Is Jesus God because of 1 Timothy 3:16?

Does 1 Timothy 3:16 say Jesus is God?

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons)

“1 Timothy 3:16″ speaks of a personal manifestation of God – God in the second person was manifested” (The Impeccable Christ) [1]

The above and many other such similar remarks and statements are commonly found in Christian literature that favour Jesus’ divinity. In my own exchanges with Christians when discussing the alleged divinity of Jesus they would more likely than not reference 1 Timothy 3:16 as evidence for the incarnation of God into this world and that Jesus(the incarnation) is indeed God. Many of them do not realise however, that the reading that they so quickly grab and utilise is untenable. “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”  This is the reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 that would be championed by so called KJV only Christian fundamentalists and those whose agenda is to deify Jesus. The evidence will show that their position and belief is unwarranted and without good foundation.

The reading which has “God manifested in the flesh”(theos ephanerothe en sarki) is found in the King James Version which is based on the Textus Receptus or Received Text which is the work done by Desiderius Erasmus and published in 1516. The standard position in modern Biblical studies is that the Textus Receptus is an inferior text as it is based on very late mss. of the Byzantine tradition(12th and 13th century) as Prof. Raymond Brown states, “Scholarship at the end of the 19th century finally won the battle to replace the inferior Textus Receptus by new editions of the Greek NT based on the great uncial codices and other evidence made available since Erasmus’ time…”[2] Michael A. Barber summarises the situation of the TR nicely in the following:

Google Maps

“The translators of the King James version of the 1611 used the Textus Receptus, the Received Text, for their translation. At that time this Greek text was so highly regarded that many considered it to be inspired of God. Its text read “God was manifest in the flesh.” However, the value of the Textus Receptus has since been discredited by scholars and superseded by the three major manuscripts (among others), all of them of great antiquity, and therefore nearer to the original writings of the inspired penmen: The Vatican manuscript No. 1209 of the 4th century, the Sinaitic manuscript also of the 4th century (discovered by Tischendorf at a monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai in 1844) and the Alexandrine manuscript of the early 5th century.” [3]

The Trinitarian fundamentalist Christian who is predisposed to the KJV’s reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 is evidently at least on shaky grounds as the book itself is based on the inferior Textus Receptus. The text in question has been proven to have undergone alteration. In both Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus the original reading was hos ephanerothe en sarki with the relative pronoun “hos” rather than the noun “theos” as found in the Textus Receptus. Any child can tell the difference between a pronoun and a noun. Clearly, there has been a change. The question is how did the change occur? In brief, the word hos orthographically looks quite similar with the abbreviation for theos. Abbreviating sacred epithets was common practice among scribes of the ancient world. Hos in Greek looks like OΣ(omicron and sigma) whilst the abbreviation for theos(which is called a nomina sacra i.e. sacred name) looks like θΣ (theta and sigma) with a horizontal line on top of the sigma. In Greek to change a sigma to an omicron one need only add a horizontal line in the middle of the O which will yield a theta θ. There are two ways of approaching this anomaly in Textual Criticism. Some scholars argue that the change was accidental/coincidental without any theological motives behind it whilst another group of scholars argue that it was intentionally done with the obvious theological implication. James White in his book The King James Controversy favours the former position. The foremost textual critic Bruce Metzger in his The Text of the New Testament briefly mentions the error in 1 Timothy 3:16 as an item under the discussion of “UNINTENTIONAL CHANGES” under the subheading of “ERRORS ARISING FROM FAULTY EYESIGHT” which means that in this 1968 work he favours the position of accidental change. [4] In a later work(1975) however, he does admit intentional change as a possibility(though with less probability) of what happened with the text. He explains this in the following:

