Featured God No One Has Seen At Any Time

What does Paul have to do with Job? Yet both affirm a physical resurrection. Both John and Paul affirm the Son has revealed God.

 

. . . ο μονογενης υιος . . . .
. . . μονογενης θεος . . . .
. . . ο μονογενης θεος . . . .

The false reading you ascribe to, ". . . only begotten God . . . ." For example fails to identify Genesis 12:7 as Jesus Christ the Son.

 

No. There are three Persons who are the one God. And you know this. There are not two or three Gods.

With the false teaching in John 1:18 it doesn't identify the Son as who appears for God.

 

Huh. The original teaching of John 1:18 is "Son."

 

I find it puzzling that you go with the correct manuscripts @ 1 Timothy 3:16, but forsake them and go with totally different manuscripts at John 1:18? Why not stick with the same group of manuscripts?

 

Huh. Gnosticism and Airianism favors. "only begotten god."

 

Irenaeus knew both readings, or is quoted both ways.
The Text of the Gospels: John 1:18 - Some Patristic Evidence

Irenaeus (c. 180). The testimony of Irenaeus supports both “Son” and “God.” In Book 3, 11:5-6, Irenaeus states, “The God who made the earth, and commanded it to bring forth fruit, who established the waters, and brought forth the fountains, was He who in these last times bestowed upon mankind, by His Son, the blessing of food and the favor of drink: the

Incomprehensible [acting thus] by means of the comprehensible, and the Invisible by the visible; since there is none beyond Him, but He exists in the bosom of the Father. For ‘No man,’ he says, ‘has seen God at any time,’ unless ‘the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].’ For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible. Wherefore they know Him to whom the Son reveals Him; and again, the Father, by means of the Son, gives knowledge of His Son to those who love Him.”
In this use of John 1:18, even with the addition of the words “of God,” it is clear that Irenaeus was using a text that read υἱός and not θεός; not only is υἱός in the quotation but it is also in Irenaeus’ comment which immediately follows (“For He, the Son who is in His bosom,” etc.).
In Book 4, 20:6-7, Irenaeus writes, “He [i.e., God] is by no means unknown: for all things learn through His Word that there is one God the Father, who contains all things, and who grants existence to all, as is written in the Gospel: ‘No man has seen God at any time, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father; He has declared [Him].’ Therefore the Son of the Father declares [Him] from the beginning, inasmuch as He was with the Father from the beginning.”
Irenaeus may have used a text of John in which εἱ μὴ preceded ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός in 1:18, as in Codex Wsupp, but regardless, υἱός is clearly favored in this quotation and in the subsequent
comment (“Therefore the Son of the Father,” etc.). Hort’s attempt (in his 1876 work Two Dissertations) to spin away from this conclusion is not plausible, despite his confident tone.
Only shortly later in Book 4, in 20:11, Irenaeus uses a different reading of John 1:18, stating, “It is manifest that the Father is indeed invisible, of whom also the Lord said, ‘No man has seen God at any time.’ But His Word, as He Himself willed it, and for the benefit of those who beheld, did show the Father’s brightness, and explained His purposes, as also the Lord said: ‘The only-begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].’” This quotation in 4:20:11, while not accompanied by confirmatory exposition, clearly supports the reading θεός. While it may seem unlikely that Irenaeus would cite two different forms of John 1:18, or that he would fail to point out that they were verbally different, that seems to be what has occurred.

While on the subject of Irenaeus’ writings, it should be noted that there is an issue regarding Irenaeus’ statement that Irenaeus stated that the Valentinians described the Arche-emanation as μονογενὴς θεός; Paul McReynolds states that Irenaeus claimed that the Valentinians describe the Αρχη as Son and Only-begotten and God (that is, υἱόν και μονογενὴ και θεόν). However, Hort preferred to follow the text of Epiphanius’ extract from Irenaeus as it appears “in the Venice MS” [Venice MS II. 483, I think] with και υἱόν και μονογενὴ θεόν which, Hort said, agrees with the properly compiled Latin text, “et Filium et Unigenitum Deum” and disagrees with “the common text.” Following Hort’s approach, it appears that the Valentinians in Irenaeus’ time used the term “only begotten God

 

There are two distinct teachings for John 1:18. Of those two teachings one is the word of God the other isn't.
Which teaching shows the Son to be YHWH? Genesis 12:7.

 

Yes, all significant variants sprang up in the wild, early 2nd century.

You convince me that it was the Gnostics who introduced the reading "God".
I would not include Origen in that group, since he wrote against some of those Gnostics, even if he wasn't as sound as we like.

All of our manuscripts whether Byzantine, independant, no matter what group testify of "Son" except a few Egyptian manuscripts. The Gnostics perished later on and their scriptures with them. But true Christians held to the faith and passed the original scriptures to us, as evidenced by the vast, overwhelming numbers of them.

If "God" was the true reading why did it perish from the manuscript tradition ? I propose when the Gnostics perished so did their changed readings. They perished with their errant teachings.

 

Both reading's were known to Irenaeus and Clement. Somebody created one of the 2 readings, very, very early 2nd century. Thank you for the evidence.

Certainly sometime after Irenaeus and Clement. 3rd century AD? We already know for fact that both readings existed in the 2nd century before p66 & p75. Thank you for the evidence.

I don't believe it's what John wrote. I believe what John originally wrote is God's word. I don't believe it was John's theology.

I am not trying to argue with you. But I am convinced the best manuscripts hand down the word to us. I once believed the Alexandrian Text was closer to the Originals. But after many years working through variants that the Alexandrian Text was created 2nd century. But not 1st century AD, when the Originals were written.

 

In other words, you go with the texts you agree with.