The Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, etc

No. They accepted "God" because it reads "monogenes theos", and not "ho theos". The Arians, following Origen, said that Jesus is "theos", while the Father is "ho theos"!

 

In the same way the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are the present day Arians, have no hesitation in calling Jesus "theos". Its what is mean by this term that is important, and not the word itself!

The Arian controversy can be traced back further than Arius himself. His actual "theology", or, more correctly, "Christology", came from his being a pupil at the school of Lucian of Antioch, who himself advocated the heresis of Paul of Samosata. In their "system", they could call Jesus "theos", as long it be understood that the Father alone is: "unbegotten", while the Son is "begotten" from the Father, as touching his Divinity. Like many of the orthodox party, Arius appealed to Proverbs 8:22-25 and applied it to Jesus Christ. This has nothing to do with Jesus, and is a complete misapplication especially by the orthodox party, who went to great lenghts to explain what they meant by it!

 

No. They accepted "God" because it reads "monogenes theos", and not "ho theos". The Arians, following Origen, said that Jesus is "theos", while the Father is "ho theos"! </font>[/QUOTE]Ummm, John himself used the anarthrous "theos" not only in John 1:1, but in several other places. I'm sorry, your argumentations just doesn't stand up to the truth.

It doesn't matter what Origen thought. Besides, the Father "begetting" the Son has always been orthodox Christian doctrine. Not that the Son came from the Father, but that those are the roles of the persons of the trinity. This argument is the same argument Gail Riplinger tried to use and failed. </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Spoudazo, you speak of my arguments not standing up to "truth", but don't seem to understand the facts yourself!

My response that you have quoted above, is my reply to Natters, who was asking who Arius could call Jesus "theos", since he did not believe in the Deity of Jesus. I then showed that in the early Church, as it is still among some today, a distinction was/is made between "theos" and "ho theos", quite wrongly so in my opinion! The use or absence of the article has got nothing to do with "theology", but is done so because of the Greek grammar. But, people like Origen and Arius attached their theology to the actual usage and meaning of the words itself, especailly within its context. I am fully aware that John uses "theos" for Jesus in 1:1 of his gospel, which he does grammatically, as it would have been impossible for him to have written "ho theos" here, because of the construction, not only of the last sentence of the verse, but, because of the whole verse!

You speak of "begetting" as being orthodox Christian doctrine, and assume that he is used to denote the "roles" of the Fathe and the Son! This is something new to me! The Eternal Generation of the Son from the Father, is not to do with their "roles" within the Godhead, but, used to show that the Father is "unbegotten", and connunicates (begets) the life of the Son. This is nothing less than subordination, and must be condemed as hersey! Anyway, how can the term "beget" be used to denote a "role"? This itself is nonsense! The so-called "orthodox" have adopted the heretical views of Origen on the Person of Jesus Christ!

 

Your opinion. I gave mine. And won't get much credit from me by quoting Burgon. I find very little agreement with his biased position. </font>[/QUOTE]I suppose your anti-KJV view is not based on any bias? You seem here to place yourself as a higher authority than Burgon on textual criticism? For your information, John Burgon remains even to this day as one of the foremost authorities on textual criticism! His excellent work on 1 Timothy 3:16 and the ending of Mark's Gospel, has not been successfully answered by critics, even by the likes of Dan Wallace, nor will they ever be! Or, do you suppose that you are able to prove that Dr Burgon was wrong?

 

There is little doubt that these two manuscripts were the product of some heretics. What does surprise me, is that modern textual "critics" seem to have some sort of obsession with the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, so much so, that they are blinded to the actual facts that they are alltogether corrupt! We might also add to the name of Burgon, the other "great" textual critic of that day, Dr Scrivener, again, in a class of his own in this area, and he too had little time for these two manuscripts. For, this is what he had to say on the Codex Sinaiticus's readings.

"With regard to the deeply interesting question as to the critical character of Cod.N., although it strongly supports the Codex Vaticanus in many characteristic readings, yet it cannot be said to give its exclusive adherence to any of the witnesses hitherto examined. It so lends its grave authority, now to one and now to another , as to convince us more than ever of the futility of seeking to derive the genuine text of the New Testemnet from any one copy, however ancient and, on the whole, trustworthy, when evidence of a wide and varied character is at hand...Those who agree the most unreservedly respecting the age of the Codex Vaticanus, vary widely in their estimate of its critical value. By some it has been held in such undue esteem that its readings, if probable in themselves, and supported (or even though not supported) by two or three other copies and versions, have been accepted in preference to the united testimony of all authorities besides: while others, admitting the interest due to age, have spoken of its text as one of the most vicious extant. Without anticipating what must be discussed hereafter, we may say at once, that, while we accord to Cod.B at least as much weight as to any single document in existence, we ought never to forget that it is but one of many, several of thme being nearly (and one quite) as old, and in other respects not less worthy of confidence than itself. One marked feature, characteristic of this copy, is the great number of its omissions, which has induced Dr Dobbin to speak of it as presenting ‘an abbreviated text of the New Testament:’ and certainly the facts he states on this point are startling enough. He calculates that Codex B leaves out words of whole clauses no less than 330 times in Matthew, 365 in Mark, 439 in Luke, 357 in John, 384 in the Acts, 681 in the surviving epistles; or 2,556 times in all.” (A Plain Introduction to the Plain Criticism of the New Testament, Vol.I, pp.97, 119-120)

And yet there are those who suppose that these two manuscripts are reliable and trustworthy witnesses to the original text of the New Testament!

 

Please excuse my typing errors! Thanks