“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 (א* A*vid C* Ggr) as well as by 33 365 442 2127 syrhmg, pal goth ethpp Origenlat Epiphanius Jerome Theodore Eutheriusacc. to Theodoret Cyril Cyrilacc. 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 that read ὅ (D* itd, g, 61, 86 vg Ambrosiaster Marius Victorinus Hilary Pelagius Augustine) also indirectly presuppose ὅς as the earlier reading. The Textus Receptus reads θεός, with אe (this corrector is of the twelfth century) A2 C2 Dc K L P Ψ 81 330 614 1739 Byz Lect Gregory-Nyssa Didymus Chrysostom Theodoret Euthalius and later Fathers. Thus, 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 ος as ΘΣ, or (b) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs, or, with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision.” [5]

One of Metzger’s top students, Prof. Bart Ehrman favours the second option stating the following:

“The change must have been made fairly early, at least during the third century given its widespread attestation from the fourth century on. It can therefore best be explained as an anti-adoptionistic corruption that stresses the deity of Christ.” [6]

Reiterating the same point  in his popularly received Misquoting Jesus he states, “This would be an example of an antiadoptionistic change, a textual alteration made to counter a claim that Jesus was fully human but not himself divine.” [7]

Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger disagree with Ehrman’s position though they do concur that there is a “scribal switch” in 1 Timothy 3:16 and that the original reading is not “God manifested in the flesh”. [8] Biblical scholars Keith Elliot and Ian Moire’s position lends support to Ehrman’s thesis in their own work as they write the following:

“Another reason for the deliberate change from ‘who’ to ‘God’ is that the church may have wished here to emphasize its belief in the divinity of Jesus…’God’ was the preferred reading of a later generation and the change in those manuscripts was no mere accidental misreading. It seems ‘who’ is the text to print.” [9]

Reporting on the findings of textual critics Biblical scholar and theologian Sir Anthony Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting write:

“Some manuscripts have inserted the word “God” for the words “he who.” The alteration is admitted by modern translators to be unwarranted. “God” is most unlikely to have been part of the older manuscripts. Such interpolations, like the famous spurious Trinitarian addition in 1 John 5:7, which is omitted by modern translations, suggests that someone was trying to force a new idea on the original text.” [10]

Echoing the same point with more elaboration in his latest work he writes:

“Modern versions have corrected the word “God” to “He who.” The alteration of an original “He who” (in Greek ς) was very sneakily accomplished when some scribes changed the O (omicron) into a θ (theta) giving θς (theta sigma). The reading THS was an abbreviated form of the Greek word theos, God. All that had to be done was to draw a little line across the middle of the O to produce the Greek letter theta (θ). Then the text was made to sound Trinitarian and to support the Incarnation: God was manifested in the flesh.” “He who” (Oς) was made to read “God” (θς).” [11]

Similarly, Michael Barber writes:

The very old manuscripts used abbreviations for commonly used words such as THE.OS’, “God,” and KU’RI.OS, “Lord,” etc. The abbreviation for THE.OS’ was ΘϹ(with a horizontal line on top). However, were it not for those two horizontal lines, this is identical to the word OC, meaning “who.” The Alexandrian manuscript was found to have originally read OC, who, but this ‘much later hand’ added those two small lines, changing the reading to ΘϹ(with a horizontal line on top), THE.OS’, “God.” It was only examination by microscope which revealed this!

The Sinaitic manuscript and the Vatican manuscript No. 1209 read OC, “who,” giving the most accurate reading:

“Who was manifest in the flesh.” – 1 Timothy 3:16 ” [12]

The reading “God” is so insignificant in terms of providing any material meaning to New Testament christology that Raymond Brown in discussing dubious Biblical references that use the title “God” as a reference to Jesus  relegates the 1 Timothy 3:16 to just a footnote and remarks:

“I shall discuss only those that I think have some merit, ignoring, for instance, 1 Timothy 3:16, where some witnesses have a reference to God being manifested in the flesh instead of a pronominal reference to Jesus. The attestation for such a reading is not strong enough to warrant serious consideration.” [13]

In conclusion, whether 1 Timothy 3:16 was changed deliberately or accidentally what all experts of the Bible excluding fundamentalist KJV groupies agree on is that the original reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 does not have “God” in it. The word theos was a later insertion, that is, a corruption of the text.

