View Full Version : How Do You Answer This??
In the bible it says there is 3 that bear record in heaven,the Father,Word,Holy Ghost
My question is how is the Father & the Holy Ghost 1 & the same if here it seperates them?
And is this talking before Christ. or after Jesus died on the cross?
what baffles me is if the Father is Spirit & he is,then how can the Holy Ghost bear a record ( being Spirit) being seperate from the Father but yet being the Father himself?:shrug:
I think I just hurt my brain :icon_craz
milady
12-10-2006, 02:58 AM
What verse?
What verse?
1 john 5:7
Ive tried my best to ask the question in the right manner but sometimes in my mind I cant put it in the right words
1 john 5:7
Ive tried my best to ask the question in the right manner but sometimes in my mind I cant put it in the right words
DOES ANYONE KNOW?...Ive typed this just to keep this thread as close to the top as I can til I get an answer
dllong
12-10-2006, 12:29 PM
My question is "three what?" Three; persons, records, G_ds? The bible isn't clear as to what the 3 are.
Personally I believe the Three are "testimonies".
Bro. Dave
TRUE...I listened to a debate between Gordon Mcgee & Mr.toddy
& that was Mcgees argument....3 what
DOES ANYONE KNOW?...Ive typed this just to keep this thread as close to the top as I can til I get an answer
34 ppl & still nothing
mizpeh
12-10-2006, 10:56 PM
34 ppl & still nothing
This is taken from Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament
http://studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=1jo&chapter=5&verse=7
1 John 5:7
For there are three who bear witness (oti treiv eisin oi marturountev). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en twi ouranwi o pathr, o logov kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin kai treiv eisin oi marturountev en thi ghi (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 last clause belongs to verse 8 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=1jo+14:8). The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian's exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus.
It is an interesting commentary on that verse by a Trinitarian.
mizpeh
12-10-2006, 11:00 PM
I think I just hurt my brain :icon_craz
Your brain would hurt even more if you tried to figure out how Trinitarians believe God has one mind which is shared by three persons.
It is an interesting commentary on that verse by a Trinitarian.
Im not a trinitarian,Im just trying to get a better understanding...Im not gonna get into what should & should not be in the bible cause I belive God protects his word...some claim Mark 16:17 is questionable...I got that from bro.Bernard's book
Your brain would hurt even more if you tried to figure out how Trinitarians believe God has one mind which is shared by three persons.
True....:icon_laug
Bro.Sam
12-11-2006, 01:28 AM
1 John 5:6-8 (King James Version)
6 This 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
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Some folks, both Oneness and Trinity, believe these verses are not really supposed to be in the Bible. I won't address that. It's always scary to me when someone talks about parts of the Bible that should be removed.
The theme is witness. John speaks about the Spirit bearing witness. Then He says that the Spirit is truth. Then he goes on to say that there are three heavenly witnesses and these witnesses are the Father, the Word/Logos/Memra/Angel of YHWH, and the Spirit. Then he goes on to say that these three heavenly witnesses are one. This is somewhat similar to something Jesus said as recorded in John 5:31-47 when He defended Himself and spoke about several witnesses who testified of His deity and person. Under Jewish law two or three witnesses were required. Jesus claimed that He had more than 2 or 3 witnesses. He had:
1) John the Baptist (John 5:31-35)
2) His works (John 5:36)
3) The Father (John 5:37-38 along with Matthew 17:1-9 and 2 Peter 1:16-19)
4) The Word (John 5:39-47) This is twofold, the written Word and also the Living Word (Jesus)
5) not included here but referenced in Matthew 11:25-30 and John 15:26 where we are told that the Holy Spirit reveals Jesus.
In the passage in 1 John 5, the writer says that there are three witnesses. These are the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. He is making a little play on words because these three are really all the same being (God) but that one God witnesses in different ways i.e. as Father, as Word, and as Holy Spirit.
It is something like Paul wrote in 2 Cor 12:14 and 13:1-2 where he said that he was coming to Corinth for the third time and then quoted the Old Testament ruling about 2 or 3 witnesses being required and then compared his third coming to being a third witness. All three of his comings compared to 2 or 3 witnesses, yet he was the only one who fulfilled the requirement of 2 or 3 witnesses. John uses something like this when he speaks of the various ways God has witnessed to the person of Christ. He witnesses as Father. He witnesses as Word. He witnesses as Holy Spirit. Three different ways He witnesses but it is really the one God witnessing three ways.
