1 Timothy 3:16

AV1611jim and I talked about the apographs. So did you. What is your point is the autographs, right? That is what I asked you about that apographs -- Theos vs hos.

I am saying that Theos is right one because during the Apostles's lifetime, Ignatius was there and said "God was in the the flesh."

 

Do you have that Ignatius' quote handy?

 

I'm not Askjo but here is a possibility:

From the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ehesians

CHAP. VII.--BEWARE OF FALSE TEACHERS.
For some are in the habit of carrying about the name[of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, whom ye must flee as ye would wild beasts. For they are ravening dogs, who bite secretly, against whom ye must be on your guard, inasmuch as they are men who can scarcely be cured. There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible,[7] even Jesus Christ our Lord.
But some most worthless persons are in the habit of carrying about the name[of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, and hold opinions contrary to the doctrine of Christ, to their own destruction, and that of those who give credit to them, whom you must avoid as ye would wild beasts. For "the righteous man who avoids them is saved for ever; but the destruction of the ungodly is sudden, and a subject of rejoicing."[5] For "they are dumb dogs, that cannot bark,"[6] raving mad, and biting secretly, against whom ye must be on your guard, since they labour under an incurable disease. But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began,[8] but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For "the Word was made flesh."[9] Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.

Found in the public domain at :

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/fathers/ante-nic/ignatius/igephesi.htm

HankD

 

1. Good effort! But where do you fit the other statements of Christ?

2. There're a number of texts that teach Jesus is God existing in the flesh.

3. Was Ignatius referring to 1 Tim 3:16?

 

I am just locating a possibility in Igantius writings where he used words which Askjo paraphrased (possibly).

This is often a problem when using Church Fathers. They often times do not name the human author of the Book or even identify what they are saying as Scripture. In this passage of The Epistle of Ignatius he does neither but it seems highly probably in some places in this chapter so the translators use quotes. RE: The darkened underline portion God existing in flesh It may not refer to 1 Timothy 3:16 but then again it might.

We would need to see the original language of the Ignatius Epistle to compare it to Pauls letter to Timothy. Even if it were exact there is no guarantee it is a match as Ignatius doesn't atrribute it to Paul.

In terms of textual criticism I personally would give it somewhere between a B and a C as a quotation of 1 Timothy 3:16.


HankD

 

1. ος εφανερωθη εν σαρκι

2. For the Ignatius quote to be taken seriously as a what we have in 1 Tim 3:16, we also need the Greek verb behind Ignatius' "existing."

3. "Existing" can be a form of eimi or hyparcho. What we have in our text is phaneroo, "to manifest."

4. And what texts are those other Ignatius' quotes based on?

 

Another link is http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/truefalse/truefalse03.htm

 

Shoulda known....

:BangHead:

 

No problem, Bro. Williams, but thanks for making it clear.

 

Ehud, an invalid English version would be one "translated" with the intent of making the Bible say what it has never said. Examples of invalid English Bible versions include the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Joseph Smith Translation (also known as the Inspired Version) of the Mormons, and the Clear Word Bible of the Seventh Day Adventists. These "translations" were made so that these errant groups could finally have Bibles that agree with their errant teachings.

Ed is right - all legitimate (or valid) English Bible versions are equally the word of God.

 

I Timothy 3:16 very significant

The issue of whether I Timothy 3:16 says "He appeared in a body" or "God was manifest in the flesh" is extremely significant. Wondering who the "he" is, is not the issue. The "he" is obviously Jesus Christ. That is the only one it could possibly be based on the context and the antecedent to the pronoun.

But there is a big problem if it says "he" instead of God. When it says "God" was manifest in the flesh, since it could only be referring to Jesus Christ, then we have a passage that proves the deity of Jesus Christ. When it says "he" (that is, Jesus) appeared in a body, we have no such proof. The fact that Jesus appeared in a body does not prove he is God.

And just to anticipate some of the arguments, since this has been hashed out before:

"Godliness" is not the antecedent of he. And there is nothing in the passage (when "he" is used instead of "God") to prevent one from saying that Jesus' life manifested the mystery of godliness without him being God almighty himself.

No matter how you try to slice it, this particular passage does not teach the deity of Jesus Christ if it says "He appeared in a body".

In the original autographs, the passage either said God, and thereby was teaching the deity of Christ in this verse, or it said he, and was not teaching the deity of Christ in this verse. You can't have both ways be the word of God, lunatic axions notwithstanding.

 

Check post #87 over here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=34374&page=9

In fact, the whole topic would save a lot of
re-argument.

I axiomatically believe that all valid
English Versions individually and collectively
contain and are the inerrant, Divinely Preserved
Written Word of God, the Holy Bible.

That is the first axiom after the five basic (fundamentals) for
the logic of my religion. What are the basic axioms of
your religion?

Here are the Fundamental axioms of my relilgion:

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

Of course, I have no problem proving the 'deity of Christ'
in my religion.

Here is my truth (axiom) about the
the inspiration and infallibility of scripture:

all valid English Versions individually and collectively
contain and are the inerrant, Divinely Preserved
Written Word of God, the Holy Bible.

So I can 'prove' that the NIV is Holy Scripture.

What's in your wallet?

 

Some might be fooled by the manner in which these statements have been presented; but notice how the 'non-KJV' text is intentionally misrepresented (at least 4 times in two paragraphs does NOT seem to be accidental): the NIV, NASB, RSV and many other versions actually have "He" (not "he"), where the capitalization of personal pronouns is the identification of Deity (one or more Persons of the Trinity). Because the cap 'H' denotes Diety, there is NO problem.

I agree that "He" can only represent Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Godhead in I Timothy 3:16. The underlying Greek of the NIV, NASB, RSV and others is legitimately represented in the English by "He". Changing the uppercase 'G' (of "God") to a lowercase 'g' (god) would essentially have the same detrimental affect (as a small 'h' for "He"): negation of the true diety of the antecedent. Therefore, this verse is no less a prooftext of the deity of Jesus Christ with characters 'H-e' than 'G-o-d'. It could be actually considered more specific since "God" generally refers to The Father, not The Son. It was God the Son that became flesh, not God the Father.

Without question, this is the great mystery of our faith: Christ appeared in the flesh and was shown to be righteous by the Spirit. He was seen by angels and was announced to the nations. He was believed on in the world and was taken up into heaven. (NLT)​

If the author of the citation did not deliberately resolve to deceive the readers of the BB, I think they will graciously accept his apology along with the retraction of his argument (which is competely dependant upon the fallacy of "he").

 

Well reasoned on the issue of Bible versions. I'm on board.

 

From this statement it seems that there may be unfamiliarity with the actual variants of this verse as found in the extant MSS leading to this textual controversy.

The Greek word theos (Strong's #2316, meaning "God" in English) is not found spelled out in uncial MSS, but rather the characters approximating 'OC' are found. These characters could be taken to spell the Greek word hos (Strong's #3739, which would mean "whom" in this context). However, a similar construction of 'OC' is also the technical abbreviation for theos (requiring a line above both letters and a line through the 'O' character, thus transforming it into a theta).

This was a common copyist practice, frequently repeated words and some names were truncated to conserve materials and time. For example, the construction of 'IC|XC' (with a bar above all) is the Greek abbreviation for "Jesus Christ". This type of abbreviation (and other contractions and 'shorthand') are still a principal problem confronting paleographers.

It seems that no unedited uncial witnesses earlier than probably the 8th (or 9th) century support "God", and also all ancient versions have "He/Whom" equivalents. Despite the earlier ambiguous Ignatius citation, no church father prior to the later portion of the 4th century clearly testifies to the "God" reading.

 

Conversely, if the accepted words are "God was manifest in the flesh" the doctrine of the Trinity is weakened.

Oneness Pentecostal theology affirms that there exists only one God in all the universe. Oneness theology does also affirms the deity of Jesus it denies the Trinity and teaches that God is a single person, and was manifested as Father (in creation), as the Son (in redemption), and as the Holy Spirit (in regeneration). They would use the KJV rendering of "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 as a prooftext.

The term "God" does occur in verse 15, but only as an adjective, NOT as the nominative --

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.​

"Christ Jesus" is the antecedent of "He" (v.13). "He" maintains a clearer distinction between the Father and the Son, and thus corroborates the multi-Person Godhead.

 

Wycliffe's Bible (1382) is based upon the Latin text of the Vulgate. The Latin-equivalent for "God" does not seem appear in 1 Timothy 3:16. The Vulgate was the Bible of Europe for over 1000 years. Wycliffe's version was the only English translation available for about 150 years, and popular even beyond that time --

And opynli it is a greet sacrament of pitee, that thing that was schewid in fleisch, it is iustified in spirit, it apperid to aungels, it is prechid to hethene men, it is bileuyd in the world, it is takun vp in glorie.​

(If the reader prefers modern spelling: "And openly it is a great sacrament of piety, that thing that was showed in flesh, it is justified in spirit, it appeared to angels, it is preached to heathen men, it is believed in the world, it is taken up into glory.")

Do you think all those Christian's during those ages used this verse to support the doctrine of the Deity of Christ?

 

So is it that the word of God is to be limited to ONLY those doctrines and everything else "thrown out with the bathwater"?

That is limiting the word of God and a complete failure to have it for all faith and practice when it comes to the guidelines for life's principles.

Any commentary is worthy of that same designation as long as it also expresses those same doctrines.:tonofbricks:

 

Do you understand Ed's original post, which I endorsed?