Early Evidence for 1 John 5: 7

by Perry 114 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  kaik

  Rattigan.. He did not. To Jews, Jesus was another failed prophet, one many that claimed to be messiah. However, only Jesus became world mainstream religion that has nothing to do with original Jewish idea of Messiah as king, priest, and prophet. Jesus have not returned. He is dead and he is not coming, at least based on the Jewish faith.

  michelle.. Judaism and Christianity are not possible to reconcile due different beliefs. NT is nonsense for Jews. Centerpiece of Jewish faith is direct service to G-d as a way to restore humanity in the eyes of the Creator, not in a belief that some dude like Jesus had done that. For Judaism there is no way to accept that Jesus bridged through his sacrifice a gap between human and the G-d. This is even against direct what Jewish Covenant is about. What about Islam? Viking gods? Are these religions as well a part of God's plan?

  desings, it is so frustrating dealing with Christians who are so blinded to the idea that Jesus is not Messiah for Jews. On top of it, I am not sure what is more ridiculous, the claim that Jews do not understand OT and are wrong on it, or Jews fails to see divine inspiration in NT...

  Chris Tann, I am not Jew, but I married to one. I studied with rabbi and got a differnet perspective on OT and aspects of Jewish faith that is very different from Christianity and certainly from JW. Jews do not deny existence of Jesus as a historical figure, but they do not see him as a Messiah. Additionally considering that Jesus failed to return despite making claims to his followers only ensures me that he was a false prophet.
• 

  designs

  Rabbi Ausubel described seperating the errors about Judaism in the NT as an almost impossible task they are interwoven in such a clever way.

  Like trying to seperate the sauce from the spaghetti after they've been mixed.
• 

  Perry

  I appreciate your research Perry. There is also considerable research that demonstrates the spurious nature of 1 John 5:7

  I know. That is kinda a given being this is an ex-JW site. As a JW, I always heard that this was added in the 15 century or so blah, blah , blah. And, that it doesn't appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts blah, blah, blah. I was soooo sure that was the end of the matter. I was so cock sure of myself as a JW. Now, I realize there is much more to the story than that.

  If it was added in the 15th century like the Watchtower told us, then how did it get into all the other manuscripts and quotes from the early church fathers from as early as 170 AD?
• 

  designs

  Perry- why don't you address the Saint Augustine issue.

  www.puritanboard.com see Rev. Lane Keister on 1 John 5:7
• 

  designs

  Gawd I hope I didn't ask to a hard question.......
• 

  myelaine

  dear designs...

  maybe you recognize this account...

  once upon a time there was a jewish lady (representing the jews) AND a gentile lady (representing the church). The jewish lady's sons died and she said the Almighty had afflicted her. Then one day the gentile lady (representing the church) had a son (a kinsman Redeemer). The gentile lady gave the son into the arms of the jewish lady (representing the jews). Then the jewish ladies in bethlehem said, "here is a son BORN TO the jewish lady" (representing the jews).

  ruth 1:16

  ruth 1:21

  ruth 2:12

  ruth 4:10...11

  ruth 4:14-17

  love michelle
• 

  Rattigan350

  Kaik said " He did not. To Jews, Jesus was another failed prophet, one many that claimed to be messiah. However, only Jesus became world mainstream religion that has nothing to do with original Jewish idea of Messiah as king, priest, and prophet".

  It does not matter what the Jews thought of him. He became king after he was resurrected, also a priest. Then he can do something a human can't do.

  The real question is: Which was added first, the trinitarian formula of 1 John 5:7 or the one in Matt 28:19,20.

  Both are false teachings.
• 

  kaik

  Of course it matter, because Jesus was not messiah, and very bad prophet. He still failed to return 2000 years later. Yeah, but you believe it because Paul said so even when it violated the OT on multiple places.
• 

  kaik

  michelle, there is a problem with a Christian thinking and theology which insists that Jews must believe in the same as they do because they got it wrong and Christianity right. From the Jewish point, there cannot be a redeemer for sins, G-d could not suffer and die, there is no abyss of sin between humanity and G-d that is bridged by Jesus. There is more to it than accepting Jesus as messiah for Jews and Christianity is way different than Judaism. This is fact.
• 

  Terry

  There is a kind of--well, not KIND OF . . . there is an actual mythos around the origins of Christianity

  that there was only ONE teaching and it was correct (orthodox) which was taught pristinely by Apostles.

  As the Apostles died off, so the mythos goes, errors in teaching crept in.

  The Myth goes on to say: By the time the Universal (i.e. Catholic) Church finally became legal due to Constantine, Apostasy had reared its ugly head.

  ***

  Then, the story gets even more interesting!

  ____________________

  Not until the middle of the 16th century did God see fit to address this awful corruption and error when the Apostate

  monk, Martin Luther arrived and posted public criticism on the internet of his day, the Wittenburg Cathedral door.

  (That story too, is a bit of mythos!)

  According to Jehovah's Witnesses, it took even longer for Jehovah to get up off His majestic butt and hand-delivered the TRUTH to the FDS under graybeard loon Charlie Russell.

  Ha ha ha ha ha.

  _______________--

  The reality of all this is simple: myth is the story we tell ourselves to make everything work out into the "truth" we want to see.

  ________________

  Early Christianity was as confused, at odds, argumentative and opinionated as the 41,000 Christian denominations are today.

  There were simply numerically fewer divisions back then.

  **

  IDEAS and OPINIONS back then included both Trinity and Non-Trinity.

  There were many variants on those ideas.

  Let's not kid ourselves that the inclusion of material or exclusion one way or the other is DEFINITIVE other than holding a mirror up to part of the whole picture.

  copyists and redactors could exclude as well as include ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN OPINIONS!

  Christians disagreed with each other.

  When we read the Bible we aren't reading PROOF of anything. We are seeing a VERSION of a moment in time spread out over two millennia.

  Period.