I found the National Geographic program on the Gospel of

are non-canonical or non-Biblical. As noted either 2 or 3 Gospels have him hanging himself and a 4th says he fell down a hill (?John), or perhaps threw himself down a hill. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable in these matters to quote chapter and verse, or even Gospel with certainty, but I do know what experts on the program said.

Rob

examination of accepted "truth" in the light of new discoveries, and new scholarship, and new technologies which aid that scholarship.

The New Testament was written primarily in Greek by Hellenized Middle Eastern peoples, not really by the Romans. It was not translated into Latin until the time of St. Jerome and his Biblia Vulgata, which means Bible in the Common Language, Vulgate (common) Latin. The selections of what was and what was not canonical was done by very well educated churchmen of the time, 4th and 5th Centuries and all Greek speakers, but they too had an agenda. They wanted to reinforce the idea of a single, "true", easily communicated testament that concentrated on Jesus, hence the 4 Gospels, and the works of Paul spreading the word to a largely Gentile Hellenized population. There was no impetus to keep it a purely Jewish religion any more because the Jews were being dispersed everywhere by that point after the great rebellion of AD 66 to 70. Indeed there may have been a modest Roman agenda in this desire to keep it away from the Jews. The Romans were fed up with an intractable deeply religious, deeply nationalistic and very rebellious populace and decided to solve the problem by exporting the survivors of the, what I can only call a pogrom verging on a holocaust, and watering them down by spreading them far and wide, and letting more docile populations move in, in this case a disparate but Hellenized population from Anatolia, Syria, Egypt and even Persia.

To those who believe deeply and restrictively in the Bible as the sole word of God, practical, political, and purely human motives like these are anathema, but it's how people operate.

And if you are trying to spread the Good News, simple and clear is much better than profound, questioning, and complex.

One of the distictions made regarding the Gnostic Gospels is their complex philosophical nature, full of questions and meditations, and short on certainties. They are not simple narratives, there are no villains. Indeed Judas is not portrayed as a villain in the earliest Gospel, the Gospel of Mark (written ca 60-70 AD), but becomes progressively more the villain in those Gospels dating later and ending with the latest, John where Jesus marks him out at the Last Supper by passing him bread dipped in olive oil.

This is effectively my own opinion based on what I heard on the program and what I know of the period which has become something of an area of study for me, and I think a good even handed scholar of the period would incline to agree with most of what I have said. Reading the early Christian fathers, http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/
Irinaeas, Origen, Eusebius, and those involved in the various Councils like Nicea, Antioch, Constantinople and Alexandria shows them to be deeply religious men concerned with controlling the faith so that it doesn't get out of hand, and not just anybody can set himself up as the sole authority. I understand trying to sort out Monophysitism, or Pelasgius or all the other contenders trying to go their own way. I have trouble dismissing early documentation before the middle of say the 3rd century since it is nearly contemporaneous to the events and we don't know when even the latest of them was first written.

The "Gospel of Judas" like the Gospel of Thomas and nearly 30 others were known to Irinaeas in France when he wrote against them in 180 AD ie late Second Century. That means that they had been written and distributed all across the Mediterranean, all the way to Lyons by 180 AD which suggests to me that they were First or very early Second Century documents. Additionally, they originate a few hundred miles from Jerusalem, written in Egyptian using Greek letters (hence the term Coptic). All of this seems persuasive enough to allow us to examine them and consider them to the best of our abilities, using the intelligence and the "divine spark", a particularly Gnostic concept and phrase, that God gave us.

I acknowledge that I have trouble with "authority", "revealed truth", and the motivation of those who wish to restrict access and inquiry into a subject. In that I am more like Martin Luther than Robert Schuller or any of the other contemporary divines who say there is "one word". I find mainline Protestant churches much more open to that broader, more liberal view than the Evangelicals or whatever umbrella term best suits them. The sister of a friend (Episcopalian) is professor of Medieval Religious studies at Notre Dame. She's open to considering at least some of this stuff, and the Nag Hammadi Library is on the course of study there, why shouldn't all of us be open to considering the texts.

Rob

are no villains. Indeed Judas is not portrayed as a villain in the earliest Gospel, the Gospel of Mark (written ca 60-70 AD)''

Mr 3:19 And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.
Mr 14:10 And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.
Mr 14:43 And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders

Even in the KJV these sound like simple narrative, presenting Judas as a betrayer of Christ, which would qualify him as a villian. These are the only references to "Judas" in Mark's Gospel. To attack a position, you need first to know what the position is.

Your take on the bible is closer to KP's than you may think.

is considerably more condemnatory than the rather simple statements in Mark, the earliest of the Gospels.

I am however,guilty of parroting something said in the program by more than one scholar, that there is something in the original (Greek) that makes them say that Mark is less condemnatory. Whether it is the Greek word which is normally translated as "handed over" which is translated as "betrayed" in the English translations of the Bible as they explained in the program I am not in a position to say. Despite the desire, I have not yet explored ancient Greek.

Translation is a difficult thing at the best of times, when you add Greek, Aramaic and Coptic into the mix it becomes a minefield. With the best will in the world, the early translators from Tyndal who's translation remined 90+% unchanged in the KJV through to the present day, their desire may have been to limit the differences between the books of the New Testament, not to present the clearest possible individual translation of each Gospel which would have led to more conflict over what is actually meant, and would have led to less certainty that the Bible was authoritative if such conflicts or divergences of construction were left in.

I repeat as I have in the past that most of you are better equipped to debate the relative merits of the English versions of the Bible than I. But I am aware that there are problems with translation, and I will get to a point where I can offer a more authoritative opinion based on knowledge of more than the texts in a secondary or tertiary language.

Rob

it is the native tongue of most translators, and the greek and hebrew are well understood. I think you had best find evidence before assuming that the translators are changing the meaning to avoid conflicts with current belief. Secular scholars would hang them up to dry if they did that. The New American Standard is generally regarded at the best word for word translation.

Translation difficulties arise when the translators must learn the target language before being able to translate. In some cases, they even have to invent a written language. Native speakers are used to help get it right. Translation these days is pretty sophisticated, and the people doing it are quite intelligent. Modern translations are not based on other translations like the KJV.

There are some translations, like the New World Translation, which do embody an agenda. However, these are not produced by serious scholars.

see what they want to see.

BTW, it belongs on another post, but here's re Niem

That's true in terms of theological wars as much as shooting ones (and all too many wars are both -- witness the Thirty Years War!)

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

those who seek to rewrite it try to dodge and weave around those who know the subject.

If you get your history from the boob tube, you are indeed going to get a distorted view. So DK, who are the victors here? National Geographic or the liberal academics?

the Orthodox church. That's how they got their name. I am not trying to change history nor is anyone connected with this sort of investigation, but there are compelling documents hidden for millenia which are just now coming to light. There is also no reason to close one's eyes and scream "Its all lies, it's all lies, it's all lies" so that you can't hear things that may enlighten you.

The phrase, "My Father's house has many mansions" comes to mind in this regard. Personally I wouldn't set myself up against professional, deeply religious researchers who are looking for the context of the truth. To tell a man the truth in a language he does not perfectly understand may be of little use, to him or to yourself.

Is your attitude that of those who burned the Library of Alexandria? There are two candidates, one Christian, who said "All that needs to be said is in the Bible, destroy this pagan shrine", even though the Library was the single greatest repository of Christian thought at the time. The second, Muslim, who asked "Is there anything here about Allah and Mohammed", and on receiving the mistaken answer "No", said "Burn it".

Source, Testament, the Bible and History by John Romer.

Rob

Source: unknown.

Rob

and historians. I suspect they are not the kind of people you usually dabble in.

