To all of Robert Wieland's youtube fans, Robert passed away Tuesday morning of kidney failure. He has had diseased kidneys since late May. No doubt his wish for all of you is to continue your walk with Christ and continue spreading His word. (This posting written by his older brother).
I just stumbled across this video tonight ... so sorry to hear of the loss of such a great Christian apologist! Loved this teaching ... our loss but I'm sure God was happy with his work! Hope to meet him in glory one day!
I still miss him as he was a good friend. He prayed like no else. He was a loving brother in Christ here and looking so forward to seeing him again someday when my time comes as well. Praise God we have these videos. I am still strengthened in the faith today by the Lord's work in his life. He was so knowlegable and taught so we'll.
Thank you for leaving his channel up and these videos available. Such a great and thorough teacher. God bless you and your family, and can't wait to see Brother Robert on the other side.
I'm so sorry to hear that this lovely Christian erudite man has passed away. He is now with his Lord and Saviour . His videos are a tremendous help and encouragement to discern truth. I thank God for Robert after happening on his videos from the UK. My prayers go out to Roberts dear family and thanks to his elder brother for informing us of his passing away.
Thank you brother for your videos. You do a great job. I didn't realize that the argument for the coma is so strong. One would think we would look for reasons to include verses rather than reasons to delete them. Especially when so many out there are trying to call whole books written by Paul into question. Its a mad world we live in.
Nice work, Robert. And God bless you for putting together these videos. Just a correction on a couple of your dates: Cyprian's reference to the Comma was actually made in AD 251, not AD 285. The passage was also cited, as you mention, in Eugenius' Confession of Faith at the Council of Carthage, but that was in AD 484. (I believe your video says AD 419.) Two other early witnesses to the Comma, besides Athanasius in AD 318, include Idacius Clarus (350) and Phoebadius of Agen in Gaul (359). There are many more, of course, but these should suffice for now.
Amen and Amen to your single statement - "What should convince you is the Spirit of God, working with the Word of God, in your heart." People will continue to debate scripture ad nauseum. Only God Himself bears witness to the Truth, for He is Truth.
I have a few issues here. Granted, I like the comma, and I will gladly read it and make application, however, here are my issues. 1) It doesn't appear in any GREEK (that is the key, as that is the original language) for one thousand years after the events. I don't care if it is in any other manuscripts before that time if they are not greek. I will get to why in a moment. 2) If that is the case, then how can we actually have confidence that any other readings haven't been lost, or that other readings have not been added? If something can go away and return, we have no idea what the original says. I agree that the Spirit testifies to the word within us, but he also gave us means to detect his preservation of said word. 3) If the comma appears in early non greek manuscripts, then a possibility, which is just as valid, is that of a scribe (greek or not - translating into other languages) having been trinitarian and having wished to make a marginal note, could have placed the comma in the margin, and as a later scribe would not want to leave it out because he can't verify if it was a note or not, he would include it. This is just as plausible given that neither position is dealing with actual hard evidence. 4) Early quotations. I agree that, with respect to the Father the Word and the Spirit, that these three are one. But did I just quote the comma? Or did I articulate an orthodox position? The problem with the so-called quotations is that when you actually read the early quotations, they nowhere cite the verse, and none of them quote the verse word for word. They paraphrase and agree with the verse, but so what, they are articulating truth. That does not mean that they are a) quoting scripture and b) that their quote was a direct quotation from scripture 5) Again, back to marginal notes. Even if (assuming it is not original) a third or fourth generation (which could be as early as 20 years or less from the original) manuscript was being penned by a scribe, given the nature of the early manuscripts we have (all caps, no punctuation and no real spaces between letters) a scribe that wanted to make a note could do so and it would be obvious, but the problem is, another 100 years down the road, a new scribe has no way to verify that it was a note, so he would (and I would too) include it in the text, and hence when it is translated into other languages in the first and second centuries, it would show up and give the appearance of a very early witness, even though it was not original. This is just as plausible as the argument for it's originality. And given that this argument doesn't rely on subjectivity, I think it is the more appropriate way to go.
+Rick Baker The three videos that I have done answer most, if not all, of your objections. I will very briefly answer you, point by point: 1. What you mean is extant Greek manuscripts. There were manuscripts during the Reformation, which we no longer possess, which contained the Comma. Stephanus, I believe, had 9 of them. Also, we have an authoritative citation from Jerome who claimed that the Greek texts in his day were being altered at 1 John 5:7 by ungodly scribes. Thus, we have ancient testimony from Jerome, who lived around the same time as Sinaiticus was being copied, that the Comma was in his Greek texts. 2. Because we have no other readings that are as well attested to by the ECF's such as Jerome. 3. Yes, it is just as plausible, but you have to explain the statement by Jerome? Also, a plausible argument does not negate a valid statement. 4. The ECF's cannot cite passages in Scripture the way we do today is because the chapter and verse divisions did not come about until 1551 - long after the ECF's were dead. When they did cite passages in Scripture they did not always indicate that they were citing Scripture. And, yes, you did quote the Scripture. 5. Then why do we find citations by the ECF's of the Comma as Scripture: Cyprian, for example, "It is written of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these three are one." The only place where this phrase can be found is 1 John 5:7. Blessings, Rob.
Extensive searches prove the earliest fathers also spoke and used the early copies of scripture and most stayed away from the earliest corruptions of Aleph, Aleph b and those Alexandrian texts …. whether we have volumes or not of some texts whether pure or corrupted . Paul addressed this in II Corin 2; 17 KJV that there were MANY who would CORRUPT the Word of God..... and with sincereity in the sight of God , so SPEAK WE in Christ. Speaking in Christ is the POWER of God ,,QUOTING KJV 1611 as Paul referred to . Something I never hear from anyone reading the other corrupted versions. I also believe that Paul was very aware of Philo and his early corruptions and his friends being worldly to begin with. But he just called them MANY and there were. He just did not name him. They both lived during the same period . We have plenty of corrupted manuscripts , but powerful testimony from Church Fathers that agree with the Textus Receptus and KJV 1611 . Something that supports and offends the textual critics or contextual critics. I do not want to argue with this crowd. Like Dr. White or whoever. I have it settled and now I just need to share it with others , or I get sidetract and grieve the Holy Spirit. That the power of God rest upon me. II Corin 12.KJV
As to the idea that it was in manuscripts that were destroyed; it is asked how do we know they were there? This is a valid question. Allow me to answer. In the original 1611 KJV there is a margin note regarding Luke 17:36. The verse is "Two men will be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left." The margin note says "This verse is wanting (lacking) in most of the Greek copies." This margin note is also in the Trinitarian Bible Society's Westminster Reference Bible. Now, what does Luke 17:36 have to do with 1 John 5:7-8? There is no margin note in the 1611 KJV at 1 John 5:7-8 saying this is wanting (lacking) in most of the Greek copies. Therefore the translators working on the KJV from 1604-1611 had copies with the comma in it. We also must remember there was The Great London Fire of 1666. Many documents were destroyed in that horrible fire, along with an estimated homes of over 70,000 people!
