<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Should sarcasm be part of the discussion of a disagreement between Christians? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, it shouldn't and I appoligize. I sometimes let my feelings get the better of me.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You will please note that I did not say that it was corrupt. And the question is not whether the text passes a theological purity test. The question is whether or not the passage was part of the originals. If you have evidence that says it does then please show it. I would personally like to believe that it was! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here is a small piece of the document at this web page.:
In short, it has been denied that this verse was ever quoted in the Arian controversy, or ever appealed to as having unquestionably proceeded from the pen of the Apostle John. The contrary, however, is manifest to those who will take the trouble to examine the history of the Church. Were it necessary to insist on this part of the subject, we might refer to the testimony of Phaebadius, Jerome, and Marcus Celedensis, in the fourth century; of Eucherius, Vigilius, and Fulgentius, in the fifth and sixth centuries; and of many Greek and Latin fathers in subsequent ages, who make frequent and direct citations of the verse in question; and some of whom have appealed to the Arians themselves, as acknowledging its authenticity.
Maximus, who lived in the seventh century, about A.D. 645, is generally supposed to have been the author of a dialogue in the Greek language, in which Athanasius and Arius are the assumed disputants. In this dialogue, the verse in question is expressly referred to. "Is not that lively and saving baptism," says he, "whereby we receive remission of sins, administered in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? And moreover St. John says, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE."
I would that you would read it in it's entirety. As it shows the text of 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37 being used as far beack as the 5th century...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You will please note that I did not say that it was corrupt. And the question is not whether the text passes a theological purity test. The question is whether or not the passage was part of the originals. If you have evidence that says it does then please show it. I would personally like to believe that it was! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here is a small piece of the document at this web page.:
In short, it has been denied that this verse was ever quoted in the Arian controversy, or ever appealed to as having unquestionably proceeded from the pen of the Apostle John. The contrary, however, is manifest to those who will take the trouble to examine the history of the Church. Were it necessary to insist on this part of the subject, we might refer to the testimony of Phaebadius, Jerome, and Marcus Celedensis, in the fourth century; of Eucherius, Vigilius, and Fulgentius, in the fifth and sixth centuries; and of many Greek and Latin fathers in subsequent ages, who make frequent and direct citations of the verse in question; and some of whom have appealed to the Arians themselves, as acknowledging its authenticity.
Maximus, who lived in the seventh century, about A.D. 645, is generally supposed to have been the author of a dialogue in the Greek language, in which Athanasius and Arius are the assumed disputants. In this dialogue, the verse in question is expressly referred to. "Is not that lively and saving baptism," says he, "whereby we receive remission of sins, administered in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? And moreover St. John says, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE."
I would that you would read it in it's entirety. As it shows the text of 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37 being used as far beack as the 5th century...
