God No One Has Seen At Any Time

[GodsGrace]

And yet it's still widely known that "God" doesn't appear in the earliest texts for 1 Tim. 3:16. Most trinitarian commentators either rightly agree with that or don't take a solid position on it. Most Bible versions don't add "God" to the text of 1 Timothy 3:16 either. Yet there are some who deny it. There proof has already been all presented that debunks the deity of Jesus.

Based on other things Paul said, it's obvious he didn't believe Jesus is a "god man" either. For starters, that's a paradox. God isn't a man, man isn't God. That's called a contradiction.

Here is what Paul believed and didn't change his position on this in the next chapter:

1 Timothy 2
5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

That's called the Hypostatic Union.

 

[Randy]

The NET bible translation

1 Timothy 3:16

New English Translation
​

16 And we all agree,[a] our religion contains amazing revelation:[b]
He[c] was revealed in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,[d]
seen by angels,
proclaimed among Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.


Dr Daniel Wallace who believes in the Deity of the Son and is a Trinitarian was on the translation team.
They do admit some scholars see differently.

I emailed Dr Wallace and asked him about "He" vs "God" and he stated the reasoning for the translation was in the notes. I asked Dr Wallace if he agreed with the reasoning and he stated "yes".

Reasoning notes which has alot of careful consideration applied :

1. 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”) for ὅς (hos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the textual problem. At least two mss have ὁ θεός (69 88), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 1175 Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (ho, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered the Ausgangstext: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a hymn with six strophes. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (mustērion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “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.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Christos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)tn Grk “who.”sn This passage has been typeset as poetry because many scholars regard this passage as poetic or hymnic. These terms are used broadly to refer to the genre of writing, not to the content. There are two broad criteria for determining if a passage is poetic or hymnic: “(a) stylistic: a certain rhythmical lilt when the passages are read aloud, the presence of parallelismus membrorum (i.e., an arrangement into couplets), the semblance of some metre, and the presence of rhetorical devices such as alliteration, chiasmus, and antithesis; and (b) linguistic: an unusual vocabulary, particularly the presence of theological terms, which is different from the surrounding context” (P. T. O’Brien, Philippians [NIGTC], 188-89). Classifying a passage as hymnic or poetic is important because understanding this genre can provide keys to interpretation. However, not all scholars agree that the above criteria are present in this passage, so the decision to typeset it as poetry should be viewed as a tentative decision about its genre.

 

[Runningman]

The NET bible translation

1 Timothy 3:16​

​

New English Translation​

​

16 And we all agree,[a] our religion contains amazing revelation:[b]
He[c] was revealed in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,[d]
seen by angels,
proclaimed among Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.


Dr Daniel Wallace who believes in the Deity of the Son and is a Trinitarian was on the translation team.
They do admit some scholars see differently.

I emailed Dr Wallace and asked him about "He" vs "God" and he stated the reasoning for the translation was in the notes. I asked Dr Wallace if he agreed with the reasoning and he stated "yes".

Reasoning notes which has alot of careful consideration applied :

1. 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”) for ὅς (hos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the textual problem. At least two mss have ὁ θεός (69 88), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 1175 Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (ho, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered the Ausgangstext: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a hymn with six strophes. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (mustērion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “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.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Christos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)tn Grk “who.”sn This passage has been typeset as poetry because many scholars regard this passage as poetic or hymnic. These terms are used broadly to refer to the genre of writing, not to the content. There are two broad criteria for determining if a passage is poetic or hymnic: “(a) stylistic: a certain rhythmical lilt when the passages are read aloud, the presence of parallelismus membrorum (i.e., an arrangement into couplets), the semblance of some metre, and the presence of rhetorical devices such as alliteration, chiasmus, and antithesis; and (b) linguistic: an unusual vocabulary, particularly the presence of theological terms, which is different from the surrounding context” (P. T. O’Brien, Philippians [NIGTC], 188-89). Classifying a passage as hymnic or poetic is important because understanding this genre can provide keys to interpretation. However, not all scholars agree that the above criteria are present in this passage, so the decision to typeset it as poetry should be viewed as a tentative decision about its genre.

Right. 1 Timothy 3:16 is controversial among scholars and even among trinitarians who would no doubt prefer it was that elusive unicorn, so to speak, for the deity of Christ. However, scholarly and Biblical integrity demands honesty and, as such, there are many that outright affirm, based on everything they know, that "God" was not in the original text of 1 Tim 3:16. Bible Hub has a lot of commentaries from many well and lesser known authors that I highly recommend.

 

[Runningman]

That's called the Hypostatic Union.

Yes, it is indeed "called" that by some... just not by the Bible.

 

[SolaScriptura]

And yet it's still widely known that "God" doesn't appear in the earliest texts for 1 Tim. 3:16. Most trinitarian commentators either rightly agree with that or don't take a solid position on it. Most Bible versions don't add "God" to the text of 1 Timothy 3:16 either. Yet there are some who deny it. There proof has already been all presented that debunks the deity of Jesus.

Based on other things Paul said, it's obvious he didn't believe Jesus is a "god man" either. For starters, that's a paradox. God isn't a man, man isn't God. That's called a contradiction.

Here is what Paul believed and didn't change his position on this in the next chapter:

1 Timothy 2
5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Ignatius CLEARLY quotes from 1 Timothy 3:16!

Further, he also testifies to the reading Church of God in Acts 20:28, when he says, "εν αιματι Θεου", (by the blood of God) (to the Ephesians, chapter 1)

I have shown that there are Church fathers that read GOD in 1 Timothy 3:16, in their Greek copies, which you for your personal reasons on Jesus Christ, ignore!

What Paul says here, is EXACTLY what John says in his Gospel,

"καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος...kαὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο", " and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh" (verses 1, 14)

In verse 18, John goes on to say in the best textual evidence, which is also supported by some of the early heretics, which is also the reading used in the Greek interlinear of the Jehovah's Witnesses, as is the New Testament by the Unitarian George Noyes. 1 John 1:1-4 is very clear, that "ὁ λόγος", is the PERSON, Jesus Christ.

"θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς", literally, "God [the Father] no one has ever seen the Unique God [Jesus Christ]..."

In verses 1 and 18, it is clear that John says that there are TWO, Who are DISTINCT, and BOTH are GOD!

These are FACTS!

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, it is indeed "called" that by some... just not by the Bible.

It's unfortunate some do not trust the very men who canonized the very bible you mention.
They believed Jesus is God in the flesh.
As SolaScriptura has shown you many times.

 

[Runningman]

It's unfortunate some do not trust the very men who canonized the very bible you mention.
They believed Jesus is God in the flesh.
As SolaScriptura has shown you many times.

I do trust the Bible, but I haven't abandoned critical thinking since there is proof the Bible has been altered by people down the line. While "God in the flesh" was used by some of the early church fathers, there is still proof the earliest manuscripts didn't say anything about "God in the flesh" in 1 Timothy 3:16. My point is that this verse isn't a shoe-in for the hypostatic union without controversy. Long story short, there are different versions of this manuscript.

Also, there were others who said "He was manifested in the flesh" in the 4th century and earlier. It wasn't "all" of the church fathers saying Jesus is God.

"He was Himself manifested in the flesh,"
Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea (329 AD - 379 AD)
Epistle 261 “To the Sozopolitans”

"He was revealed in the flesh"
Epistle of Barnabas
section 12:10

Furthermore, God being vindicated or justified by the Holy Spirit doesn't make any sense. However, if Jesus is a human there is no problem with a human being justified by the Holy Spirit. God manifesting in the flesh doesn't make any sense in 1 Timothy 3:16 even if we pretend it's the correct reading.

Here's the correct version:

1 Timothy 3
16By common confession, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was proclaimed among the nations,
was believed in throughout the world,
was taken up in glory.

 

[GodsGrace]

I do trust the Bible, but I haven't abandoned critical thinking since there is proof the Bible has been altered by people down the line. While "God in the flesh" was used by some of the early church fathers, there is still proof the earliest manuscripts didn't say anything about "God in the flesh" in 1 Timothy 3:16. My point is that this verse isn't a shoe-in for the hypostatic union without controversy. Long story short, there are different versions of this manuscript.

Also, there were others who said "He was manifested in the flesh" in the 4th century and earlier. It wasn't "all" of the church fathers saying Jesus is God.

"He was Himself manifested in the flesh,"
Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea (329 AD - 379 AD)
Epistle 261 “To the Sozopolitans”

"He was revealed in the flesh"
Epistle of Barnabas
section 12:10

Furthermore, God being vindicated or justified by the Holy Spirit doesn't make any sense. However, if Jesus is a human there is no problem with a human being justified by the Holy Spirit. God manifesting in the flesh doesn't make any sense in 1 Timothy 3:16 even if we pretend it's the correct reading.

Here's the correct version:

1 Timothy 3
16By common confession, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was proclaimed among the nations,
was believed in throughout the world,
was taken up in glory.

Who appeared in the flesh?

 

[Runningman]

Who appeared in the flesh?

Jesus of course. That's what I have been saying all along. God coming in the flesh isn't what 2 John 1:7 says.

7For many deceivers have gone out into the world, refusing to confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

 

[Randy]

Right. 1 Timothy 3:16 is controversial among scholars and even among trinitarians who would no doubt prefer it was that elusive unicorn, so to speak, for the deity of Christ. However, scholarly and Biblical integrity demands honesty and, as such, there are many that outright affirm, based on everything they know, that "God" was not in the original text of 1 Tim 3:16. Bible Hub has a lot of commentaries from many well and lesser known authors that I highly recommend.

As I have stated to you the Deity found in Christ, in fullness, is the Fathers not His own.

 

[Runningman]

As I have stated to you the Deity found in Christ, in fullness, is the Fathers not His own.

The same can be said of others.

Ephesians 3
19of the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

1 Corinthians 3
16Do you not know that you yourselves are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?

 

[Randy]

The same can be said of others.

Ephesians 3
19of the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

1 Corinthians 3
16Do you not know that you yourselves are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?

A distinction was made by that which was gifted to Christ vs us, which your theological Bias refuses you to consider.

We have fullness in Christ not all the fullness of the Fathers Deity. Otherwise we would be God. Lets Hold to Father and Son. They are one.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell -another defined His being
Colossians 2:9-10 For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

Jesus showed a difference as well.
The Father in Him and He in us.

 

[Runningman]

A distinction was made by that which was gifted to Christ vs us, which your theological Bias refuses you to consider.

We have fullness in Christ not all the fullness of the Fathers Deity. Otherwise we would be God. Lets Hold to Father and Son. They are one.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell -another defined His being
Colossians 2:9-10 For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

"The Deity" is exclusively the Father according to John 17:3 which explicitly says such. He is the true and living God and Jesus is His Son.

1 Thessalonians 1
9For they themselves report what kind of welcome you gave us, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God 10and to await His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead—Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath.

Jesus showed a difference as well.
The Father in Him and He in us.

Jesus prayed that the same oneness he has with God that his disciples would not only have with each other in the same way he is one with God, but also that they would have the same oneness with God that Jesus does. Jesus prayed for the disciples to have this, but it doesn't mean they are God. If what you are saying is true then Trinitarianism would be a pantheon of Gods.

John 17
20I am not asking on behalf of them alone, but also on behalf of those who will believe in Me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

 

[Randy]

"The Deity" is exclusively the Father according to John 17:3 which explicitly says such. He is the true and living God and Jesus is His Son.

1 Thessalonians 1
9For they themselves report what kind of welcome you gave us, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God 10and to await His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead—Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath.


Jesus prayed that the same oneness he has with God that his disciples would not only have with each other in the same way he is one with God, but also that they would have the same oneness with God that Jesus does. Jesus prayed for the disciples to have this, but it doesn't mean they are God. If what you are saying is true then Trinitarianism would be a pantheon of Gods.

John 17
20I am not asking on behalf of them alone, but also on behalf of those who will believe in Me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

I know your belief. As you know we disagree.

 

[GodsGrace]

Jesus of course. That's what I have been saying all along. God coming in the flesh isn't what 2 John 1:7 says.

7For many deceivers have gone out into the world, refusing to confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

OK
But everyone comes in the flesh.
Why would John say that Jesus came in the flesh?

 

[Runningman]

OK
But everyone comes in the flesh.
Why would John say that Jesus came in the flesh?

That is probably just how people talked. People actually still talk like that sometimes when someone is physically there. "In the flesh" is an idiom and it means in real life, and not on TV, in a movie, in a picture, etc according to the Cambridge Dictionary.

Paul said it of himself too.

Colossians 2
5Truly indeed, if I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing and seeing your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.

 

[Randy]

That is probably just how people talked. People actually still talk like that sometimes when someone is physically there. "In the flesh" is an idiom and it means in real life, and not on TV, in a movie, in a picture, etc according to the Cambridge Dictionary.

Paul said it of himself too.

Colossians 2
5Truly indeed, if I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing and seeing your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.

Like He came from above and is above all and testifies to what He has seen and heard from His mind. Yes, He came in the flesh. That life appeared. Life is something living as in a being not a it. He was seen, touched, and heard. They testify about the eternal life that was with the Father in the beginning.

The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32 He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33 Whoever has accepted it has certified that God is truthful.

 

[Runningman]

Like He came from above and is above all and testifies to what He has seen and heard from His mind. Yes, He came in the flesh. That life appeared. Life is something living as in a being not a it. He was seen, touched, and heard. They testify about the eternal life that was with the Father in the beginning.

The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32 He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33 Whoever has accepted it has certified that God is truthful.

Jesus isn't trying to say that this applies exclusively to him. He said so earlier in John 3 about those who are born from above.

John 3​

3Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, except anyone be born from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God.”​

Paul also said he knew a man who saw heaven and had testimony about it.

2 Corinthians 12​

2I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows. 3And I know that this man—whether in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows— 4was caught up to Paradise. The things he heard were too sacred for words, things that man is not permitted to tell.​

 

[Randy]

Jesus isn't trying to say that this applies exclusively to him. He said so earlier in John 3 about those who are born from above.

John 3​

3Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, except anyone be born from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God.”​

Paul also said he knew a man who saw heaven and had testimony about it.

2 Corinthians 12​

2I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows. 3And I know that this man—whether in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows— 4was caught up to Paradise. The things he heard were too sacred for words, things that man is not permitted to tell.​

John the Baptist stated this about Jesus. Comes from above as in comes from heaven.
Your reasoning away what is clearly stated of Jesus doesn't surprise anyone. It's what you do.

 

[Runningman]

John the Baptist stated this about Jesus. Comes from above as in comes from heaven.
Your reasoning away what is clearly stated of Jesus doesn't surprise anyone. It's what you do.

Nothing is being reasoned away. Have you seen yet that all Jesus said about himself applies to others too? That's because he isn't God. I am trying to help you grasp this.