Donny Cage
12-11-2006, 12:01 PM
In the bible it says there is 3 that bear record in heaven,the Father,Word,Holy Ghost
My question is how is the Father & the Holy Ghost 1 & the same if here it seperates them?
And is this talking before Christ. or after Jesus died on the cross?
what baffles me is if the Father is Spirit & he is,then how can the Holy Ghost bear a record ( being Spirit) being seperate from the Father but yet being the Father himself?:shrug:
I think I just hurt my brain :icon_craz
This is perhaps one of the worst verses for trinitarians to use to support their doctrine. Most "studied up" trinitarians won't dare bring this verse up. Why? Because it's acknowledged, even among the most prominent trinitarian organizations (such as CRI) that this portion of scripture was not in the original.
This portion of scripture is called the Comma Johanneum. The words from "in heaven" to "on earth" are not found on ANY of the earlier manuscripts, and only found on a few very LATE manuscripts. The ONLY reason it's in the king James Bible, is because it was put in by the editor, Erasmus in his third edition of the Textus Receptus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus) (who was reluctant to do so, but caved under MUCH pressure). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_John_5:7
Most scholars reject this portion of scripture, which is why most modern translations do not include it (check other translations).
The text is actually supposed to read like this....
6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=1Jo&chapter=5&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=6#) This is He who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=1Jo&chapter=5&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=6#) For there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
Again, even most reputable trinitarian organizations reject the Comma Johanneum. As it was directly added in to scripture.
PS: even if it wasn't added in (which it was), but even if it wasn't, it still doesn't help the trinity doctrine (though, that was the intention behind adding it)... For instance, there are three that bear record at the court house... The husband, the son, and the tax payer. These three are one. (Donny Cage)
BrotherD
12-11-2006, 10:31 PM
Below is what Albert Barnes (Barnes' Notes) has to say. Also, even though Barnes believes the scripture in question was not part of the original text, he still believes the doctrine of the trinity is valid.
1Jo 5:7 -
For there are three that bear record in heaven ... - There are three that "witness," or that "bear witness" - the same Greek word which, in 1Jo_5:8, is rendered "bear witness" - μαρτυροῦντεςmarturountes. There is no passage of the New Testament which has given rise to so much discussion in regard to its genuineness as this. The supposed importance of the verse in its bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity has contributed to this, and has given to the discussion a degree of consequence which has pertained to the examination of the genuineness of no other passage of the New Testament. On the one hand, the clear testimony which it seems to bear to the doctrine of the Trinity, has made that portion of the Christian church which holds the doctrine reluctant in the highest degree to abandon it; and on the other hand, the same clearness of the testimony to that doctrine, has made those who deny it not less reluctant to admit the genuineness of the passage.
It is not consistent with the design of these notes to go into a full investigation of a question of this sort. And all that can be done is to state, in a brief way, the "results" which have been reached, in an examination of the question. Those who are disposed to pursue the investigation further, can find all that is to be said in the works referred to at the bottom of the page. The portion of the passage, in 1Jo_5:7-8, whose genuineness is disputed, is included in brackets in the following quotation, as it stands in the common editions of the New Testament: "For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth,) the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." If the disputed passage, therefore, be omitted as spurious, the whole passage will read, "For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings, are briefly the following:
I. It is missing in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in no Greek manuscript written before the 16th century. Indeed, it is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age - one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken partly from the third edition of Stephen’s New Testament, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be missing in all the early Greek manuscripts.
II. It is missing in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions - one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic.
III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity - a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the 5th century. If the passage were believed to be genuine - nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favor - it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to anyone who examines the subject with an unbiassed mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it. IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine.
(a) The connection does not demand it. It does not contribute to advance what the apostle is saying, but breaks the thread of his argument entirely. He is speaking of certain things which bear "witness" to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah; certain things which were well known to those to whom he was writing - the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. How does it contribute to strengthen the force of this to say that in heaven there are "three that bear witness" - three not before referred to, and having no connection with the matter under consideration?
