The KJVO myth...

[createdtoworship]

I said “perhaps” because I was offering a possible reason for someone to make an error in interpretation... I was merely stating it in a way that would prevent you from accusing me of claiming to read the minds of people from hundreds of years ago. So to correct my previous error in communication, yes, people in fact DO read into scripture ideas that scripture never intended to say, and that little verse is a prime example. I do KNOW that verse never existed in any manuscript prior to the 16th century and if anyone knows otherwise, they need to publish proof. As it stands, the KJV adds to scripture that which is uninspired and not penned by the original writers of the New Testament. There is no honest rebuttal to that, nor is there reasonable doubt to the knowledge that the verse was an “add-on” more than a millennium after the original letters.

CYPRIAN (Latin: Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus) (c. 200 – September 14, 258) was bishop of Carthage and an important Early Christian writer, many of whose Latin works are extant. He was born around the beginning of the 3rd century in North Africa, perhaps at Carthage, where he received a classical education. After converting to Christianity, he became a bishop in 249 and eventually died a martyr at Carthage.


As a side note, the entire quote by Cyprian is this: In his De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6, he says, “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."

This cannot be said of verse 8 where it says: "the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." That verse is not referring to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Only verse 7 does this.


You can see the quote from Cyprian in context here - http://www.pennuto.com/bible/1jn5_7.htm

THE TREATISES OF CYPRIAN



Ante-Nicene vol. 5 page 423

The Lord says: ”I and the Father are one;” “(4) and again IT IS WRITTEN OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, ANDOF THE HOLY SPIRIT, "AND THESE THREE ARE ONE."(5)

(4) John X. 30.
(5) I John V. 7 .

(End of shorter Article on 1 John 5:7)


Even the UBS 4th edition says that 1 John 5:7 was quoted by Cyprian. It's in their own Critical Greek text.

the UBS Greek NT (4th ed.) notes that the "comma" is attested by the Latin church fathers Cyprian (d. 258), Pseudo-Cyprian (4th century), Priscillian (d. 385), the Speculum (5th century), Varimadum (UBS date "445/480"), Pseudo-Vigilius (4th or 5th century), and Fulgentius (d. 533), as well as a few manuscripts.

The Cyprian quote is simply irrefutable. Cyprian did cite 1 John 5:7, contrary to James White and Dan Wallace’s argument to the contrary. Here are some:

“The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathers not with me scatters. Matthew 12:30 He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathers elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, I and the Father are one; John 10:30 AND AGAIN IT IS WRITTEN OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. 1 John 5:7 And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation. (Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1. On the Unity of the Church:

CHURCH FATHERS: Treatise 1 (Cyprian of Carthage))

Note that the above source puts 1 John 5:7 after Cyprian’s quote, indicating that the translators saw that this is where he was getting his reference from.

UNITY OF GODHEAD, UNITY OF CHURCH. CYPRIAN. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one.” AND AGAIN OF THE FATHER AND SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT IT IS WRITTEN, “AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.” Does anyone believe that this unity that comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the church and be separated by the division of colliding wills? THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH 6.38


-------------------
witness two (for now until I can find more

Victor Vitensis (who lived in the 5th century) said in 485 A.D., “And in order to show with clearer light that the unity of divinity is with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, John the evangelist bears record. For which it is said: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.’”



Council of Carthage 484 - confession of faith, with heavenly witnesses, English translation (emphasis added): 

And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will, he who is most clearly shown to be at work in all things and to bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot exist, for servitude is to be understood in what is created, but power and freedom in the Trinity. And so that we may teach the Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son still more clearly than the light, here is proof from the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.' Surely he does not say 'three separated by a difference in quality' or 'divided by grades which differentiate, so that there is a great distance between them ?' No, he says that the 'three are one.' But so that the single divinity which the Holy Spirit has with the Father and the Son might be demonstrated still more in the creation of all things, you have in the book of Job the Holy Spirit as a creator: 'It is the divine Spirit ... (p. 56)


It is also important to note that most of the Greek copies that have existed throughout history are no longer with us today. Several well known Christians mention Greek texts that contained 1 John 5:7 that existed in their days centuries ago. Among these are Theodore Beza, John Calvin and Stephanus. Beza remarks that the reading of 1 John 5:7 is found in many of their manuscripts; Calvin likewise says it is found in "the most approved copies". John Gill also believed in the inspiration of this verse.

 

[createdtoworship]

I said “perhaps” because I was offering a possible reason for someone to make an error in interpretation... I was merely stating it in a way that would prevent you from accusing me of claiming to read the minds of people from hundreds of years ago. So to correct my previous error in communication, yes, people in fact DO read into scripture ideas that scripture never intended to say, and that little verse is a prime example. I do KNOW that verse never existed in any manuscript prior to the 16th century and if anyone knows otherwise, they need to publish proof. As it stands, the KJV adds to scripture that which is uninspired and not penned by the original writers of the New Testament. There is no honest rebuttal to that, nor is there reasonable doubt to the knowledge that the verse was an “add-on” more than a millennium after the original letters.

This "should" put this to rest. I have a book which quotes church fathers in every century quoting from the johannian comma, basically saying "it is written" followed by a statement that says "three in one."

so there is only one verse that is "written" that says that. And it is included in the NKJV, and the manuscripts that composed that translation, in fact it is found in the majority of manuscripts period. But lets put this to rest.

"
Priscillian
Priscillian of Avila in c. 380 AD quotes the Comma:

"Sicut Ioannes ait: Tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra: aqua caro et sanguis; et haec tria in unum sunt et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo: pater, verbum et spiritus; et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu." (Liber Apologeticus, I.4)

"As John says, "There are three that give testimony in earth: the water, the flesh and the blood; and these three are one and there are three that give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit; and these three are one in Christ Jesus." (Translation by KJV Today)

The order of verse 7 and 8 is reversed, but the Comma nonetheless existed by 350 AD, which is the date of the earliest Greek manuscripts against the Comma (e.g. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). Some critics dismiss the significance of Priscillian's citation due to the fact that he was considered a heretic. These critics may even go as far as to say that Priscillian forged the Comma. But Priscillian was considered a heretic because of his extreme asceticism and Manichaeism. Forging the Comma would not have helped in furthering any of these heretical beliefs."

John Chrysostom
John Chrysostom (c. 349 – 407 AD) wrote Adversus Judaeos (Homily 1:3) in which he used the following curious phrase:

"Κάτω τρεῖς μάρτυρες, ἄνω τρεῖς μάρτυρες, τὸ ἀπρόσιτον τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δόξης δηλοῦντες."

"Three witnesses below, three witnesses above, showing the inaccessibility of God's glory." (Translation by KJV Today)

ONLINE LINK to Adversus Judaeos

Chrysostom is not speaking about the Trinity in the context. He is merely saying that a good number of witnesses testify concerning the ineffable nature of God. Still, it is interesting that Chrysostom would give weight to his argument by using the formula of having three witnesses below and three witnesses above ("above" is to be understood as "heaven", as he previously stated, "ἀλλ' ἀνέβην εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ("But I went up to heaven [figuratively]"). Since the Comma was already cited in the Latin Church during Chrysostom's time, it is far more candid to suppose that a learned teacher such as Chrysostom knew of the Comma and was alluding to its formula than to suppose that he formulated it by his own imagination.

Pseudo-Chrysostom quotes the Comma in the vocative case in De Cognitione Dei et in Sancta Theophania as follows:

"Ἀλλ', ὦ Πάτερ, καὶ Λόγε, καὶ Πνεῦμα, ἡ τρισυπόστατος οὐσία, καὶ δύναμις, καὶ θέλησις, καὶ ἐνέργεια, ἡμᾶς τοὺς ὁμολογοῦντάς σου τὰς ἀσυγχύτους καὶ ἀδιαιρέτους ὑποστάσεις, ἀξίωσον καὶ τῆς ἐκ δεξιῶν σου στάσεως, ἡνίκα ἔρχῃ ἐξ οὐρανῶν κρῖναι τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ· ὅτι πρέπει σοι δόξα, τιμὴ καὶ προσκύνησις, τῷ Πατρὶ καὶ τῷ Υἱῷ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ, καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων."
"But, O Father, and Word, and Spirit, the triune being and might and will and power, deem us, who confess you as the unconfused and indivisible substance, also worthy to be the ones standing at your right hand when you come from heaven to judge the world in righteousness, for rightly yours is the glory, honor, and worship, to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and for always, and for eternity." (Translation by KJV Today)
ONLINE LINK to De Cognitione Dei et in Sancta Theophania

Pseudo-Chrysostom first refers to the Trinity as Father, Word, and Spirit and then switches to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the same sentence. This switch has no contextual reason. Given the abundance of scriptural allusions in this passage, it is most likely that the two forms of the Trinity are both scriptural allusions (Matthew 28:19 & 1 John 5:7)."'

The above can be found at the following data base of quotes of the comma from the early church and also manuscript evidence:
Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) - King James Version Today

The original source of this material was a book called "The History of the defense of 1 John 5:7-9" by Michael Maynard. The database is nice because it quotes the original manuscript and original language so you can actually look up photographs of the original texts and see first hand that the phrase "three in one." was directly quoted, even put in parenthesis as scripture. Again 1 John 5:7-9 is the only verse that has that phrase. Yes many of the quotes simply say three in one, which is a defense of the trinity from patristic quotations but not a defense of 1 John 5:7-9. So I would say the majority of the quotes "can" be argued to be simply a quote of a common phrase being used a the time. Praxeus was a heretic that rejected the trinity, and turtullian debated him and used the phrase "three in one." But you are correct this can just be a quotation of a common phrase, not a quotation of scripture. But the two above, priscillian and cyrian both quote the verse as scripture.

