the Spirit, the Water, the Blood

[JLB]

It isn't that clear and simple and likely doesn't mean what you are arguing it means. It likely is referring to his baptism in water and his death on the cross--the beginning of his ministry and the ending, dying for the sins of man. To make it as though it is speaking of his birth is rather a weak view, as pointed out already.

Yeah brother,

came by water... that is for sure a reference to him dying.

came by water and born of water mean the same thing = natural child birth!

... for flesh gives birth to flesh.

there is the explanation from John 3:6

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Same John, using the same reference to natural child birth.

Next I guess you will be saying water in John 3 is a reference to baptism.

There are two births in John 3: Spiritual and natural.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Born of water is a reference to natural child birth.

Came by water is a reference to natural child birth.

Nothing weak about it, just simple plain truth.


JLB

 

[chessman]

I understand the witness of the Holy Spirit and the blood of Jesus [rather Jesus Himself]; but what of the 'water'? What water has a witness that is present tense?

.

I believe there is a very literal witness within us that comes through the cleansing of our sins by 'the water'. By sins I mean the ones we still commit daily even as His children.

Ever repent of sin? To who? To the Holy Spirit (witness #1 in the verse, the spirit) or Jesus (witness #2, the blood) or is it to Witness #3, The Father? I don't know about others but I repent and ask The Father to forgive, i.e. cleanse me of sin. Matthew 6:12 Father... and forgive us our debts,as we also have forgiven our debtors"

Not that I don't also ask Jesus or the HS also at times, as they are all one. I just feel more comfortable asking my Father to cleanse me most often. I believe John is saying The Father is the present tense witness cleansing us here in verse 7-8 by his reference to "the water":

1 John 1: 9
If we confess our sins, he [The Father] is faithful and just, so that he will forgive us our sins and will cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
​

I believe John has made the point that not only are we indwelled with the spirit (The Holy Spirit) and the blood (The Son) but also The Father (the water). It's why we call each other brothers/sisters, no?

1 John 2: 23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.
​

We literally ARE brothers because we have the same Father.

It's a great study, that of 1 John! Thanks for bringing up this topic.

 

[chessman]

I have my answers prepared to your six questions in your reply to me. But first, I’m requesting that you answer my question to you?

If there's no hidden meaning, then why assume John's referencing Mary's virgin blood?

 

[JLB]

I have my answers prepared to your six questions in your reply to me. But first, I’m requesting that you answer my question to you?

Why wouldn't John be referencing the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Came by water and born of water are the same phrase he uses to reference natural child birth.

as he says - for flesh gives birth to flesh. - natural child birth.

He came by water... = natural child birth.

Not by water only, but by water and blood = supernatural child birth from a virgin.


JLB

 

[chessman]

Came by water and born of water are the same phrase he uses to reference natural child birth.

JLB

no it's not:


γεννηθῇ gennēthē

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless someone
is born (γεννηθῇ gennēthē)
of water and spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God.​

ἐλθὼν elthōn

This is the one
who came (ἐλθὼν elthōn)
by water and blood— Jesus Christ, not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.​

 

[chessman]

what is it in John's teaching here in 1 John Chapter 5, that leads you to believe there is some "symbolic" language being conveyed.
JLB

Mostly, the fact that throughout the centuries, ever since the 2nd century, Bible commentators have come up with varying meanings to explain John’s meaning of the witness of “the water” and “the blood” in verse 8. Nobody seems to agree on his meaning. John tells us exactly what he means by “the spirit” (The Holy Spirit) so there’s no controversy that I know of on that meaning. But he doesn’t come right out and say what he means by the other two witnesses (unless of course the Johanneum comma was his meaning). At least in that chapter he doesn’t. However, he does point out that they all three are one (which puts a huge damper on your meaning, in my opinion). Thus, I thought it best to try and find the meaning within 1 John primarily, versus some other Scripture. I believe I did find it. There’s much evidence that your symbolic meaning is incorrect, anyway. For example;
If “the water” is Mary’s water sack, just exactly how does Mary’s water sack (one of the three witnesses) that “agree as one” witness to us? I don’t equate Mary’s water sack with the witness of the person of the Holy Spirit bearing witness to me on Earth. Mary’s water is NOT a person, but The Father and The Son sure are.

Why is verse 6 here some hidden "symbolic" language, or a reference to some parabolic teaching, when all John is saying is just literal straight forward phrases.
JLB

Because, as I pointed out, John’s not contradicting himself. John was NOT a witness to Jesus’ birth yet in his letter he states that the things (these three witnesses) he’s writing about, he has witnessed either with his eyes and touched them OR with his ears (hearing The Father at Jesus' baptism). Me thinks he’s NOT talking about hearing or seeing Mary’s water sack or hymen blood.

You are clearly 'hanging you hat' on the fact that John says Jesus came… and you think John meant “came” as in Jesus’ birth. It’s possible, but not evidenced since John didn’t witness Jesus’ birth. Not to mention that Jesus “came” to Earth ~ 9 months prior to his trip down the birth canal. In fact, John the Baptist knew Jesus was on Earth prior to either of their births. I think by “came”, John means esentially “came to Earth”. Why? Because he says so.

But, as I pointed out, Mary’s not mentioned here in 1 John so you just are assuming that’s what he means. Can you point out the name “Mary” or “Mary’s water and blood” in verse 6 or in any other verse in John’s epistle? No. It’s not there. John never mentions Mary in this letter. If he had, you might have a case.

How is it you decide that water and blood is symbolic of "something else"?
JLB

Because literal water (either from a river or a jar or a womb) doesn’t cleanse and/or forgive sins but The Father does.

Please do share with us, how you decide here what is symbolic and what is not and what the symbolic water and blood means?
JLB

Again? I thought I did. But here’s a little more; One of the three witnesses is clearly defined by John, at least clear enough to me;

the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.​

If John, for example, would have said;

the blood is the one who testifies, because the blood is Mary’s hymen blood in the truth.​

You’d have a case. But he didn’t say that.

What he did say is;

the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.​

And:

His son is faithful and just, so that he [The Father, the water] will forgive us our sins and will cleanse us from all unrighteousness.​

I find those meanings more persuasive of John’s intended meaning than Mary’s anatomy as our internal Godly witnesses. Or her anatomy cleansing us of our sins or giving us Eternal Life (which is John's topic).

What does came by water mean?

‘Came’ to Earth from The Father, bringing the cleansing power of The Father’s Baptismal waters and the eternal life of His living water in the process.

What does came by blood mean?

‘Came’ to Earth from the Father bringing the cleansing power of His shed blood on the cross.

this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.​

[Given us (inside us) eternal life through The Father’s water and in His Son’s blood and His Spirit's witness, not Mary’s water or Mary’s blood inside of us.]

21 Little children, guard yourselves from idols.​

 

[JLB]

no it's not:


γεννηθῇ gennēthē

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless someone
is born (γεννηθῇ gennēthē)
of water and spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God.​

ἐλθὼν elthōn

This is the one
who came (ἐλθὼν elthōn)
by water and blood— Jesus Christ, not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.​

The word came is a reference to came into this world.

Came by water and born of water means the same thing. natural child birth. for flesh gives birth to flesh.

There is no other meaning for 1 John 5:6. None.

You have to make up some "spiritualized" meaning for water and blood, when they are referring to literal water and literal blood.

All the "Greek words" and lexicon gymnastics in the world will not change the literal plain meaning of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, here in 1 John 5.


This is He who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth.

He came into this world not by water only, like everyone else, but by water and blood... born of a virgin!

