1 John 5:7 Deliberate Hoax? Or Inspired Scripture?

[WalterandDebbie]

Friday 9-22-23 6th. Day Of The Weekly Cycle, Tishri 6 5784, 94th. Summer Day

How did 1 John 5:7 get into the Bible? Was it original inspired scripture? or was it inserted by a meddler in the Middle Ages--a copyist who sought to bolster proof for the belief in the doctrine? Would allow a mere man to tamper with His inspired Word?
what does the evidence show?

IS 1 JOHN 5:7 NOT IN ANY GREEK MANUSCRIPT BEFORE THE 1600S? IF IT IS TRUE, WHY IS IT IN THE KJV?​

From "Answers To Your Bible Version Questions"
© 2001 by David W. Daniels

Question: Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If that is true, why is it in the King James Bible?

Answer: 1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.

It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:

1. The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.
2. The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.
3. 1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts.

So why then is 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible, but not in many of the existing Greek manuscripts? To understand the answer, we must look at the history of what happened shortly after the Bible was written.

The Greek and Roman Institutions

During the early growth of the Christian church, ministers (whether saved or not) wrote down doctrines that they said were Christian and Biblical. Starting after the death of the apostles (about 100 AD) many people taught the lie that Jesus was not God the Son and Son of God, or that Jesus became God at His baptism, or the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit was not God or was not eternal.

The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.

But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called "Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles.

A Trail of Evidence

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

200 AD	Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD	Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD	Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD	Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD	Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD	Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD	Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD	Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are: A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven" B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.] C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD	Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD	Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD	The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD	Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD	Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD	miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD	minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD	miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD	Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD	ms 61 has the verse
	Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

The Vaudois

Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc.

This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

Who Has the Most to Gain? Who Has the Most to Lose?

The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier.

But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.

What about the "scholars" at Alexandria, Egypt? We already know about them. They could not even make their few 45 manuscripts agree. How could we believe they preserved God's words?

The Reformation itself owes a lot to these Christians in the French Alps. They not only preserved the Scriptures, but they show to what lengths God would go to keep his promise (Psalm 12:6-7).

And that's only part of the story about the preservation of God's words.

Chick.com: Is 1 John 5:7 not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the KJV?

1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.

www.chick.com

 

[JLB]

The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier.

But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.

Amen sir!


There is so much our Catholic brothers and sisters choose to ignore about History.




JLB

 

[JLB]

Friday 9-22-23 6th. Day Of The Weekly Cycle, Tishri 6 5784, 94th. Summer Day

How did 1 John 5:7 get into the Bible? Was it original inspired scripture? or was it inserted by a meddler in the Middle Ages--a copyist who sought to bolster proof for the belief in the doctrine? Would allow a mere man to tamper with His inspired Word?
what does the evidence show?

IS 1 JOHN 5:7 NOT IN ANY GREEK MANUSCRIPT BEFORE THE 1600S? IF IT IS TRUE, WHY IS IT IN THE KJV?​

From "Answers To Your Bible Version Questions"
© 2001 by David W. Daniels

Question: Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If that is true, why is it in the King James Bible?

Answer: 1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.

It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:

1. The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.
2. The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.
3. 1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts.

So why then is 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible, but not in many of the existing Greek manuscripts? To understand the answer, we must look at the history of what happened shortly after the Bible was written.

The Greek and Roman Institutions

During the early growth of the Christian church, ministers (whether saved or not) wrote down doctrines that they said were Christian and Biblical. Starting after the death of the apostles (about 100 AD) many people taught the lie that Jesus was not God the Son and Son of God, or that Jesus became God at His baptism, or the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit was not God or was not eternal.

The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.

But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called "Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles.

A Trail of Evidence

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

​

200 AD	Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD	Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD	Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD	Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD	Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD	Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD	Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD	Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are: A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven" B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.] C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD	Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD	Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD	The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD	Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD	Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD	miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD	minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD	miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD	Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD	ms 61 has the verse
	Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

The Vaudois

Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc.

This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

Who Has the Most to Gain? Who Has the Most to Lose?

The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier.

But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.

