top of page

Alleged Sources for the Incarnation, part 17. (1 Tim 3:16, part 1).

The most direct reference to a possible Incarnation Ideology would be the 1 Tim 3:16 VARIANT, “God manifest in the flesh.” If Paul actually rendered this word, “GOD (Jesus) manifest in flesh,” then yes, not only was Paul JisG (Jesus is God) but…the Incarnation Concept was being DIRECTLY referred to. Because this is what Incarnation, that MISSING WORD in Text, means for mainstreamers. “God manifested in the flesh.” This comes from the Authorized Version, or 1611 King James Version. A little bit of research finds the Texus Receptus of the NT to be the main corpus of references and translations. Meaning that…for the Protestant Denomination, this Received Text historically has been the foundational text. The especially German Lutheran movement was entrenched and influenced greatly by this body of Greek manuscripts. However, the site originator of the Trinity Delusion considers “modern scholars” to have rejected this translation of 1 Tim 3:16. He cites two main reasons if I remembered correctly, and the first one is that during the Christological Controversies in the fourth century, NO SCHOLAR or ECF father had used this argument or verse with “God” intact. What are the other translative options? Trinity Delusion list: He appeared in a body (NIV)

He who was manifested in the flesh (ASV)

He who was revealed in the flesh (NASB)

Who was manifested in the flesh (NAB)

He was manifested in the flesh (RSV)

He was revealed in flesh (NRSV)

Which was manifested in the flesh (Douey-Rheims)

He was revealed in the flesh (NET)

He was manifested in the flesh (ESV)

Who was manifested in the flesh (NAB) We can easily see here…MAJOR translative options in PROTESTANT denominational churches and bodies. RSV, ESV, NASB? WOW. According to strict majority opinion then…the site author (who has kept his name relatively secret) is correct. Further mining of the issues involved reveal a statement about the KJV. The wiki site for the Textus Receptus shows its predecessor, Erasmus as having “only 6 sources of Greek Text to use in Basel where he lived,” and possibly one source from outside “the Byzantine tradition?” Namely, he used manuscripts: 1, 1rK, 2e, 2ap, 4ap, 7, 817.[6]

Much later the so-called Critical Text was a compilation of a much wider corpus of Greek manuscripts. Technically the Novum Testamentum Graece, this compilation is the modern-day basis for MORE modern translations, including the American Standard Bible and all of her successor affiliates including the NASB. Googled:

The critical text is an eclectic text compiled by a committee that compares readings from a large number of manuscripts in order to determine which reading is most likely to be closest to the original.

I am not sure what to think of this mechanism. Surely the EARLIER the manuscript is, the less likely for being corrupt or manipulated or glossed by scholars even down to the smallest details. But…the MAJORITY priority of accuracy is determined by…how MANY manuscripts have that variable specified? How does that conform to accuracy? As in…a mistake of any kind made, is copied over and over, until MANY copies of that mistake is made; does this conform to accuracy or not?

The Greek word “ho” would then be translated “which” in the English, and the Greek variant “hos” whom alternately be, “who” in the English. The Trinity Delusion site author has listed the following manuscriptural evidence:

1) Codex Vaticanus —----------- 300 A.D. —----------- Does not contain 1 Tim

2) Codex Sinaiticus —------------ 350 A.D. —----------- WHO was manifest in the flesh

3) Codex Alexandrinus —--------450 A.D. —------------ WHO “ “ “ “ “

4) Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus – 450 A.D. —----------- WHICH was manifest in the flesh

5) Codex Claromontanus —------ 550 A.D. —----------- WHICH “ “ “ “ “

6) Peshitta, Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Gothic —-------- WHICH “ “ “ “ “

(Same ref.:

Instead of looking at the 1 Tim 3:16 from these kinds of lens, or filters, I feel strongly that finding the key anchor points of Paul Silas’ own Christology in general will point to whether or not the word “God” was in that verse. IF Paul considered Jesus God, THEN incarnation as an expounding upon this theme could have been also in his theology. But IF Paul did not believe Jesus God at all, then “God manifest in the flesh” makes no sense, in any sense of the clause.