No guessing, no forcing the meaning, just simple truth.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Mostly, the fact that throughout the centuries, ever since the 2nd century, Bible commentators have come up with varying meanings to explain John’s meaning of the witness of “the water” and “the blood” in verse 8. Nobody seems to agree on his meaning. John tells us exactly what he means by “the spirit” (The Holy Spirit) so there’s no controversy that I know of on that meaning. But he doesn’t come right out and say what he means by the other two witnesses (unless of course the Johanneum comma was his meaning). At least in that chapter he doesn’t. However, he does point out that they all three are one (which puts a huge damper on your meaning, in my opinion). Thus, I thought it best to try and find the meaning within 1 John primarily, versus some other Scripture. I believe I did find it. There’s much evidence that your symbolic meaning is incorrect, anyway. For example;
If “the water” is Mary’s water sack, just exactly how does Mary’s water sack (one of the three witnesses) that “agree as one” witness to us? I don’t equate Mary’s water sack with the witness of the person of the Holy Spirit bearing witness to me on Earth. Mary’s water is NOT a person, but The Father and The Son sure are.

Because, as I pointed out, John’s not contradicting himself. John was NOT a witness to Jesus’ birth yet in his letter he states that the things (these three witnesses) he’s writing about, he has witnessed either with his eyes and touched them OR with his ears (hearing The Father at Jesus' baptism). Me thinks he’s NOT talking about hearing or seeing Mary’s water sack or hymen blood.

You are clearly 'hanging you hat' on the fact that John says Jesus came… and you think John meant “came” as in Jesus’ birth. It’s possible, but not evidenced since John didn’t witness Jesus’ birth. Not to mention that Jesus “came” to Earth ~ 9 months prior to his trip down the birth canal. In fact, John the Baptist knew Jesus was on Earth prior to either of their births. I think by “came”, John means esentially “came to Earth”. Why? Because he says so.

But, as I pointed out, Mary’s not mentioned here in 1 John so you just are assuming that’s what he means. Can you point out the name “Mary” or “Mary’s water and blood” in verse 6 or in any other verse in John’s epistle? No. It’s not there. John never mentions Mary in this letter. If he had, you might have a case.
Because literal water (either from a river or a jar or a womb) doesn’t cleanse and/or forgive sins but The Father does.
Again? I thought I did. But here’s a little more; One of the three witnesses is clearly defined by John, at least clear enough to me;

the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.​

If John, for example, would have said;

the blood is the one who testifies, because the blood is Mary’s hymen blood in the truth.​

You’d have a case. But he didn’t say that.

What he did say is;

the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.​

And:

His son is faithful and just, so that he [The Father, the water] will forgive us our sins and will cleanse us from all unrighteousness.​

I find those meanings more persuasive of John’s intended meaning than Mary’s anatomy as our internal Godly witnesses. Or her anatomy cleansing us of our sins or giving us Eternal Life (which is John's topic).

‘Came’ to Earth from The Father, bringing the cleansing power of The Father’s Baptismal waters and the eternal life of His living water in the process.

‘Came’ to Earth from the Father bringing the cleansing power of His shed blood on the cross.

this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.​

[Given us (inside us) eternal life through The Father’s water and in His Son’s blood and His Spirit's witness, not Mary’s water or Mary’s blood inside of us.]

21 Little children, guard yourselves from idols.​

The Father's water?


Please just stop guessing, it's embarrassing.


JLB

 

[By Grace]

In reference to the following verse:
"And there are three who bear witness on the earth: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three are to the one." (1John 5:8 LITV)

What is this verse referring to?
What is the water and the blood?
What is the context of this verse?

Does 1 John 5:8 refer to the Trinity?

Greg (and others)

I do not know if you are aware of this, but you are referring to the Johanine comma (or if you wish to impress someone with the Latin name, Comma Johanneum ) In most modern translations, you will find a footnote at verse 8 that says "Most of the earliest manuscripts omit these verses." Earliest in this case means the extant manuscripts that come before the Stephanus version. Therefore it is an addition to 1 John, and the Apostle did not write those words.

Because it is an addition, and can be traced to the first-time insertion, it is not really Scripture, because it was not an inspired Apostolic writing it; even though it is true at face value

Bible Researcher ( http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html ) says this:
.

The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:

• 61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
• 88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
• 221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
• 429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
• 629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
• 636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
• 918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
• 2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

Emphasis added for more info, please go HERE

Therefore, this is a section inserted into the original text the insertion is well documented, and IMHO not worth getting too worked over and spatting about.it.