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

The Cyprian quote is simply irrefutable.

I don’t refute the Cyprian quote; I do, however, doubt that he was quoting scripture, but rather interpreting (reading into) a verse that he didn’t fully understand. In the full Cyprian commentary, that you kindly provided, shows he wrote very authoritatively on doctrinal issues that he obviously didn’t understand: “The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous...” In fact, the scripture clearly teaches that God’s wife IS adulterous and He will become her husband despite her adultery. Cyprian was writing commentary on scripture and did not have the biblical support to validate his theology.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don’t refute the Cyprian quote; I do, however, doubt that he was quoting scripture, but rather interpreting (reading into) a verse that he didn’t fully understand. In the full Cyprian commentary, that you kindly provided, shows he wrote very authoritatively on doctrinal issues that he obviously didn’t understand: “The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous...” In fact, the scripture clearly teaches that God’s wife IS adulterous and He will become her husband despite her adultery. Cyprian was writing commentary on scripture and did not have the biblical support to validate his theology.

I feel this is a straw man tactic. You are quoting a poor theological concept to discredit him. However cyprian was a church father as was influential for christianity, a quick google search would relay that. So if you cannot provide further validation into WHY you believe he was "not quoting" scripture, I will just trust his words over yours or mine, seeing he was a church father. Besides tonight I will look into more and post more. Thanks for the conversation I really appreciate it.

I feel might makes right in this occassion, with the sheer volume of quotes of the comma.

 

[Der Alte]

I looked this up in my copy of the ECF.

The Epistles of Cyprian. Epistle LXXII.
If of Christ; he could not become His temple, since he denies that Christ is God. If of the Holy Spirit; since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy either of the Son or of the Father?

The Treatises of Cyprian. Treatise I.
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” (Joh_10:30) and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” (1Jo_5:7) And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills?​

 

[createdtoworship]

I looked this up in my copy of the ECF.

The Epistles of Cyprian. Epistle LXXII.
If of Christ; he could not become His temple, since he denies that Christ is God. If of the Holy Spirit; since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy either of the Son or of the Father?

The Treatises of Cyprian. Treatise I.
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” (Joh_10:30) and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” (1Jo_5:7) And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills?​

The trinity was debated in the first few centuries and not fully grasped till about the third century, you had gnostics, and marcionistic heresies prominent in the first few hundred years. Church historians don't like to talk about that part. But there were lots of doctrinal error in the early church. For example the host of them prayed to dead saints until the apocrypha was unilaterally rejected by the church. As the empirial catholic church blended with rome, pagan ideologies became incorporated into the church peaking in heresy in the dark ages and sparking a reformation of puritan thought. Now all along the way pure doctrine had existed. But I would venture to say salvation by grace was not fully understood until the reformation, and a host of other doctrines were not fully understood till the break out of dispensationalism in the early 1900's. So we have to pray and really read those works, not just a quote. Some may have believe Jesus was the son of God but not understood the full trinity. Again trinitarian though was not official till the third century. Turtullian was a huge apologist and perhaps the first true father to step into the trinitarian thought completely. Many believed in the trinity but did not debate it simply because of how hard a three in one concept is. So anyway, I hope that clears this up. I will include a full document on what doctrines are required to be saved. I am not saying he was not saved or saved. I would need to read more about what he view Christ was. I have to be honest, I didn't fully understand the trinity for five or ten years after being saved. And I would venture to say I didn't understand the duality of christ for that long either. Now look at the resurrection for example. That doctrine was universally rejected by the apostles till the end of the gospel books, that means that they doubted something Christ has said for years, until he rose and fulfilled that promise. Where they not saved till they believed the resurrection? They outright denied the Christ would die. Yet they were still saved yes? They believed in Christ, and Jesus said they were all saved. So what makes us saved, if we doubt certain theological aspects are we not saved? That is quite a deep topic.

you have soteriological aspects of the Gospel, then you have secondary affirmations of the gospel.....



There are only two propositions to a PLAIN GOSPEL (no strings attached to it)


The bad news- Believe I need salvation -A. Bad News- Human depravity as opposed to totally depraved (and can't believe). Repentance from relativism relating to sin. Belief that we are going to hell without grace from God. Basic beliefs in grace without knowing of "free" grace.

The good news- God sent Jesus to die on Cross shaped hanging device for sins of the world, saving and forgiving only some of the world who fully believed in the negative and positive aspects of the Gospel, turned from sin and received Christ as their savior.