(b) The "language" is not such as John would use. He does, indeed, elsewhere use the term "Logos," or "Word" - ὁ Λόγοςho Logos, Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14; 1Jo_1:1, but it is never in this form, "The Father, and the Word;" that is, the terms "Father" and "Word" are never used by him, or by any of the other sacred writers, as correlative. The word "Son" - ὁ Υἱόςho Huios - is the term which is correlative to the "Father" in every other place as used by John, as well as by the other sacred writers. See 1Jo_1:3; 1Jo_2:22-24; 1Jo_4:14; 2Jo_1:3, 2Jo_1:9; and the Gospel of John, "passim." Besides, the correlative of the term "Logos," or "Word," with John, is not "Father," but "God." See Joh_1:1. Compare Rev_19:13.
(c) Without this passage, the sense of the argument is clear and appropriate. There are three, says John, which bear witness that Jesus is the Messiah. These are referred to in 1Jo_5:6; and in immediate connection with this, in the argument, 1Jo_5:8, it is affirmed that their testimony goes to one point, and is harmonious. To say that there are other witnesses elsewhere, to say that they are one, contributes nothing to illustrate the nature of the testimony of these three - the water, and the blood, and the Spirit; and the internal sense of the passage, therefore, furnishes as little evidence of its genuineness as the external proof. V. It is easy to imagine how the passage found a place in the New Testament. It was at first written, perhaps, in the margin of some Latin manuscript, as expressing the belief of the writer of what was true in heaven, as well as on earth, and with no more intention to deceive than we have when we make a marginal note in a book. Some transcriber copied it into the body of the text, perhaps with a sincere belief that it was a genuine passage, omitted by accident; and then it became too important a passage in the argument for the Trinity, ever to be displaced but by the most clear critical evidence. It was rendered into Greek, and inserted in one Greek manuscript of the 16th century, while it was missing in all the earlier manuscripts.
VI. The passage is now omitted in the best editions of the Greek Testament, and regarded as spurious by the ablest critics. See Griesbach and Hahn. On the whole, therefore, the evidence seems to me to be clear that this passage is not a genuine portion of the inspired writings, and should not be appealed to in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. One or two remarks may be made, in addition, in regard to its use.
(1) even on the supposition that it is genuine, as Bengel believed it was, and as he believed that some Greek manuscript would still be found which would contain it , yet it is not wise to adduce it as a proof-text. It would be much easier to prove the doctrine of the Trinity from other texts, than to demonstrate the genuineness of this.
(2) it is not necessary as a proof-text. The doctrine which it contains can be abundantly established from other parts of the New Testament, by passages about which there can be no doubt.
(3) the removal of this text does nothing to weaken the evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, or to modify that doctrine. As it was never used to shape the early belief of the Christian world on the subject, so its rejection, and its removal from the New Testament, will do nothing to modify that doctrine. The doctrine was embraced, and held, and successfully defended without it, and it can and will be so still.
BrotherD
12-11-2006, 10:33 PM
Oh, for the record, I am not a trinitarian.
1 John 5:6-8 (King James Version)
6 This 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
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Some folks, both Oneness and Trinity, believe these verses are not really supposed to be in the Bible. I won't address that. It's always scary to me when someone talks about parts of the Bible that should be removed.
The theme is witness. John speaks about the Spirit bearing witness. Then He says that the Spirit is truth. Then he goes on to say that there are three heavenly witnesses and these witnesses are the Father, the Word/Logos/Memra/Angel of YHWH, and the Spirit. Then he goes on to say that these three heavenly witnesses are one. This is somewhat similar to something Jesus said as recorded in John 5:31-47 when He defended Himself and spoke about several witnesses who testified of His deity and person. Under Jewish law two or three witnesses were required. Jesus claimed that He had more than 2 or 3 witnesses. He had:
1) John the Baptist (John 5:31-35)
2) His works (John 5:36)
3) The Father (John 5:37-38 along with Matthew 17:1-9 and 2 Peter 1:16-19)
4) The Word (John 5:39-47) This is twofold, the written Word and also the Living Word (Jesus)
5) not included here but referenced in Matthew 11:25-30 and John 15:26 where we are told that the Holy Spirit reveals Jesus.
