REVIEWING the 1 John 5:7 Debate. Is the COMMA JOHANNEUM authentic scripture?

In this video we'll be reviewing the debate between Mike Hollner, Mike Ferrando and James Snapp Jr. Is the Textus Receptus and the King James Version correct in putting the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7? Do King James Version onlyists make a good case that we should include the Comma Johanneum, or is the Critical Text, Majority Text, and the Byzantine Text right in taking this passage out? Join me in this live stream as we talk about weather Preservation involves Latin or Greek, or perhaps both?
#TextualCriticism #TextusReceptus #byzantinetext

[@Dwayne_Green]

Just a quick correction, I had unintentionally misrepresented Mike Holner at about the 15:30 mark, I incorrectly stated that he believes Beza had other sources without actually showing any evidence. In actuality he showed an early commentary by David Pareus who stated Beza uncoverd a manuscript with a reading from Rev 16:5, and he mentioned in a slide some writings from Lorenzo Valla in the mid 1400s who says he had 7 manuscripts containing 1 John 5:7.

[@writethevisionministry3050]

Final thoughts to all my Byzantine brothers and all believers in Christ, The crux of the debate was not about whether you believe “the Latin was part of preservation, or the Greek was part of preservation,” but rather that God used BOTH the Latin and the Greek. “Thou shalt use the Greek alone” is a criteria box for the verse by slapping down God’s providential hand in using the Old Latin (pre-Jerome) when and where early eastern Greek corruptions occurred (as Noland, Helvidius vs. Jerome, and Socrates of Constantinople (380-439 ad) among many others have confirmed, and in regard to the eastern Byzantine text of which had a very small mix of corruptions by the heretics). Thus the ‘sign’ for us, if you will, or the point of this being illustrated in the sign over Christ on the cross, being written in letters of Greek and Latin and Hebrew. (This is just an observation point, not evidence BTW). The evidence for this conclusion is not only by early church fathers (such as the 460 which is solid) in making use of the verse (whether in Greek or Latin), but also by actual Old Latin manuscript evidence that is pre-Jerome, even as Tischendorf also confirmed the Old Italic being used by early fathers. Therefore, as Snapp argued (of which we also confirm), in that the early eastern Byzantine text of which did contain some corruptions (howbeit a very small mix focused on doctrinally significant passages such as I John 5:7) of which do not support the Comma, we agree with Snapp. More the reason for God’s hand therefore to use what He deemed necessary in the preservation of original texts that were preserved in the west (of which we call minority readings and smaller in numeric count), when and where there were corruptions to the east, as Noland pointed out about Arian tendencies in some eastern texts such as John 1:27 regarding the Deity of Christ (Noland pp. 494-495). Therefore, the dots start to connect in seeing the Textus Receptus to the west being a God-guided revision of the preserved majority Byzantine text to the east with God’s divine hand working through the reformers (Job 32:8) during such a providential time as this, and in bringing us the Received Text (which Noland calls the Greek Vulgate). The historical aspects regarding I John 5:7 is very deep, complex, and time consuming. We have just scratched the surface in 4-hours. It will take hundreds of hours more. Mike Ferrando (who was almost blind in the eyes during the debate, pray for him) is coming out with more and more evidence almost on a weekly basis, and is blowing my mind wide open. He asked an honest question, quote, “Are Christians even aware of this “Mountain of Evidence” that is available for I John 5:7?” If nobody wants to consider my arguments, I am fine with that, but please, at least give Mike Ferrando an ear as we all follow Proverbs18:13, in that we should at least hear the evidence (which our opponent admitted he had not read Mike’s paper) before answering the matter. Blessings to all and look forward to further dialogue in the future. Bro. Mike Hollner

[@Pastor-Brettbyfaith]

I do not care about textual critical analysis' or what pseudo manuscript they choose to trust. I trust the KJV as the most authoritative English text, and I use a variety of Hebrew & Greek texts in my studies. I have been down that critical text road. I am thankful for the unchanging text of the KJV.

[@JamesSnapp]

47:27 - He who says "Ad fontes" should appeal to the Greek text -- not the Old Latin, which is, as a version, inherently secondary. The Old Latin(s) has a voice but the voice of the Greek text is much louder (i.e., it carries more weight).

[@writethevisionministry3050]

Except the Greek voices were unable to talk for about the first 400 years (pertaining to the CJ). Meanwhile, back in the real world in the early 2nd century, there were Latin voices speaking loud and clear. Not a matter of who was louder, but who was even able to talk. "coniungere in punctis." James, I honestly do thank you over the years for all the help you have given me, and I have learned a lot from you. Perhaps it may be a good time to go back and focus on what we do agree on. For now, we will agree to dis-agree on the Comma. Many blessings your way and good health. Please, I ask everyone to pray for Mike Ferrando's eyesight.

[@JamesSnapp]

@@writethevisionministry3050 The Greek patrisric writers didn't have the Comma in their copies of First John. Because John didn't write it.

[@writethevisionministry3050]

Regarding your comment that I showed no evidence of Beza uncovering ‘ancient codices’ in his day, you missed the context in the slides showing Beza brought to light the “and shalt be” reading in Revelation 16:5. (David Pareus in his ‘Commentary upon the Divine Revelation’ (1659), p. 384). It is clearly written by Pareus in that he understood Beza to be saying in his annotations, quote, (‘as Beza brought to light [who shalt be] out of an ancient manuscript’) which is the correct reading in the King James Bible along with the KJV reading in Revelation 16:5 to be contextually consistent with Rev 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, 11:17. You also missed the slide with the late Dr. David Otis Fuller (1903-1988) of Princeton Theological Seminary and Edgar’s work titled “The Bibles of England” pp.347-348; (1889), of which “Steven and Beza astonished and confounded the world of their day by the unearthing of old and lost Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. This later edition of the Received Text is in reality a Greek New Testament brought out by Waldensian influence.” Also (on another slide), is Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457), a Greek and Latin Scholar, of whom Erasmus praised, commented that he had 7 GREEK manuscripts of which contained I John 5:7 and he lived a whole century before Erasmus. (Travis, Letters to Gibbon, 1785, pp.18-19), although I recommend a cross reference with ('Thirteen Sermons on the Trinty' by Edmund Calamy, 1722, p465; 527) for Travis states 7, Calamy states 1 or more. Travis states that by "assiduous, and long continued enquiries he got his hands on these 7 GREEK manuscripts" (p. 18). The benefit of the doubt for sure goes your way, for as you said the slides are ‘busy’ and need to be freeze framed as to check all the source documentation. I hope as a courtesy that you will correct the record in saying I provided no evidence for my comment in that “I believe Beza, and other reformers uncovered some copies of these ancient Greek and Latin codices.’ So much for ‘arbitrary,’ ya think? lol. Mike and I will be presenting new evidence (and old evidence not advertised) for I John 5:7 on almost a weekly basis. Just as you mentioned in that you have not heard about Victor and the 460, yes, I am in the same camp with you, in that we (especially Mike Ferrando and his church father documentation), are finding out new information that is blowing our minds. It really only requires doing the proper research and by looking in the right places on the map (another point in another slide). Stay tuned, much more to come. Thank you, brother and God bless. Bro. Mike Hollner

[@writethevisionministry3050]

I will bring up the internal evidence for I John 5:7 with Nick Sayers tomorrow and respond to brother James' argument of it being arbitrary. My belief about Beza uncovering ancient codices is not without well founded historical aspects and in connecting the dots in seeing the whole picture, including well documented facts of the Polyglot also coming from 'ancient Greek codices' well before Erasmus' first edition. (it's all in the slides). Remember, we are talking about 500 years ago. That's why I quoted J.D. Michaelis (1717-1791) (also in a slide) about the fact that we know tens of thousands of manuscripts have been lost and it is almost with a 100% certainty that even with today's newly discovered manuscripts, that they had MUCH more evidence back then than we do today. Personally, I would like to go to Spain and the Island of Rhodes in search of "Codex Rhodensis," which insider (from you know where) T.J. Lamy claimed in 1897 contained I John 5:7 and is most likely still under lock and key due to dual narratives needing to be kept. A lot of money was spent for these ancient Greek codices to use for the Polyglot. And yes, I agree with you in that discussing the providential factor of God also using the Old Latin for preservation and translation due to early Greek corruptions should have been discussed further but the time clock was needed to lay that foundation. When James asked, "what is the basis for saying IF YOU DON'T USE THE LATIN EVIDENCE, what is your basis for saying I John 5:7 is original"? Hello? Was that not one of our foundational arguments and my points about the "Latin Criteria Box?" (also, in slides). I will bring that up tomorrow for you, I know you have been asking about that. Great point! Remember, for almost the first 400 years of church history there is ZERO Greek evidence for or against the Comma, but there is Old Latin manuscript evidence along with church father witnesses well before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Thus, by claiming that "God used the Old Latin" is not circular argumentation when there is earlier evidence in the Latin for I John 5:7 than in the Greek. Codex 61 has I John 5:7 in the GREEK, dated 11th century by Martin, and at 1272 by Adam Clarke. No? Chemically date test it then. Even if you give them some older Greek manuscript evidence they will say it came from the Latin. Talk about circular reasoning. Also, thanks for the criticism about the slides, but I was more concerned about getting all the info in by 25 minutes and thought extra (bigger) slides would take longer. Freeze it, full screen it on a desktop, and I think they will serve a good purpose, even as busy as they appeared during the debate. That 'busyness' turns into lots of info after the fact. I guess that's how I saw it. Other than several disagreements with you, overall good review, especially about the 460 Bishops. When you said, "I want I John 5:7 to be legit," well, my brother, stay tuned. Blessings... Bro. Mike Hollner