Nice talk, Robert. Appreciated. Especially note your astonishment at the logically tricky (or incompetent) methods of argumentation of James White. And the emphasis on the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome was excellent. There are a few points where I would recommend tweaking, or additions (maybe in the future vid.) On tweaks, one example is Wizanburgensis, which only became a major issue because of a mistaken claim that it was a Greek ms, or a diglot (which goes back to Lachmann, this was covered on the textualcriticism forum back in 2008). We should let it drop back to the status of one of a number of early Latin mss, a Latin Vulgate ms of the 8th century. (Technically it might be hybrid Old Latin-Vulgate.) The various Latin mss evidences, many discovered since the mid-1800s, are helpful in countering a totally bogus and deceptive attempt by Metzger and the parrots to have the Latin evidences as late. Generally, Raymond Brown is more reliable in presenting a contra view, most writers only do agitprop. There is a reference to Irenaeus at about the 20 minute mark. Bengel, Prudent Maran, Charles Forster and others do discuss some of his wording in the context of the heavenly witnesses, as evidence. However, since that flies under most radars, it is possible that your reference was thinking of another verse, like Acts 8:37, the sister textual verse. There was a spot where the Waldensian text was equated to Augustine. This is a complex area, and Frederick Nolan is the important and careful writer, however the way it was expressed definitely sounded a bit anachronistic. Or it is built on some ideas of Benjamin Wilkinson that have gone around the horn where the Waldensian text is supposed to be ultra-pristine, which is not the case. There are a few areas that afaik have never gotten good youtube presentations. I will mention three. (1) The Cyprian references, noting that the Lutheran writer Franz Pieper (1852-1931) really understood the import of this evidence. (2) The Council of Carthage of 484 AD, involving hundreds of orthodox bishops from a wide-spread Mediterranean region appealing directly and specifically to the heavenly witnesses from John, contra the arians under Huneric. In the face of persecution, so that any scripture references really had to be in all the Bibles of both sides of the controversy. (3) And the grammatical and internal issues, of which there are a number (you may have hit one important internal consistency in the talk). The grammatical gender argument, with an emphasis especially since Eugenius Bulgaris spoke strongly, is rather amazing. As what you have is, defacto, that the Greek solecism is only fixed in the Latin translation! Thus the Latin points back to the original full Greek. Note: I really appreciate how some of the Puritanboard brethren have been in the forefront of solid exposition, and willing to counter the scattershot attacks that come from the contra circles. Overall, thanks for an excellent talk. There really is a need to continue this focus, as the heavenly witnesses is, in fact, the fulcrum verse in the battle of the Bible. Steven Avery Bayside, NY
Greetings Steve: Thank you for that kind, informative, and well thought out reply. I appreciate it very much. I have heard that Wizenburgensis was considered a Latin text, but nowhere have I seen the evidence for it. In reading the Dabney reference it seems that Dabney (and Lachmann) are indicating it is a Greek text. However, since the argument does not rely on Wizenburgensis, then it really does not matter much to me. Thanks for pointing it out. Irenaeus, according to Forster, uses the phrase at the end of verse 7 "these three are one." Which convinces Forster that Irenaeus knew the Comma. At least that is what I think he says. I was not equating the Waldensian text with Augustine. I simply noted that Augustine stated that the Waldensian text was the most accurate. Since the Waldensian text contains the Comma, then it follows that the Comma is older than is thought (Waldensian text = circa 150 AD). I do plan on making a "follow-up" video and hope to look at the internal evidences for the Comma with more detail. I am especially interested in the participle "Witnessing" in the text. Thanks again, and that was an excellent post! In Jesus, Rob
Hi Robert, Thanks.And I agree on Irenaeus, I simply wanted to be sure since most defenders are not aware of the excellent writing and analysis from Charles Forster (who at times followed the lead of Franz Knittel). In some ways he is the single most important writer on the topic, because of the depth of consideration of how the language of the heavenly witnesses verse influenced the language of the church, even after it had largely dropped out of the Greek ms. line. The Wizanburgensis issue was unravelled by Jan Krans, with good scholarship and a bit of posturing. And the summary is on his blog.The participle aspect sounds interesting. The anachronism with Augustine is that he could not refer to the "Waldensian text", even if the Itala became the Waldensian text :). Overall, Frederick Nolan does make that point about antiquity of the heavenly witnesses from the Old Latin successfully. In a more complex way than the later attempt by Benjamin Wilkinson. Wilkinson emphasized Waldensian partly because it fit his overall doctrinal schema. One problem is that the Waldensian text seems to be more of a hybrid than the supporters of this theory allow, with possible Vulgate influence, thus making it hard to say that it is a 2nd century text. Just some aspects to consider.Sidenote: In a certain sense, Wilkinson had a general tendency to distort the scholarship of Nolan, and this became common wisdom through Fuller. e.g. This led to the "two lines" theory of the text that tries to separate the Old Latin from the Vulgate, on opposite sides good and bad. Rather than seeing the Received Text Greek-Latin-ECW integrative history, unto the Reformation Bible editions. And I noticed a few other things in the video that may make for interesting comments. So I may place them in another post, also plan to listen to the second tape.It is good to see videos coming forth with a depth of understanding! (Granted, there are some new ones out to check.) James Snapp, who does not overall defend the verse, has taken some of the critics to the woodshed on specific issues like the Council of Carthage. And I think may have critiqued the Ehrman mishandling of the verse in a video. Brandon Staggs did do an excellent two videos on Acts 8:37.You do have to be careful on checking just about everything to your own scholarly comfort. Even the better articles like KJVToday and Tim Dunkin (to which I gave an assist.) The contra material in English the last 50 years is appallingly bad and shallow, mostly trying to parrot Metzger distortions. Although Raymond Brown is at least passable.Steven Avery
Jerome (342-347) "In this I found translators (or copyists) widely deviating from the truth; who set down in their own edition the names only of the three witnesses, that is, the Water, blood, and Spirit; but omit the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; by which , above all places, the Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is proved to be one" -- In Codex Fuldensis (546 AD) But, the Comma is in the Prologue; not in the text of Codex Fuldensis itself. The text is in a mss that is about 200 years removed from Jerome; so it must be weighed accordingly.
VERY enlightening! It also showed me that I need to keep studying Koine Greek (it’s easy to get discouraged). My condolences to his family. He is now “absent from the flesh and present with the Lord” Memory Eternal!
Thoroughly enjoyed your presentation, I have written many apologetics for the deity of Christ! I have written a few articles for the inclusion of 1 Jn. 5:7 so this work of yours is a common passion we obviously share. God bless you brother!
Where can I purchase the book from rev.charles foster "a new plea for the authenticity of the text of the three heavenly witnesses" published: cambridge: deighton, Bell and Co., 1867 ? Thanks for your help.
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.
Hi, you mentioned that the UBS says that anything 8th century or earlier is considered an "early" manuscript. I've heard in the past, that it was anything 9th century or earlier. Do you have a source where you could provide a reference to this?
Greetings Mr. Alvarez: That is a good question. I was simply relating what I had heard, and I may be mistaken about the date. I will seek to look into this further and give you a citation. Blessings, Rob.
Sorry, why did you compare Codex Montfortianus with the edition of Stephanus? You should compare it with the Third edition of Erasmmus. It is exactly the same.
Robert - if I get the gist of your argument, you are saying that even if the critical text does not have the complete passage, church father's referenced the text well before the date if the critical text, so the validity of inclusion is proved. Hearing Jerome's comment, it does sound like men were attempting to alter the text by REMOVING the reference, not by adding the text.Thanks
+Army Mobility Officer I do not know if I am entirely following what you are saying, but I will try to respond. Yes, I think you have it right: the ECF's quoted the passage, and they lived before and during the time when the "Alexandrian" mss were being produced. And Jerome mentions that 1 John 5:7,8 were being removed from the Latin translation. Blessings, Rob. PS. Thanks for your service! - RPW
Do you have any kind of info on the reliability of Jesus and the adulterous woman of John chapter 8? In case you haven't heard the argument, in a nutshell, many brothers and sisters believe this passage is not Scriptural but was added to John later. Additional arguments state that this passage was "without a home" and at some point even found its place in Luke's gospel. Thanks and God bless, brother!
Re 29:30 -- In the Latin Vulgate text, "Et hi tres unum sunt" ends v. 7 and v. 8, the same way, not in a way that is "radically different." The difference in the Greek text does not necessitate a difference in the Latin text that Cyprian used.
What’s the motive for adding it because the Trinity was already accepted by at least 260? It was quoted or alluded to by a large number of early Church fathers It was exactly quoted by Cyprian before 260 Socrates of Constantinople said that “some have corrupted this epistle” of 1 John because they wished to separate Jesus humanity from his deity. Jerome specifically said the passage had been removed by “Unfaithful translators” (who we would guess are the Arians) Gregory of Nazanzius says the Comma belongs. It is present in 98% of the Latin copies (which were virtually free from Arian influence) It was accepted by at least 350 Bishops - many of whom were Arians - at the Council of Carthage.
Thanks Mr. Snapp! I would actually like to see Wizanbergensis before I make a comment - I guess I am too much a Berean on this matter! :-) Blessings, Rob
Great video! Early evidence for 1 John 5:7: Versions: Old Syriac 170AD, Old Latin 200AD, Vulgate 300AD, Italic 300AD. Writers: Tatian 150AD, Tertullian 200AD, Cyprian 225AD, Athanasius 350AD, Pricillian 350AD, Vadmarium 380AD. Writings: Liber Apologeticus 350AD, Council of Carthage 415 AD.
+Cristian Feher over the last several years I have been reading both sides of this issue objectively. Thanks for your encouragement! Blessings in Jesus, Rob.
There is so much error here that this argument cannot even be taken seriously. The Vulgate was closer to 400AD than 300AD, Tatian, Tertullian, and Athanasius never cited it, Priscillian cited it ALONG with 'in Christ Jesus' (is THAT also inspired?), Lieber Apologeticus is the same witness as Priscillian (that's the name of the work where it appears), and the Council of Carthage is in 485, not 415. There are others but the pattern of error demonstrated here is absurd.
Mr. Maestrobill: Do you have a real name? You are not looking at the apparatus of the Critical Text (27) which reads, in the Latin witnesses, "vg[mss] (Cyprian) (Ps-Cyprian) (Priscillian) Speculum Varimadus Ps-Vigilius Fulgentius," When the CT puts an early church father in parenthesis (), then they are pointing out that the ECF does not exactly quote the passage: Cyprian writes: "It is written, of the Father, of the Son (not Word)..." claiming that the Comma is the written Word of God. Consequently, the Critical Text "scholars" all claim the Latin witness to be more plentiful then you make on. IF you were listening carefully to the video, then you would realize that other ECF's quote the ending of the 7th verse which can only be found in the Comma, and nowhere else in Scripture, Greek, "οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν" Latin, "Et hi tres unum sunt." I was careful to point out that Tatian, Tertullian, and Athanasius, as well as many other ECF's use this phrase, and thus, pay tacit testimony to 1 John 5:7. I appreciate your zeal in this matter - it is good to be zealous over a good thing - but you are bordering on 9th Commandment violations with your wild accusations. Please, if you are going to post here, then keep a civil tongue. I will delete future posts if you continue in, what I will call, "uncharitable and unChristlike" behavior. Blessings in Jesus, Rob.
The other issue is how do you defend against a person arguing for progressive and continuing revelation and an open canon? If we are to hear a godly sounding passage or writing, and we are told that it is from the bible originally, and we need to trust the Holy Spirit to let it be true to us...how do we actually argue against the LDS?
+Rick Baker To answer you quickly: The testimony of the Spirit works organically with the whole of Scripture - including its context. We can tell a passage is Scripture when we read it in its immediate context, or, in the context of the book it is in, and, the whole Bible. To "proof text" various individual verses, and then ask if the Holy Spirit is working is not how the Spirit generally works. Blessings in Jesus, Rob.