In the passage in 1 John 5, the writer says that there are three witnesses. These are the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. He is making a little play on words because these three are really all the same being (God) but that one God witnesses in different ways i.e. as Father, as Word, and as Holy Spirit.
It is something like Paul wrote in 2 Cor 12:14 and 13:1-2 where he said that he was coming to Corinth for the third time and then quoted the Old Testament ruling about 2 or 3 witnesses being required and then compared his third coming to being a third witness. All three of his comings compared to 2 or 3 witnesses, yet he was the only one who fulfilled the requirement of 2 or 3 witnesses. John uses something like this when he speaks of the various ways God has witnessed to the person of Christ. He witnesses as Father. He witnesses as Word. He witnesses as Holy Spirit. Three different ways He witnesses but it is really the one God witnessing three ways.
I agree bro..I would be scared to to say yay or nay on that one...But It does baffle me...but you make a good point
1 John 5:6-8 (King James Version)
6 This 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
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Some folks, both Oneness and Trinity, believe these verses are not really supposed to be in the Bible. I won't address that. It's always scary to me when someone talks about parts of the Bible that should be removed.
The theme is witness. John speaks about the Spirit bearing witness. Then He says that the Spirit is truth. Then he goes on to say that there are three heavenly witnesses and these witnesses are the Father, the Word/Logos/Memra/Angel of YHWH, and the Spirit. Then he goes on to say that these three heavenly witnesses are one. This is somewhat similar to something Jesus said as recorded in John 5:31-47 when He defended Himself and spoke about several witnesses who testified of His deity and person. Under Jewish law two or three witnesses were required. Jesus claimed that He had more than 2 or 3 witnesses. He had:
1) John the Baptist (John 5:31-35)
2) His works (John 5:36)
3) The Father (John 5:37-38 along with Matthew 17:1-9 and 2 Peter 1:16-19)
4) The Word (John 5:39-47) This is twofold, the written Word and also the Living Word (Jesus)
5) not included here but referenced in Matthew 11:25-30 and John 15:26 where we are told that the Holy Spirit reveals Jesus.
In the passage in 1 John 5, the writer says that there are three witnesses. These are the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. He is making a little play on words because these three are really all the same being (God) but that one God witnesses in different ways i.e. as Father, as Word, and as Holy Spirit.
It is something like Paul wrote in 2 Cor 12:14 and 13:1-2 where he said that he was coming to Corinth for the third time and then quoted the Old Testament ruling about 2 or 3 witnesses being required and then compared his third coming to being a third witness. All three of his comings compared to 2 or 3 witnesses, yet he was the only one who fulfilled the requirement of 2 or 3 witnesses. John uses something like this when he speaks of the various ways God has witnessed to the person of Christ. He witnesses as Father. He witnesses as Word. He witnesses as Holy Spirit. Three different ways He witnesses but it is really the one God witnessing three ways.
Oh, for the record, I am not a trinitarian.
lol...I was wondering at first.........I
jstoblikJesus
12-12-2006, 12:37 AM
I agree bro..I would be scared to to say yay or nay on that one...But It does baffle me...but you make a good point
I use to be scared also. But after some research I have found that the KJV does have several passages of scriptue that seem to have been changed. Most people don't realize that the KJV isn't original translation and comes from the Vulgate which had a lot of catholic background. Some of the newer translations are translated directly from the Greek/hebrew writings.
But it all comes down to something the Quakers figured out. It takes prayer and meditation with God to get true revelation of Gods word. You have to take what you have KJV or whatever and pray about what you are reading and ask God to help your understanding.
I use to be scared also. But after some research I have found that the KJV does have several passages of scriptue that seem to have been changed. Most people don't realize that the KJV isn't original translation and comes from the Vulgate which had a lot of catholic background. Some of the newer translations are translated directly from the Greek/hebrew writings.
But it all comes down to something the Quakers figured out. It takes prayer and meditation with God to get true revelation of Gods word. You have to take what you have KJV or whatever and pray about what you are reading and ask God to help your understanding.
Amen....but it seems to me God would have prevented that...but in Revelation he warned what would happed if someone did...I guess he knew why he said it....But growing up I was always told kjv or nothing,for the same reason we are debating now...This is why I could never reason w/any JW'S ...Even if I would show them in the KJV that wouldnt but it cause of the translation...Cause he cant debate w/me on the kjv,so he argued the version of the bible..cause it says LORD instead of God's name or name's
I was looking for other answers,not based on the scriptures being valid or not..
