Talk:First Epistle of John

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Bible (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religious texts (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing this article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

"Tertullian quoted... St. Cyprius quoted..." needs citing[edit]

Tertullian quoted these verses in 200 AD. St Cyprian quoted these verses around the year 250. This is contentious compared to the previous statement that documents appeared after 800 AD. If Tertullian and St Cyprius did quote the Comma Johanneum in 200 AD (and 250 AD), it would necessarily "appear" before 800 AD. First appear vs. appear in the extant copies.

It also needs quoting, because Tertullian developed the Trinity doctrine and formula. Tertullian could have been the source quoted in the epistle by a scribe in the margins, and the comment was subsequently absorbed into the epistle. (See List of Bible verses not included in modern translations)

--Phrenomics (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Neilinoz[edit]

The reason why I changed the section on authorship was that the previous version seemed to indicate that the Apostle John was only the traditional author, while at the same time seeming to show that a single authorship was only a 50/50 chance.

While it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the author was actually the Apostle John, the language, concepts and content in this epistle is very similar to both 2 John, 3 John and the Gospel of John. I simply added what the possibilities could be - John himself, one person acting as John, or a group of people acting together. Neilinoz

Modern scholars[edit]

The statement "Modern scholars believe" that the Apostle John is not among the list of possible authors seems too definitive. I simply added "many" to clarify. Ericscot 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Link[edit]

I removed a link to an article called "Did John’s Epistles Identify Paul As A False Prophet?", from http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/Free/ch13.pdf . I found the article to be full of original research and inaccuracies; perhaps someone else can verify whether it should really be there. / Fred-J 09:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Comma Johanneum[edit]

This section needs to be edited in line with the more accurate and balanced main article Comma Johanneum, leaving out or explaining the misleading "controversial" in the sentence "Among the most controversial verses of the Bible is an explicit reference to what some people consider the trinity". Nor is it the Trinity that "some people consider" in this case but the application of the reference that "some people consider". --Wetman (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If the verse is spurious, its reasonable to conclude the doctrine behind it is as well. - Judaizer