Rick ,,,,it is still the Spirit of God that gives the GIFT first,,,,,, which leads to the Spirit and his ENTRY into the Body..... The LDS has the KJV but they preach another Gospel ….baptism, works and such. God clearly says there is a CURSE . The Spirit CANNOT come into someone until that person , gets the GIFT right , and walking away from the REWARD teachings of Denominationalism and the CURSED GOSPELS of Works . I know because I came out of Religion and had a KJV.....but until some man should guide me ,,,,as in Acts 8; The Problem is there are plenty of Ethopian Enuchs running around with KJV bibles ,,,,,but not enough Phillips..... Reading Isaiah as the Enuch did but he said,,,,HOW CAN I EXCEPT SOME MAN SHOULD GUIDE ME. If it had not been for a Phillip that guided me , I would not have gotten it right . Even with the KJV 1611... That is why God expects us to ALL be Phillips and USE the KJV 1611 and do it His way. Proverbs 11;30 KJV The answer to your open cannon question , is never going to change. A verse you and I have read hundreds of times , will take us to a NEW TRUTH that God was not ready to reveal to you the many times you read it before. I am only SPEAKING OF THE KJV 1611....The other corrupted versions will never give new revelation or show you things to come as John 16;13 KJV says . It is ALWAYS the Holy Spirit that will teach , and guide us. This did not happen when I had NIV, NASB and such studying from them and trying to understand anything God was trying to teach. We do not argue against LDS ,,,, because they have a spirit and they are religious is one reason it is harder to win them to Christ than someone who is not as stauchly controlled by their spirit . I have run into this with Jehovah Witnesses who have their false doctrine and works salvation as well. It is a spirit , They use the NIV , corrupted text with newer renderings and updates of their New World Translations. Much prayer and boldness of truth is the only thing that will CUT them , dividing the soul and the spirit and of the joints and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and the intent of the heart. It is the Holy Spirit that does the surgery with the KING JAMES 1611 ONLY....forget it if you try to use the others.
Re 33:16 -- the Latin-speaking churches didn't have a problem with Arianism?!?!?! Are you aware at all of what the Vandals (who were Arians) did in North Africa?!?!?!
I looked and the CD does not seem to be available anymore from where I got it: www.crownandcovenant.com/default.asp However, Psalm 5c to the tune of Scarborough Fair can be found here: soundcloud.com/connorq/psalm-5c-tune-scarborough-fair God bless, Rob
Re: 40:20 -- There is a third option, of course: first, that some of the patristic citations you've used are phantoms, and, second, that the remaining authors (such as Priscillian, and the author of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles) sincerely but nevertheless erroneously regarded a non-original passage in the Latin copies to be genuine.
Re: 30:00 - Forster was grasping at straws. Irenaeus does not cite the CJ and neither does Tertullian, and the source that he identifies as Athanasius is not Athanasius.
Re: 38:00 - The CJ is *not* in the Syriac. What happened (as Michaelis explains in his introduction to the Peshitta) is that the editors of the printed editions of the text of the Peshitta used in the 1500's simply inserted it.
Be truthful the only reason most of modern Christianity believes the Comma Johanneum is true is because they believe that God is a Trinity. The vast majority including you DO NOT have God's Spirit ( believe it or not) because you do not have rely on Gods works ALONE. For there has been ONE covenant , ONE testimony from Adam to this everyday and God's Words are Spirit and God's words are the truth. And the gates the grave have not prevailed against it.
James white won this one, but honestly yu still didn't present enuff solid info.... James white specifically said it was a gloss that got inserted into the latin vulgate. It's not in codex vitanicus, sinaticus or alexandrian, neither in the early papyri.. But yu say it was in early Greek manuscripts that was destroyed? Really? If they were destroyed, how YOU kno it was ther? Where is the evidence?
We know it is in Greek manuscripts that have since perished because of what others have said in centuries past. John Gill and John Calvin are 2 of the best examples. Calvin said it was in "the best and most approved copies". And about the papyri, this shows you really haven't done your research because only 2 papyri contain portions of 1 John in the first place. The one papyrus that DOES have portions from chapter 5 is missing the text between verses 4 and 9, and even if we did have it it wouldn't matter because it is from the 7th century (P74). We have documentation if its existence long before then.
As to the idea that it was in manuscripts that were destroyed; it is asked how do we know they were there? This is a valid question. Allow me to answer. In the original 1611 KJV there is a margin note regarding Luke 17:36. The verse is "Two men will be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left." The margin note says "This verse is wanting (lacking) in most of the Greek copies." This margin note is also in the Trinitarian Bible Society's Westminster Reference Bible. Now, what does Luke 17:36 have to do with 1 John 5:7-8? There is no margin note in the 1611 KJV at 1 John 5:7-8 saying this is wanting (lacking) in most of the Greek copies. Therefore the translators working on the KJV from 1604-1611 had copies with the comma in it. We also must remember there was The Great London Fire of 1666. Many documents were destroyed in that horrible fire, along with an estimated homes of over 70,000 people!
There were several editions of the Textus Receptus note from Erasmus 1514 historically ending in 1624 Abraham and Bonaventure Elzevir of Leiden. Now since the advent of the current technology I read the KJV differently and currently research the LXX and the translated version of the Codex Sinaiticus online since I could not find links to the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus and the Syrian translations into English online. 1 John 5:7-8 reads: 7 For they that testify are three, 8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one.. None of us should be lied to and we should be afforded the truth and demand the truth from all scholars and pastors.
Been really enjoying your videos. PRIESTHOOD OF THE BELIEVER !!! EXACTLY !!! We can know if something is of God, if we are true converts. Just like the scripture, and the modern trashlations, The inner witness has been telling me White ain't right. I get the same "yuck" with him, as I get with the NIV.
Not yet convinced,....for the passage flows well without the 'comma', as the con-text is about Jesus Christ (coming by way of water and blood, the Spirit bearing witness,...NOT the Trinity at all.
+Paul Purcell My hope is that God will convince you of the inspiration of 1 John 5:7. In light of this I need some clarification: Are you suggesting that we excise the Comma simply because, according to some, that verses 6 and 8 flows well?
+Robert Paul Wieland Hi Robert,....not really, but without the comma it works just as well. I'm not really dogmatic about it either way, heck only 1/3 of the population even identifies as 'christian' let alone read the bible. It doesn't really matter to me, as I can have the comma or do without it, since I see it as an allegorical gloss or insertion anyways,...however you 'interpret' it. As far sa the trinity goes,...the trinity isn't helped or harmed by the inclusion. I
Comma Johanneum? A 45 minute video about a comma? Seriously??? Let us just go back to the oracles of God, as we are commanded. In English, that is the Holy Bible, King James Version. No one who hears God's word, and seeks him therein, needs to question whether a particular comma was supposed to be there or not, to understand the scripture. As it is written, And they shall all be taught of God. Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Mr. TheWordProphet: This page is not a place for you to teach whatever things you think come from the Bible. If you have legitimate questions/comments about this particular video, then limit your posts to those subject(s). All other posts will be deleted, and Jesus Christ is glorified when such is done.
