Oneness vs Monotheism

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

You all are making Oneness doctrine totally complicated. Reducing it to mere Unitarianism. I rejoice that the Oneness teaching that brought me into Oneness was clear cut, hard hitting, and to the point.

Y7es that is why you think we are of Klindon and not of Christ..and now you thinki we are unitarians.
If you could understood you should just say amen. |
Serious, WHO SAID THAT JESUS IS NOT THE FATHER? just tell me that, otherwise ,nobody said that, you seem like speaking to...? to whom?

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

And I should have made this clearer.

Above, I was not asking about the textual issues, about which I have written extensively, and could divert this thread.

My question was about the solecisms that are in the Greek Critical Text (and the Majority Text for the heavenly witnesses) for these two verses.

I find that Christians truly fluent in Greek, especially native fluency combined with Biblical Greek, can be very helpful in the discussions of these two verses.

Steven

Οκ ,so you got it.i righted about those two verse, (except if you were borred to read )
The Majority text has God manifest in flesh.
(now they say that this was a mistake because the Alexandrian Text has God but some scholars think that is not.
Greek word GOD is ΘΕΟΣ so when in a text (always Capital) and half words.
ΘΕΟΣ= ΘΣ. now a scholar so that the text may was ΟΣ which is ΟΥΤΟΣ and means WHOM. and that a - entred to the letter Ο by mistake from the behind page and so looks like Θ.
1) Ι dont know if this is true, i mean i dont know if it was really a mistake.
2) And an other think , i dont believe that all the latter Majority Texts were made from the same sources
3) The most old texts Minority are Vatiacanus and Sinaitic (which i told you ,i dont trust them) The first text has ΟΣ (WHOM) and the snd has :Ω (WHICH).
4) We live out the WHICH ,because it does not make any since, so the other possibility makes clear too that speaks for God.But i believe that it does not make any sense...:
If a clause starts with OS (WHO) which is masculine gender it has to agree with antecedent. It has to agree with the latter word. The latter word is "the mistery" and is not masculine, So it does not make sense, except if we take the latest Masculine object, which is God. (this is vary rare) and also if it speaks for the latter ,which is the mystery how the mystery bacame He? Who received up in glory? The mystery? And again is not Masculin but neutral ,and had to be Ω and not ΟΣ.
(There are some who say that means is refereed to Christ, Is strange to speak for Christ without make any reference to him before (normally in the same clause, or to the previous latest word).
Read it for your self: :
15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how it is necessary to conduct oneself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. 16 And confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness, He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and was received up in glory

For the 1 John ,i told you ,not in any Greek Text, if you want read it first without the coma and then add the come to see of it fits:
6 This is He who came through water and blood—Jesus Christ, not only by the water, but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is He who witnesses, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that bear witness: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; because this is the testimony of God which He has testified concerning His Son.

[Esaias]

Is the "Majority Greek Text" the official "Patriarchal Text" of the Greek Orthodox Church or the Antiochian and Constantinopolitan Orthodox Churches?

Just wondering.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Is the "Majority Greek Text" the official "Patriarchal Text" of the Greek Orthodox Church or the Antiochian and Constantinopolitan Orthodox Churches?

Just wondering.

1)yes the Patriarchal" text of the Greek Orthodox Church is based on the Majority texts (but on the 9-13 centuries)
2) The Antiochian Orthodox Church is the Greek Orthosox Church one and the same.
3) Constantinopolitan or "Patriarchate of Constantinople" is of Orthodox Doctrine ,it keeps the title og the Roman-Greek Church before the great schism.

(however if you want the Majority Text ,you can read Robinson Byzantine Text, is the same Majority Text but uses only texts within 3-9 centuries)

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Is the "Majority Greek Text" the official "Patriarchal Text" of the Greek Orthodox Church or the Antiochian and Constantinopolitan Orthodox Churches? Just wondering.

No. They made important Reformation Bible corrections to the Greek Bible tradition, if you look for the 'majority'. This included the heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37.

the Greek and Russian Orthodox acceptance of the Reformation Bible correction/inclusion of the heavenly witnesses
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...enly-witnesses

The idea of a separate Geek Majority Text is about 40 years old. There are a few distinct Greek Majority and Byzantine editions. (Since the Byzantine mss are 95%+ of the mss. the two editions will be fairly similar, although Revelation is particularly distinct.)

Originally Posted by peter83

(however if you want the Majority Text ,you can read Robinson Byzantine Text, is the same Majority Text but uses only texts within 3-9 centuries)

This is not the methodology of the Robinson-Pierpont edition.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by peter83

the text may was ΟΣ which is ΟΥΤΟΣ and means WHOM. ...
4) We live out the WHICH ,because it does not make any since, so the other possibility makes clear too that speaks for God.But i believe that it does not make any sense...:
If a clause starts with OS (WHO) which is masculine gender it has to agree with antecedent. It has to agree with the latter word. The latter word is "the mistery" and is not masculine, So it does not make sense, except if we take the latest Masculine object, which is God. (this is vary rare) and also if it speaks for the latter ,which is the mystery how the mystery bacame He? Who received up in glory? The mystery? And again is not Masculin but neutral ,and had to be Ω and not ΟΣ.
(There are some who say that means is refereed to Christ, Is strange to speak for Christ without make any reference to him before (normally in the same clause, or to the previous latest word).
Read it for your self: :
15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how it is necessary to conduct oneself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. 16 And confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness, He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and was received up in glory

This is an explanation of the solecism in the Critical Text.

Originally Posted by peter83

For the 1 John ... , if you want read it first without the coma and then add the come to see of it fits:
6 This is He who came through water and blood—Jesus Christ, not only by the water, but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is He who witnesses, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that bear witness: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; because this is the testimony of God which He has testified concerning His Son.

Did you notice that verse 7-8 has a grammatical problem in the Critical Text Greek?

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

This is an explanation of the solecism in the Critical Text.

Did you notice that verse 7-8 has a grammatical problem in the Critical Text Greek?

Ηι ,how are you? I hope well
No , i only notice that verse 7-8 does not make sense in the general context of the chapter. (what Grammatical problem you see? If you mean the masculine words (Three that bear witness is for Masculine,while the water,blood,spirit are neutral ), yes it seems strange, but that is for both with or without the Coma.

(As for the 1 Timothy 3:16. Yes it does not make sense the word WHO (OS) . It is not grammatical correct. And finally if we look to the first 3-5 centuries church "fathers" they always quote "God manifest in flesh" .

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by peter83

Ηι ,how are you? I hope well No , i only notice that verse 7-8 does not make sense in the general context of the chapter. (what Grammatical problem you see? If you mean the masculine words (Three that bear witness is for Masculine,while the water,blood,spirit are neutral ), yes it seems strange, but that is for both with or without the Coma. .

Doing well, thanks.

On the heavenly and earthly witnesses ... not really. From my discussions with Greek speakers, and the 1782 writing of the learned world-class scholar Eugenius Bulgaris.

When the two verses are together, they become essentially one grammatical unit, guided, governed by the masculine grammar of the heavenly witnesses. There have been some good quotes on this from gentlemen fluent in Greek.

And I do agree that the whole sense of the section is mangled without the heavenly witnesses. You have a wooden redundancy in verse 6 to 8 if you only have the earthly witnesses, and you are missing the harmony of this reference

1 John 5:9
If we receive the witness of men,
the witness of God is greater:
for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

which points back to the heavenly witnesses, which are not there in the modern corruption text.

Originally Posted by peter83

(As for the 1 Timothy 3:16. Yes it does not make sense the word WHO (OS) . It is not grammatical correct. And finally if we look to the first 3-5 centuries church "fathers" they always quote "God manifest in flesh" .

"Always" is a bit of an overstatement, however they do give much stronger support to "God was manifest.." than either the who or which corruptions.

Here we agree 100$ on the basics. Those brethren reading a Westcott-Hort version here have a grating, bald grammatical error in their Greek text. The English editions often try to hide this error by deliberate mistranslation.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Doing well, thanks.

On the heavenly and earthly witnesses ... not really. From my discussions with Greek speakers, and the 1782 writing of the learned world-class scholar Eugenius Bulgaris.

When the two verses are together, they become essentially one grammatical unit, guided, governed by the masculine grammar of the heavenly witnesses. There have been some good quotes on this from gentlemen fluent in Greek.

And I do agree that the whole sense of the section is mangled without the heavenly witnesses. You have a wooden redundancy in verse 6 to 8 if you only have the earthly witnesses, and you are missing the harmony of this reference

1 John 5:9
If we receive the witness of men,
the witness of God is greater:
for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

which points back to the heavenly witnesses, which are not there in the modern corruption text.

"Always" is a bit of an overstatement, however they do give much stronger support to "God was manifest.." than either the who or which corruptions.

Here we agree 100$ on the basics. Those brethren reading a Westcott-Hort version here have a grating, bald grammatical error in their Greek text. The English editions often try to hide this error by deliberate mistranslation.

Υes they try to hide the error.
For the 1 John 5:5-7 is not a grammatical error not at all .
For me yes here is like a deflection on the text if i read it with the comma.
It speaks for the Testimony that the Father gave for His Son and so the witnesses we have is the Blood, the Water and the Spirit. The Spirit is true!
First speaks about the birth of Jesus and the significance to believe so ,that Jesus is the Son of God (1-5) and then explains the water-blood (birth-death) witness that He left (6-8) and ends with the Spirit ,because this is the strongest witness for His life and death.
And continues by testing that this is the Testimony of the Father for his Son.
Here maybe come the interpolation to make it seems like Father-Son -Spirit testimony on heaven, so is three elements here on earth too.

Except that there is not a single Greek text that it contains the comma, there is not any evidence from the church "fathers".
There is not any early trinitarian apologist that used this verse as evidence for trinity. I suppose that if this verse where known ,then had to be the "bread and butter" of trinitarians apologetics.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by peter83

there is not any evidence from the church "fathers". .

Since you are repeating this major error, I will have to correct you.

Cyprian c. 250 AD has a quote that directly uses the verse. A second quote from Cyprian, and Tertullan quotes, and a quote from Hundredfold Martyrs, are supportive as well as allusions.

Jerome specifically references the heavenly witnesses in the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, which he wrote to Eustochium c. 400 AD. Even mentioning how it was being dropped by unfaithful translators (in context, scribes as well.) This prologue is in our earliest extant Vulgate manuscript, Codex Fuldensis.

The Council of Carthage of 484 AD affirmed the verse, 400+ bishops in dialog with the 'Arians' under Hunneric, using the phrase "clearer than the light".

The Disputation of Athanasius to Arius at Nicaea references the verse. (It may have been simply with an Arian.)

And much, much more.

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

As for the grammar, I would be happy to share more on that topic. However, I think the myths that you have received about the text have affected your viewpoint. Once you realize that the heavenly witnesses, like Acts 8:37, was part of the authentic text from John, it will be easier for you to compare the two texts grammatically.

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

Steven