Fulgentius (462-527) is referencing Cyprian's (210-258) quote on the unity of the church and clearly makes the distinction of two separate verses being referenced as he said... “For St. John the apostle, testifieth saying, “There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.” “Which also the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his epistle de Unitate Ecclesiae (Unity of the Church), confesseth, saying… ‘The Lord said, “I and the Father are one’ [John 10:30]. AND AGAIN, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is written, And these three are one.” [I John 5:7]. Fulgentius said 'the Word,' Cyprian said 'the Son', and Fulgentius quotes I John 5:7 and then references Cyprian's quote of it. And in his treatise on the trinity, he gives the following explanation of the preceding texts, and his inference from that explanation: "I an the Father are one" (John 10:30). The words teach us to refer 'unum' to the nature, 'sumus' to the persons. IN LIKE MANNER, THAT TEXT, 'There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, THE WORD, and the Spirit, and these three are one. (I John 5:7). Let Sabellius hear 'sumus' and 'tres,' and believe there are 'three persons:' Let Arius also hear 'unum,' and not say that the Son is of a different nature; since a different nature cannot be called 'unum.' (Fulgentius, Against the Arians; Translated by Thomas Hartwell Horne, 1825; Horne, "IV. Sect. V. On the First General Epistle of John" in Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 1825, vol 4, p. 454). (caps mine). Cyprian factually did very CLEARLY (199-258-AD) quote the Comma VERBATIM and said AGAIN IT IS WRITTEN! Cyprian said, “THE LORD SAYS, "I and the Father are one” (From John 10:30) ‘AND AGAIN’ - making the claim that the Bible verse quoted AGAIN had as much weight as the first quotation. In addition, he says IT IS WRITTEN "AND THESE THREE ARE ONE." The obvious conclusion is that Cyprian is quoting from Scripture in John’s Gospel and then AGAIN in John’s Epistle. If you're going to doubt that he quoted I John 5:7, then be consistent and doubt he quoted John 10:30 also for BOTH quotations are clearly from BOTH verses. He believed the Comma to have the same authority as John's earlier quotation in his gospel. Scholars try to spin this and say, “except Cyprian was giving commentary to a verse in John’s Gospel “I and my father are one” in those quotes, so there’s that.” Notice most ignore “AND AGAIN IT IS WRITTEN.” “So, there’s that” part that most scholars conveniently left out. Critics say, “The “are one” phrasing is Johannine but just because Cyprian decided to add the third person of the trinity into the equation by conflating John 10 and 14 together theologically, doesn’t mean he was quoting 1 John 5:7.” Talk about arbitrary assumptions, yes indeed. And to claim wanting to 'push the emotional part aside' regarding our 460 brothers who suffered for the verse (being quoted verbatim openly) is a disappointment as you correctly stated, for their testimony as verified by Victor of Vita (born 430) is much better than James Snapp's 460 or so questionable and mostly post 10th century manuscripts that he never even bothered to examine because he 'has a life' as stated in the debate. Mike Ferrando (who has a life also) is finding holes in these so-called witnesses. This is why I claim an 'eschatological connection' will occur with God Himself resolving this issue and bringing it to a conclusion, for we claim the verse was omitted and the critics claim it was added. Being that God does concern Himself with His own word, why would He not have a plan in this end time to resolve the most contested verse of Scripture in church history? I am concerned that a lot of shame and loss of credibility will soon occur (to whichever side is on the wrong side), but don't get mad at me for this prediction, I am just trying to persuade my brothers and sisters to get on the right side of this while there is still time, because I love them and have compassion for them.
Hey, Dwayne! Since nobody in the chat seemed to think this, I thought I’d point it out: it seems the angel present at baptism that Tertullian speaks about might be a reference to the tradition that at baptism one receives a guardian angel, and he’s talking about the angel’s role in what happens. That’s my two cents at a glance, anyways
The Cyprian quote could only get closer if he quoted it verbatim or if Cyprian said, "I'm quoting 1John5:7" The acrobatics that are needed to get out of it.
That's a convenient 'criteria box' considering there were no chapters and verses back then. How about Fulgentius' saying, "For St. John the apostle, testifieth saying...." Will that suffice?
Do you not find it odd that the prolegomena complains about the absence of the comma... But then the text that the prolegomena is attached to doesn't contain it?!?
as it stands, it appears to be a construction of the trinity based on Matthew 28:19 and 2 Cor 13:1, with the last phrase of 1 John 5:8 in there. This is in keeping with the rest of the early church fathers who appeal to Matt 28 and 2 cor 13... the only difference here is Cyprian uses the last phrase. Again, this appears to be evidence AGAINST its inclusion, Why does Cyprian quote only the last clause and not all of 5:7? Because he didn't have 5:7.
@@Dwayne_Green I can see how you can construct in that very round about way however, it is much more easier and more simple to see it as a direct quote of 1John 5:7. No gymnastics involved. I mean, why would Cyprian just use 1John 5:8 to round it off? Why would you admit he goes to that passage but is somehow jumping around to two other books to make his point when 1John 5:7 comes right before 1John5:8? Might you be suggesting that Cyprian was the originator for the comma being placed before 1John 5:8? Or is it easier to say that he is quoting 1John5:7 and rolling onto verse 8. The simplest option is often the right one. He was quoting 1John 5:7. And to your question of why he didn’t quote the whole verse and just the last part, we all do that! It’s very common Dwayne. Think about when you preach, I’m sure you don’t feel the need to quote every single word from a text every single time.