2. PRIMARY AFFIRMATIONS (the strings that many attach to the gospel)

some think that there are hundreds of these, but there are only a handful.

Affirmations of proposition B (-good news above) must be an 'unrejected' state through time in the life of the Believer (or abstain=doubted but not rejected)

Here is a list of affirmations

b1. Christ's sinlessness (Lamb without blemish, virgin birth implied).
b2. Christ's Deity (Son of God - first part of duality/ = Deity) [the term Jesus Christ the Lord- indicates deity].
b3. Christ's Humanity (Son of Man- second part of ...Duality).
b4. God's Unity (Oneness of God) (The Great Schema' Deut 6:4).
b5. Christ's bodily resurrection (to show God's plan had worked, and will work in all who have saving Faith in above terms).


so if someone is doubtful of the diety of christ or basically doesn't understand the duality of christ that is different than vehemently rejecting Jesus diety or rejecting that Jesus was from God (like jehovah's witnesses). So one again would have to read more about cyprians views.

I hope this encourages our faith and allows us to be thankful for pure doctrine that we currently have. So in conclusion having doubts about the trinity, the resurrection, the duality of christ does not remove salvation. God knows what we doubt and He still gives us forgiveness. However if we are teaching others and recruiting that these doctrines are in error, then we get into a dangerous zone. If we were to die in that state, I cannot guarantee they would be saved. But then again I can't guarantee any of us are saved. The Gospel requires repentance, and most of the church is addicted to online inappropriate content and other sins. Can a heretic be damned to hell, but for some reason we can live in sin all we want? So again having grace with error is important. And sorting out....is this person recruiting this bad doctrine? Are they like the jehovah's witnesses that literally have anti trinitarian books out and classes on converting via using the trinity to a non trinitarian view point? Are they like mormons who reject the affirmation of the oneness of God, and also reject the primary proposition of the gospel which is depravity. See part of the doctrine of depravity is realizing we are created, and not God ourselves. So they would be in error. Are all mormons not saved, I can't answer that either. See if some of them see a crusade by billy graham on the computer and ask Christ into their heart, I think He would save them but only God knows. It depends on if they are outright denying and recruiting contrary views of the affirmations of the gospel, or simply in a doubting period.

I think in heaven we will see lots of people we didn't think were make it, and a lot of people we thought were on TV as pastors and teachers, that didn't make it. The last will be first and the first will be last.

Ephesians 4:1
I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,

Colossians 1:10
That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;

Thessalonians-1 2:12
That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.

Thessalonians-2 1:5
[Which is] a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:

 

[createdtoworship]

I don’t refute the Cyprian quote; I do, however, doubt that he was quoting scripture, but rather interpreting (reading into) a verse that he didn’t fully understand. In the full Cyprian commentary, that you kindly provided, shows he wrote very authoritatively on doctrinal issues that he obviously didn’t understand: “The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous...” In fact, the scripture clearly teaches that God’s wife IS adulterous and He will become her husband despite her adultery. Cyprian was writing commentary on scripture and did not have the biblical support to validate his theology.

I looked this up in my copy of the ECF.

The Epistles of Cyprian. Epistle LXXII.
If of Christ; he could not become His temple, since he denies that Christ is God. If of the Holy Spirit; since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy either of the Son or of the Father?

The Treatises of Cyprian. Treatise I.
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” (Joh_10:30) and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” (1Jo_5:7) And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills?​

so I am not thinking that cyprian was necessarily not saved, I think the early church may have believed Jesus was the logos, the word from God. We take it to mean he was God, but they may have got that part confused as I said in my last post. As long as they were not adamant in their rejection of Jesus God hood, and if it was simply a doubt they were working through, then there is grace for error. But lets just say he was a heretic and rejected by the chruch (Which was not the case by the way), but say he was and his views are rejected. He STILL quoted the comma. So even someone who is a heretic, when they are quoting the scriptures, typically don't misquote them. What they will do is quote out of context yes, but they won't misquote it simply because we can point to it and say "no it does not say that." So your points don't really follow. lastly, lets look at least four more who quoted the comma in it's entirety:
-----------------------------

Priscillian of Avila in c. 380 AD quotes the Comma:

"Sicut Ioannes ait: Tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra: aqua caro et sanguis; et haec tria in unum sunt et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo: pater, verbum et spiritus; et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu." (Liber Apologeticus, I.4)

"As John says, "There are three that give testimony in earth: the water, the flesh and the blood; and these three are one and there are three that give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit; and these three are one in Christ Jesus."

