Sometimes discussion about textual variants just seem to be a competition about who is the best storyteller

Dr. Black's insights are fascinating! I'm definitely going to start reading some of his books!

John 3:13 "who is in heaven." The other explanation is that Jesus is not being quoted, but that John goes into "narration" mode, starting with this verse. In which case, what John is speaking about has already transpired--i.e. that Jesus is already in heaven. Thus, the verse could be read as, "who is [now] in heaven."

I see as "who is in heaven" as a marginal note to remind the readers of the ascension, that made its way into the text. I actually think the comma really was original, and there is some really good arguments for it. It's funny this man's argument "We can still prove the Trinity" applies equally for the omnipresence of Christ. Sustains all things by the power of his Word? The fullness of him who fills all in all? All things are open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do? There I "helped him out." We do not need this verse, and it hurts another important doctrine, the clear teaching of Kenosis in Philippians 2, the fact that Christ depended on the Holy Spirit and the angels for all things. Love his heart though.

Hi. Watching in London, UK. Very interesting, thanks.

excelent! thank you

Would you say that the Sturzian view of NTTC is an alternative to the Byzantine view, or a subset of the Byzantine view? Are there places where the Alexandrian and Western text types agree against the Byzantine, where a Sturzian would accept the non-Byzantine reading as authentic? If I describe myself as a "Byzantine guy", does that imply that I'm blindly accepting whatever the Byzantine text type says as the authentic reading? Do I need to be Sturzian to believe that all three/four text types are equally old? Am I Sturzian? How do I know what I am?

Very informative!

If you take Matthew 5:22 in context he didn't say "without cause" because he wasn't talking about a moment of anger at all. Look at the very next thing said in vs 23-24 "Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." He's talking about being angry *after* the moment past. Righteous or not, it's wrong to stay in that anger and you should be reconcile. And side note, every single person who is angry believes they have "cause" to be angry.

I love this

"Without a cause" is not merely practical as Dr. Black says, it is also VITALLY theological because if the portion is not there then it makes Christ a sinner because He got angry John2:13-17. Indeed, God is angry with the wicked everyday Ps.7:11. So there is a good internal argument for you Dwayne since I know you don't know what do make of them atm. Hopefully this changes your mind :) As a side note, internal arguments are meant to furnish not prove. They tell us more that something should be there rather than what is there. But they are important and, in some cases, vitally so.

Hey Dwayne do you have an email that you respond to?…i’m not on social media but i did want to forward you something. Enjoyed the conversation…

Has anyone else noticed that many of these changes to the text are systematically found in places that undermine the trinity and Christ's divinity yet? Strange coincidence huh?

Soon the world will realize that God is one and the trinity is the biggest and best lie the Devil ever sold.