WHICH IS IN HEAVEN

by
Scott Jones

Many modern bible versions, including the NIV, NASB, NRSV, et al, omit the last clause in this verse. This omission speaks volumes with regard to the spiritual state of those who crafted these bibles, for this particular clause - "which is in heaven" - is not in the least wise expendable, and any man who has been born of the Spirit of Christ and who has engaged in true spiritual warfare knows it. Only unregenerate men could have omitted this clause, for the Holy Spirit bears unmistakable testimony to the veracity of these words in every man he indwells. In fact, the experienced believer understands that this clause is THE cornerstone of true spiritual warfare. It is therefore no wonder that Satan would direct his malice at these particular words. In short, this clause is mandatory, and every mature Christian indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ is aware of it.

In glaring contrast, Jesus' words were apparently too plain for apostate biblical scholarship, which seems to be a habitual occurrence going back to Nicodemus. How can these modern-day Pharisees possibly understand heavenly matters when "seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them?" Mark 4:12 Jesus truly made it so very, very plain, and yet, it is hidden from the wisdom of this world. Yea, so very plain indeed - but only to those who are born of the Spirit of Christ - for in the initial clause of this verse the Lord of Glory revealed the direction of his focus, namely - heavenward, not earthward - "no man hath ascended up to heaven" - a direction of focus that the truly born again Christian always has before him, for the Holy Ghost sees to it, and a direction which is always the abode - both mentally and spiritually - for all of those who are truly born again, as it is written - "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God... For ye are dead, and YOUR LIFE IS HID WITH CHRIST IN GOD." Colossians 3:1-3

Indeed, even laying aside the spiritual mandate in this crucial passage, neither the English by itself nor the Greek by itself makes any real sense - especially any theological sense - without the subordinate clause - "which is in heaven." But then, modern bibles like the NIV and NASB are literally overflowing with meaningless statements - some even more ridiculous than this one (Luke 4:4, Ephesians 3:9, ad nauseam) - aye, numerous mutilations of Scripture in modern bibles have turned many profound utterances of the Spirit into pure, unadulterated nonsense, just like this one. As if the artisans of these fabrications have never understood that there are certain declarations, especially in matters of the Spirit, which have absolutely no force at all without the impact of the subordinating clause.

Nevertheless, for those in whom the Spirit of Christ truly bears witness, let them shout "Hosanna in the highest," for "the Son of man which is in heaven" - and who is greater than John the Baptist, as it is written -

"Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding HE THAT IS LEAST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS GREATER THAN HE" Matthew 11:11 (whoso readeth, let him understand) -

Yea, let all the saints shout "Hosanna in the highest," for "the Son of man WHICH IS IN HEAVEN" - who was greater than John at all times - was able to behold "Satan as lightning FALL FROM HEAVEN." Luke 10:18, a feat which would have been impossible had the Son of man not ascended - as the Son of man, in Adam's stead - "up to heaven," and there retained his authority, as the Son of man. Aye, and so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit of Christ and who now abides in him, for it is written again - "For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." Colossians 3:3 But alas, we haven't time to mine this vein of theological and spiritual warfare, for while there is a very great feast to be had in these words, suffer this kernel of truth to be sufficient for now. At present, simply know that the foregoing clause - "which is in heaven" - is not in the least wise expendable, and he who is born of the Spirit of Jesus Christ knows it with a divine certainty.

Of course, this omission in modern bibles is not surprising. Not only does the present pipeline of apostasy regarding God's Word fulfill prophecy, but this omission is just further proof of the total incompetence of mainstream biblical scholarship and their delusory mental and spiritual states, as this clause has such overwhelming evidentiary support that only someone with an utter and complete ignorance of the basics of evidence could fail to see it. Further, mainstream biblical scholarship's treatment of this passage and others like it - such as 1 Timothy 3:16 - belies their feigned sincerity and hypocritical protests adorning their pontifical tirades against the Comma Johanneum, for by perverting John 3:13, 1 Timothy 3:16, and other such heavily attested passages in the Traditional Text, mainstream biblical scholarship has demonstrated that no amount of evidence will move them off of their wicked and frenzied assaults against Jesus Christ and his written Word, and thus their corybantic homilies of "insufficient evidence" for the Comma Johanneum is merely a cloak for their sin, for no amount of evidence would suffice to quell their lascivious appetite for falsehood, as John 3:13, 1 Timothy 3:16, and so many other passages clearly proves.

In fact, the general tenor of the text of the New Testament has already become academic for this wicked and adulterous generation of professing Christians. The general tenor of the text of the New Testament has already been determined for modern mainstream bible scholars and their blind followers. They are oblivious to it, of course, for they are in the "snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will" 2 Timothy 2:26, and therefore in them is this scripture also fulfilled - "The god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." 2 Corinthians 4:4

Yea, know of a certainty that their text has already been predetermined, and that by their father, who "was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him." John 8:44 The carnal and the ignorant can banter and bluster all they like, but this fact is nevertheless crystal clear to every one who is born of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, for such matters are spiritually discerned, and every one born of the Spirit of Christ has been given an undeniable facility for percipience in this especial matter.

Naturally, this does not mean that every person who adheres to the Traditional Text is born again, but it does mean that those who in fact are born again will adhere to the Traditional Text (when given the choice) and will simultaneously repudiate any other text, for the modern tenor of mainstream biblical scholarship, leavened by Satan and dished up for all who are "deceiving, and being deceived" 2 Timothy 3:13, has one maxim, and one maxim only, namely - the lower the Christology, the better. As regards the text of the New Testament, that is the maxim of mainstream biblical scholarship in a nutshell. Furthermore, this maxim is resolute, for modern textual criticism must purvey an exceedingly low Christology in order for their pet theories to survive, and thus low Christology is the tenor of mainstream biblical scholarship through and through. And make no mistake - this tenor is born by Satan, energized by Satan, and maintained by Satan through blind but willing emissaries who have been in control of biblical scholarship for at least one hundred and fifty years now.

Consequently, be not deceived, professing Christian: the Greek text stitched together by mainstream biblical scholarship has as its cornerstone the spirit of Iscariot, the very son of perdition, who's low Christology is now infamous, and this degrading cornerstone of apostasy could not be more plainly reflected than that which is exhibited by modern bibles such as the NIV, NASB, NRSV, et al, for the Christology in these bibles is not only devilishly low, but utterly fraudulent as well. (See Example #2 in Satan's Semantics for a demonstration of fraudulent Christology in modern bibles such as the NIV, NASB, et al)

Conversely, the one text that Satan despises and hates with unremitting abandon, the one text that has sounded Satan's death knell in every nook and cranny where God has been pleased to unleash it, is the Traditional Text¹, especially as headed up by the Authorised Version, and this is due to the extraordinarily high Christology reflected in this text, for Satan knows - even though mainstream bible scholars don't - that this high Christology is absolute truth, and furthermore, that this high Christology is absolutely and unequivocally what the Holy Spirit inspired when he moved the holy penmen of the New Testament to compose the autographa, and the Holy Spirit bears unmistakable testimony to this fact in every one he indwells. There are no exceptions.