Donny Cage
12-12-2006, 09:03 AM
I was looking for other answers,not based on the scriptures being valid or not..
Well knowing if it is valid or not is extremely important. It's not valid, as it was not in ANY of the earlier manuscripts, and only found in a few very late manuscripts. Which is why it's not found in any of the later translations.
The reason it's so important to know if it's valid or not, is because of the questions you were asking....
In the bible it says there is 3 that bear record in heaven,the Father,Word,Holy Ghost
The Bible doesn't say that. As that portion of scripture was added in by someone not inspired by the Holy Spirit.
My question is how is the Father & the Holy Ghost 1 & the same if here it seperates them?
Two things. One who made the distinction? It was not John, as John did not write this. Number two, just because someone mentions multiple functions, roles or offices, does not mean they are multiple "persons". As I mentioned, there are "three" that bear record at the court house: The son, The Husband, ,and the Tax Payer and these three are one: (Donny Cage)... three what? I'm only one person. So that text, even though it was added in, with the intention of supporting trinitarianism, it still doesn't support trinitarianism. It ends, "and these three are one". Non-studied up trinitarians will say "one in purpose", and oneness will say "one and the same". But it doesn't matter, because the text is not a part of God's word.
And is this talking before Christ. or after Jesus died on the cross?
The person that penned it (not John) was speaking in present tense. "there are" not "there were".
what baffles me is if the Father is Spirit & he is,then how can the Holy Ghost bear a record ( being Spirit) being seperate from the Father but yet being the Father himself?:shrug:
I think I just hurt my brain
Honestly we should look at a different scripture than this one. One that IS in the Bible, that does place a seemlingy distinction (Maybe Matthew 28:19?) there are many others. But 1 John 5:7 is one of the worst scriptures to talk about as it's agreed by every credible scholar, that's it's not in the original.
If you want, we can talk about the titles, and why it's easier for us to use them...
First God is Spirit (John 4:24). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God (Genesis 1:2) not a distinct person from two others. He is God. Already any distinction in persons is gone. Usually in scripture, when speaking of the Holy Spirit, it's usually speaking of God in action (ie "the Spirit of God moved on the face of the deep")
And what is easier to say, when speaking to an omnipresent, invisible God? "Lord send your Spirit down" or "Lord send Yourself down". The first one just sounds more natural, does it not? Usuing the first one, I'm not making a distinction in persons, I'm just asking God to send His Spirit down (remember, God is Spirit, therefore the Holy Spirit is the very Spirit of God)
Also, God is our Father - this title is more of a title, in relation to His Creation - "Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us?" (Malachi 2:10) - He is also the Father of the Son (2 John 1:3; Hebrews 1:5). In fact, the ONLY God we have is the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 17:3). God is our heavenly Father.
God was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). According to John 1:1;14 God (who is the Word) became flesh. We know this was done through birth (Galatians 4:4) thus becoming and taking on the title, "Son of God" (Luke 1:35) - scripture is perfectly clear where and why He got this title....
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Scripture can't be any more clear about this. BTW - according to the above scripture who is the Father?
Well knowing if it is valid or not is extremely important. It's not valid, as it was not in ANY of the earlier manuscripts, and only found in a few very late manuscripts. Which is why it's not found in any of the later translations.
The reason it's so important to know if it's valid or not, is because of the questions you were asking....
The Bible doesn't say that. As that portion of scripture was added in by someone not inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Two things. One who made the distinction? It was not John, as John did not write this. Number two, just because someone mentions multiple functions, roles or offices, does not mean they are multiple "persons". As I mentioned, there are "three" that bear record at the court house: The son, The Husband, ,and the Tax Payer and these three are one: (Donny Cage)... three what? I'm only one person. So that text, even though it was added in, with the intention of supporting trinitarianism, it still doesn't support trinitarianism. It ends, "and these three are one". Non-studied up trinitarians will say "one in purpose", and oneness will say "one and the same". But it doesn't matter, because the text is not a part of God's word.
The person that penned it (not John) was speaking in present tense. "there are" not "there were".