The contents of the New Testament were chosen by the early churches via the documents that they accepted as authoritative. There was no such thing as orthodoxy at that point. It was simply the Christian church. Yes, there were gnostics and other heretics. If you want to build your beliefs on those, that's your choice, but it's not Christianity. It's Gnosticism or whatever else you might prefer. In addition, don't confuse the final determination of the canon with the beliefs of the church preceding that. The books settled on simply confirmed what the churches already practiced and believed. There were also specific criteria which were used as a basis for including a book. One of the main basis' was Apostolic authority. Judas was dead. He didn't write anything, and didn't have Apostolic authority. Another criteria is that the book cannot contradict other books within the canon. Your new documents also fail on that point.

Your lack of historical understanding is not a surprise. They more than likely do not teach this sort of thing in modern university textbooks.

orthodox Gospels are not necessarily dealing with all inspired fact, KP. Or do you claim that God inspired those who (for primarily political reasons) decided that only THOSE four Gospels were inspired, and not the other 20-some? Were the "accomplished historians" who got their doctorates in Breshnev's Russia a reliable source? Your argument is completely circular -- it starts out with "authorities" trained to accept the validity of only certain input, and uses their opinions to invalidate all other input. That doesnt mean that the authorities are wrong -- but it also doesn't mean that differences between the orthodox and gnostic interpretations must automatically be resolved in favor of orthodoxy. Do you remember Christ's reaction to the orthodox religious authorities of His time? I suspect that were he to return today, He'd be as appalled by many claiming to speak in His name as He was at those who had turned His Father's House into a den of thieves. It's also noteworthy that the gnostic Gospels also show women in a most stronger light, and the decisions about which Gospels were inspired were all made by men... I would go so far as to say that the orthodox Caytholic exclusion of women from the priesthood is not only not inspired, but is contrary to God's will.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

accomplished theologians would only be exposed to the four orthodox gospels DK? If you think that's what education is all about, yours must be shallow indeed. Were your studies limited to just one theory or point of view? You seem to believe in a God who authors confusion, and who is incapable of guiding the decisions that His church makes. Your ideas are more akin to Deism than Christianity. How, as a Christian, can you possibly argue that power politics rather than God controlled what the church finally accepted as His inspired word?

I hope I'm humble enough to admit that, try as I might, I am not a theologian or a church historian. Even if I were, I would still have to rely on other scholars who were more informed on certain subjects than I. Is that how your science works? Each person is expected to know everything that there is to know about a particular subject, and does not look to other people for expertise. You are lost in a maze DK. I've said this before. You don't know what's true, and you have no way of making a decision except to follow your own preferences. At the end of that road, you do not find God. God wants to confront you with truth that you don't like. He wants to change you. As long as you choose only what is agreeable to you, He cannot reach you.

Jesus condemned the religious leaders of His day for personal hypocracy. They tried to evade the demands of the Old Testament. He did not condemn their canon. He said it is God's Word. He also promised that His Spirit would guide His church into the truth. You seem to think that He was parochially (sp?) mistaken. He said that He would build his church, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. Whose side are you on when you argue that the church was derailed?

BTW, for the record, a few of the scholars I look to are Dr. John Gerstner and Dr. R. C. Sproul. Neither man is known for the laughably narrow minded point of view that you ascribe.

The gnostic gospels were prominent on the "Index of Prohibited Books," (as was "the Last Temptation," sadly). If you go to the Catholic University Web site and search on "gnostic gospels," you'll find ten passing links -- none of them is a course devoted to their study... And of course several of those ten links have the word "heretical" associated with them. Theology (at least the Catholic variety) is not a field characterized by free and open inquiry -- just ask Martin Luther, or more recently, Hans Kung. And from what I've read in the papers about the fights over what's taught in the Baptist theological schools, that lack of intellectual freedom is not a peculiarly Catholic phenomenon.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Gerstner don't get their reading lists from the Catholic University, the Vatican, or even Southern Baptist Seminaries. Your posts are becoming increasingly pathetic as you try to tell us about a 'real world' that you know very little about.

