Was God Manifest in the Flesh?

1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

This scripture infers that Jesus is God. Although you could argue that even we should manifest God in our lives knowing full well we are not God. Regardless, this verse is certainly a verse that Trinitarians use as a proof verse, and to the untrained eye, people may well accept that Jesus is God based on this verse alone.

But is this all there is to this matter.

Apparently this verse is controversial because most other translations do not say “God was manifest in the flesh”, rather they say “He was manifest in the flesh”.

So what is going on here. Why does the KJV say ‘God’ and most other translations say ‘He’?

I found this explanation in and thought it would be helpful to share it.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080728123800AALVzER

Thank you so much for this question. It is a very interesting one.

A few weeks ago, I inquired of a Greek translator who often posts on this site, asking him this very same thing. He kindly and carefully explained to me that, first off, one must understand the nomina sacra (sacred names). He explained that these are abbreviations, in early manuscripts, of certain names and titles.

In ancient manuscripts 1 Timothy 3:16 had the word “os” which looks like: “OC” and means “he”.

The nomina sacra of God looks like OC but it has a horizontal line through the middle of the O and a long horizontal line over both letters (as Abernathy, above, explained).

The Greek translator continues, and I quote: “In one old manuscript (Codex Alexandrinus) it seems to the nomina sacra, but an analysis of the manuscript demonstrated that the two horizontal lines were added centuries later.

Many late manuscripts have the nomina sacra, but all manuscripts earlier than about 800AD have OC “He”

So “He was manifest in the flesh” is supported by all the most ancient manuscripts, “God was manifest in the flesh” has no attestation before 800 AD.”

End quote.

Hannah J Paul

This topic is empty.

Viewing 20 posts - 121 through 140 (of 231 total)

←1 2 3…678…10 11 12 →

Author
Posts
December 2, 2015 at 12:48 pm#805465
mstrainjr
Participant
oops. double post
December 2, 2015 at 12:54 pm#805467
mstrainjr
Participant
@NickHassan
You say that we must treat the Bible with the greatest respect, yet you don’t tell me where I can find anything that you’re telling me within it. You’re just saying things. You say “No men are divine but all are vessels in which The divine can live and work”, so show me where it says that in the Bible. Back up what you’re saying with references. I think you’re mixing another religious book into this, and that has no place when speaking strictly about what the Bible says.
December 2, 2015 at 1:22 pm#805472
kerwin
Participant
mstrainjr,
The word is a male gender noun in Koine Greek so the correct Koine Greek pronoun no matter what the natural gender of the subject is male. For example “light” in John 1:5 is neuter and “it” is substituted for light is also “neuter”. Light remains “neuter” even when John implies Jesus is the “light” in verses 7-9.
December 2, 2015 at 2:07 pm#805476
mstrainjr
Participant
@kerwin
I know that, and I’m glad you either took the time to look it up, or possibly you already knew it. Now, my point is this: what makes you right and me wrong? Or what makes me right and you wrong? The way it’s written, it could be either way. Therefore, it’s probably not logical to assume that you’re right when you give your interpretation of what the Word is. Unfortunately, it’s not clear. This is an example of why the best Biblical scholars have been arguing over things like this for centuries. Each one wants to be right, and they’ll argue their side instead of accepting that the passage can have multiple interpretations to the modern reader.
December 2, 2015 at 2:23 pm#805477
kerwin
Participant
Mstrainjr,
Tradition favors my position as it holds the Anointed is a human being descended of David and not a being that existed before David came to be.
In addition Philo spoke about the word that comes from God’s mouth, aka Logos, much as John does but clearly did not intend it to be confused with a person even though he called it the first born of God and used are imagery that made it seem to be a person. Philo even describes it as God as John writes with the words “The word is God”. It can be confusing to outsiders but it was a way a certain subculture of Jews at that time spoke and wrote.
Philo’s Logos
December 2, 2015 at 2:24 pm#805478
NickHassan
Participant
Hi mstr,
The bible is about the work of God in and among men.
If your God is our God then I think it is over to you to prove that some men are divine.
For us there is one God and one Lord Jesus Christ.
December 2, 2015 at 2:29 pm#805481
NickHassan
Participant
Hi mstr,
You say about jn1.1
“Except the next few verses, even in the Greek, refer to the Word of verse 1 as “he” and “him”. So it seems that John had a person in mind.”