In contrast, it becomes quickly evident that when reading through the text critical commentaries of mainstream biblical scholarship, thereby suffering spiritual molestation at the unholy and unregenerate hands of evil men in an evil undertaking, and thus discovering their rationale for excluding such clauses as that which is now before us - "which is in heaven" - that we are invariably met with statements which tell us that clauses like the present were adaptations of "later Christological development."² This is the sine qua non of modern biblical textual criticism, for the leading trend in modern textual criticism bases a great many such excisions and alterations of Scripture on the assertion of "later Christological development."

Of course, no man born of the Spirit of Jesus Christ - let me repeat that - no man born of the Spirit of Jesus Christ could EVER make such a statement. It is not just improbable; it is simply impossible for a truly regenerate Christian to make such a statement, for the Holy Spirit indites the very highest Christology in every believer he indwells - there are no exceptions - and in fact, the more filled with the Holy Spirit a person is, the higher will be his Christology. That is axiomatic, and there is "no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

In that vein, the Apostles who wrote the New Testament possessed the very highest Christology, for the Apostles who wrote the New Testament had the greatest measure of the Holy Ghost. Accordingly, men who make statements like the above - namely, that the doctrine of Christology more or less "developed" over time - are men who have never been born again, and we can be utterly dogmatic about that, for the born again Christian - even if he is unaware of every other doctrine - is nevertheless supernaturally quickened by the Spirit who infuses the highest Christology into every one who is born of the Spirit. The newly born again believer may not even know that this doctrine has a name; he may not know that what has just happened to him - that is, being born again - can even be classified as a doctrine, nevertheless, the newly born again believer has just been indwelt by the Spirit - even the Holy Spirit of Almighty God - who not only established the doctrine of Christology in the first place, but who also holds and upholds the doctrine of Christology and places it on a pedestal so high that it exceeds all other doctrines COMBINED. See "The Blood Of Jesus Christ - Part I, Section II" for a CLEAR demonstration of this.

Take heed therefore how ye hear - the doctrine of Christology exceeds all other doctrines COMBINED, for all other doctrines proceed from the doctrine of Christology - hear it again - ALL OTHER DOCTRINES PROCEED FROM THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTOLOGY - there are NO exceptions, none whatsoever - and it is the Holy Ghost HIMSELF who sees to this. Whoso readeth, let him understand.

Thus, it is clear to those who are born of God that mainstream biblical scholarship knows nothing of the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit communicates instantaneous revelation to every one he indwells - there are no exceptions - and this instantaneous infusion of instruction by the Holy Spirit results in a commensurate instantaneous Christology which ignites the spirit of the believer he indwells and causes him to pay the very highest homage to Jesus Christ. Perhaps a short quotation from A.W. Tozer is apropos here - "In the Scriptures and in church history, persons filled with the Spirit always knew they were filled, and it was an instantaneous act - not a gradual filling. The Tozer Pulpit, Vol I

There are no exceptions, and every one who has been born of the Spirit of Jesus Christ knows it. This is exactly what happened to the Apostles, and the born again believer consequently understands that there has not existed on earth a higher Christology than that which existed in the Apostles who wrote the new Testament. The Apostles who wrote the New Testament had the greatest measure of the Spirit of Christ ever, and with their measure of the Spirit of Christ came the highest Christology that any age has ever seen. Thus, statements by mainstream biblical scholarship that Christology merely "developed" over time are just one of the many infallible proofs that these scholars and pastors are not born of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, and thus it is impossible for them to see and hear God's true Word because God's true Word was authored by the Spirit they do not have.

Because the modern Anglo-Sanhedrin is is not born again, they have never understood the true depth of one of the simplest and plainest utterances concerning the Holy Spirit that the Lord Jesus was ever pleased to make - "He shall testify of me." John 15:26 There is more meat in those few words than all the words in all the books in ten thousand worlds combined.

Now, before moving ahead and examining the actual evidentiary testimony for this passage, we must quickly dispel another popular myth - and be advised in the interim that in modern biblical textual criticism "myth" reigns supreme - a myth and a notion which circulates widely today, namely, the fashionable but absurd notion which postulates that biblical textual criticism must be "theologically objective." What utter foolishness. In the first place, objectivity itself is a myth. Purely speaking, there is no such thing as objectivity - and this is especially so in the field of biblical textual criticism. Thus it can be taken as axiomatic that the man who believes he is theologically objective in biblical textual criticism is a man who has sunk so deeply into the slough of self-deception that it would take a heavenly crane to lift him out of it. Such a  man is not only thoroughly and wholly deceived, but dishonest as well, and his comments can therefore be dismissed and rejected out of hand, for he knows not whereof he speaks.

Indeed, even the agnostic or the atheist makes theological statements, and he does so with every word he utters. The truly born again Christian sees this as clearly as he sees the light of the sun, for it is written - "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Matthew 12:30 The fact is, the man who is not born again, whether he be a professing Christian or a non-professing Christian, it matters not, if he is not born again, he harbors a secret pride and enmity against Jesus Christ - his sycophantic lip-service notwithstanding - and every breath he draws and every action he takes is the product of flesh. Even though he may appear to be honoring God, just as the devils who bowed before Jesus appeared to be honoring God, he is in fact catering to the flesh, and his God-honoring "service" is a sham, no matter how sincere he may be. In short, we see evidence of this type of delusional prevarication on every side these days. Accordingly, suffice it to say that no man is objective - as Jesus himself testified in the above verse - especially in the field of biblical textual criticism, and any man who says he is objective is either lunatic or liar.

