Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Of whom else has it been said 'Thou art my beloved son, this day have I begotten thee.'"
Nate, that is exactly the main verse used by the early adoptionists to say God "adopted" Jesus on the day of His baptism. And it is likely they had no gospels, so they were probably using oral tradition to arrive at their conclusion.
Incidentally, adoptionists were VERY Jewish in their Christian outlook, thinking Jesus had come for them, not Gentiles which, of course, fueled further controversy among early Christians. Obviously Paul won out and even the placement of Pauline epistles in front of the Catholic epistles (James, John, Peter) was politically motivated to bring Paul front and center and give Gentiles preeminence in scriptural placement. In the earliest collections of writings, it was reversed.
For dogmatists, all this is very disconcerting, and denial is their only recourse. For people of faith, it simply means we must continue to seek, to knock, so that the door will be opened.
Further apologetics are made by early copyists in the Bible to reach our present orthodoxy. One group of Christians did not believe Jesus was even human. He was only God. (Hence additions to gospel text affirming Christ was indeed human) Another group believed there was a hierarchy amongst the God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit which lead to the development of the Trinity, a word not found in Scripture, but which can be deduced from carefully crafted scripture as a refutation to hierarchy in the Godhead.
Mark, the earliest gospel, was simply proclaiming the work of the Savior, while Luke and Matthew, written later, added material to refute those Christian groups who clung to His teachings but who claimed Jesus was not God.
Yes, copyists and revisionists had so much impact on the Bible, it has shaped our theology. It is a reason why inerrancy is a misconception, but it gives no spiritual reason to doubt that God does not err.
How can anyone reduce God to such an imperfect book as the Bible.
To say the Bible is the word of God diminishes God because the Bible itself is highly imperfect.
And if it were perfect that would mean it was God given that only God is perfect. By extension we no longer have the trinity but a quadrinity - 4 God's, 1 essence... Creator, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Bible
Here's why even inerrantists don't want to get extremely close to the original writings.
In early Christianity there weren't a lot of gospel accounts. There were some epistles. There were numerous small groups of Christians with widely diverse views. One of those groups is called "adoptionistic" Christians because they did not believe Christ was really God, but that he was born of a woman, not a virgin, but he was such a righteous man that God "adopted" him at the time he was baptized by John. This was one of several raging controversies among early Christians. The orthodox line of thought that won the day believes Jesus was born of a virgin, he was not adopted at his baptism, and that he himself is God.
Now look at I Tim 3:16 where the words are written "God was manifest in the flesh." (KJV) That is not what the earliest writings that exist say. The Codex Alexandrinus, now in the British Library, an earlier writing than any of the others, speaks of "Christ who was made manifest in the flesh."
It's an extremely important differentiation. Because a controversy was going on between two different groups of people, one who claimed Jesus was a great and good teacher, adopted as God's son, and another group which claimed Jesus was indeed God, the scribe who was copying from the earlier text had to make a definitive and theological decision. He "rewrote" from the original to say "God was manifest in the flesh" thereby equating God and Jesus as one and the same, and refuting adoptionists.
Now I do believe that God and Jesus are one and the same---that is a faith issue that differs from the earliest writings which some would claim are inerrant!!! The fact is inerrancy is sometimes challenged by the earliest writings because the proponents of inerrancy are indeed the most orthodox, so they believe revisionist texts, and revisionist texts cannot be inerrant if they are not original.
And, Mike, you should easily recognize this problem for orthodoxy as it is described in even more detail in chapter 6 of Dr. Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
The mystery that gives us our reverence for God is acknowledged to be great: He appeared in his human nature, was approved by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was announced throughout the nations, was believed in the world, and was taken to heaven in glory.
King James 2000 Bible
And without doubt 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.
American King James Version
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Note that some newer translations carefully omit "God was manifest" and do not go to interpretative words as in God's Word Translation. These last three translations would be easier for "adoptionists" to accept because none equate God and Christ:
Douay-Rheims Bible
And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed in the world, is taken up in glory. NET Bible
And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation: He was revealed in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And this Mystery of Righteousness is truly great, which was revealed in the flesh and was justified in The Spirit; He appeared to Angels and was preached among the Gentiles; He was trusted in the world and he ascended into glory.
''Here's why even inerrantists don't want to get extremely close to the original writings.''
You make a lot of unfounded statements. Now you are saying that inerrantists are reluctant, or perhaps afraid to examine the early documents?
Whether the original autograph, or any particular manuscript copy said 'God was manifest in the flesh,' or 'Christ was manifest in the flesh', or 'who was manifest in flesh', changes nothing doctrinally, because the fact that Jesus is God is taught elsewhere in the Bible. It is a non-issue regardless of the concerns of some.
Here. The issue you think inerrantists don't want to get extremely close to is discussed in Biblehub.com which used to be called Biblos.com.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
To ascertain which of these is the true reading, has been the great question; and it is with reference to this that the microscope has been resorted to in the examination of the Alexandrian manuscript. It is now generally admitted that the faint line "over" the word has been added by some later hand, though not improbably by one who found that the line was nearly obliterated, and who meant merely to restore it. Whether the letter O was originally written with a line within it, making the reading "God," it is now said to be impossible to determine, in consequence of the manuscript at this place having become so much worn by frequent examination. The Vulgate and the Syriac read it: "who," or "which." The Vulgate is, "Great is the sacrament of piety which was manifested in the flesh." The Syriac, "Great is the mystery of godliness, that he was manifested in the flesh." The "probability" in regard to the correct reading here, as it seems to me, is, that the word, as originally written, was Θεός Theos - "God." At the same time, however, the evidence is not so clear that it can be properly used in an argument. But the passage is not "necessary" to prove the doctrine which is affirmed, on the supposition that that is the correct reading. The same truth is abundantly taught elsewhere; compare Matthew 1:23; John 1:14. [Bolding mine] 1 Timothy 3:16 Commentaries: By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.
I apologize, I didn't realize you had read "Misquoting Jesus."
I haven't read it. But I am aware of his views and have read 'Revisiting The Corruption of the New Testament', by Daniel B. Wallace which was written to refute Ehrman's views.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible But the passage is not "necessary" to prove the doctrine which is affirmed, on the supposition that that is the correct reading. The same truth is abundantly taught elsewhere; compare Matthew 1:23; John 1:14. [Bolding mine]
Missed the point which is that the manuscript shows evidence of tampering to bring it into line with official doctrine, something which was apparently not all that uncommon.
Missed the point which is that the manuscript shows evidence of tampering to bring it into line with official doctrine, something which was apparently not all that uncommon.
Missed the point which is that the manuscript shows evidence of tampering to bring it into line with official doctrine, something which was apparently not all that uncommon.
No, I didn't miss the point. But the tampering changes no point of doctrine. My statement, ''It is a non-issue regardless of the concerns of some'', referred to the scribes who made alterations out of concern about adoptionism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Further apologetics
