WHO IS THE SON OF GOD?

[cjab]

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.

A persecuting spirit is not of Christ. But Christ was true man, descended from David, according to the flesh (Rom 9:5). And anyone who denies it is antichrist (2 John 1:17). In that respect, as to his flesh, Christ was "creature" and so your allegations are in danger of denying reality. Why on earth you imagine you are engaged with unitarianism here I cannot imagine. Nothing I have ever said can be construed as in the least unitarian. To tar, as a rite, your theological opponents with being unitarians, is certainly demonic and counter-productive, as it discloses you to be a fanatic and a partisan for some Gnostic (i.e. know-it-all) creed, of the Burgon variety, who was a vitriolic persecutor of his opponents. But Burgon's KJV-only legacy is dwindling in the light of science. His is in a small minority now. Burgon could not accept the fact that he was wrong, and his theology overly narrow. To follow Burgon in this day is absurd: he is a historical person of interest, but should not be put on a pedestal.

Some good quotes:

"This (KJO) is a late-stage phenomenon. KJV-onlyism is dying. It’s not growing, and things that aren’t growing are dying. It peaked years, decades ago."

"So a lot of folks in this movement have retreated to these Facebook groups. And here, there’s more and more “fake Bible” rhetoric, more purity tests, more denunciations of all the terrible people out there, the “comic book Bibles,” and the satanists changing God’s perfect word, etc etc. To an outsider, these are not signs of confidence. It looks like you guys are retreating and wounded. That’s the first thing."

 

[cjab]

"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.

That you are apparently unware of the sizeable consensus in favor of the non-God reading is troubling. Have a look at the modern bible translations. Even the NIV, that most obstinate promulgator of 4th century Byzantine High Trinitarianism, has the "non-God" reading. Also the NET bible. Take a look at all English versions and see how many, apart from KJV & Byzantine Text aligned translations, now follow the "non-God" reading.

Metzger: Commentary on Greek NT sums it up with some clarity:

"The reading which, on the basis of external evidence and
transcriptional probability, best explains the rise of the others
is ὅς. It is supported by the earliest and best uncials (Αleph,
C* G(gr)) as well as by 33 365 442 2127 syr(h(mg).pal) goth eth(pp)
Origen(lat) Ipiphanius Jerome Theodore Eutherius (acc. to Theodoret)
Cyril Cyril(acc. to ps-Oecumenius), Liberatus.

"Furthermore, since the neuter relative pronoun ὅ must have arisen as a scribal correction
of ὅς (to bring the relative into concord with μυστήριον),
the witnesses which read ὅ (D* it(d.g.61.86) pg Ambrosiaster
Marius Victorinus Hilary Pelagius Augustine) also indirectly
presuppose ὅς as the earlier reading. The Textus Receptus
reads θεός, with Aleph(e) (this corrector is of the twelfth century)

"No uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth
or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions
presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last
third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός. The
reading θεός arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading
of oc as θς, or (b) deliberately, either to supply a
substantive for the following six verbs, or, with less probability,
to provide greater dogmatic precision."

None but those who refuse the scientific evidence gowith the KJV these days.

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.

Just propaganda that rejects the scientific evidence, but also the theological evidence. For by your rendition, 1 Tim 3:16 is made to say: "God was ... justified in the Spirit, was seen by angels and taken up into glory."

All the above is ridiculous. God is not "justified in the Spirit". Only a human being can be justified in the Spirit. God was not "received into" glory as God was the one raising Christ from the dead into glory.

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.