What about the "scholars" at Alexandria, Egypt? We already know about them. They could not even make their few 45 manuscripts agree. How could we believe they preserved God's words?

The Reformation itself owes a lot to these Christians in the French Alps. They not only preserved the Scriptures, but they show to what lengths God would go to keep his promise (Psalm 12:6-7).

And that's only part of the story about the preservation of God's words.

Chick.com: Is 1 John 5:7 not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the KJV?

1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.

www.chick.com

Thank you sir for this post.




Love and Blessings to you and your family.



JLB

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Thank you sir for this post.




Love and Blessings to you and your family.



JLB

Hello JLB, And to you and your family also.

Love always, Walter And Debbie

 

[Hidden In Him]

Friday 9-22-23 6th. Day Of The Weekly Cycle, Tishri 6 5784, 94th. Summer Day

How did 1 John 5:7 get into the Bible? Was it original inspired scripture? or was it inserted by a meddler in the Middle Ages--a copyist who sought to bolster proof for the belief in the doctrine? Would allow a mere man to tamper with His inspired Word?
what does the evidence show?

IS 1 JOHN 5:7 NOT IN ANY GREEK MANUSCRIPT BEFORE THE 1600S? IF IT IS TRUE, WHY IS IT IN THE KJV?​

From "Answers To Your Bible Version Questions"
© 2001 by David W. Daniels

Question: Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If that is true, why is it in the King James Bible?

Answer: 1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.

It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:

1. The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.
2. The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.
3. 1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts.

So why then is 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible, but not in many of the existing Greek manuscripts? To understand the answer, we must look at the history of what happened shortly after the Bible was written.

The Greek and Roman Institutions

During the early growth of the Christian church, ministers (whether saved or not) wrote down doctrines that they said were Christian and Biblical. Starting after the death of the apostles (about 100 AD) many people taught the lie that Jesus was not God the Son and Son of God, or that Jesus became God at His baptism, or the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit was not God or was not eternal.

The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.

But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called "Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles.

A Trail of Evidence

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

​

200 AD	Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD	Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD	Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD	Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD	Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD	Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD	Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD	Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are: A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven" B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.] C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD	Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD	Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD	The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD	Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD	Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD	miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD	minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD	miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD	Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD	ms 61 has the verse
	Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

The Vaudois

Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc.

This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

Who Has the Most to Gain? Who Has the Most to Lose?

The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier.

But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.

What about the "scholars" at Alexandria, Egypt? We already know about them. They could not even make their few 45 manuscripts agree. How could we believe they preserved God's words?

The Reformation itself owes a lot to these Christians in the French Alps. They not only preserved the Scriptures, but they show to what lengths God would go to keep his promise (Psalm 12:6-7).

And that's only part of the story about the preservation of God's words.

Chick.com: Is 1 John 5:7 not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the KJV?

1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.

www.chick.com

Greetings Walter!

Let me give you the other side of the coin here. I studied 1 John 5, both with and without the addition in v.7, and found that the passage actually makes much more sense without it. To explain how would be very involved and I don't really have the time unfortunately, but I would say this: Chick Publications has put out some good works, however his KJV only articles would not be among them, IMO. That position is too simplistic an evaluation of what alone constitutes "the word of God." There are other passages where I found a similar thing occurs, and the Majority text only clouds the meaning rather than clarfying it. That's not to say I hate the MT, as I think it was written in later centuries to defend traditional Christian theology against heresy, only I think they went too far in some instances, and added things for clarity that actually made things more confusing.

Anyway, it was an interesting read. If actual citations of the early fathers had been provided, it might have been even more so.

Blessings in Christ as always,
Hidden In Him

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Greetings Walter!

Let me give you the other side of the coin here. I studied 1 John 5, both with and without the addition in v.7, and found that the passage actually makes much more sense without it. To explain how would be very involved and I don't really have the time unfortunately, but I would say this: Chick Publications has put out some good works, however his KJV only articles would not be among them, IMO. That position is too simplistic an evaluation of what alone constitutes "the word of God." There are other passages where I found a similar thing occurs, and the Majority text only clouds the meaning rather than clarfying it. That's not to say I hate the MT, as I think it was written in later centuries to defend traditional Christian theology against heresy, only I think they went too far in some instances, and added things for clarity that actually made things more confusing.