Guys like Sproul, Gerstner, and NT Wright, to introduce yet another name, are way beyond your parochial league. You really should try to drop the condescension, and live within your intellectual limitations.

contradictions within the Canonical Bible. And Orthodoxy was the outgrowth of the winnowing process and the dealing with contrary and subsequently heretical ideas. Nestor had this idea about the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. He thought long and hard upon it, and it made sense to him, he preached it and others found it persuasive. It became a movement within the Christian church and was not declared heretical until it was confronted in one of the Synods. Was Nestor intentionally heretical? I doubt it. Was he influenced by the Devil? I doubt that too. I suspect that he was an honorable man striving to understand.

At the same time there was a centralization and codification of belief that was going on, and a development of Church hierarchy which made administration efficient, effective, and convenient and began to increase the power of the church as it began to persuade a large group to speak with one voice. In many ways the Synods were courts trying various variations of belief. It was a legalistic and debate centered process, with the judges mostly from the other side of the argument. It was not necessarily an even-handed system.

Part of what I'm trying to get at is that heretics didn't start out being heretics, but were ultimately declared heretical. They may well have been as devout and as learned as those on the other side, and the decisions reached may not have been guided by God, but by the convenience of politics in the ancient world. I like to avoid the word heretic or heretical because it is a judgemental one, not necessarily a divine one.

If you would offer an example of the many accomplished theologians and historians that I am not familiar with, or an example of my lack of historical understanding, or even a hint of the period you are referring to it might be helpful.

You'd be surprised what modern texts include, you seem to have a prejudice in that regard, but the books I reccommended to you some days ago were all from 1920 to 1964, not the age of revisionism, or of outrageous claims, but of sober reflection. I avoided mention of a book, The War of 1812, the War That Both Sides Won because it is newer, Canadian, and obviously would have rubbed you the wrong way. I still think it a useful and accurate point of view but I have trespassed too far on your sensitivities in the past.

Rob

I do not regard you as an expert on church history, and do not have the time right now to research and/or debate this issue. Perhaps, someone like Dr. Bill can respond.

Jude 1:14 - And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

Where is the book of Enoch that has been included in the official canon? There is a Book of Enoch in the Coptic Christian churches, outside the centuries of European based "orthodoxy".


Colossians 4:16 - And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Where is the Loadicean letter referenced here? Is it in the officially accepted canon of scripture? A purported ancient copy does exist.

1 Corinthians 5:9 - I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

Oops! You mean First Corinthians actually isn't the "first"?! Darn, another missing epistle.

Ephesians 3:3 - How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

So, why isn't this book labeled the second book of Ephesians and we look anxiously for the first?

2Pet 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Which OT book recounts these particulars Peter refers to in this detail? (hint, it's found in an apocryphal book)

I've just touched on some of the NT references to works we don't have as the canon of scripture, there are also OT works that are known to be missing. If any of these turn up, will you be willing to accept them? Some of them may exist already such as Enoch and we have rejected them.

Christian and understand something about what you believe, then you will understand that God is very active, and that He directs history. It follows logically then, that what God wanted in the Canon is in the Canon. If it's not there, it is not material to the message that God intends us to have.

One of the gospel writers said that, if everything that Jesus said and did was written down, it would fill many books. God did some editing for a variety of reasons.

It would be far more valuable to study the thought and logic which went into the canon than to run off after every rumor or hint of what might have been around that may, or may not, have been considered.

You believe the ones who chose the Canon of Scripture were inspired by God on what to keep and what to throw away? Is it possible they were part of the "mystery of iniquity" that Paul spoke of?

2 Thessalonians 2:2 - That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

2 Thessalonians 2:7 - For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

There are also insertions which are not found in earliest manuscripts but were in the Textus Receptus from which much early bible translations were done, such as this single verse in I 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. When that verse is removed the text flows much better. It may have been deliberate trinity insertion or may have been a scribal note in the margin which later was added by a later scribe thinking it was a scripture that had been missed and then added in the margin.