Sifting through then, Samuel Barrett’s 100 most prolific unitarian verses in NT, we can try to make a case that Paul DID NOT consider Jesus God at all, and the KJV variant then would naturally be the deviant option.

First we come to:

6. Because Christ is Mediator between the “One God,” and “men.” “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” 1 Tim. 2:5.

Classic…unitarian text. A PERFECT place for Paul to emphasize a NEW CATEGORY or REVISION of God, the GODMAN. But no…instead he says the default consideration, a MERE MAN? Gee whiz, MISSED OPPORTUNITY. Can’t miss TOO MANY of these, or the whole shebang gets MEZZED-UP hey? This puts Paul in the DUNCE CORNER in the one-room schoolhouse. ALL the girls were laughing at him by now, and some of the BOYS.

8. Because he is an Apostle appointed by God. “Consider the Apostle,…Christ Jesus, who was faithful to him that appointed him,” Heb. 3:1, 2. (Assuming Paul wrote Hebrews).

Yeah, appointed and sent. The cohesive double entendre consistent to all NT authors. But the next itemization of Barrett is more telling:

9. Because Christ is represented as our intercessor with God. “It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us,” Rom. 8:34.

10. Because the head of Christ is God. “I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God,1 Cor. 11:3. 1

Seemingly disparate, these two items are part and parcel of Paul’s Christology for this reason: Jesus is not only MEDIATOR between normal men and God, but also OBEDIENT in service and stature unto his God. Note here, the "subordinationism" of trinitarian and modalism allows for the obedience of Jesus to his Father, yet retaining an "equality of essence, nature, or substance." (The former wiki definition of "subordinationism" was a lesser ranking OF nature and being. And the new 'progressive' definition is...a lower rank of the Trinity)?3 Number (10) above is ANOTHER choice place for Paul to mention the New Messiah Paradigm that Messiah WOULD BE GOD HIMSELF, manifest in the world, with flesh intrinsic to H(h)imself. No, and AGAIN, a missed opportunity to mention this guh guh great new revelation. Which was missed, since Paul must have had a retarded gene dormant, in back of his beany brain?

All of the now politically or socially incorrect innuendos for Paul then (misfit, retard, dunce)…could be easily ascribed to him for missing these SURE FIRE opportunities to mention GODMAN. Instead both the authors and the READERS continually seem to be just presupposing or assuming Jesus is ONLY a man. Gee whiz I got my pickles and eggs mixed-up this morning too, and my stomach is rumbling. Mind sure can play TRICKS when your pickles and eggs get…mixed-up.

SOMETHING must rumble out of our consciousness altogether, as in…LIKE something LIKE the idea that Paul thought Jesus God! Let me insert this “data point” in our considerations, among the populace. NOT ONCE did Paul ever call Jesus “ho theos,” or “theos.” He was always “kurios” to Paul, rendered in Text. This COULD NOT have meant “AdonAI” since Adonai ONLY means “ho theos” and “theos” in general. Since the only DIRECT possible place any NT author could be saying this (barring the Granville-Sharp so-called Rule), is John 20:28.

And the confident assertions of our great scholars in the faith hold true. IN GENERAL the NT authors are considered by Unitarian scholars to have put the term “kurios” for Jesus, said 51 times by my count, in the New Testament along WITH, or in close proximity to “God (ho theos) the Father…” in its own special authoritative category. UNDER the One True God of the Jews, and OVER humans and other beings including angels. 1) 2) Subordinationalism is a view of the Trinity, where the Son is subordinate to the Father.[1] Subordinationism is defined as hierarchical rankings of the persons of the trinity, implying ontological subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit.[2] -- wikipedia, Subordinationism

10 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page