Honestly we should look at a different scripture than this one. One that IS in the Bible, that does place a seemlingy distinction (Maybe Matthew 28:19?) there are many others. But 1 John 5:7 is one of the worst scriptures to talk about as it's agreed by every credible scholar, that's it's not in the original.
If you want, we can talk about the titles, and why it's easier for us to use them...
First God is Spirit (John 4:24). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God (Genesis 1:2) not a distinct person from two others. He is God. Already any distinction in persons is gone. Usually in scripture, when speaking of the Holy Spirit, it's usually speaking of God in action (ie "the Spirit of God moved on the face of the deep")
And what is easier to say, when speaking to an omnipresent, invisible God? "Lord send your Spirit down" or "Lord send Yourself down". The first one just sounds more natural, does it not? Usuing the first one, I'm not making a distinction in persons, I'm just asking God to send His Spirit down (remember, God is Spirit, therefore the Holy Spirit is the very Spirit of God)
Also, God is our Father - this title is more of a title, in relation to His Creation - "Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us?" (Malachi 2:10) - He is also the Father of the Son (2 John 1:3; Hebrews 1:5). In fact, the ONLY God we have is the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 17:3). God is our heavenly Father.
God was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). According to John 1:1;14 God (who is the Word) became flesh. We know this was done through birth (Galatians 4:4) thus becoming and taking on the title, "Son of God" (Luke 1:35) - scripture is perfectly clear where and why He got this title....
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Scripture can't be any more clear about this. BTW - according to the above scripture who is the Father?
I think it is important,but based on my knowledge of this subject I couldnt say...Ive always said you have to belive all or none of the bible....But,I have enough scriptures to still show 1 God...valid or not it cant mean trinty....
Donny Cage
12-12-2006, 09:50 PM
I think it is important,but based on my knowledge of this subject I couldnt say...Ive always said you have to belive all or none of the bible....But,I have enough scriptures to still show 1 God...valid or not it cant mean trinty....
You can believe all of the Bible... I believe all of the Bible... but it's VERY important to recognize suspect scriptures, and mistakes made by copiests, and editors (that were not in the original text)...
The people who penned the words, (the original apostles) were inspired by God (they didn't make any mistakes)... but the people who translated and copied the manuscripts were NOT inspired by God... There were some honest mistakes, and there were some blatent additions...
BUT - we trust God, that He has preverved His word... Even with as many trinitarians and other false teachers who have translated, and had their hands all in it.. The Bible still holds full integrity... Even the suspect verses (such as 1 John 5:7) do not change biblical doctrine.
See what we have is actually considered "better" than having the original... The scriptures were hand copied and hand copied and hand copied, thousands of times... So what we have are MANY of copies, over a period of a VERY long time, which demonstrates the integrity of scripture. There are obviously discrepencies, but that's the point... You take the oldest, less compromised, less copied manuscripts and you compare them... Scholars can determine with great accuracy what the original said based on comparing these scripts.
The Bible I use is wonderful... It's a Wesley's New King James Bible - based on the KJV translation, with today's speaking.. leaves in the suspect scriptures, but has a note with each one demonstrating what scholars believed the text actually said based on the newest and best manuscript evidence. (and yes, Wesley was a trinitarian - but the commentary is some of the best I've read, especially when it comes to holiness and so forth)
It's always good to check multiple sources.
But make no mistake about it.. The Bible is 100% true. We just have to understand the copiests, and editors and translators made mistakes. So when you are diving deep into studies, such as this, it's important to do research on things like this...
BTW - here is some good reading on 1 John 5:7....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_John_5:7
It's not just something oneness made up... The most prominant trinitarians reject this portion of scripture, as they recognize this was not in the original. If you are ever in a discussion with a "studied up" trinitarian, they will not EVER use this scripture to support their doctrine.
bigcs2001
12-13-2006, 03:52 PM
I agree with Bro Long and with Bro Sam. Their idea, as far as I get it, also agrees with my thoughts on the Word in another thread. The Word as being sent forth by God, even though being the one God, became somewhat an independent entity to the realm of our world. (Now I am not saying God is two beings. ) So therefore the witness of God the father of all, and of the Word, agree.
And again in the same line of thought, the working of the Holy Ghost in this age also agrees with the works of the Father and of the Word.