[@johndavis5654]

Just because there isn’t many manuscripts of I John 5:6-8 doesn’t mean we can speculate that the CJ was present in many or most.

[@Dwayne_Green]

Thanks for the reply! I'd love to have you come on the channel to talk about Latin being used as a vehicle for preservation and develop that further!

[@writethevisionministry3050]

@@Dwayne_Green Amen brother. It will be a pleasure to meet you in person. I will reach out to you by email.

[@sthelenskungfu]

KZbin hates links so I'm not putting a lot of effort into this. When I was talking to my wife about this, she found a University of Oxford website on the confessors that had their tongues cut on. I'll put the link in a reply to this comment. If you can't see the link in a reply, it's because KZbin ate it.

[@sthelenskungfu]

csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=S01481

[@JamesSnapp]

Dwayne, as soon as the Old Latin text deviates from the word-order of the KJV -- like it does in the word-order of First John 5:8 -- , Mike Hoffner and Mike Ferrando drop it as if it's radioactive. It doesn't take much effort to see that their real agenda is to vindicate the KJV down to the last detail in the 27 books of the New Testament.

[@writethevisionministry3050]

James. Our debate was not some kind of conspiracy or secret agenda about the KJV. It was about evidence in both the Latin and the GREEK for I John 5:7 hundreds of years before the KJV translators and even Erasmus' were even born. Perhaps you should refocus that thought on Mike Ferrando debunking your 'no articles' argument in Codex 629 and Codex 61 in his live interview with Nick Sayers yesterday. Also, what saith thou on the editor notes below the longer ending of Mark's Gospel in Codex 61 in saying this was written 10 years after the ascension of Christ. Is it ten years or ten centuries as David Martin (1639-1721) claimed from someone translating it for him. Honestly, I am leaning towards the CT camp being right on this in saying ten years rather than ten centuries. But as I said, we need outside independent investigations on all these manuscripts (of which Mike Ferrando is having oversea translators work on), and all I am saying is we need more transparency in these matters. Ronald Reagan once said to Gorbachev, "Trust, but Verify." I am pretty sure we probably both voted for Reagan back in the day. We cannot look to just "one side of the aisle" when it comes to the dating and readings in ancient manuscripts. But God bless you my brother and thanks for the debate. Bro. Mike Hollner

[@kingjames5527]

​@@writethevisionministry3050 you're too nice. Schnapp is not kind, he cast aspersions, makes ad hominem nonsense arguments against you, and is very strident in his baseless opinions. Verse 8 doesn't make sense without verse 7. That's a fact and James can complain all he wants to, but that's the fact

[@JamesSnapp]

44:25 - theological arguments can be invented for either side. Textual criticism is a science.

[@writethevisionministry3050]

Neither theological argument or the science of textual criticism has anything to do with 460 of our brothers who went before us, who in the real world suffered and died for the verse. The Proverbs 18:13 confirmation bias (that Dr. Maurice Robinson mentioned on the dots in B), of which you and others committed on the umlauts is being repeated here again without reading (or even knowing about) the evidence beforehand in Mike's paper. Love you in the Lord, but perhaps look at the evidence on both sides and try to reach across the aisle once in a while. Anyhow, time to get back to eschatology for a while, much more fun, but will leave you with a poem I made for you. I am glad we still agree on some stuff and let us remain in prayer for each other. A mind made up Even with goodwill Will remain half a cup And of the same opinion still Blessings James, 'Σκεφτείτε έξω από το κουτί' 'Cogitare extra arca archa' Bro. Mike

[@JamesSnapp]

@@writethevisionministry3050 DId you listen to anything I said in the debate? The North Africam Latin text had the interpolation well before the Council of Carthage in 484. It's still an interpolation - just one that was popular among the orthodox. (I like it too! But it's not original.)

[@writethevisionministry3050]

@@JamesSnapp The Arians would have killed them right on the spot if that assumption were true, nor did the heretics protest the verse because it was not an interpolation. They protested being called 'unorthodox,' rather than the 460 quoting a verse that was invented. The Arians knew the verse was legit also. Read Victor of Vita.

[@JamesSnapp]

M.A Moreno - I do not reject the Old Latin outright, as you would know if you read my blog. The Old Latin tends to support Mk 11:26 for instance, which I consider original.

[@JamesSnapp]

38:35 - The Council of Carthage we're talking about was in 484.

[@mrsamurangx3030]

Very early witnesses to the comma indeed.

[@Pastor-Brettbyfaith]

Sorry I missed the show. I will catch up with you later.

[@writethevisionministry3050]

Pastor Brett, Nick Sayers, Mike Ferrando and I hope you can join us July 6th. Blessings brother.

[@fnscooter]

Regarding John 1:1, the Van Rensburg family in Australia have suggested John's gospel (and other NT books) were originally written in Hebrew. In the Hebrew version, John 1:1 reads "In the beginning was the son of God. The son of God was both with God, and the son of God was God." Some of their arguments are compelling.

[@alex-qe8qn]

Why, then, was reference to the Son omitted in translation? The theory is bizarre!

[@JamesSnapp]

55:42 - Afaik, not enough of the Gothic version is extant to say if it had the Comma Johanneum or not.

[@kainech]