For a quick breath of fresh air, observe this prescient statement by John Burgon, Dean of Chichester in the late 19th century, concerning objectivity. Burgon - a master in the biblical languages in his own right, far superior in Greek and Latin to that which biblical scholarship has to offer today, as can been seen by simply reading their respective works - had this to say regarding the inclusion of a Unitarian on the 1881 Revision Committee led by Westcott & Hort, a Committee, we might add, which produced essentially the very Greek text that serves as the base for most modern bibles like the NIV, NASB, NRSV, et al, today -

"But even if the Unitarian [Vance Smith] had been an eminent Scholar, my objection would remain in full force; for I hold (and surely so do you!), that the right Interpretation of God's Word may not be attained without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whose aid must first be invoked by faithful prayer." Revision Revised, p 507

Of course, John Burgon actually had the Holy Spirit, unlike Westcott & Hort and the progenitors of modern bibles, so he knew how utterly critical it was to be illumined by the Holy Spirit in every facet of translating God's Word. As a brief aside, I also find it quite illuminating that Charles Spurgeon in his great work, The Treasury of David, quoted John Burgon numerous times, whereas he did not quote Westcott or Hort even once. Charles Spurgeon, who was born of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, obviously recognized the same Spirit in John Burgon. And since Burgon was a contemporary of Spurgeon, Spurgeon's employment of quotations from the illustrious Dean of Chichester appears to be a double honor, for Spurgeon generally quoted mostly old-timers from the days of the Reformation, not contemporaries. In any case, we haven't time to explore this particular artery known as "objectivity" in detail, but suffice it to say that It is crystal clear to the mature regenerate believer that modern bibles are the product of flesh, not the product of the Holy Spirit. Conversely, the underlying Textus Receptus in Greek and the Authorised Version in English are permeated with the Holy Spirit through and through, and God himself has borne witness to this fact to everyone who is born of the Spirit. Only the unregenerate are unable to recognize it, and they are blind followers of the blind.

Indeed, the leading guru of modern textual criticism, Bruce Metzger - the same man who insists that the clause - "which is in heaven" - reflects "later Christological development," the same man who insists that Christology "developed" over time, races headlong into further heresy and unbelief - and further validation that he is unregenerate and has no business guiding the Church in her selection of God's Eternal Word - for Metzger stated unabashedly - "The only comment which needs to be made here is that a comparison of the trends in the textual criticism of the ILIAD and the MAHABHARATA, two great national epics the transmission of which reveals certain parallels to the transmission of the Gospels, is instructive for the New Testament scholar. Textual critics of both these corpora of quasi-religious literature are convinced that they are growing texts, and that no scribe deliberately excised any considerable portion of either poem."³

As noted earlier, no man born of the Spirit of Jesus Christ could EVER make such a statement. It is not just improbable; it is simply impossible for a truly regenerate Christian to make such a statement. To compare the textual criticism of the New Testament with a Hindu epic and a Greek fable displays not only complete ignorance with regard to spiritual matters - let it be repeated - complete ignorance with regard to spiritual matters - but also demonstrates a de facto denial of the inspiration of Scripture by the Holy Ghost, and any man who doesn't understand that is himself in grave trouble. Yet this man, Bruce Metzger, has been the premier architect of mainstream biblical textual criticism for many years now, and it is this man who mainstream bible scholars continue to parrot, not only in their speech, but in their efforts and artifices as well. It is this man's fruit, along with his peers - grounded almost wholly on the leaven of Westcott & Hort - that modern bibles such as the NIV, NASB, NRSV, et al, are based on.

In refreshing contrast to such glaring apostasy (and any man who doesn't recognize glaring apostasy in the above statement by Metzger is wholly deceived), hear Burgon once more, who verily pinpoints just how confused Metzger and his blind followers truly are. Burgon first underscores the foundation of biblical textual criticism - "That which distinguishes Sacred Science from every other Science which can be named is that it is DIVINE, and has to do with a book which is inspired; that is, WHOSE AUTHOR IS GOD."⁴

Burgon then goes on to reveal the downward spiral of mainstream biblical scholarship and the undeniable proof that the men who have been in control of biblical textual criticism are not born again - "It is chiefly from inattention to this circumstance that misconception prevails in that department of Sacred Science known as Textual Criticism. Aware that the New Testament is like no other book in its origin, its contents, its history, many critics of the present day nevertheless permit themselves to reason concerning its Text, as if they entertained no suspicion that the words and sentences of which it is composed were destined to experience an extraordinary fate also. They make no allowances for the fact that INFLUENCES OF AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KIND from any with which profane literature is acquainted have made themselves felt in this department, and therefore that even those principles of Textual Criticism which in the case of profane authors are regarded as fundamental ARE OFTEN OUT OF PLACE HERE. It is impossible that all this can be too clearly apprehended."⁵

Finally - and in a telling expose' of the unregenerate men of mainstream biblical scholarship whose position is diametrically opposite that of the testimony of the Scripture and the Holy Ghost - Burgon lays the axe to the root  - "No sooner was the work of the Evangelists and Apostles recognized as the necessary counterpart and complement of God's ancient Scriptures and became the New Testament, than a reception was found to be awaiting it in the world closely resembling that which He experienced Who is the subject of its pages. Calumny and misrepresentation, persecution and murderous hate, assailed Him continually. AND THE WRITTEN WORD IN LIKE MANNER, IN THE EARLIEST AGE OF ALL, WAS SHAMEFULLY HANDLED BY MANKIND. NOT ONLY WAS IT CONFUSED THROUGH HUMAN INFIRMITY AND MISAPPREHENSION, BUT IT BECAME ALSO THE OBJECT OF RELENTLESS MALICE AND UNSPARING ASSAULTS."⁶

The "accuser of our brethren," which is Satan, doesn't hate the Iliad and the Mahabharata. Satan does, however, hate - and hate with a vengeance - the New Testament, and notwithstanding Metzger's spiritual ignorance, Satan had - and still has - a vested interest in the corruption of the New Testament. On the other hand, Satan couldn't care less about the integrity of the Iliad and the Mahabharata.

The simple truth - a truth that is easily understood by the truly regenerate Christian - indeed, it doesn't even have to be explained to the truly regenerate Christian - is that Satan hates the New Testament, and he especially hates the very text that produced the greatest outpouring of the Holy Spirit that the world has ever seen, an outpouring which took place in the Reformation and the generations following, an outpouring which flowed like a pure river of priceless oil from the golden pipes of the Textus Receptus. Just as Satan assailed the Living Word when the Living Word was in the flesh, Satan also assailed the Written Word after being vanquished by the Living Word in the resurrection from the dead.

The fact that mainstream bible scholars don't understand even the rudiments of this prodigious effort by Satan, along with their total inability to discern its resultant fruit, and the fact that they are unable to trace Satan's footsteps through this internecine process - for Satan's profane footsteps in his mutilation of the New Testament are plainer than daylight to the truly born again Christian - speaks volumes. The fact that mainstream biblical scholarship is oblivious to all this, the fact that mainstream biblical scholarship believes that the transmission of Greek and Hindu fables can be compared to the transmission of the New Testament, makes them allies with the prince of darkness, and as their prince is, so are they, for as far as Satan and mainstream biblical scholarship are concerned, the maxim stands - the lower the Christology, the better.

Be warned, professing Christian: any man who believes that Christology "developed" over time and that the "transmission" of the Gospel of Jesus Christ has "parallels" to Hindu and Greek tales, is a man who is not only blind, but willfully so. His presumed "objectivity" has in fact made him the most prejudiced and unreasonable man in the field. Aye, let mainstream bible scholars come to the defense of their guru if they dare, for the truly born again believer - whose loyalty is to Jesus Christ and no one else - understands that such statements are not only indefensible, but are in fact overt blasphemies against Jesus Christ and his Word, and the Holy Ghost HIMSELF testifies so, and if you are born of the Spirit of Christ, you know it inviolably. Ergo, take heed, professing Christian, for if you follow such men, you will land on top of them when you fall into the ditch, for it is written - "If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." Matthew 15:14

Biblical textual criticism is not play-school; biblical textual criticism is not a romping ground for the fertile imaginations of unregenerate men who don't believe the Scriptures are any more inspired than Hindu and Greek epics; biblical textual criticism is Divine, and before a man enters its sacred domain he had better learn how to put off the shoes from off his feet, for the place whereon he standeth is holy ground, and he will answer for his sacrilege if he fails the test, just as the men from Bethshemesh were made to answer (1 Samuel 6:19). Be warned, therefore, professing Christian, and consider your ways before you seek to trifle with God's Word, for you will surely account for God's words on the very day that you account for your own idle words, even every idle word that you speak.

Yea, while the vast majority of those who engage in what is to them only an art form and who therefore don't truly believe in a literal devil - their bogus assertions and public proclamations notwithstanding - and who don't believe that a literal devil operated with demonic fervor in his corruption of the New Testament from its very inception, a corruption which he continues to mastermind even to this day, such men, be it known, are in fact among God's greatest enemies and Satan's greatest allies, for the simple truth is - and it will be revealed in panoramic detail in the day of the Lord - a literal devil does exist, in spite of mainstream biblical scholarship's blindness to his wiles, and his efforts against the New Testament have been relentless.

Accordingly, professing Christian, if you hear nothing else while you read this short treatise, hear this - the Holy Spirit bears witness to his true Word (but only for those who are born of the Spirit), and the Holy Spirit could not have been clearer concerning the true text of the Bible. Again, God could not have made it plainer, at least to the truly born again believer - for God reveals his truth to babes, not to the slick and sagely of this world, as it is written - "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes" Matthew 11:25 - thus, God could not have made it plainer to the truly born again Christian that the Textus Receptus is the very text upon which God the Father has set his seal, ("wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them"), and thus mainstream bible scholars are merely treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath for themselves, for those scholars and pastors who have embarked on this vendetta against the Textus Receptus - the same Textus Receptus that Jesus Christ clearly stamped with the full imprimatur of his own glorious person in the greatest outpouring of his Spirit that the world has ever seen - such men, be it known, such scholars and pastors who have been unrelenting in their assault on this text, and who are almost solely responsible for quashing the fire and thereby the fruit of the Reformation due to their wicked alteration of the very text of the Reformation - for it all goes back to the underlying text - such scholars and pastors, be it known, are enemies of our Lord, and of his Christ, aye, they have verily taken counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, and therefore be assured that they will not stand in the congregation of the righteous on the day of judgment.

Yea, it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for those who have trampled on the godly fruit of the Reformation by corrupting the very text of the Reformation - the very text that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost bore unmistakable witness to, a witness that is plainer than the sun shinning in its strength to the truly born again Christian - yea, it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for these who have corrupted God's Word to inherit the kingdom of heaven.

In short, the born again believer who possesses true experience praying in the Holy Ghost knows that Jesus Christ himself has testified to the Textus Receptus, for the Holy Ghost bears unmistakable witness to this fact in the man he indwells. Aye, the born again believer has a double witness, for in addition to the Holy Ghost bearing witness to his written Word in the spirit of the believer he indwells, the born again believer also knows that Jesus Christ himself has testified to the truth of the Textus Receptus by the genuine fruit which he bore through it - genuine fruit, we say, not counterfeit fruit, but genuine, which is not to be confused with the pervasive counterfeit fruit that is so effusive today and which attempts to pass itself off as the true - (and therein lies the acid test) - and thus the scholars and pastors who have corrupted the genuine fruit of God's genuine Word will not set foot in the kingdom of Jesus Christ.

No doubt many will make sport of the genuine fruit borne by Jesus Christ through the Textus Receptus, aye, many will spurn the genuine fruit borne by Jesus Christ through the text of the Reformation and instead attempt to substitute the counterfeit fruit of modern bibles for the genuine fruit of days gone by, thus "changing the truth of God into a lie," just as Metzger has done, and even gloated about it when he stated - "Thus the story of the making of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible with the expanded Apocrypha is an account of the TRIUMPH OF ECUMENICAL CONCERN OVER MORE LIMITED SECTARIAN INTERESTS. AT LAST (AND FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE REFORMATION) one edition of the Bible had received the blessing of leaders of Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox churches alike."⁷ I'll be happy to pin a medal on the first person who can find an ounce of "objectivity" in that statement. Yes indeed - many will decry the genuine fruit borne by Jesus Christ through the Textus Receptus, the very text of the Reformation.

But the Lord has a word for these adulterers - "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20 And thus, because mainstream biblical scholarship cannot tell the bitter from the sweet, they will not set foot in the kingdom of Jesus Christ. Of that, every born again believer can be certain, for this assault against the Lord of Glory and his true Word will verily be answered in kind on that day when every knee bows before Jesus Christ as he sits upon the throne of his glory, even his great white throne of judgment.

Certainly, some of those who have acted in ignorance may still be given space to repent, for the Lord Jesus even extended to Jezebel such a momentary courtesy (Revelation 2:21), howbeit, only momentary, primarily so that her cavernous mouth would be stopped on the day of judgment, so that she would be without excuse. Aye, even repentance is a gift, albeit a gift that comes with time constraints - for the Lord gave Jezebel space to repent indeed, but not repentance itself, and it is of course recorded that she repented not, even though she was wholly responsible for doing so within the space allotted - have you ears to hear with, backslider? - nevertheless, godly repentance is a gift just like faith is a gift, and just as Esau sought repentance carefully with tears, but found it not, so will it be with the vast, vast majority of those who have corrupted God's Word, as the Scriptures themselves do testify, for in the economy of eternity, God reserves very few for himself; in the economy of eternity God has given very few, comparatively speaking, to his Son. There is an "elect of God," both of angels and men (Colossians 3:12, 1 Timothy 5:21), yea, and it is not merely the elect that God has reserved for himself, but God's own elect, as it is written - "And shall not God avenge HIS OWN elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?." Luke 18:7

God's own elect do not engage in the corruption of God's own Word.

