Heretick or Divisive?

Will wrote,

Will,

Tertullian actually wrote,

"We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former, ) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, "I have to be baptized with a baptism," when He had been baptized already. For He had come "by means of water and blood," just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost."

Notice that Tertullian does not quote any of the "Johannine Comma" at all, but that his quote is from verse 6.

Cyprian actually wrote,

"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.'"

Notice that Cyprian does not quote any of the "Johannine Comma" at all, but that his first quote is from John 10:30 and his second quote is from the undisputed part of 1John 5:8.

Priscillian, in his Latin work, Contra Varimadum, quoted the "Johannine Comma" (in Latin).

For highly detailed and accurate information on 1 John 5:7, see my posts on this subject in the Mis-Characterizations thread in this forum.

 

Then how come that when you quote Scripture, it's from a later edition? Didja catch a football out in left field?

 

Here are the terms needed:
perfect, perfecter, perfectist

 

Why do I need to apologize for? We all agree! O.K., O.K. Guys, I'm sorry and have to apologize that the KJB translators gave us the Perfect, Infallable, Inerrant, Inspired Word of God to the English speaking people.

Their reply, "I wouldn't let them make me feel sorry for having the RIGHT Bible."

O.k., I was just trying to appease them, I can see now it would be wasted effort to try to do so.

First, tiny, you have to have the truth to admonish with, you do not. The Bible says after the first and second admonition, you don't have the truth to begin to admonish.

 

This is evidence right here the misinformation the mv advocates try to use to propigate error. The word "is" is in conjunction with the action verb "coming" in the esv. That denotes that the days will always be "coming" and never actually getting here.

"When "is" it going to get here,daddy?"

"Don't worry son, it is coming."

"But daddy, it's already been 30 years, and I 've out grown my tricycle and been driving a truck for 18 years, you'd think my new bicycle would have arrived by now."

"I told you not to worry, son. I told you it "is coming"."

Now if the esv had said, "is come" you might have an arguement, but you do not, only false and pretentious and misinformation.

Learn English before you try and tear it down with Greek.

 

Tiny, you quoted my quote of the word "adding". I have never said I John 5:7 was added, you mv advoctaes said that, you are the ones I quoted.

I know beyond the shadow of a doubt I John 5:7 belongs in the Bible, the Spirit Himself beareth witness. And Brother Will has shown you and all the rest of the world your claims it doesn't are maligned.

I sure am glad to have Brother Will on my side which is the Lord's side at that!

 

I'm with rsr. I would also add that he's doing fine all by himself showing everyone else the absurdities of KJV-onlyism - he doesn't really need our help.

 

You know, we all should be listening to Craig. He is the final authority, if you don't believe it, just ask him, he'll tell you, over and over and over and over and over, but he won't tell you who his professors were at Standford and Princeton.

 

To be honest, I agree with QS and Will that 1 John 5:7-8 (the Johnannine Comma) is part of the cannon of Scripture.

HankD

 

Tiny, I can see you've really got a hold on the English language.

"Will come" has a definite and expected satisfaction of completion of the action of the verb.

"Is coming" has an expected end to the action, but never satisfies a completion to the action due to it's suffix of "ing" added to the verb.

If the esv is relevant today, the verb would have read "is come".

The days of people heaping to themselves teachers having itching ears "is come", not "is coming".

Paul knew it would come in his day, he advised Timothy in relevance to the present of then expected in their lifetimes, and the evidence is all against the mv advocate as it is here.

W/H are the teachers that yall have heaped to yourselves to try and make the itch go away. The only problem you have is you cannot do away with the Truth, no matter how hard you try, the KJB "itch" is still there!

Just count me as one of the "fleas" that keep you itching.

 

Just count me as one of the "fleas" that keep you itching.


"At least you're not a "hairy-tick", haha!"

 

I know beyond the shadow of a doubt I John 5:7 does not belong in the Bible, the Spirit Himself beareth witness. Now who's right and how are you going to make your point??

 

Because I'm a flea and you are a "hairy-tick"

Also I know the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost AGREE!

Thanks Granny Gumbo, my wife and I rolled all over the floor at your "more than adequate" reply.

 

Yall keep holding hands. maybe you can get Scott and Craig to hold hands with you too? We'll just keep waving our AV 1611 KJB Bibles in the face of the devil while yall keep looking for "other ways".

 

Personally Pastor Larry, I'm content to wait and see who got the message right (and I promise I won't gloat ).

HankD

 

I agree with you Hank. I was showing how useless QS's statement is that the Holy Spirit bore witness to him about this. We should all know that that is an invalid basis for argumentation in this area. It is a fallacious argument.

 

Agreed.

HankD

 

Here's the proof, Hank. I'll keep I John 5:7,8 in the Bible, Larry and his kind will keep trying to change it or attempt to pull it out.

I know it belongs without Will's facts, but now I understand the facts, I now know the "Firm Foundational Truth" according to God's Word.

I never knew the evidence given according to the harmonizng of the Koine Greek about the answering of the masculine verbage in that particular passage, I just believe God/ The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost.

 

Then why did you lie? And how can "invalidate" the witness of the Holy Spirit?

Uh, you lied, and you can't. That is all I need to maintain the truth.

 

My understanding is that Erasmus who put together the Textus Receptus in which the KJV/NKJV is translated from, did not find 1 John 5:7 in the manuscripts that he used to edit his first edition of the TR. It however was in the Latin Vulgate translation and after some convincing he put it in the second edition of the TR. 1 John 5:7 was not however in Luther's translation of the New Testament and many believe it is a forgery. The evidence for it in the earliest manuscripts and in the Christological councils of Nicea and Chalcedon seem shaky. Why was not this verse appealed to at these councils since it clearly refutes Anti Trinitarians?

Some KJV ONLYS claim the Church fathers in the 3rd century did quote from it.

Here is a supposed quote of Cyprian, "He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. 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."

I am not sure of the validity of this quote or even if Cyprian is referring to 1 John 5:7. It seems that the Nicene, Athanasian and Chalcedonian creeds have a strong dose of John 1 in them but not necessarily any referance to 1 John 5:7. This verse would be the logical weapon to use against Arians but the Church Fathers at these councils seem to not have knowledge of it.