SCHOLARS CIRCULAR REASIONING SAYS: 1) “All Latin witnesses for I John 5:7 are bad for God did not use any of the Latin, He does not work that way. 2) Any Greek witnesses for I John 5:7 came from the Latin! 3) Therefore, any Greek or Latin witnesses for I John 5:7 are bad.” And round and round we go sitting in the bumper criteria box cars of the critics. The Greek Church was overcome with the omission of the verse very early as Socrates, Ambrose, Jerome and other fathers also confirmed, and therefore God used the Latin Church to preserve the verse for almost 400 years before any Greek evidences even showed up. The Comma was originally written in Greek, translated into the Old Latin (between 70AD-120AD relating to Paul's vision for Spain), then corrupted in the Greek, then preserved in the Latin. Those with confirmation bias who claim, “God did not work that way,” should stay consistent in wanting the external evidence so bad, for this scenario is not without its own external evidences in the Old Latin, both of manuscripts and fathers, hundreds of years before the Greek even existed for the verse, as far as what we have today for the scholars to sniff, feel, touch, and smell, which is the #1 priority of modern critics who must ‘see to believe.’ And yes of course, faith is proclaimed by both sides, faith from us in the preservation of the Scriptures in a perfect Bible in the year 2024, and the critics who have faith in the science of criticism whose rationalistic view of a ‘Holy Ghost’ authored BOOK cannot spiritually discern this. No? Read I Cor 2:9-16; 11:19, Jer 8:8-9, Isa 44:25; 29:13-24 for starters in the KJV, for the ‘lines upon lines’ are extensive. The presuppositional bias again the verse is so strong, that it hinders the scholars to connect these simple dots. As Scrivener confirmed and cited by Dean John Burgon, (Revision p. 317), “that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenaeus [A.D. 150], and the African Fathers…, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica [and Doukas in the Polyglot], or Erasmus, or Stephens, [or Beza] thirteen centuries later, when molding the Textus Receptus.” Many who are struggling to see this don’t want to see this. God saving the verse in the Latin is far from an ‘arbitrary assumption,’ it is ‘coniungere in punctis,’ which is in Latin, for one ‘to connect the dots.’ But yes, by faith we also KNOW the verse is legit for God wants us to KNOW it is (Pro 22:21). One must also consider that the evidences in my book and in our recent debate for the verse are less than 10% of the total evidences that are out there IF you know the correct geographic locales on the map to go digging. We are finding new evidence on a weekly basis, so why are not the critics? Because the scholars don’t want to find any evidence against their narrative! [brackets mine] Connect enough dots and you being to see a picture here of which has a higher probability rate than the so-called Westcott & Hort Greek ‘Lucian Recension Theory.’ The WH fable would have higher chances than today’s ‘Lucian 2.0, the Luciano Italiano Latin Invention Theory’ for I John 5:7, claiming the verse was created by unknown ninja scribes on magical carpet rides flying to different cities all throughout Christendom to add the verse. Talk about arbitrary assumptions, yes indeed. Even as Burgon said, “They assume everything. They prove nothing” (p. 264). Can I prove to you God used the Latin for the verse? Perhaps not. Or perhaps yes, as we start connecting more dots. Sooner or later (aside from the required faith, and if your honest hearted), enough will be enough for you. Blessings Bro. Mike Hollner
Even if the ancient Greek Codex from Rhodes were discovered that contained I John 5:7 as scholar Lamy claimed in 1897 that was used for the Polyglot (before Erasmus), the scholars will just say it came from the Latin. No amount of evidence will change their presuppositional bias against the verse. It is a clear case and combination of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.
It is interesting to not that even 1 John 5:8 is modified by the TR and I can see why a KJV reader would think that dropping verse 7 makes no sense, but try reading the entire passage in a ESV or NIV, now everything fits the context. The NIV footnote is very adamant that zero before the fourteenth century contained the TR reading or the Vulgate where it comes from.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below? Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9. If the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant is "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, why would any Christian believe God is going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period? What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below. Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant. They also prove a person must be "baptized" to be saved, but it has nothing to do with water. (See also Romans 8:9 and Eph. 1:12-13, and Eph. 4:1-5.) Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Watch the RUclips videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
I tend to think that the 'Johannine' Comma (as it is called) is not part of the text of John's epistle and is a much later interpolation in some later manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate.
@@getgnomed6179 My information, if I recall it aright, is that it is in about half of the manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, a translation and not the original Greek. It is not cited by the Council of Nicaea or those who were at the Council, which tends to show that they knew nothing of it. The Greek manuscripts, in which it is in, are very late, 14th and 15th century; and there are several variations of it there. So is it genuine; did John write it? It seems that there is not a good case for that, and that the verse should therefore be in a footnote as a likely interpolation into the late Latin. If someone honestly believes it is genuine, they should read it and expound it; I will not. But I will refer to it, and to the evidence both for and against it.
@@RevRMBWest Let me respond to these claims. "it is in about half of the manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, a translation and not the original Greek." I would like a source for that number. Scrivener estimates it is in about 49/50 of the Latin MSS. (he probably took this number from Porson). A good amount of these are early, like the Codex Speculum (5th century) and the Fragment Frisingensia (5th-7th century). Now, you say it's just a translation and not the original Greek, but we do not possess the original Greek, only copies upon copies of it, and in many languages too. Latin is one of these languages, and the general Latin text dates to the 2nd-5th century, which is very early in Christian history. "It is not cited by the Council of Nicaea or those who were at the Council, which tends to show that they knew nothing of it." Except if you exclude Disputatio Contra Arianum, which is a supposed conversation of Athanasius with Arius in which Athanasius cites the Johannine Comma. This is generally just an argument from silence, since we go by what people write, not what they don't write. "The Greek manuscripts, in which it is in, are very late, 14th and 15th century; and there are several variations of it there." That is, if you exclude the manuscripts mentioned by the translator of the Complutensian Polyglot, John Calvin, and Gill. Codex Ottobonianus is 14th century, and Codex Montfortianus is most likely earlier than what is usually said of its date in the 16th century for numerous reasons I could state. Both manuscripts use an earlier vorlage for their text, which most critics of the Comma forget. This is on top of the other 10 or so manuscripts also attesting to it. "If someone honestly believes it is genuine, they should read it and expound it; I will not. But I will refer to it, and to the evidence both for and against it." As any good researcher should, the evidence for and against the Johannine Comma should be stated, such as the possible Syriac witness as defended by Burgess, the Armenian manuscripts of the Oskan Bible, the Zohrab CT, and as listed by UBS, Minuscule 460 in the Arabic column (as discovered by my friend Johannes, but not widely publicized yet), and the many, many patristics ranging from the 2nd-14th centuries.
@@getgnomed6179 The problem with the Johannine Comma is that it just is not there in the Byzantine Tradition, which is the most reliable line of transmission from the autographs. You have got some sporadic support for it, here and there, which would, I think, justify a mention of it in a footnote, but Wilbur Pickering is not impressed by these arguments, and he is the most impressive defender to date of the great Byzantine tradition. I do not think we should make a 'last stand' at every point of the Textus Receptus: Dean John Burgon made it quite clear that though he sorely deprecated the text and theory of Hort, he was in favour of a mild revision of the Textus Receptus to make it conform to the close consensus of the vast majority of Greek manuscripts.
@@RevRMBWest A majority of the Byzantine MSS. omitting it being late, meanwhile we have early support from the 2nd and 4th centuries. Also, we shouldn't revise the preserved word of God!
Thanks, Dwayne! Where, at what time, is the grammatical solecism in the short Greek text discussed? And, in that discussion, where do you express astonishment and amazement as to how a conjectured “interpolation” manages to fix the ungrammatical Greek text when the “interpolated” text is translated from Latin to Greek? Is this a one-time event in all of Greek-Latin history?
I've added the links to each part in the description of each video, so you should be able to see it now... For the record, part 1 can be found here: ruclips.net/user/livecJd3P3GWqh0
Do we have evidence of KJB translators evaluating the readings of different editions or even different manuscripts? We know that they did not always follow Beza or Stephanus and even followed the Vulgate.
My biggest problem with the CT is the doubt that is inflicted by their assertions. If the Comma does not belong, then I have believed a lie for 35 years. If Acts 8:37; Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11 and many more do not belong, what reason do we have to trust it at all? The Muslim wins with your point of view. With the KJVO/1st position, we exhibit a stable, trustworthy text. I watched your video replay. I will continue to present the truth that saved my soul. If we are to trust your point of view, we will no longer possess the formal equivalent position we currently hold to. Why bicker over words? It's the message that matters...right? Jesus lived the perfect life; he died a sinners death; then he rose from the grave 3 days later. Now by faith in that finished work, all who believe are saved...right? So why bicker over words? I am reminded of 1Tim 6:3-5. "... wholesome words..." or "words of our Lord Jesus." Do words matter? Answer that one prayerfully.
@Pastor-Brettbyfaith Clearly you don't know about textual criticism! What makes the kjv text "trustworthy", when we have evidence that some readings like 1 John 5:7 is an interpolation?
Dwayne, you missed the point about Fulgentius quoting the Comma in the 500’s after he quoted it verbatim, for then he said as also our brother Cyprian quoted it thus claiming Cyprian also quoted it.
I may haver... Again, lots of information to go through. The Fulgentius introduction is an interesting one for sure. Of course, if fulgentius is referencing Cyprians quote on the unity of the Church, then the same issues apply.
@@Dwayne_Greenyes but in his unity of the church he quotes John 10:30 but then says ‘again it is written’ referring to “these three are one” which is only in I John 5:7 and not in Matthew 28:19 or anywhere else in scripture. He already left John 10:30 and referenced I John 5:7 of which Fulgentius agreed.
"quoted"?? We don't need another opinion on that verdict where "quoted" means the full verse. The verse has a few parts to it. Using the last clause and saying "scripture says" is "quoting" the verse. Why not use Google? That is a very objective way to test the "quote" and/or allusion to the verses. Cyprian says "scripture says (of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) 'the three are one'" There is only one place in the bible where that clause is used of the persons of the Godhead. === We know that Cyprian was not using verse 8: 1. Cyprian rejected "water" as being symbolic of the Holy Spirit and/or the Father. 2. Cyprian has a formula he uses when he is giving his "interpretation" of a verse. It is no where in the text under discussion. (Knittel's argument is valid and clear. My Latin translator said that Knittel's assertion was spot on.) 3. Cyprian is not an allegory using father,. Fahey's study demonstrates that over and over again in his exhaustive study of Cyprian's works. 4. The other anonymous work on Re-baptism written about the same time as Cyprian lived, uses verse 8 to demonstrate the 3 different types of baptism: Not the Trinity. 5. Eucherius' speaks about a group that interprets verse 8 as the trinity (Water is the Father). While Facundus and Augustine understand the verse as the Spirit is the Father. No tradition of symbolic understanding of verse 8 for the Trinity in among the fathers. 6. We know that verse 8 has "in earth" in it because Facundus used it in his proof text for Christ's real humanity in the work "Defense of the Three Chapters" where Facundus quotes verse 8 five or six times in the work. Facundus' argument rests on the preposition in verse 8 "in earth". Facundus (like Cyprian) is fluent in Greek but wrote this work in Latin even though it was addressed to the Emperor of Constantinople (Greek Orthodox Church). The work of Facundus is now considered a work demonstrating the orthodox position on the humanity of Christ. 7. In Leo's Tome, Leo uses verse 8 to speak about baptism without any mention of some allegorical interpretation of the Trinity. Better yet, the Letter was read out loud during the second session of Chalcedon. The scribes at the council translated the letter into Greek. The scribes did not translate the Latin verse 8 found in Leo's Tome into Greek we find in I John 5, but very different Greek. John's Greek is easily memorized and read. Conclusion: These instances demonstrate that the verses were in the bible all along and the idea that we need a full blown quote of verse 7 is simply a straw man argument full of sound and fury. Use Google, and the question will be exposed as simply begging the question.
Fulgentius quoted the whole verse and they reject that also, so they violate their own set of rules and criteria in needing a full verbatim quote. Give the critics what they want and ask for and they still reject the authenticity of the verse. It’s a no win situation it appears.
@@Studio54MediaGroup Yep. And who needs to mention that there were no "verses" or "chapters" in the NT until the Reformation. So, the whole "quoted" argument is simply a straw man deceptive and delusionary.
Dear Dwayne Can be that the church fathers there all antitrinitarien arian time (sorry my english) and Math. 28.19 they understand the holy spirit as a power or energy or something like that. That's why they use this section and they have a problem with the comma like Luther with James? Just question ? Thankn you
Hello, Dwayne Green! I don't agree with you when you kind of cricised Cyprian (AD 248-258)'s quote. If at all it were you referencing about the Trinity and you started with John 10:30, how dare would you then secondarily strengthen your claim by quoting Matthew 28:19 which this time round isn't speaking directly that those mentioned 3 are indeed one? And how would how add to the verse "And these three are one" yet that wasn't added to it in that verse? I think Cyprian vividly quoted 1John 5:7 (The Johanine Comma) and not Matthew 28:19 since since he must have not desired to add his own words but to let the scriptures speak for themselves. Matthew 28:19 in that matter would only come in if at all Cyprian also need to explain that also there are three names (not persons) in whose names you should baptise an believer. The emphasis in Matthew 28:19 is more of the names though we can till guess the Trinity therein. I think Cyprian desired to list from simple to simpler in his by then quotation. How I pray you don't mislead us!!!😢😮
We all love each other but truth is truth, and the truth is there is a mountain of evidence for I John 5:7 that is overlooked and bypassed due to the narrative and the scholars script needing to be kept.
Marcion baptised in the name of Jesus only; having a different view of the trinity and believed that Paul was the true apostle. He rejected the Johanine writings.The early Fathers had to use other references of the trinity other than John's to rebut Marcion!
so they used he Gospel of John, especially chapter 14 to construct the doctrine of the Trinity. This argument doesnt work... And then there's the awkwardness of the fathers letting a heretic dictate what is and isn't scripture, I don't think they would've done that.
If we tamper with the text, we are as guilty as the heretics that propagated Sinaiaticus. Take that out, and that over there, and those verses over there, they gotta go. By the time you are finished, you have another gospel. Oh, I forgot, the CT will never be finished. What Bible should we trust? I will stand on the most stable text available... the KJV.
Dwayne Green (1)Greek scholars say without v7, the grammar in Vs 6 & 8 are wrong. (2)The earliest disciples quoted 1 Jn 5: 7.as far back as Barnabas in his writings and the disciples of the Apostle John. (3)The most and most accurate Greek manuscripts had 1 Jn 5: 7, in them. Only a very few devil inspired manuscripts left it out, along with 1000s of other words and 1000s of differences to the true Greek manuscripts. Don't believe modern translations of the Bible, because they come from the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts, who were anti Christian.
1) wait... So scholarship is a good thing now? 2) that's a false statement 3) Erasmus used only 1 manuscript with the comma, the rest he used didn't contain it. More than 500 manuscripts leave it it out, and 4 that contain it originally did not have it as they were footnotes. 500 manuscripts is not a 'few', manuscripts from all sorts of locations, (not just Egypt) dont contain the comma. Just about every statement you made here is wrong or misleading.
@Dwayne_Green you better believe scholarship, because it proves the Biblical truths. You have got your history about the Greek manuscripts, wrong. There's enough historical information that proves you wrong. Biblical Greek scholars have been fighting against devil inspired people like you ever since devil inspired men discovered the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts interpretation 1800s. 1000s of Greek manuscripts 1 Jn 5: 7 in them and only a few erroneous manuscripts leave it out, as well as 1000s of other words and 1000s of differences to the true Greek manuscripts. Why do you let the devil use you to spread his lies?.
@Dwayne_Green Yes, but you said it yourself. How can you hold to a view of preservation/inspiration with whole texts missing? Your history is a bit skewed. The church went almost 1800 years with the truth of 1 John 5:7. It has always been preserved. The burden of proof is on you.
Fulgentius (462-527) is referencing Cyprian's (210-258) quote on the unity of the church and clearly makes the distinction of two separate verses being referenced as he said...
“For St. John the apostle, testifieth saying, “There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.” “Which also the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his epistle de Unitate Ecclesiae (Unity of the Church), confesseth, saying… ‘The Lord said, “I and the Father are one’ [John 10:30]. AND AGAIN, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is written, And these three are one.” [I John 5:7]. Fulgentius said 'the Word,' Cyprian said 'the Son', and Fulgentius quotes I John 5:7 and then references Cyprian's quote of it.
And in his treatise on the trinity, he gives the following explanation of the preceding texts, and his inference from that explanation:
"I an the Father are one" (John 10:30). The words teach us to refer 'unum' to the nature, 'sumus' to the persons. IN LIKE MANNER, THAT TEXT, 'There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, THE WORD, and the Spirit, and these three are one. (I John 5:7). Let Sabellius hear 'sumus' and 'tres,' and believe there are 'three persons:' Let Arius also hear 'unum,' and not say that the Son is of a different nature; since a different nature cannot be called 'unum.' (Fulgentius, Against the Arians; Translated by Thomas Hartwell Horne, 1825; Horne, "IV. Sect. V. On the First General Epistle of John" in Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 1825, vol 4, p. 454). (caps mine).
Cyprian factually did very CLEARLY (199-258-AD) quote the Comma VERBATIM and said AGAIN IT IS WRITTEN! Cyprian said, “THE LORD SAYS, "I and the Father are one” (From John 10:30) ‘AND AGAIN’ - making the claim that the Bible verse quoted AGAIN had as much weight as the first quotation. In addition, he says IT IS WRITTEN "AND THESE THREE ARE ONE." The obvious conclusion is that Cyprian is quoting from Scripture in John’s Gospel and then AGAIN in John’s Epistle. If you're going to doubt that he quoted I John 5:7, then be consistent and doubt he quoted John 10:30 also for BOTH quotations are clearly from BOTH verses. He believed the Comma to have the same authority as John's earlier quotation in his gospel.
Scholars try to spin this and say, “except Cyprian was giving commentary to a verse in John’s Gospel “I and my father are one” in those quotes, so there’s that.” Notice most ignore “AND AGAIN IT IS WRITTEN.” “So, there’s that” part that most scholars conveniently left out. Critics say, “The “are one” phrasing is Johannine but just because Cyprian decided to add the third person of the trinity into the equation by conflating John 10 and 14 together theologically, doesn’t mean he was quoting 1 John 5:7.” Talk about arbitrary assumptions, yes indeed.
And to claim wanting to 'push the emotional part aside' regarding our 460 brothers who suffered for the verse (being quoted verbatim openly) is a disappointment as you correctly stated, for their testimony as verified by Victor of Vita (born 430) is much better than James Snapp's 460 or so questionable and mostly post 10th century manuscripts that he never even bothered to examine because he 'has a life' as stated in the debate. Mike Ferrando (who has a life also) is finding holes in these so-called witnesses.
This is why I claim an 'eschatological connection' will occur with God Himself resolving this issue and bringing it to a conclusion, for we claim the verse was omitted and the critics claim it was added. Being that God does concern Himself with His own word, why would He not have a plan in this end time to resolve the most contested verse of Scripture in church history? I am concerned that a lot of shame and loss of credibility will soon occur (to whichever side is on the wrong side), but don't get mad at me for this prediction, I am just trying to persuade my brothers and sisters to get on the right side of this while there is still time, because I love them and have compassion for them.
@@writethevisionministry3050 this is fascinating. Thank you
Thank you, Dwayne. I would love to watch these live but too late here in the UK, especially on a weekday.
Hey, Dwayne! Since nobody in the chat seemed to think this, I thought I’d point it out: it seems the angel present at baptism that Tertullian speaks about might be a reference to the tradition that at baptism one receives a guardian angel, and he’s talking about the angel’s role in what happens. That’s my two cents at a glance, anyways
The Cyprian quote could only get closer if he quoted it verbatim or if Cyprian said, "I'm quoting 1John5:7" The acrobatics that are needed to get out of it.
That's a convenient 'criteria box' considering there were no chapters and verses back then. How about Fulgentius' saying, "For St. John the apostle, testifieth saying...."
Will that suffice?
Do you not find it odd that the prolegomena complains about the absence of the comma... But then the text that the prolegomena is attached to doesn't contain it?!?
as it stands, it appears to be a construction of the trinity based on Matthew 28:19 and 2 Cor 13:1, with the last phrase of 1 John 5:8 in there. This is in keeping with the rest of the early church fathers who appeal to Matt 28 and 2 cor 13... the only difference here is Cyprian uses the last phrase. Again, this appears to be evidence AGAINST its inclusion, Why does Cyprian quote only the last clause and not all of 5:7? Because he didn't have 5:7.
@@Dwayne_Green I can see how you can construct in that very round about way however, it is much more easier and more simple to see it as a direct quote of 1John 5:7. No gymnastics involved. I mean, why would Cyprian just use 1John 5:8 to round it off? Why would you admit he goes to that passage but is somehow jumping around to two other books to make his point when 1John 5:7 comes right before 1John5:8? Might you be suggesting that Cyprian was the originator for the comma being placed before 1John 5:8? Or is it easier to say that he is quoting 1John5:7 and rolling onto verse 8. The simplest option is often the right one. He was quoting 1John 5:7. And to your question of why he didn’t quote the whole verse and just the last part, we all do that! It’s very common Dwayne. Think about when you preach, I’m sure you don’t feel the need to quote every single word from a text every single time.
@@mrsamurangx3030same is true for Stephen’s sermon in Acts chapter 7 when he quoted dozens of OT verses and not always in full or verbatim.
SCHOLARS CIRCULAR REASIONING SAYS: 1) “All Latin witnesses for I John 5:7 are bad for God did not use any of the Latin, He does not work that way. 2) Any Greek witnesses for I John 5:7 came from the Latin! 3) Therefore, any Greek or Latin witnesses for I John 5:7 are bad.” And round and round we go sitting in the bumper criteria box cars of the critics.
The Greek Church was overcome with the omission of the verse very early as Socrates, Ambrose, Jerome and other fathers also confirmed, and therefore God used the Latin Church to preserve the verse for almost 400 years before any Greek evidences even showed up. The Comma was originally written in Greek, translated into the Old Latin (between 70AD-120AD relating to Paul's vision for Spain), then corrupted in the Greek, then preserved in the Latin. Those with confirmation bias who claim, “God did not work that way,” should stay consistent in wanting the external evidence so bad, for this scenario is not without its own external evidences in the Old Latin, both of manuscripts and fathers, hundreds of years before the Greek even existed for the verse, as far as what we have today for the scholars to sniff, feel, touch, and smell, which is the #1 priority of modern critics who must ‘see to believe.’ And yes of course, faith is proclaimed by both sides, faith from us in the preservation of the Scriptures in a perfect Bible in the year 2024, and the critics who have faith in the science of criticism whose rationalistic view of a ‘Holy Ghost’ authored BOOK cannot spiritually discern this. No? Read I Cor 2:9-16; 11:19, Jer 8:8-9, Isa 44:25; 29:13-24 for starters in the KJV, for the ‘lines upon lines’ are extensive. The presuppositional bias again the verse is so strong, that it hinders the scholars to connect these simple dots. As Scrivener confirmed and cited by Dean John Burgon, (Revision p. 317), “that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenaeus [A.D. 150], and the African Fathers…, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica [and Doukas in the Polyglot], or Erasmus, or Stephens, [or Beza] thirteen centuries later, when molding the Textus Receptus.” Many who are struggling to see this don’t want to see this. God saving the verse in the Latin is far from an ‘arbitrary assumption,’ it is ‘coniungere in punctis,’ which is in Latin, for one ‘to connect the dots.’ But yes, by faith we also KNOW the verse is legit for God wants us to KNOW it is (Pro 22:21). One must also consider that the evidences in my book and in our recent debate for the verse are less than 10% of the total evidences that are out there IF you know the correct geographic locales on the map to go digging. We are finding new evidence on a weekly basis, so why are not the critics? Because the scholars don’t want to find any evidence against their narrative! [brackets mine]
Connect enough dots and you being to see a picture here of which has a higher probability rate than the so-called Westcott & Hort Greek ‘Lucian Recension Theory.’ The WH fable would have higher chances than today’s ‘Lucian 2.0, the Luciano Italiano Latin Invention Theory’ for I John 5:7, claiming the verse was created by unknown ninja scribes on magical carpet rides flying to different cities all throughout Christendom to add the verse. Talk about arbitrary assumptions, yes indeed. Even as Burgon said, “They assume everything. They prove nothing” (p. 264). Can I prove to you God used the Latin for the verse? Perhaps not. Or perhaps yes, as we start connecting more dots. Sooner or later (aside from the required faith, and if your honest hearted), enough will be enough for you.
Blessings
Bro. Mike Hollner
Even if the ancient Greek Codex from Rhodes were discovered that contained I John 5:7 as scholar Lamy claimed in 1897 that was used for the Polyglot (before Erasmus), the scholars will just say it came from the Latin. No amount of evidence will change their presuppositional bias against the verse. It is a clear case and combination of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.
It is interesting to not that even 1 John 5:8 is modified by the TR and I can see why a KJV reader would think that dropping verse 7 makes no sense, but try reading the entire passage in a ESV or NIV, now everything fits the context. The NIV footnote is very adamant that zero before the fourteenth century contained the TR reading or the Vulgate where it comes from.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below?
Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary.
God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9.
If the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant is "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, why would any Christian believe God is going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period?
What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below.
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant. They also prove a person must be "baptized" to be saved, but it has nothing to do with water. (See also Romans 8:9 and Eph. 1:12-13, and Eph. 4:1-5.)
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Watch the RUclips videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
I tend to think that the 'Johannine' Comma (as it is called) is not part of the text of John's epistle and is a much later interpolation in some later manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate.
It's in the Vulgate manuscripts from the 5th-14th centuries.
@@getgnomed6179 My information, if I recall it aright, is that it is in about half of the manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, a translation and not the original Greek. It is not cited by the Council of Nicaea or those who were at the Council, which tends to show that they knew nothing of it. The Greek manuscripts, in which it is in, are very late, 14th and 15th century; and there are several variations of it there. So is it genuine; did John write it? It seems that there is not a good case for that, and that the verse should therefore be in a footnote as a likely interpolation into the late Latin. If someone honestly believes it is genuine, they should read it and expound it; I will not. But I will refer to it, and to the evidence both for and against it.
@@RevRMBWest Let me respond to these claims.
"it is in about half of the manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, a translation and not the original Greek."
I would like a source for that number. Scrivener estimates it is in about 49/50 of the Latin MSS. (he probably took this number from Porson). A good amount of these are early, like the Codex Speculum (5th century) and the Fragment Frisingensia (5th-7th century). Now, you say it's just a translation and not the original Greek, but we do not possess the original Greek, only copies upon copies of it, and in many languages too. Latin is one of these languages, and the general Latin text dates to the 2nd-5th century, which is very early in Christian history.
"It is not cited by the Council of Nicaea or those who were at the Council, which tends to show that they knew nothing of it."
Except if you exclude Disputatio Contra Arianum, which is a supposed conversation of Athanasius with Arius in which Athanasius cites the Johannine Comma. This is generally just an argument from silence, since we go by what people write, not what they don't write.
"The Greek manuscripts, in which it is in, are very late, 14th and 15th century; and there are several variations of it there."
That is, if you exclude the manuscripts mentioned by the translator of the Complutensian Polyglot, John Calvin, and Gill. Codex Ottobonianus is 14th century, and Codex Montfortianus is most likely earlier than what is usually said of its date in the 16th century for numerous reasons I could state. Both manuscripts use an earlier vorlage for their text, which most critics of the Comma forget. This is on top of the other 10 or so manuscripts also attesting to it.
"If someone honestly believes it is genuine, they should read it and expound it; I will not. But I will refer to it, and to the evidence both for and against it."
As any good researcher should, the evidence for and against the Johannine Comma should be stated, such as the possible Syriac witness as defended by Burgess, the Armenian manuscripts of the Oskan Bible, the Zohrab CT, and as listed by UBS, Minuscule 460 in the Arabic column (as discovered by my friend Johannes, but not widely publicized yet), and the many, many patristics ranging from the 2nd-14th centuries.
@@getgnomed6179 The problem with the Johannine Comma is that it just is not there in the Byzantine Tradition, which is the most reliable line of transmission from the autographs. You have got some sporadic support for it, here and there, which would, I think, justify a mention of it in a footnote, but Wilbur Pickering is not impressed by these arguments, and he is the most impressive defender to date of the great Byzantine tradition. I do not think we should make a 'last stand' at every point of the Textus Receptus: Dean John Burgon made it quite clear that though he sorely deprecated the text and theory of Hort, he was in favour of a mild revision of the Textus Receptus to make it conform to the close consensus of the vast majority of Greek manuscripts.
@@RevRMBWest A majority of the Byzantine MSS. omitting it being late, meanwhile we have early support from the 2nd and 4th centuries.
Also, we shouldn't revise the preserved word of God!
Thanks, Dwayne!
Where, at what time, is the grammatical solecism in the short Greek text discussed?
And, in that discussion, where do you express astonishment and amazement as to how a conjectured “interpolation” manages to fix the ungrammatical Greek text when the “interpolated” text is translated from Latin to Greek?
Is this a one-time event in all of Greek-Latin history?
the grammatical solecism will be discussed in the next livestream.
@@Dwayne_Greenoh boy, something tells me Nick Sayers might show up, lol 😂
That’s a good point Steve, I have not heard that question asked in that way.
@@Studio54MediaGroup he shows up regularly and I welcome him :)
@@Dwayne_Green I know, I did not mean it in a bad way but rather he has done a lot of research on the grammar for I John 5:7.
Dwayne, could you provide the link for the previous video that you mentioned? i could not locate it on your YT page. thank you
I've added the links to each part in the description of each video, so you should be able to see it now... For the record, part 1 can be found here:
ruclips.net/user/livecJd3P3GWqh0
@@Dwayne_Green thank you so much. blessings
Does the Comma feature now in the Orthodox Lectionary? Interesting that Antoniades could include a text not in the Byzantine texts.
I don't know. But in the Antoniades text its in smaller type indicating its not original.
Do we have evidence of KJB translators evaluating the readings of different editions or even different manuscripts? We know that they did not always follow Beza or Stephanus and even followed the Vulgate.
Where can we get this document?
My biggest problem with the CT is the doubt that is inflicted by their assertions. If the Comma does not belong, then I have believed a lie for 35 years. If Acts 8:37; Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11 and many more do not belong, what reason do we have to trust it at all? The Muslim wins with your point of view. With the KJVO/1st position, we exhibit a stable, trustworthy text. I watched your video replay. I will continue to present the truth that saved my soul.
If we are to trust your point of view, we will no longer possess the formal equivalent position we currently hold to. Why bicker over words? It's the message that matters...right? Jesus lived the perfect life; he died a sinners death; then he rose from the grave 3 days later. Now by faith in that finished work, all who believe are saved...right? So why bicker over words?
I am reminded of 1Tim 6:3-5. "... wholesome words..." or "words of our Lord Jesus." Do words matter? Answer that one prayerfully.
Well said.
@oztheberean
My prayer is that God waters the seed. One plants, another waters, but God gives the increase. Only He can make this grow.
Amen
@@Pastor-Brettbyfaith Amen.
@Pastor-Brettbyfaith Clearly you don't know about textual criticism! What makes the kjv text "trustworthy", when we have evidence that some readings like 1 John 5:7 is an interpolation?
Dwayne, you missed the point about Fulgentius quoting the Comma in the 500’s after he quoted it verbatim, for then he said as also our brother Cyprian quoted it thus claiming Cyprian also quoted it.
I may haver... Again, lots of information to go through. The Fulgentius introduction is an interesting one for sure. Of course, if fulgentius is referencing Cyprians quote on the unity of the Church, then the same issues apply.
@@Dwayne_Greenyes but in his unity of the church he quotes John 10:30 but then says ‘again it is written’ referring to “these three are one” which is only in I John 5:7 and not in Matthew 28:19 or anywhere else in scripture. He already left John 10:30 and referenced I John 5:7 of which Fulgentius agreed.
"quoted"?? We don't need another opinion on that verdict where "quoted" means the full verse. The verse has a few parts to it. Using the last clause and saying "scripture says" is "quoting" the verse.
Why not use Google? That is a very objective way to test the "quote" and/or allusion to the verses.
Cyprian says "scripture says (of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) 'the three are one'"
There is only one place in the bible where that clause is used of the persons of the Godhead.
===
We know that Cyprian was not using verse 8:
1. Cyprian rejected "water" as being symbolic of the Holy Spirit and/or the Father.
2. Cyprian has a formula he uses when he is giving his "interpretation" of a verse. It is no where in the text under discussion. (Knittel's argument is valid and clear. My Latin translator said that Knittel's assertion was spot on.)
3. Cyprian is not an allegory using father,. Fahey's study demonstrates that over and over again in his exhaustive study of Cyprian's works.
4. The other anonymous work on Re-baptism written about the same time as Cyprian lived, uses verse 8 to demonstrate the 3 different types of baptism: Not the Trinity.
5. Eucherius' speaks about a group that interprets verse 8 as the trinity (Water is the Father). While Facundus and Augustine understand the verse as the Spirit is the Father. No tradition of symbolic understanding of verse 8 for the Trinity in among the fathers.