For Latin, you may want to look into Lingua Latina. I've studied a few ancient languages, and most of the language grammars follow the pattern of Wheelock's Latin. Lingua Latina got me to the point I could compose and read Latin faster than any of the other grammars, because its method is different. I wish something like it existed for all the important languages (I'm starting to see some). I would like to try a little bit of gentle pushback on translation, because I tend to believe God can preserve things in a translation, and in some cases the translation may be preferable to the original (Is 7.14 being the most popular example). When Jesus disputed with the Pharisees in Jn 8.34ff, he made the argument that everyone who does עבד sin is a slave עבדא to sin. If the Pharisees had Abraham as their father אבא they would do עבד what Abraham did. While the words already sound alike, we have evidence that the `ayin was becoming silent, the `ayin may have even been pronounced identically. The word play is clear even if you don't know the language. However John could not preserve this in Greek. In that case, which do you think is more authoritative, the Syriac translation that could preserve the word play or the Greek Vorlage? The Greek text has very clearly lost something important in the original. This sort of play on words is very similar to what he did with Nicodemus in the passage you quoted, but it's Aramaic lost in Greek. For Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus, there is another double meaning in the passage about being born again in Jn 3.5, where the Greek has a double meaning Aramaic cannot. Nicodemus, being in the upper part of society, could well be fluent in Greek and have spoken it. However, if he was speaking Aramaic, then John added a double meaning that wasn't originally there. If the discussion wasn't in Greek, would this count as an inspired translation? Using John, again, in John 10 Jesus is disputing with the Pharisees. In John 10.35, he defends calling himself God by quoting Psalm 82 to pave the way for "if those to whom the Word of God came were called gods..." In every instance of Jewish literature "The Word of God came..." has humans as the ones to whom it happens. I think this is without exception. The Hebrew and LXX text both have Ps 82 referring to the gods of the nations, whom God is going to destroy, and they are condemned to "die like men" and "fall like one of the princes." The Hebrew text cannot support Jesus' argument. However, the targum preserves a reading that God sits in the council of the tsediken, "righteous ones." This probably is a reference to humans, and the "righteous" is attested as referring to the children of Israel in literature from the period. So Jesus is here using a translation to make a point when it very clearly contradicts the original and assumes his audience considers the derivative version authoritative and wouldn't challenge him on that point. Worse, the targums are often more like the Passion translation in terms of literalness than anything else, and Jesus uses it as inspired. Two answers simply won't work for this problem. First, "We're not apostles" won't work, because the presumption (and sometimes outright statement) is that we are to learn from the Apostles and imitate them, and no disclaimer is ever put on these references. The second answer is usually done with the LXX "They were writing in Greek, so they quoted Greek." I used these because they involve a language other than Greek. This has always been a poorly thought out answer, because if they depend on a translation and it contradicts the true inspired word, then it would mean that their own quotes wouldn't have authority. It shouldn't be used even with the LXX. The premise that an inspired reading cannot be preserved because of either grammar or wording in another language entails both that those who cannot read the languages well enough have never read inspired Scripture and that the NT authors got it wrong. I don't want to come off as if I say you believe the conclusions the premises entail, but they are entailed by the premises you have about wordplay. The question then becomes, if Latin cannot preserve an inspired reading for the reasons given, how can anyone without an academic bent read the inspired Scripture? If they can, then how can Latin not preserve it under the same rubric? Also on that note, I want to add a caveat, because I think it came off badly when I challenged this strongly about the Apocrypha: I don't want to come out as bearing ill will or imputing bad motives, but this question really cuts deeply into the nature of Scripture and inspiration itself. (I also don't want to come off as saying I think the Comma is original; I am about as certain as I can be that it was not). As an addendum: We should bring wordplay and articles into context. If we cannot demonstrate they are relevant to a particular situation, it's no less a problem than saying "There might be some manuscripts somewhere," and if we have to cite rules to determine a meaning, then the meaning is uncertain for the very reasons you gave midway through the video about solecisms and the like. There is a hard and fast rule that means it is "The Word was the God" and it was done that way just to be the subject. I can say "Socrates was a man" with ἄνθρωπος ἢν ὁ Σωκρατής. Nobody would think that is "Socrates was the person." Likewise I can supply several alternative renderings that would make Word the subject and give an article and be natural Koine Greek. We still have to make the case for definiteness and indefiniteness on Jn 1.1 from context. The meaning of the Latin and Greek aren't substantially different due to the article, and the meaning is determined the same way in both on the critical questions. Remember, both the Arians and Trinitarians asserted the absence of the article was important in Jn 1.1 and was compatible with their beliefs, and they were both right. Most of the first Arians were native Greek speakers and were also the intelligentsia of their day. They knew how to read the language, and that's part of why they adopted their positions. We have to make the case in every passage about potential wordplay that's lost, and more often than not, we can find lost wordplay as I did above with Jesus. If you read the Hermeneia commentary on I Enoch, they do it a lot. Even if we didn't have a Greek version, but there was, there wouldn't be a single point of ambiguity on those points you're most concerned with in preservation. Those objections to a reading like this really don't have any bearing because of that, and I'm pretty firm on the "It's not original and was created in Latin" position.

[@Pastor-Brettbyfaith]

I didn't know J Snapp was against the comma. 😮 As for the text itself, it belongs. When you remove 1 John 5:7, the grammatical construct fails. As for manuscript evidence, it is in the Latin. The English text does not exist without the Latin. What about the Germanic languages? Codex Fuldensis is a German manuscript done in 547 AD. It has a note on the comma. If the question existed in 547, it therefore existed. I have studied this for more than 30 years. Read 1 John 5:6-9. Marturos is used 6 times in this text. If you remove the "record" in heaven in verse 7, the "witness of God" in verse 9 becomes moot. You don't have a witness in verse 9 without the witness in verse 7! The comma is the epitome of Theopneustos. God the Father, thru the Son, by way of the Holy Spirit. The modern critical text people lean too much on their own understanding. Everything the reformers were built upon came from the KJV. Sadly, it is mostly reformed people who have dumped the KJV.

[@rodneyjackson6181]

With all due respect, the KJV was not the only translation the reformers built on. Actually it was the Geneva Bible which was translated exclusively by reformers and was the most popular translation in England until it was banned by the English monarchy.

[@Pastor-Brettbyfaith]

@rodneyjackson6181 Absolutely. I love the 1560 Geneva, but the 1599 has an easier to read typeface. The KJV is the best of all translations from the Byzantine text.

[@rodneyjackson6181]

You have every right to prefer the KJV. In my view the Geneva is just as good. I have the 1599 Geneva on my phone and love it. There is a Bible called the World English Bible taken from the Byzantine Priority Greek manuscripts by Robinson and Pierpont that is very good. They also use Yahweh in the OT for God. Blessings!

[@Pastor-Brettbyfaith]

@rodneyjackson6181 I had the World English Bible. I did not like it. I found too many inconsistencies between it and Stephanus/Beza. My biggest, of course, is the comma. It is relegated to a footnote. I am convinced that the Comma belongs in the text. It need not be found only in Greek. That puts God in a nice little box for the modern critical text folks, but what about those of us who know that God used many languages to bring the word down to us. Latin was the central language for many years. The gnostics were hot on the trail of the Greek text. The corruption began early, and the Roman government was at the center of the manuscript burnings. There were also gnostic gospels that began to surface in the 2nd century. Too much emphasis on the Greek, while the word was spread underground and headed east.

[@Studio54MediaGroup]

@@Pastor-Brettbyfaithwell said!

[@mrsamurangx3030]

I think the argument is more that the Latin had to come from somewhere meaning that the passage is older than the Latin in which we find it. This is backed up by the quote of the passage from Cyprian and others very early. It makes more sense to me that it was attacked and systematically removed and destroyed because of how powerful the passage is in regard to the veracity of the Trinity (as the Apostle Paul said they were doing in the early Chruch). Makes much more sense than it being added to Scripture (usually Christian tend not to add to God's Word, however, heretics love to take away from it). In addition to that is the fact that there are no Greek manuscripts of 1 John 5 confirming the passage or denying the passage early on anyway. Admittedly the passage is difficult however it has a huge amount of mounting and cumulative evidence that needs to be carefully considered. One HUGE problem I have with people is when they deny the testimony of Cyprian, Pricillian and Tertullian who clearly quote the passage meaning it did exist at that time in the text as the Church quoted from it, then add to that the powerful argument from the Latin given in the debate. The internal case of the grammar is just a cherry on top.

[@jamessheffield4173]

A circumstantial case for the Comma of John: In 484 A.D. the bishop of Carthage with 400 bishops quoted the comma to an Arian Vandal king. Being the bishop of Carthage, he would have had access to the Scriptures of Cyprian, and he probably had a Vulgate, maybe a first edition. Also, Gregory Nazianzus wrote on the grammar, and he had a student named Jerome. Seems strong evidence to me. Blessings.

[@writethevisionministry3050]

Very well said!

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@writethevisionministry3050 Thanks. Blessings.

[@billcovington5836]

Thank you, I’m finally convinced. John 5:7 though, gone from the Greek, is still in my brain 😂

[@patrickjames1492]

@Dwayne_Green Thank you for this reflection. I wonder whether we know that the wordplays that you and I see were originally intended? If not, this argument becomes subjective like that of arguments from internal evidence peculiar to a peculiar scholar. That said, further by way of internal evidence... I am curious about logos in the Comma, which is not as Johannine as it may seem (outside the Gospel 1.1-14). Also, TO AGION PNEUMA is an unusual word order for the NT as a whole.

[@johndavis5654]

How do proponents of the CJ explain that it’s not present in any translations into other languages such as Armenian Georgian and Coptic?

[@johndavis5654]

I don’t know much about the translations of the NT into various other languages but the translations are old and geographically separated. Is it possible that the text of I John 5 was so “scrubbed” that the various translations show no knowledge of the CJ?

[@johndavis5654]

assume that the Coptic translation is based on the Alexandrian family and the Armenian on the Byzantine for example.

[@johndavis5654]

If opponents of the Trinity wanted to corrupt the NT then why not John’s Gospel which is explicitly Trinitarian. And the CJ is defended by oneness Pentecostals.

[@thomasglass9491]

@johndavis5654 Good point but Tertullian in against praxea uses John 10:30 (which uses “are one”) as one essence. So as early the late second century we see “are one” trinitarian.

[@bobbymichaels2]

If 1 John 5:7 were added, what makes it not inspired?

[@rosslewchuk9286]

7 Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, 8 τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. From Robinson-Pierpont free PDF.

[@alex-qe8qn]

The two grammatical arguments - one in verse 7, one in verse 8 - really do need to be resolved, before any final conclusion can be made about exclusion of the Comma.

[@alex-qe8qn]

No comments?

