Anti-Trinitarianism

I understand, family is definitely more important than debates! Your first response paragraph conveys your unwarranted bias towards Greek manuscripts. Also it should be noted the "earlier" does not correlate to "authentic." Two of the earliest codices are riddled with errors and disagreements amongst themselves, namely Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Consider that in the Gospels alone, the Aleph and B codices disagree over 3,000 times (https://archive.org......). These codices are demonstrably unreliable (http://preservedword.com......). Even the BBC ran a story on the unreliability of the Codex Sinaiticus, the "oldest and most reliable" manuscript most of the footnotes in modern versions are referring to, and concluded with ". . .more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God" (http://news.bbc.co.uk......). Erasmus left out the verse in his first two editions because he wished to translate directly from the Greek. He was in the process of querying and collating many Greek manuscripts. He knew full well that it was heavily attested to in the Latin and other language bibles, but he would only include it when he would find it in the Greek as a measure of faithfulness to the outset of his endeavor: he wished to translate directly from the Greek, not back translate from the Latin to the Greek. Your rejection of the Latin witnesses, in both manuscript form and early Christian quotation is also unwarranted. We must consider all witnesses to the word of God, not just the Greek which was locked up for some time and restricted to primarily the areas of Byzantium (Constantinople) and Alexandria, Egypt (two primary places of corruption I might add). Consider John Wesley's comments on 1 John 5:7 in removing doubt about the authenticity of this passage on the account of three considerations: "(1.) That though it is wanting in many copies, yet it is found in more; and those copies of the greatest authority: -- ( 2.) That it is cited by a whole gain of ancient writers, from the time of St. John to that of Constantine. This argument is conclusive: For they could not have cited it, had it not been in the sacred canon: -- (3.) That we can easily account for its being, after that time, wanting in many copies, when we remember that Constantine's successor was a zealous Arian, who used every means to promote his bad cause, to spread Arianism throughout the empire; in particular the erasing this text out of as many copies as fell into his hands. And he so far prevailed, that the age in which he lived is commonly styled, Seculum Aranium, -- "the Arian age;" there being then only one eminent man who opposed him at the peril of his life. So that it was a proverb, Athanasius contra mundum: 'Athanasius against the world' (http://brandplucked.webs.com...). As John Wesley noted, we can easily account for its lack of early Greek attestation: Arianism had a hold for some time in Greek speaking countries. If a manuscript omits 1 John 5:7, it can be said of the author that either he left out the verse deliberately himself for some bias, or that he merely made a copy or translation of a text which had previously been altered as to remove 1 John 5:7. Reliance on the oldest Greek manuscripts has only led to the corruption of the word of God, beginning in 1881 (Matthew 11:15). We must keep in mind the fact that most early bibles were destroyed, and Latin bibles, especially in terms of 1 John 5, flourished early on in Christian history more than Greek, at least according to what is extant. As stated before, less than 500 of the more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts even contain 1 John 5. Of these 500, only 12 are "early." And these early texts do not agree with each other which demonstrates their unreliability (at least as a reliable whole). Approximately 2% of manuscripts containing 1 John 5 are early, and adversely, 98% of them are late. I did not give a Greek Christian quotation because I did not deem it necessary, but since you insist on using this to your advantage in this debate (as part of you proposed evidence), here are Greek Christian quotations: Athanasius of Alexandria (Disputasio Contra Arium, 350 A.D.) "But also, is not that sin-remitting, life-giving and sanctifying washing, without which, no one shall see the kingdom of heaven, given to the faithful in the Thrice-Blessed Name? In addition to all these, John affirms, 'and these three are one.'" (http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu...) Gregory of Constantinople (Fifth Theological Oration, 379 A.D.) "What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because 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 yourself disclaim in the case of Deity? What have you to say about the Crab, which may mean either an animal, or an instrument, or a constellation? And what about the Dog, now terrestrial, now aquatic, now celestial? Do you not see that three crabs or dogs are spoken of? Why of course it is so. Well then, are they therefore of one substance? None but a fool would say that. So you see how completely your argument from connumeration has broken down, and is refuted by all these instances. For if things that are of one substance are not always counted under one numeral, and things not of one substance are thus counted, and the pronunciation of the name once for all is used in both cases, what advantage do you gain towards your doctrine?" (http://www.newadvent.org...) The quote given above of Gregory's dispute with the Arians concerning the omission of 1 John 5:7, clearly testifies to the "antiquity" of the verse in question. When he says, "after a masculine One and One and One," he can only be referring to v. 7 "the Father (Pater), the Word (Logos), and the Holy Ghost (Hagios Pneuma)" which by all interpretive means are masculine. No one would argue that they are feminine, and the scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit is masculine (John 15:26, John 16:13, et al). Your contention concerning mss 61 is moot as I never once referenced it as part of my evidence. Your response to the quote given of Jerome fails to address the fact that Jerome claimed that those who omitted the text were "unfaithful translators." Also, your claim that Jerome did not include 1 John 5:7 in his original work is unsubstantiated. We do not have any of Jerome's "originals," the earliest we have is Codex Fuldensis dating to about 546 A.D. and Jerome dies in 420 A.D. Indeed his original text most likely contained the verse given his remarks in his Prologue to the Canonical Epistles. The Syriac Peshitto was not established as a recognizable text until the 5th century. The earliest of these do not contain the epistles of John. So the Peshitto doesn't really have any weight in this debate. You seem to be of the persuasion that the verse is rooted in Old Latin scribal addition, but in reality, given the evidence, we find that the verse is authentic. It may very well have been primarily attested to in the Old Latin, but I see no problem wit this as this text is derived from the original "authentic" Greek (http://brandplucked.webs.com...). Codex Montfortianus may state (in a footnote?) that 1 John 5:7 is "an unauthorized gloss," but of course this text is from the 16th century. Jerome's plea to the authenticity of this verse predates this codex by nearly 11 centuries! In conclusion, it seems that my opponent agrees to there being a Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but does not agree to their unity. How can this unity be denied given the verses already mentioned, even if you were to not consider 1 John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19? My opponent never addressed my statements concerning Genesis 1 or the given passage of 2 Corinthians 13:14. I also gave many scriptures to support 1 John 5:7 including: John 1:1,14, John 10:30, John 14:16-18, et al. Of course I did not expect my opponent to respond to every individual verse, but given the preponderance of attestations to the unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one cannot coherently reject the doctrine of the Trinity. John 1:1,14, 1 Timothy 3:16, and 1 John 3:16 clearly tell us that it was God who gave His life in the form of a man (Jesus Christ) to be the sacrificial Lamb for the atonement of the sins of the world! To deny this is to deny the Book! Modern versions which bring into question these clear proof-texts of the Lord's Deity are guilty of relying on Egyptian manuscripts which have been corrupted by Gnostic and Arian doctrine (http://www.studytoanswer.net...). I think it is safe to say that any unbiased reader of the texts given would agree with St. John "these three are one!" "For in him [Jesus] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." -Colossians 2:9