The oldest texts for not contain that verse. Your little icon cartoons mean nothing. Lol.You're saying verses in the Bible are not true.
Tsk Tsk, naughty naughty...
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
The Truth About The Trinity Doctrine: The Answer to All Questions.
- Thread starter Jacob62
- Start date
Maybe God told a prophet to put that verse into the scripture.
Otherwise, the entire Bible is meaningless.
Yes. "Maybe" is the only certainty about that verse. Such a "maybe" is not if God.Maybe God told a prophet to put that verse into the scripture.
Otherwise, the entire Bible is meaningless.
God's Word is sure, the "maybes" are of rebellion.
Yes, you do serve your own stomach.
True Faith
Member
Before I get started I want to be sure I am correct in what you are saying...
Do you believe Jesus is God Himself?
True Faith
Member
yeah he has zero clue what he is saying... I have the original text, the ones use to form the Bible, will the photocopies of them anyway... as well as the Greek Version that is over 100 years old.. that verse is in there...You're saying verses in the Bible are not true.
Tsk Tsk, naughty naughty...
Just some observations.
KJV 1 Jonn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
NASB 1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:
LSB 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness:
ESV 1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:
YLT 1 John 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;
7. three. Ge +*1:26. bear. ver. 10, 11. Jn 8:13, 14. the Father. The genuineness of the latter part of this verse, and the first clause of the next, it is well known has divided the opinions of learned men for nearly four centuries, nor is it yet decided. It is certainly wanting in many of the ancient MSS. and versions; and is not quoted by many of the Fathers: but the number of MSS. collated is but small, only about 400; it exists in some ancient confessions of faith and liturgies; is quoted by numerous Latin Fathers; and appears necessary from the connection in which it stands. It also seems more probable that the Arians should silently omit it in their copies, or that it should be left out by mistake, than that the trinitarians should forge and insert it; for the latter would only gain one argument for a doctrine which is abundantly taught in other Scriptures; but if it was admitted as the Word of God, all the ingenuity and diligence of opponents could scarcely avoid the inference naturally deducible from it. Contemporary scholarship, however, fails to support this reading in any form, suggesting it was added to a late Greek manuscript made for the purpose to influence Erasmus to include it in his Greek text, for Erasmus had promised he would include the text if even one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it. Ps 33:6h. Is 48:16, 17. 61:1. Mt *3:16, 17. *17:5. +*28:19n. Jn 5:26. 8:18, 54. 10:37, 38. *12:28. 1 Co 12:4-6. 2 Co *13:14. Re 1:4, 5. the Word. See on 1 J 1:1. Jn *1:1, 32-34. He *4:12, 13. Re *19:13. the Holy. See on ver. 6. Mt 3:16. Jn *1:32, 33. Ac 2:4, 33. 5:32. He 2:3, 4. *10:15. Re 19:10. Ghost. Gr. pneuma, Mt +3:16. and these. Dt +*6:4. Mt +m28:19n. Jn *10:30. 14:9, 11. Ac *5:3, 4. 1 Ti 3:16.
+ + More references at verse indicated
* * Clear cross reference
m m Critical, significant cross reference
three that bear witness. The OT law required "the testimony of two or three witnesses" to establish the truth of a particular matter (Deu_17:6; Deu_19:15; cf. Joh_8:17-18; 1Ti_5:19).
Furthermore, four of those eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading, written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. No Greek or Latin Father, even those involved in Trinitarian controversies, quotes them; no ancient version, except the Latin, records them (not the Old Latin in its early form or the Vulgate). Internal evidence also militates against their presence, since they disrupt the sense of the writer's thoughts. Most likely, the words were added much later to the text. There is no verse in Scripture which so explicitly states the obvious reality of the Trinity, although many passages imply it strongly.
KJV 1 Jonn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
NASB 1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:
LSB 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness:
ESV 1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:
YLT 1 John 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;
7. three. Ge +*1:26. bear. ver. 10, 11. Jn 8:13, 14. the Father. The genuineness of the latter part of this verse, and the first clause of the next, it is well known has divided the opinions of learned men for nearly four centuries, nor is it yet decided. It is certainly wanting in many of the ancient MSS. and versions; and is not quoted by many of the Fathers: but the number of MSS. collated is but small, only about 400; it exists in some ancient confessions of faith and liturgies; is quoted by numerous Latin Fathers; and appears necessary from the connection in which it stands. It also seems more probable that the Arians should silently omit it in their copies, or that it should be left out by mistake, than that the trinitarians should forge and insert it; for the latter would only gain one argument for a doctrine which is abundantly taught in other Scriptures; but if it was admitted as the Word of God, all the ingenuity and diligence of opponents could scarcely avoid the inference naturally deducible from it. Contemporary scholarship, however, fails to support this reading in any form, suggesting it was added to a late Greek manuscript made for the purpose to influence Erasmus to include it in his Greek text, for Erasmus had promised he would include the text if even one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it. Ps 33:6h. Is 48:16, 17. 61:1. Mt *3:16, 17. *17:5. +*28:19n. Jn 5:26. 8:18, 54. 10:37, 38. *12:28. 1 Co 12:4-6. 2 Co *13:14. Re 1:4, 5. the Word. See on 1 J 1:1. Jn *1:1, 32-34. He *4:12, 13. Re *19:13. the Holy. See on ver. 6. Mt 3:16. Jn *1:32, 33. Ac 2:4, 33. 5:32. He 2:3, 4. *10:15. Re 19:10. Ghost. Gr. pneuma, Mt +3:16. and these. Dt +*6:4. Mt +m28:19n. Jn *10:30. 14:9, 11. Ac *5:3, 4. 1 Ti 3:16.
