Rosary Campaign for October 13, 2001

you can order a FREE rosary tape or CD at really free Catholic tapes

Semper Fidelis

Yes, there is a big dispute over the proper translation of 1 John 5:7. But even if one uses the KJV, the phrase "these three are one" does not necessarily mean that these three are one God. It could mean "of one mind" or "in agreement." In the ideal marriage, for example, "two become one" but not in the same sense that the three Persons in God are one. Even 1 John 5:7, possibly the strongest Biblical reference to the Trinity, required the teaching Church to more fully explain its meaning. And that's what happened at Nicaea and Constantinople.

I don’t see a dispute here. John 5:7 spells it out. The book of John itself starts:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jesus is the Word, thus:

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Father = God
Word = Jesus
Holy Spirit = Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost

The King James 1611 DOES tell us the Three are One (Trinity). No other Bible I have found tells us this. Plus, if it is just showing agreement, why repeat this again in the next verse:

1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1 John 5:8 tells us that the Three are ONE, and then John 5:8 tells us that the three agree in one.

The King James. It spells it out. No other Bible I have found puts it the way the King James does. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that there are not other good Bible Translations with good truths in them. I myself like the New Living Translation Bible. It puts some things in very easy to understand wording, but when in doubt, I defer to the King James.

The rite of Baptism, I believe, was wholly created by the Church….

Bingo with this one. That is why I have no problem with some ceremonies:

Baptism:
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Communion:
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

The point of adopting these practices was to aid in the evangelization of the pagan world. After all, Christians are (or should be) more concerned about the salvation of souls than standing on soapboxes and condemning their cultures and environments. And hindsight suggests that the Church's adoption of certain pagan customs (to enhance the worship of Christ) aided the Western world in transitioning from paganism to Christianity. Evangelization is often a matter of tactics, tactics, tactics!

Something we can more or less agree on. I can understand that the idea was to aid in converting the of the pagan practices of the world, but unfortunately in some cases it may have worked the reverse. In my earlier example of the Catholic Church I visited that sang songs to the Earth Mother definitely has a problem with the reverse. On the other side, Holy Spirit Church (another Catholic Church) seemed very much in tune with Christ. While I myself don’t like the statues to Mary, Joseph, etc, and seeing Christ on the Cross, I understand the idea that this is to remind us of these people and honor them.

I do not have a problem with honoring Mary. I can even understand the idea of one asking Mary for her prayer, just as I would ask friend and family for prayers in time of need. At the same time, I have spoken with some who fully believe that they must PREY TO MARY.

I guess it really boils down to if you have the correct relationship with Christ.

Yes, I believe these are credible. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/ and http://www.diocesereport.com

It sounds like the KJV is much more explicit on the point, much more so than the original texts. Just as a practical matter, had the original texts been that explicit, Arias, in the early 4th Century, would not have been able to convince most of the Christian world that Jesus Christ was not God. But he was very much able to do so. That's why the Councils were called, and why St. Athanasius -- who led the fight against Arius -- was chased from his diocese on less than five occasions by the Arians.

Whoops...make that "on no less than five occasions...."

It sounds like the KJV is much more explicit on the point, much more so than the original texts. Just as a practical matter, had the original texts been that explicit, Arias, in the early 4th Century, would not have been able to convince most of the Christian world that Jesus Christ was not God. But he was very much able to do so. That's why the Councils were called, and why St. Athanasius -- who led the fight against Arius -- was chased from his diocese on less than five occasions by the Arians.

I want to know where these Original Texts that you keep mentioning are? As I have stated twice already, When I was in Rome, at the Vatican, I was told that no originals exist, only copies that have been copied by scribes over the centeries.

Or, by original texts, do you mean the incomplete and inaccurate texts of Alexandra? There are several Bibles that use those texts, which are not as old, and incomplete (missing many things, and also have things in them which are not found in other copies of text). One sign I have been told to look at in determining which are valid sources is if the text comes from Alexandra, or from Antioch, which was the root of Chistianity. I know that the King James uses the Antioch texts. Some Bibles tell you what texts they use, many do not. Unfortunately, Most today use the Alexandra texts

Perhaps rather than use the term "original texts," I have used the term "oldest manuscripts." I apparently had not read your posts closely enough. I thought that the Vatican officials had told you the Vatican did not have the originals. My understanding is that the oldest extant version of this text is "the Spirit, and the water, and blood."

Rosary link