Yahshua is "the son (the flesh) that was in the plans of the father)". I would agree with you statement "Jesus is the father manifested in the flesh.", since Yahshua did manifest (MAKE KNOWN or REVEAL) his and our FATHER Yahweh in (BY WAY OF) his flesh, but he is not his and our FATHER Yahweh, but is His SON.
In you asking me to read 1 Timothy 3:16, you are most likely giving reference to the following translation or one similar to it:
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.
If you will note other translations by clicking on the following hyper linked text, you will note that not all translations use the word "God" in their translations of this verse.
There is sound reason for translating this verse in this manner without "God" in it as you will note in the following study:
"Great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifested in the flesh." KJV
[SIZE=+1]The Trinitarian Claim[/SIZE]
Trinitarians claim this verse identifies Jesus as "God" because it says "God was manifested in the flesh."
[SIZE=+1]Examination of the Evidence[/SIZE]
Modern translations do not read, "God" at 1 Timothy 3:16. Trinitarians make this particular claim by quoting from the King James Version. Despite the fact that scholars agree that the KJV reading is a corruption, Trinitarians, even those who normally do not read the KJV, continue to cherry-pick this verse from the KJV.
When the Christological controversies were occurring in the fourth century, we do not see even one solitary person making a reference to this passage as evidence for the deity of Christ. This undeniably proves it was unknown to them. If indeed 1 Timothy 3:16 really said "God was manifest in the flesh," we can most definitely be sure this passage would have most been brought forward as "Exhibit A." Yet, not one soul mentions it even though this passage more than any other would have supported the teaching that the incarnate Christ was "God." But the facts remain as they are and it was never mentioned once in the myriads of documentation that exist illustrating what was argued in these debates. There is a good reason that no one in the fourth century church ever mentioned the passage. The word "God" did not appear in 1 Timothy 3:16 until much later. It first appeared in manuscripts
after Trinitarian dogma was fully developed and canonized and is an obvious later alteration. The oldest and best manuscripts do
not have the word "God" (
theos) in 1 Timothy 3:16 which is why modern Bible translations do not have the word "God" at 1 Timothy 3:16 either.
1.
Contemporary Trinitarian Translation Scholars
Now because this verse is known to be a scribal error, contemporary Trinitarian Greek scholars, who have access to numerous manuscripts, have not been able to perpetuate this error any longer into English translations, despite the passions of some who desire the word "God" to appear in this verse at the expense of truth. Let us look at some of the major translations of this passage and note how Trinitarian Greek scholars themselves acknowledged the scribal error:
"He appeared in a body" (NIV)
"He who was manifested in the flesh" (ASV)
"He who was revealed in the flesh" (NASB)
"He was manifested in the flesh" (RSV)
"Which was manifested in the flesh" (Douey-Rheims)
"Who was manifested in the flesh" (NAB)"
Quite plainly, Trinitarian translation scholars are admitting this version of the verse is not authentic. One then wonders why Trinitarians so often continue to appeal to it.
2.
Ho, Hos & Theos
If we entertain all possibilities, the remote and the more certain, there are actually three possibilities in this text:
ho ("which"),
hos ("who"), and "
theos ("God/deity"). The first two are attested in early manuscripts. Thus one must look elsewhere to find which one is the one Paul originally wrote.
3.