Anyway, it was an interesting read. If actual citations of the early fathers had been provided, it might have been even more so.

Blessings in Christ as always,
Hidden In Him

Hello Hidden In Him, How are you all? and thank you for your input.

Love always, Walter And Debbie

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Greetings Walter!

Let me give you the other side of the coin here. I studied 1 John 5, both with and without the addition in v.7, and found that the passage actually makes much more sense without it. To explain how would be very involved and I don't really have the time unfortunately, but I would say this: Chick Publications has put out some good works, however his KJV only articles would not be among them, IMO. That position is too simplistic an evaluation of what alone constitutes "the word of God." There are other passages where I found a similar thing occurs, and the Majority text only clouds the meaning rather than clarfying it. That's not to say I hate the MT, as I think it was written in later centuries to defend traditional Christian theology against heresy, only I think they went too far in some instances, and added things for clarity that actually made things more confusing.

Anyway, it was an interesting read. If actual citations of the early fathers had been provided, it might have been even more so.

Blessings in Christ as always,
Hidden In Him

A Historical Perspective of the Trinitarian View of God

The doctrine of the Trinity was not widely believed or universally observed until the Council of Nicea, in AD 325, and the Council of Constantinople in AD 381, and finally sthe Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. Trinitiarians claimed that Jesus Christ was equal with and of the same substance as God the Father, in a sense that human beings could not attain. The Holy Spirit was given status as a Person almost as an afterthought. The main issue of these Church Councils of the early Catholic Church 34 was the divinity of Christ as opposed to the Arian view, which has been widely misrepresented. Arian said that Jesus Christ, even though having attained the full glory of divine sonship through obedience, was nonetheless subordinate to God the Father. Arian said further that because of Christ, humans could now attain to the same divine stature or status as Christ, along with Him! In the Trinitarian view, God, in the form of the Son, temporarily descended to take on human limitations to redeem fallen mankind.

The possibility that Christ could have failed was, to them, unthinkable and heresy. Arian, however, said that Christ, the first of God's primeval creations, acted as a perfect example for the rest of God's creation, and that Christ could have failed, but through his faithfulness prevailed, making it possible for the rest of mankind to attain to divine status as well. For hundreds of years wars raged between the followers of the Trinitarian view and Arian's followers. Eventually, the Trinitarians, led by the Church at Rome, prevailed, and became established as orthodoxy, and the Arian view became branded as the ultimate "heresy." But were the Arians really heretics? Joseph T. Lienhard, in "The 'Arian' Controversy: Some Categories Reconsidered," tells us that what is know of Arian beliefs comes to us through the highly filtered lenses of fourth century opponents. It was only in 341 that Eastern bishops of the church even learned that they were being called "Arians" (see Theological Studies, 48, 1987, p.415-437; Robert C. Gregg and Dennis E. Groh, Early Arianism -- A View of Salvation ; and Gregg, ed., Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments, 1985). Gregg and Groh argue convincingly that the really central issue with the Arians was their view of how mankind became saved. They believed that salvation meant that we became deified like Christ who paved the way and made it possible. To them, "divine sonship differs in degree but not in kind; therefore the Christ was representative Son, but by no means only possible Son" (Gregg and Groh, p.30, emphasis theirs). Athanasius accused them of blasphemy and arrogance, yet they merely carried on a traditional belief that is clearly found in the Scriptures! Said Athanasius, "Thus hearing that men are called sons, they hold themselves equal to the true and natural Son. . . . They are so arrogant as to suppose that as the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, so will they be" (Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. 3, 17).

If God were indeed a "Trinity," then why is the concept completely foreign to the Bible, both Old and New Testaments? Nowhere does the Bible speak of "one God in three Persons"! The concept of a divine "Trinity" is simply nowhere found in the Biblical text. The one text some have quoted as referring to a "Trinity," I John 5:7, is spurious and was inserted into the text by copyists after the Trinitarian controversy arose. Adam Clarke in his Commentary points out that this verse was omitted in every manuscript before the invention of printing -- that is, 112 manuscripts -- except one 35 found at, would you believe it, Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland! All the old Bible manuscripts omit it and even the best versions of the Vulgate. All the ancient Greek fathers omit it, and even most of the Latin. There has been more controversy over this one verse than any other in Scripture, but there can be no doubt that it is not genuine and was added by a later hand, possibly as late as in the sixteenth century. It was lacking in the first edition of Erasmus, AD 1516. All the German translations of Martin Luther omit it. Trinitarians have gone to great lengths, even lying egregiously, in their attempt to justify this passage (see Adam Clarke's treatment). Clarke himself says the passage in question "stands on a most dubious foundation," and concludes, "Itn short, it stands on no authority sufficient to authenticate any part of a revelation professing to have come from God.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The doctrine of the Trinity was not widely believed or universally observed until the Council of Nicea, in AD 325

Yes, well in the case of the Trinity it's a doctrine that developed out of their study of scripture over time, but to go through it all wouldn't be something I'd have time for atm.

Arian, however, said that Christ, the first of God's primeval creations,

Only Arian's claim is and was extremely problematic scripturally. But again Walter, my focus was limited to the verse you brought up in the OP, since I love discussing scripture itself. Quite the opposite, I loathe going round and round in endless theological debate, so I'll leave it there for now.

God bless, and hope you have a blessed Sunday
- H

 

[CherubRam]

1 John 5:7. NIV
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

NIV foot note:
a. Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)

 

[Johann!@#]

IS 1 JOHN 5:7 NOT IN ANY GREEK MANUSCRIPT BEFORE THE 1600S? IF IT IS TRUE, WHY IS IT IN THE KJV?

5:7 There is some confusion in the English translations as to where 1 John 5:6,7, and 8 begin and end. The portion of 1 John 5:7 that is found in the KJV which says "in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one," is not found in the three major ancient uncial Greek manuscripts of the NT: Alexandrinus (A), Vaticanus (B), or Sinaiticus (א), nor in the Byzantine family of manuscripts. It appears in only four late minuscule manuscripts.

MS 61, dated in the 16th century
MS 88 dated in the 12th century, where the passage is inserted in the margin by a later hand
MS 629, dated in the 14th or 15th century
MS 635, dated in the 11th century, where the passage is inserted in the margin by a later hand
This verse is not quoted by any of the Early Church Fathers, even in their doctrinal debates over the Trinity. It is absent from all ancient versions except one late Latin manuscript family (Sixto-Clementine). It is not in the Old Latin or Jerome's Vulgate. It appears first in a treatise by the Spanish heretic Priscillian, who died in A.D. 385. It was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy in the 5th century. This verse is simply not part of the original inspired words of 1 John.

The biblical doctrine of one God (see Special Topic: Monotheism) but with three personal manifestations (Father, Son, and Spirit) is not affected by the rejection of this verse. Although it is true that the Bible never uses the word "trinity," many biblical passages speak of all three persons of the Godhead acting together:

at Jesus' baptism (Matt. 3:16-17)
the great commission (Matt. 28:19)
the Spirit sent (John 14:26)
Peter's Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:33-34)
Paul's discussion of flesh and spirit (Rom. 8:7-10)
Paul's discussion of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:4-6)
Paul's travel plans (2 Cor. 1:21-22)
Paul's benediction (2 Cor. 13:14)
Paul's discussion of the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4-6)
Paul's prayer of praise to the Father (Eph. 1:3-14)
Paul's discussion of the Gentiles' former alienation (Eph. 2:18)
Paul's discussion of the oneness of God (Eph. 4:4-6)
Paul's discussion of the kindness of God (Titus 3:4-6)
Peter's introduction (1 Pet. 1:2)
Special Topic: Textual Criticism

5:8 "the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement" In the OT two or three witnesses were needed to confirm a matter (cf. Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15). Here, the historical events of Jesus' life are given as a witness to His full humanity and deity. In this verse, "water" and "blood" are mentioned again along with "the Spirit." The terms "water" and "blood" are mentioned in 1 John 5:6. The "Spirit" may refer to Jesus' baptism because of the dove descending. There is some disagreement about the exact historical allusion that each of these three represents. They must relate to the false teachers' rejection of Jesus' true humanity.
Utley.

