WHO IS THE SON OF GOD?

[GentleGospeller]

As to Ps 102, it is sometimes the case that YHWH is used to refer to both Father and Son acting in concert. Ps 102 is such a case.

No, Psa. 102, as cited by Paul, under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, says that the Father is speaking to the Son:

Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Heb 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

Psa 102:12 But thou, O LORD, shalt endure for ever; and thy remembrance unto all generations.

Psa 102:24 I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations.
Psa 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
Psa 102:26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:
Psa 102:27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.

Psa. 102 is the Father speaking to the Son as per Heb. 1:8 (Paul, Holy Ghost, Text itself, not 'you' in what you stated). The Father, in Psa. 102, directly calls the Son, "LORD" (JHVH) and "God" (elohiym), irrespective of what 'you' claim.

No one needs 'you' to re-interpret for us what it says. That is "private interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20).

Thus it is not "Father and Son" acting in concert as the reason that 'they' (as you say) are called "JHVH", but it is the Person / Being of the Father, speaking through the prophet / psalmist, directly calling the singular ( - Psalm 102:12 Interlinear: But thou, O LORD, shalt endure for ever; and thy remembrance unto all generations. ) individual, the Person / Being of the Son by the name JHVH alone therein (vs 12,24-27), and the designation God. Even more so, the text directly says of the Son that the Son is "the same", in contrast with the creation (specifically Gen. 1), which 'changes' (Psa. 102:26). The Son's character does not ever change, since it is eternal, even as He is the "express image" of the Father's own Person, and eternal character.

 

[GentleGospeller]

Rather Ps 110:1 clearly reveals that the Son considered independently of the Father is not YHWH, but that the Father is YHWH.

No, Psa. 110:1, clearly distinguishes the Personages / Beings of the Father (identified as JHVH in Psa. 110:1) and the Son (identified as the Messiah, or Lord, Adonai, and High priest of the Father, in Psa. 110:1,4), just as Daniel 7 does between the "Ancient of Days" and the "son of man". It does not say that the Son does not also have the name JHVH elsewhere. Psa. 110:1-7's purpose is not to identify the Son as named JHVH, as Psa. 102, &c do. That is already given elsewhere (as noted), as I have already provided, and you have not addressed. It is like a Muslim pointing to a verse (elsewhere) that says that Jesus is a "man", and in that place does not say that Jesus is "God". However, in spite of the Muslims deception / ignorance, there are many places which identify Jesus as "God" (Deity), as well as (in addition to) being a "man" upon His incarnation.

However, you seemed to have missed the point, that Psa. 110:1, does indeed teach the everlasting Deity of the Son. Notice what it clearly says:

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

No creature, no matter how exalted, can sit on the eternal throne of Deity next to the side of the Father. Lucifer (a creature, and once highly exalted) tries to do so, but never can.

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It is not possible for any creature, no matter how exalted, to be "the express image" of the Father's Person / Being (as it is eternal in being and infinite in character), nor to sit "down on the right hand of the majesty on high".

Mat_11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Luk_10:22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

Do you know why that is? Think very carefully about it.

 

[cjab]

No, Psa. 110:1, clearly distinguishes the Personages / Beings of the Father (identified as JHVH in Psa. 110:1) and the Son (identified as the Messiah, or Lord, Adonai, and High priest of the Father, in Psa. 110:1,4), just as Daniel 7 does between the "Ancient of Days" and the "son of man". It does not say that the Son does not also have the name JHVH elsewhere. Psa. 110:1-7's purpose is not to identify the Son as named JHVH, as Psa. 102, &c do. That is already given elsewhere (as noted), as I have already provided, and you have not addressed. It is like a Muslim pointing to a verse (elsewhere) that says that Jesus is a "man", and in that place does not say that Jesus is "God". However, in spite of the Muslims deception / ignorance, there are many places which identify Jesus as "God" (Deity), as well as (in addition to) being a "man" upon His incarnation.

However, you seemed to have missed the point, that Psa. 110:1, does indeed teach the everlasting Deity of the Son. Notice what it clearly says:

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

No creature, no matter how exalted, can sit on the eternal throne of Deity next to the side of the Father. Lucifer (a creature, and once highly exalted) tries to do so, but never can.

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It is not possible for any creature, no matter how exalted, to be "the express image" of the Father's Person / Being (as it is eternal in being and infinite in character), nor to sit "down on the right hand of the majesty on high".

Mat_11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Luk_10:22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

Do you know why that is? Think very carefully about it.

Frankly I am already sick and tired of your snide remarks to the effect that I say that Jesus is a "creature." But yes, Jesus was true man. And you don't know what I think, because you are more interested in condemning me than learning what I think. And I have quickly ceased to be interested
in what you say. I am not interested in your polytheistic theology or your incessant jibes. I am only interested in debating linguistics.

Re the Hebrew. Let me repeat: The Father is identified as YHWH in Ps 110:1, the Son as Adon (sing.)

So you are wrong: Here in Ps 110:1, the Son, in isolation, and considered separately from the Father, is neither Adonai, nor YHWH.

The situation is different when the Son is considered when clothed with his Father's glory. But separately, and apart from the Father's glory. the Son is not named either Adonai or YHWH.

 

[GentleGospeller]

"God" was not manifest in the flesh in 1 Tim 3:16, because the oldest Greek manuscripts, including Codex Sinaiticus etc, and the Latin Vulgate read "who," not "God". The manuscripts were corrupted by the later pro-Trinitarian Byzantine text form.

Hooo boy, let's get to this one. Straight from my Discord server and own notes:

Codex B (Vaticanus)​

As for Codex B, or the Vaticanus Codex, it is claimed by Rome to be a very early period (4th century AD) manuscript in Codex (book) form, but there are serious issues with that claim. It is not known when it (Codex B) arrived at the Vatican, but it was included in a catalog listing in 1475 (also 1481). Erasmus also knew of its existence, but he does not say it was 4th century, but rather that it was created (emended, supposedly, though not much evidence to confirm that supposition, from 6th century ‘Vulgate’) sometime at around the Council of Florence, AD 1430’s (15th century). Dr. Scot McKendrick (2008 in interview at the British Library), as posted on Youtube:

• “... And second is that, uhm, Vaticanus has a, now has a very strange appearance. When you look at it, as a manuscript expert, although you ‘know’ that people tell you that it’s, it is, a fourth century manuscript, it actually looks like a fifteenth century manuscript; and there is one very simple reason for that, is that, almost the entire text has been overwritten by a fifteenth century scribe. Not only that, he’s added in fifteenth century decoration, titling and so forth. So it has a very strange appearance. ...” -

The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text; Scot McKendrick, Orlaith O’Sullivan; 2003, page 34:

• “... [page 34] In short, we cannot be certain of the exact date nor the place of the origin of Codex Vaticanus, nor, in spite of scholarly efforts, can its history before the fifteenth century be traced. ...” - The Bible as book : the transmission of the Greek text : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Codex (א) Aleph (Sinaiticus)​

The problems surrounding Codex Aleph (א), or Codex Sinaiticus, are too numerous to go into in this section (such as the entire history of the feud between Constantine von Tischendorf (a thief, liar & gloryhound) & Constantine Simonides (who claimed to have created it for a Russian Tsar, with internal evidences to that fact), but for any who desire to see the major issues, please visit YouTube’s David W. Daniel’s excellent series at Chick Publications YT channel. There are many excellently documented presentations:

Many more books can be read on the subject of the corruptions that have taken place throughout the years, but that there was always a pure bible in existence in the hands of the true church (people) of God has been well documented.

So, in short they (Codex Aleph & B, and even A) are not bny any means the 'oldest' anything, and the problems with them are plethora, see - Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Texts, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine

 

[GentleGospeller]

"God" was not manifest in the flesh in 1 Tim 3:16, because the oldest Greek manuscripts, including Codex Sinaiticus etc, and the Latin Vulgate read "who," not "God". The manuscripts were corrupted by the later pro-Trinitarian Byzantine text form.

Continuing:


Looking at Mss, and the vast evidence for this reading in 1 Timothy 3:16,

1Ti_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.

1Ti 3:16 και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος εφανερωθη εν σαρκι εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη

Why would you (and others) follow the NIV and NWT's choice to remove the word "God" and replace it with a nonsensical "He" or even "Who" (which makes no sense whatsoever)?

The NIV and NWT follow the same spirit:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3:16&version=NIV

1 Timothy 3 | Online Bible | New World Translation

The words do not occur in the following corrupted texts:

Aleph (Sinaiticus), (A*, Alexandrinus), (C*??), D*, G-gr, F-gr, pc,
Old Latin: ar, c, d, dem, div, f, g, mon, x, z, Vulgate,
Syriac: Pes.hitta, Harclean;
Coptic: Sahidic, Bohairic,
Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic

Here is the vast extant literature which has the text in it:

"... Aleph-c, A-c, C-2, D-2, K, L, P
Psi
Cursives: MAJORITY, fam 13
Old Latin: Vulgate-ms

Also extant in 056, 061, 075, 0142, 0150, 0151, 0241. We have placed A and C on the revised side only because textual criticism insists in telling us that this is where they belong. In fact, that most careful of scholars, H. C. Hoskier believed the first hand palimpsest C read "God", and codex A, F.H.A. Scrivener wrote during the latter nineteenth century:

Cod. A, however, I have examined at least twenty times within as many years ... seeing (as every one must see for himself) with Berriman and the earlier collators that Cod A read THEOS ... the evidence of Young, of Huish, of Mill, of Berriman and his friends, when the page was comparatively unworn, cannot thus be disposed of (Plain Introduction, pp 639, 640 note). ...

... According to Scrivener, it is quoted by some of the very earliest fathers as Ignatius (110), and Hippolytus (235). Of the more than 250 cursive manuscripts containing I Timothy, Theos is found." - A Closer Look: Early Manuscripts & The A.V.; by Jack Moorman, pages 135

Additionally:

"... GREGORY OF NYSSA, Against Eunomius (III 5:101, 155, 176, 232) ..." - Early Church Fathers And The Authorized Version, by Jack Moorman, page 57

Additionally:

"... TEXT: "He was made apparent in the flesh"
EVIDENCE: S* A* C* G 33 syr(pal) syr(p,h)? cop?
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: B

NOTES: "God was made apparent in the flesh"
EVIDENCE: Se A2 C2 Dc K L P Psi 81 104 614 630 1241 1739 1881 2495 Byz Lect
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn NASVn NIVn

NOTES: "Which was made apparent in the flesh"
EVIDENCE: D* lat vg syr(p,h)? cop?
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSVn

COMMENTS: The word "who" was changed to "which" by some copyists to refer to "mystery." In an older manuscript that does not have accents and breathing marks, all that is required to change the Greek word for "who" (OS) to the abbreviation for "God" (OS) is to add two marks. This happened to several manuscripts, apparently to give a definite subject to the following verbs. ..." - Textual Variants: 1 & 2 Timothy, Philemon

 

[GentleGospeller]

"God" was not manifest in the flesh in 1 Tim 3:16, because the oldest Greek manuscripts, including Codex Sinaiticus etc, and the Latin Vulgate read "who," not "God". The manuscripts were corrupted by the later pro-Trinitarian Byzantine text form.

Continuing further:


Looking at Mss, and the vast evidence for this reading in 1 Timothy 3:16,

1Ti_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.

why would you (and others) follow the NIV and NWT's choice to remove the word "God" and replace it with a nonsensical "He"?

The NIV and NWT follow the same spirit:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3:16&version=NIV

1 Timothy 3 | Online Bible | New World Translation

Additionally:

"... Secondly, the textual evidence for the reading "GOD was manifest in the flesh" is massive. It is the reading found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts we have today. Of the 300 known Greek cursive copies we have of the epistle of Paul to Timothy 254 of them read "GOD was manifest in the flesh".

This is also the reading found in Sinaiticus correction, A correction, C correction and D correction. Even among these 4, in their previously uncorrected forms, they disagreed with each other and none of them is grammatically correct. Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and C used to read "who" (ὃς) and mss. D used to read "which" (ὃ) but neither reading is even good Greek grammar.

There is NO Vaticanus reading because the Vatican manuscript is missing all of First and Second Timothy, as well as Titus, several chapters of Hebrews as well as the entire book of Revelation. In other words, ALL four of the so called 5 great uncial copies that contain this portion of the Scriptures were seen as being defective and were corrected very early on by Christian Scribes.

"GOD was manifest in the flesh" is the reading of other uncial copies as well including K, L, P, Psi. It is the reading found in the early Byzantine Lectionaries, the Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions and is so quoted by numerous early Christian writers.

In his book, The Revision Revised, Dean Burgon (pages 450, 454, 489-90) also cites the Georgian (6th century), Harkleian Syriac (616 AD) and the Slavonic (9th cent.) versions as reading "God." The fathers in support of this passage are as follows (Burgon, p 486-90):

1st Century: Ignatius (90 AD); 2nd Century: Hippolytus (190 AD); 3rd Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Epistle ascribed to Dionysius of Alexandria (264 AD), Gregory Thaumaturgus; 4th Century: Basil the Great (355 AD), Chrysostom (380 AD), Didymus (325 AD), Diodorus (370 AD), Gregory of Nazianzus (355 AD), Gregory of Nyssa (370 AD). "Euthalian" chapter title of I Tim. 3, attesting to "God in the flesh."; 5th Century: Anon. citation in works of Athanasius (430 AD), Cyril of Alexandria (410 AD), Euthalius (458 AD), Macedonius 11(496 AD), Theodoret (420 AD); 6th Century: Severus, Bishop of Antioch (512 AD); 8th Century: Epiphanius of Catana (787 AD), John Damascene (730 AD), Theodorus Studita (790 AD); 10th Century: Ecumenius (990 AD); 11th Century: Theophylact (1077 AD); 12th Century: Euthymius (1116 AD).

Hippolytus (170-236 A.D.) "God was manifested in the flesh." (Against the Heresies of Noetus I: 1:17), and Dionysius (3rd cent.) "For God was manifested in the flesh." (Conciliations I: 1:853)

"GOD was manifest in the flesh" is also the reading of the Greek texts of Ximenes, Erasmus, Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624, Scrivener 1894 and the Hodges and Farstad Majority Text Greek New Testament 1982. It IS the Reformation text. ..." - https://brandplucked.webs.com/1timothy316godorhe.htm

Additionally:

"... This alteration has been discussed exhaustively by Burgon (14) pp 101-5, 424-504, whose researches have been summarized by the TBS (58) "God was Manifest in the Flesh." See also Fuller, citing the TBS, (32) p 24A1. ...

... The most ancient Greek uncial in favour of "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16, is Codex A (5th cent.). Burgon (p 432-436) cites in detail the witnesses who attest to the horizontal stroke of "Theta" in "Theos" being clearly visible up to the mid 18th century. The TBS pamphlet provides an excellent Summary. In support of A are uncials K, L and P, ("Mosquensis," "Angelicus" and "Porphyrianus" resp.) all of the 9th century.

The extant cursive copies of Paul's letters number 300, of which 254 (designated "Paul 1" to "Paul 301") contain 1 Tim. 3:16. Of these, no less than 252 read "God," in agreement with this passage. (The two exceptions, which have already been discussed, are "Paul 17" and "Paul 73," of which the latter is a doubtful witness.) Added to this favourable testimony are 29 out of 32 Lectionary copies from the Eastern Church, reaching back to earliest times t.e. before Aleph, which support the reading "God." (Burgon, p 478, declares the 3 exceptions to be "Western documents of suspicious character.")

Burgon p 450, 454, 489-90. also cites the Georgian (6th century), Harkleian Syriac (616 AD) and the Slavonic (9th cent.) versions as reading "God." The fathers in support of this passage are as follows (Burgon, p 486-90):

1st Century: Barnabus, Ignatius (90 AD); 2nd Century: Hippolytus (190 AD); 3rd Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Epistle ascribed to Dionysius of Alexandria (264 AD), Gregory Thaumaturgus; 4th Century: Basil the Great (355 AD), Chrysostom (380 AD), Didymus (325 AD), Diodorus (370 AD), Gregory of Nazianzus (355 AD), Gregory of Nyssa (370 AD). "Euthalian" chapter title of I Tim. 3, attesting to "God in the flesh."; 5th Century: Anon. citation in works of Athanasius (430 AD), Cyril of Alexandria (410 AD), Euthalius (458 AD), Macedonius 11(496 AD), Theodoret (420 AD); 6th Century: Severus, Bishop of Antioch (512 AD); 8th Century: Epiphanius of Catana (787 AD), John Damascene (730 AD), Theodorus Studita (790 AD); 10th Century: Ecumenius (990 AD); 11th Century: Theophylact (1077 AD); 12th Century: Euthymius (1116 AD).

See also Fuller (4) p 110-1, (32) p98, 260 (summarizing Burgon's final findings as 300 Greek manuscripts (uncial, cursive, lectionary), reading "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16, vs. 7 which do not), Hills (3) p 137-8, Ruckman (31)See also Part 3 for further discussion on the evidence for this passage reading for this verse. ..." - Manuscript Evidence for Disputed Verses

Additionally:

Burgon may be read here in full - The Revision Revised – Dean John William Burgon (PDF)

The real text, as demonstrated says:

"Codex A, as presented in the photographic facsimile volume published by the British Museum in 1879. Of particular interest here is the reading in 3:16, where it may be seen that the manuscript reads ΘC "God was manifested in the flesh," employing the usual abbreviation ΘC for ΘEOC, with a stroke over the letters to indicate an abbreviation." - https://www.religiousforums.com/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bible-researcher.com%2Falexandrinus4.jpg&hash=fd93843452ba6e8d6436e941af6b0af1

So, which manuscripts were "corrupted"? Not the Majority, et al., but instead the Catholic mss of Codex B (Vaticanus, with unknown provenance and authorship/s (plural)), and Codex Aleph (a forged document, created by Constantine Simonides, even as he stated, and was able to demonstrate to those who desired to know, and as brother David W. Daniels further evidences in documentation in the links provided).

 

[GentleGospeller]

You have misunderstood the Hebrew religion. There is only one God

Hardly, and this is demonstrated in the book, already linked, with those details. You seem to have not read through all of the materials in that source.

That there is only "one God" is not in question by myself, and already acknowledged and agreed to, and my position from the beginning, but what the definition of that phrase means is entirely differing from your own, and in harmony with the scriptures. As for instance, on pages 18-19 (even right near to the beginning of the work), it is plainly stated, and evidenced, that (bold and underline with emphasis):

"... Deu. 6:4 KJB, HOT, wherein it seems that [H430] “אלהינו”, “élohëynû” is singularity, rather than true plurality? Look at the text carefully:

Deuteronomy 6:4 KJB - Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

Deuteronomy 6:4 HOT - שׁמע ישׂראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד׃

Deuteronomy 6:4 HOT Transliterated - sh'ma yis'räël j'hväh élohëynû j'hväh echäd

What the text plainly says, is not what many say that it says. What the text plainly says, is that, “Listen (Hear with understanding), (the peoples of the) Israel (descendants of Jacob / Israel): JEHOVAH (singular family name) our (the peoples, by creation of and covenant relationship to) “élohëynû” (Gods, plurality; N-mpc | 1cp; Noun, masculine, plural, genitival pronoun, 1st person, common, plural – biblehub.com/interlinear/Deuteronomy/6-4.htm ) [is] “one” (a unity of, a harmony of, a chord of; singularity of purpose, not of Persons / Beings; see the ‘marriage’ of Man (Adam) & Woman (Eve) by the Holy Spirit of God, Gen. 2:24 KJB, HOT, [H259] “אחד׃”, “echäd”, “one”) JEHOVAH (singular family name).

In other words, the Eternal family (élohëynû) of Persons / Beings shares a singular Family name (JEHOVAH), as well as a singular goal, and / or purpose in their Eternal love. The Father is “JEHOVAH”, “the Ancient of days” (Dan. 7:9,13,22 KJB), thus ‘JEHOVAH Sr.’, and the Son is “Jesus” “JEHOVAH” (H3444; H3068; “ישׁועתה ליהוה”; Gen. 49:18; Exo. 14:13; 2 Chr. 20:17; Jon. 2:10; Psa. 119:174 HOT), or “JEHOVAH” “E / Immanuel” ((Psa. 46:7,11 KJB) Psa. 46:8,12 HOT, (H3068; H5973; H430), “יהוה ... עמנו... אלהי”), or ‘JEHOVAH Jr.’ (a Son with the same name as His Father; Exo. 23:21; Mat. 1:21; Jhn. 5:43, 10:25 KJB), and the Holy Ghost / Spirit, is “the [Holy] Spirit of the LORD (JEHOVAH)” (2 Sam. 23:2 KJB, HOT; &c.), or ‘JEHOVAH’s Holy Spirit’. While this Chapter’s primary function is to discuss [H430] “אלהים”, “'ĕlôhı̂ym” as true plurality, the other sentiments and the name (JEHOVAH) of [H430] “אלהים”, “'ĕlôhı̂ym” shall be discussed in further detail in the Chapters to follow. ..."

You can also read, "QUESTION 021: The scriptures clearly say “... The LORD our God is one LORD.” (Deu. 6:4; Mar. 12:29 KJB), how then can there be “three” (1 Jhn. 5:7 KJB) Persons / Beings?" on pages 370-386 if you are so inclined, but, again, that will be up to you and your own prerogatives.

So, you simply do not understand the plurality of Persons / Beings that are the Elohiym, that share the name, JEHOVAH, and yet, from the beginning of the linked book material this was demonstrated most thoroughly.

Modern Rabbibincal Talmudic Kabbalism by no means believes (or even practices) what the ancient Hebrews / Israelites / Jews did as it is written in the TaNaKh (OT) and is therefore irrelevant to the conversation. They (modernists) do not even accept Jesus as the Messiah, and why then should anything they write be trusted? In their own Talmud, Jesus is blasphemed, as well as Miriam (sources upon request).

Who are the Hebrews / Israelites / Jews to be trusted? Just look to Moses (Exo. 3), or to David (Psa.) or to the prophets (Hos. 1. Zec. 3), or to the Apostles (like John), or to those later (like Paul), and they all, with one voice, proclaim the eternal Deity of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, and even name Him, as JHVH (JEHOVAH), the Son, Immanuel, the God with us, the God manifest in the flesh (of fallen mankind). You must deny all of this, not because the text, or evidence shows you so, but simply because you decide it is so, of your own 'you-ness' (and possible from whomsoever put the ideology into your head, ultimately stemming from satan, whom has hated Jesus since just before the rebellion, and tries to make Jesus lesser than He is, so that he make make himself greater than he is).

 

[GentleGospeller]

You are preaching polytheism in teaching two Gods: which is a Greek corruption, and two gods isn't Hebrew either. Jesus only acknowledged one God, his Father: John 17:3.

You are confused as to what 'polytheism' really is. I have done no such thing. There are actually "three", not just "two" in Jhn. 1:1, as I have said in my responses. Did you not read those? I even stated that the Holy Ghost is the third, the hidden camera man behind the scenes, as the eternal witness, the "God saw". Did you not read that, or are you skimming, or simply not going to acknowledge I said it? Primarily in Jhn. 1:1, our discussion has not been on the third Person / Being, the Holy Ghost / Spirit, since your original confusion, is on the Deity of the Son, and so that is where the primary focus has existed.

There is no Greek corruption. "God" "was" "with" "[the] God". Boss was with the Boss. There is nothing complicated about this language, in koine Greek, or English. I have already shown the plurality of the Elohiym (never a singular word), always plurality in the Hebrew. The linked source material goes into great detail about this, and I have repeated some of it here.

Jesus, as a man, of course acknowledges the Father. How could he not, being our example, in humanity? Jesus also acknowledges Himself (Jhn. 8:24,58, &c) and by many other statements of similar manner. I even provided some additional ones in my current responses.

Jhn. 17:3, you simply do not understand, as "the only true God", "τον μονον αληθινον θεον" (ton monon alethinon theon) is already addressed in the linked material. It is referring to the eternal underived nature of the Father's Person / Being, which is His. The Son's nature is slightly differing, in that scripture says of it, that it is "τον μονογενη" (ton mongene), or the only Person / Being with the same nature of the Father, because He is the Son of the Father (thus the Son's nature is derived of the Father's, and has nothing to do with time, only relationship). Jhn. 17:3 is not saying that the Father is only God (Deity) there is, for that denies all of the other texts we are discussing. That is not its (Jhn. 17:3) intent or purpose, in the context, of the "flesh" (Jhn. 17:2).

 

[cjab]

Continuing further:


Looking at Mss, and the vast evidence for this reading in 1 Timothy 3:16,

1Ti_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.

why would you (and others) follow the NIV and NWT's choice to remove the word "God" and replace it with a nonsensical "He"?

The NIV and NWT follow the same spirit:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3:16&version=NIV

1 Timothy 3 | Online Bible | New World Translation

Additionally:

"... Secondly, the textual evidence for the reading "GOD was manifest in the flesh" is massive. It is the reading found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts we have today. Of the 300 known Greek cursive copies we have of the epistle of Paul to Timothy 254 of them read "GOD was manifest in the flesh".

This is also the reading found in Sinaiticus correction, A correction, C correction and D correction. Even among these 4, in their previously uncorrected forms, they disagreed with each other and none of them is grammatically correct. Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and C used to read "who" (ὃς) and mss. D used to read "which" (ὃ) but neither reading is even good Greek grammar.

There is NO Vaticanus reading because the Vatican manuscript is missing all of First and Second Timothy, as well as Titus, several chapters of Hebrews as well as the entire book of Revelation. In other words, ALL four of the so called 5 great uncial copies that contain this portion of the Scriptures were seen as being defective and were corrected very early on by Christian Scribes.

"GOD was manifest in the flesh" is the reading of other uncial copies as well including K, L, P, Psi. It is the reading found in the early Byzantine Lectionaries, the Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions and is so quoted by numerous early Christian writers.

In his book, The Revision Revised, Dean Burgon (pages 450, 454, 489-90) also cites the Georgian (6th century), Harkleian Syriac (616 AD) and the Slavonic (9th cent.) versions as reading "God." The fathers in support of this passage are as follows (Burgon, p 486-90):

1st Century: Ignatius (90 AD); 2nd Century: Hippolytus (190 AD); 3rd Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Epistle ascribed to Dionysius of Alexandria (264 AD), Gregory Thaumaturgus; 4th Century: Basil the Great (355 AD), Chrysostom (380 AD), Didymus (325 AD), Diodorus (370 AD), Gregory of Nazianzus (355 AD), Gregory of Nyssa (370 AD). "Euthalian" chapter title of I Tim. 3, attesting to "God in the flesh."; 5th Century: Anon. citation in works of Athanasius (430 AD), Cyril of Alexandria (410 AD), Euthalius (458 AD), Macedonius 11(496 AD), Theodoret (420 AD); 6th Century: Severus, Bishop of Antioch (512 AD); 8th Century: Epiphanius of Catana (787 AD), John Damascene (730 AD), Theodorus Studita (790 AD); 10th Century: Ecumenius (990 AD); 11th Century: Theophylact (1077 AD); 12th Century: Euthymius (1116 AD).

Hippolytus (170-236 A.D.) "God was manifested in the flesh." (Against the Heresies of Noetus I: 1:17), and Dionysius (3rd cent.) "For God was manifested in the flesh." (Conciliations I: 1:853)

"GOD was manifest in the flesh" is also the reading of the Greek texts of Ximenes, Erasmus, Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624, Scrivener 1894 and the Hodges and Farstad Majority Text Greek New Testament 1982. It IS the Reformation text. ..." - https://brandplucked.webs.com/1timothy316godorhe.htm

Additionally:

"... This alteration has been discussed exhaustively by Burgon (14) pp 101-5, 424-504, whose researches have been summarized by the TBS (58) "God was Manifest in the Flesh." See also Fuller, citing the TBS, (32) p 24A1. ...

... The most ancient Greek uncial in favour of "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16, is Codex A (5th cent.). Burgon (p 432-436) cites in detail the witnesses who attest to the horizontal stroke of "Theta" in "Theos" being clearly visible up to the mid 18th century. The TBS pamphlet provides an excellent Summary. In support of A are uncials K, L and P, ("Mosquensis," "Angelicus" and "Porphyrianus" resp.) all of the 9th century.

The extant cursive copies of Paul's letters number 300, of which 254 (designated "Paul 1" to "Paul 301") contain 1 Tim. 3:16. Of these, no less than 252 read "God," in agreement with this passage. (The two exceptions, which have already been discussed, are "Paul 17" and "Paul 73," of which the latter is a doubtful witness.) Added to this favourable testimony are 29 out of 32 Lectionary copies from the Eastern Church, reaching back to earliest times t.e. before Aleph, which support the reading "God." (Burgon, p 478, declares the 3 exceptions to be "Western documents of suspicious character.")

Burgon p 450, 454, 489-90. also cites the Georgian (6th century), Harkleian Syriac (616 AD) and the Slavonic (9th cent.) versions as reading "God." The fathers in support of this passage are as follows (Burgon, p 486-90):

1st Century: Barnabus, Ignatius (90 AD); 2nd Century: Hippolytus (190 AD); 3rd Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Epistle ascribed to Dionysius of Alexandria (264 AD), Gregory Thaumaturgus; 4th Century: Basil the Great (355 AD), Chrysostom (380 AD), Didymus (325 AD), Diodorus (370 AD), Gregory of Nazianzus (355 AD), Gregory of Nyssa (370 AD). "Euthalian" chapter title of I Tim. 3, attesting to "God in the flesh."; 5th Century: Anon. citation in works of Athanasius (430 AD), Cyril of Alexandria (410 AD), Euthalius (458 AD), Macedonius 11(496 AD), Theodoret (420 AD); 6th Century: Severus, Bishop of Antioch (512 AD); 8th Century: Epiphanius of Catana (787 AD), John Damascene (730 AD), Theodorus Studita (790 AD); 10th Century: Ecumenius (990 AD); 11th Century: Theophylact (1077 AD); 12th Century: Euthymius (1116 AD).

See also Fuller (4) p 110-1, (32) p98, 260 (summarizing Burgon's final findings as 300 Greek manuscripts (uncial, cursive, lectionary), reading "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16, vs. 7 which do not), Hills (3) p 137-8, Ruckman (31)See also Part 3 for further discussion on the evidence for this passage reading for this verse. ..." - Manuscript Evidence for Disputed Verses

Additionally:

Burgon may be read here in full - The Revision Revised – Dean John William Burgon (PDF)

The real text, as demonstrated says:

"Codex A, as presented in the photographic facsimile volume published by the British Museum in 1879. Of particular interest here is the reading in 3:16, where it may be seen that the manuscript reads ΘC "God was manifested in the flesh," employing the usual abbreviation ΘC for ΘEOC, with a stroke over the letters to indicate an abbreviation." - https://www.religiousforums.com/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bible-researcher.com%2Falexandrinus4.jpg&hash=fd93843452ba6e8d6436e941af6b0af1

So, which manuscripts were "corrupted"? Not the Majority, et al., but instead the Catholic mss of Codex B (Vaticanus, with unknown provenance and authorship/s (plural)), and Codex Aleph (a forged document, created by Constantine Simonides, even as he stated, and was able to demonstrate to those who desired to know, and as brother David W. Daniels further evidences in documentation in the links provided).

Your entire post is gibberish. The best scholars accept that there is no way for the "non" God reading of 1 Tim 3:16 to have become so widely geographically distributed in the ancient world were it not the original reading. And the "God" reading makes no sense at all, in the context of 1 Tim 3:16.

And if you think Aleph was forged by Constantine Simonides, you are no scholar but a crank, opposed by every single reputable bible scholar in the whole world.