Rulkiewicz
06-25-2007, 03:22 PM
Below is what Albert Barnes (Barnes' Notes) has to say. Also, even though Barnes believes the scripture in question was not part of the original text, he still believes the doctrine of the trinity is valid.
1Jo 5:7 -
For there are three that bear record in heaven ...
III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity - a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the 5th century. If the passage were believed to be genuine - nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favor - it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to anyone who examines the subject with an unbiassed mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it.
…again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” Cyprian: Treatise I: On the Unity of the Church: 6 [Mid 3rd century]
The above quote from Cyprian seems pretty close though.
OriginalPraxeas
08-05-2007, 03:55 AM
In the bible it says there is 3 that bear record in heaven,the Father,Word,Holy Ghost
My question is how is the Father & the Holy Ghost 1 & the same if here it seperates them?
And is this talking before Christ. or after Jesus died on the cross?
what baffles me is if the Father is Spirit & he is,then how can the Holy Ghost bear a record ( being Spirit) being seperate from the Father but yet being the Father himself?:shrug:
I think I just hurt my brain :icon_craz
what parts separates them? Paul says "God and the Father" does that mean God and the Father are separate?
Spreadhisword
02-04-2009, 06:19 PM
In the bible it says there is 3 that bear record in heaven,the Father,Word,Holy Ghost
My question is how is the Father & the Holy Ghost 1 & the same if here it seperates them?
And is this talking before Christ. or after Jesus died on the cross?
what baffles me is if the Father is Spirit & he is,then how can the Holy Ghost bear a record ( being Spirit) being seperate from the Father but yet being the Father himself?:shrug:
I think I just hurt my brain :icon_craz
The following are some articles on this subject from David Bernard. Hope this helps.
I 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." (I John 5:7)
Although this verse of Scripture is often used by those who believe in three persons of God, it actually refutes this view, for it says that "these three are one." Some interpret this phrase to mean one in unity as a man and wife are one. But it should be pointed out that this view is essentially polytheistic. If the word one referred to unity instead of a numerical designation, then the Godhead can be viewed as many gods in a united council or government. If unity were meant, the verse should have read, "These three agree as one."
It is also interesting to note that this verse does not use the word Son, but Word. If Son were the special name of a separate person in the Godhead, and if this verse were trying to teach separate persons, why did it use Word instead of Son? Son does not refer primarily to deity, but Word does. The Word is not a separate person from the Father any more than a man and his word are separate persons. Rather, the Word is the thought or plan in the mind of God and also the expression of God.
In a similar way, the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is not a separate person from the Father any more than a man and his spirit are separate persons. Holy Spirit just describes what God is. First John 5:7 says that three bear record in heaven; that is, God has recorded Himself in three modes of activity or has revealed Himself in three ways. He has at least three heavenly roles: Father, Word (not Son), and Holy Ghost. Furthermore, these three roles describe one God: "these three are one."
Spreadhisword
02-04-2009, 06:22 PM
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
It is clear that the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost cannot imply three separate persons, personalities, wills, or beings. They can only denote different aspects or roles of one Spirit-being - the one God. They describe God's relationships to man, not persons in a Godhead. We use Father to emphasize God's roles as Creator, Father of spirits, Father of the born-again believers, and Father of the humanity of Jesus Christ. We use Son to mean both the humanity of Jesus Christ and God as He manifested Himself in the flesh for the purpose of man's salvation. We use Holy Ghost to emphasize God's active power in the world and among men, particularly His work in regeneration.
We should note that these three titles are not the only ones God has. Many other titles or names for God are very significant and appear frequently in the Bible, including terms such as LORD (Jehovah), Lord, Word, God Almighty, and Holy One of Israel. The oneness view does not deny Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, but it does refute the view that these terms designate persons in the Godhead. God has many titles, but He is one being. He is indivisible as to His existence, but His revelation of Himself to mankind has been expressed through many channels, including His revelation as the Father, in the Son, and as the Holy Ghost.
Ephesians 3:14-17, which we have used several times in this chapter, demonstrates that the Father, the Spirit, and Christ are one in the sense just described. "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith…" The KJV is ambiguous as to whether "his Spirit" means the Father's Spirit or Christ's Spirit. The NIV, TAB, RSV, and Nestle's Greek text all make it clear that "his" relates back to "Father." Thus, this passage identifies the Spirit in a Christian's heart as the Father's Spirit and also as Christ. The Father, Christ, and the Spirit all refer to the one indivisible God.