-------------------------
Vigilius Tapsensis
North African Bishop Vigilius Tapsensis quotes the Comma in Contra Varimadum in c. 450 AD and three times in Books 1 and 10 of De Trinitate Libri Duodecim in c. 480 AD:

Contra Varimadum:

“Item ipse ad Parthos: Tres sunt, inquit, qui testimonium perhibent in terra, aqua, sanguis et caro, et tres in nobis sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in ceolo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus, et ii tres unum sunt.” (Contra Varimadum, Book I, Chapter 5 (MPL062, col. 359))

“Also to the Parthians, ‘There are three’, He says, ‘that bear record in earth, the water, the blood and the flesh, and the three are in us. And there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.”

-----------------------------

Victor Vitensis
Victor bishop of Vita in c. 485 AD cited the Comma as representing the testimony of John the evangelist in a dispute with Huneric the Vandal:

“Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius divinitatis esse cum Patre et Filio Spiritum sanctum doceamus, Joannis evangelistae testimonio comprobatur. Ait namque: Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus, et his tres unum sunt.” (Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae, Book III, Chapter XI (MPL058, col. 227)

“And in order to show with clearer light that the unity of divinity is with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, John the evangelist bears record. For which it is said: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.’”
--------------------------------

Cassiodorus
Cassiodorus of Italy (c. 485 - c. 585 AD) cited the Comma in Complexiones In Epistollis Apostolorum:

“Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria: aqua, sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta: in caelo autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus; et hi tres unus est Deus.” (Complexiones In Epistollis Apostolorum, Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos, Chapter X (MPL070, col. 1373)

“This matter the three mysteries testify in earth: ‘the water, the blood, and the spirit’, which are fulfilled as we read in the Passion of the Lord: but in heaven ‘the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one God’
--------------------

 

[createdtoworship]

Now I have posted five complete quotations of the missing verse on the trinity from church fathers before 500 A.D. (1 John 5:7-9 is incomplete in most Bibles, it should include "the three are one." and it does not. I posted that in my last post. But I wanted you to know the majority of evidence I left out....What I have left out is all the church fathers from 500-1300, who commented on this fact and who also quoted the comma. I can post them too. But I figure this is enough for now. Some centuries have multiple quotations of the comma from multiple sources, other centuries have only one. Some quotes are incomplete and simply say "three in one." or "the three are one." which is not a complete quotation, but can be induced as such. As if it is written that the "three are one." you would assume it was in the Bible and that phrase only occurs in the comma. So again I can quote those ones, but I have left them out on purpose, simply to quote only those who quote the full verse. In conclusion I am not saying that this verse was not added to the majority text. I don't know if it was added or not added. It is possible a scholar or scribe realized these quotations we are speaking and added it to the text. The NASB for example adds several verses from the majority text that are not in the NASB text. So this is not unheard of. But we simply don't know that this is what happened and we can't say like "FF bruce" does that it was added. As we have seen it quoted in the early church, and many sources say it was not. So they would be wrong and I would love for all those professors to step down from their pulpit and come here and adress this issue. But needless to say they won't. And I don't blame them. See realizing that the translation you have is missing critical verses regarding the trinity, a doctrine that is to this day not fully understood by the church. Makes this verse so very important to christian doctrine. And the Jehovah's witnesses for example don't even have to address 1 John 5:7-9 because most christian scholars erroniously believe it was added. But what they mean was it was counterfeited. See adding a verse like I said is not common practice for a scribe that is for sure, that is why I don't think it happened. But even if it did. Again the NASB adds verses from a completely different family of thought. Just so you know most scholars love the NASB, as it was the first literal translation from the alexandrian side it's actually a good translation just from a faulty manuscript, but look at this stuff about the NASB:

"
The NASB complete New Testament was first published in 1960. It bracketed 14 entire verses in the New Testament, thus indicating they were of questionable authority. They continued doing this through the 1977 edition - but they still left out some large portions of several verses and a couple whole verses in Luke 24. Then in 1995, the new update NASB omitted over 7000 words from their previous 1977 edition but they also added most portions of the verses back to Luke 24 which all the previous NASBs had omitted.

Likewise the NASBs of 1960-1972 omitted all the words in Acts 24:6b through 8a: "and would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, Commanding his accusers to come unto thee." (These words are found in the Syriac Peshitta, as well as the KJB, NKJV) Then in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB put all these words back in the text, but in brackets this time. The NIV , RSV, ESV continue to omit all these words. So it might well be asked, "Which of all these conflicting NASBs was the real words of God?"
above from:http://brandplucked.webs.com/everchangingnasbs.htm

so you can see they copied thousands of verses from the byzantine manuscript, but you won't hear that among scholars today.

so even if the comma was added, it was not like this has never happened. And besides there is no evidence it was added.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don’t refute the Cyprian quote; I do, however, doubt that he was quoting scripture, but rather interpreting (reading into) a verse that he didn’t fully understand. In the full Cyprian commentary, that you kindly provided, shows he wrote very authoritatively on doctrinal issues that he obviously didn’t understand: “The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous...” In fact, the scripture clearly teaches that God’s wife IS adulterous and He will become her husband despite her adultery. Cyprian was writing commentary on scripture and did not have the biblical support to validate his theology.