The Comma Johanneum was a CLARIFICATION CLAUSE written on the margins near 1 John 5:7-8 which eventually got integrated into the text of the Bible so as to prevent any misinterpretations of the Trinity or any misunderstandings of the Spirit, Water and Blood being part of the Godhead. It is in no way "added" to the Bible so as to supply a "prooftext" of the Trinity as that is throughout the Bible beginning from Genesis 1:1-3 where it speaks of God the Father or Creator "In the beginning God CREATED..." and then God the Holy Ghost where it reads "and the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the deep" (Genesis 1:2) and God the WORD where it reads "and God SAID: Be Light made" (Genesis 1:3) and when you read the Gospel of John such as John 1:1 and you read throughout the Gospel of John and the Epistle of John it will super clear that it is all over John's writings. The Proof that this is not "adding" to the Word of God is in the key words "IN HEAVEN... The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost" and "ON EARTH...the Spirit the Water and the Blood" it was clearly a clarification clause to convey John's actual meaning and so that no heretics can misinterpret that passage to confuse Christ's Human Nature with his Divine and 1 John 5:7-8 can be read either with or without the Comma Johanneum as BOTH are VALID READINGS just like the Nicean Creed can be read with or without the Fillioque as both are valid ways of reading the Creed so long as there is no misinterpretation of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father ONLY for the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father AND it Proceeds from the Father AND THE SON. There is no dispute among the early Church Fathers regarding the Gospel of John and 1 John having the same author although there were disputes about 2 &3 John and Revelation being written by another John. With that being said, you also get the clear picture of the Trinity with 1 John chapter 2 when you compare that with John chapters 14 to 17 with regards to the Paraclete being the Holy Spirit and with regards to us being "One with the Father and the Son THROUGH the Holy Ghost" as is indicated in John 17:11,21-23 and 1 John 2:22-24 and the Paraclete is the Holy Ghost (John 14:26) and the "Spirit of Truth" (John 15:26). Also notice how Douay Rheims uses the Word "Spirit" as distinct from the word "Ghost" for "Spirit" in "Spirit, Water and Blood" indicates BREATH and in the Old Testament the word "Spirit" when it reads "the Spirit of God hovered over the waters" indicates WIND and John Writes "it is not by Water ONLY" but by water and blood to indicate that the Word of God through whom God created the world did come in flesh and died and rose from the dead whereas in Genesis it is Spirit and Water but when the word became Flesh it was through Spirit, Water and Blood so the Comma Johanneum clause was not intended in any way to supply a "prooftext" of the Trinity but was simply to CLARIFY any confusions that may have arisen if people were to falsely interpret the water and blood as being part of the Godhead for in HEAVEN it is the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost that bare witness and on Earth it is the Spirit the Water and the Blood that bare witness to Christ's HUMAN Nature and as such it is all throughout the Gospel of John that Christ says "I one bare witness of myself" and "my father bares witness of me" and about the Paraclete the Holy Spirit that he shall testify of him so that it is ALL THROUGHOUT the Gospel of John and the Epistle of John so this clause wasn't some "scheme" to "add" a Trinity but was rather to clarify any misunderstandings of that passage in 1 John 5:7-8 and it has a very early origin as being part of the marginal gloss, to quote about it from the New Catholic Commentary of the Holy Scriptures: A Trinitarian interpretation of the Spirit the Water and the Blood can be traced back as far as Cyprian (AD 258). Augustine gives the same interpretation suggesting that by his time (c. 400) it had become an established marginal gloss. Vigilius of Thapsus (c. 490) regards it as an authentic part of the Vulgate. Passages like 1 John 5:7-8 and the Woman Caught Committing Adultery passage found in John 7:53-8:11 and the Mark 16:9-20 passage are all proof also that you need both Bible AND Tradition to understand Christ's Message through His Apostles which constitute His Church and what they have intended with their writings and so John bares witness that there are three that bare witness in Heaven and on Earth and as such so with or without the comma the message is still clear when understood with the Bible AND Tradition and as such it was the will of Providence that this passage made it into most of the Print Texts of the New Testament from the 1500s to 1600s and onwards. We Catholics and Slavonic Orthodox Christians who tilt and lean towards Rome and Byzantine Rite Catholicism instead of Greek Orthodoxy are not bothered by reading 1 John 5:7-8 with or without the Comma Johanneum and likewise with or without the Fillioque in the Creed as both ways are authentic and since we are not obsessed with the false doctrine of "Bible Only" (Sola Scriptura) which is found nowhere in the Bible and itself is a man made tradition to us the Comma Johanneum is a valid part of the Bible along with John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 which are the three major passages in the Bible that Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims and Jews and others accuse us of "corrupting the Scriptures" but all throughout the Bible we read of God the Father, and his WORD which has made appearances to Abraham and the Prophets and "His Spirit" so the Comma Johanneum in many ways acts as a SEAL to the Scriptures as well as this was what was meant to be in the Print Text of the Bible as the Bible was divinely inspired in Print to include this most definitely and there is much to be said about the Qur'an for any Muslims that want to point to this as "proof" that the Bible is corrupt like when you read the footnote on A. Yusuf Ali's commentary on Koran 33:6 and elsewhere in the Qor'an where it talks about Christ being the Word and Spirit of God (Koran 4:171) It's fun to compare Koran 4:171 to Genesis 1:1-3 and John 1:1 as we read in Koran 4:171 that where it says that Christ is the Word of God or "Kalimullah" it same word "kalim" is used in the Arabic translation of the Bible in John 1:1 and where it reads of Christ being the "Spirit of God" or "Ruh Allah" in Genesis 1:2 it says "we RUHA ELOHIM" and Sunni Muslims believe the Qor'an (Word of God in Islam) to be ETERNAL and UNCREATED as Christians believe Christ (Word of God in Christianity AND IN THE QORAN) to be ETERNAL and UNCREATED as God Created THROUGH His Word "Be" when Christ said "BE LIGHT MADE" and hence God's WORD is "BEGOTTEN" and NOT CREATED but in the Qor'an God is Father to no one as Mohammed the progeny of Ismael was the Slave of God as Christ the progeny of Isaac was the Son of God and Christ said "the slave does not know what His Father is doing but the Son does and if the son therefore shall make you free then ye shall be free indeed" and also Galatians indirectly prophecies of Islam and also when we read about the Story of the Well of Hagar in Genesis which Muslims call Zamzam, HAGAR SAW the Pre Incarnate CHRIST Genesis 16:9-14, the ANGEL of the Lord that appeared to her was CHRIST in Genesis so if anything it's interesting to note that the Qor'an denies God being a Father and in the passage regarding Mohammed being the Seal of the Prophets "Khattam Nabiyyu" in Koran 33:40 but that could be different in the Qiraat of Ubay Ibn Kaab of which it reads in Koran 33:6 "and he is a father unto them" and there are hadith traditions that say that Surah 33 was much much longer and has been lost so maybe there were other things in the Qor'an and we don't know what was in the True Qor'an and maybe there was this "part" of the Qor'an that Mohammed must have told the Ethiopians that testified of Christ being God because if there is any hints of Mohammed being a Spiritual Father and that is not in the current 1924 Cairo Print Text of the Qur'an then WHAT ELSE could have been in the original Qor'an of Mohammed as such it is possible that Mohammed could have been a CHRISTIAN PROPHET and that later on Uthman had the other Qor'ans burnt which spoke of other things that could have lead to Confusion and it is possible also that Khadijah Mohammed's Wife could have been a Catholic along with her Uncle Warraqa nonetheless Christians must respect Mohammed as being a progeny of Abraham through Hagar and the Fuhrer Adolf Hitler who was a Catholic Prophet had much respect for Mohammed and Islam and as such if it could be proven that Hitler had unitarian Monotheistic beliefs and Constantine with Eusibius did too then there is Truth somewhere BETWEEN Christianity and Islam but as far as it goes, Providence has decreed for Christianity to be the leading and most dominant force and religion in the entire world and that is why we use the Christian ROMAN Calendar that is dated after Christ which GLORIFIES Christ and Muslims use it too and their Qor'an even bares witness to it as Shabir Ally boasted of how the Qor'an miraculously mentions the word "yaum" or "day" 365 times and the Muslim Calendar year is 355 days whereas the Christian Calendar is 365 days and the Qor'an speaks of the Followers of Christ "Christians" being Victorious Koran 3:55, 61:14 which is why Amin Al Husseini was guided by the Holy Spirit to join the Fuhrer's Crusade as he knew that his Jihad was ONE with the Fuhrer's Kampf and the Duce's and the Pope's CRUSADE as the CRUSADE, JIHAD AND KAMPF are ONE UNITED AND UNIVERSAL STRUGGLE AGAINST THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN (Rev. 2:9,3:9) and true Christianity is the "Hail Victory" Religion as Christ rose from the dead and the common THEME that Muslims and Christians can share with regards to why the Qor'an denies Christ being Crucified in Koran 4:157 is that the Jews DID NOT WIN but Christ WON
Despite the arguments, and debates concerning 1 John 5:7, the Real Fact is---This verse is a Fabrication, a "Corruption" of the Text! And anyone who cares to Research the matter, will Find, there were quite a Few Scriptures that were, Altered in order to offer a trinitar- ian slant. Seek Wisdom. Seek Truth.
+Robert Harbitz II I believe there are some who can be characterized in that fashion, but there are some sincere, honest, believing Christians who have fallen into that error. Let us not be so hot with labeling and name calling, but be sober and gentle with all men in the hope that they may recover themselves. Blessings in Jesus Christ, Rob. th-cam.com/video/ODFum6fjqUg/w-d-xo.html
+Robert Paul Wieland I was not name calling or just labeling. From research and hearing them themselves I came to the sober judgment that it isn't a Christian belief. I didn't mean the people couldn't be Christian just the kjv only faith itself is sub biblical and not of Christ.
Thank you, Robert, for your encouragement! Jesus is good to us all! When people tell me that they have a hard time with the KJ English, I then point them to the NKJV. There are other modern translations of the KJV out there, but, since the NKJV is the most popular, then it is that one that I recommend. The NKJV is not without its problems, though, and I would ultimately encourage you to learn Greek and Hebrew in order to read the original copies. Blessings, Rob.
![ILLSLICK - THE KING'S LANDING [Freestyle]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/feIJJnNkTfk/mqdefault.jpg)
To all of Robert Wieland's youtube fans, Robert passed away Tuesday morning of kidney failure. He has had diseased kidneys since late May. No doubt his wish for all of you is to continue your walk with Christ and continue spreading His word. (This posting written by his older brother).
Robert Paul Wieland sorry to hear that, and am so glad that he knew the Lord! May God give peace and blessings for your family
I just stumbled across this video tonight ... so sorry to hear of the loss of such a great Christian apologist! Loved this teaching ... our loss but I'm sure God was happy with his work! Hope to meet him in glory one day!
I still miss him as he was a good friend. He prayed like no else. He was a loving brother in Christ here and looking so forward to seeing him again someday when my time comes as well. Praise God we have these videos. I am still strengthened in the faith today by the Lord's work in his life. He was so knowlegable and taught so we'll.
Im so sorry.
Thank you for leaving his channel up and these videos available. Such a great and thorough teacher. God bless you and your family, and can't wait to see Brother Robert on the other side.
Memory Eternal, Brother. Thank you for your life and insight...
And he said unto his disciples, Gather ye up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
*John 6:12*
This is the first time I have viewed his video. I am saddened by the news of his passing! May the Lord bless and comfort you all.
I'm so sorry to hear that this lovely Christian erudite man has passed away. He is now with his Lord and Saviour .
His videos are a tremendous help and encouragement to discern truth.
I thank God for Robert after happening on his videos from the UK.
My prayers go out to Roberts dear family and thanks to his elder brother for informing us of his passing away.
His witness lives on.
howd he die
Just found this brother’s videos yesterday, what a blessing. Sad that he passed.
Thank you brother for your videos. You do a great job. I didn't realize that the argument for the coma is so strong. One would think we would look for reasons to include verses rather than reasons to delete them. Especially when so many out there are trying to call whole books written by Paul into question. Its a mad world we live in.
Nice work, Robert. And God bless you for putting together these videos. Just a correction on a couple of your dates: Cyprian's reference to the Comma was actually made in AD 251, not AD 285. The passage was also cited, as you mention, in Eugenius' Confession of Faith at the Council of Carthage, but that was in AD 484. (I believe your video says AD 419.) Two other early witnesses to the Comma, besides Athanasius in AD 318, include Idacius Clarus (350) and Phoebadius of Agen in Gaul (359). There are many more, of course, but these should suffice for now.
be died .
he*
Amen and Amen to your single statement - "What should convince you is the Spirit of God, working with the Word of God, in your heart." People will continue to debate scripture ad nauseum. Only God Himself bears witness to the Truth, for He is Truth.
My condolences to Robert's family. He did fine honest work. God bless you.
You deserve alot more subs and views Imho. ..great work brother
Robert Wieland is the best man for textual criticism. The Lord took him to be with Himself. He's now with the eternal Word.
Didn't Erasmus put the 'comma johanneum' on his 3rd edition only after he was pressured by the catholic church?
God Has Blessed us with your awesome teaching abilities. Thank you for your service To Jesus Christ
I have a few issues here. Granted, I like the comma, and I will gladly read it and make application, however, here are my issues.
1) It doesn't appear in any GREEK (that is the key, as that is the original language) for one thousand years after the events. I don't care if it is in any other manuscripts before that time if they are not greek. I will get to why in a moment.
2) If that is the case, then how can we actually have confidence that any other readings haven't been lost, or that other readings have not been added? If something can go away and return, we have no idea what the original says. I agree that the Spirit testifies to the word within us, but he also gave us means to detect his preservation of said word.
3) If the comma appears in early non greek manuscripts, then a possibility, which is just as valid, is that of a scribe (greek or not - translating into other languages) having been trinitarian and having wished to make a marginal note, could have placed the comma in the margin, and as a later scribe would not want to leave it out because he can't verify if it was a note or not, he would include it. This is just as plausible given that neither position is dealing with actual hard evidence.
4) Early quotations. I agree that, with respect to the Father the Word and the Spirit, that these three are one. But did I just quote the comma? Or did I articulate an orthodox position? The problem with the so-called quotations is that when you actually read the early quotations, they nowhere cite the verse, and none of them quote the verse word for word. They paraphrase and agree with the verse, but so what, they are articulating truth. That does not mean that they are a) quoting scripture and b) that their quote was a direct quotation from scripture
5) Again, back to marginal notes. Even if (assuming it is not original) a third or fourth generation (which could be as early as 20 years or less from the original) manuscript was being penned by a scribe, given the nature of the early manuscripts we have (all caps, no punctuation and no real spaces between letters) a scribe that wanted to make a note could do so and it would be obvious, but the problem is, another 100 years down the road, a new scribe has no way to verify that it was a note, so he would (and I would too) include it in the text, and hence when it is translated into other languages in the first and second centuries, it would show up and give the appearance of a very early witness, even though it was not original.
This is just as plausible as the argument for it's originality. And given that this argument doesn't rely on subjectivity, I think it is the more appropriate way to go.
+Rick Baker The three videos that I have done answer most, if not all, of your objections. I will very briefly answer you, point by point: 1. What you mean is extant Greek manuscripts. There were manuscripts during the Reformation, which we no longer possess, which contained the Comma. Stephanus, I believe, had 9 of them. Also, we have an authoritative citation from Jerome who claimed that the Greek texts in his day were being altered at 1 John 5:7 by ungodly scribes. Thus, we have ancient testimony from Jerome, who lived around the same time as Sinaiticus was being copied, that the Comma was in his Greek texts. 2. Because we have no other readings that are as well attested to by the ECF's such as Jerome. 3. Yes, it is just as plausible, but you have to explain the statement by Jerome? Also, a plausible argument does not negate a valid statement. 4. The ECF's cannot cite passages in Scripture the way we do today is because the chapter and verse divisions did not come about until 1551 - long after the ECF's were dead. When they did cite passages in Scripture they did not always indicate that they were citing Scripture. And, yes, you did quote the Scripture. 5. Then why do we find citations by the ECF's of the Comma as Scripture: Cyprian, for example, "It is written of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these three are one." The only place where this phrase can be found is 1 John 5:7. Blessings, Rob.
Extensive searches prove the earliest fathers also spoke and used the early copies of scripture and most stayed away from the earliest corruptions of Aleph, Aleph b and those Alexandrian texts …. whether we have volumes or not of some texts whether pure or corrupted . Paul addressed this in II Corin 2; 17 KJV that there were MANY who would CORRUPT the Word of God..... and with sincereity in the sight of God , so SPEAK WE in Christ. Speaking in Christ is the POWER of God ,,QUOTING KJV 1611 as Paul referred to . Something I never hear from anyone reading the other corrupted versions. I also believe that Paul was very aware of Philo and his early corruptions and his friends being worldly to begin with. But he just called them MANY and there were. He just did not name him. They both lived during the same period . We have plenty of corrupted manuscripts , but powerful testimony from Church Fathers that agree with the Textus Receptus and KJV 1611 . Something that supports and offends the textual critics or contextual critics. I do not want to argue with this crowd. Like Dr. White or whoever. I have it settled and now I just need to share it with others , or I get sidetract and grieve the Holy Spirit. That the power of God rest upon me. II Corin 12.KJV
As to the idea that it was in manuscripts that were destroyed; it is asked how do we know they were there? This is a valid question. Allow me to answer.
In the original 1611 KJV there is a margin note regarding Luke 17:36. The verse is "Two men will be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left." The margin note says "This verse is wanting (lacking) in most of the Greek copies." This margin note is also in the Trinitarian Bible Society's Westminster Reference Bible.
Now, what does Luke 17:36 have to do with 1 John 5:7-8? There is no margin note in the 1611 KJV at 1 John 5:7-8 saying this is wanting (lacking) in most of the Greek copies. Therefore the translators working on the KJV from 1604-1611 had copies with the comma in it.
We also must remember there was The Great London Fire of 1666. Many documents were destroyed in that horrible fire, along with an estimated homes of over 70,000 people!
Nice talk, Robert. Appreciated. Especially note your astonishment at the logically tricky (or incompetent) methods of argumentation of James White. And the emphasis on the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome was excellent.
There are a few points where I would recommend tweaking, or additions (maybe in the future vid.)
On tweaks, one example is Wizanburgensis, which only became a major issue because of a mistaken claim that it was a Greek ms, or a diglot (which goes back to Lachmann, this was covered on the textualcriticism forum back in 2008). We should let it drop back to the status of one of a number of early Latin mss, a Latin Vulgate ms of the 8th century. (Technically it might be hybrid Old Latin-Vulgate.) The various Latin mss evidences, many discovered since the mid-1800s, are helpful in countering a totally bogus and deceptive attempt by Metzger and the parrots to have the Latin evidences as late. Generally, Raymond Brown is more reliable in presenting a contra view, most writers only do agitprop.
There is a reference to Irenaeus at about the 20 minute mark. Bengel, Prudent Maran, Charles Forster and others do discuss some of his wording in the context of the heavenly witnesses, as evidence. However, since that flies under most radars, it is possible that your reference was thinking of another verse, like Acts 8:37, the sister textual verse.
There was a spot where the Waldensian text was equated to Augustine. This is a complex area, and Frederick Nolan is the important and careful writer, however the way it was expressed definitely sounded a bit anachronistic. Or it is built on some ideas of Benjamin Wilkinson that have gone around the horn where the Waldensian text is supposed to be ultra-pristine, which is not the case.
There are a few areas that afaik have never gotten good youtube presentations. I will mention three. (1) The Cyprian references, noting that the Lutheran writer Franz Pieper (1852-1931) really understood the import of this evidence. (2) The Council of Carthage of 484 AD, involving hundreds of orthodox bishops from a wide-spread Mediterranean region appealing directly and specifically to the heavenly witnesses from John, contra the arians under Huneric. In the face of persecution, so that any scripture references really had to be in all the Bibles of both sides of the controversy. (3) And the grammatical and internal issues, of which there are a number (you may have hit one important internal consistency in the talk). The grammatical gender argument, with an emphasis especially since Eugenius Bulgaris spoke strongly, is rather amazing. As what you have is, defacto, that the Greek solecism is only fixed in the Latin translation! Thus the Latin points back to the original full Greek.
Note: I really appreciate how some of the Puritanboard brethren have been in the forefront of solid exposition, and willing to counter the scattershot attacks that come from the contra circles.
Overall, thanks for an excellent talk. There really is a need to continue this focus, as the heavenly witnesses is, in fact, the fulcrum verse in the battle of the Bible.
Steven Avery
Bayside, NY
Greetings Steve:
Thank you for that kind, informative, and well thought out reply. I appreciate it very much. I have heard that Wizenburgensis was considered a Latin text, but nowhere have I seen the evidence for it. In reading the Dabney reference it seems that Dabney (and Lachmann) are indicating it is a Greek text. However, since the argument does not rely on Wizenburgensis, then it really does not matter much to me. Thanks for pointing it out.
