Perhaps that is correct, but according to earlier discussion (posts 88 McCree79 & 90 Origen) the scribe could have recalled the opening verses and changed Son to God.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Two principle NT issues.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
Perhaps that is correct, but according to earlier discussion (posts 88 McCree79 & 90 Origen) the scribe could have recalled the opening verses and changed Son to God.
Μονογενης is not used in that verse. It would not prompt memory recall like the other reading.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
37818
Well-Known Member
What accidental process would change θεος to υιος or υιος to θεος?
Origen
Active Member
You are welcome.
37818
Well-Known Member
That is not at issue. The unique Son of God is now both a man which is not God and has always been and is God sustainer of all created things.
Origen
Active Member
I was speaking primarily of nomina sacra forms. There is only one letter difference between the two forms (i.e. ⲑⲥ and ⲩⲥ). I do not think it is difficult to see how a misreading of the text is at least a possibility.
Another possible scenario I pointed out in post 117. If a scribe was unsure of the reading in 1:18 (for whatever reason, say for example damage to the text) it is possible that he would look to 3:16 and 18.
Also not all scribes were equally talented\qualified. It could be just a case of poor skills. The truth is some scribes made mistakes.
All of three of these are viable options.
Last edited:
There does seem to be some disconnect on who Jesus is. In post 101 you denied he is God. When Jesus took on flesh at birth, Jesus did not cease to be God.
You seem to be wanting to split the person of Jesus into 2 persons. You seem to be much closer to Neostorianism then the belief of "one person, two natures." Jesus did not cease to be in nature what the Father is. The incarnation was more of an addition than a loss of anything.
Jesus is μονογενης amoung everything. Nothing is nonsense about that.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Those numbers mean very little. It ignores historical events and the nature of errors to be propagated. The early manuscripts have a much higher likelihood of being accurate.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
37818
Well-Known Member
Your Christology is broken. Jesus is a man. Hosea 11:9, ". . . for I am God, and not man: . . ." John 20:17, "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. . . ." 1 Timothy 2:5-6, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. . . ." And He is also God, Hebrews 1:3, "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; . . ." John 1:1-3, ". . . was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. . . ."
To simply say "Jesus is God" is to short circuit the truth. How He is was always both God and not God is fundamental. The Gnostics have always gotten it wrong. We are not to be like them. How the Son was with God is what changed in His incarnation, not His deity.
37818
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily. That 99% represents across all text types. That 00.4% total is mostly one text type. It is matter of history how the text was transmitted.
At issue is what is and what is not God's word in John 1:18.
The constant witness is the 100%. Which readings are closer. Yes, there are exceptions, the genuine reading in John 1:18 being the 99% is not one of those exceptions..
Actually they have less chance. There are more differences by thousands. The only 2 that are alike are Vaticanus and p75 at 78%. The others go down dramatically. The earlier the manuscripts the more textual variants there are by far.
The Text of the Gospels: Hand to Hand Combat: Sinaiticus vs. 490 in Luke 15:1-10
The Text of the Gospels: Christmas Combat: Luke 2:1-18 in Codex Bezae
From James Snapp's website
It is often claimed that the text in older manuscripts is more accurate than the text in younger manuscripts. At first glance, this makes sense: fewer years implies fewer opportunities for copyists to corrupt the text. But upon more careful consideration,
The Text of the Gospels: Hand-to-Hand Combat: Sinaiticus vs. Textus Receptus in Rev. 22
From James Snapp's website
It is often claimed that the text in older manuscripts is more accurate than the text in younger manuscripts. At first glance, this makes sense: fewer years implies fewer opportunities for copyists to corrupt the text. But upon more careful consideration,
The Text of the Gospels: Hand-to-Hand Combat: Sinaiticus vs. Textus Receptus in Rev. 22
Last edited:
Jesus is fully man, but not just a man. My Christology is fine. One person, two natures. Tou cannot split Jesus into two person. He is not separately a man and separately God. Jesus is both. Your language is suggesting you hold to a type of Nestorianism, which is not the historical view of Christ.
I never claimed his is "simply God" He is μονογενης. His uniqueness His found in him being fully God and fully man. One person, two natures. You cannot separate the natures of Christ.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
I actually like James Snapp a lot. I disagree with him on a few things in textual criticism, but he is one of the best in his Camp. I like reading and listening to his arguments. Very smart guy.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Jesus is both fully God and fully Sinless humanity man, so he is a man who is also God!
Jesus is ONE person, who has in Him 2 natures, correct?
37818
Well-Known Member
The Son of God is one Person. Two natures. Was always God [YHWH]. Was always with God. How He was with God changed in His incarntion when He became the man Jesus. The Son of God and the man Jesus are one and the same Person.
Origen
Active Member
This is a textual issue. It concern the tense of the participle.
The form γινομένου is a present, middle, participle, neuter, singular, genitive from γίνομαι.
The form γενομένου is an aorist, middle, participle, neuter, singular, genitive from γίνομαι.
There is only one letter difference between the forms.
γινομένου (present)
γενομένου (aorist)
The present tense has an iota while the aorist (i.e. past) tense has an epsilon.
This is the reason for the temporal difference between translations. Some translators are trying to reflect the present tense participle (i.e. supper being in progress) while other translators are trying to reflect the aorist (i.e. past) tense participle (i.e. supper being ended).
Using terms like "during" or "being ended" are absolutely necessary in order to convey the nuance of a verb\participle tense.
Last edited: