On the Johannine Comma

[@Thaihandmade-wd9mh]

"scribbling in the margins" pre 10the century CE = the most beautiful handwriting ever.

[@leroyh8977]

I am just so blown away by Dan’s knowledge and presentation. Thanks for your work.

[@mark-wright]

I just read about Erasmus and the Johannine comma in Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. Cool to hear this discussion in your video.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

Ehrman is always Misquoting Jesus!

[@mark-wright]

this is just an attempt at a cheap joke, right? Bart Ehrman is a foremost biblical scholar and the work of his I referenced is a good introduction to a non-scholarly audience to the subject of textual variants in the Bible. He explains the numerous problems with Erasmus's Greek sources on which the King James Bible is based. But maybe you know all that and just like to tell corny knee-slapper jokes. I'm not sure. @@davidjanbaz7728

[@coreyc490]

@@davidjanbaz7728 Ok, I’ll bite…. Whatever do you mean?

[@blueridding]

“And the difference there is made up” 😂 that’s how I feel about all these theological debates.

[@Tmanaz480]

I get it, but you're really just telling us you're not interested in the subject. All human civilization is just "made up". Agriculture? Made up. Literature? Made up. Politics? Made up. Music? Made up. TCP/IP? Made up. KZbin?... Happy hunting/gathering/procreating.

[@Noneya5555]

Actual scholarly biblical history is so fascinating. Thank you, Dr. Dan for your enlightening, engaging , critical and often humorous lessons and insights. And sorry for the religious apologists who piggyback off your channels to spew their dogmatic nonsense. Thank you for your service to serious biblical scholarship. 🍻

[@peanutmurgler]

@@Christian-ManDan isn’t a scholar of the Quran, if you’re looking for that then find the right scholar

[@peanutmurgler]

@@Christian-Man Whether or not Jesus is the son of God is not unanimously agreed on by scholars and isn’t even the subject of this video. Your arms are probably hurting from all that reaching you’re doing

[@davidjanbaz7728]

​​​@@peanutmurgler LOL 😂 Dan using Hamza the kiddy cat is Laughable: as all non fundamentalist Christian Apologists would agree with Dan : my NASB has the original verse and a footnote on that 1 John 5:7 NOT being in the earliest manuscripts. Only the KJV Only minority groups would argue against what Dan said. LOL at the ignorant atheist & Muslim comments: see we know the Bible has been corrupted!!! 😂

[@theonetruetim]

"cursed by Allah..." lol.@@Christian-Man

[@davidjanbaz7728]

​​@@peanutmurglerlike those redaction Scholars effect Jesus Divinity in any way: LOL at all your posts Your brain must be on fire from all of your ignorant presuppositions!

[@JosephSmith-ph4xr]

An excellent presentation with some honesty on what people believed before the creeds were triumphant.

[@blksmagma]

The knowledge of the wife of YHWH and the Johanine Comma: those two are the start of my deconstruction journey. Always happy to see more clarification on those topics.

[@CoachBriceWilliams]

Random thought: Dan will never talk about it, but why do you think he knows the data on these 2 topics, yet maintains his faith.

[@NataliePine]

​@@CoachBriceWilliamsDifferent people approach faith from different perspectives. I'm not a Christian anymore precisely because of these biblical "problems" that as far as I'm concerned erode the entire foundation of Christianity. My church had two pastors, I spoke to one of them and he argued that the bible was inerrrant and univocal and all these problems I was talking about weren't real. So I spoke to the other pastor, and he said "oh yeah, of course. You're actually reading the bible in a more mature way now and if you carry on I think you'll get a lot more out of it than you ever did previously." I didn't take his advice, but it was clear that he'd been reading and enjoying the bible while fully aware of its flaws (though not to the same level as someone like Dan) and it was surprising to me that there were two Christians side by side doing the same job in the same church with such different approaches to the bible.

[@blksmagma]

@@CoachBriceWilliams I'm not sure. Everyone has their own personal journey when it comes to dealing with reality. He may just be hoping for something better beyond this life and in addition to his obligations to the church.

[@hrvatskinoahid1048]

@@blksmagma Ashera is a tree planted by a Gentile for the purpose of being worshiped. See Deuteronomy 12:3: "And you shall tear down their altars, smash their monuments, burn their asherim with fire."

[@adamkotter6174]

​@@CoachBriceWilliamsIt's probably because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't use the Bible as its source of authority. It's a fairly pragmatic church (at least officially) as far as scriptural errancy is concerned. The focus is more on, "I prayed about X, and God told me Y," than it is on, "I want X to be true, therefore the Bible says Y." If a critical scholar has had personal experiences that indicate that there's some kind of divinity out there but knows too much about the Bible to believe in Biblical inerrancy or univocality, then the LDS Church is a great place to go to guide one's personal faith journey.

[@shang6158]

I remember seeing a poll which suggested that Arianism was what the majority of Christians believe about Jesus still today.

[@LastoftheOrder]

Proto-Arianism probably best describes what was going on with the early Christians as well, given the earliest writings around the movement.