I do not think those who decided what should or not be in accepted scripture did so under some inspiration force. I think they did the best and I hope most honest job they could. I accept that there have been some obvious errors, insertions, and mistranslation in areas. I do think the greatest part of what we have allows us to know what God wants and to understand the doctrines concerning Jesus coming and His teachings.

tell us what your church is. You have denied being a Jehovah's Witness in the past, but your skirts seem to be showing. What is this,

It may have been deliberate trinity insertion ?

I'm puzzled as to why you would jump from the canon to an attack on the doctrine of the trinity. If you do not believe that Jesus Christ is God the Son, then, IMCO, you are not a Christian. So, what are you? What is your theology? Your posts suddenly make a lot of sense if you are a Jehovah's Witness. Do you believe that Jesus is God the Son? It is difficult to converse with you if you obscure the main points of your faith.

BTW, I said God guided and controlled the process. I didn't say that He inspired it. Inspiration is a completely different animal.

As far as your views on the Canon, there has been some debate over a few books from time to time. Martin Luther, for example, thought that James did not belong in the Canon. Obviously, not many agreed with him. I doubt that a particular view of the Canon is significant unless it causes you to contradict what scripture clearly teaches. At the very least, your god is too small.

Do you believe only a believer in a false doctrine would make an insertion in order to propagate his particular doctrine? Can it not also be done by someone who has a true doctrinal belief but decides an opportune insertion would help defend the doctrine in his and future generations? Just because I recognize and point out an insertion, it is not a statement concerning my belief on the particular doctrine such insertion might support. You missed my point, it had NOTHING to do with doctrinal belief, but was to show that even in the accepted Canon of Scripture, for years there was an error. It's one of the more proven and obvious which is why I used it to make the point. Do not take a tangent and imply it has any bearing concerning my belief in the Trinity.

My overall point is we should keep an open mind and do as instructed, to examine new discoveries purporting to be scripture and examine those things to see if they are so. Reading and considering other documents purporting to be inspired does not taint those already accepted as such. The current Canon of Scripture, as you've also noted with Luther, has been challenged and changed over the years, such as the latter inclusion of Revelation of John. I know and recognize those who made such decisions early on were men of like mind and abilities as we today, and therefore realize the possibility of mistake on their part. I do not consider any man infallible. I am not Catholic, I am not Jehovah Witness.

and two study Bibles, I finally found a possible note to what you are referring to. The note speaks of the Latin Vulgate. The verse as you are quoting it is not questioned. Here is one commentary on the 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.

Agree in one, [eis (NT:1519) to (NT:358 hen (NT:1520) eisin (NT:1526)] - 'tend unto one result:' their agreeing testimony to Jesus' Sonship and Messiahship they give by the sacramental grace in water-baptism, received by the penitent believer through His atoning blood, and through His inwardly witnessing Spirit (1 John 5:10); answering to the testimony given to Jesus' Sonship and Messiahship by His baptism, His crucifixion, and the Spirit's manifestations in Him (note, 1 John 5:6). It was by coming by water (i.e., His baptism in Jordan) that Jesus was solemnly inaugurated in office, and revealed as Messiah. This must have been peculiarly important in John's estimation, since he was first led to Christ by John the Baptist's testimony. By Christ's baptism then, by His redeeming blood-shedding, and by what the Spirit of God, whose witness is infallible, effected, and still effects, by Him, the Spirit the water, and the blood unite, as the threefold witness, to verify His divine Messiahship (Neander).
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)

Your comment, without additional explanation, did call into question the doctrine of the trinity. I understand you to say now that you do believe that Jesus is God the Son. That is a key point in this discussion. As for the rest of it, I think Pauls admonition to;

2 Tim 2:22-24
23 Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.
NIV

is a good one to keep in mind.

First let me say it's the verse 7 that was the insertion, not verse 8.

Kiddpeat, you still seem to miss the point. My point is the Canon were decided upon by fallible men, and even then they made changes later, such as regards Revelation of John. Recognizing this I realize and am willing to accept there may be other writings just as inspired of God as any of the books within the current accepted Canon of Scripture. This is something you seem to reject. Everything I put forth was in support of that point.

Instead you seem determined to go off on a tangent, alleging something I didn't do and not actually answering the point presented, instead attacking me on some other doctrinal issue (Trinity) with which I have no argument. I then tell you why you are wrong in your assumption about my doctrinal belief and yet you again insist I'm attacking a particular belief which I was not, neither in statement nor context.

I do not care what particular doctrine some insertion supports, what I do care is whether the particular passage is valid inspired scripture or an insertion. I don't know why you can't understand this, since I thought you were concerned over the validity and purity of the Scriptures too.

The particular passage, even as Isaac Newton noted, stands out as not seeming to fit the overall text to an accomplished student of Scripture. It's obvious the insertion does not have a direct correlation of equality to the previous passage.

You may find this of interest.
http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/doug/1john5_7.html

1. Greek manuscripts-about 300 existing Greek manuscripts contain the book of I John. Of these manuscripts, only 4 (manuscript numbers 61, 629, 918, 231 contain the disputed words of v.7. All four are very late manuscripts (16th, 14th or 15th, 16th, and 18th centuries A.D. respectively); none gives the Greek text exactly as it appears in printed Greek NTs, and all 4 manuscripts give clear evidence that these words were translated into Greek from Latin.
Four additional manuscripts (88, 12th century; 221, 10th; 429, 16th; 636, 15th) have the disputed words copied in the margin by much later writers.
2. Ancient writers: no Greek-speaking Christian writer before the year 1215 A.D. shows any knowledge of the disputed words. Not once are these words quoted in the great controversy with the Arians (over the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity) in the 3rd and 4th centuries; they certainly would have been quoted if they had existed in any Greek manuscript of that period.
The disputed words are quoted as Scripture only by Latin-speaking writers, and only after the middle of the 5th century A.D.
3. Ancient translations: the disputed words are not found in any of the ancient translations of the NT made in the 2nd-10th centuries A.D.--Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavic--except in Latin. The words are found in some manuscripts (but not the earliest) of the Old Latin version, and in many manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate (but not the earliest).

And for other pages on the matter you can try this Google search. Kiddpeat, recognizing someone may have through error or deliberate action introduced a passage into the bible during a time of heated debate over a particular subject is in the best interest of all Christians, whether it supports one's particular belief in a doctrine or not. I do not feel a need of an insertion to support the doctrine of a Trinity and as noted above, neither did the early church fathers.

I do not consider desiring the "sincere milk of the word" rather than implanted insertion of a false scripture (although the doctrine may be true) to be a vain and foolish matter. Quite the contrary I believe Paul was admonishing Timothy to use the entirety of scripture and the "gift" he'd received rather than allowing "fables" to become the standard upon which doctrinal beliefs were built.

The truth or error of the doctrine is not what was under consideration, but rather if the particular passage was true inspired scripture, or false.

Here I will put the verses, first with the insertion and then without.

I John 5: Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

I John 5: Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Most would agree, no matter what their belief in Trinity, that verse 7 seems out of context, interrupts the flow of thought which proceeds better without it and has that feeling of not belonging nor fitting the text. In fact, when you consider it, the verse doesn't even make much sense. Why would those 3 even NEED to bear record in Heaven and what does that have to do anyway with the theme of the chapter which is the witness of Christ to the world? The references don't fit the style of writing either. In all the rest of the chapter Jesus is referred to by name or as Son of God. ONLY in that one passage is he referred to as "Word". In all the rest of the chapter the term Spirit is used, but suddenly ONLY in that verse we see the term Holy Ghost inserted.

I believe those who are honest in themselves will realize the passage is some latter day insertion (for whatever reason) and recognize it not as true scripture.