6. We know that verse 8 has "in earth" in it because Facundus used it in his proof text for Christ's real humanity in the work "Defense of the Three Chapters" where Facundus quotes verse 8 five or six times in the work. Facundus' argument rests on the preposition in verse 8 "in earth". Facundus (like Cyprian) is fluent in Greek but wrote this work in Latin even though it was addressed to the Emperor of Constantinople (Greek Orthodox Church). The work of Facundus is now considered a work demonstrating the orthodox position on the humanity of Christ.
7. In Leo's Tome, Leo uses verse 8 to speak about baptism without any mention of some allegorical interpretation of the Trinity. Better yet, the Letter was read out loud during the second session of Chalcedon. The scribes at the council translated the letter into Greek. The scribes did not translate the Latin verse 8 found in Leo's Tome into Greek we find in I John 5, but very different Greek. John's Greek is easily memorized and read.
Conclusion: These instances demonstrate that the verses were in the bible all along and the idea that we need a full blown quote of verse 7 is simply a straw man argument full of sound and fury. Use Google, and the question will be exposed as simply begging the question.
Fulgentius quoted the whole verse and they reject that also, so they violate their own set of rules and criteria in needing a full verbatim quote. Give the critics what they want and ask for and they still reject the authenticity of the verse. It’s a no win situation it appears.
@@Studio54MediaGroup
Yep. And who needs to mention that there were no "verses" or "chapters" in the NT until the Reformation. So, the whole "quoted" argument is simply a straw man deceptive and delusionary.
I fear God and don’t want to add or remove any verses.
That is the question. Were they added or removed?
Dear Dwayne
Can be that the church fathers there all antitrinitarien arian time (sorry my english) and Math. 28.19 they understand the holy spirit as a power or energy or something like that. That's why they use this section and they have a problem with the comma like Luther with James? Just question ?
Thankn you
I doubt it... In fact some of the quotes I show are people like Cyprian and Tertullian actually defending the "Three in one".
Hello, Dwayne Green!
I don't agree with you when you kind of cricised Cyprian (AD 248-258)'s quote.
If at all it were you referencing about the Trinity and you started with John 10:30, how dare would you then secondarily strengthen your claim by quoting Matthew 28:19 which this time round isn't speaking directly that those mentioned 3 are indeed one? And how would how add to the verse "And these three are one" yet that wasn't added to it in that verse?
I think Cyprian vividly quoted 1John 5:7 (The Johanine Comma) and not Matthew 28:19 since since he must have not desired to add his own words but to let the scriptures speak for themselves.
Matthew 28:19 in that matter would only come in if at all Cyprian also need to explain that also there are three names (not persons) in whose names you should baptise an believer. The emphasis in Matthew 28:19 is more of the names though we can till guess the Trinity therein.
I think Cyprian desired to list from simple to simpler in his by then quotation.
How I pray you don't mislead us!!!😢😮
We all love each other but truth is truth, and the truth is there is a mountain of evidence for I John 5:7 that is overlooked and bypassed due to the narrative and the scholars script needing to be kept.
Marcion baptised in the name of Jesus only; having a different view of the trinity and believed that Paul was the true apostle. He rejected the Johanine writings.The early Fathers had to use other references of the trinity other than John's to rebut Marcion!
so they used he Gospel of John, especially chapter 14 to construct the doctrine of the Trinity. This argument doesnt work... And then there's the awkwardness of the fathers letting a heretic dictate what is and isn't scripture, I don't think they would've done that.
Are we talking about the often named, Anti-Nicene fathers? Thank you for this, it clears things up a bit and I get your point:)
Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement, and a few other works like the Sermon of the Hundredfold, The Acts of John, Chronicon Paschale and a few others.
Ante-Nicene, as in before Nicea, not Anti-Nicene LOL. Not making fun of you, it’s just funny
If we tamper with the text, we are as guilty as the heretics that propagated Sinaiaticus. Take that out, and that over there, and those verses over there, they gotta go. By the time you are finished, you have another gospel. Oh, I forgot, the CT will never be finished. What Bible should we trust? I will stand on the most stable text available... the KJV.
The amanuensis in Ephesus would have spotted the solecism.
Dwayne Green
(1)Greek scholars say without v7, the grammar in Vs 6 & 8 are wrong.
(2)The earliest disciples quoted 1 Jn 5: 7.as far back as Barnabas in his writings and the disciples of the Apostle John.
(3)The most and most accurate Greek manuscripts had 1 Jn 5: 7, in them.
Only a very few devil inspired manuscripts left it out, along with 1000s of other words and 1000s of differences to the true Greek manuscripts.
Don't believe modern translations of the Bible, because they come from the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts, who were anti Christian.
1) wait... So scholarship is a good thing now?
2) that's a false statement
3) Erasmus used only 1 manuscript with the comma, the rest he used didn't contain it.
More than 500 manuscripts leave it it out, and 4 that contain it originally did not have it as they were footnotes. 500 manuscripts is not a 'few', manuscripts from all sorts of locations, (not just Egypt) dont contain the comma.
Just about every statement you made here is wrong or misleading.
@Dwayne_Green you better believe scholarship, because it proves the Biblical truths. You have got your history about the Greek manuscripts, wrong.
There's enough historical information that proves you wrong.
Biblical Greek scholars have been fighting against devil inspired people like you ever since devil inspired men discovered the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts interpretation 1800s. 1000s of Greek manuscripts 1 Jn 5: 7 in them and only a few erroneous manuscripts leave it out, as well as 1000s of other words and 1000s of differences to the true Greek manuscripts.
Why do you let the devil use you to spread his lies?.
@Dwayne_Green Yes, but you said it yourself. How can you hold to a view of preservation/inspiration with whole texts missing? Your history is a bit skewed. The church went almost 1800 years with the truth of 1 John 5:7. It has always been preserved. The burden of proof is on you.