[@bengreen171]

just so you know - that guy in the video - Hamza - is a well known and very dishonest apologist.He's the sort of person who loves good scholarship when it supports his own religious biases (but rarely represents it accurately), but cannot stand it when it contradicts his religion.

[@hive_indicator318]

Good to know. This way, I won't be shocked when Dan tears apart a different assertion. Although it makes me wonder what view he's an apologist for. Just judging by this one, I'm guessing Gnostic

[@BenM61]

You are making it up. Hamza is a very honest person. You are lying. It just bothers you he is a convert to Islam.

[@AessamL]

100% Correct. he doesn't want to learn, just assert some prior believe.

[@chasesutherland1168]

Hamza is Muslim in the video he is trying to prove the bible has been corrupted which is a belief in Islam. The dishonesty is deception is treating the Bible as the word of God, which is a fundamental misrepresentation of what the Bible actually is, and that any change means that it has been corrupted. The dishonesty is also treating a translation of the Bible as the definitive version. If you are wondering what Dan is, Dan is LDS but he is not an apologist. @@hive_indicator318

[@MoreEriksson]

​@@hive_indicator318He's a british muslim convert, does street interviews akin to ray comfort.

[@idan654321]

Also note, newton was arian.

[@STROND]

The KJ added the extra words at 1 John in an attempt to try and prove the Trinity.

[@scented-leafpelargonium3366]

The famous Jack T. Chick Christian comic tract publisher used to publish King James only tracts and articles saying that if this verse was ommitted from any Bible version, unlike the KJV, then it was not a true Bible, but one that had been tampered with deviously! Your video highlights the error and origin of this position.

[@christasimon9716]

Hey, I've argued against a guy on a different KZbin channel who seriously believed that the Southern Baptist form of Protestantism was started by John the Baptist himself, using the KJV. And that the Catholic Church had suppressed the KJV (the only "true" Bible) for some 1500 years. There is nothing more ridiculous (or dangerous) than when you combine under-educated and zealotry.

[@scented-leafpelargonium3366]

@@christasimon9716 Yes, it's quite common. My father knew a lady who used to say about the KJV, "If it was good enough for the Apostle Paul it's good enough for me!" She thought the KJV was the "first Bible" written by Paul in English! 🤯 People believe all kinds of unfounded even crazy things! 🙃

[@VulcanLogic]

I'm so thankful that Jack wrote that tract about the dangers of Dungeons & Dragons. It was comedy gold.

[@scented-leafpelargonium3366]

@@VulcanLogic Yes, he published some epics in his time. I still have a copy of every nearly title over the years as an example of wonky doctrine in "appealing" comic form. It this he did succeed, whether you like it or not. They actually taught more about the devil than God! 🙃

[@scented-leafpelargonium3366]

@@VulcanLogic I still remember The Gay Blade as an impressionable 15 year old which taught me more about homosexuality than my parents ever did! ☺

[@kray3883]

This gives me hope. That if I think of a better version of something, I can just go around scribbling in the margins and there's a chance my version will catch on. I definitely have a few inconsistancies in some popular media that I would like to fix...........

[@monteirolobato6830]

For those wondering why this is called a 'comma,' the word comma here means an alleged interpolated phrase.

[@PrometheanRising]

You're definition us trying to do too much lifting. This isn't the only example of a comma. Just define comma, then give commentary separately if you think that this isn't a real one, or that it is unclear.

[@NathanLewis-pk3kq]

I remember preparing my sunday school lesson on 1 John last year and wondering "how this verse is phrased in the early Greek?" That was a fun mind-blowing rabbit hole... so much interesting scholarly information on this! I think, however, those hours of study ended up being a quick mention (30 seconds or a minute) in my lesson the following Sunday.. lol.

[@evangelicalsnever-lie9792]

We're to believe an all powerful god can't get his book right.

[@welcometonebalia]

Thank you.

[@bagamer13]

Would love to see a video about the distinction between begotten and being created when it comes to Jesus.

[@keith6706]

Honestly, it would be going over the equivalent of philosophical masturbation: it might make the person doing it feel good, but typically involves an indulgent fantasy that isn't real outside their own head.

[@theonetruetim]

Dan, I'm startin to fall for you, there, buddy. At first the Mormon thing kinda turned me off... [exmo, here] But u are winnin me over big time. Thanks for what you do. The study, the thought. the presentations. the stream-lining - the whole deal. Now...let's talk about being consistent....per bad religions understood as such, or not. [naaaah. we can put that off. just keep bringin THIS! awesomeness. We can rag on "The Church" later]

[@davidjanbaz7728]

He does that too : but what kinda theist he is I have NO idea: he doesn't want to expose himself to his atheist anti Christian minions attacking him. U seem to fit in this category!

[@PrometheanRising]

​@davidjanbaz7728 I figure he either believes some utterly whacky stuff, or that his POV will be easily mistake-able for atheism.

[@tesladrew2608]

​@@davidjanbaz7728or his belief is personal to him and he doesn't feel the need to evangelize

[@nerfzombie6242]

You'd think an all powerful god that wanted to get its message to the majority of people it loved and wanted to save from the evil that it created in the first place would've known to pick a better method of transmission for its message. Odd, that...

[@karmachameleon326]

The ways of an all-powerful, omniscient deity are far beyond our understanding. Or, it’s all fiction. Definitely one of those….

[@Nymaz]

@@karmachameleon326 And now that we've established God's ways are completely beyond human understanding, let me tell you exactly what God's opinions on LGBTQ+ are. Which are eternal and unchanging, unlike God's opinions on slavery which changed coincidentally at the exact same time human political and ethical positions on slavery changed.

[@MarcillaSmith]

No, I would not think that. But, fwiw, I understand that you would, and therefore others - many of which do, but not all of us.

[@JopJio]

@@MarcillaSmith he is not wrong. I mean the question if Jesus is "the God' or not is a matter of the first commandment. Either all trinitarians are wrong or all trinitarians are right and the others are wrong. And that's just one of the basics. Then we have the same disputes over salvation by faith alone or by works or keeping the law vs not keeping the law. The same goes for a physical resurrection vs a spiritual resurrection. So these are no small issues but very big issues on the fundamentals of Christianity. And there are more.

[@MarcillaSmith]

@@JopJio Wow, that's a really good point. I mean, if only our lord had possessed the foresight while He was on earth to appoint someone - like pick one dude and be like, "you are the guy - you are gonna be the guy who is like the solid foundation on which the institution of my continuing ministry is founded," or something like that. I mean, that guy would have only lived for so long before he passed, but then he could have successors. Oh well :: sigh ::

[@MitzvosGolem1]

Martin Luther and Erasmus originally refused to add 1 John 5:7-8 . Also , John 7:53 John 8:11 Mark 16:9-20 Also not found in original earliest koine Greek new testament. Bizarre how many don't know the history of their bible . Tertullian kinda invented "trinity" around 200CE only to later reject it himself as idolatry. I would add Calvin and Luther had people burned alive for rejecting "Trinity" creed . Insane theology. Excellent channel.

[@Thoughtful_Theologian]

Quick note; we don’t have “original earliest” manuscripts. The original manuscripts are lost, which makes sense. The early church wasn’t concerned with preserving those (they were often repurposed or disposed of). Also, trinitarian theology wasn’t nuanced and precise in the first 250-300 years of the church, but we see it coming together in some of the earliest writers. There is a sense that Jesus is divine similarly to the Father, but precision was lacking. Irenaeus in the second century has a strong trinitarian bent that would serve among the bases for what we find at Nicaea and beyond. The trinity is still a squidgy theological category, but I would say it arose organically and wasn’t necessarily forced or invented.

[@JopJio]

@@Thoughtful_Theologian the church fathers never saw "original manuscripts." The Gospels were not writren by the the apostles or Luke or Mark. I mean the best example is that GMat was allegedly written in a Hebrew dialect, containing of sayings. But they all give Greek accounts of biographies. Papias says he doesn't got information from books and Polycarp also doesn't mention any originals. Later some claimed the original GMark was in Alexandria but the same church father says that this Mark wrote another secret GMark. Another church father says he saw the original GMat but doesn't give us a quote.

[@JopJio]

@@Thoughtful_Theologian to add: Irenaeus calls often times the Father the only true God. He admits that Jesus doesn't know the hour and that the Father is the supreme God. He for sure didn't believe that both were co-equal.

[@Thoughtful_Theologian]

@@JopJioI’m not sure how this applies to what I said?

[@MitzvosGolem1]

@@Thoughtful_Theologian Actually Koine Greek papyrus p75 is from 125CE +-. They are the oldest fragments theat are devoid of 1 John and the other passages I posted .

[@JamesSnapp]

Ehrman's mentor B.M. Metzger was mixed up about Erasmus' motive for including the CJ for most of his career.

[@alanb8884]

I thought the Ebionite Christians didn't embrace Jesus' divinity.

[@maklelan]

I still think the patristic authors are using their orthodox notion of "divinity" as a reference to Jesus' conflation with God in characterizing Ebionite ideology, but you're right, that's a fair correction.

[@robinharwood5044]

Waiting for the video on the Johannine semi-colon.

[@andrewcohen786]

Can you also tell us who added the long ending of Mark . If cannon can be changed so easily no wonder we can’t trust it. The concept of trinity that no one can explain is probably a fabrication as well. Thanks for the video.

[@chessboxer35]

The long ending of mark was quoted by irenaeus in the second century, as scripture. A fact the textual critics quietly walk by

[@JopJio]

But what about jewish Christians? Some believed Jesus was only a man. They also split with Gentile Christians, were not present at the council of nicea but viewed themselves as followers of Jesus.

[@michaelfuller34]

The Ebionites and Nazarenes , right? Though they may have believed that Jesus was the son of god as was believed of many humans (including Ceasar Augustus).

[@JopJio]

@@michaelfuller34 according to Eusebius some denied the virgin birth but others not. They believed he was a normal man. And that's why I think that they also didn't believe he was the literal son of God. In the Ot prophets like David or Solomon are also called Son of God, but of course only as a metaphor.

[@Agryphos]

​@@JopJio but someone can also be divine in a sense without being a literal son of God. Like the enochian literature where Enoch attains divinity Iirc (might've been in the later enochic literature)

[@JopJio]

@@Agryphos the problem is that there were different jewish Christian sects. Just like Jews didn't differentiate between the many Christian sects and just called them all Christians or Nazaraens, some Curch fathers did the same and just called them all Ebionites. That's why I spoke of Jewish Christians. Eusebius speaks of two groups as Ebionites, one denies the virgin birth and the other not. But they all rejected Jesus being God, that he pre existed or that he is the Logos or Wisdom of God.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

​@@JopJio: these were the Mormon and JW cults of their day!

[@cygnustsp]

The Jehovah's Witnesses nailed this one a long time ago.

[@ronburg8544]

Unfortunately gives them a lot of false confidence in a bunch of other theology 😅

[@cygnustsp]

@@ronburg8544 quite true, some of what they believe is insane, like they don't believe they're in the new covenant, they reject the Eucharist, they think Jesus has a second invisible return then a third invisible return, and of course the really insane ones like no birthday celebrations, fully shunning expelled or disassociated members and refusing blood transfusions.

[@Agryphos]

Oh how impressive, they managed to catch onto one of the most widely known and blatant interpolations around

[@halffeelee]

Too bad the screwed up with blood transfusions.

[@beeg693]

To label it all a fraud, is to throw the baby out with the bath water. That would not be a good idea. Glad we have Dan to clarify and inform us of these things. Thanks Dan.

[@robmcdonagh8367]

Doesn't saint Jerome in his prologue to the epistles and Church father Cyprian in Unity of the Church 1.6 quote 1 john 5:7?

[@ronjones1414]

The most unfortunate thing about all this is that people believe the reason for the Bible is to argue about ridiculous, immaterial ideas such as this.

[@Uryvichk]

I mean, I think there were indeed Christians who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, unless we're counting risen exaltation as "divinity." The author of Mark doesn't seem to think so, the author of Luke-Acts is emphatic about Jesus being "a man," the author(s) of John state in their thesis statement only that Jesus is God's messiah, and arguably Paul only means it in the latter sense that Christ-as-Lord is "divine" inasmuch as the Father has given him his authority. The idea of a preexistent divine Logos was initially unpopular. We know this because we're told so by the Logos proponents like Justin Martyr who are defending it, and there were also "heretics" attacked by people like Irenaeus who were denying the resurrection was a real event. Just because those Christians disagreed with what would grow to be magisterial consensus doesn't mean there were never Christians who denied the divinity of Jesus. If there were people saying the resurrection was a metaphor, then clearly they did not think Jesus was actually divine; that's part of why Irenaeus didn't like them! Also while various "gnostic" Christian sects (and Docetists) didn't deny Jesus's divinity as such, the "type" of divinity they argued belonged to Jesus (and in some cases, to Yahweh) was not what orthodoxy would regard as the type of divinity Jesus was thought to have. "Divinity" is such a fuzzy category that it arguably has no meaning, and most people who argue for the "divinity of Jesus" explicitly mean in a co-equal Trinitarian sense, which in fact is something that was made up centuries later.

[@thagomizer4711]

On the point about no Christian’s doubting the divinity of Jesus, I feel the need to bring up the Gnostics, which is a term I dislike as they would have and did simply call themselves and consider themselves to be Christian. They generally held the idea that “Jesus” was a man, through and through, who from birth was chosen to someday be mantled by “Christ” (after the temptation of Jesus),and therefore do not consider Jesus to be divine inherently, and indeed only ever divine in spirit, as the Christ.

[@fnjesusfreak]

As it so happens, the Comma Johanneum is a blatant interpolation - it interrupts the train of thought, and then the text continues as if it had never been there. Because it hadn't.

[@fnjesusfreak]

@@Christian-Man Give up reality for a cheap imitation? No way in hell.

[@fnjesusfreak]

@@Christian-Man The KJV did not come down from heaven in 1611, written by the hand of God in English.

[@fnjesusfreak]

@@Christian-Man You started from an assumption that the Comma must be authentic, meaning you are one of three types: a Textus Receptus onlyist, a Clementine Vulgate onlyist (and thus a Traditional Catholic of some sort) or a Ruckmanite. I just went with the most likely of the three.

[@fnjesusfreak]

@@Christian-Man You assume that because I reject a specific passage that was obviously *not part of the Bible until the late Middle Ages* that I must hate the Bible. Again, that almost certainly makes you either a tradcath or a Ruckmanite, and your language favors the latter interpretation over the former.

[@fnjesusfreak]

@@Christian-Man There is literally no other reason to criticize someone for rejecting the Comma. And since followers of Peter Ruckman and Gail Anne "God And" Riplinger are far more numerous than tradcaths, it is a reasonable conclusion that you are coming from the perspective of Ruckman or Riplinger, in which the KJV is somehow a "new original" and therefore, rather than the original texts or the manuscript tradition, the platinum-iridium standard by which any version of the Bible is to be weighed. And if you're a tradcath, you think the same of the Clementine Vulgate.

[@rimmersbryggeri]

Am I wrong in thinking that Constantines mother was Arian?

[@138152930]

What are the most 'reliable' Bibles that Christians should be referencing instead of all these versions that have added this and taken out that?

[@evangelicalsnever-lie9792]

Shouldn't your god answer that for you?

[@monteirolobato6830]

There is no one text that can be called 'genuine' in the sense that these sources are so very old and copied and re-copied and then translated and re-translated. But they have travelled remarkably well through the centuries. I consult a good number of Bibles. I use a Jewish source for my Old Testament reading, though I have other editions and kinds. Protestant and Catholic Bibles differ a bit one from the other, so you might want to follow in your own faith tradition to begin with. I don't think anyone one here will say that THIS Bible is THE ONE. (Well, maybe they would, but...) My best advice would be to use the Bible that is used in your church's worship. (At least for a start.)

[@NYCFenrir]

Dan, do you have a video on what is meant by the "knowledge of good and evil" in Genesis?

[@biamartinsedit]

There is an episode of the Data over Dogma podcast that tackles this topic, if I am not mistaken, is the "In the Beginning" episode.

[@hrvatskinoahid1048]

This teaches that humankind was made singular in the world, in that a person can, on his own initiative, objectively think about and know what is good and what is bad, and then choose to act according to his own will.

[@NYCFenrir]

@@hrvatskinoahid1048 I've seen your comments before. You are not a trusted source at all.

[@angreehulk]

🤘

[@MusicalRaichu]

because of it's trinitarian nature, shouldn't it be called the johannine therefore (∴) instead of comma (,)?

[@marufahmed3416]

Lol 😂

[@DJTheTrainmanWalker]

Er.... Last I looked The Johnanine Comma first appears in the manuscript tradition in the Codex Legionensis, more commonly known as the Leon palimpsest. Still pretty late but... Not ,10th century. Granted it's the underwritten in an overwritten manuscript...but...I love a good nit pick...

[@monteirolobato6830]

7th Century?

[@DJTheTrainmanWalker]

@@beemixsy Problem is all the info I can find suggest it's part of the main (but fragmentary) text of Legionensis/Leon...

[@are-jaypeterson6190]

Isaac Newton himself wrote about this

[@monteirolobato6830]

No offense, but is that an important fact? (It's interesting, I guess.) Newton IS an interesting character.

[@robertcummins7739]

Two things the previous verse in a way makes me think this was merely an interpretation. Two is how did the trinitarian Church deal with the Unitarians over the centuries? Spreading a belief by the sword does not make one just or correct.

[@Achill101]

The trinity is already contained in the last part of the gospel according to Matthew when Jesus tells his disciples to go out into the world and baptize in the name of the father, the son, and the spirit. And this part is not younger than 150CE when our four gospels were canonized. . . . The theological details of the trinity were indeed fixed in the 4th century.

[@JimmyTuxTv]

god so amazing to have clear as mud writings

[@beslanintruder2077]

Just curious if Dan is a practicing Mormon or just identifies with mormonism due to his background?

[@monteirolobato6830]

I think the preferred term is Church of the Latter Day Saints. As to Dan's beliefs, I have no idea. One can guess, I suppose. (I know I have a reserved opinion.)

[@PrometheanRising]

Dan is has been highly reticent in regard to discussing his personal views on Mormonism and other theologically matters.

[@TheFranchiseCA]

​@@monteirolobato6830 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Leaving out the reference to Christ is not ideal.

[@monteirolobato6830]

@@TheFranchiseCA Thank you.

[@fariesz6786]

Avianism over Arianism! sorry, had to. great videos!

[@angusmcpherson]

"Not quoted by any of the patristic authors"....really? Tertullian (c. 155 - c. 245 AD) makes a truncated reference to the Comma: "Ita connexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit coharentes, alterum ex altere, qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus." (Against Praxeas XXV). "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, one from the other, which three are one, not one [person], as it is said, "I and my Father are One."" Cyprian (c. 210 - 258 AD) quotes the Comma: “Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: 'Et tres unum sunt.'” (Treatise I:6). "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." Phoebadius in 359 AD quotes the Comma: "Sic alius a Filio Spiritus; sicut alius a patre Filius. Sic tertia in Spiritu ut in Filio secunda persona, unus tamen omnia quia tres unum sunt" (Contra Arianos XXVII: 4) "The other Spirit comes from the Son just as the other Son comes from the Father. So the Spirit is the third as the Son is the second person. But the sum is one, for the three are one." Priscillian of Avila in c. 380 AD quotes the Comma: "Sicut Ioannes ait: Tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra: aqua caro et sanguis; et haec tria in unum sunt et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo: pater, verbum et spiritus; et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu." (Liber Apologeticus, I.4) "As John says, "There are three that give testimony in earth: the water, the flesh and the blood; and these three are one and there are three that give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit; and these three are one in Christ Jesus." Augustine (354 - 430 AD) quotes the Comma in City of God, Book 5, Chapter 11. He writes: "Deus itaque summus et verus cum Verbo suo et Spiritu sancto, quae tria unum sunt, Deus unus omnipotens, creator et factor omnis animae atque omnis corporis," "Therefore God supreme and true, with His Word and Holy Spirit (which three are one), one God omnipotent, creator and maker of every soul and of everybody;" North African Bishop Vigilius Tapsensis quotes the Comma in Contra Varimadum in c. 450 AD and three times in Books 1 and 10 of De Trinitate Libri Duodecim in c. 480 AD: Contra Varimadum: “Item ipse ad Parthos: Tres sunt, inquit, qui testimonium perhibent in terra, aqua, sanguis et caro, et tres in nobis sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in ceolo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus, et ii tres unum sunt.” (Contra Varimadum, Book I, Chapter 5 (MPL062, col. 359)) “Also to the Parthians, ‘There are three’, He says, ‘that bear record in earth, the water, the blood and the flesh, and the three are in us. And there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.” De Trinitate Libri Duodecim: “Ergo quamvis in superioribus exemplis Scripturarum tacita sint nomina personarum, tamen unitum nomen divinitatis per omnia tibi est in his demonstratum; sicut et in hoc exemplo veritatis, in quo nomina personarum evidenter sunt ostensa, et unitum nomen divinitatis clause est declaratum, dicente Joanne evangelista in Epistola sua: Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, Pater, et Verbum, et Spiritus, et in Chisto Jesu unum sunt;” (De Trinitate Libri Duodecim , Book I (MPL062, col. 243)) “Therefore, although in the above examples the Scriptures are silent regarding the names of the persons, yet this union of the divine name by all in this is to be demonstrated to you; also as in this example of the truth, in which the names of the persons are clearly evident, and the united divine names declared closed, the Evangelist John says in his Epistle: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Spirit, and they are one in the Lord Jesus Christ;” Victor bishop of Vita in c. 485 AD cited the Comma as representing the testimony of John the evangelist in a dispute with Huneric the Vandal: “Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius divinitatis esse cum Patre et Filio Spiritum sanctum doceamus, Joannis evangelistae testimonio comprobatur. Ait namque: Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus, et his tres unum sunt.” (Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae, Book III, Chapter XI (MPL058, col. 227) “And in order to show with clearer light that the unity of divinity is with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, John the evangelist bears record. For which it is said: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.’” It is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one."

[@robinharwood5044]

That’s pretty good evidence that trinitarianism was associated with John by the fourth century. Does it show that the actual verse was known?

[@dokidokibibleclub]

Hi Dan, Michael Hollner and Michael Ferrando would like to challenge you on this topic, hosted at the Standing For Truth platform. 2 vs 1 (equal time). Are you interested?

[@wiemerhoekstra]

Dan's knowledge is indeed amazing, I'm windering what his heart is like though... Spawn t-shirt? Spawn, aka Hellspawn is the devils right hand...

[@jithel7948]

Like many adults, Dan knows the difference between fiction and nonfiction, and I'm sure you needn't "winder" about the condition of his heart.

[@barryjtaft]

@ 0:55-57 "not quoted by the patristic authors..." • Clement 200 AD alludes to the Comma • Tertullian 155-245 AD alludes to the Comma • Cyprian (258 AD) 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'." • Athanasius 296-373 makes strong reference to the Comma • 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." • 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'." • Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the 1 John 5:7. Therefore, we see that the reading has massive and ancient textual support. Also recall that the council of Carthage (484 BC) was a debate between the followers of the Arian heresy who denied the Trinity and the orthodox Christians who affirmed it. If 1 John 5:7 was not present, the Arians could have used its absence from the text to bolster their position. But they never once questioned the authenticity of the verse.

[@JamesSnapp]

It's pronounced with a soft "j" . . . Mr. scholar.

[@lazybearish]

Ok, Dr. Dan, You have presented quite a whopper of an assertion: you claim that a scribe inserted the Comma into Codex Montfortanus from another manuscript that didn’t have it! 1. In order to reasonably assert such a thing, you are implying that Codex Montfortanus and that other codex have a direct relationship as exemplar-to-direct- copy. If this were the case, then how has that direct relationship been proven? What is the name of the other manuscript? And when were the two manuscripts collated and their exact level of agreement ascertained? What criterion has been applied and verified as to determining that one manuscript is what was used to produce the other (Monfantanus)? 2. Who exactly was the scribe who did this intentional insertion? What evidence is there that that same scribe began with the first manuscript and produced Montfortanus and inserted the Comma where it had not been? We cannot simply take your word for it. If you or anybody else cannot produce exact evidence in answer to the issues and questions stated above, then you are asking us to believe regurgitated material that has been circulated ad infinitem for decades. Furthermore, you cannot pin the Comma on some sort of quirk of Erasmus, since it existed long before him. As a matter of fact, a better question might be to ask WHY he included the Comma in that later edition. WHAT made him change? Maybe it was the existence of the Comma in the Complutensian Polyglot in Greek and Latin compiled by the scholar Cardinal Ximenes. It certainly was not the result of some challenge Erasmus made and a supposed manuscript “miraculously” produced with the Comma in it to meet that challenge. Now I first heard of such a “challenge” more than 30 years ago in seminary from Bruce Metzger’s textbook ( the same one edited by Bart Ehrman). Yet even Metzger disavowed this later, claiming it to be false. Yet the false story continues to be recycled. And of course, there are other manuscripts and transmissions streams that include the Comma. Cyprian’s 2nd-century reference to the Comma stands as irrefutable, unless you do what Dr. James White does by brazenly denying the clear language of that reference instead by allegorizing it, thus turning Father, Son and Holy Ghost into “spirit, water and blood.” Yet it is no allegory to see that the Word represents the Son, since John is the only author that specifically calls Jesus the Word of God and the Word of Life. The point is this: the total available manuscript evidence is complete enough to receive by faith. I receive the Comma because it is true and “rightly divided,” and because it has not and cannot be disproven. Those who, like you, do not receive it are also taking your stance by your own application of faith. Nothing can be absolutely 100% proven until HE returns.