+ + More references at verse indicated
* * Clear cross reference
m m Critical, significant cross reference
three that bear witness. The OT law required "the testimony of two or three witnesses" to establish the truth of a particular matter (Deu_17:6; Deu_19:15; cf. Joh_8:17-18; 1Ti_5:19).
Furthermore, four of those eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading, written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. No Greek or Latin Father, even those involved in Trinitarian controversies, quotes them; no ancient version, except the Latin, records them (not the Old Latin in its early form or the Vulgate). Internal evidence also militates against their presence, since they disrupt the sense of the writer's thoughts. Most likely, the words were added much later to the text. There is no verse in Scripture which so explicitly states the obvious reality of the Trinity, although many passages imply it strongly.
Regarding 1 John 5:7-9 Adam Clarke the commentator writes: "I shall set down these verses, with the inserted words in brackets."
“1Jo_5:6. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (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. (9). If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater, etc.”
Removing the highlighted words we have this. The message is the same.
“1Jo_5:6. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (7) For there are three that bear record, (8) the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one. (9). If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater, etc.”
Last edited:
Not three persons, or three gods. There is only one God in heaven on earth and in our hearts.
In America, the President is “Head of State, Chief Executive, Commander in Chief, Head of Government, Chief Diplomat, Manager of the Economy and Ceremonial Head of State.”
We could easily think these are seven persons when in actual fact we are talking about One Person, who is the President of America.
.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
This is also how I understand the Trinity.
I think of it as the title becoming a person.
3 persons in one God.
Not three titles or roles performed by one person. Three persons, one God. Each person is consistently kept distinct one from the other throughout the entirety of Scripture, with each being eternal and coequal, yet there is only one God. That is what God reveals of himself to us in Scripture.
Where does it say persons?
It doesn't, no more than it says "three titles" or "three roles," but that is irrelevant. It clearly shows three distinct persons, all sharing in the nature of God. If it is only one person, then we have to ignore all that we know of grammar and personhood, which means we cannot know if God is even a person at all, never mind if he is ten or one hundred persons. The relationship of Father and Son become utterly meaningless, communicating nothing to us.
Will you do me a favour and go onto CARM or a similar website and give me the definition of Modalism, please.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
You know Cooper, it's really difficult to explain the Trinity.
I had to explain it to kids about 11 years old.
No matter how I tried, it becomes heresy that is being spoken.
This is because, I think, we have no real language to explain something that is not within our range of understanding 100%.
So, I know what you mean by modalism, and most here know about this, but the line is so fine...
“Modalism is a heresy that denies the doctrine of the Trinity. Often surprising to some Christians, United Pentecostals ascribe to this ancient heresy. Modalism teaches that God is a single person who has eternally existed and yet He has revealed himself in three modes or forms. Modalism rejects the Trinitarian belief that God exists at all times as three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Rather, the modalist believes that God is one person made known in three modes. In the Old Testament, God manifested Himself in the mode of the Father. With the incarnation, God manifested Himself in the mode of the Son. And following Jesus’s ascension, God made Himself known through the mode of the Holy Spirit. Problematically, modalism rejects that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist simultaneously, which means that modalists deny the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity.”
https://oneminuteapologist.com/what-is-modalism/
“Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity. Modalism states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son; and after Jesus’ ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, this view states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time–only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.”
https://carm.org/heresies/modalism/
That is exactly what you believe.
Well, I cannot see any difference between the two isms. Trinitarianism and modalism. I hate the corruption Constantine introduced into Christianity several hundred years after Christ, and accepted into the church. It is erroneous to divide the One omnipresent God of heaven and earth into three persons. God is not three. The fact people cannot understand it tells its own story. The attacks on Christ the Saviour come from all sides and I cannot take it any more. I am even falsely accused of being a modalist, due to poor understanding.
Well, there we are.
You have it wrong, but I dare not say any more. All I ask is that you compare the three persons of Trinitarianism with the three persons of Modalism. Look at the outer ring of the Trinitarian diagram. Thank you.
Last edited:
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
How are you sure you have the original?
The original meaning what?