 

Addendum:

 

This section aims to bolster the above article’s established fact that 1 Timothy 3:16 with the reading ‘theos’ is a later manipulation with further citations to academic works on the topic.

Let us recall the explanation that is give above regarding the process of change that took place between hos and theos:

“In brief, the word hos orthographically looks quite similar with the abbreviation for theos. Abbreviating sacred epithets was common practice among scribes of the ancient world. Hos in Greek looks like OΣ(omicron and sigma) whilst the abbreviation for theos(which is called a nomina sacra i.e. sacred name) looks like θΣ (theta and sigma) with a horizontal line on top of the sigma. In Greek to change a sigma to an omicron one need only add a horizontal line in the middle of the O which will yield a theta θ.”

Prof. Bart Ehrman whom we have already cited above succinctly states elsewhere regarding the alteration of the relative pronoun to a noun in the following:

“A similar motivation lay behind the change of the confession of 1 Tim. 3:16, which in its oldest form speaks of Christ as the one WHO (OS) was made manifest in the flesh; but a scribe, simply by putting a vertical line through the omicron and drawing a superlinear line over the word, modified it so that now it speaks of “God” (THEOS) who was made manifest in the flesh.” [14]

The celebrated 18th century theologian Joseph Priestly supported the fact that 1 Timothy 3:16 was changed from a relative pronoun to the noun ‘theos’ and he cited the erudite polymath Isaac Newton to that effect. Priestly himself after examining Codex Alexandrinus which was relatively the oldest manuscript in his time which had been kept at the Royal Library in the British Museum writes the following:

“The oldest manuscript in the world which I have examined myself, has been manifestly altered… as appears manifest in the difference in the color of the ink.” [15]

 

Superior manuscripts along with ancient creedal fragments all attest to the fact that ‘theos’ cannot be original as Ehrman points out:

“That the reading θεός cannot be original is shown by the character of the manuscript attestation – the earliest  and superior manuscripts all support the relative – and by the fact that ancient creedal fragments typically  begin precisely in this way, that is, with a relative pronoun.” [16]

New Testament creedal statements that reflect the original reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 according to Ehrman include Philippians 2:6 and Colossians 1:15. Both instances begin with the relative pronoun ς as follows:

ςστινεκντοθεοτοῦἀοράτου (Colossians 1:15)

ςνμορφθεοῦὑπάρχωνοχρπαγμνγήσατοτεναισαθε (Philippians 2:6)

The understanding imparted by Ehrman is that it would be unseemly and highly improbable that any verse in the Pauline corpus would deviate from the norm of using relative pronouns to begin a creedal statement.

It is noteworthy that even conservative commentaries prefer the reading that eliminates the interpolation ‘theos’ such as Minister Geoffrey Wilson’s (minister of the Baptist Church Huddersfield) The Pastoral Epistles: A Digest of Reformed Comment:

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; he who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit,” [17]

Additional important points that support the reading without theos include the Catholic church’s long standing tradition of reading the text with a relative pronoun even though they are themselves vociferously worshippers of Christ as deity and also the fact that the patristic sources generally attest the relative pronoun rather than the other one. These good points are noted by Pastor George Burnap who was the pastor of the first independent church of Baltimore:

“There is another passage which is often quoted in the Trinitarian controversy, to which no weight ought to be attached. It is found in First Timothy, third chapter, sixteenth verse : – “Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory.” There are no less than three variations of the ancient manuscripts, on which most reliance is placed in settling the text of the New Testament. One reading is, – “He who was manifested in the flesh was justified in the spirit.” Another, – “Great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh.” The other is the common reading. “God was manifested in the flesh.” The whole Catholic Church, throughout the world, knows no other reading than “Great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh,” as any of you may easily ascertain by examining a Catholic Bible at the place referred to. Sir Isaac Newton, one of the best as well as most learned of men, wrote a distinct treatise to show that the common reading – “God was manifested in the flesh” –is a corruption of the text, and was unknown in the churches for the first three hundred years. By the best critic, this reading is rejected, and no honest man, who knows the whole ground, will ever quote this text as having any bearing on the Trinitarian controversy, or quote it at all without noticing the fact, that the reading is so doubtful, that no argument ought to be drawn from it.” [18]

The Catholic Dhuay-Rheims version of the Bible perfectly captures Burnap’s point regarding “The whole Catholic Church… knows no other reading…” as it renders the verse as follows:

“And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh…”

This version is of course based on Jerome’s Vulgate. An article on 1 Timothy 3:16 would not be complete without references made to the pioneer on the subject, whom we have already mentioned, that is, the great polymath Sir Isaac Newton. His critical analysis of the topic is perhaps the most extensive of its kind extending over 30 pages long. Thus Newton astutely observes:

“Whereas all the churches for the first four or five hundred years, and the authors of all the ancient versions, Jerome, as well as the rest, read, “Great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh.” For this is the common reading of the Ethiopic, Syriac, and Latin versions to this day: Jerome’s manuscript having given him no occasion to correct the old vulgar Latin in this place.” [19]

The Vulgate reads as follows:

“et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum quod manifestatum est in carne…”

The key section is “quod manifestatum” which means “he manifested” and definitely not “Deum in carne manifestatum” or “God manifested in the flesh”. What this essentially means is that the reading theos ephanerothe en sarki was unknown to Jerome. Had he known about it and had it been favourable to him in terms of its authenticity, he being an explicit Trinitarian theologian, would certainly have incorporated it into his Vulgate.

An excellent point that is made by Newton is that ancient Greek and Latin theologians in their frequent attempts to justify the deity of Jesus Christ never once made reference to 1 Timothy 3:16:

“With the ancienter versions agree the writers of the first five centuries, both Greeks and Latins. For they, in all their discourses to prove the Deity of the Son, never allege this text, that I can find, as they would all have done, and some of them frequently, had they read “God manifested in the flesh;” and therefore they read . Tertullian adversus Praxean, and Cyprian adversus Judaeos, industriously cite all the places where Christ is called God, but have nothing of this. Alexander of Alexandriam Athanasius, the bishops of the council of Sardica, Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, Chrysoston, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Cassian, also Hilary, Lucifer, Jerome, Ambrose, Austin, Phaebadius, Victorinus Afer, Faustinus Diaconus, Pope Leo the Great, Arnobius junior, Cerealis, Vigilus Tapsensis, Fulgentius, wrote all of them in the fourth and fifth centuries, for the Deity of the Son, and the incarnation of God; and some of them largely, and in several tracts; and yet I cannot find that they ever allege this text to prove it, excepting that Gregory Nyssen once urges it, if the passage crept into him out of some marginal annotation. In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian controversy, it never came into play; though. Now those disputes are over, they that read “God manifested in the flesh,” think it one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business.” [20]

It should be noted however, that some of the names cited by Newton are also cited by Dean Burgon who argue for the reading ‘theos’. Burgon cites some of those names including Chrysostom and Athanasius where they appear to have quoted 1 Timothy 3:16 with the reading ‘theos’ rather than the relative pronouns ‘hos’ or ‘o’. What Burgon failed to mention is the fundamental point made by Newton namely, “…they have changed the ancient reading of the text, not only in the manuscripts of St. Paul’s epistles, but also in other authors; and yet there are still remaining sufficient instances among them of what the reading was at first. So in Chrysostom’s commentary on this epistle, they have now gotten θεός into the text; and yet by considering the commentary itself, I am satisfied that he read . For he neither in this commentary, nor anywhere else, infers the Deity of Christ from this text; nor expounds it as they do who read θεός.” [21]

Newton then goes on to carefully illustrate that during the Nestorian controversy all involved parties read either ‘o’ or ‘hos’ rather than ‘theos’. He also proves that the original reading as Chrysostom knew it was without ‘theos’ as Newton cites John Cassian who was Chrysostom’s deacon, scholar and the legate to the Pope. In his De Incarnatione Domini which he wrote in 430 according to Baronius he wrote, “Et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum, quod manifestum est in carne, justificatum est in Spiritu. Vides ergo, quod mysterium pietatis, vel sacramentum justificatum apostolus praedicavit.” Cassian’s reading “quod manifestum est in carne” closely reflects the Vulgate. Newton then eruditely comments:

“Thus for Cassian not only reading , but confuting Nestorius by that reading. For whereas Nestorius said it was a creature which was justified, Cassian tells him, that if he had read the whole text, he would have found that it was “the mystery of godliness.” “Vides ergo,” saith he “quod mysterium pietatis justificatum apostolus praedicavit.” He does not say, “Deum justificatum apostolus praedicavit” (as he would certainly have done, had that been in his Bible), but mysterium; and so makes mysterium, or, which is all one, its relative quod, the nominative case to the verbs which follow.” [22]

Chrysostom would have hardly used a reading that differed from his own teacher’s. The manipulation of Chrysostom’s quotation exemplifies the unreliability of those patristic quotations that seem to carry the reading ‘theos’ rather than a relative pronoun of either ‘hos’ or ‘o’.

The preponderance of evidence clearly shows that the reading ‘theos’ in 1 Timothy 3:16 is a later pious corruption to further highten Jesus’ Christological depiction in the New Testament by conniving scribes.

 

References:

[1] Best, W. E. (1971). The Impeccable Christ. U.S. : Lightning Source Inc. p. 23

[2] Brown, R. E. (1997). An Introduction to the New Testament. U.S. : Yale University Press. p. 52

[3] Barber, M. A. (2006). Should Christians Abandon the Doctrine of the Trinity?. Boca Raton, Florida: Universal Publishers. p. 47

[4] Metzger, B. M. (1968). The Text of the New Testament : Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd ed. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. p. 187

[5] Metzger, B. M. (2002). A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 4th ed. London: United Bible Societies. pp. 573-574

[6] Ehrman, B. D. (1993). The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Madison Avenue, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 78

[7] Ehrman, B. D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New York: HarperSanFrancisco. pp. 157-158

[8] Kostenberger, A. J., & Kruger M. J.(2010). The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway. p. 222

[9] Elliot, K., & Moir, I. (1995). Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament: An Introduction for English Readers. London: T&T Clark Ltd. p. 73

[10] Buzzard, A., & Hunting, C. F. (1998). The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound. Lanham, Maryland: International Scholars Publications. p. 303

[11] Buzzard, A. (2007). Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian: A Call to Return to the Creed of Jesus. Morrow, Georgia: Restoration Fellowship. pp. 257-258

[12] Barber, M. A. Op. Cit. p. 48

[13] Brown, R. E. (1994). An Introduction to New Testament Christology. Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press. p. 177

[14] Ehrman, B. D. (2006). Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Leiden: The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. p. 371

[15] Schofield, R. E. (1997). The Enlightenment of Joseph Priestly: A Study of His Life and Work from 1733 to 1773. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press. p. 188

[16] Ehrman, B. D. (1993). Op. Cit.

[17] Wilson, G. B. (1982). The Pastoral Epistles: A Digest of Reformed Comment. Carlisle: Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust. p. 56

[18]Burnap, G. W. (1853). Popular Objections to Unitarian Christianity Considered and Answred. Boston: Crosby, Nichols, and Company. pp. 54-55

[19] Newton, I. (2011). An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture: In a Letter to a Friend. London: R. and J.E. Taylor. p. 58

[20] Ibid. p. 59

[21] Ibid. p. 61

[22] Ibid. pp. 66-67

 

Incoming search terms:

  • what does 1 timothy 3 16 mean
  • does 1 timothy 3:16 say god
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

7 Responses to “Is Jesus God because of 1 Timothy 3:16?”

  1. Jesus says:

    Very good article brother .Driving your point by quoting scholars is what i like about your articles.Keep publishing more and more like this one brother .

