1. Yeshua the Lord of Glory

    Hi P

    1. Did the Apostle John intend to convey that only God’s Word is eternal and ever-existed,but not his Son Jesus? Is this what Marcellus of Ancrya understood?

    2.Could you explain again your understanding of the Pre-incarnate Word and the incarnate Son of God.

    3…Do you know wether or not the original Manuscripts used by William Tyndale, Coverdale,the Great or Matthew’s bible and the King James version,are in the same chronological order that we have John 1:1-14 in?

    Thank you

  2. Yeshua the Lord of Glory

    Thank you P

    On the third question, i have read where a non Trinitarian has made the assertion that John 1:1-14 is not in the correct chronological order of the original manuscripts.His point was that John 1:14 actually follows John 1:4.

    Otherwise the readers assume that the C0-eternal existence of the Son of God is taught by the Apostle John.

    Moreover,others have said that the translators of the original manuscripts used by Tyndale/Coverdale, Matthew (the great bible),the King James version bibles and all modern paraphrases,were and are the work of Trinitarians.

    There is also the theory that a man named Erasmus added 1 John 5:7 to the King James version manuscripts in order to promote the teaching of the trinity…

    P, i believe that non trinitarians have the overall teachings of the scriptures themselves,as proof that there is no trinity or truine God taught…

    I do wonder if there is any truth to these assertions of others.

  3. Yeshua the Lord of Glory

    Thank you P

    I will check out the links also.


  4. 1,) Indeed, this is what Marcellus understood John to mean. The Logos is eternal, and God’s agent in Creation, but when He became Flesh (God spoke Himself) He became Son.

    2.) For Marcellus, the Preincarnate was always the Logos, existing in the Father, as the Father’s hand. The Son, upon Incarnation, was what the Logos became. The Son is distinct from the Father, because the nature of the Incarnation demands it; however, is God every without His Logos (Reason, Word)? And is the Incarnation eternal? No. The Logos, as Irenaeus said, is God’s hand in salvation. It is God sent forth. One of the best explanations that I have heard is to take mercury. Mercury can be separate into two parts, but upon reconnection, there is no distinction that you can find.

    3.) Not sure what you mean here. I believe that most biblical MSS do not show any textual variants in that portion of Scripture, if that is what you mean.


  5. YtLoG,

    I have not found that support in any of the resources that I have. I do not have it with me at the office, but when I get home this afternoon, I will scan something for you that I think highlights what John was saying, perhaps even in hymns sung by the early Church.

    The problem with ‘co-eternal’ is that it was not applied to Christ until 300 years after John wrote his gospel. The Logos was begotten from eternity, a common thought found in Tertullian, but even for Tertullian, there was a time when God was alone. He had to bring forth His Logos for creation.

    I believe that in any translation, the translator has a habit of putting forth their own theology into the translation. The KJV is essentially a revision of earlier works, although they made other insertions, etc….and translated, in my opinion, some things that are clearly a theological basis. Look at Hebrews 1.3, for example. They translated the word hypostasis according to the Latin formula of the Trinity, not what the actual Greek word means, as in Substance (Hebrews 11.1).

    Erasmus was the first Textual Critic of any importance since Origen (although I would debate the character of Origen and his works as being important to the Church). As far as placing 1st John 5.7 into the text, it may be that he chose that particular variant for a theological basis. This is not his fault, as we must understand the man in his own time, but there is textual evidence of 1st John 5.7 dating back to the 4th century.

    It is true, as many assert, that in all of the Trinitarian debates, that particular verse was never mentioned, but in reality, why would it be so?

    The Father, the Logos, and the Spirit are One. They are not as one, are in one, but simply, one.

    This is a pretty good book for textual criticism, the best that I have seen.


    This is a great book, and inexpensive on Marcellus.


Leave a Reply, Please!