[@mariee2688]

Dwayne, I really appreciate the work and thought you put into your videos and I've learnt a lot. Thank you. ❤ Glad your new computer is helpful. But, can you please adjust your mic because hearing your every hoom, breath, lip-smack and swallow is extremely off-putting and unnecessary! I'm assured that you just need to adjust the settings on your sound. Said and meant in love. Good bless and Thank you! 👍

[@Dwayne_Green]

yes! I noticed the audio was particularly bad on the playback, it's a new setup and needs some adustments!

[@sthelenskungfu]

Matthew 16:18 actually has a double wordplay in Hebrew. In Hebrew, it's אַתָּה כֵיפָה וְעַל הַכֵּיפָה הַזֹּאת אֶבָּנֶה אֶת־מִקְּהָלִי So You are (masculine) - אַתָּה Peter - כֵיפָה And upon - וְעַל the rock - הַכֵּיפָה this (feminine) - הַזֹּאת I will build - אֶבָּנֶה my church - אֶת־מִקְּהָלִי So there the connection between the feminine and masculine in Peter's name and rock, similar to in Greek. For that, it's the Aramaic version of rock. (Kepha from which you've heard Cephas, for those keeping score at home.) But wait! There's more! When Jesus says "I will build," it's ebenah (אבנה.) The Hebrew standard word for rock (also feminine for those that care) is eben (אבן.)

[@johndavis5654]

The Council of Carthage was 484. Sure it counts as evidence but it’s close to 400 years after I John was writteen.

[@johndavis5654]

And there is a surpising lack of mention of the CJ in the trinitarian debates. Arguments from silence are tricky of course but that cuts both ways.

[@Dwayne_Green]

Sure thing, but then to add to that, there really arn't many pre-5th century manuscripts of 1 John. This is part of the difficulty with deciding either way on this passage, and as you've mentioned arguments from silence are tricky!

[@johndavis5654]

My view is this: this is a case of inference to the best explanation. There are multiple lines of evidence that the CJ is not part of the original text of I John and hardly any evidence of the opposite. In addition the relative lack of manuscripts of I John is some evidence for my view. I John wasn’t copied enough for it to be a book that you’d single out for tampering. Wouldn’t “heretics” go after the Gospels or Paul?

[@johndavis5654]

I don’t see this question is particularly hard. Almost all the evidence leans one way. The longer ending of Mark is much more difficult for example.

[@hudsontd7778]

"Multiple lines of evidence that the CJ is NOT part of the original text?" The only argument I hear being used is that's CJ is not in the majority of Greek Manuscripts and the Latin Manuscripts are Evil? (Roman Catholic) Just on Intuition alone, 1 John 5:7 is Clearly Scripture.

[@jamessheffield4173]

it must be remembered that during the 2nd and 3rd centuries (between 220 and 270, according to Harnack); (37) the heresy which orthodox Christians were called upon to combat was not Arianism (since this error had not yet arisen) but Sabellianism (so named after Sabellius, one of its principal promoters), according to which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were one in the sense that they were identical. Those that advocated this heretical view were called Patripassians (Father-sufferers), because they believed that God the Father, being identical with Christ, suffered and died upon the cross, and Monarchians, because they claimed to uphold the Monarchy (sole-government) of God. DWARD FREER HILLS ON THE COMMA JOHANNEUM

[@rodneyjackson6181]

Bottom line with me. Continue as is. Leave it in the text with a marginal or footnote explaining why its a disputed verse. Only the TR contains it, no other Greek manuscripts do.

[@johndavis5654]

It would be interesting to compare the arguments of the TR only on the long ending of Mark with the CJ.

[@rodneyjackson6181]

​@@johndavis5654of course I am not TR only. However, most Greek manuscripts do contain the long ending of Mark, while no Greek manuscripts contain 1 John 5:7. Thats the difference in my view.

[@johndavis5654]

@@rodneyjackson6181 I think the ling ending of Mark is authentic. But the TR only people think that the fact zero percent of Greek manuscripts have the CJ is irrelevant.

[@rodneyjackson6181]

Agree sir!

[@yayorandel6048]

Muslims love that they took this verse out of the new so called bibles.

[@alexolga11]

1 John 5:6-7 means Jesus came in His Flesh from heaven, never had physical flesh. Jesus is Bread (Body )from Heaven John 6:51. Jesus Body is not of this world Hebrew 9:11-13, 1 Corinthians 15:40-50