Ludicrous. I can no longer take you seriously. The best bible manuscripts that exist in the world today are rejected by you, because they were preserved in "closets"? They would not have survived 1700 years if they had not been preserved in closets. May be they were providentially discovered in time to repudiate the fanaticism and tyranny of Dean Burgon et al. The spirit of fanaticism breeds persecution, which is opposed by God.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Deity, undoubtedly. But there is no "was God" in Jn 1:1c ("was GOD" or "was god" depending on your choice of script) for "God" translates <article theos> but there is no article in Jn 1:1c. More rubbish has been written on Jn 1:1c than on any other verse, and every time you use "God" in connection with Jn 1:1c you are betraying your incomprehension of the Greek text. In any case, John 1:18 says Christ is the revelation of God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[John 1:1]

Here, as plain as the nose on your face, we see not one, but two Persons. The Word (Jesus Christ) was with God, and the Word (Jesus Christ) was God. This verse alone shows John's understanding of Jesus being more than a deified human, but God in the flesh, which is why He is called Emmanuel/Immanuel.

 

[GentleGospeller]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[John 1:1]

Here, as plain as the nose on your face, we see not one, but two Persons. The Word (Jesus Christ) was with God, and the Word (Jesus Christ) was God. This verse alone shows John's understanding of Jesus being more than a deified human, but God in the flesh, which is why He is called Emmanuel/Immanuel.

Perhaps this is the issue. Most people cannot see the nose on their face, unless others hold up a mirror to them. If they try to look on their own, they might see faint glimpses of an outline of a nose on their face, just in front of them, but might not believe it exists, even though they are breathing by it. If they try to reach for it, they feel 'something', but are not quite sure what it is. They can smell by it, but are not sure where that sense of smell comes from except by an inhalation. Even a bit of taste upon their tongues comes by it, but fleeting, almost ephemeral.

 

[GentleGospeller]

... But there is no "was God" in Jn 1:1c ...

You seem to be making a point about Majuscule (all CAPS), and miniscule (all lowercasing) mss, as opposed to the English translations, which were shown to you:

John 1:1 in many modern English translations - John 1:1 - Bible Gateway

".. .
KJ21
... was God.
ASV
... was God.
AMP
... was God Himself.
AMPC
... was God Himself.
BRG
... was God.
CSB
... was God.
CSBA
... was God.
CEB
... was God.
CJB
... was God.
CEV
... was truly God.
DARBY
... was God.
DLNT
... was God.
DRA
... was God.
ERV
... was God.
EASY
... was God.
EHV
... was God.
ESV
... was God.
ESVUK
... was God.
EXB
... was [fully] God.
GNV
... was God.
GW
... was God.
GNT
... was God.
HCSB
... was God.
ICB
... was God.
ISV
... was God.
PHILLIPS
... was God ...
JUB
... was God.
KJV
... was God.
AKJV
... was God.
LSB
... was God.
LEB
... was God.
TLB
... has always been alive and is himself God.
MSG
... was God ...
MEV
... was God.
MOUNCE
... was God.
NOG
... was God.
NABRE
... was God.
NASB
... was God.
NASB1995
... was God.
NCB
... was God.
NCV
... was God.
NET
... was fully God.
NIRV
... was God.
NIV
... was God.
NIVUK
... was God.
NKJV
... was God.
NLV
... was God.
NLT
... was God.
NMB
... was God.
NRSVA
... was God.
NRSVACE
... was God.
NRSVCE
... was God.
NRSVUE
... was God.
NTFE
... was God.
OJB
... Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim ...
RGT
... was God.
RSV
... was God.
RSVCE
... was God.
TLV
... was God.
VOICE
... was and is God.
WEB
... was God.
WE
... was God.
WYC
... God was ...
YLT
... was God; ..."

Why do you claim the "best scholars" in one area, and then turn around and deny those very same scholars translations into English, which all pretty much say, "was God" (of the Word) in John 1:1c? Why do you have double standards, and uneven scales of balance, and use your own private 'scales' when it suits you, but not when they do not, denying the evidence which does not agree with you?

 

[GentleGospeller]

A persecuting spirit is not of Christ.

You are claiming you are being "persecuted", by 'me'? What is your evidence of this? I saw none provided. You are simply claiming a status which does not rightfully belong to you. No one is persecuting you. What is happening, is that your ideology is being shown to be of, and originating with, the devil, as shown here - WHO IS THE SON OF GOD?

What is happening, is that your 'evidences' (mostly 'you') are shown to be fallacious, personal, biased, incorrect. You, as a person, are just fine, and in the same condition as you came to the forums. Why cry "persecution", when no such thing has happened to you (even the Baptists, are allowing you to continue to post 'you')? Want to see persecution? Consider just a small video:

 

[GentleGospeller]

But Christ was true man, descended from David, according to the flesh (Rom 9:5)

This was already agreed to, already accepted, already admitted, already granted, and never, not even once) questioned by my position. You are simply agreeing with my position. This is no evidence against my position.

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

As for "the flesh", I know that you presently deny the fallen flesh of Jesus (Rom. 8:3), because it conflicts with your 'gospel' (Gal. 1:6,7). So when you say "flesh", which do you mean, the fallen or unfallen? Those are the only two choices you have, and if you are not careful in selecting the correct one, your 'gospel' will look just like the catholic churches 'gospel', which is without hope of salvation / redemption.

Question to you, on this subject, What nature of flesh (Jud. 1:7; 1 Cor. 15:38-40, &c.) do heavenly angels have?

Heb_2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

If you say "unfallen", then Christ Jesus did not take that nature in human flesh (ie. unfallen), and had to take "fallen" (Rom. 8:3). Even the text you referred to (Rom. 9:5):

Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Shows that Jesus took on the fallen flesh nature of fallen mankind, since that is the only flesh of mankind that exists since the fall of Adam the first in the garden.

It makes a difference in what 'gospel' you will accept, the true or the false, the one which gives / grants victory over sin, or the one that never can.

As for instance, on the false 'gospel'

Roman Catholicism has 3 official dogmatic doctrines:

• [1] Original Sin - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
• [2] Immaculate Conception (of Mary, by 'Anne') - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Immaculate Conception
• [3] Impeccability (Mary & Jesus) - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Virgin Mary

Roman Catholicism teaches that Jesus came in the unfallen flesh of Adam before sin, through the human nature of Mary, being "immaculately conceived' in 'Anne', and was thus free from the Roman Catholic dogma of 'Original Sin'. As Roman Catholicism teaches that to exist in sinful flesh is to be a sinner, rather than what scripture teaches, to commit sin is to be a sinner (1 Jhn. 3:4 KJB). This means that Roman Catholicism also teaches that Jesus could not (never had the choice) to sin (impeccability). QUESTION: WHAT DOES “ANTICHRIST” TEACH THAT IS SO BAD?

• 1Jn_4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
• 2Jn_1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

The Bible declares that Jesus came “in the likeness of sinful (fallen) flesh” nature of mankind:

• Rom_8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
  • [for "likeness" see Philippians 2:7; Romans 6:5]
• Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

On the true Gospel:

Flesh & Spirit Bible Chart Image - Flesh And Spirit of Jesus Christ Chart : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Restoration - Dennis Priebe Studies : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Restoration - https://archive.org/details/restoration...-dennis-priebe-480p-30fps-h-264-128kbit-aac

Face To Face With The Real Gospel 01-01 -

01-02 -

02-01 -

02-02 -

Amazing Facts Pocket Book Joe Crews Down From His Glory - https://archive.org/details/amazing-facts-pocket-book-joe-crews-down-from-his-glory_202301/mode/1up

Amazing Facts Pocket Book Joe Crews Library Of Sermons 26 Christ's Human Nature - https://archive.org/details/amazing...rmons-26-christs-human-nature_202301/mode/1up

Ralph Larson The Word Was Made Flesh - https://archive.org/details/sda-ralph-larson-the-word-was-made-flesh_202301/mode/1up

A G Daniels Christ Our Righteousness 1924 - https://archive.org/details/sda-a-g-daniels-christ-our-righteousness-1924_202301/mode/1up

Vance Ferrell The Nature Of Christ - https://archive.org/details/sda-vance-ferrell-the-nature-of-christ_202301/mode/1up

Eric Wilson The Word Became Flesh, 1895 Armadale Extract - https://archive.org/details/sda-eri...e-flesh-1895-armadale-extract_202301/mode/1up

Doctrine Christ's Human Nature Kenneth Gage Human Nature Of Christ Fallen - https://archive.org/details/doctrin...human-nature-of-christ-fallen_202301/mode/1up

Doctrine Human Nature Kevin D Paulson Are We Born Sinners - https://archive.org/details/doctrine-human-nature-kevin-d-paulson-are-we-born-sinners/mode/1up

So, will you continue to deny "the flesh" Jesus actually took, and so not be saved from sin (1 Jhn. 3:4; Rom. 7:7,14; Jam. 2:8-13)? Is this why you refuse God's commandments (Jhn. 14:15; Exo. 20:6)? Which "god" do you serve?

Jos_24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

 

[GentleGospeller]

In that respect, as to his flesh, Christ was "creature"

The fallen flesh (Rom. 8:3) of Christ Jesus was "made" (Gal. 4:4), but "flesh" and "spirit" (mind / heart) are two differing things as just shown to you.

Gal_4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Joh_3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

The Son of the Father, is not ever a "creature". He is, from the time of the 'incarnation', and always will be, "God manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16), and "God", here, is eternal Deity, never "creature". Now, that flesh is remade, and glorified, and sits eternal upon t he throne of everlasting Deity by the side of the Majesty (His Father) on the highest heights of Heaven above.

Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Thus the "form" was "made", not the Person / Being. You have confused the two categories and conflated them, attempting to equate 'creaturelyness' to the Person / Being, when it is only the "form" that is "made", as the Person / Being already existed in all of eternity previous "in the form of God (Deity, never created).

 

[GentleGospeller]

Why on earth you imagine you are engaged with unitarianism here I cannot imagine.

Who said anything about "unitarianism"? Not I. I am dealing with the old 'arian' (Ecc. 1:9, 3:15) error. Your "imagination" does run a bit all over the place to be sure: Imagining yourself to be "persecuted", Imagining I have said things I did not, &c. Come back to the scriptures please, and leave your imagination out of it.

 

[GentleGospeller]

To tar, as a rite, your theological opponents with being unitarians, is certainly demonic and counter-productive, as it discloses you to be a fanatic and a partisan for some Gnostic (i.e. know-it-all) creed

You have accused me of doing something which I have not done in any of my replies. This is simply you, again, arguing against your imaginary version of 'me', which is just 'you' again. I do desire you come to speak with me, rather than just 'you', but it is your prerogative, if you so choose, to continue to ignore what I have said, and simply go on dialoguing with yourself, as if you were me, from a differing position than I actually stand upon.

I am dealing with your arian error. I said nothing of unitarianism, at any point. I did not even hint or intimate, at any point that your error was such.

 

[GentleGospeller]

Burgon variety, who was a vitriolic persecutor of his opponents. But Burgon's KJV-only legacy is dwindling in the light of science. His is in a small minority now. Burgon could not accept the fact that he was wrong, and his theology overly narrow. To follow Burgon in this day is absurd: he is a historical person of interest, but should not be put on a pedestal.

I see that you dislike "Burgon", but I also see that you simply caluminated him, rather than provided any evidence that his written materials on the mss under discussion were incorrect. I did not see you refute a single page, paragraph, or sentence of his written material.

Also, who said that I "follow Burgon"? I disagree with several of his positions, but that is neither here or there on our present subject (mss). I am not a 'TR only' guy, and he was not a 'KJV only' (an epithet used to cultify people, and simply without a real definition) guy. I simply cited Burgon, among several others, on the msss you raised (namely Codex Aleph (Sinaiticus, so called), Codex B (Vaticanus)). Why simply target Burgon among them all?

Who placed him upon a pedestal? Again, not I. He was listed among several 'scholars' and researchers.

What was "Burgon" wrong about in regards Codex B and Aleph? Simply saying he was "wrong" without demonstrable evidence in reply is just you citing 'you' again. I will wait for a more detailed response from you about what was specifically "wrong", and expect page numbering from Burgon's material, with evidence demonstrating in fact that the material on those pages is in deed, "wrong", on the subject we are discussing. Other subjects are non-sequitur to us here (See my previous point about my own disagreements with certain of Burgon's other positions).

 

[GentleGospeller]

Some good quotes:

"This (KJO) is a late-stage phenomenon. KJV-onlyism is dying. It’s not growing, and things that aren’t growing are dying. It peaked years, decades ago."

"So a lot of folks in this movement have retreated to these Facebook groups. And here, there’s more and more “fake Bible” rhetoric, more purity tests, more denunciations of all the terrible people out there, the “comic book Bibles,” and the satanists changing God’s perfect word, etc etc. To an outsider, these are not signs of confidence. It looks like you guys are retreating and wounded. That’s the first thing."

You are going to quote from some random guy's facebook page (Dominick Kortokrax's, of the TR academy)?

You are claiming this is an authoritative 'scholar'? The guy is not citing any official 'scholar'. He is just posting (on facebook, no less) is own personal biases.

Additionally, Dean Burgon was not 'KJV-only', he was a TR guy, and thought he could update the King James bible with sufficient godly men, but dared not do it at the time for numerous reason. So, no he was never a KJB-only guy, and continually referred to the varied mss (Greek, Latin, Syriack, etc) in his own written materials (which I linked to).

Additionally, 'KJV-only' is just an epithet used to cultify people, and simply without a real definition to the phrase. In case you have not been reading my own replies, I have been citing numerous languages (other than English of the KJB) and numerous Bibles, such as the HOT, the Origen's Greek Hexapla, and even recently an entire list of modern English renditions.

So, why this long diatribe into a red-herring, a distraction, from the real issues at hand? Why the fallacy of logic here, instead of addressing what I have plainly stated, and not what you imagined to exist in those responses?

 

[GentleGospeller]

That you are apparently unware of the sizeable consensus [Emphasis supplied in bold and underline by GentleGospeller]

Ooops, that is the logical fallacy of 'ad majorem', 'ad populum' in the least. The amount of persons that adhere to an ideology in no way is logical evidence of the factualness of that ideology, otherwise 'catholicism' would be true, wouldn't it? But you and I know it ain't. At least I hope you know that. Your response also has incorrectly assumed that I am "unware" (sic) of such things. I can assure you, having read plenty of material on the subject, I am plenty aware of what Bible preservation deniers think.

As for consensus, here is what I think of it (in general):

Ian Juby - Wazooloo - Cr Evo Rants : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Ian Juby - Wazooloo - Cr Evo RantsYOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCplWZcKcFd1tNbHYPS-5t9wINTERNET ARCHIVE: ...

archive.org

The consensus, at the the time of Jesus' living on earth, was that he was not the Messiah / Christ. This by the official leading theologians / priests, officers of the state. Do you accept that consensus? No? if not, why not? if not, you just threw "consensus" right out of the window when you wanted to. Why are you continually choosing a scale when it suits you, but refusing it when it does not suit you?

Mal_2:12 The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

Maybe think on those texts awhile.

 

[GentleGospeller]

Even the NIV, that most obstinate promulgator of 4th century Byzantine High Trinitarianism, has the "non-God" reading.

Do you know why the NIV does that? It is because it follows several corrupt mss, such as Codex B and Aleph, as my citations and evidences show - WHO IS THE SON OF GOD?

The NIV also has Jesuit (Catholic) influences - The NIV Bible and Jesuit Priest The Catholic Connection | Paw Creek Ministries

Why are you so interested in catholic theologies, catholic mss, catholic and catholic associated scholars? You do know what the Bible identifes the catholic system as, right?

"Trinitarianism" is catholic, not Christian. Did you not read the linked book materials on the differences of what Scripture teaches and what catholics teach? - WHO IS THE SON OF GOD?

Are you aware that "trinitarianism" is not what you think it is, but actually teaches a 'singularity', which they say is "perfectly one superabound"? it is simply the other side of the Arian coin, and of the same root.

It is also not "Byzantine", but catholic. Actual Byzantine mss have the "God" reading. Even the footnotes for the NET read, "1 Timothy 3:16 tc The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (א3 Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88] 1241 1505 1739 1881 M al vgms) read θεός (theos, “God”) ..." - Bible Gateway passage: 1 Timothy 3:16 - New English Translation

You continue to conflate two things which are not the same thing in your replies.

 

[GentleGospeller]

Metzger: Commentary on Greek NT sums it up with some clarity:

"The reading which, on the basis of external evidence and
transcriptional probability, best explains the rise of the others
is ὅς. It is supported by the earliest and best uncials (Αleph,
C* G(gr)) as well as by 33 365 442 2127 syr(h(mg).pal) goth eth(pp)
Origen(lat) Ipiphanius Jerome Theodore Eutherius (acc. to Theodoret)
Cyril Cyril(acc. to ps-Oecumenius), Liberatus.

"Furthermore, since the neuter relative pronoun ὅ must have arisen as a scribal correction
of ὅς (to bring the relative into concord with μυστήριον),
the witnesses which read ὅ (D* it(d.g.61.86) pg Ambrosiaster
Marius Victorinus Hilary Pelagius Augustine) also indirectly
presuppose ὅς as the earlier reading. The Textus Receptus
reads θεός, with Aleph(e) (this corrector is of the twelfth century)

"No uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth
or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions
presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last
third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός. The
reading θεός arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading
of oc as θς, or (b) deliberately, either to supply a
substantive for the following six verbs, or, with less probability,
to provide greater dogmatic precision."

None but those who refuse the scientific evidence gowith the KJV these days.

Then, as you have said, B. Metzger, is denying the actual scientific evidence, in favour of his own biases.

- WHO IS THE SON OF GOD?
- WHO IS THE SON OF GOD?
- WHO IS THE SON OF GOD?

Again, Metzger, without any evidence, simply says of his own accord, "the earliest and best uncials (Αleph,..." and as shown in the 3 linked replies, Aleph is not early, nor best by any means. Simply saying such, over and over, as Metzger, does, is simply a personal mantra, not facts. The mantra deadens the mind to the facts just shown. Even the so called 'ecf' cite the proper text long before 'Aleph' shows up on the scene of history. Where they, in all their respective locations, scattered over the earth, in the respective time periods, making it up together? if so, how did they do so? You have earlier claimed that there is a 'wide' distribution for the 'non-God' (he, which) readings, but then turn around and are going to deny these widespread distribution of the exact phrase, "God was manifest in the flesh" among those varied persons, plenty of which are pre-Aleph?

Codex Alexandrinus (which they date to the 5th c.) has 'God'' theos. "It is one of the four Great uncial codices [and in Greek] ..." - Codex Alexandrinus - Wikipedia

So, what is B. Metzger thinking when he says, "... No uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός ..."

Why does B. Metzger not cite all the 'ecf' which are in disagreement with his position?

I even cited those references,

"... 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) ..." - WHO IS THE SON OF GOD?

So, what is B. Metzger talking about, when he says, "... no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός ..."

When B. Metzger says, "... The reading θεός arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of oc as θς, or (b) deliberately ..." is simply his own personal conclusion based upon his denial of the previously given facts, that he conveniently leaves out. Coming to a conclusion based on partial evidence (by willingness), is just bias.

Additionally, "Bruce Metzger was involved with Catholic biblical scholarship, serving on the board of the Catholic Biblical Association ...", and separately, "... In 1969 he was elected to membership in the Catholic Biblical Association. ..." - Bruce M. Metzger - Wikipedia

I see that you continue to support catholicism, and its catholic (and catholic associated) scholars.