I looked this up in my copy of the ECF.

The Epistles of Cyprian. Epistle LXXII.
If of Christ; he could not become His temple, since he denies that Christ is God. If of the Holy Spirit; since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy either of the Son or of the Father?

The Treatises of Cyprian. Treatise I.
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” (Joh_10:30) and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” (1Jo_5:7) And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills?​

thanks for the debate, I hope and pray you come to this with an open mind. Change is not a bad thing. When I bought the book that really convinced me of the sinaiticus forgery, I prayed and said "Lord I don't want it if it's a conspiracy theory." And He put it on my heart to buy it and read it with an open heart. I did, and the author did a great job, excellent. It needs answering. It needs rebuttal. But most of the rebuttals are too easily dismissed. We need to reopen the debate, and fully settle this. I feel I have given it a honest shot both ways, but I don't feel others have here.

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

I feel this is a straw man tactic. You are quoting a poor theological concept to discredit him. However cyprian was a church father as was influential for christianity, a quick google search would relay that. So if you cannot provide further validation into WHY you believe he was "not quoting" scripture, I will just trust his words over yours or mine, seeing he was a church father. Besides tonight I will look into more and post more. Thanks for the conversation I really appreciate it.

I feel might makes right in this occassion, with the sheer volume of quotes of the comma.

I’m not attempting to discredit him, only those who believe he was quoting scripture that no one has ever proven existed in any original text. He discredits himself by reading-into-scripture that which scripture does not state in his writings.

Some may consider him a “church father...”. I don’t. When we give more credit to men than to God’s Word regarding God’s Word, we elevate them over the Holy Spirit Who gave us the written Word. And that, by itself, is why I don’t accept the KJV which bears the name of an earthly king who publicly stated that he believed Jesus and John were homosexual lovers. I just refuse to follow men who interpret God’s Word when I have it in front of me in its original languages.

I too have enjoyed the conversation, and I have read more on Cyprian since you have presented a sample of his writing herein.

 

[createdtoworship]

I’m not attempting to discredit him, only those who believe he was quoting scripture that no one has ever proven existed in any original text. He discredits himself by reading-into-scripture that which scripture does not state in his writings.

Some may consider him a “church father...”. I don’t. When we give more credit to men than to God’s Word regarding God’s Word, we elevate them over the Holy Spirit Who gave us the written Word. And that, by itself, is why I don’t accept the KJV which bears the name of an earthly king who publicly stated that he believed Jesus and John were homosexual lovers. I just refuse to follow men who interpret God’s Word when I have it in front of me in its original languages.

I too have enjoyed the conversation, and I have read more on Cyprian since you have presented a sample of his writing herein.

well like I said, even if he was an outright church heretic, rarely did church heretics misquote scripture. They may quote out of context, yes....that is to be expected as a heretic. But not an outright misquote. As you can obviously read it right in the text itself and see they are lying. he said "it is written." And furthermore, four other fathers said "it is written." You cannot truly get around that he was quoting scripture.

 

[KagomeShuko]

But anyway lets talk about how the only verse in the Bible that mentions the trinity in one verse, all three persons of the God head in one verse, is removed from modern translations. Not only that but three verses that speak of fasting as a means of excersizing some higher rank demons is also removed from modern translations. But for now lets talk about the johannian comma, 1 John 5:7-9. And why that should be in the scripture. /QUOTE]

So, I see you make completely false claims. This is from the NRSV.

1John 5:7-9
There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree. If we receive human testimony, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God that he has testified to his Son.

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

well like I said, even if he was an outright church heretic, rarely did church heretics misquote scripture. They may quote out of context, yes....that is to be expected as a heretic. But not an outright misquote. As you can obviously read it right in the text itself and see they are lying. he said "it is written." And furthermore, four other fathers said "it is written." You cannot truly get around that he was quoting scripture.

Ive not judged him as a heretic nor have I accused him of lying... I understand your position, and you have every right to support his writings. I am only expressing that I don’t hold the same confidence in his theological interpretations as I do in scripture.

The phrase “it is written...” is a very common biblical statement; however, many preachers, teachers, theologians, and church fathers use it as a conclusion to their theological views and not necessarily of an expressed statement of scripture. Some modern examples of “it is written” are: the ordinance of communion (which contradicts the first century practice), the pre-millennial rapture of the church (which opposes what is written in scripture), and the tithing law being used to fund modern church expenses. I’ve heard many a preacher state all these doctrines are “written” in scripture, yet none are.

I’m not arguing the doctrines, I’m merely opposed to the giving of credit to scripture for poor theological exegesis. One is free to believe, for instance, in the pre-millennial rapture of the church, but it is wrong to say “it is written” in scripture.