FYI there are over 6000 different Greek manuscripts available today, so as a result, those who insist on the Johanine Comma are looking at about 8/6000 of the documents available, and are basing their opinion on such a small portion of evidence (actually 0.00013) of the total available that the percentage is actually 13 ten thousandths of available manuscripts.

Posted for reference usage, and no nastiness implied.

 

[Free]

Yeah brother,

came by water... that is for sure a reference to him dying.

No, it isn't. It is likely a reference to his baptism.

]came by water and born of water mean the same thing = natural child birth!

Prove it.

]... for flesh gives birth to flesh.

there is the explanation from John 3:6

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Same John, using the same reference to natural child birth.

Next I guess you will be saying water in John 3 is a reference to baptism.

There are two births in John 3: Spiritual and natural.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Born of water is a reference to natural child birth.

Came by water is a reference to natural child birth.

Nothing weak about it, just simple plain truth.

You are reading into 1 John 5:8 something that just isn't there. You really need to stop being so dogmatic about a verse that isn't very clear, especially when your understanding is the weaker position.

 

[chessman]

Greg (and others)

I do not know if you are aware of this, but you are referring to the 'Johanine comma'

Your comment makes it sound like the entirety of verses 7-8 don't belong rather than simply the comma portion of them. There is no controversy that "the spirit, the blood and the water" appear in the manuscripts. It's the extra part that's controversial.

The 'comma' is simply the bracketed portion of the verses (7-8) below (from your link) not the whole verse of the verses 7-8. John most definitely wrote about the three that bear record (witness) being the Spirit, the water and the blood... (The OP topic).

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.​

I'm not positing the comma as Scripture. It could be or it could be commentary. But the three witnesses portion (the spirit, the water and the blood) is most assuredly Scripture.

Also, Metzger's note (2) from the link is addressed by Wallace in the link below (it's interesting):

https://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian

The point is Cyprian writing in Greek (~250 A.D.) interpreted 1 John 5:7-8's (the spirit and the blood and the water) as definitely the Trinity. And again, not Mary's blood of course. Which is probably why the early Latin translations do the same (in their margins).

 

[Gregg]

Verse 7 is a reference to the Father, The Word and The Spirit.

Verse 7 -

7 For there are three that bear witness [in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit;] and these three are one.

Verse 6 and verse 8 refer to literal blood and literal water.

Jesus came by water... A clear reference to his natural child birth as a human being.

not only by water, but by water and blood...

A clear reference to Him being born of a virgin.


JLB

regarding your reference to 1Jn 5:7, I have enclosed in brackets [in your post] text that does not appear in the earliest manuscripts, likely added later. So I do not recognize that as inspired Scripture.

1Jn 5:6-8 is indeed a clear reference to Jesus the Son of God 'coming into the world', but has no reference to a virgin birth or to Mary's blood. The context of 1Jn 5:6-8 refers to a three-fold witness in the present tense [supported by the Greek verb tenses], which exclude anything about the person of Mary.

When you make a bold statement such as - 'A clear reference to Him being born of a virgin', please support it by demonstrating your understanding of the Greek text.

 

[Gregg]

Your comment makes it sound like the entirety of verses 7-8 don't belong rather than simply the comma portion of them. There is no controversy that "the spirit, the blood and the water" appear in the manuscripts. It's the extra part that's controversial.

The 'comma' is simply the bracketed portion of the verses (7-8) below (from your link) not the whole verse of the verses 7-8. John most definitely wrote about the three that bear record (witness) being the Spirit, the water and the blood... (The OP topic).

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.​

I'm not positing the comma as Scripture. It could be or it could be commentary. But the three witnesses portion (the spirit, the water and the blood) is most assuredly Scripture.

Also, Metzger's note (2) from the link is addressed by Wallace in the link below (it's interesting):

https://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian

The point is Cyprian writing in Greek (~250 A.D.) interpreted 1 John 5:7-8's (the spirit and the blood and the water) as definitely the Trinity. And again, not Mary's blood of course. Which is probably why the early Latin translations do the same (in their margins).

Absolutely, I agree. And some translations include a portion of 1Jn 5:7 with the preceding or following verses; making the text difficult to follow.