[@Jasn_Chvz]

I didn’t know that

[@Darisiabgal7573]

The divine Jesus was an emmergent property of christianity. If you want to stipulate that Christianity formally exists when the word is used as an identifyer, then I would agree with Dan. But most scholars agree that Paul was a formative figure, and Paul's Christ was not an adopted son theology but a Righteous sacrifice theology. The Sacrifice accepted Ihsou pnuema was the able to become the Messiah to come (but never did). The Q source does not mention christ once, but does engage the adopted son framework, also seen in Mark. The adopted son framework was not unique, the ideal of the bene Elohim follows the idea that pious men who stand forth to advance god are the metaphorical sons of Elohim (the use here itself is a deep rabbit hole). I think that christology during the first century was indefinite, and this continued to be the case well into the second century. One of the problems of being of lower christology is that this typically meant you were Jewish, which in the late first and second century lowered your life expectancy.

[@boboak9168]

Dear Dan, there is a textual question involving a comma that I and pretty much every exJehovah’s Witnesses would appreciate your help with. The verse is Luke 23:43. The JW bible inserts a comma AFTER the word today. They have done this historically so they can say Jesus’ involuntary companion impaled on a _stake_ beside him wasn’t promised a resurrection after his death that day. Every other translation on biblehub puts the comma BEFORE the word today or rephrases the paragraph to make it clear the man would be with Jesus that day in paradise. Can you provide any insights into what the author most likely intended to convey please?

[@monteirolobato6830]

The earliest texts used no punctuation or, we find, used it rather diversely. ('Diversely' may not be the best word to use. I mean to say we see inconsistencies.) I rather like what the JW text suggests. It makes sense to me, but it does not really make a significant difference in my beliefs. The underlying lesson to be learned here, in my opinion, is that we are saved by faith in Jesus and in our repentance that naturally follows that faith.

[@boboak9168]

@@monteirolobato6830 thanks for that. I’m aware of the lack of punctuation in the earliest manuscripts, hence the possibility of inserting one to change meaning. It is my hope a scholar will have other means of arriving at the intended meaning, and that the translators of scholarly versions have translated it the way they have for good reason, but perhaps in this case the JWs have the better translation - the answer is what it is.

[@monteirolobato6830]

Scholars argue about this quite a lot. One might as well view both (?) sides as being possible. And does it really matter? (Really, does it matter?)@@boboak9168

[@bristolrovers27]

You've just boosted Hamza's credibility

[@BenM61]

You said there were no Christians who didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus. I don’t believe that. I don’t think the Ebionites believed Jesus to be a god or a demigod. I doubt very much if the apostles of Jesus took Jesus to be divine or a god. The Jewish Christians were monotheists. Read ‘How Jesus became God’ by Bart Ehrman.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

Actually Christian Apologists would agree with Dan: but NOT the ignorance of Hamza the English Muslim in the video trying to use 1John 5:7 of the KJV as a proof text of the New Testament being corrupted. The actual context of the Muslim argument Hamza the kiddy cat is using!

[@BabyHoolighan]

I think the editors of Late Antiquity have done a good job of stitching together a significant genre of creative writing from the Bronze and Iron Ages. It has provided Hollywood Directors in the Modern Age the textual resources to create my favorite movies. And just consider the task of editing an edited volume. What are these creators in the Age of Anxiety screaming about?

[@joestfrancois]

Ok, the one dude seems whacko when he says the same thing that Dan does. What the heck?

[@WayWalker3]

True. When you see emotional content, it's a sign of frustration with their own internal rationality. Truth is dispassionate. It needs nothing added, unlike belief, which is perpetually seeking its own artificial glory.

[@monteirolobato6830]

Manic behaviour does add something fun to a party, though.@@EunusandCleon

[@Jesusfollower-x1j]

I think you are wrong on this. Are you a Jehovah’s Witness? This would explain why you are against this passage.

[@johnrichardson7629]

Trinitarianism is incoherent AF. Once you demand that people believe something so strained and logic defying, you have kissed rationality goodbye.

[@товмач-руснак]

There is nothing complicated about the Trinity, although the concept clearly does not come from the Bible

[@JopJio]

@@товмач-руснак the trinity in usage is complicated and makes no sense. Jesus says the father is greater than him, only the father knows the hour and the Father is his God but some how they are co equal.