Your point is clear and I don’t wish to oppose your stance. ...just offering food-for-thought.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes sir that verse has been removed from some bibles. Is that you are saying?

 

[createdtoworship]

Ive not judged him as a heretic nor have I accused him of lying... I understand your position, and you have every right to support his writings. I am only expressing that I don’t hold the same confidence in his theological interpretations as I do in scripture.

The phrase “it is written...” is a very common biblical statement; however, many preachers, teachers, theologians, and church fathers use it as a conclusion to their theological views and not necessarily of an expressed statement of scripture. Some modern examples of “it is written” are: the ordinance of communion (which contradicts the first century practice), the pre-millennial rapture of the church (which opposes what is written in scripture), and the tithing law being used to fund modern church expenses. I’ve heard many a preacher state all these doctrines are “written” in scripture, yet none are.

I’m not arguing the doctrines, I’m merely opposed to the giving of credit to scripture for poor theological exegesis. One is free to believe, for instance, in the pre-millennial rapture of the church, but it is wrong to say “it is written” in scripture.

Your point is clear and I don’t wish to oppose your stance. ...just offering food-for-thought.

Well he quoted it. Antone can read it for themselves and see. It is not my purpose to explain how quotations work or to explain basic logiCal principles to the the readers of this thread. However if you can prove that he was not quoting something then you may have a case. Its just that he quoted the verse word for word. Other intoductory phrases for quotations include "It was once said, someone once said, I heard it once said, it is written, the bible says, the scripture says. All those are indroductions to a quotation. And the fact THAT HE ACTUALLY DID IN FACT QUOTE 1 JOHN 5:7-9 LONG VERSION shows that my deduction that he quoted it is valid. Lastly throw that cyprian quote out completely and you still can't answer the four others. But I ask for you to try your best to do so. It is my hunch that you read it in some blog that he didn't quote it, and are taking their word for it over the direct evidence of the text.

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

Well he quoted it. Antone can read it for themselves and see. It is not my purpose to explain how quotations work or to explain basic logiCal principles to the the readers of this thread. However if you can prove that he was not quoting something then you may have a case. Its just that he quoted the verse word for word. Other intoductory phrases for quotations include "It was once said, someone once said, I heard it once said, it is written, the bible says, the scripture says. All those are indroductions to a quotation. And the fact THAT HE ACTUALLY DID IN FACT QUOTE 1 JOHN 5:7-9 LONG VERSION shows that my deduction that he quoted it is valid. Lastly throw that cyprian quote out completely and you still can't answer the four others. But I ask for you to try your best to do so. It is my hunch that you read it in some blog that he didn't quote it, and are taking their word for it over the direct evidence of the text.

Wow, you are so wrong about me... I research scripture and translate ancient texts. I don’t read blogs and I’ve made my own deduction based on extensive research into the origins of non-biblical doctrines. You seem to be forcing me to be in agreement with you; I am not. It does not appear in the oldest available texts. The fact that people wrote long ago, “it is written,” does not mean that are quoting- it merely means they’ve interpreted what was written and paraphrased it and that they believe they’ve spoken God’s Word as it is written in their own words. Show me in what manuscript it was written before he made that statement...

 

[createdtoworship]

Wow, you are so wrong about me... I research scripture and translate ancient texts. I don’t read blogs and I’ve made my own deduction based on extensive research into the origins of non-biblical doctrines. You seem to be forcing me to be in agreement with you; I am not. It does not appear in the oldest available texts. The fact that people wrote long ago, “it is written,” does not mean that are quoting- it merely means they’ve interpreted what was written and paraphrased it and that they believe they’ve spoken God’s Word as it is written in their own words. Show me in what manuscript it was written before he made that statement...

wow, that is an interesting opinion. And you are certainly free to have those, however most would probably disagree with it. when people are making a quote of something it is usually very obvious. And I posted at least four occasions before 500 a.d. If you want I can keep going and quote all the founding fathers that agree with the fact that these are quotes. But to be honest the fact that you are a scholar is probably the most disturbing part of this debate, because that means you entered the debate with preconceptions. And no one, I mean no one can win against preconception. So again thanks for the debate. The fact no one is attempting to go with you against the obvious, shows that my interpretation is the common one, that these are quotations, while yours would be the rare minority view. Again you are free at any time to prove these were not quotations as per the consensus. But most people who read the text will disagree because it is very very obvious.

 

[createdtoworship]

Now that I have refuted most of what the other posters are saying regarding cyprian, I will repost my original post...

I don’t refute the Cyprian quote; I do, however, doubt that he was quoting scripture, but rather interpreting (reading into) a verse that he didn’t fully understand. In the full Cyprian commentary, that you kindly provided, shows he wrote very authoritatively on doctrinal issues that he obviously didn’t understand: “The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous...” In fact, the scripture clearly teaches that God’s wife IS adulterous and He will become her husband despite her adultery. Cyprian was writing commentary on scripture and did not have the biblical support to validate his theology.

I looked this up in my copy of the ECF.

The Epistles of Cyprian. Epistle LXXII.
If of Christ; he could not become His temple, since he denies that Christ is God. If of the Holy Spirit; since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy either of the Son or of the Father?

The Treatises of Cyprian. Treatise I.
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” (Joh_10:30) and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” (1Jo_5:7) And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills?​

so lets look at least four more who quoted the comma in it's entirety:
-----------------------------

Priscillian of Avila in c. 380 AD quotes the Comma:

"Sicut Ioannes ait: Tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra: aqua caro et sanguis; et haec tria in unum sunt et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo: pater, verbum et spiritus; et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu." (Liber Apologeticus, I.4)

"As John says, "There are three that give testimony in earth: the water, the flesh and the blood; and these three are one and there are three that give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit; and these three are one in Christ Jesus."

-------------------------
Vigilius Tapsensis
North African Bishop Vigilius Tapsensis quotes the Comma in Contra Varimadum in c. 450 AD and three times in Books 1 and 10 of De Trinitate Libri Duodecim in c. 480 AD:

Contra Varimadum:

“Item ipse ad Parthos: Tres sunt, inquit, qui testimonium perhibent in terra, aqua, sanguis et caro, et tres in nobis sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in ceolo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus, et ii tres unum sunt.” (Contra Varimadum, Book I, Chapter 5 (MPL062, col. 359))

“Also to the Parthians, ‘There are three’, He says, ‘that bear record in earth, the water, the blood and the flesh, and the three are in us. And there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.”

-----------------------------

Victor Vitensis
Victor bishop of Vita in c. 485 AD cited the Comma as representing the testimony of John the evangelist in a dispute with Huneric the Vandal:

“Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius divinitatis esse cum Patre et Filio Spiritum sanctum doceamus, Joannis evangelistae testimonio comprobatur. Ait namque: Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus, et his tres unum sunt.” (Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae, Book III, Chapter XI (MPL058, col. 227)

“And in order to show with clearer light that the unity of divinity is with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, John the evangelist bears record. For which it is said: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.’”
--------------------------------

Cassiodorus
Cassiodorus of Italy (c. 485 - c. 585 AD) cited the Comma in Complexiones In Epistollis Apostolorum:

“Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria: aqua, sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta: in caelo autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus; et hi tres unus est Deus.” (Complexiones In Epistollis Apostolorum, Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos, Chapter X (MPL070, col. 1373)

“This matter the three mysteries testify in earth: ‘the water, the blood, and the spirit’, which are fulfilled as we read in the Passion of the Lord: but in heaven ‘the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one God’
--------------------

 

[KagomeShuko]

1 John 5:7-9

Yes:
NIV - 1 John 5 NIV
NLT - 1 John 5 NLTHSC
ESV - 1 John 5 ESV
BSB - 1 John 5 BSB
NASB - 1 John 5 NASB
NKJV - 1 John 5 NKJV
KJV - 1 John 5 KJV
CSB - 1 John 5 Christian Standard Bible
CEV - 1 John 5 CEV
GNT - 1 John 5 GNT
HCSB - 1 John 5 HCSB
ASV - 1 John 5 ASV
DBT - 1 John 5 DBT
DRB - 1 John 5 Douay-Rheims Bible
ERV - 1 John 5 ERV
GWT - 1 John 5 GWT
ISR - 1 John 5 The Scriptures (ISR 1998)
ISV - https://biblehub.com/isv/1_john/5.htm
KJV Purple Letter - https://biblehub.com/purple/1_john/5.htm
NET - https://biblehub.com/net/1_john/5.htm
NHEB - https://biblehub.com/nheb/1_john/5.htm
OJB - https://biblehub.com/ojb/1_john/5.htm
NRSV - There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree. If we receive human testimony, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God that he has testified to his Son.

So, the KJV is the best Bible because . . . you say it is and you have to make up false claims to say that it is. Got it.

Also, 1 John 5:7-9 is a PASSAGE. It is made up of THREE verses. Verse 7, verse 8, and verse 9. Semantics, I know . . but with how you are being, you should know the difference . . .

 

[KagomeShuko]

We've also got these verses:

Colossians 2:9
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and tJOruth.

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.

And we've also got these passages:

John 14:16-17
16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be c in you.

1 Peter 1:1-2
1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:

Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

1 Corinthians 12:4-6
4There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

So, if you are going to claim to be such an expert on the Bible, I suggest you actually study it and learn the verses in it. It wasn't that difficult to research and find these verses.