 

[Gregg]

Greg (and others)

I do not know if you are aware of this, but you are referring to the Johanine comma (or if you wish to impress someone with the Latin name, Comma Johanneum ) In most modern translations, you will find a footnote at verse 8 that says "Most of the earliest manuscripts omit these verses." Earliest in this case means the extant manuscripts that come before the Stephanus version. Therefore it is an addition to 1 John, and the Apostle did not write those words.

Because it is an addition, and can be traced to the first-time insertion, it is not really Scripture, because it was not an inspired Apostolic writing it; even though it is true at face value

Bible Researcher ( http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html ) says this:
.

The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:

• 61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
• 88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
• 221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
• 429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
• 629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
• 636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
• 918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
• 2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

Emphasis added for more info, please go HERE

Therefore, this is a section inserted into the original text the insertion is well documented, and IMHO not worth getting too worked over and spatting about.it.

FYI there are over 6000 different Greek manuscripts available today, so as a result, those who insist on the Johanine Comma are looking at about 8/6000 of the documents available, and are basing their opinion on such a small portion of evidence (actually 0.00013) of the total available that the percentage is actually 13 ten thousandths of available manuscripts.

Posted for reference usage, and no nastiness implied.

Thank you for taking the time to make this post. Your diligence is appreciated.

 

[JLB]

regarding your reference to 1Jn 5:7, I have enclosed in brackets [in your post] text that does not appear in the earliest manuscripts, likely added later. So I do not recognize that as inspired Scripture.

1Jn 5:6-8 is indeed a clear reference to Jesus the Son of God 'coming into the world', but has no reference to a virgin birth or to Mary's blood. The context of 1Jn 5:6-8 refers to a three-fold witness in the present tense [supported by the Greek verb tenses], which exclude anything about the person of Mary.

When you make a bold statement such as - 'A clear reference to Him being born of a virgin', please support it by demonstrating your understanding of the Greek text.

On one hand you say it's a reference to the Trinity.

On the other hand you say verse 7 was added later.

Which is it.

Please post your credentials as a doctorate in Greek study.

At least describe what you believe "came by water" to mean.


JLB

 

[By Grace]

Your comment makes it sound like the entirety of verses 7-8 don't belong rather than simply the comma portion of them. There is no controversy that "the spirit, the blood and the water" appear in the manuscripts. It's the extra part that's controversial.

The entirety of 1 John 5:7b-8 constitute the comma, so I am not sure about what you are saying. If you say that it is a true statement, I agree, but if you say that it is proof of the Trinity, I disagree. Because the Comma is an added insertion, written by a scribe, it cannot be considered as Scripture.

There is a fine of distinction, so I hope this clears things up: Anyone can write anywhere "Jesus Christ is God." It is a true statement, but even if someone tags a building with it (spray paints) it is not rise to the level of Scripture.

The 'comma' is simply the bracketed portion of the verses (7-8) below (from your link) not the whole verse of the verses 7-8. John most definitely wrote about the three that bear record (witness) being the Spirit, the water and the blood... (The OP topic).

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.​

I'm not positing the comma as Scripture. It could be or it could be commentary. But the three witnesses portion (the spirit, the water and the blood) is most assuredly Scripture.

Also, Metzger's note (2) from the link is addressed by Wallace in the link below (it's interesting):

https://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian

The point is Cyprian writing in Greek (~250 A.D.) interpreted 1 John 5:7-8's (the spirit and the blood and the water) as definitely the Trinity. And again, not Mary's blood of course. Which is probably why the early Latin translations do the same (in their margins).

We are not disagreeing, then

The so-called Johannine Comma (also called the Comma Johanneum) is a sequence of extra words which appear in 1 John 5:7-8 in some early printed editions of the Greek New Testament. In these editions the verses appear thus (we put backets around the extra words):

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

The King James Version, which was based upon these editions, gives the following translation:

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
​

After μαρτυροῦντες [witness record] the Textus Receptus adds the following: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.
SOURCE
​

​

 

[Deborah13]

Greg (and others)

I do not know if you are aware of this, but you are referring to the Johanine comma (or if you wish to impress someone with the Latin name, Comma Johanneum ) In most modern translations, you will find a footnote at verse 8 that says "Most of the earliest manuscripts omit these verses." Earliest in this case means the extant manuscripts that come before the Stephanus version. Therefore it is an addition to 1 John, and the Apostle did not write those words.

