this is sort of a multi purpose post.
i want to show something about the relationship between the Father and the Word,
and as a result of that revisit the johannine comma,
and as a result of THAT show a certain useful attribute that allows progress in the Way.

so, we started off looking at certain anomalies in the Torah around different ways the Father is referred to.
please note that this did not start off with looking at the NT, it just got dragged into the mix, as it were.
we're focussing on three main references, El (or Elyon), Elohim (only when it's referring to the Father in some way, not as gods or sons of gods) and YHWH.
the first anomaly was deut 32:8-9

- 8When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
when He divided the sons of man,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.
9But the LORD’s portion is His people,
Jacob His allotted inheritance. -

where the sons of God is actually the sons of Yisrael. and the LORD is YHWH.
so this verse, read directly, is indicating a distinction between the Most High and YHWH. nothing conclusive, yet.

then we have psalm 91.
now i usually use the berean standard bible translation, but this is better translated with smith's literal translation.

verse 1
- He dwelling in the covering of the Most High, in the shadow of the Almighty shall he lodge. -
where Almighty is Shaddai.

and verse 9 describes who 'He' is.
-For thou, O Jehovah, my trust; thou didst set the Most High thy refuge.-
where Jehovah is YHWH. and here a definite distinction is made.

now we drag the gospel of john in, chapter 1

- 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. -

understanding that through the WORD all things were made, we go to exodus 20, the giving of the ten commandments.

- 1And God spoke all these words:
2“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3You shall have no other gods before Me -

where God is Elohim, and the LORD your God is YHWH Elohim.
but then in verses 10-11

- 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work—neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant or livestock, nor the foreigner within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy. -

again where the Sabbath to the LORD your God is to YHWH Elohim, but in verse 11 it says YHWH, not YHWH Elohim, made everything.
interesting distinction...

why am i harping on about this?
because in 1 kings 8 we get verses 27-29

- 27But will God indeed dwell upon the earth? The heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain You, much less this temple I have built. 28Yet regard the prayer and plea of Your servant, O LORD my God, so that You may hear the cry and the prayer that Your servant is praying before You today.
29May Your eyes be open toward this temple night and day, toward the place of which You said, ‘My Name shall be there,’ so that You may hear the prayer that Your servant prays toward this place. -

where God is Elohim in verse 27 and O LORD my God is YHWH Elohim.
now this is saying that our Father cannot be in His creation, it cannot contain Him, but His Name CAN be in creation.
now before i state what conclusion i've come to regarding this, let me say that everything has always been stated from the beginning, and developed through time, both in the progress of history and in an individual's progress in understanding.
and i'm saying here we're seeing distinctions having been made from genesis already all the way through the OT in preparation for the Messiah's coming, and us getting to come to a certain understanding.

let's go back to verse 1 and 2 of john 1

- 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning -

the Word WAS God.
now i'm looking to find an understanding that will remove the anomalies i've mentioned in the previous passages.
and so my thoughts say

before creation there was the Father.
then, He created.
but He does not get contained in creation, yet He figures in it, how?
because He SPOKE creation into being, He 'Word-ed' it.
and His Word, being a part of Him yet not all of Him, CAN enter creation.
(as can His Spirit, btw, which brought adam to life. nobody seems to contend that!)

now the Name we received was given to moses, the famous I Am, YHWH.
and YHWH (or YHWH Elohim) is consistently referenced interacting with us, inside creation.
is it too far to jump in understanding to see the only Name, 'YHWH', is indeed the Word of john 1, and that then makes sense of deut 32 and psalm 91, exodus 20 for that matter too, and most especially 1 kings 8.
and that during the time of the OT writings, the distinction being made was not clear to them, as the time of the Messiah had not yet come?
and so we have a mishmash of references then to the Most High, then to Elohim, combinations with YHWH, all essentially from the same source, after all, the totality that is the Father before creation.
yet these key passages are making that certain distinction.
everything in the NT was talked about in the OT beforehand, YHWH even SAYS nothing will happen that He did not say would come to be, so that it would be clear to all.
and so where did john get his idea from in those first verses of his gospel?

now a further reading of john leads us to see the Word was manifested in the flesh.
(the Word that is) YHWH's Spirit entered into Yeshua, the begotten Son, at His baptism in the jordan.
the Word, Who WAS part of the Father before creation, and Who entered creation as YHWH, now took on human form, the culmination of the Plan. because through this He brought about our salvation, which in the OT YHWH (not YHWH Elohim, but YHWH) said HE would do, and the NT says Yeshua does.
this does bring up the issue of hebrew versions of the NT that translate the Father as YHWH, that doesn't compute, unfortunately.
what i learnt in the meantime from justin breithaupt about the aramaic originals clearly confirms Yeshua's identification with YHWH.
and so the Father of the NT is Elohim our Most High of the OT, who melchizedek was priest of, like Yeshua.
and now Yeshua saying He and the Father are one, and His reference to abraham make sense, His Spirit is talking, as it were, not His flesh.
just for clarity, again, Yeshua came to be when He was born. YHWH always was.

and so, with this understanding, i thought of the johannine comma.
now the johannine comma's provenance, the sequence of events of how it came to be inserted, are suspect to say the least.
especially because it came to be inserted after the concept of the trinity was first broached, and was subsequently used to strengthen that argument.
now the trinity speaks of the tri-une singleness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, from the beginning.
Yeshua was born when He was born, and this, along with other reasons, were enough for me to reject the trinity concept.
but here's the johannine comma insertion.
1 john 5, and in the old king james

- 7For there are three that beare record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.] 8[And there are three that beare witnesse in earth], the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one.

— King James Version (1611) -

the square brackets show what that insertion was.
and then, that stuff that i've concluded now is the way to look at it is actually EXACTLY what the johannine comma is saying.

the difference is, if you want to look at it as a trinity, it's correctly identifying these 'separate' elements of the Father, without in that definition including Yeshua the Man, who only existed from His birth.
that Yeshua NOW does indeed also figure in this is without doubt, as YHWH is manifested in Him, but it's got nothing to do with the (catholic) church's insistence that the Son was somehow always there.
so this comma, inserted so late that it looks so suspicious, is actually a super-correct clarification.

and so, in americanese, i eat crow.
i was wrong to reject the johannine comma. not the trinity concept of the church, but the comma itself.
and that is the attribute i'd like to make clear.
when you study, and your understanding changes, be prepared to change your viewpoint, if you don't you're blocking further growth.
now i know many objections can be raised, i hope they do, they would need to be worked through, just know i've thought long and hard about this, before making this post.
like i started off with,
well i never...