128.2}
This was a long time before the incarnation. It is also very interesting that it says, "This fact the [fallen] angels would obscure, that Christ was the only begotten Son of God."
Who is trying to obscure this fact? Very similar to the following.
"The reason why the churches are weak and sickly and ready to die is that the enemy has brought influences of a discouraging nature to bear upon trembling souls. He has sought to shut Jesus from their view as the Comforter,..." {RC 21.3}

These facts [Jesus being the Son of God before the incarnation, and Jesus being the Comforter] are both obscured by the Trinity doctrine. No wonder the pioneers saw the Trinity doctrine as papal error that needed to be given up.

"The greatness of God is to us incomprehensible. "The Lord's throne is in heaven" (Psalm 11:4); yet by His Spirit He is everywhere present. He has an intimate knowledge of, and a personal interest in, all the works of His hand. . . ." {FLB 54.2}

That is why the HS is just as much a person as God is a person, because it is His personal but invisible presence, not some impersonal force or influence.

Incidently, would we say that the Father is not omnipresent because He is only present by the means of His Spirit? Only if you take the trinitarian view that the HS is a different distinct person from the Father and the Son. If the Holy Spirit were a seperate distinct individual, then neither the Father nor the Son could be called omni-present, but only the Holy Spirit
would fit that.

I should include the following.
“Lo, I am with you alway;” [Mark 16:15; Matthew 28:20.] when on the day of Pentecost the promised Comforter descended, and the power from on high was given, and the souls of the believers thrilled with the conscious presence of their ascended Lord,..."
GC 350.
Just one of many quotes where the Comforter is spoken of interchangeably with Christ, because it is His invisible presence.
That is why the HS can be described as the third person of the Godhead, because we do not have just a Father and a Son, but we have their invisible Spirit, by which they are everywhere personally present. That is the pioneer understanding of one of the fundamentals of our faith, from which we were warned numerous times not to depart from.

Sounds as though you are qualifying the person of the Holy Spirit to simply be the presence of Christ Himself. In such a setup, Christ, who Mrs. White tells us cannot be everywhere at once (i.e. He is not "omnipresent"), you would introduce a contradiction, for certainly the Holy Spirit is omnipresent. Mrs. White says "Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally." Therefore, if the Holy Spirit is Christ's "personal presence" as you have indicated, one would nearly be forced to conclude that the Holy Spirit cannot be omnipresent.

You cannot have it both ways. As for me, the logical conclusion is to accept that the Holy Spirit is His own person, separate and distinct from the persons of either the Father or the Son.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Let me ask you: When was Christ "begotten?" Was He begotten TWICE?

Indeed He did. At the point in time when this text was written, Jesus had been already incarnated among us.

Good point. He was already a "promised Son." When He came to earth, His Sonship materialized into actual fact. The promise of His coming pre-existed Adam and Eve.

Within the above statement is a big contextual clue as to Mrs. White's intent in writing that passage. The clue is the other title Ellen White uses: "Christ." When did Jesus become called "Christ?" You see, both of those terms are New Testament terms, which arose post-incarnation. How then would she refer to "Christ" for that period of history? It is not that Mrs. White is trying to make a point of Jesus having already become Christ or the "only begotten Son of God." It is rather that the angels were not accepting Jesus' true position as a member of the Godhead.

We all know that the "Son of God" intones a divine being who is equal with God. Mrs. White uses the term to emphasize that position which Christ held.

Jesus said:

Notice what Jesus says here: "another Comforter."

Notice, too, what Jesus does NOT say here: "that _I_ may abide with you for ever."

Both of those points help us to understand the position of the Comforter. Jesus was a Comforter, certainly. Yet He was not the only one.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Firstly, I agree with geoffm. Secondly, kland makes a good point about Jn 14.

As for this, GC, I must differ (see below).

Here's the full original, or as much as we need.

His humanity cumbered him from omnipresence only on earth, but not in heaven. He appeared and disappeared from meeting rooms, remember. just not able to be present in more than one place.

Don't miss the point, here! She says that it was good to go his Father, who would send the Holy Spirit for them - him and his Father - to be present, together - remember Jn 14:23! - with his people.

As for the Spirit, in this Manuscript Release, one has to look very closely. The Holy Spirit is Jesus himself personally present with each of us, together in fact with his Father among us. You quote Jn 14:16, but note v.18-23. The divine family is busy, in our behalf, and with & within us!

As for references to the only begotten Son in the SOP, she is saying that it's true since before creation began; any other reading has to reinterpret her plain language, not so.

