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.

 

[cjab]

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.

I grasp that many are called elohim, which share in God's properties. But only one is "The Lord your God" who is "God of gods and Lord of lords, the God, the great, the mighty and the awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes." Deut 10:17.

YHWH uses the singular personal pronoun, which denotes person-singularity, even the Father himself.

As for Deut 6:4, I cite the Cambridge Commentary:

"the Lord our God is one Lord] As the R. V. marg. shows, this is one of four possible translations of the elliptic Hebrew: Jehovah our-God, Jehovah One. The other three are: Jehovah our God, Jehovah is One; Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is One; Jehovah is our God, Jehovah alone. But the four are resolvable into these two: First, Jehovah our God is One, an expression of His unity, appropriate at a time when we know from Jeremiah that by the multiplication of His shrines the people of Judah conceived Him, as Baal or Ashtoreth was conceived, not as One, but as many deities with different characteristics and powers over different localities, cp. Jeremiah 2:28. Second, Jehovah is our God alone: i.e. Israel’s only God, cp. Zechariah 14:9; Song of Solomon 6:9; 1 Chronicles 29:1."

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).

Salvation is from the Jews, not the Gnostics, said Christ.

 

[GentleGospeller]

Frankly I am already sick and tired of your snide remarks to the effect that I say that Jesus is a "creature."

Not really my concern. It is a disgusting doctrine born of the "doctrines of devils" What you think, is not really relevant to the discussion. Only scriptural truth, which will set anyone straight, if they allow it.

 

[GentleGospeller]

But yes, Jesus was true man.

Obviously, but that is not the question of the OP (designed by yourself to place into question the eternal Deity of Jesus), but simply only half of the whole picture (as I said Muslims also attempt to do / claim about Jesus). Of course, Jesus was the 'true man' (1 Tim. 2:5), even the "last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45). Already agreed, accepted, admitted from the start of my responses. You are simply agreeing with my position at that point. That is not evidence contrary to my position, nor sufficient evidence for your own, since the other texts I have raised show the additional nature of Jesus Christ - Deity. God manifest in the flesh.

 

[GentleGospeller]

And you don't know what I think

Incorrect. I can know, and do know, what you "think" since you have put your thoughts into print for to read, and as scripture says:

Pro_4:23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.

Mat_12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Luk_6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

This is how Peter could know the hearts of Ananias and Sapphira, along with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which shares such things as knowledge of the human heart / mind / spirit.

So, I, indeed, do know what you "think" on these things as you have shared them. Your words, printed here, are the public expressions of your very own mind / heart / spirit, for all to see, and judge, according to scripture.

 

[GentleGospeller]

because you are more interested in condemning me than learning what I think.

No. I only condemn the false theology, the incorrect ideology you are espoused to. That you are in error, can be fixed, so long as you are willing to admit your error, and come into harmony with the scriptural account, and so be saved. Otherwise, you cannot be, as per Jhn. 8:21,24, and other places in scripture. It requires "God manifest in the flesh" to save you, me, or anyone, as the linked material has demonstrated in some detail (it cannot be a creature, a plant, a non-living thing). Other than this, no salvation / redemption occurs.

 

[GentleGospeller]

And I have quickly ceased to be interested in what you say. I am not interested in your polytheistic theology or your incessant jibes.

You were interested before? From the responses, I could not see this, since your replies have not addressed what I have said, in the details, and you have obviously not considered the entire linked materials, as scripture asks you to, Pro. 18:13,17.

Again, you have accused me of espousing "polytheistic theology", when I have said specifically that you have misunderstood the term "polytheism", and especially in relation to the subject of Person / Beings of the Elohiym. I deny the charge, and to continue to say otherwise, is simply 'you' replying to your idea of 'me', which is simply 'you' talking to 'you' and not actually me. It's called a strawman, and not worth my time to continue to expose it, since you are monologuing with yourself. If you desire to continue to do so, that is, of course, your prerogative, but I would have no real part in it, since I am not 'you' (obviously).

As for 'jibes' you will have to elucidate me as to what you think are 'jibes' in my responses, since I am not 'you', and you obviously do not think I know what you 'think' (by your own words), and so I am not here to guess at what you mean by the term. My responses are addressing your claims and incorrect ideology. I am not the one who claimed to be "wiser" than myself in a response. You really do not think that was arrogant? If not, that is, again, your own choice, and I have no need to further discuss something you will not change an opinion (subjective and evidenceless) on.

 

[GentleGospeller]

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

Again, please reconsider my response. You are saying that which I already agreed to, already admitted to, and already subscribe to in regards Psa. 110:1 - WHO IS THE SON OF GOD?

In other words, you simply agreed with my position at that point, and is thus not evidence of your position, nor evidence against my position, but is evidence in favor of my position (see response again).

Yes, the Father is identified as "JHVH". No question. Was there someone between us which disagreed with that? No.

Yes, the Son is identified as "ladoniy". No question. Was there someone between us which disagreed with that? It seems you do at some point later.

So, why the repeat of that which is already accepted as truth between us?

The difference between us, is that the purpose of Psa. 110:1 was not to identify the Son as also being named JHVH (as I plainly stated), since the context is about the Lord as Messiah, the High Priest of the Father. Other Psalms, such as Psa. 102,12,24-27 show that the Son is also named JHVH, and called such by the Father's own Person / Being, by the Holy Ghost, through the Psalmist / Prophet David. However, I did also show, from Psa. 110:1, that the Son is seated on the eternal throne of Deity, alongside / with the Father's Person / Being (even as Heb. 1:3 says), which no creature can do, or ever has done. You seemed to have overlooked my response upon that part of Psa. 110:1, and not acknowledged the truth of that fact, right there, in plain Hebrew, plain English, or even Origen's Greek. Why is that?

 

[GentleGospeller]

So you are wrong: Here in Ps 110:1, the Son, in isolation, and considered separately from the Father, is neither Adonai, nor YHWH. [Emphasis in bold and underline added by GentleGospeller]

No. I was right, as just showed (again). The Son is not in "isolation" in Psa, 110:1. He is seated on the eternal throne of everlasting Deity with the Father, as Heb. 1:3 also declares. Only eternal Deity can do that as shown by numerous texts in scripture, and in the linked materials.

Wait a minute. Are you now saying that Psa. 110:1 is also not saying that the Son is "Adonai", when the text clearly states otherwise?

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

Psa 110:1 HOT - לדוד מזמור נאם יהוה לאדני שׁב לימיני עד־אשׁית איביך הדם לרגליך׃

Psa. 110:1 HOT Translit. - - l'däwid miz'môr n'um j''hväh ladoniy shëv liymiyniy ad-äshiyt oy'veykhä hádom l'rag'leykhä

Psa 109:1 Origen Hexapla - Τῷ Δαυιδ ψαλμός. Εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου.

I even stated:

"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;" - WHO IS THE SON OF GOD?

This psalm is cited numerous times in the NT, and directly applied to Jesus, who is the "ladoniy" therein:

Mat_22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Mat 22:44 ειπεν ο κυριος τω κυριω μου καθου εκ δεξιων μου εως αν θω τους εχθρους σου υποποδιον των ποδων σου

Luk_20:42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Luk 20:42 και αυτος δαβιδ λεγει εν βιβλω ψαλμων ειπεν ο κυριος τω κυριω μου καθου εκ δεξιων μου

Act_2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Act 2:34 ου γαρ δαβιδ ανεβη εις τους ουρανους λεγει δε αυτος ειπεν ο κυριος τω κυριω μου καθου εκ δεξιων μου

Psa. 110:1's purpose, is, again, not to show that the Son is also named JHVH. Whom ever said it was supposed to? Not I. I was not even the one who brought it up. That as you. You brought up this text in response to my response of Psa. 102:,12,24-27, which does indeed show that the Son is also named JHVH, even by the Father Himself, by the Holy Ghost, and through the Psalmist / Prophet David, of which Paul cites in Heb. 1.

So, simply going to a place in scripture, which shows one aspect of Jesus is not evidence contrary to the evidence on another aspect of Jesus in another location. You are simply doing what Muslims do, when they are shown the Deity of Jesus in one place, they simply go to another place and show the humanity of Jesus. It is not one or the other, but both which are true and acknowledged by those which accept the Deity of Jesus.