One Small Pen Stroke
We actually have a pretty likely idea how this corruption happened. Scribal copyists routinely used a contracted form of the Greek word for "God" called a "nomina sacra" that was used at a very early date in Christian history for sacred names. The Greek word for "God" is
theos written in the Greek alphabet as
qeoV, or
QEOS. The copyist abbreviations correspondingly took the form
qV, or
QS, with an faint overscore line stroke over the abbreviation (see Figure 1). These strokes would often become quite faint in the copies. Now the Greek word for "who" is the word
hos which is written in Greek as
oV, or
OS. Now notice the similarity between these two words
QS, and
OS, and also remember they were written by hand and would not be written so perfectly and distinctly as the typed letters on this page. With the exception of one penstroke, the Omicron (
O) and Theta (
Q) are nearly identical. It would be very easy to make a mistake here when copying from one manuscript to another and if that is what happened then it would be excusable. But it would also be very easy for an overzealous scribe to suppose he was doing God a favor and execute a forgery here by changing the manuscript and the handwritten
O (Omicron) into a
Q (Theta) with a stroke of his pen and thereby completely change the meaning of the verse. It would be also easy to change the word
ho to
theos by adding a stroke and an "s." And it would be far more difficult to do it the other way around without getting caught (removing the stroke). There is also evidence that ink may have bled through the other side of the media and made it appear to a copyist to read
QS because the bleeding ink added what appeared to be a line where
OS had been written. Whether or not it was an honest copying mistake or a forgery, it is very likely that the error was produced in this manner.
Figure 1
4.
The Manuscript Evidence
ManuscriptCommon NameDateTextComments BCodex Vaticanusca. 300Does not contain 1 TimothyAlexandrian. AlephCodex Sinaiticusca. 350
who was manifest in fleshAlexandrian. AlCodex Alexandrinusca. 450
who was manifest in fleshScrivener attests to
theos. CCodex Ephraemi Rescriptusca. 450
who was manifest in flesh DCodex Claromontanusca. 550
which was manifest in flesh Pe****ta
Coptic
Ethiopic
Sahidic
which was manifest in flesh Gothic
which was manifest in flesh
5.
Patristic Witness
Quotations of 1 Timothy 3:16 in the Fathers AuthorReferenceDateEvidenceComments Ante-Nicene
Church All Writings 70-325 A.D. None Not quoted by any writer before Nicea Arian Controversy
Church All Writings 325 - 381 A.D. None Not quoted by any writer until late in the fourth century
6.
The Internal Evidence
a. The Greek Grammar
The internal evidence also reveals the truth of the matter. First, the passage does not say "in
the flesh" with a definite article but simply "in flesh." The word
eusebias translated as "godliness" is difficult to translate into English with a word that exacts the Greek intention. The word "godliness" is a justified translation of the word and it is about as good as we can do with the selection of English words we have available. However, it does tend to overstranslate the Greek scope of the word. This is a common problem when translating from one language to another. The Greek word does not precisely mean what the English word "godly" tends to convey but it means something like reverent piety in a worshipful sense. The Greek words for "God" and "godliness" which are
theos and
eusebias are
not related word cognates as they are in English. This can also tend to be misleading to English readers who might errantly conclude the word "godliness" in this passage is intended to correlate with the word "God". However, in Greek the word
eusebias and
theos do not bear that correlation. Also, in Greek the English words "who" and "which" are not really different words. There were also no sentence ending periods in the Greek text. If the word "which" is the proper rendering, the passage actually says in the Greek, "great is the mystery of godliness which was manifested in flesh, justified in spirit..." However, if the word "God" is used we have an abrubt break in the flow of the sentence, "great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in flesh, justified in spirit..." The rendering which uses the word "who" or "which" is much smoother and natural. Not only so, it is typical Pauline style to compose run-on sentences.
b. The Immediate Context and Pauline Thought
And there is yet more. Paul here is talking about the
mystery. In 2 Timothy he says, "God who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages of time (2 Tim 1:8-9). This is nearly identical to what he says in Romans, "Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the
mystery of the times of the ages which was kept hidden" (Rom 16:25). And in Ephesians he says, "having made known to us the
mystery of his will according to his good pleasure which he purposed in himself for the economy of the fullness of the times to head up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth" (Eph 1:9-10) and "to enlighten all as to the communion of the
mystery which has been hidden from the ages who created all things in Christ Jesus" (3:9) and "this is a great
mystery but I speak of Christ and the church" (5:32). Paul desires "to make known the
mystery of the gospel" (6:19) which is he also calls "the
mystery of Christ" (Colossians 4:3). The mystery of the ages is Christ himself revealed to us by God. He tells us in Colossians, "the glory of this
mystery,
which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col 1:27; see 1 Cor 1:30; 2:7). God's mystery appeared in flesh and Christ is that fleshly manifestation of His mystery.
God was Justified in the Spirit?
Another problem associated with the "God" rendering is that if we just keep reading it would then say that God was justified in the Spirit. It makes no sense to say God was justified in the spirit, God was seen by angels, God was preached among the Gentiles, God was believed on in the world, and God was received into glory." One would have to create quite a theological spin to have this make any good sense.
c. Paul's Vocabularly Elsewhere
At Colossians 1:27 we read, "the glory of the mystery among the nations
which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." The relative pronoun used here is the masculine relative pronoun
hos which refers back to the neuter noun "mystery." This is nearly identical to 1 Timothy 3:16 which ends with the phrase "taken up in glory." Hence we can see that
hos is the likely relative pronoun to be used at 1 Timothy 3:16.
d. Constructio Ad Sensum
Trinitarians have sometimes insisted the gender of the pronoun in question necessitates in Greek grammar the "God" rendering. This is highly misleading. Pronouns do not always refer to the immediate antecedent but sometimes to the contextual antecedent.
[SIZE=+1]Determining Factors[/SIZE]
Trinitarians are appealing to a version of a text which is known to be a scribal error.
Modern Trinitarian translation reflect that Trinitarian translation scholars admit this is a scribal error. Therefore, they do not translate this passage in a way that supports Trinitarian doctrine
We have a pretty good idea that this error was accomplished by either (1) one additional stroke of a pen changing the Greek word from "who" to "God" or (2) by two additional strokes of a pen changing the Greek word from "which" to God, or (3) by ink bleeding through the media.
This version of the verse cannot be found absolutely anywhere in early Christian writings before the Trinity was developed. Considering the fourth and fifth century men were having a crisis in the church concerning the nature of Christ and his relationship to God, it is preposterous to claim this version of the verse is valid and they overlooked this passage.
No early manuscripts contain this version of the verse. The corrupted version of this text appears only after the doctrine of the Trinity was developed in the fourth/fifth century.
The Greek grammar also indicates this rendering is wrong.
[SIZE=+1]Conclusion[/SIZE]
So when we review all the evidence the solution is plain to see. The historical evidence indicates the word "God" was not there before the fifthe century. The manuscript evidence indicates the word "God" was not in the original text. All objections based on grammatical and theological grounds are nothing but vain babblings. Christ is the mystery in question which is why the passage should read, "great is the mystery of godliness
who/which was manifested in flesh, justified in spirit..." Very obviously then the passage reads smoothly and makes total sense with the rest of Scripture by using either the word "who" or "which" or "that" instead of the word "God" which is an obvious error or forgery no matter how badly Trinitarian apologists want it to be there and who seem to somehow think they do God a favor by promoting something he never inspired in the first place. The Douey-Rheims and NAB translations obviously have it right.
"Great is the mystery of godliness which/who was manifested in flesh."
Last Updated: February 24, 2011
Notes:
A
constructio ad sensum is a construction wherein the function of word-forms employed does not conform to ordinary grammatical rules but rather to an implicit understanding of the logical relationship of the elements. It is interesting that Trinitarians insist that John refers to the the Spirit which is a neuter noun, with a masculine pronoun at John 15:26, 16:7, 8, 13, and 14. However, many Trinitarians want to insist the very same thing is not allowed here. If the Trinitarian wants to demand that the relative pronoun absolutely must match the gender of the antecedent, without exception, then he has just talked himself out of the personality of the Holy Spirit and his Trinity inadvertently disintegrates before him by his very own instance. Such are the double standards of Trinitarians. But the fact is that Christ is being described as the mystery and to shift from the idea of the mystery being an "it" to the mystery being a "who," would require Paul to invoke a
constructio ad sensum. If Paul did use
hos, he is telling us that the "it" is actually a "who" by using this construction.
SOURCE
