[answer me muslims]

الحقيقه اني تعبت كثيرا لكي افند كل تلك التناقضات التي اتى بها الاخ العزيز شريف حمدي من مواقع المدلسين شهود يهوه مولكني بعد ان اكتشفت انه كله على بعضه تناقض اكتفيت بأن امسك نقطه واحده تنسف تلك الشبهه من اساسها

أما اول حدوث للفقره فى النص الفعلى (فى اللاتينيه) فكان فى القرن الرابع الميلادى فى بحث او رساله لاتينيه (وليست نسخه من رسالة يوحنا الاولى ) أصدرها شخص اسبانى (هرطيقى حسب اعتقاد النصارى) وتسمى (ليبر ابولوجيتكس) او تلميذه الاسقف انستانتيوس (هرطيقى ثانى ) ، وقد نشأ الامر عندما تم فهم وتفسير النص الأصلى على انه ترميز للتثليث (فهم هرطيقى ايضا كما يقول متزجر بناء على كلام الكنيسه طبعا) عندما تم ذكر الشهود الثلاثه

وهنا يقر الاخ العزيز ان اول حدوث للفقره في النص الفعلي كان في القرن الرابع ((واليك صفعه على وجه التدليس وقد اشرت اليها في المداخله السابقه ولكنك لا ترى الحقيقه وانما ترى عينيك التدليس بكل قوه كأعين الصقر

Why Did the Orthodox Writers Not Use This Verse in the "Trinitarian Controversies"?
One argument used by Critical Text supporters to suggest that the verse was not found in the Bible prior to the late 4th century rests upon the supposed lack of use of this verse, which should be a clear proof-text for the Trinity, by Christian apologists and other writers during many of the various doctrinal controversies surrounding the nature of the Godhead. The verse, it is said, was not used during the controversies of the 3rd and 4th centuries, but suddenly appears frequently during the Arian controversies of the late 4th and 5th centuries.
This argument comes from a misunderstanding of the various controversies, which are usually just lumped together under the broad term "Trinitarian controversies". The first of the major controversies came in the 3rd century, dealing with the Sabellians. The Sabellians were Monarchianists (also called Patripassianists), who denied the individual personality of the three Persons of the Godhead. There were (and still are) several permutations of their general heresy, but all end up denying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were separate personalities, united in essence and nature, but individual in personality and function. The Sabellians did not deny the three persons of the Trinity, they just denied their individuality, usually saying that the Father IS the Son IS the Spirit, and some also teaching that God revealed Himself as all three, but in a sequential manner, never more than one at a time. Thus, the Sabellian doctrine became one of de facto unitarianism.
As such, the Johannine Comma would not have been useful in dealing with these heretics. Indeed, saying that "these three are one", is something to which the Sabellians would have agreed, though for a different reason than orthodox Trinitarians. Sabellians would just as willingly have cited the Comma to prove their position that the three were one in PERSON, not in essence. As such, there is no reason why any early patristic writer would have been inclined to find the Comma particularly useful against this particular heresy. We note that Tertullian, even at that early period in which he wrote, found it necessary to strenuously emphasise that the unity of the three in one was a unity of essence, not person. This is quite explicable in view of the fact that Tertullian was directing his arguments against Praxeas, who held to Monarchian theology. In general, though, the patristics probably would have been disinclined to rely upon these verses to defend the Orthodox view of the Trinity, as the verses could just as easily be turned back against them and twisted to support the Sabellian heresy.
However, the usefulness of the Comma changed when the churches began dealing with the Arians in the latter part of the 4th century, and we begin to see patristic writers, starting with the great Trinitarian defender Athanasius, using the verse, though there was still the tendency to treat the verse gingerly. In the next two centuries afterwards, we see the patristic writers using the verse in quarrels with the Arians (Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Victor Vitensis, Virgilius Tapensis, etc.) Of course, as was seen above, even Christian writers of the 3rd century did indeed cite and use the verse, even against heresies dealing with the Trinity.
<A name=#conclusions>Conclusions For centuries, the Johannine Comma has been one of the most hotly disputed portions of the holy Scriptures. Though it has been generally rejected by modern textual critics, I believe that this rejection is unwarranted in light of the full body of evidence. Though barely attested in the Greek witness, there is evidence from several corners which suggest that it was originally contained in this language version, and the conditions in the Greek-speaking regions of the Empire were certainly ripe for an attack to be made upon this clear witness to the Trinity. The evidence for the Comma from other sources than the Greek, such as other versions and the testimony of the patristic writers, demonstrates that the Comma was in existence for far longer than the modernistic textual critics will admit, and that it was more generally accepted by the ancients than today's critics would like to acknowledge. Indeed, there is no solid reason, in my opinion, to accept the Comma as anything less than inspired Scripture. Though there have been evidences which have led to many to reject the Johannine Comma, there is much to commend the Comma to us as authentic, and indeed, its preservation through means other than the Greek witness in no wise disparages or dilutes the principle and doctrine of the preservation of God's Word
وطبعا انت قد انكرت ان Tertullian قد ذكر هذا النص وانت اتيت بأدعاء ما فاده ان ذلك العدد كتب في القرن الر ابع وانا اتيت لكبدليل انه موجود قبلها بقرنين من الزمان وهذا كافي جدا لنسف شبهتك المزعومه