Home Scripture & Verse Was God Manifest in the Flesh? Page 8

Was God Manifest in the Flesh?

, , Scripture & Verse, 231
1 Timothy 3:16

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 - 141 through 160 (of 231 total)
123…789101112
  • Author
    Posts
  • December 3, 2015 at 9:30 am#805515
    kerwin
    Participant

    Nick,

    I am not the one that speaks without support you are.

    I have already given the passages of Scripture and you choose to brush them away because you are sticking to your own understanding.

    It is necessary to understand the language and context thereof to understand the meaning of a passage unless you are a prophet that reveals the truth to so you can write your own book of the bible.

    December 3, 2015 at 9:44 am#805516
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi KW,

    You should choose to follow the Lord rather than Philo and his band of philosophers

    December 3, 2015 at 10:13 am#805517
    NickHassan
    Participant

     

    Hi KW,

    Form Wikipedia

    “Philo represents the apex of Jewish-Hellenistic syncretism. His work attempts to combine Plato and Moses into one philosophical system.[12] His ethics were strongly influenced by Aristotelianism and Stoicism, preferring a morality of virtues without passions, such as lust/desire and anger, but with a “common human sympathy”.[13]

    Philo evolved an original teaching of Logos. The polysemic profusion of this word provided for its use in different connotation. Complying with the anthropomorphic description of God in Tanakh, Philo used logos in the meaning of an utterance. In Philo’s philosophy, God is absolutely transcendent: his notion is even more abstract than that of the Monad of Pythagoras or the Good of Plato. Only God’s existence is certain, no appropriate predicates can be conceived.[14] Following Plato, Philo equals matter to nothingness and sees its effect in fallacy, discord, damage, and decay of things.[15] This view enables Philo to combine the Jewish belief in creation with the Greek conviction about the formation of all things from the permanent matter.

    Philo thought that God created and governed the world through mediators. Logos is the chief among them, the next to God, demiurge of the world. Logos is immaterial, an adequate image of God, his shadow, his firstborn son.[16] Being the mind of the Eternal, Logos is imperishable.[17] He is neither uncreated as God is, nor created as men are, but occupies a middle position. He has no autarkic power, only an entrusted one.[18]

    Philo probably was the first philosopher who identified Plato’s ideas with Creator’s thoughts. These thoughts make the contents of Logos; they were the seals for making sensual things during world creation.[19] Logos resembles a book with creature paradigms.[20] Architect’s design before the construction of a city serves to Philo as another simile of Logos.[21] Since creation, Logos binds things together.[22] As the receptacle and holder of ideas, Logos is distinct from the material world. At the same time, Logos pervades the world, supporting it.[23]

    Logos has the function of an advocate on behalf of humanity and also that of a God’s envoy to the world.[24] He puts human minds in order.[25] The right reason is an infallible law, the source of any other laws.[26] The angel closing Balaam’s way (Numbers XXII, 31) is interpreted by Philo as manifestation of Logos, which acts as man’s conscience.[27]“

    This is the man you offer?

    One who tried to fuse divine teachings with those of carnal men?

    December 3, 2015 at 10:38 am#805519
    NickHassan
    Participant

     

    Hi KW,

    More on your man.

    From Encyclopedia Brittanica

    “The key influences on Philo’s philosophy were Plato, Aristotle, the Neo-Pythagoreans, the Cynics, and the Stoics. Philo’s basic philosophic outlook is Platonic, so much so that Jerome and other Church Fathers quote the apparently widespread saying: “Either Plato philonizes or Philo platonizes.” Philo’s reverence for Plato, particularly for the Symposium and the Timaeus, is such that he never took open issue with him, as he did with the Stoics and other philosophers. But Philo is hardly a plagiarist; he made modifications in Plato’s theories. To Aristotle he was indebted primarily in matters of cosmology and ethics. To the Neo-Pythagoreans, who had grown in importance during the century before Philo, he was particularly indebted for his views on the mystic significance of numbers, especially the number seven, and the scheme of a peculiar, self-disciplined way of life as a preparation for immortality. The Cynics, with their diatribes, influenced him in the form of his sermons. Though Philo more often employed the terminology of the Stoics than that of any other school, he was critical of their thoughts.

     

    Should greek folly be added to the divine teachings?

    December 3, 2015 at 11:03 am#805520
    NickHassan
    Participant

     

    Hi KW,

    More on this opposer of truth.

    Raymond F. Surburg writes: “Philo represents a strange fusion. By nature and upbringing he was a Jew; by residence in Alexandria a mystic; by higher education a Greek humanist; by contact and social position an ally of the Roman aristocracy. Philo attempted to achieve a twofold purpose by his writings: 1) He endeavored to justify the jewish religion to the cultured people of Graeco-Roman society. In view of the deterioration of pagan society and religion, he had a splendid opportunity to portray the Jewish faith as fulfilling ‘the desire of all nations.’ On the other hand, he tried to show and persuade his strict coreligionists that Greek philosophy and learning were not actually hostile and opposed to the tenets of the Hebrew religion but that each stood for practically identical principles. Philo thus adopted an eclectic viewpoint, one in which he blended Old Testament theological concepts with Greek philosophical principles. Katz claims that ‘Philo witnesses to a development in which philosophy turned religious and religion philosophic.’ While Philo spoke pihlosophically with the intention of bringing home dogmatic and ethical truths, in so doing it involved on his part a dilution of the religious substance of divine revelation. Likewise his religious convictions were modified by philosophical inheritance.” (Introduction to the Intertestamental Period, pp. 155-156)

    December 3, 2015 at 11:52 am#805524
    kerwin
    Participant

    Nick,

    Thank you for the research.

    Raymond F. Suburb is a theologian and possibly a heretic giving his opinion.

    I have read his writings and I found them Gnostic in flavor but still Jewish. He is a heretic. In all he comes off as a Hellenized Jew which leads me to believe John’s audience was Hellenized Jews.

    Jewish mystics are known today and more common 2000 plus years ago. Alexandrian may have been a hot spot for them but they were widespread. John uses mystic words and modes of speech.

    His doctrine is only relevant so far as it tests true.

    His doctrine of the logos comes off as based on Scripture. That would be Raymond F. Surburg’s idea of OT theology.

    Given John is using the same basic ideas that Philo is then he is Logos is the image of God and existed with God in the beginning.

    December 3, 2015 at 11:56 am#805526
    kerwin
    Participant

    Nick,

    Philo writes in reference to the Old Testament expression that God “breathed into” (equivalent of “inspired” or “gave life to”) inanimate things that through this act God extended his spirit into humans (LA 1.37). Though his spirit is distributed among men it is not diminished (Gig. 27). The nature of the reasoning power in men is indivisible from the Divine Logos, but “though they are indivisible themselves, they divide an innumerable multitude of other things.” Just as the Divine Logos divided and distributed everything in nature (that is, it gave qualities to undifferentiated, primordial matter), so the human mind by exertion of its intellect is able to divide everything and everybody into an infinite number of parts. And this is possible because it resembles the Logos of the Creator and Father of the universe: “So that, very naturally, the two things which thus resemble each other, both the mind which is in us and that which is above us, being without parts and invisible, will still be able in a powerful manner to divide and distribute [comprehend] all existing things” (Her. 234-236; Det. 90). Uninitiated minds are unable to apprehend the Existent by itself; they only perceive it through its actions. To them God appears as a Triad — himself and his two Powers: Creative and Ruling. To the “purified soul,” however, God appears as One.

    I can see how his writings could be misinterpreted to support the Trinity but is just a mystic way of writing.

    I was looking for the link between God’s word and Spirit when I came across this.

    December 3, 2015 at 12:19 pm#805528
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi KW,

    Why are the thought of deceivers attracting your attention?

    December 3, 2015 at 1:17 pm#805535
    kerwin
    Participant

    Nick,

    I use what sources I have and if God chooses to give me perfect ones then I use them as well. If John had written as many details as Philo then it would be better than Philo’s writings. If he did we do not have access to it so I use Philo’ words to figure out what unwritten context is writen. It is not like Philo’s reasoning is hard.

    Philo writes in reference to the Old Testament expression that God “breathed into” (equivalent of “inspired” or “gave life to”) inanimate things that through this act God extended his spirit into humans (LA 1.37).

    Is this statement true/false/unknown.

    It is true as is is the same idea expressed in Genesis 2:7.

    Though his spirit is distributed among men it is not diminished (Gig. 27).