Irenaeus, according to Forster, uses the phrase at the end of verse 7 "these three are one." Which convinces Forster that Irenaeus knew the Comma. At least that is what I think he says.
I was not equating the Waldensian text with Augustine. I simply noted that Augustine stated that the Waldensian text was the most accurate. Since the Waldensian text contains the Comma, then it follows that the Comma is older than is thought (Waldensian text = circa 150 AD).
I do plan on making a "follow-up" video and hope to look at the internal evidences for the Comma with more detail. I am especially interested in the participle "Witnessing" in the text.
Thanks again, and that was an excellent post!
In Jesus,
Rob
Hi Robert,
Thanks.And I agree on Irenaeus, I simply wanted to be sure since most defenders are not aware of the excellent writing and analysis from Charles Forster (who at times followed the lead of Franz Knittel). In some ways he is the single most important writer on the topic, because of the depth of consideration of how the language of the heavenly witnesses verse influenced the language of the church, even after it had largely dropped out of the Greek ms. line.
The Wizanburgensis issue was unravelled by Jan Krans, with good scholarship and a bit of posturing. And the summary is on his blog.The participle aspect sounds interesting.
The anachronism with Augustine is that he could not refer to the "Waldensian text", even if the Itala became the Waldensian text :). Overall, Frederick Nolan does make that point about antiquity of the heavenly witnesses from the Old Latin successfully. In a more complex way than the later attempt by Benjamin Wilkinson. Wilkinson emphasized Waldensian partly because it fit his overall doctrinal schema. One problem is that the Waldensian text seems to be more of a hybrid than the supporters of this theory allow, with possible Vulgate influence, thus making it hard to say that it is a 2nd century text. Just some aspects to consider.Sidenote: In a certain sense, Wilkinson had a general tendency to distort the scholarship of Nolan, and this became common wisdom through Fuller. e.g. This led to the "two lines" theory of the text that tries to separate the Old Latin from the Vulgate, on opposite sides good and bad. Rather than seeing the
Received Text Greek-Latin-ECW integrative history, unto the Reformation Bible editions.
And I noticed a few other things in the video that may make for interesting comments. So I may place them in another post, also plan to listen to the second tape.It is good to see videos coming forth with a depth of understanding! (Granted, there are some new ones out to check.)
James Snapp, who does not overall defend the verse, has taken some of the critics to the woodshed on specific issues like the Council of Carthage. And I think may have critiqued the Ehrman mishandling of the verse in a video. Brandon Staggs did do an excellent two videos on Acts 8:37.You do have to be careful on checking just about everything to your own scholarly comfort. Even the better articles like KJVToday and Tim Dunkin (to which I gave an assist.) The contra material in English the last 50 years is appallingly bad and shallow, mostly trying to parrot Metzger distortions. Although Raymond Brown is at least passable.Steven Avery
Jerome (342-347) "In this I found translators (or copyists) widely deviating from the truth; who set down in their own edition the names only of the three witnesses, that is, the Water, blood, and Spirit; but omit the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; by which , above all places, the Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is proved to be one" -- In Codex Fuldensis (546 AD)
But, the Comma is in the Prologue; not in the text of Codex Fuldensis itself. The text is in a mss that is about 200 years removed from Jerome; so it must be weighed accordingly.
VERY enlightening! It also showed me that I need to keep studying Koine Greek (it’s easy to get discouraged). My condolences to his family. He is now “absent from the flesh and present with the Lord” Memory Eternal!
Thoroughly enjoyed your presentation, I have written many apologetics for the deity of Christ! I have written a few articles for the inclusion of 1 Jn. 5:7 so this work of yours is a common passion we obviously share. God bless you brother!
Where can I purchase the book from rev.charles foster "a new plea for the authenticity of the text of the three heavenly witnesses" published: cambridge: deighton, Bell and Co., 1867 ? Thanks for your help.
This is really good and underlines the devils attack on the church through the word by casting doubt and inserting revision, just as he did in Eden.
true
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.
Hi, you mentioned that the UBS says that anything 8th century or earlier is considered an "early" manuscript. I've heard in the past, that it was anything 9th century or earlier. Do you have a source where you could provide a reference to this?
Greetings Mr. Alvarez: That is a good question. I was simply relating what I had heard, and I may be mistaken about the date. I will seek to look into this further and give you a citation. Blessings, Rob.
Sorry, why did you compare Codex Montfortianus with the edition of Stephanus? You should compare it with the Third edition of Erasmmus. It is exactly the same.
Robert - if I get the gist of your argument, you are saying that even if the critical text does not have the complete passage, church father's referenced the text well before the date if the critical text, so the validity of inclusion is proved. Hearing Jerome's comment, it does sound like men were attempting to alter the text by REMOVING the reference, not by adding the text.Thanks
+Army Mobility Officer I do not know if I am entirely following what you are saying, but I will try to respond. Yes, I think you have it right: the ECF's quoted the passage, and they lived before and during the time when the "Alexandrian" mss were being produced. And Jerome mentions that 1 John 5:7,8 were being removed from the Latin translation. Blessings, Rob. PS. Thanks for your service! - RPW
Regarding Montfortianus: have you read Adam Clarke's comments about this?
But isn't Codex Wizanburgensis a Latin Codex, not a Greek Codex?
Do you have any kind of info on the reliability of Jesus and the adulterous woman of John chapter 8? In case you haven't heard the argument, in a nutshell, many brothers and sisters believe this passage is not Scriptural but was added to John later. Additional arguments state that this passage was "without a home" and at some point even found its place in Luke's gospel. Thanks and God bless, brother!
Yes: th-cam.com/video/C1Qfhh5wqgs/w-d-xo.html
Re 29:30 -- In the Latin Vulgate text, "Et hi tres unum sunt" ends v. 7 and v. 8, the same way, not in a way that is "radically different." The difference in the Greek text does not necessitate a difference in the Latin text that Cyprian used.
Codex Wizanbergensis is a Latin copy of the Vulgate, is it not? Not a Greek MS.
Re: 32:00 - The author of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles is an important witness, but this is probably not Jerome himself.
Re: 34:00 -- The Council of Carthage (the relevant one, that is) was held in February of 484, not in 419.
The reference from Cyprian (in Treatise on the Unity of the Universal Church, 1:6) *is* disputed.
James Snapp okay, state the argument
What’s the motive for adding it because the Trinity was already accepted by at least 260?
It was quoted or alluded to by a large number of early Church fathers
It was exactly quoted by Cyprian before 260
Socrates of Constantinople said that “some have corrupted this epistle” of 1 John because they wished to separate Jesus humanity from his deity.
Jerome specifically said the passage had been removed by “Unfaithful translators” (who we would guess are the Arians)
Gregory of Nazanzius says the Comma belongs.
It is present in 98% of the Latin copies (which were virtually free from Arian influence)
It was accepted by at least 350 Bishops - many of whom were Arians - at the Council of Carthage.
Did u say sinisticus was pre 8th century- that rag is strongly disputed
Re 43:50 - according to Bengel, Wizanbergensis is indeed eighth-century (or thereabouts), but it is a Latin MS.
Thanks Mr. Snapp! I would actually like to see Wizanbergensis before I make a comment - I guess I am too much a Berean on this matter! :-)
Blessings,
Rob
The manuscript is online. See the links in the blog-post at vuntblog.blogspot.com/search?q=99 .
Great video! Early evidence for 1 John 5:7: Versions: Old Syriac 170AD, Old Latin 200AD, Vulgate 300AD, Italic 300AD. Writers: Tatian 150AD, Tertullian 200AD, Cyprian 225AD, Athanasius 350AD, Pricillian 350AD, Vadmarium 380AD. Writings: Liber Apologeticus 350AD, Council of Carthage 415 AD.
+VegasKJV where did you get all this great evidence from?
+VegasKJV where did you get all this great evidence from?
+Cristian Feher over the last several years I have been reading both sides of this issue objectively. Thanks for your encouragement! Blessings in Jesus, Rob.
There is so much error here that this argument cannot even be taken seriously. The Vulgate was closer to 400AD than 300AD, Tatian, Tertullian, and Athanasius never cited it, Priscillian cited it ALONG with 'in Christ Jesus' (is THAT also inspired?), Lieber Apologeticus is the same witness as Priscillian (that's the name of the work where it appears), and the Council of Carthage is in 485, not 415. There are others but the pattern of error demonstrated here is absurd.
Mr. Maestrobill: Do you have a real name? You are not looking at the apparatus of the Critical Text (27) which reads, in the Latin witnesses, "vg[mss] (Cyprian) (Ps-Cyprian) (Priscillian) Speculum Varimadus Ps-Vigilius Fulgentius," When the CT puts an early church father in parenthesis (), then they are pointing out that the ECF does not exactly quote the passage: Cyprian writes: "It is written, of the Father, of the Son (not Word)..." claiming that the Comma is the written Word of God. Consequently, the Critical Text "scholars" all claim the Latin witness to be more plentiful then you make on. IF you were listening carefully to the video, then you would realize that other ECF's quote the ending of the 7th verse which can only be found in the Comma, and nowhere else in Scripture, Greek, "οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν" Latin, "Et hi tres unum sunt." I was careful to point out that Tatian, Tertullian, and Athanasius, as well as many other ECF's use this phrase, and thus, pay tacit testimony to 1 John 5:7.