Yea, every unrepentant corrupter of God's Word will discover, albeit too late, just how intensely Jesus Christ prizes his written Word in this earth, and all their machinations will melt away before even the semblance of a paltry attempt at an answer reaches their libidinous tongues, so searing will the Lamb's wrath and condemnation against them be in that terrible day. Aye, they will verily learn how zealously the Lord Jesus treasures his written Word in this earth, and how closely he has borne it in his breast through all of these rebellious centuries, and through all of Satan's malicious assaults upon it, assaults in which mainstream biblical scholarship is complicit, and thus they will learn in that day, yea, they will learn in that day how intensely the Lord Jesus Christ broods over his written Word in this earth, and while these unrepentant corrupters of God's Word now sit smugly in their lairs, believing in themselves that it is the drunkard and the prostitute and the drug addict that the Lord Jesus will pay off in the day of judgment, alas, these unrepentant corrupters of God's Word are nevertheless deluded, and deluded mightily, for many drunkards and prostitutes and drug addicts will go into the kingdom of heaven in that day, while the Lord Jesus himself will sit upon the throne of his great glory and pay off - not the drunkards and the prostitutes and the drug addicts who have received grace through their weaknesses - nay, but the Lord Jesus himself will pay off the unrepentant corrupters of God's Word for their own incessant and unremitting wickedness, yea, as John Bunyan so wisely observed -

"And therefore whosoever they be that slight the Scriptures, they slight that which is no less than the Word of God; and they who slight that, slight him that spake it; and they that do so, let them look to themselves, for God will be revenged on such." A Few Sighs From Hell

Aye, the damnation of those who have mislead professing Christians by the corruption of God's Word and the fruit thereof, and who remain unrepentant over it (and repentance has time constraints), will be a great damnation indeed, for their spirit is the spirit of Iscariot - undeveloped Christology and all - and as it is written of Iscariot, so will it be true of them - "Therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the GREATER SIN." John 19:11

Now then, since mainstream biblical scholarship has shown themselves vulnerable to the testimony of two chronic habitual liars - Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus - two lecherous emissaries from the land of Tophet, a land which will receive all who heed their stammering voice in the awful day of Jesus Christ's judgment against his enemies, aye - since mainstream biblical scholarship has verily shown themselves vulnerable to these two representatives of the Man of Sin, and thus allies to the same, and therefore enemies of Jesus Christ, a vulnerability which can only be characterized as an incoherent and mindless superstition, further demonstrating that mainstream bible scholars are robotically incapable of the slightest degree of sound judgment, it should therefore breed no wonder that this pronounced ineptitude on their behalf should so blind them as to overlook the utterly conclusive evidentiary testimony in this particular verse, not to mention the impossibility of any man born of the Spirit of Christ being unaware of the critical nature of the clause in question, as well as the Lord's employment of this clause at such a critical juncture in his discourse, and the testimony of the Holy Ghost bearing witness so powerfully to the veracity of these words in every one he indwells.

Indeed, the material evidence for the clause - "which is in heaven" - is so massive that John Burgon, after walking his reader through the comprehensive and wide-ranging assimilation of facts - and in the process demonstrating just how shoddy modern scholarship is concerning the very nature of evidence itself - made the following statement regarding those who would remove this most unassailable of clauses -

"Shame, yes, SHAME on the learning which comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the blind! Shame, yes, SHAME on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned but most INCOMPETENT men, who - finding themselves in an evil hour appointed to correct plain and clear errors in the English Authorised Version - occupied themselves instead with FALSIFYING THE INSPIRED GREEK TEXT in countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances of the Spirit. Shame, yes, SHAME upon them!" Revision Revised, p 134-135

It is important to reiterate before tackling the actual evidence - this is one of the most doctrinally significant passages in the New Testament. In fact, this is one of those verses where we can be absolutely dogmatic in stating that no one born of the Spirit of Jesus Christ could ever consider these words spurious. As Burgon noted, these words are one of those "precious utterances of the Spirit," a precious utterance that finds immovable resonance in every person born of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. The Holy Ghost signifies the efficacy of this clause so completely that only a person who has not the Spirit of Christ could deny it, for these words are so integral to true spiritual warfare and to even a basic understanding of the way in which the Holy Spirit works in spiritual warfare, that even a babe in Christ has a sense of them. Furthermore, this testimony is part and parcel of the life given each believer in the new birth, so that the words themselves are familiar - divinely so - to the truly born again believer’s spirit. In short, the Lord cannot deny Himself, and every truly born again believer knows that with the omission of these words, the Lord would be doing just that – denying himself.

Moving along, Patristic citations are witnesses to the text of the New Testament just as manuscripts are witnesses to the text of the New Testament. However, patristic citations have their own dynamic, and they must be handled accordingly. Of course, the methodology is much too involved to go into here, but suffice it to say that one of the most important pieces of information that patristic citations can communicate to us is whether or not a certain reading was in existence at a certain time. This, in a nutshell, is undoubtedly the greatest worth of the patristic citation. To wit: did the reading actually exist, and if so, when did it exist? This is one of the most important pieces of information a patristic citation can give us.

With that in mind, let it be known that there are at least thirty-eight patristic citations from every corner of ancient Christendom attesting to the veracity of the Traditional Text in this passage. Here are just a few of them -

Tatian (140 AD - SYRIAN Father) - "And no man hath ascended up into heaven, except him that descended from heaven, the Son of man, WHICH IS IN HEAVEN." Diatessaron

Hippolytus, (170 AD - GREEK Father) - "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man WHICH IS IN HEAVEN." Against Noetus

Novatian (250 AD - LATIN Father) - "...not any one hath ascended into heaven save He who came down from heaven, the Son of man WHO IS IN HEAVEN." Trinity 13

Chrysostom (350 AD - GREEK Father) - "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man WHICH IS IN HEAVEN." John, Homily 27

Hilary of Poitiers (350 AD LATIN Father) - "No man hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven, even the Son of Man WHICH IS IN HEAVEN." On The Trinity, Book 10

Augustine (380 AD - LATIN Father) - "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man WHICH IS IN HEAVEN." Anti-Pelagian 1.59, 1.60, Sermon 41

Theodoret (380 AD - GREEK Father) - "How, then, does the Lord say, If ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before, and again, No man hath ascended up to heaven but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man WHICH IS IN HEAVEN?" Dialogue 3

As stated before, there are some thirty-eight fathers who recognize these words in this verse as found in the Textus Receptus. Some of the other fathers are as follows:

Origen (250 AD), pseudo Dionysius (265 AD), Athanasius (370 AD), Didymus (390 AD), Basil the Great (380 AD), Epiphanius (400 AD), Eustathius of Antioch (325 AD), Cyril of Jerusalem (385 AD), Amphilochius (390 AD), Lucifer of Calaris (370 AD), Victorinus (300 AD), Jerome (420 AD), Zeno (350 AD), Maximus (400 AD) - See Burgon, Revision Revised, p 133 for full listing & citation references.

In addition to patristic citations, Burgon points out that all the Latin versions, all the Syriac versions, as well as the Coptic version, the Ethiopic version, the Georgian version, and the Armenian versions contain the clause as well, not to mention that the Lectionaries, which were read from the earliest days of the Church, also contain the clause. After displaying the evidence (and this is only a portion of the available evidence), Burgon then made this demanding observation -

"Let the Reader, with a map spread before him, survey the whereabouts of the several Versions above enumerated, and mentally assign each Father to his own approximate locality: then let him bear in mind that 995 out of 1000 of the extant Manuscripts agree with those Fathers and Versions; and let him further recognize that those MSS (executed at different dates in different countries) must severally represent independent remote originals, inasmuch as no two of them are found to be quite alike. Next, let him consider that, in all the Churches of the East, these words from the earliest period were read as part of the Gospel for the Thursday in Easter week. This done, let him decide whether it is reasonable that two worshippers of Codex B in AD 1881 should attempt to thrust all this mass of ancient evidence clean out of sight... the attestation for retaining that clause comes demonstrably from EVERY QUARTER OF ANCIENT CHRISTENDOM, is more ancient by 200 years than the evidence for omitting it, is more numerous, in the proportion of 99 to 1, and in point of respectability stands alone." Revision Revised, p 134

Burgon then continues with an extremely important point, especially for our purposes. You see, mainstream biblical scholarship quotes a number of the above fathers for their side, but they do so with underhanded deceit, as we will now show...

To wit, here's just one of the ways that mainstream biblical scholarship's shell game concerning patristic citations works - church fathers expounded scripture just as modern preachers expound scripture. It wasn't always necessary for them to quote an entire verse when expounding scripture, just as it isn't necessary for modern preachers to quote an entire verse when expounding scripture. Thus, these fathers, just like modern preachers, often quoted only that portion of the verse which was necessary to make their point. However, these same fathers quoted the entire verse elsewhere, proving that they realized the reading as found in the Textus Receptus was genuine. Thus, for modern scholars to take those quotations out of context and claim them as support for their side is pure, unadulterated deceit, for the father proved conclusively elsewhere that he knew the reading was genuine. Here's Burgon commenting on this very matter -

"For since we have PROVED that Origen and Didymus, Epiphanius and Cyril, Ambrose and Jerome, RECOGNIZE the words in dispute, of what possible Textual significancy can it be if presently (BECAUSE IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR THEIR PURPOSE) the same Fathers are observed [in other places] to quote S. John iii. 13 no further than down to the words 'Son of man'? No person, (least of all a professed Critic), who adds to his learning a few grains of common sense and a little candour, can be misled by such a circumstance. Origen, Eusebius, Proclus, Ephraim Syrus, Jerome, Marius, when they are only insisting on the doctrinal significancy of the earlier words, naturally end their quotation at this place." Revision Revised, p 134

To demonstrate just how loosely modern scholarship handles evidence, let's diagram one instance of this type of malfeasance. In this case, Theodoret is cited for omitting the clause in one out of four quotations. In the one instance where Theodoret omits the last clause, this simply means that Theodoret quoted the passage as part of a theological dissertation and the last clause was not needed for him to make his point. Of course, as noted earlier, we see preachers do this exact same thing all the time, for they focus only on that portion of the passage which is germane to their message. This is precisely what Theodoret was doing. As we saw above, Theodoret quoted this passage exactly as the Textus Receptus has it three out of four times. In the one instance where he omitted the last clause, Theodoret was not asserting that this clause was absent from the text. He was simply concentrating on the theological import of the first portion of the verse. For proof of this, merely observe a further statement by Theodoret and witness just how prejudicial and misleading mainstream biblical scholarship is...

Theodoret (380 AD - GREEK Father) - "If any one says that the Son of God, living in the flesh when he was on the earth, was not in heaven and with the Father, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA…" Ecclesiastical History 5.11

In short, Theodoret not only recognized the clause - "which is in heaven" - but he stated that anyone who left it out of the text was a heretic. In other words, this particular clause was not the focus of Theodoret's message in the one instance he declined to quote it, thus it was unnecessary to include it in his exposition. However, the verse was clearly in the biblical text that Theodoret possessed in 380 AD, as evidenced by his three other quotations and his insistence that only heretics would omit this precious clause. Thus any implication which asserts that Theodoret did not come down decisively for the inclusion of this clause is devilishly deceitful. It is exactly the same with the other fathers, fathers that mainstream biblical scholarship attempts to pawn off as support for their corrupt text. This is an habitual occurrence with mainstream biblical scholarship.

Thus, the actual evidence, as one may easily see for himself, thoroughly repudiates modern bibles and modern scholars. The patristic and versional evidence for the clause - "which is in heaven" - is virtually conclusive, coming from every corner of ancient Christendom, and from the very earliest times, and therefore anyone who denies the preponderance of this evidence is not in the least wise truthful. In other words, mainstream biblical scholarship has handled the Word of God deceitfully in this passage, and all because a guru or two - who doesn't believe God's Word is any more inspired than the Iliad or the Mahabharata - willfully ignored mountains upon mountains of evidence and capriciously determined in his own humanistic and unregenerate mind that this clause instead reflected "LATER CHRISTOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT."

This is nothing short of blasphemy, and that is not an exaggeration. Mainstream biblical scholarship has "slighted the Scriptures," as Bunyan stated, and "God will be revenged on such." Let a man laugh at those words if he dares. Accordingly, beware, professing Christian, for this is just one passage of many wherein mainstream biblical scholarship has handled the Word of God deceitfully.

As has just been demonstrated, this so-called "Byzantine" reading is EARLY. The truth is, ALL Byzantine readings are EARLY, in spite of the naked and unfounded assertions of mainstream bible scholars who don't even know what evidence is, much less how to analyze and interpret it. Had they bothered to collate their idols, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus , they would have discovered that the Textus Receptus served as the base for this handful of manuscripts which mainstream bible scholarship has idolized for the past one hundred and fifty years, that these scant few manuscripts are merely depraved mutations, as anyone who actually investigates the matter can plainly see, just as Burgon and Hoskier - both of whom actually collated numerous manuscripts - saw. And the discovery of the Egyptian papyri since the time of Burgon and Hoskier only strengthens the case, for the papyri - even though they are Egyptian manuscripts with a partially Egyptian text - nevertheless give a crystal clear delineation as to the direction of corruption - that is, from the pure text of the Textus Receptus to the mixed text of the papyri to the utterly false text of Alexandria - a degree of corruption which finds its culmination in Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus .

In fact, every disputed reading in the Textus Receptus with FEW exceptions can be EASILY demonstrated to have a superior claim to antiquity and originality over the Alexandrian text, just as this one has, just as 1 Timothy 3:16 has, ad infinitum. And it is passages like these - that is, passages like John 3:13, 1 Timothy 3:16, and others - that will be flung back in the faces of those who have corrupted God's Word on the day of judgment. These passages - and many more just like them - are so overwhelmingly supported even on a strictly evidentiary basis, that the corrupters of God's Word will have no excuse. When they pontificate about "insufficient evidence" regarding the Comma Johanneum, the Judge of all creation, even the Lord Jesus Christ, who has eyes like a flame of fire, will burn right through them as he places before their hypocritical snouts John 3:13, 1 Timothy 3:16, and other massively supported passages - passages that in their unregenerate and hypocritical eyes reflect "later Christological development" - yea, the Lord Jesus will pin them to the pit with these unassailable, Holy Spirit-witnessed words of God and then answer their carnal reasonings in much the same way as he answered their fathers the Pharisees when they asked Jesus by what authority he did "these things." Matthew 21:23-27

Go and learn what that meaneth, hypocrite!

Or did you foolishly think that the Lord Jesus' personality will somehow be different on the day of judgment than it was when he was in the flesh? - that he will somehow deal differently with the hypocrites on the day of judgment than he did when he was in the flesh? Wake up, hypocrite, for it is written - "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Hebrews 13:8

Let's take a brief look at the scant handful of depraved manuscripts that have seduced mainstream biblical scholarship into corrupting the Word of God. Naturally, it's the same culprits as always - B and - finding allies in this case in the Egyptian papyri - P⁶⁶ P⁷⁵ - which are equally corrupt, as is easily demonstrated. And lest we be falsely accused, let it be known that several other manuscripts also omit this clause, manuscripts which are also habitually corrupt and which side with B and not infrequently. Against this paltry group of witnesses, however, is arrayed a mass of manuscripts of impeccable credentials, both uncial and cursive, along with the Lectionaries, fathers, and versions.

Here's how it shakes out - the manuscripts, fathers, and versions which contain this clause come from every corner of ancient Christendom, and from the very earliest times. Conversely, the corrupt handful of witnesses which omit this clause come almost wholly from a single, solitary location - Egypt. With that in view, let us see how these same depraved witnesses fared in other portions of John's Gospel, aye, let us look at verses in near proximity to this clause and see just how reliable these idols of mainstream biblical scholarship truly are. In fact, let us confine our examination to the 1st chapter of John and see whether or not these two witnesses have fairly treated the Everlasting Gospel...

John 1:4 - Vaticanus B = "In him was life, and the life was the light" - In other words, B omits the final clause - "of men"

John 1:13 - Vaticanus B = "...not of man, nor of the will of the flesh" - In other words, B omits "not of blood... nor of the will of man"

John 1:14 - Vaticanus B = "...full of grace truth" - In other words, B omits "and"

John 1:15 - Sinaiticus = "...and cried, this was he that cometh after me" - In other words, omits "saying... of whom I spake"

John 1:15 - Sinaiticus = "...cometh after me is which preferred before me" - In other words, inserts "which" and thus makes further nonsense out of the sentence.

John 1:17 - Sinaiticus = "...grace and truth came by Jesus" - In other words, omits "Christ"

John 1:18 - Sinaiticus = "...only begotten God in the bosom" - In other words, omits "who is"

John 1:20 - Sinaiticus = "And he confessed and did not deny that I am not the Christ" - In other words, omits "but confessed" thus completely reversing the meaning of John's declaration.

John 1:21⁸ - Vaticanus B = "You then? What are Elias?" - In other words, B completely confuses the clause, which should read, "What then? Art thou Elias?"

John 1:21 - Sinaiticus = "And they asked again, what then? Are Elias?" In other words, inserts "again" and omits "you"

John 1:25 - Sinaiticus = "...and said unto him" In other words, omits "And they asked him"

John 1:27 - Sinaiticus & Vaticanus B = "...coming after me..." In other words, B omit "He it is, who..."

John 1:28 - Sinaiticus = "...beyond Jordan river..." In other words, inserts "river"

John 1:29 - Sinaiticus & Vaticanus B = "The next day [he] saw..." In other words, B omit "John"

John 1:32 - Sinaiticus = "And John bare record I saw..." In other words, omits "saying"

John 1:34 - Sinaiticus = "the elect of God" In other words, replaces "son" with "elect"

John 1:42 - Sinaiticus & Vaticanus B = "son of John" In other words, B purvey a manifest historical inaccuracy here by making Peter the son of "John" instead of "Jona," as Matthew 16:17 affirms. The spelling of the two names is so close that this blunder is easily traceable, especially when one discovers that the scribes of both of these manuscripts habitually misspelled words and engaged in conjectural emendation when they weren't sure of a word, which happened with startling regularity - but such is the superstitious reverence for Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that modern scholars have stupidly followed this historical inaccuracy in the NIV, NASB, NRSV, et al. Metzger's accusation of scribal assimilation to Matthew can be easily dismissed, as the allegation cannot withstand even a moment's scrutiny, but we haven't time to digress. Suffice it to say, both Hoskier and Burgon, and especially Hoskier, demonstrated conclusively that the greatest of all perpetrators of assimilation were Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, not the Byzantine manuscripts, and that becomes prominently clear when one actually examines the evidence.

John 1:51 - Sinaiticus & Vaticanus B = "...I say unto you, ye shall see..." In other words, B omit "hereafter"

Of lesser discrepancies, which are numerous - let it be repeated - of lesser discrepancies, which are numerous, we decline to take account. Had we considered every blunder by these two witnesses - and remember, we have only examined one chapter - but had we considered every blunder by these two witnesses in only this one chapter, we could have easily tripled or even quadrupled the number of examples.

These are the two manuscripts that omit - "which is in heaven" - these are the two manuscripts that mainstream biblical scholarship idolizes; these are the two manuscripts that modern bibles are based on. Remove the testimony of these two depraved witnesses, and modern bibles such as the NIV, NASB, NRSV, et al, dissolve into thin air. The matter is that simple.

It is also a simple matter of discernment for one born of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Simply put, any man who examines the few verses above and yet still contends that mainstream biblical scholarship has followed a sound course, is a man who - to be perfectly frank - is an enemy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is really that simple.

And any man who thinks the above statement is too harsh is a man who is not fit for the kingdom of God.