 

[CherubRam]

The word "Godhead" is not biblical. How come you guys can not comprehend that?

 

[Johann!@#]

The word "Godhead" is not biblical. How come you guys can not comprehend that?

Act_17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Rom_1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Col_2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Well, since it is mentioned three x in Scriptures-it MUST be biblical.

 

[CherubRam]

Act_17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Rom_1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Col_2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Well, since it is mentioned three x in Scriptures-it MUST be biblical.

The term "Godhead" is an English variant of the word "godhood" and was first introduced by John Wycliffe (1330-1384 C.E.) in English Bible versions as godhede.

The word "Godhead" is a interpretation of three different Greek words, theion, theiotēs, and theotēs. It is not a translation of those words.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

The word "Godhead" is not biblical. How come you guys can not comprehend that?

Yes we can, What is the Godhead?
Sunday 10-9-22 1st. Day Of The Weekly Cycle, Tishri 12 5783 18th. Fall Day

Genesis One:26 In this scripture, I believe, And God said, "Let us" is referring to: Elohim

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The term Godhead is found three times in the King James Version: Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; and Colossians 2:9. In each of the three verses, a slightly different Greek word is used, but the definition of each is the same: “deity” or “divine nature.” The word Godhead is used to refer to God’s essential nature. We’ll take a look at each of these passages and what they mean.

In Acts 17, Paul is speaking on Mars Hill to the philosophers of Athens. As he argues against idolatry, Paul says, “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device” (Acts 17:29, KJV). Here, the word Godhead is the translation of the Greek theion, a word used by the Greeks to denote “God” in general, with no reference to a particular deity. Paul, speaking to Greeks, used the term in reference to the only true God.

In Romans 1, Paul begins to make the case that all humanity stands guilty before God. In verse 20 he says, “The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (KJV). Here, Godhead is theiotés. Paul’s argument is that all of creation virtually shouts the existence of God; we can “clearly” see God’s eternal power, as well as His “Godhead” in what He has made. “The heavens declare the glory of God; / the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Psalm 19:1). The natural world makes manifest the divine nature of God.

Colossians 2:9 is one of the clearest statements of the deity of Christ anywhere in the Bible: “In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” The word for “Godhead” here is theotés. According to this verse, Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. He embodies all (“the fulness”) of God (translated “the Deity” in the NIV). This truth aligns perfectly with Colossians 1:19, “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him [Christ].”

Because the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ, Jesus could rightly claim that He and the Father are “one” (John 10:30). Because the fullness of God’s divine essence is present in the Son of God, Jesus could say to Philip, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

In summary, the Godhead is the essence of the Divine Being; the Godhead is the one and only Deity. Jesus, the incarnate Godhead, entered our world and showed us exactly who God is: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known” (John 1:18; cf. Hebrews 1:3).

To be continued...

 

[Johann!@#]

To be continued...

Cognate with Theos , there are three other words to be noted :

1. Theotes , rendered "Deity", and used of Christ. Occurs only in Col_2:9, and has relation to the Godhead personally ; while

2. Theiotes , rendered "Deity" also, is Deity in the abstract . Occurs only in Rom_1:20.

3. Theios , rendered "Divine", and is used of Christ. Occurs only in 2Pe_1:3; 2Pe_1:4; and, with the Article, in Act_17:29, where it is rendered "Godhead". Gr. = that which [is] Divine.

Johann.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

9-24-23 Continue What is the Godhead?