This makes no sense at all. Where does Mrs. White say this?

Mrs. White says His humanity prevented Him from being omnipresent. Does He or does He not still have His humanity?

The language is plain enough for a child to understand here. It is impossible for Jesus to be "omnipresent" in Heaven and not "omnipresent" on earth. That would be like saying He was "all-knowing" in Heaven but not on earth. You can't have it both ways. Either He is or He isn't--for BOTH places. "Omni" means ALL. Not "some."

As for His appearance and disappearance, I recall the angels having something to do with His disappearance once or twice, is that not so? We simply do not know all of what happens behind the scenes, and it is prudent to stay on terra firma rather than enter the shifting sands of speculation.

Going back to the primary topic of this thread, there are numerous passages in the Bible which elucidate the Godhead. Here are but a few.


The last one (in red) is in dispute, largely wishing to be rejected by those who would claim that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit was thus inserted into the Bible. However, the evidence does not bear that out. Many times, in other places, the several members of the Godhead are spoken of--to the extent that this "Comma" is vestigial to the doctrine.

Consider the following verse:

Notice the phrases "Spirit of God" and "gospel of Christ?" What might these have in common?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

"Notice, too, what Jesus does NOT say here: "that _I_ may abide with you for ever." Your comment.

No, but you only have to go to verse 18, "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you."

The Bible and S of P never call Christ "a" Comforter.

"Good point. He was already a "promised Son." When He came to earth, His Sonship materialized into actual fact. The promise of His coming pre-existed Adam and Eve." Your comment.

If He was only a promised Son, then the fulfillment of the promise would not make him a Son in a new sense.

You are, of course, just going into semantics now...because the phrase "a Comforter" does not appear next to "Christ" you are technically correct. But that Christ IS a comforter to us is rather clear.


And here is "another Comforter" (as Jesus put it). The word "another" is never used to mean "the same one."


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

"But that Christ IS a comforter to us is rather clear."

"With the consecrated worker for God, in whatever place he may be, the Holy Spirit abides. The words spoken to the disciples are spoken also to us. The Comforter is ours as well as theirs. {AG 195.3}
There is no comforter like Christ, so tender and so true. He is touched with the feeling of our infirmities. His Spirit speaks to the heart...Wherever we are, wherever we may go, He is always there, one given in Christ's place, to act in His stead. He is always at our right hand, to speak soothing, gentle words; to support, sustain, uphold, and cheer. The influence of the Holy Spirit is the life of Christ in the soul."

"That Christ should manifest Himself to them, and yet be invisible to the world, was a mystery to the disciples. They could not understand the words of Christ in their spiritual sense. They were thinking of the outward, visible manifestation. They could not take in the fact that they could have the presence of Christ with them, and yet He be unseen by the world. They did not understand the meaning of a spiritual manifestation." {RC 129.2} Perhaps from that we can better understand the following;
" But Jesus had assured them that he would send the Comforter, as an equivalent for his visible presence." {3SP 256.1}

"Henceforth through the Spirit, Christ was to abide continually in the hearts of His children. Their union with Him was closer than when He was personally with them. The light, and love, and power of the indwelling Christ shone out through them, so that men, beholding, "marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus." Acts 4:13. {SC 74.1}

"I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you" (John 14:18). The divine Spirit that the world's Redeemer promised to send is the presence and power of God. He will not leave His people in the world destitute of His grace, to be buffeted by the enemy of God, and harassed by the oppression of the world; but He will come to them." {YRP 39.5}

"Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is Himself divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent." {14MR 23.3}

To summarize, The Holy Spirit is Christ Himself, in another invisible form. That is why He said He would send another Comforter. This is re-inforced by; 2 Cor. 3:17 "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty."

That's not what the Bible teaches.

How is it that if Christ is "cumbered by humanity" so that He cannot be but in one place at a time, the Holy Spirit descended from the sky upon Him at His baptism?

Why is it that we are told there are THREE powers, and THREE persons?

Can two persons = one person? Hardly. Two never does equal one, at least, that's not how I learned math in school.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

"That's not what the Bible teaches."

I am really puzzled Green Cochoa, I just quoted,
2 Cor. 3:17 "Now the Lord is that Spirit:" and you say that is not what the Bible teaches.

"They could not take in the fact that they could have the presence of Christ with them, and yet He be unseen by the world. They did not understand the meaning of a spiritual manifestation." {RC 129.2}

I did not write the words you dispute about the Spirit being Christ Himself, divested of the personality of humanity.
But there is no need to manufacture difficulties where they don't exist. The Holy Spirit is also how the Father is invisibly present with us. There is only one Holy Spirit by which the Father and Son are everywhere present.
"...to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.." Eph.3:16
"In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."
The Holy Spirit could descend on Him because it is also the manifestation of the Father's presence.

We have to have three great powers, because we do not just have a Father and a Son in heaven, but we have this other power whose nature is a mystery into which we are not to delve, by which they are present with us.
"It is not essential for us to be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Spirit is the Comforter, "the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father... The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the Lord has not revealed it to them."
AA 51.
"And the Saviour promised that His presence would be always with them. Through the Holy Spirit He would be even nearer to them than when He walked visibly among men." {MH 104.1}

"and the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, as the personal presence of Christ to the soul." CTr 365. Not the presence of someone else.

"Henceforth through the Spirit, Christ was to abide continually in the hearts of the children. Their union with Him was closer than when He was personally with them." FLB 62.

Oops! I thought the first posting didn't go through.

No problem.

As the 2nd one contained additional information, I deleted the 1st one.

Geoff,

The Spirit is a separate Person from that of Christ. Mrs. White makes clear that the Godhead includes three persons. That being the case, it sounds almost as if you are arguing for a Christ which is two persons.

How does that work for you? It makes me think of many, not-so-positive cliches, like "dual-personality" and "two-faced." Even twins are still two separate persons who can each relate with others in his/her own way and personality.

So, we have a logical conundrum. My explanation for it is simple: the Holy Spirit is God's agent to represent Christ to us while Christ Himself is absent.

As Jesus said, "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). Did Jesus lie? Of course not. But the Bible also says "no man hath seen God at any time" (John 1:18). How can this be?

I explain that one by saying that Jesus is a representation of the Father to us, and while no one has actually seen the Father, Jesus' character was just like that of the Father.

Jesus was not saying that He was the Father. He was saying that He was like the Father, and that we should not feel so estranged from the Father, for the Father loved us just like Jesus did.

Likewise, Mrs. White is not here saying that the Holy Spirit is Jesus, but that He represents Jesus in the identical character and fashion as Jesus represented to us the Father. In having the Holy Spirit we have Jesus, just as in seeing Jesus we see the Father.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes, but you are comparing apples with oranges.
She does not say when we see Christ we see the Spirit or vice versa.
She says the Spirit is Himself, divested of the personality of humanity, and like wise the Scripture, "Now the Lord is that Spirit." These quotes have already been referenced.

"They could not take in the fact that they could have the presence of Christ with them, and yet He be unseen by the world. They did not understand the meaning of a spiritual manifestation." {RC 129.2}
Trinity thinking seems to make this fact hard to be understood too.

That comparison is NOT one of apples and oranges. It is a fair and equal comparison.

We are clearly told that there are three persons in the Godhead. Each of the three is equal to each of the others in being God. We are told they are of the same "substance."

That's all apples.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Please do not misunderstand me. You quoted Jesus, "If you have seen me you have seen the Father" to say that does not mean that Jesus is the Father. And I totally agree with you on that.
But the Bible speaks differently about the Spirit. It never says that the Father is the Son or vice versa, but it does say, "Now the Lord is that Spirit," just as the prophet says that "the Holy Spirit is Himself, divested of the personality of humanity," and in another place "They could not take in the fact that they could have the presence of Christ with them, and yet He be unseen by the world." In other words He would be with them in another, but invisible form.
If I take third person to mean a separate distinct individual, then I am brought into direct conflict with Scripture and other of her own statements. If I allow her to define what she means,
then there is no problem.

In that case, you are in direct conflict. The word "person" connotes exactly what you are attempting to deny.


You may need to find other ways to understand the passages under study than to try to redefine "person."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Trinity.
How does that work for you? It makes me think of many, not-so-positive cliches, like "three's a crowd".

Now, do you think that is valid logic? But something that may be is it makes me think of the Papacy. How about you?

And speaking of logic (or not), what's this about talking about "person" and then giving the definition of "personality"?

Good question. It does appear illogical, I suppose, given the evolution of our modern vernacular. Considering the following statements in which Mrs. White uses the word "personalities" in reference to God.



We don't, today, typically associate the word "personality" with the word "individual." But that is exactly what Mrs. White is doing, and with reason. After all, "personality" meant "That which constitutes an individual a distinct person" and further relates to one's conscious "existence."

As for your logic, you compared an apple with an orange. I was looking at a single "person," and considering that person to have a dual-existence (two persons?), whereas you are considering multiple persons and are simply arguing the correct count of them.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.