Simply turning to Psa. 110:1, does not help your position against my position, when I have shown from Psa. 102:12,24-27 is against your position. Moreover, I have also shown, from Psa. 110:1, itself (a text you raised), that it is also against your position, since the Son is seated on the right hand of the Majesty (Father) on High, on the eternal throne of Deity, which no creature can do, or has ever done. It is a satanic idea that a creature can sit on the eternal throne of Deity on the sides of the North. Can you not see that your ideology is not your own, but stems from the first rebel himself, as it was he which desires to sit in that place beside the Father.

 

[GentleGospeller]

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.

No, not at all. The Son is always Deity (Jhn. 8:58; Exo. 3:14), whether in the Father's enshrouded glory, or in the humility of the servitude of fallen human nature (Php. 2), as per 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:8-13; Psa. 102:12,24-27; Exo. 3; Hos. 1; Zec. 3, Jhn. 1; &c. Again, citing 'you' is just 'you', and not scripture. I have already shown from several texts (OT & NT) that the Son is named JHVH and Adonai (a plural word, by the way, see the linked materials). Simply saying otherwise, is just 'you' again. Why do you keeping referring to 'you' and what you think on the matter, when the scriptures are external to you, have no need of you (or me or them), and many have access to those scriptures, whereas few, in contrast, have access to you?

Again, I refer you to Gen. 18-19, where the Son came down, and is named JHVH (Gen. 18:1,13,14,17,20,22,26,33, 19:24a) and Lord (Gen. 18:3,30,31,32). You seem to continue to want to bypass these things, why? I have pointed them out, very clearly, to you before.

 

[GentleGospeller]

Your entire post is gibberish.

Again, this is you citing 'you'. You did not cite anyone authoritative, while I, in response, have done so. I provided numerous references, both modern and historical. Simply saying that my reply is "gibberish" without evidence to that effect, is simply 'hand-waving'. It is evidence that your position is failing, weak, and untenable that you have to address "the entire post" as such. Is that even fair to the post itself?

 

[GentleGospeller]

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.

"The best scholars" says who? This is a fallacious logic and quite subjective. You provided no foundational reasoning to what is "best", nor provided the evidence that such "scholars" (as you propose, but not provide) give to support their claims, should such claims be produced. you didn't even provide a single "scholars" name for your position.

The "non" God reading is simply a misunderstanding, which turns into a mistake, since the original mss, as the copies have shown, using the NOMINA SACRA - Nomina sacra - Wikipedia , used in the UNCIAL MSS, and because of spacing limitations because of material limitations (quantity), have become worn over time, and faded, as as each generation handles the mss, more and more is lost through touch, collation, &c.

The false reading has become more widespread (in a few mss), simply because of that reason, and as people copy a text, if the two little lines are not copied, faded, or and not seen (over time, use), the word becomes other than it is, simply by a look a like. Dean John Burgon, and others have made note of this in some detail, and traced this history, and where such begins to fade.

The NOMINA SACRA is not in certain "translations" of the Greek (such as Coptic, Sahidic, etc, as already noted), but is in the MAJORITY which is the Greek text (mss, copies). The incorrect translations come to contain the NOMINA SACRA minus those two little lines, which makes it look like another word in its place. So, do you trust those few (compared to the MAJORITY, et al.) translations in foreign countries at a distance from the center of the faith, rather than the copies of the original Greek mss, in the hands of the Greeks at the center of the faith? Hmmm. Strange indeed.

I have cited "scholars" which show the "way" in which such a situation came to be. That other "scholars" cannot admit that truth may be because of their own underlying biases, in critical textual theory (Jesuitism, by the counter-reformation), which are simply Bible deniers acting as Bible believers, when in truth, they believe no word of God exists, but that they have to 'find' it and 'piece it together' from dusty fragments, lacunae, buried tomes.

Have you never read?

Mat_24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

Where was Codex Aleph 'found'? Desert (monastery), right?

Where was Codex B 'found'? Secret chambers (hidden archives of the Vatican), right?

Hmmm, two false prophets, in the places in which Jesus said they would be. They claim to be Jesus in print, but are not.