I appreciate your zeal in this matter - it is good to be zealous over a good thing - but you are bordering on 9th Commandment violations with your wild accusations. Please, if you are going to post here, then keep a civil tongue. I will delete future posts if you continue in, what I will call, "uncharitable and unChristlike" behavior. Blessings in Jesus, Rob.
The other issue is how do you defend against a person arguing for progressive and continuing revelation and an open canon? If we are to hear a godly sounding passage or writing, and we are told that it is from the bible originally, and we need to trust the Holy Spirit to let it be true to us...how do we actually argue against the LDS?
+Rick Baker To answer you quickly: The testimony of the Spirit works organically with the whole of Scripture - including its context. We can tell a passage is Scripture when we read it in its immediate context, or, in the context of the book it is in, and, the whole Bible. To "proof text" various individual verses, and then ask if the Holy Spirit is working is not how the Spirit generally works. Blessings in Jesus, Rob.
Rick ,,,,it is still the Spirit of God that gives the GIFT first,,,,,, which leads to the Spirit and his ENTRY into the Body..... The LDS has the KJV but they preach another Gospel ….baptism, works and such. God clearly says there is a CURSE . The Spirit CANNOT come into someone until that person , gets the GIFT right , and walking away from the REWARD teachings of Denominationalism and the CURSED GOSPELS of Works . I know because I came out of Religion and had a KJV.....but until some man should guide me ,,,,as in Acts 8; The Problem is there are plenty of Ethopian Enuchs running around with KJV bibles ,,,,,but not enough Phillips..... Reading Isaiah as the Enuch did but he said,,,,HOW CAN I EXCEPT SOME MAN SHOULD GUIDE ME. If it had not been for a Phillip that guided me , I would not have gotten it right . Even with the KJV 1611... That is why God expects us to ALL be Phillips and USE the KJV 1611 and do it His way. Proverbs 11;30 KJV The answer to your open cannon question , is never going to change. A verse you and I have read hundreds of times , will take us to a NEW TRUTH that God was not ready to reveal to you the many times you read it before. I am only SPEAKING OF THE KJV 1611....The other corrupted versions will never give new revelation or show you things to come as John 16;13 KJV says . It is ALWAYS the Holy Spirit that will teach , and guide us. This did not happen when I had NIV, NASB and such studying from them and trying to understand anything God was trying to teach. We do not argue against LDS ,,,, because they have a spirit and they are religious is one reason it is harder to win them to Christ than someone who is not as stauchly controlled by their spirit . I have run into this with Jehovah Witnesses who have their false doctrine and works salvation as well. It is a spirit , They use the NIV , corrupted text with newer renderings and updates of their New World Translations. Much prayer and boldness of truth is the only thing that will CUT them , dividing the soul and the spirit and of the joints and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and the intent of the heart. It is the Holy Spirit that does the surgery with the KING JAMES 1611 ONLY....forget it if you try to use the others.
Re 33:16 -- the Latin-speaking churches didn't have a problem with Arianism?!?!?!
Are you aware at all of what the Vandals (who were Arians) did in North Africa?!?!?!
Where did you get the opening hymn clip?
I looked and the CD does not seem to be available anymore from where I got it: www.crownandcovenant.com/default.asp
However, Psalm 5c to the tune of Scarborough Fair can be found here: soundcloud.com/connorq/psalm-5c-tune-scarborough-fair
God bless,
Rob
Re: 40:20 -- There is a third option, of course: first, that some of the patristic citations you've used are phantoms, and, second, that the remaining authors (such as Priscillian, and the author of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles) sincerely but nevertheless erroneously regarded a non-original passage in the Latin copies to be genuine.
Re: 30:00 - Forster was grasping at straws. Irenaeus does not cite the CJ and neither does Tertullian, and the source that he identifies as Athanasius is not Athanasius.
James Snapp prove it
Re: 38:00 - The CJ is *not* in the Syriac. What happened (as Michaelis explains in his introduction to the Peshitta) is that the editors of the printed editions of the text of the Peshitta used in the 1500's simply inserted it.
Be truthful the only reason most of modern Christianity believes the Comma Johanneum is true is because they believe that God is a Trinity. The vast majority including you DO NOT have God's Spirit ( believe it or not) because you do not have rely on Gods works ALONE. For there has been ONE covenant , ONE testimony from Adam to this everyday and God's Words are Spirit and God's words are the truth. And the gates the grave have not prevailed against it.
James white won this one, but honestly yu still didn't present enuff solid info....
James white specifically said it was a gloss that got inserted into the latin vulgate.
It's not in codex vitanicus, sinaticus or alexandrian, neither in the early papyri..
But yu say it was in early Greek manuscripts that was destroyed? Really? If they were destroyed, how YOU kno it was ther? Where is the evidence?
Your question wont get answered because Robert passed away 1 year ago
We know it is in Greek manuscripts that have since perished because of what others have said in centuries past. John Gill and John Calvin are 2 of the best examples. Calvin said it was in "the best and most approved copies". And about the papyri, this shows you really haven't done your research because only 2 papyri contain portions of 1 John in the first place. The one papyrus that DOES have portions from chapter 5 is missing the text between verses 4 and 9, and even if we did have it it wouldn't matter because it is from the 7th century (P74). We have documentation if its existence long before then.
As to the idea that it was in manuscripts that were destroyed; it is asked how do we know they were there? This is a valid question. Allow me to answer.
In the original 1611 KJV there is a margin note regarding Luke 17:36. The verse is "Two men will be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left." The margin note says "This verse is wanting (lacking) in most of the Greek copies." This margin note is also in the Trinitarian Bible Society's Westminster Reference Bible.
Now, what does Luke 17:36 have to do with 1 John 5:7-8? There is no margin note in the 1611 KJV at 1 John 5:7-8 saying this is wanting (lacking) in most of the Greek copies. Therefore the translators working on the KJV from 1604-1611 had copies with the comma in it.
We also must remember there was The Great London Fire of 1666. Many documents were destroyed in that horrible fire, along with an estimated homes of over 70,000 people!
There were several editions of the Textus Receptus note from Erasmus 1514 historically ending in 1624 Abraham and Bonaventure Elzevir of Leiden. Now since the advent of the current technology I read the KJV differently and currently research the LXX and the translated version of the Codex Sinaiticus online since I could not find links to the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus and the Syrian translations into English online. 1 John 5:7-8 reads: 7 For they that testify are three, 8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one.. None of us should be lied to and we should be afforded the truth and demand the truth from all scholars and pastors.
Robert wieland
He did a fine job,the Lord will bless him
Been really enjoying your videos. PRIESTHOOD OF THE BELIEVER !!!
EXACTLY !!!
We can know if something is of God, if we are true converts.
Just like the scripture, and the modern trashlations, The inner witness has been telling me White ain't right.
I get the same "yuck" with him, as I get with the NIV.
thank you, rest in peace
Not yet convinced,....for the passage flows well without the 'comma', as the con-text is about Jesus Christ (coming by way of water and blood, the Spirit bearing witness,...NOT the Trinity at all.
+Paul Purcell My hope is that God will convince you of the inspiration of 1 John 5:7. In light of this I need some clarification: Are you suggesting that we excise the Comma simply because, according to some, that verses 6 and 8 flows well?
+Robert Paul Wieland Hi Robert,....not really, but without the comma it works just as well. I'm not really dogmatic about it either way, heck only 1/3 of the population even identifies as 'christian' let alone read the bible. It doesn't really matter to me, as I can have the comma or do without it, since I see it as an allegorical gloss or insertion anyways,...however you 'interpret' it. As far sa the trinity goes,...the trinity isn't helped or harmed by the inclusion. I
It is
Blessing to your family
Comma Johanneum?
A 45 minute video about a comma?
Seriously???
Let us just go back to the oracles of God, as we are commanded.
In English, that is the Holy Bible, King James Version.
No one who hears God's word, and seeks him therein, needs to question whether a particular comma was supposed to be there or not, to understand the scripture.
As it is written, And they shall all be taught of God.
Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
TheWordprophet
it's not a punctuation mark that's being disputed, it's an entire verse of the bible.
Mr. TheWordProphet: This page is not a place for you to teach whatever things you think come from the Bible. If you have legitimate questions/comments about this particular video, then limit your posts to those subject(s). All other posts will be deleted, and Jesus Christ is glorified when such is done.
The Comma Johanneum was a CLARIFICATION CLAUSE written on the margins near 1 John 5:7-8 which eventually got integrated into the text of the Bible so as to prevent any misinterpretations of the Trinity or any misunderstandings of the Spirit, Water and Blood being part of the Godhead. It is in no way "added" to the Bible so as to supply a "prooftext" of the Trinity as that is throughout the Bible beginning from Genesis 1:1-3 where it speaks of God the Father or Creator "In the beginning God CREATED..." and then God the Holy Ghost where it reads "and the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the deep" (Genesis 1:2) and God the WORD where it reads "and God SAID: Be Light made" (Genesis 1:3) and when you read the Gospel of John such as John 1:1 and you read throughout the Gospel of John and the Epistle of John it will super clear that it is all over John's writings. The Proof that this is not "adding" to the Word of God is in the key words "IN HEAVEN... The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost" and "ON EARTH...the Spirit the Water and the Blood" it was clearly a clarification clause to convey John's actual meaning and so that no heretics can misinterpret that passage to confuse Christ's Human Nature with his Divine and 1 John 5:7-8 can be read either with or without the Comma Johanneum as BOTH are VALID READINGS just like the Nicean Creed can be read with or without the Fillioque as both are valid ways of reading the Creed so long as there is no misinterpretation of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father ONLY for the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father AND it Proceeds from the Father AND THE SON. There is no dispute among the early Church Fathers regarding the Gospel of John and 1 John having the same author although there were disputes about 2 &3 John and Revelation being written by another John. With that being said, you also get the clear picture of the Trinity with 1 John chapter 2 when you compare that with John chapters 14 to 17 with regards to the Paraclete being the Holy Spirit and with regards to us being "One with the Father and the Son THROUGH the Holy Ghost" as is indicated in John 17:11,21-23 and 1 John 2:22-24 and the Paraclete is the Holy Ghost (John 14:26) and the "Spirit of Truth" (John 15:26).
Also notice how Douay Rheims uses the Word "Spirit" as distinct from the word "Ghost" for "Spirit" in "Spirit, Water and Blood" indicates BREATH and in the Old Testament the word "Spirit" when it reads "the Spirit of God hovered over the waters" indicates WIND and John Writes "it is not by Water ONLY" but by water and blood to indicate that the Word of God through whom God created the world did come in flesh and died and rose from the dead whereas in Genesis it is Spirit and Water but when the word became Flesh it was through Spirit, Water and Blood so the Comma Johanneum clause was not intended in any way to supply a "prooftext" of the Trinity but was simply to CLARIFY any confusions that may have arisen if people were to falsely interpret the water and blood as being part of the Godhead for in HEAVEN it is the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost that bare witness and on Earth it is the Spirit the Water and the Blood that bare witness to Christ's HUMAN Nature and as such it is all throughout the Gospel of John that Christ says "I one bare witness of myself" and "my father bares witness of me" and about the Paraclete the Holy Spirit that he shall testify of him so that it is ALL THROUGHOUT the Gospel of John and the Epistle of John so this clause wasn't some "scheme" to "add" a Trinity but was rather to clarify any misunderstandings of that passage in 1 John 5:7-8 and it has a very early origin as being part of the marginal gloss, to quote about it from the New Catholic Commentary of the Holy Scriptures: A Trinitarian interpretation of the Spirit the Water and the Blood can be traced back as far as Cyprian (AD 258). Augustine gives the same interpretation suggesting that by his time (c. 400) it had become an established marginal gloss. Vigilius of Thapsus (c. 490) regards it as an authentic part of the Vulgate.
Passages like 1 John 5:7-8 and the Woman Caught Committing Adultery passage found in John 7:53-8:11 and the Mark 16:9-20 passage are all proof also that you need both Bible AND Tradition to understand Christ's Message through His Apostles which constitute His Church and what they have intended with their writings and so John bares witness that there are three that bare witness in Heaven and on Earth and as such so with or without the comma the message is still clear when understood with the Bible AND Tradition and as such it was the will of Providence that this passage made it into most of the Print Texts of the New Testament from the 1500s to 1600s and onwards. We Catholics and Slavonic Orthodox Christians who tilt and lean towards Rome and Byzantine Rite Catholicism instead of Greek Orthodoxy are not bothered by reading 1 John 5:7-8 with or without the Comma Johanneum and likewise with or without the Fillioque in the Creed as both ways are authentic and since we are not obsessed with the false doctrine of "Bible Only" (Sola Scriptura) which is found nowhere in the Bible and itself is a man made tradition to us the Comma Johanneum is a valid part of the Bible along with John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 which are the three major passages in the Bible that Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims and Jews and others accuse us of "corrupting the Scriptures" but all throughout the Bible we read of God the Father, and his WORD which has made appearances to Abraham and the Prophets and "His Spirit" so the Comma Johanneum in many ways acts as a SEAL to the Scriptures as well as this was what was meant to be in the Print Text of the Bible as the Bible was divinely inspired in Print to include this most definitely and there is much to be said about the Qur'an for any Muslims that want to point to this as "proof" that the Bible is corrupt like when you read the footnote on A. Yusuf Ali's commentary on Koran 33:6 and elsewhere in the Qor'an where it talks about Christ being the Word and Spirit of God (Koran 4:171) It's fun to compare Koran 4:171 to Genesis 1:1-3 and John 1:1 as we read in Koran 4:171 that where it says that Christ is the Word of God or "Kalimullah" it same word "kalim" is used in the Arabic translation of the Bible in John 1:1 and where it reads of Christ being the "Spirit of God" or "Ruh Allah" in Genesis 1:2 it says "we RUHA ELOHIM" and Sunni Muslims believe the Qor'an (Word of God in Islam) to be ETERNAL and UNCREATED as Christians believe Christ (Word of God in Christianity AND IN THE QORAN) to be ETERNAL and UNCREATED as God Created THROUGH His Word "Be" when Christ said "BE LIGHT MADE" and hence God's WORD is "BEGOTTEN" and NOT CREATED but in the Qor'an God is Father to no one as Mohammed the progeny of Ismael was the Slave of God as Christ the progeny of Isaac was the Son of God and Christ said "the slave does not know what His Father is doing but the Son does and if the son therefore shall make you free then ye shall be free indeed" and also Galatians indirectly prophecies of Islam and also when we read about the Story of the Well of Hagar in Genesis which Muslims call Zamzam, HAGAR SAW the Pre Incarnate CHRIST Genesis 16:9-14, the ANGEL of the Lord that appeared to her was CHRIST in Genesis so if anything it's interesting to note that the Qor'an denies God being a Father and in the passage regarding Mohammed being the Seal of the Prophets "Khattam Nabiyyu" in Koran 33:40 but that could be different in the Qiraat of Ubay Ibn Kaab of which it reads in Koran 33:6 "and he is a father unto them" and there are hadith traditions that say that Surah 33 was much much longer and has been lost so maybe there were other things in the Qor'an and we don't know what was in the True Qor'an and maybe there was this "part" of the Qor'an that Mohammed must have told the Ethiopians that testified of Christ being God because if there is any hints of Mohammed being a Spiritual Father and that is not in the current 1924 Cairo Print Text of the Qur'an then WHAT ELSE could have been in the original Qor'an of Mohammed as such it is possible that Mohammed could have been a CHRISTIAN PROPHET and that later on Uthman had the other Qor'ans burnt which spoke of other things that could have lead to Confusion and it is possible also that Khadijah Mohammed's Wife could have been a Catholic along with her Uncle Warraqa nonetheless Christians must respect Mohammed as being a progeny of Abraham through Hagar and the Fuhrer Adolf Hitler who was a Catholic Prophet had much respect for Mohammed and Islam and as such if it could be proven that Hitler had unitarian Monotheistic beliefs and Constantine with Eusibius did too then there is Truth somewhere BETWEEN Christianity and Islam but as far as it goes, Providence has decreed for Christianity to be the leading and most dominant force and religion in the entire world and that is why we use the Christian ROMAN Calendar that is dated after Christ which GLORIFIES Christ and Muslims use it too and their Qor'an even bares witness to it as Shabir Ally boasted of how the Qor'an miraculously mentions the word "yaum" or "day" 365 times and the Muslim Calendar year is 355 days whereas the Christian Calendar is 365 days and the Qor'an speaks of the Followers of Christ "Christians" being Victorious Koran 3:55, 61:14 which is why Amin Al Husseini was guided by the Holy Spirit to join the Fuhrer's Crusade as he knew that his Jihad was ONE with the Fuhrer's Kampf and the Duce's and the Pope's CRUSADE as the CRUSADE, JIHAD AND KAMPF are ONE UNITED AND UNIVERSAL STRUGGLE AGAINST THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN (Rev. 2:9,3:9) and true Christianity is the "Hail Victory" Religion as Christ rose from the dead and the common THEME that Muslims and Christians can share with regards to why the Qor'an denies Christ being Crucified in Koran 4:157 is that the Jews DID NOT WIN but Christ WON
Despite the arguments, and debates concerning 1 John 5:7, the Real
Fact is---This verse is a Fabrication, a "Corruption" of the Text!
And anyone who cares to Research the matter, will Find, there were
quite a Few Scriptures that were, Altered in order to offer a trinitar-
ian slant.
Seek Wisdom.
Seek Truth.
A lot of errors.
J White is very dodgy by their fruits ...
Kjv onlyism is cultish and not Christian
+Robert Harbitz II I believe there are some who can be characterized in that fashion, but there are some sincere, honest, believing Christians who have fallen into that error. Let us not be so hot with labeling and name calling, but be sober and gentle with all men in the hope that they may recover themselves. Blessings in Jesus Christ, Rob.
th-cam.com/video/ODFum6fjqUg/w-d-xo.html
+Robert Paul Wieland I was not name calling or just labeling. From research and hearing them themselves I came to the sober judgment that it isn't a Christian belief. I didn't mean the people couldn't be Christian just the kjv only faith itself is sub biblical and not of Christ.
+Robert Paul Wieland I also want to say thank you for the work you have done on the comma, and I use the nkjv do you think it's a good bible?
Thank you, Robert, for your encouragement! Jesus is good to us all! When people tell me that they have a hard time with the KJ English, I then point them to the NKJV. There are other modern translations of the KJV out there, but, since the NKJV is the most popular, then it is that one that I recommend. The NKJV is not without its problems, though, and I would ultimately encourage you to learn Greek and Hebrew in order to read the original copies. Blessings, Rob.