Indeed that person is JESUS CHRIST, the anointed man.
But the flesh contributes nothing so the anointing is what matters.
The WORD that was with God and was God was made flesh and dwelled among us.
December 2, 2015 at 2:32 pm#805482
kerwin
Participant
mstrainjr,
I like these words from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy that I linked to in my last post to you.
b.) When the scripture uses the Greek term for God ho theos, it refers to the true God, but when it uses the term theos, without the article ho, it refers not to the God, but to his most ancient Logos (Somn. 1.229-230).
December 2, 2015 at 2:41 pm#805484
mstrainjr
Participant
Well, I’m in over my head. I just meant to make a simple post, but now I’m answering too many questions at once and I really want to move on with my life. This is an interesting topic and I have a lot to say on it, but I seriously have other things to do. I’ll try to answer later on, so be patient.
December 2, 2015 at 3:38 pm#805494
NickHassan
Participant
Hi KW,
Philos and Philosophy are of the world.
Why would you offer them as interpreters of the Spiritual?
December 2, 2015 at 3:40 pm#805495
NickHassan
Participant
Hi Mstr,
The wait is worthwhile
The world has filled our heads with carnal understandings of what is spiritual.
It is a long walk back.
December 2, 2015 at 4:01 pm#805500
kerwin
Participant
Nick,
It is irrelevant that Philo is of the world as I was talking of culture and the ideas communicated within a culture. After all you have heard of being a Jew a Jew and a Gentile to a Gentile. If the words written to a Gentile are heard by a Jew then the later may misunderstand and vise versa.
December 2, 2015 at 4:03 pm#805501
kerwin
Participant
Nick,
In addition Philo uses Logos much like John does and perhaps even others.
December 2, 2015 at 4:31 pm#805506
NickHassan
Participant
Hi KW,
You would suggest that what is spiritual must be read through a cultural understanding?
Such is deception
December 2, 2015 at 5:22 pm#805508
kerwin
Participant
Nick,
The Spiritual is written in many languages and those who do not understand the language it is written in do not understand the Spiritual message of the words. The same is true with culture which is why Paul wrote the words of 1 Corinthians 9:20-22. The bottom line is to communicate the gospel in the way your hearer will understand it and to listen to the truth in the way it is spoken.
December 2, 2015 at 5:39 pm#805509
kerwin
Participant
Nick,
Philo wrote:
b.) When the scripture uses the Greek term for God ho theos, it refers to the true God, but when it uses the term theos, without the article ho, it refers not to the God, but to his most ancient Logos (Somn. 1.229-230).
and that is how John uses theos in John 1:1. John uses the article in the clause “The word was with God” but not in the clause “the word was God”. Experts today debate his words but his words are from the same basic time period that John wrote and like John he write in Koine Greek.
December 2, 2015 at 6:17 pm#805510
NickHassan
Participant
Hi KW,
Your justifications are flim flam.
Men cannot add to the Words of God.
The spirit that infuses philosophy is not holy.
December 3, 2015 at 5:05 am#805511
GeneBalthrop
Participant
To all……GOD who is SPIRIT was MANIFESTED in the human man JESUS, A REAL HUMAN SON WHO GOD PHYSICALLY FATHERED IN THE WOMB OF A HUMAN WOMEN, MARY, and GOD THE FATHER came to “SPIRITUALLY” indwell his human son Jesus, at the Jordan River, when he was baptized by John. So GOD was indeed “MANIFESTED” (MADE KNOWN) in and through the FLESH man JESUS.
Jesus plainly said over and over, GOD the Father Was “IN” HIM. So GOD, WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH MAN JESUS, but that did not make the Flesh man JESUS a God of any kind.
THIS SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM FOR US TO UNDERSTAND HERE AT ALL. IMO
peace and love to you all and yours. …………..gene
December 3, 2015 at 6:56 am#805512
kerwin
Participant
Nick,
Hi KW,
Your justifications are flim flam.
Men cannot add to the Words of God.
The spirit that infuses philosophy is not holy.
Why do you disagree with Paul’s claims To be a Jew to a Jew and a Gentile to a Gentile and that a few words with understanding are worth a multitude without.
Why do you condemn what God does not for God does not condemn philosophy unless it is based on the principles of the flesh?
Scripture is fully behind me but your words to do not have support within.
December 3, 2015 at 7:21 am#805514
NickHassan
Participant
Hi KW,
So you say.
But your philosophers do not match the master or improve his words.
Author
Posts

Viewing 20 posts - 121 through 140 (of 231 total)

←1 2 3…678…10 11 12 →

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Recent Replies

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

Navigation