> General Discussions
The word was with God...
Daniel:
--- Quote from: chrissiela ---That was TWO witnesses... are we looking for a THIRD one?? :lol: :lol:
--- End quote ---
You know every matter (he conceals) is established by two of three witnesses. :lol:
Is the word "record" different from witness? Seems there is two records, isnt there? I need to check
Daniel
chrissiela:
--- Quote ---If the disputed passage, therefore, be omitted as spurious, the whole passage will read, "For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one."
--- End quote ---
Still seems to be three that bear record.... only a question of the possible addition of the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost to support the "trinity" teachings??
Chrissie
gmik:
Chrissie I have spent over an hour reading all that muslim stuff! Goodness. I found it interesting but troubling. How much of his research can be believed. I never have read about Paul like that! :?
Daniel:
:lol: Who can tell us concerning that verse? Is that scripture true or false ? How can I know to take it away or keep it?
Now you have me interested :lol:
Daniel
lilitalienboi16:
--- Quote from: Daniel ---:lol: Who can tell us concerning that verse? Is that scripture true or false ? How can I know to take it away or keep it?
Now you have me interested :lol:
Daniel
--- End quote ---
It is not part of the original manuscripts from what i know.
It was added in to add to the validity of the trinity since there was no scripture supporting the trinity.
Just take the example of when Jesus spoke of the Himself being the Vine and His father the farmer. There was no mention of the HOly spirit what so ever. Not in the rain, the land, the vine itself etc...
The holy spirit is Jesus Christ.
Jesus said "I send the comforter to you, i will not leave you bereaved, I AM COMING TO YOU."
Somewhere along the lines of that, can't find the exact verse for it.
--- Quote ---The portion of the passage, in 1 John 5:7-8, whose genuineness is disputed, is included in brackets in the following quotation, as it stands in the common editions of the New Testament: "For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth,) the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." If the disputed passage, therefore, be omitted as spurious, the whole passage will read, "For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings, are briefly the following:
I. It is missing in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in NO Greek manuscript written before the 16th century. Indeed, it is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age-one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken partly from the third edition of Stephen's New Testament, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be missing in ALL the early Greek manuscripts.
II. It is missing in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions-one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic.
III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity-a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the 5 th century. If the passage were believed to be genuine-nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favor-it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to anyone who examines the subject with an unbiassed mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it. IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine.
VI. The passage is now omitted in the best editions of the Greek Testament, and regarded as spurious by the ablest critics. See Griesbach and Hahn. On the whole, therefore, the evidence seems to me to be clear that this passage is not a genuine portion of the inspired writings, and should not be appealed to in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity.
(from Barnes' Notes)
--- End quote ---
I do not believe that verse to be part of the original inspired manuscripts simply for the facts stated and that the bible does not support a trinity belief.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version