  2. DAWAH REFUTED says:

    Very confusing article brother!

    Since Letter to Timothy basically is a letter from Apostle Paul, so are you suggesting Paul’s letter originally intended to describe Jesus as not God?

    In that case if Paul ORIGINALLY taught that Jesus as not God so why Islamists like you accuse him for twisting Christianity then ?

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      The confusion is only with you. Originally, 1 Timothy 3:16 did not intend to portray God manifesting into the world. This is amply proven in the article. 1 Timothy 3:16 is regarded by 80 to 90% of modern Biblical scholars as pseudonymous literature. That means it was not penned by Paul, but by someone writing in his name. This is mentioned by Prof. Raymond Brown in his Introduction to the New Testament page 654. The purpose of the article is not to accuse Paul or twisting “Christianity”. That is a total red herring on your part. Get on the programme and try to refute something. You haven’t been able to do that in any way. Better luck next time.

      • DAWAH REFUTED says:

        Now here’s again you are confusing yourself why would Timothy as Paul’s apprentice receive direction from some anonymous “teacher” then?

        Please explain your logic , why would Timothy receive a doctrine that opposed the teaching of his teacher then?

        thx
        Dawah Refuted

        • Ibn Anwar says:

          This latest comment of yours shows the level of intelligence that you have which is very low unfortunately. You are presuming and misunderstanding the purpose of the article and my previous response to you. You think that I’m arguing that 1 Timothy 3:16 teaches that Jesus is not God, but Paul in your view did teach Jesus is God(which he actually did not). 1 Timothy 3:16 is not trying to refute the idea that Jesus is God. Get that in your head. The point of the whole article was not to prove or disprove the divinity of Jesus. It was simply a refutation to those who think that 1 Timothy 3:16 proves Jesus is God. I have proven in the article that 1 Timothy 3:16 specifically does in no way prove Jesus is God and that the text has actually undergone editing. Do you understand now? Your other comments are deleted because they are far worse than this. I have no time to deal with stupendous stupidity. By the way, your little friend The Bull has been perfectly refuted on every single claim and proposition. Judging from the comments that you’ve made thus far The Bull has more intelligence than you and yet he has been soundly refuted on practically everything. My recommendation to you is to give up now and go read some books. Maybe attend a university as well and get some tertiary education after which time you can come back and debate here okay?

  3. The Bull says:

    John 1:14 says:”And the word became flesh….”. This is similar to 1 Tim 3:16…”He was manifest in the flesh”.
    These statements would not make sense if Jesus were just a prophet or man. Who is ‘He’? He is God.
    Anyway you don’t have a problem with Jesus being theos so what’s the problem?
    Colossians 2:9 states: “For in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Yes, the word became flesh. I have already completely refuted you on that. Have you forgotten? I’ve explained to you that “the word” is God’s design which later became physical/flesh i.e. Jesus. Yes, Jesus was manifest in the flesh. That does not mean he is God the creator. It simply means he was created/became flesh. The fact that he manifested in the flesh proves he isn’t deity. You think it makes sense that Jesus was both man and God at the same time? 100% man and 100% God? Please explain to me how that is logically possible? Explain to me how Jesus has a human soul and a divine soul in one flesh. Explain to me when Jesus acted as God and when he acted as man whilst in bodily form. Explain to me why and how the human would trump the divine in those instances when he acted as man and not God? How can human nature overcome the divine? Explain to me how God who is supposed be infinite is also at the same time finite in one body? Please explain. You cannot. So don’t tell me about what makes sense and what does not. Christian theologians themselves admit that the Trinity makes no sense as Tertullian said, “it is to be believed because it is absurd”.
      Jesus can be theos only in a metaphorical sense as I have fully explained to you. Need I tell you to refer to Thayer’s lexicon again??? So you think Colossians 2:9 makes Jesus God like the Father? Then you must be God too since Ephesians 3:19 says: “and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God”.

Leave a Reply