Christ -- Firstborn and Creator Both Paul adds more pieces to this intriguing puzzle. He writes of the pre-existent Christ, who is also the "head," as well as the "Son" of God, alluded to in Genesis 1:1, in his letter to the church at Colossae, as follows: "Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son . . . Who is the IMAGE of the invisible God, THE FIRSTBORN [the first to be brought into existence in time primordial] OF EVERY CREATURE [the firstborn of every thing God has made!]: For BY HIM [Christ, the Logos, the "Son," the "Head"] were ALL THINGS CREATED, that are in heaven, and that are in earth . . . ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY HIM, AND FOR HIM: And he is BEFORE ALL THINGS [that is, He was created, or "pro-created" by the Father, FIRST OF ALL!], and by him all things consist. And he is the HEAD ["rosh" in Hebrew, the "first"] of the body, the church: who IS the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

For it pleased the Father that IN HIM should all fullness dwell" (Col.1:12-19). Notice! Here is further confirmation that Christ Himself was "created" -- that the Logos was the "firstborn" or "firstfruit" of ALL CREATION (Col.1:15). He was first "born" of God -- and then "by him were all [other] things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible" (v.16). The real "mystery" is why so few people understand this truth! The vast majority believe that Christ ALWAYS existed, as a member of the Godhead. But that is not what this passage says! He Himself was born of God, before the rest of creation was created! Truly, the mystery of Genesis 1:1 contains a spectacular message -- a three-fold message -- that not only did "God" create the heavens and the earth "in the beginning," but He did it "in the Son," and in the "Head" -- who is the Son, the First of all creation. Message to the Laodicean Church Jesus Himself acknowledged this amazing truth when He declared to the Laodicean church, "These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, The beginning of the creation of God" (Rev.3:14). The Greek word arche translated "beginning" here means exactly that -- the "first in a series," as well as "first in time order," and "first in rank" or position.

Christ is FIRST in every respect over all God's Creation -- first to be created, first in time order, first in rank, and first in position -- except for the Father Himself, of course! It is peculiarly interesting that Jesus uses this truth in His message to the endtime, final church era of His true Church -- to the Laodicean church, which He says thinks a lot of itself, is proud of its supposed spiritual riches and knowledge, and ye He 15 says of this final remnant generation of His Church: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, 'I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked" (Rev.3:16-17).

Jesus introduces His message of blistering rebuke to the Laodicean church era/age with the words and revelation that He "is the BEGINNING of the creation of God"! Thus He tells them right up front that He was the "firstfruits," the "firstborn" of ALL God's Creative works of old -- and that therefore He Himself has a beginning, an origin, in and from the Father! Yet the end-time remnant churches of God today, the various splinter groups and split-offs, ALL WITH ONE ACCORD, in unison, have to this very day rejected this simple and yet profound truth of God!History and experience shows that the vast majority will not listen.

They have closed their ears. They have put their hands in front of their eyes. They are blinded to this truth. No wonder Jesus Christ specifically calls them "BLIND"! What about you? Are you, also, "blind"? Is the truth of God still "hidden" from your view and closed to your understanding? Paul wrote, "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: in whom the god of this world [Satan the devil!] has BLINDED THE MINDS of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the IMAGE of God, should shine unto them" (II Cor.4:3-4). Are you also "blinded"?

To be continued

 

[Johann!@#]

The vast majority believe that Christ ALWAYS existed, as a member of the Godhead. But that is not what this passage says! He Himself was born of God, before the rest of creation was created! Truly, the mystery of Genesis 1:1 contains a spectacular message -- a three-fold message -- that not only did "God" create the heavens and the earth

Wait a minute!
Are you saying Jesus was a "created being?:

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Wait a minute!
Are you saying Jesus was a "created being?:

No Sir, not at all, even from the beginning.

 

[Johann!@#]

No Sir

That is the impression I got from Christ Jesus as Firstborn and I am one of the vast majority who believe Jesus always existed with the Father-pros to pros/haya.
Maybe you can clarify this for me?

 

[WalterandDebbie]

That is the impression I got from Christ Jesus as Firstborn and I am one of the vast majority who believe Jesus always existed with the Father-pros to pros/haya.
Maybe you can clarify this for me?

As you have said, you are correct.