Heretick or Divisive?

[Craigbythesea]

Will wrote,

A Trail of Evidence

We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas

250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "it is written, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he get it?

350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]

Will,

Tertullian actually wrote,

"We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former, ) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, "I have to be baptized with a baptism," when He had been baptized already. For He had come "by means of water and blood," just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost."

Notice that Tertullian does not quote any of the "Johannine Comma" at all, but that his quote is from verse 6.

Cyprian actually wrote,

"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.'"

Notice that Cyprian does not quote any of the "Johannine Comma" at all, but that his first quote is from John 10:30 and his second quote is from the undisputed part of 1John 5:8.

Priscillian, in his Latin work, Contra Varimadum, quoted the "Johannine Comma" (in Latin).

For highly detailed and accurate information on 1 John 5:7, see my posts on this subject in the Mis-Characterizations thread in this forum.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Still running around in leftoutfield looking for the ball, Brian? er, the Word of God?

I got satisfied when Jesus saved my soul, and gave me a Bible! The AV 1611 KJB. (Uh, I caught the ball)

Then how come that when you quote Scripture, it's from a later edition? Didja catch a football out in left field?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Here are the terms needed:
perfect, perfecter, perfectist

 

[Precepts]

QS are you going to apologize to your cohorts of KJVOnlyism for stating that it is ok to add to the Word of God?

Why do I need to apologize for? We all agree! O.K., O.K. Guys, I'm sorry and have to apologize that the KJB translators gave us the Perfect, Infallable, Inerrant, Inspired Word of God to the English speaking people.

Their reply, "I wouldn't let them make me feel sorry for having the RIGHT Bible."

O.k., I was just trying to appease them, I can see now it would be wasted effort to try to do so.

maybe that's why God said to admonish some only one time. God knew that some would waste our time with senseless arguments.

First, tiny, you have to have the truth to admonish with, you do not. The Bible says after the first and second admonition, you don't have the truth to begin to admonish.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by gb93433:
According to my dictionary "is" is 3rd pers. sing. pres. indic. of be.

This is evidence right here the misinformation the mv advocates try to use to propigate error. The word "is" is in conjunction with the action verb "coming" in the esv. That denotes that the days will always be "coming" and never actually getting here.

"When "is" it going to get here,daddy?"

"Don't worry son, it is coming."

"But daddy, it's already been 30 years, and I 've out grown my tricycle and been driving a truck for 18 years, you'd think my new bicycle would have arrived by now."

"I told you not to worry, son. I told you it "is coming"."

Now if the esv had said, "is come" you might have an arguement, but you do not, only false and pretentious and misinformation.

Learn English before you try and tear it down with Greek.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by tinytim:
Will, would you agree with QS in saying it is ok to add words to the text if those words improve a doctrine?

And QS, here is your quote again, just so you wont say I misquoted you.

"I wouldn't call this example of "adding" words, but only clarity to confirm and establish Doctrine. It is O.K. to confirm and establish the Doctrine of the Trinity isn't it?"

Will, If a verse is not in the text, and someone puts it in there, wouldn't that be adding?

Tiny, you quoted my quote of the word "adding". I have never said I John 5:7 was added, you mv advoctaes said that, you are the ones I quoted.

I know beyond the shadow of a doubt I John 5:7 belongs in the Bible, the Spirit Himself beareth witness. And Brother Will has shown you and all the rest of the world your claims it doesn't are maligned.

I sure am glad to have Brother Will on my side which is the Lord's side at that!

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by rsr:
I have decided that no one can explain anything to him and it is a waste of effort to even attempt it.

I'm with rsr. I would also add that he's doing fine all by himself showing everyone else the absurdities of KJV-onlyism - he doesn't really need our help.

 

[Precepts]

For highly detailed and accurate information on 1 John 5:7, see my posts on this subject in the Mis-Characterizations thread in this forum

You know, we all should be listening to Craig. He is the final authority, if you don't believe it, just ask him, he'll tell you, over and over and over and over and over, but he won't tell you who his professors were at Standford and Princeton.

 

[HankD]

To be honest, I agree with QS and Will that 1 John 5:7-8 (the Johnannine Comma) is part of the cannon of Scripture.

