Truth about 1 John 5:7

ananda · Apr 17, 2019

HTacianas said:
They needn't be. It is the position of successor that is important, not any particular person in the position.

What's the process to know if a particular successor is authentic (as opposed to another successor claiming the same position)?

HTacianas · Apr 17, 2019

ananda said:
What's the process to know if a particular successor is authentic?

As I said before. It is the position, not the individual. Jesus himself was at odds with the Pharisees and Sadduces but recognized their authority by virtue of their position:

Mat 23:1 - Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,

Mat 23:2 - saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.

Mat 23:3 - “Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, thatobserve and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

Even if I were to disagree with the Ecumenical Patriarch I would still be obligated to obey him.

ananda · Apr 17, 2019

HTacianas said:
As I said before. It is the position, not the individual. Jesus himself was at odds with the Pharisees and Sadduces but recognized their authority by virtue of their position:

Mat 23:1 - Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,

Mat 23:2 - saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.

Mat 23:3 - “Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, thatobserve and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

Even if I were to disagree with the Ecumenical Patriarch I would still be obligated to obey him.

What if I claimed to be the Ecumenical Patriarch? How would you know which one of us is the authentic one?

HTacianas · Apr 17, 2019

ananda said:
What if I claimed to be the Ecumenical Patriarch? How would you know which one of us is the authentic one?

The Holy Synod of Bishops would know.

In Western terms, how would I know if you were the Pope? The College of Cardinals would have elected you.

ananda · Apr 17, 2019

HTacianas said:
The Holy Synod of Bishops would know.

In Western terms, how would I know if you were the Pope? The College of Cardinals would have elected you.

Seems circular to me.

HTacianas · Apr 17, 2019

ananda said:
Seems circular to me.

I don't think it's circular to believe that the president is the one who won the election.

ananda · Apr 17, 2019

HTacianas said:
I don't think it's circular to believe that the president is the one who won the election.

In my mind, the bar of degree for evidence and proof I hold regarding that which involves my eternal good is much, much higher than that which involves other lesser subjects.

HTacianas · Apr 17, 2019

ananda said:
In my mind, the bar of degree for evidence and proof I hold regarding that which involves my eternal good is much, much higher than that which involves other lesser subjects.

Why don't you elaborate on that. Give us an idea of who your authorities are.

ananda · Apr 17, 2019

HTacianas said:
Why don't you elaborate on that. Give us an idea of who your authorities are.

My own direct experience is my highest authority. Based on those experiences, I came to understand & accept the Buddha's observations & teachings as found in the earliest Buddhist writings.

HTacianas · Apr 17, 2019

ananda said:
My own direct experience is my highest authority. Based on those experiences, I came to understand & accept the Buddha's observations & teachings as found in the earliest Buddhist writings.

That's a wonderful sentiment but we now find you in the same position you found me in. I could ask you the same questions you've asked me, and you would by necessity give the same answers.

ananda · Apr 17, 2019

HTacianas said:
That's a wonderful sentiment but we now find you in the same position you found me in. I could ask you the same questions you've asked me, and you would by necessity give the same answers.

That sounds good to me. As long as we understand that our positions are ultimately rooted in personal experience, I can't argue against that.

I'm not saying you're doing this, but the problems comes when individuals try to impose their personal belief structure on others as "the one and only valid way", without recognizing that we all possess different personal experiences, and without understanding that different belief structures arise as a result.

HTacianas · Apr 17, 2019

ananda said:
That sounds good to me. As long as we understand that our positions are ultimately rooted in personal experience, I can't argue against that.

I'm not saying you're doing this, but the problems comes when individuals try to impose their personal belief structure on others as "the one and only valid way", without recognizing that we all possess different personal experiences, and without understanding that different belief structures arise as a result.

I do not impose my beliefs on others because my beliefs teach that it is fruitless to attempt it.

miknik5 · Apr 17, 2019

Godistruth1 said:
My question is not whether the meaning remains the same or not but how easy it is to add and remove verses from the bible. There are other verses too that and now considered an addition to the bible with no originals.

I understood that. Which is why I said to review the verses prior to 1 John 7 to see that 1 John 7 doesn’t add anything that was not already there in the prior verses; it simply restates and emphasizes the prior verses

Barney2.0 · Apr 24, 2019

Just some advice @Godistruth1 why don’t you look up 1 John 5:7 and other verses like it that were unoriginal to the original text, you’ll find around 16, and I thought they were around 20. Some of which might be true stories or events that were just omitted by the original authors only to be added later such as Mark 16:9. Overall this verse was never used by any of the Church Fathers to prove the doctrine of the trinity or quoted by any major authority in the church throughout history, so it’s always been identified as a later addition and not taken seriously. And by the way since your saying how easy it is to add and remove stuff from the Bible which is obviously incorrect, I’d like to ask you what happened to Surat Al Hafd and Surat Al Khal, not to forget the ayahs on stoning and suckling which even Muslim scholars admit we’re abrogated and removed from the Quran:

Please explain...'The verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept and a lot more... | IslamQA

Godistruth1 · Apr 26, 2019

Al Masihi said:
Just some advice @Godistruth1 why don’t you look up 1 John 5:7 and other verses like it that were unoriginal to the original text, you’ll find around 16, and I thought they were around 20. Some of which might be true stories or events that were just omitted by the original authors only to be added later such as Mark 16:9. Overall this verse was never used by any of the Church Fathers to prove the doctrine of the trinity or quoted by any major authority in the church throughout history, so it’s always been identified as a later addition and not taken seriously. And by the way since your saying how easy it is to add and remove stuff from the Bible which is obviously incorrect, I’d like to ask you what happened to Surat Al Hafd and Surat Al Khal, not to forget the ayahs on stoning and suckling which even Muslim scholars admit we’re abrogated and removed from the Quran:

Please explain...'The verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept and a lot more... | IslamQA

I'll only reply to the Verse which was abrogated. See the difference is it was God who abrogated the previous ruling. God has the authority. But in ur case you are adding and removing verses not God. I pray u understand the difference

Barney2.0 · Apr 26, 2019

Godistruth1 said:
I'll only reply to the Verse which was abrogated. See the difference is it was God who abrogated the previous ruling. God has the authority. But in ur case you are adding and removing verses not God. I pray u understand the difference

So then God is not trustworthy if he can abrogate rulings at will. And Muslims removed entire verses because they felt God abrogated them because he no longer need them. And no we only remove verses that shouldn’t be there based on their reliability being disputed or being low, we don’t remove things based on abrogation or burn whole codex’s to standardize them and protect them from editing.

Godistruth1 · Apr 26, 2019

Al Masihi said:
So then God is not trustworthy if he can abrogate rulings at will.

Of course God can do that. What's the problem? It's will of God, what's the problem? See in Islam we follow Quran and hadith. But in Christianity you have made up things

Al Masihi said:
And Muslims removed entire verses because they felt God abrogated them because he no longer need them

Again your reply is biased as always with no basis. I'm sure you can do better by quoting some poof

Al Masihi said:
nd no we only remove verses that shouldn’t be there based on their reliability being disputed or being low, we don’t remove things based on abrogation or burn whole codex’s to standardize them and protect them from editing

Lol you are admitting to changes by human hands in bible and you also admit to God abrogating verses. It's common sense that God has the authority to change but man does not. You are yourself putting your own self in difficult position

Barney2.0 · Apr 27, 2019

Godistruth1 said:
Of course God can do that. What's the problem? It's will of God, what's the problem? See in Islam we follow Quran and hadith. But in Christianity you have made up things

Again your reply is biased as always with no basis. I'm sure you can do better by quoting some poof

Lol you are admitting to changes by human hands in bible and you also admit to God abrogating verses. It's common sense that God has the authority to change but man does not. You are yourself putting your own self in difficult position

So God can be deceptive if he wants to? That means he can send down every ruling he wants and then whenever he feels like it change it based in the situation at hand. That also seems contradictory to his name Al Haqq. The Quran is as reliable as the Gospel of Thomas and the Hadith can only be verified as they were collected which is usually three hundred years after the event itself and we don’t have anything pre-collection. We haven’t made up anything in Christianity, if we have point out what we have made up. If I’m biased where’s Ayat Al Rajm and the verse of suckling. I’m admitting to grammatical changes or copyist mistakes nothing more, a doctrine of abrogation like Naskh doesn’t exist in Christianity or Judaism. Sure God has authority to change, but if he’s changing things left right and center when he feels like it or to benefit his followers then there’s definitely something fishy going on.

Godistruth1 · Apr 27, 2019

Al Masihi said:
So God can be deceptive if he wants to? That means he can send down every ruling he wants and then whenever he feels like it change it based in the situation at hand. That also seems contradictory to his name Al Haqq. The Quran is as reliable as the Gospel of Thomas and the Hadith can only be verified as they were collected which is usually three hundred years after the event itself and we don’t have anything pre-collection. We haven’t made up anything in Christianity, if we have point out what we have made up. If I’m biased where’s Ayat Al Rajm and the verse of suckling. I’m admitting to grammatical changes or copyist mistakes nothing more, a doctrine of abrogation like Naskh doesn’t exist in Christianity or Judaism. Sure God has authority to change, but if he’s changing things left right and center when he feels like it or to benefit his followers then there’s definitely something fishy going on.

There is no deception here. We know verses were abrogated. There is nothing hidden here or secret unlike Christianity where God is considered 1 yet u worship 3 gods

Barney2.0 · Apr 27, 2019

Godistruth1 said:
There is no deception here. We know verses were abrogated. There is nothing hidden here or secret unlike Christianity where God is considered 1 yet u worship 3 gods

Then explain why ever verse abrogated seems to either support the followers of Islam in worldly gains or Mohammed’s own personal desires? Also where is Ayat Al Rajm and the Ayah of suckling. What does the concept of the trinity which you as usual got wrong have to do with this, no doubt that when I actually force you to back up your claims on worshipping three gods you’ll run away as usual. But again as I always say, prove what you say.

Truth about 1 John 5:7

Early Buddhist

Well-Known Member

Early Buddhist

Well-Known Member

Early Buddhist

Well-Known Member

Early Buddhist

Well-Known Member

Early Buddhist

Well-Known Member

Early Buddhist

Well-Known Member

"Let not your heart be troubled"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads