Steven Avery

In your lexicion, 5th century is late and 4th century is early for manuscripts ? And some different dates for church writers ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer and a conjecture that Rufinus edited this section,

Actually there three problems with the section. Remember it doesn't even match up to your preferred Greek reading. It can only be a light evidence at best of one writer, with caveats noted.

And Chris I did not see your analysis of the approximately 20 early church writers with citations in support of "God was manifest ..." Did I miss something ? That has been the emphasis on this thread, the early writers, so I would expect you to address them, at least those who are by the time period of your "early manuscripts".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer no early church fathers,

Did you yourself look over Hippolytus, Apostolic Constitutions, Gregory of Nyssa and the wealth of references by the time of the councils. Twenty or so ? These are considered 'early church fathers' http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ although I prefer to not use the term fathers and am edging away from 'patristic'.

So far the weak alternative writer reference through the 4th century you have given is Mathetes which appears to be more evidence against your position than for. And we have Origin through Rufinus giving a reading to be emended. Does a ratio of 10 to 1 or 20 to 1 have any significance in ECW referencing ? Maybe you can demonstrate some others and reduce it to 5 to 1 or 3 to 1 ?

I'll be happy to consider any. The UBS/NA apparatus gives some others, until you really look at them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer and emendation contrary to known principles of textual criticism and logic

You would have to unpack this. I don't claim an emendation but that QEOS is the original reading, well-attested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer and that the trajectory is better explained in by going hOS to QEOS

This is typical textcrit apologetics. We don't like the Bible reading that makes sense and is grammatically strong. So we will use our presuppositions of errancy to claim that the original is a corrupt reading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer Rufinus as it stands logically favors hOS to QEOS

Rufinus "as it stands" does not have hOS. You have to fly through various hoops. Its evidentiary value is minimal.

However there is information missing. Do we have all the references. We know we don't have the context. I'll be happy to review more when we have more to go on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer and Mathetes to Diognetus also has hOS and not QEOS

See above

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer I think you're a bit washed up on this one.

Washed in the blood of the lamb. Halleluyah !

So, Chris, is that it for your early writers for the first four centuries ?
Will you comment on all or some of the twenty that have been referenced ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Chris Weimer

Praxeus, if all you can argue is that your bible must be correct because you think it is so, then you are of no value here. If you're not even willing to engage in civil debate, but instead stick to your religious presumptions, then why are you even bothering to come here in the first place? No one here will be convinced by your "the bible must be inerrant" argument, nor will anyone here be impressed by your total lack of knowledge of either Greek, Latin, or Hebrew. Do yourself a favor and abi, stulte!

Chris Weimer

I'd love to, but we're still waiting on you showing us about your church writers. Oh well, here goes nothing.

Messiahology? Coining new words now?

Actually, yes. The Ancient Greek was written in *all* capitals, thus making your capital letters distinguishing "He" a translator's interpretation.

Here's a nice interlinear I've done for you, so you can see:

οι πιστοι λογισθεντες υπ αυτου εγνωσαν πατρος μυστηρια; ου χαριν απεστειλε λογον, ινα κοσμω φανη.

For which reason (οὗ χάριν) he (referring to πατρὸς in the previous sentence) sent (ἀπ�*στειλε) the word (λόγον) that (ἵνα) he (referring to λόγον in the previous clause, as any Greek grammarian would tell you) may appear (φανῇ) to the world (κόσμῳ).

Both father and word are the clear antecedents of the following phrases.

How about the Epistle of Barnabas, who claims once again that it was Jesus, the son of God, who came in the flesh?

Oh how cute! You managed to fit in "Lexicon" in our discussion. How apropos.

Did you even bother to look at what Jeffrey posted? Look carefully at Mounce, he'll do you good. Please show through a logical trajectory how it is possible, no, probable that both hOS and hO could arise from QEOS. You can't do it - textual criticism doesn't work that way. The earliest agree with hOS, the trajectory agrees with hOS, and you cling on to QEOS because you can't let go of your dogmatic presumptions of the inerrancy of the King James Version? That's pathetic.

Please repeat this list of your "early church writers". And how early are they compared to, oh, I don't know, Origen? And where are they located? Come on, Prax, the mediterranean didn't live in a freaking bubble. And please, for the love of all things good, go have yourself a nice book on manuscripts, how they are created, how they came about, and why they say the things they say. You're clueless.

I quote from Finsey JQR 72.4 pp. 293-302

"It is clear that [the redactor] has not only compiled sources has also edited them and altered them-sometimes profoundly-and even composed new material at some points."

By your very own "principles", Praxeus, it is obvious that God in the AC is obviously something changed by the redactor, and not the author of I Timothy.

What? Where did you get this idea from? Rufinus was an orthodox - the changes he made reflected a Trinitarian doctrine. As I said before, if he were to change anything, it would be to make the subject God and not Jesus.

Yes they do. Mounce, which Jeffrey quotes at the very start of this thread, repeats them. You've yet to deal with them, let alone deal with a trajectory or even the manuscripts. And still it doesn't matter anyway, because you have to believe that it must be QEOS. Kinda self defeating, no?

1. It makes perfect grammatical sense with hOS.
2. Having hOS in no way makes the verse "errant".
3. QEOS is the corruption, while the earliest of everything and the cleanest explanantion lies with hOS.

Typical textcrit apologetics. Praxeus, have you *ever* worked on the manuscripts of something other than the Bible? Do you have *any* idea how TC works?

Nah, I didn't think so. Until, Steven, you learn the basic principles, you've got nothing to offer.

Chris, taking another vacation to get away from people who plug their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalaaaa".

Chris Weimer

Where did you learn logic? Those are two verses which support hOS, but allow for Jesus to be God, and two dubious/spurious verses which were probably not even written by Hippolytus! Laughable, prax, really, that you would dig through the mud to find your fool's gold.

Sorry, couldn't help myself. Just had to show yet another one of your illogical conclusions out to any suspecting audience members.

Steven Avery

Chris if the Skeptic Protection Association has such an ingrained presupposition of anti-Bible that they cannot dialog <edit> with those who believe the Bible as the word of God then they will continue to find excuses to harass and ban the Bible believers from the forum.

And they will refuse to discuss the actual issues <edit> directly.
We have seen that from you and Jeffrey on this thread.

Simple examples:

You have gone mute on the Mathetes claimed reference for hOS. (putting aside the diversionary move about capitals you didn't address the real distinction between he and who/which, Chris, why do you play such games ?)

Jeffrey despite many requests would only (snip) the Jerome request.

These are not complicated issues, very straightforward.

When Erasmus and Tyndale labored to make the Bible available to the ploughman, there labors were ultimately very sucessful. The idea that discussion of the Bible is dependent on years of arcane language scholarship is a great deception.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

You never followed the links on this thread to a more than a dozen quotes from various early church writers? And yet you write with such hubris and make hasty conclusions about all the evidences when you never even looked at the references given ?

Amazing.
That is your brand of scholarship ?
Skeptic hand-over-eyes.

On post #28

In many cases I have the quotes, in others I have a reference.
This is reasonably up-to-date.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messia...c/message/9925
1 Timothy 3:16 - God was manifest in the flesh

We can bring there here for comment, perhaps two at a time would be best.

And you can give your list of all the early church writers you think are omitted who were quoting for hOS and against "God was manifest in the flesh..."

So far you have refused to give any such list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer Messiahology? Coining new words now?

It is my preferred word over Christology/Messiology.
Probably not coined by me but given as a good descriptive word.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer Actually, yes. The Ancient Greek was written in *all* capitals, thus making your capital letters distinguishing "He" a translator's interpretation.

Oh, please, Chris. You should know that is not the issue here so why do you try to divert the discussion ? The issue is whether the Greek has 'who' (hos) as you claimed or whether it has 'he' (autov) which would match the translation text. Or some other word. Did you even check the Greek before claiming that this was support for hos (which would have to be a mistranslation). hos and autov are clearly very different words.

To divert over a translational nuance (not an 'error' either way, you are simply blowing smoke on that claim) of "He" or "he" to hide the important issue shows that you really are not being forthright in this discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer How about the Epistle of Barnabas, who claims once again that it was Jesus, the son of God, who came in the flesh?

How about the epistle of Barnabas?
Although some have used it for theos, I think it is best considered neutral on the textual question of 1 Timothy 3:16.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.xii.html
Barnabus 12 - discusses OT types that point to Christ and his work.
“Behold again: Jesus who was manifested, both by type and in the flesh,
is not the Son of man, but the Son of God.”

Whether the author had a 1 Timothy 3:16 (which is itself less clear than the Ignatius citations) that had 'God' or 'who' there would be no difficulty with the above quote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer Please show through a logical trajectory how it is possible, no, probable that both hOS and hO could arise from QEOS.

The alexandrian corruptions were often away from the Deity of Messiah. So that is one possibility. I can point you to some of the discussions about this, probably beginning with Dean John Burgon.

One point is very simple. In any copying it is easier to lose a line (faintness, wear) than gain a new one. That alone supplies the trajectory from QEOS to hOS in a way that would best fit good 'ol Ockham. (The explanation that really does not require any presumptions of tampering, the theta stroke was lost.) Adding a stroke requires a conscious manipulation, losing a stroke can be the simple result of wear and tear of a faint original stroke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer The earliest agree with hOS,

As I have mentioned time and again, by the time of this "earliest" we have about a dozen church writers with QEOS. So your whole logical construct is GIGO.

The 'pathetic' part is your simply ignoring the facts (or never even checking) and then trying to get ugly to compensate.

Apostolic Constitutions clearly reflected the text of that day. And at latest it was an early day, the same days of Sinaiticus, the only manuscript you have for those first four centuries. Amazing.

So for you to go "blah blah" about a very significant text shows that you are simply incapable of real dialog.

And you quote Finsey, whoever he is, in JQR (Jewish Quarterly Review? .. they write on Apostolic Constitutions?). And call his comment, no idea of context or what Finsey says about "God was manifest..." my "principles". What hog-wash.

With Rufinus you don't even seem to understand that quia has to be emended to try to match the supposed Greek text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer Yes they do. Mounce, which Jeffrey quotes at the very start of this thread, repeats them.

So you be specific. You rightly dropped Mathetes. You have floated Barnabas and it busts. Origen is in suspension as an awkward and weak support of the non-theos position.

So there is possibly one. Now I want YOU to list the early church writers that you will defend as giving a solid testimony against "God was manifest..." and for "who" or "which".

There are a dozen or more through the first four centuries that are way stronger than any concern about allusion that testify to "God was manifest in the flesh ..." (including the Apostolic Constitutions). So far you have one very awkward and weak writer whose citations may be on the side against "God was manifest.." .. although the citation does not match any manuscript whatsoever and is cross-language and cross-century to another writer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer You've yet to deal with them,

You simply do not read the thread or follow the links. Name the ones you have studied and think really support your view. Give the textual reference. Maybe check that they haven't already been reviewed and found as improper citations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer 1. It makes perfect grammatical sense with hOS.

Let's start this discussion simply. Do you claim it makes "perfect grammatical sense" in translation into English .. with 'who' or 'which". Would you agree that in English this is an awkward construction at best. (You do realize that very translations leave the 'who' or 'which' in there and change the translation to 'he' .. why do you think that is.)

Now I realize that you likely do not want to go over the early church writer citations in the first 4 centuries to determine if the actual numbers are 20-1 or 10-2 or 15-3 whatever. So I will understand if you skedaddle as well, in a huff, rather than simply stating what early church writers you will give as supporting the who/which reading over "God was manifest..."

However, if you will give your lists with the quotes then we can really determine how great is the preponderance of evidence for "God was manifest in the flesh ..." in the early centuries.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

A unique Chris claim. I didn't think even Tischendorf or Jeffrey has come up with that one. Share away. Show us "who is manifested in the flesh" from Hippolytus.

You seem to have some basic difficulties coming to grasp that "he.." as a pronoun is quite different than 'who' or 'which'. In spelling and in meaning and in grammar. Generally 'he' is referring to a clear (masculine) antecedent, in Hippolytus the Father's Word. (The reason 'he' doesn't work in 1 Timothy 3:16 is the lack of evidence for the reading and also the ambiguity of any supposed antecedent.)

In fact for Noetus it is better to give more of the section ..

Then we see that it is abundantly clear that the Father's Word (present with God) was manifested as God in a body.

Noetus - http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ogmatical.html
Against Noetus 17:5
the Father is One, whose word is present (with Him)...This (Word) was preached by the law and the prophets as destined to come into the world. And even as He was preached then, in the same manner also did He come and manifest Himself, being by the Virgin and the Holy Spirit made a new man; for in that He had the heavenly (nature) of the Father, as the Word and the earthly (nature), as taking to Himself the flesh from the old Adam by the medium of the Virgin, He now, coming forth into the world, was manifested as God in a body, coming forth too as a perfect man. For it was not in mere appearance or by conversion, but in truth, that He became man.

And this is also in harmony with the manifestational view of Hippolytus ..

"For there is but one power, which is from the All; and the Father is the All, from whom cometh this Power, the Word. And this is the mind which came forth into the world, and was manifested as the Son of God."

"the Word spoke of Himself. For already He became His own herald, and showed that the Word would be manifested among men. And for this reason He cried thus: "I am made manifest to them that sought me not; I am found of them that asked not for me." And who is He that is made manifest but the Word of the Father?"

Now to be clear, one cannot prove that Hippolytus in any of this sections had "God was manifest in the flesh..." in 1 Timothy. Some of what he writes reflects John 1 most strongly. However all the sections are is clearly in harmony with the "God was manifest.." text and appears to lean upon on the idea. That is why my summary is more doctrinal than textual.

HIPPOLYTUS SUMMARY
Four verses that strongly reflect "God was manifest in the flesh"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer but allow for Jesus to be God

An important point that I shared to Jeffrey. The high Messiahology here is pre-Nicene and Jeffrey was originally claiming that the whole concept of "God was manifest in the flesh.." was only a Nicene addition (why he was making a big thing of trying to push 'God was manifest...' back to the fourth century). Actually Mathetes was a very nice additional evidence against the Nicean idea.

As for the question of the Hippolytus appendix, I have only seen doctrinal reasons given for not assigning this to Hippolytus. This is discussed a bit at
http://www.logon.org/english/s/p266.html

Similarly it is unclear what are the alternative theories are for dating and authorship (later / earlier /who).
Any resources on that appreciated.

You seem to want to ignore the context of the Hippolytus discussion.

"The irony is that Jeffrey never acknowledges that these quotes from Hippolytus and others strongly mitigate against his "Nicean" claim, even if they were not taken from 1 Timothy 3:16."

And then Jeffrey made the kindergarten blunder of writing as if I had said that Hippolytus quotes 1 Timothy 3:16 rather than referring to the general nature of the Hippolytus quotes.

"I actually point out in the sentence that one can say that they were not taken from 1 Timothy 3:16. Readers will vary as to their connection with 1 Timothy 3:16, here are the quotes."

Chris you apparently want to make the same error as Jeffrey.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Johnny Skeptic

Are you an inerrantist? If so, you have made a kindergarten blunder. There is in fact no credible evidence whatsoever that God inspired the writing of 1 Timothy 3:16. You have already embarrassed yourself in the past regarding the New Testament Canon. You said that Peter considered some of Paul's writings to be authoritative. That is evidence? Amazing.

Steven Avery

Johnny if you want to link to a discussion about the NT canon (your attempt at a reference to something specific) do so.

Obviously it is just a joke for you to make a conclusion here about some unknown discussion elsewhere. As if you are an unbiased judge of such discussions.

As for Peter considering Paul's writing authoritative, I challenge you to quote me in context and show exactly for what I was making that reference and why you disagree, in context. You can reopen the specific thread as well.

Else the above is only hot air..

However, from Johnny Onenote...

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Chris asked for some documentation of early church writers, having not followed the URL's.

Here is one of the writers referenced for 1 Timothy 3:16.
From about the same time as the one 4th century manuscript used as evidence against -

"God was manifest in the flesh..."

Let us simply see if Chris or others arguing for the modern version reading will agree that Gregory of Nyssa gives strong support for the "God was manifest..." reading at the same time period as Sinaiticus.

These are references taken from a writing of Gregory that is on the web, his writing against the Apollinarians.

Gregory Nyssa - (c. 380 AD) - Against Apollinarius

"He, I say, appeared on earth and conversed with men ... that we might be convinced that God was manifested in the flesh, and believe that to be the only true mystery of godliness, which was delivered to us by the very Word and God."

"And hence it is that all who preach the word point out the wonderful character of the mystery in this respect, that God was manifested in the flesh."

.....the Gospel proclaims "the Word became flesh" [Jn 1.14] and the Spirit descended in the form of a dove [Mt 3.16]. Nothing is said here of the Spirit becoming incarnate with regard to the mystery of our faith. "His glory has dwelt in our land" [Ps 84.10]. "Truth has sprung from the earth" [Ps 84.12]. "God has manifested himself in flesh" [1Tm 3.126]. AA--[J.147]

"our Lord's dispensation for mankind when God manifested himself in the flesh" AA-[J.135]

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/tr...ruefalse03.htm
Terence H. Brown
"Gregory of Nyssa frequently and powerfully testified for "God manifest in the flesh" ....Gregory died in A.D. 394 and his life spanned the period during which the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus was written."

http://www.bhsu.edu/artssciences/asf...a/appolin.html
Against Apollinarius by Gregory of Nyssa

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic