Heretick or Divisive?

Thank you Hank for acknowledging that you also believe 1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture and not just a "later addition" to the text.
Will [/QB]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Settled quips:
which only goes to show that KJBO believes that the Minority Text cld be right at times, esp when it's in agreement w the KJB.
see? ANYTHING's possible--if it agrees w the prejudged conclusion!
---------------------------------------------------------------

The only prejudged conclusion I have is that God promised to preserve His inerrant, complete words and God does not lie. Therefore I conclude He must have done this. I examine the existing evidence and come to the sound conclusion that the King James Holy Bible is that preserved word of God.

It is more than a little silly of you to say what you do here. Are you a "Majority man"?No, you don't even know what the Majority readings are. Are you a "minority reading" man? If you prefer the Westcott-Hort based nasb, esv, niv, etc., then you are. Are you a
Whateverist according to your own preferences and understanding who has no infallible, inerrant, inspired and complete words of God? Yes.

Do you believe that no text and no Bible version is totally without error? Yes. You do not believe an inspired, totally accurate and complete Bible exists today.

And then you get upset because there are still some thousands of us around who do believe God did what He said He would do, and hold to the historic position that we have an inspired, inerrant Bible.


To use a couple of trite metaphors, all I hear from you are Sour grapes and comments from the peanut gallery.

Will K

 

Comments on 1 John 5:7

200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
---------------------------------------------------------------

Archy posts:
Here's the actual quote:
"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, “I and my Father are One,” in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number." (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 25.1)


We can see that Tertullian describes the triune nature of God in this passage and clearly quotes Jn. 10:30, but it's not at all obvious that he's quoting the Comma.
Tertullian's alleged citation must be set aside because of its extremely high degree of uncertainty.

Archy, I can see your point here with Tertullian, but even you admit it is not obvious that he is quoting the Comma (1 John 5:7) but the phrase "these three are one" does come from it. Debatable. I will give you this, but I think you really blow it in the next section.

You continue regarding Cyprian:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "it is written, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he get it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, the alleged Cyprian citation is from On the Unity of the Catholic Church 6, and not from the works you cite. Secondly, Cyprian's alleged citation of the Comma is also uncertain because it's not at all clear whether the words he's actually quoting from 1 John are from the disputed Comma or from the undisputed sentence next to it."

Archy, I have heard this argument before. It seem you guys are so prejudiced that you can't even read plain sentences. Notice exactly what he says: "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One"

Arch, it is so obvious. He is not saying "of the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one" - that is the second part of the verse. Just LOOK at what he says!

Will

 

Archy posts; And Mr. Maynard is mistaken, because even though Gregory notes an inconsistency in the Greek grammar, he does not object to either the verse as it stands without the Comma or to its theological significance. Even more telling, Gregory does not quote the Comma itself -- which he surely would have done had he known it because it would have proven *exactly* what he was attempting to prove, namely, the unity and consubstantiality of the Trinity. "

Archy, Gregory Nazianzus says in Oration 39 "There is then One God in Three, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE - as we have said."

The only place where "and these three are one" can be found in the N.T. is 1 John 5:7.

Will

 

Tim says: I believe Paul did'nt know that what he was writing was going to be called scripture someday. Look at the book of Philemon. It's just a letter from a friend to a friend. But God chose to inspire Paul to write it, Even though Paul didn't know what God had up his sleave that day."


I agree.

You continue:
I know this could open a can of worms, because someone can say the KJV translators were inspired to correctly translate w/o them knowing it. But no where does the Bible say that translators were inspired. But it does say the authors were."

I don't think the Bible says the authors were inspired, but rather it is God's words that are inspired. Inspiration does not cease with the originals being lost. Christ says "My words are spirit and they are life". If we have His true words they are still alive. The word of God liveth and abideth forever.

Will