Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 1245240)

20 tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to hudōr kai to haima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence - both external and internal - is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647–49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence.

This longer reading is found only in nine late MSS, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these MSS (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other MSS in several places. The next oldest MSS on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining MSS are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516.

Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself.

He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek MSS that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever MSS he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it.

But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings - even in places where the TR/Byzantine MSS lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek MSS (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek MSS until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history.

Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.


Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (1 Jn 5:7–9). Biblical Studies Press.

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013 (Post 1243274)

My very good Friend has a book with quotes from a 1st century source. In it, they speak of the body baptizing in the titles according to Matthew 28.

The reality, is that prior to our having a canonized scripture, you would have had groups out there who perhaps ONLY had Matthew as fas as the gospels go. Hence they would have baptized as Matthew 28 instructs them. Later, once the canon was compiled it became IMO clear that Jesus Name baptism was the only scripturally endorsed means of proper baptism.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword (Post 1251240)

Yes there were groups of Christians that did not have the gospel of Matthew, and there were different versions of Matthew floating around.

However we must remember that the church begun at Pentecost in the Book of Acts led by all the Apostles guided by the Spirit of Truth.

There are also plenty of forgeries claiming baptism in the trinity in the first centuries, but most of them have already proven to be falsifications by the Trinitarians.

Originally Posted by renee819 (Post 1250627)

The bottom line is, did the apostles obey Jesus commands? Absolutely!

And Jesus did give them commands of how to set up the New Testament Church.
And Peter summerized the One Plan of salvation in Acts 2:38 And they obeyed the gospel all through the book of Acts, the only book in the Bible that tells us how to be saved.

The Four Gospels, is not the gospel. It is te life of Jesus
Acts tells us how to be saved.
The Letters tells us how to let the 'fruit of the Spirit" come forth.

There is only One Gospel,as Paul tells us,...

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed

Originally Posted by UnTraditional (Post 1251589)

May I ask this question, and please note that I am not seeking to be contentious or abrasive. You all know I once held that one must be baptized in Jesus name to be saved, then didn't, then did, then didn't, etc. But, my question is, if a person is going down in the waters of baptism with the preacher saying the triune formula, would they not be doing so in the authority of Christ? I do believe Jesus name baptism is an acceptable formula for baptism, but the point I want to make is this, that if it were that vitally important that baptism be done correctly, why then is the Holy Spirit being so heavily and wonderfully being poured out upon those who have not been baptized in Jesus name?
Like I said, not to be contentious, but just a point to ponder.

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013 (Post 1245173)

Sorry, I hadn't been back to look atthe thiread for a while.

The book this info is in is called Early CHristain Writings. It is available on Amazon. I have not read it, but the information is in the book according to my friend. References to baptism in the titles clearly being done in the first century so during the time of the Apostolic Fathers.

Again, I am a believer in Jesus name baptism being the only correct means of baptism, but we can't ignore parts of history we don't like just because they cause a little hiccup in our doctrinal stance.

Originally Posted by Pliny (Post 1251715)

I have not checked here lately either.
However, it appears that the "evidence" then is purely speculative.
Thank you.