Because it is an addition, and can be traced to the first-time insertion, it is not really Scripture, because it was not an inspired Apostolic writing it; even though it is true at face value

Bible Researcher ( http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html ) says this:
.

The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:

• 61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
• 88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
• 221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
• 429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
• 629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
• 636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
• 918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
• 2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

Emphasis added for more info, please go HERE

Therefore, this is a section inserted into the original text the insertion is well documented, and IMHO not worth getting too worked over and spatting about.it.

FYI there are over 6000 different Greek manuscripts available today, so as a result, those who insist on the Johanine Comma are looking at about 8/6000 of the documents available, and are basing their opinion on such a small portion of evidence (actually 0.00013) of the total available that the percentage is actually 13 ten thousandths of available manuscripts.

Posted for reference usage, and no nastiness implied.

Good post, thank you.
YLT
1Jn 5:6 This one is he who did come through water and blood--Jesus the Christ, not in the water only, but in the water and the blood; and the Spirit it is that is testifying, because the Spirit is the truth,
1Jn 5:7 because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these--the three--are one;
1Jn 5:8 and three are who are testifying in the earth] , the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.
1Jn 5:9 If the testimony of men we receive, the testimony of God is greater, because this is the testimony of God that He hath testified concerning His Son.

 

[By Grace]

On one hand you say it's a reference to the Trinity.
On the other hand you say [PARTS OF] verse 7 was added later.
Which is it.

I added to the quote to make it more accurate.

Both of the statements are not mutually exclusive. Each of us can write something that is true, but NONE of us can write Scripture,

 

[Sinthesis]

Good post, thank you.
YLT
1Jn 5:6 This one is he who did come through water and blood--Jesus the Christ, not in the water only, but in the water and the blood; and the Spirit it is that is testifying, because the Spirit is the truth,
1Jn 5:7 because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these--the three--are one;
1Jn 5:8 and three are who are testifying in the earth] , the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.
1Jn 5:9 If the testimony of men we receive, the testimony of God is greater, because this is the testimony of God that He hath testified concerning His Son.

I just don't see where the Comma Johanneum changes the meaning of scripture.

 

[chessman]

The entirety of 1 John 5:7b-8 constitute the comma,...

​

I'm not sure if I'm not understanding you or you are not understanding me and Metzger's words.

That's incorrect according to my understanding AND the source you reference (Metzger). There is a portion of verse 8 that's original text (the green below). I'm not sure if I'm just misunderstanding you or what? But the comma is not the entirety of verse 8 but the early portion of it. In other words, "the comma" was inserted in between verse 7 and 8.

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Only the red portion is "the comma".

The green is verse 8 and the blue is verse 7 (according to updated modern translations)
The OP (and our discussions) has been about the blue and green Scripture and omits the red.

1 John 5:7-8Lexham English Bible (LEB)
7 For there are three that testify,[a] 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement[b].

Footnotes:

1. 1 John 5:7 Later Latin manuscripts add the following words to v. 7 and v. 8: “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth”
2. 1 John 5:8 Literally “for the one”

1 John 5:7-8Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
7 because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;
8 and three are who are testifying in the earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.


1 John 5:7-8New American Standard Bible (NASB)
7 For there are (A)three that testify: 8 [a]the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are [b]in agreement.
Footnotes:

1. 1 John 5:8 A few late mss add ...in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth, the Spirit
2. 1 John 5:8 Lit for the one thing

Cross references:

1. 1 John 5:7 : Matt 18:16

1 John 5:7-8English Standard Version (ESV)
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

1 John 5:7-8New King James Version (NKJV)
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth:[a] the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
Footnotes:

1. 1 John 5:8 NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (verse 7) through on earth (verse 8). Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek.

1 John 5:7-8King James Version (KJV)
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.