Jesus Omnicient?

#41
Wow, that is weird I have 30 bible translations, and they are in everyone of them. How about this...

1John 5:7.. For there are three that testify.

This is in the original texts. Who do you suppose are the three who "testify"?

Joh 8:18.. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me."

1Jn 5:9.. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

Joh 5:37.. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

Joh 15:26.. "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.
The question is only concerning one verse 1In. 5:7

1Jn.5:7 spurious?

The Comma Johanneum (or Johannine Comma or Heavenly Witnesses) is a comma (a short clause) in the First Epistle of John,1 John 5:7–8. The scholarly consensus is that that passage is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript tradition in subsequent copies.

The passage in question, 1 John 5:7–8 (KJV), with the Comma inbold print, reads:

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

The Comma and the question of its authenticity have particular bearing on the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is central to most mainstream Christian denominations.

BTW I am a Trinitarian. I posted because we really cannot in all honesty use that verse to substantiate the doctrine of the trinity. We don't need to for there is ample evidence in scripture that supports the doctrine.
 
#42
The scholarly consensus is that that passage is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript tradition in subsequent copies.
The only person who would think 1 john 5:7 is "corrupted", and does not fit into scripture would be one who does not know scripture at all. As this truth is revealed through out the scriptures that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all agree in one, and testify of each other. First Jon 5:7 is not needed to prove the trinity, as it is taught through out all scripture, which is why it is there.
 
#43
The only person who would think 1 john 5:7 is "corrupted", and does not fit into scripture would be one who does not know scripture at all. As this truth is revealed through out the scriptures that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all agree in one, and testify of each other. First Jon 5:7 is not needed to prove the trinity, as it is taught through out all scripture, which is why it is there.
That's what I said. I am mearly informing you of what Church history teaches.
 
#44
The question is only concerning one verse 1In. 5:7

1Jn.5:7 spurious?

The Comma Johanneum (or Johannine Comma or Heavenly Witnesses) is a comma (a short clause) in the First Epistle of John,1 John 5:7–8. The scholarly consensus is that that passage is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript tradition in subsequent copies.

The passage in question, 1 John 5:7–8 (KJV), with the Comma inbold print, reads:

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

The Comma and the question of its authenticity have particular bearing on the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is central to most mainstream Christian denominations.

BTW I am a Trinitarian. I posted because we really cannot in all honesty use that verse to substantiate the doctrine of the trinity. We don't need to for there is ample evidence in scripture that supports the doctrine.
Your comment was............
" We don't need to for there is ample evidence in scripture that supports the doctrine."

I agree!

However, if we look a little deeper we find something else.

1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.

So why then is 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible, but not in many of the existing Greek manuscripts?

From (http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp).
During the early growth of the Christian church, ministers (whether saved or not) wrote down doctrines that they said were Christian and Biblical. Starting after the death of the apostles (about 100 AD) many people taught the lie that Jesus was not God the Son and Son of God, or that Jesus became God at His baptism, or the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit was not God or was not eternal.

The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.

But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles which of course they did.
 
Last edited:
#45
I agree fully with your last point. However, God's omniscience is not in question, rather it's the incarnate Christ's omniscience that is point of the thread. BTW I do believe Christ was omniscient. The answer lying in the H.U. as stated in an earlier post.
Was responding to a different person:) For some reason the reply quotation thing didn't post, apologies for the confusion.
 
#47
Your comment was............
" We don't need to for there is ample evidence in scripture that supports the doctrine."

I agree!

However, if we look a little deeper we find something else.

1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.

So why then is 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible, but not in many of the existing Greek manuscripts?

From (http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp).
During the early growth of the Christian church, ministers (whether saved or not) wrote down doctrines that they said were Christian and Biblical. Starting after the death of the apostles (about 100 AD) many people taught the lie that Jesus was not God the Son and Son of God, or that Jesus became God at His baptism, or the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit was not God or was not eternal.

The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.

But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles which of course they did.
Thanks!
It's not that I believe the verse should not be there as I have read all the for and against arguments. No, I am of the persuasion that one should not use it to support the doctrine of the trinity because of the controversy that surrounds it.
 
#48
Thanks!
It's not that I believe the verse should not be there as I have read all the for and against arguments. No, I am of the persuasion that one should not use it to support the doctrine of the trinity because of the controversy that surrounds it.
I understand your position. However, the info I posted I believe states that the controversy was man made and not a Biblical translation problem at all.