HankD

 

[Precepts]

Will someone explain to QS that the phrase
"is coming" and the phrase "will come" means the same thing in English. There both future.

Tiny, I can see you've really got a hold on the English language.

"Will come" has a definite and expected satisfaction of completion of the action of the verb.

"Is coming" has an expected end to the action, but never satisfies a completion to the action due to it's suffix of "ing" added to the verb.

If the esv is relevant today, the verb would have read "is come".

The days of people heaping to themselves teachers having itching ears "is come", not "is coming".

Paul knew it would come in his day, he advised Timothy in relevance to the present of then expected in their lifetimes, and the evidence is all against the mv advocate as it is here.

W/H are the teachers that yall have heaped to yourselves to try and make the itch go away. The only problem you have is you cannot do away with the Truth, no matter how hard you try, the KJB "itch" is still there!

Just count me as one of the "fleas" that keep you itching.

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Just count me as one of the "fleas" that keep you itching.


"At least you're not a "hairy-tick", haha!"

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
I know beyond the shadow of a doubt I John 5:7 belongs in the Bible, the Spirit Himself beareth witness.

I know beyond the shadow of a doubt I John 5:7 does not belong in the Bible, the Spirit Himself beareth witness. Now who's right and how are you going to make your point??

 

[Precepts]

Because I'm a flea and you are a "hairy-tick"

Also I know the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost AGREE!

Thanks Granny Gumbo, my wife and I rolled all over the floor at your "more than adequate" reply.

 

[Precepts]

I'm with rsr. I would also add that he's doing fine all by himself showing everyone else the absurdities of KJV-onlyism - he doesn't really need our help.

Yall keep holding hands. maybe you can get Scott and Craig to hold hands with you too? We'll just keep waving our AV 1611 KJB Bibles in the face of the devil while yall keep looking for "other ways".

 

[HankD]

I know beyond the shadow of a doubt I John 5:7 does not belong in the Bible, the Spirit Himself beareth witness. Now who's right and how are you going to make your point??

Personally Pastor Larry, I'm content to wait and see who got the message right (and I promise I won't gloat

).

HankD

 

[Pastor Larry]

I agree with you Hank. I was showing how useless QS's statement is that the Holy Spirit bore witness to him about this. We should all know that that is an invalid basis for argumentation in this area. It is a fallacious argument.

 

[HankD]

Agreed.

HankD

 

[Precepts]

Here's the proof, Hank. I'll keep I John 5:7,8 in the Bible, Larry and his kind will keep trying to change it or attempt to pull it out.

I know it belongs without Will's facts, but now I understand the facts, I now know the "Firm Foundational Truth" according to God's Word.

I never knew the evidence given according to the harmonizng of the Koine Greek about the answering of the masculine verbage in that particular passage, I just believe God/ The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I agree with you Hank. I was showing how useless QS's statement is that the Holy Spirit bore witness to him about this. We should all know that that is an invalid basis for argumentation in this area. It is a fallacious argument.

Then why did you lie? And how can "invalidate" the witness of the Holy Spirit?

Uh, you lied, and you can't. That is all I need to maintain the truth.

 

[Kiffin]

My understanding is that Erasmus who put together the Textus Receptus in which the KJV/NKJV is translated from, did not find 1 John 5:7 in the manuscripts that he used to edit his first edition of the TR. It however was in the Latin Vulgate translation and after some convincing he put it in the second edition of the TR. 1 John 5:7 was not however in Luther's translation of the New Testament and many believe it is a forgery. The evidence for it in the earliest manuscripts and in the Christological councils of Nicea and Chalcedon seem shaky. Why was not this verse appealed to at these councils since it clearly refutes Anti Trinitarians?

Some KJV ONLYS claim the Church fathers in the 3rd century did quote from it.

Here is a supposed quote of Cyprian, "He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. 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."

I am not sure of the validity of this quote or even if Cyprian is referring to 1 John 5:7. It seems that the Nicene, Athanasian and Chalcedonian creeds have a strong dose of John 1 in them but not necessarily any referance to 1 John 5:7. This verse would be the logical weapon to use against Arians but the Church Fathers at these councils seem to not have knowledge of it.