[@johnrichardson7629]

@rusnakocel The basic idea of the trinity might seem straightforward at a glance but it becomes more complicated and even incoherent the more you reflect on it. Three persons. Does that mean three minds? Can three minds ever reasonably be called one anything. But wait, are all three of these minds omniscient? Is there such a thing as three distinct centers of omniscience? So just one mind then? But then how can one god with one mind be three persons? It's like centaurs. These are easy to describe on the outside but try to figure out tge internal anatomy of a beast with two upper torsos. Two hearts? Two sets of longs?

[@evangelicalsnever-lie9792]

​@@товмач-руснак Ok, let's debate that. Describe the 100% correct and universally accepted "Trinity?" Besides it's 3 persons in one person. What does that mean, that is universally accepted?

[@monteirolobato6830]

The Trinity is a mystery. It can only be taken as a matter of faith. Reason belongs to a different realm than faith.

[@Brandon_SoMD]

Good content but the audio is almost impossible to hear. You really need to look into your volume levels - this is a consistent problem with your videos. Edit: there is nothing wrong with the mix, only the relative volume compared to almost every other video on KZbin. I’ve done audio engineering for 40 years and streaming and podcasting for a long time too. I loaded some of his videos into an audio editor to check against my perception. I’m not just fussing without some knowledge to back it up.

[@Quack_Shot]

I’ve never had an issue, sounds like it’s on your end

[@digitaljanus]

??? No problem on my end.

[@hive_indicator318]

Uhhh... What the others said. It's an issue on your end. He's fine on ours

[@slowmoon]

I have no problems with the sound.

[@JopJio]

That's Satan who doesn't want you to see Dan's videos. You need a good baptism😂

[@stuartkenny3050]

You rarely make an obvious mistake, but this time you are wrong--the Ebionites did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. They believed he was a mere man. Many in the early church and today see Jesus as a wise human being we can imitate rather than divine.

[@maklelan]

Yeah, I've already pointed out that's a fair correction.

[@evangelicalsnever-lie9792]

Right - it's called negotiating with the text. Christianity cherry picking verses.

[@RustyWalker]

The problem here is that he won't apply skepticism to the missing verses of the Quran - The Satanic verses. Mohammed had an embarrassing "revelation" that he later retracted saying it had been revealed by Satan or other evil spirit and he'd been fooled. Well, if that fooled him and he couldn't tell *until* he was embarrassed by it, what else could have been revealed that he wasn't embarrassed by at the time? The justification for why those verses exist remove credibility from the whole text because there is no basis to know what is revealed by which supernatural entity. If Mohammed couldn't tell them apart at the time, how are we supposed to after the fact?

[@monteirolobato6830]

I don't think the issue is about the bearded speaker or his own religious beliefs.

[@RustyWalker]

@@monteirolobato6830 He has a problem with fraudulent verses and the Quran has verses allegedly revealed by an imposter. How is it not the same?

[@monteirolobato6830]

But aren't we taking about the Johannine Comma? Anyone could have brought this up. This bearded fellow introduced a topic, but I don't think we need to comment on his beliefs. We can, of course, but I don't see how that moves us to our truth.@@RustyWalker

[@RustyWalker]

@@monteirolobato6830 Hamza is talking about fraudulent verses and citing that as evidence of being corrupted thus the Bible cannot be trusted. He doesn't apply the same reasoning to the Qur'an. Muslims claim the Qur'an is uncorrupted therefore proof of being revealed (which doesn't follow anyway).

[@DiverRamada]

​@@RustyWalker Dan is not an islamic scholar

[@williamsblock]

CHRISTIANITY is sad

[@monteirolobato6830]

I find great joy in my faith. It is the fallen world and sin which is sad.

[@basilkearsley2657]

The issue is this guys see mistakes in the Bible’s, but does not see any mistakes in the Quran, which was put together in Egypt in 1924

[@VulcanLogic]

We actually have full manuscripts over 1000 years old. We also have first editions of the Book of Mormon and Dianetics. Doesn't make any of them true, but this 1929 thing is nonsense.

[@evangelicalsnever-lie9792]

Your grammar is very poor.

[@basilkearsley2657]

@@VulcanLogic Sorry I was wrong it was 1924, see this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran. So it is not nonsense

[@dantraveler6816]

Dan McClellan You are right about the Johannine Comma, but you are not right that Jesus Christ is not begotten of the Father. There are about 50 verses in this sense. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the only Son. Indeed, there was a time when He did not exist, because otherwise He would not have been born, but He is also called the Word of God. So when the Father spoke, Jesus Christ was also born. Jesus Christ being the Son of the Father is divine just like the Father, although He has a beginning - Micah 5:2. >however, for us there is only one God: the Father, FROM WHOM all things come and for whom we also live, and one Lord: Jesus Christ, THROUGH WHOM all things are, and through Him and us. (1Cor.8:6)

[@hrvatskinoahid1048]

The son of God is Israel.

[@andrewcohen786]

With such corruption no wonder Christianity is dying .