What of passages of Scripture that seem to describe more than one person in the Godhead? They appear to do so only because of years of usage by those who believe in more than one person in the Godhead. When a person strips his mind of all man-made interpretations, connotations, and doctrines, viewing these verses through the eyes of the original writers (who were devout monotheistic Jews), he will understand these verses to describe either the multiple attributes and roles of God or the dual nature of Jesus Christ.
Only two verses of Scripture in the entire Bible mention Father, Son (or Word), and Holy Ghost in a way that could suggest three persons or a special significance of the number three in relation to the Godhead. They are Matthew 28:19 and I John 5:7. However, both of these passages present serious problems for the trinitarian view.
Spreadhisword
02-04-2009, 07:39 PM
In the bible it says there is 3 that bear record in heaven,the Father,Word,Holy Ghost
My question is how is the Father & the Holy Ghost 1 & the same if here it separates them? First, this scripture does not separate the Father,Son, and Holy Ghost. It actually declares them to be the One God in Jesus Christ!
And is this talking before Christ. or after Jesus died on the cross? That would be after.
what baffles me is if the Father is Spirit & he is,then how can the Holy Ghost bear a record ( being Spirit) being seperate from the Father but yet being the Father himself?:shrug: I know this seems confusing but it is really quite simple. First how can the Spirit bear record.
John 5:30-33, 36-37
30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. Now we can see here that Jesus (The Son) could do nothing of himself. Which shows us that the Son (Flesh) is nothing without the Spirit (God) inside him. jesus only speaks what he hears from the Father.
31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. The flesh cannot bear its own witness because a fleshly witness (when it comes to God) is not a true witness.
32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. Here Jesus states that the witness of god is the one that is true.
33 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. John bare witness of the truth.
36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. Jesus said his witness is greater than that of John. Because works of the Father (The Spirit) that dwelt in Jesus Christ (The Son) bear witness of him.
37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. Let me say here that the Father here is none other than the Spirit of God in Christ, the Holy Ghost.
Now let's look at another scripture.
John 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. How can Jesus bear witness of himself? read John 8:13-14,
13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.
14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. Jesus understood where he came from. Which was from the Father. The fact that the Father (Spirit) dwelt in him gave him the right to know where he came from. He was God in flesh! Now don't worry we are getting to your question friend.
Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
now think about this one. If the Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are the sons of God. the Spirit could bear witness with the spirit of Christ that he was God in flesh! There is how the Spirit could bear witness! But wait, There's more.
1John 5:6 This 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.
Now we read in John 14:6 that Jesus was "the way, the truth, and the life" See here how Jesus said he was "the truth"? Now read John 14:16-17.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever;
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.
In verse 16 Jesus spake of the Comforter. In verse 17 he called the Comforter the Spirit of truth. Now let's look at one more verse.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Now we see this a little clearer, This Comforter is the Holy Ghost!
Now let's put it all together. In 1 John 5:6 we see that the Spirit (the Holy Ghost) is truth. In John 14:6 we see Jesus calling himself truth. In John 14:17 we see that the Comforter was the spirit of Truth (Jesus). And finally in John 14;26 we see that the Comforter is the Holy Ghost. By reading these scriptures and putting them together we understand that the Holy Ghost was the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Well, there was only One Spirit in Christ (The Father) (2 Corinthians 5:19) Yet the Holy Ghost was in Christ also. Hmmmm would it not make sense that the Holy Ghost the father? This my friend is how the Spirit can bear record.
And finally second, the Holy Ghost was never separate from the Father. The Holy Ghost is merely the Father in us. It is the Spirit of God in man. Let's read a little more into John 14:16-20.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
As you read these scripture you should be able to see that the Holy Ghost was none other than the Father (the Spirit of God) in man. By saying he was the truth Jesus was truly saying that he was God in us. Now it should be plain to see how the Holy Ghost could bear record. And that the Holy Ghost was not separate from the Father.
I think I just hurt my brain :icon_craz
1John 5:6-8
6. This 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.
7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (The three are the one God.)
8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (These three agree in the one body of Jesus Christ)
Colossians 2:9
9. For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.