Both Burgon and Hoskier spent years meticulously collating manuscripts. Unlike modern bible scholars, these two men didn't merely assert. Unlike modern bible scholars, both men demonstrated. And yet, both men have been swept under the rug. They can't be refuted, so they are ignored. Both were men "of whom the world was not worthy," and that explains their ostracism by mainstream bible scholars, for it is written - "As then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." Galatians 4:29

Hoskier asked for a count-by-count answer to his devastating indictment of B and . That has never occurred. Why? Because his FACTS are unanswerable, and the FACTS of the utter depravity of B and are MANIFEST in Hoskier’s detailed collation, riveted in black and white for all the world to see, and there is not a scholar on this planet who can refute it by DEMONSTRATION. That’s why Hoskier has never been answered, nor ever will be, for the depravity of B and is not a matter of speculation; it is a matter of FACTS IN EVIDENCE. The only people who don’t know that are mainstream bible scholars and their sycophants who have never actually examined the text of these depraved witnesses, and their incompetence is only further corroborated by their delusional belief that checking references in a Critical Apparatus qualifies as "examining" the evidence.

Burgon could not have made a more accurate statement concerning the manuscripts that mainstream biblical scholarship idolizes - “ B D are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God.” Revision Revised, p 16

Professing Christian, when Jesus, "who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession," stood in the dock, as it were, ready to be condemned, he issued a combination revelation and warning - "For this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." John 18:37

Jesus Christ is still bearing witness to the truth in the person of the Holy Ghost, and he bears witness to the truth now just as intensely as he did when he was in the flesh. Take heed what you do with the truth, professing Christian.

"When men have put in all the claim they can for heaven, but FEW will have it for their inheritance. 'For MANY, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.' Great, therefore, will be the disappointment that many will meet with at the day of judgment: 'For MANY will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.' Going to heaven, therefore, will be no trivial business; salvation is not got by a dream; they that would then have that kingdom must now strive lawfully to enter: 'For MANY, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.'" John Bunyan, The Strait Gate

FOOTNOTES:

1. I use the term Traditional Text interchangeably with the Textus Receptus, for in practical fact they are interchangeable, as the Textus Receptus is the text that the Church universal has traditionally employed. Hoskier's remark bears repeating here -

"If the reader wants a tenth-century example of a MS true to the Church type let him examine Matthaei's k, a most beautiful and neat MS, one of our very early cursives, and in this MS will be found a true exponent of the Koine. Had Erasmus used this, no fault could have been found, and yet but little difference is to be found between k and the textus receptus, while b and his group differ infinitely more among themselves at a period much more remote." Codex B & Its Allies, Vol I, p 456

Hoskier, who has actually collated numerous manuscripts, makes a statement which is in direct opposition to mainstream bible scholars, who have not collated these manuscripts. As Hoskier relates, the printed edition of the Textus Receptus is a virtual reflection of the vast majority of the so-called "Byzantine" manuscripts. In other words, the printed edition of the Textus Receptus is a text-type in its own right.

Simply put, one of the heights of hypocrisy of mainstream biblical scholarship is their refusal to call the Textus Receptus a text-type while simultaneously calling Sinaiticus and Vaticanus text-types, even though the Textus Receptus is a virtual mirror of the so-called Byzantine manuscripts, while Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ radically - not only between themselves - but among the other so-called "Alexandrian" manuscripts as well. In other words, there is a negligible difference between the so-called Byzantine manuscripts and the printed edition of the Textus Receptus, while there are radical differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and printed editions of the Critical Text, yet they are willing to call Sinaiticus and Vaticanus a text-type while denying this same gratuity to the manuscripts that reflect the Textus Receptus.

To say it another way, if Sinaiticus and Vaticanus belong to the "Alexandrian" text-type, then only a complete ignoramus would deny the so-called Byzantine manuscripts a berth in the Textus Receptus text-type. Only a complete ignoramus, or a complete liar, that is, for the so-called Byzantine manuscripts are infinitely closer to the Textus Receptus than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are to whatever moving target they classify as "Alexandrian." The manuscripts which underlie the Textus Receptus are in virtual harmony, while Vaticanus and Sinaiticus not only can't agree between themselves, but in fact each one agrees more with the Textus Receptus than they do with each other.

The deceit - or ignorance - of mainstream bible scholars on this matter would be downright hilarious if this matter were not so serious. Yet, this type of deceit and self-delusion permeates mainstream biblical scholarship, for if they admitted that the Textus Receptus was a text-type, the dominoes in their pet theories would come crashing down like the walls of Jericho. But this failure and denial is just further proof of the gross incompetence and willful deceit of mainstream biblical scholarship, and in fact is just one of the many reasons why this generation of bible scholars will go down as the most inept and incompetent generation of bible scholars in the history of Christianity.

Moreover, this deceit by mainstream biblical scholarship merely serves as further proof of the validity of the Textus Receptus, for by denying what is utterly conclusive on an evidentiary basis, namely, that the Textus Receptus is a virtual reflection of the vast majority of the extant Greek manuscripts, modern mainstream biblical scholarship has in effect added their own unconscious but nevertheless emphatic witness to the fact that their pet theories are bankrupt, for by denying the obvious truth of the Textus Receptus as a text-type, mainstream biblical scholarship has affirmed that this fact is fatal to their own theories. Since mainstream biblical scholarship is afraid to admit what is conclusively true, they merely witness against themselves, for they prove that what is conclusively true is detrimental - yea, fatal - to their own apostate cause. As with all liars, they have been taken in their own snare.

2. "...the majority of the Committee... regarded the words o wn en tw ouranw ["which is in heaven"] as an interpretative gloss, reflecting LATER CHRISTOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT." Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, 2nd Edition, United Bible Societies, p 175. (emphasis added)

3. Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Oxford University Press, 3rd edition, 1992, pg. 163

4.  John William Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p 9

5. Ibid

6. Ibid, p 10

7. Bruce M. Metzger, English Translations of the Bible, Today and Tomorrow, Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 150 #600—Oct – Dec 1993, pg. 401

8. The text of both Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus is hopelessly confused in this verse. This verse obviously presented a severe difficulty for the scribes of these two witnesses, both of whom were so unskilled in the Greek language that this particular sentence overwhelmed them, causing them to make pure spaghetti out of the verse in both manuscripts. This is undoubtedly why Metzger engaged in one of his habitual dodges here -

"Confronted with a multiplicity of competing variant readings, the Committee made its choice on the basis of age and diversity of supporting evidence." Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, 2nd Edition, United Bible Societies, p 170.

A more worthless, say-nothing statement would be hard to imagine. Here's a translation of Metzger's dodge - the "Committee" was forced to resort to the Textus Receptus in this verse, just as they were forced to do countless times throughout the New Testament, knowing that in fact the Textus Receptus offers the only valid reading in countless passages, for their own idols - B and - are as hopelessly confused throughout much of the New Testament as they are in this verse alone.