    Another true statement if speaking of the breath. I am not sure if it is true when speaking of the human spirit.

    The nature of the reasoning power in men is indivisible from the Divine Logos, but “though they are indivisible themselves, they divide an innumerable multitude of other things.” Just as the Divine Logos divided and distributed everything in nature (that is, it gave qualities to undifferentiated, primordial matter), so the human mind by exertion of its intellect is able to divide everything and everybody into an infinite number of parts.

    Many word confuse the issue but the basic concept is based on Genesis 1:27. He is using mind much as Paul does in Romans 7. I am going to say it is unknown if it is true or false since I am having difficulties processing it.

    December 3, 2015 at 1:25 pm#805538
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi KW,

    False.

    There is no suggestion that God gave of His Spirit to all humans.

    Jewish mysticism and Greek intellectualism are equally false teachings.

    bad food

    December 3, 2015 at 3:34 pm#805549
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    @mstrainjr

    What I’m saying is that this part does not necessarily mean that Jesus was in the form of God Almighty.

    To be in the form of God does not mean you are God, rather that you have his nature. And it is no surprise because even we can share in that nature.

    1 Peter 1:4
    Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

    I think of it like this. Adam was the first man. And the word ‘adam’ is the Hebrew word for ‘man’. Thus the difference is either THE Man or man (mankind).

    So Eve was adam, but not Adam.

    Likewise Jesus existed in the form of God means that he wasn’t God just as Eve wasn’t Adam.

    It is really about distinguishing between identity vs nature. If we have a particular nature either that of man or divine, neither makes us Adam or God, rather sharing in their nature only.

    The same applies to Devil and devil. Jesus said of Judas that one of them was a devil. He was not saying that one was Satan himself, but that one had his nature.

    Often the definite article helps us in knowing if someone is being identified vs being classified.

    December 3, 2015 at 5:39 pm#805551
    kerwin
    Participant

    Nick,

    Hi KW,

    False.

    There is no suggestion that God gave of His Spirit to all humans.

    Jewish mysticism and Greek intellectualism are equally false teachings.

    bad food

    Isn’t it written that the spirit returns to God who gave it? (Ecclesiastes 12:7))

    December 3, 2015 at 7:22 pm#805552
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi KW,

    Indeed.

    But why would you ASSUME from that that it was the Spirit of God?

    God is the father of SPIRITS

    December 3, 2015 at 8:18 pm#805553
    kerwin
    Participant

    Nick,

    I believe it is the breath and as far as I can tell so does Philo. His effort is to link the creation of man in Gen 1:27 to the making of Adam inn Gen 2:7. He claims that man was created in the image of God is the Logos and through the Logos men know and perceive God.

    December 3, 2015 at 8:21 pm#805554
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi KW,

    The opinion of the deceived Philo is not relevant and neither is your personal opinion.

    Go back to scripture

    December 4, 2015 at 10:10 am#805559
    kerwin
    Participant

    Nick,

    I am asking you about Scripture.

    After all the idea is to test Philo’s writing by Scripture.

    Most does not teach anything not in Scripture though it does give a cultural viewpoint on certain Scriptures and Scriptural ideas.

    I throw out those parts that test false and reserve my opinion on those that I do not know if they are true or not.

    December 4, 2015 at 11:11 am#805563
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi KW,

    You are too gullible.

    His words are of man and not God.

    December 4, 2015 at 11:39 am#805565
    kerwin
    Participant

    Nick,

    Your accusation is not of God since I do not believe all of what Philo says but only that which agrees with Scripture.

    I also know it is foolish to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    December 4, 2015 at 1:14 pm#805572
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi KW,

    So you are still hopeful of picking grapes from this bramble bush?

    December 4, 2015 at 1:21 pm#805574
    kerwin
    Participant

    Nick,

    I am able to determine which grapes are good and which are spoiled even when they are on the same bush for the Spirit reveals the truth.

    John 11:49-51Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

    49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

    God can cause a bramble to bear good grapes when he chooses to do so.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 141 through 160 (of 231 total)
123…789101112
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

 

CREATE NEW TOPIC
POPULAR TOPICS
ACTIVE TOPICS
SITE SEARCH
SUPPORT US
REGISTER

Recent Replies

ALL REPLIES →

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
 Log in with Facebook
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

 Log in with Facebook
or

Create Account