Unitiarians are a persistent faction that will dispute any passage regarding the divinity of Jesus. It doesn't matter if the alternate reading is found in only four or five places out of hundreds, they will claim that is the correct one, and the others are product of a vast conspiracy theory. Case in point, the "He who was manifest in the flesh" (only found in a few corrupt readings, not even sensible to mean anything other than God regardless) ... is found in how many manuscripts Daqq?Originally Posted by daqq
Blahahahah, yet another passage that is under dispute!
Are you one of the "KJV Only" people?
As already quoted: NO ONE has seen or beheld Elohim at any time, and that is from two separate NT passages, so how do you understand the "blood of Elohim" if that translation is correct?
And still yet none of what we have discussed in the last two pages has any impact on what I first said to you, which you quoted, and that is because what I said to you was from the scripture, and is written in two places which are not in dispute by anyone:
John 1:18a ASV
18a θεον ουδεις εωρακεν [G3708 ὁράω - horao] πωποτε
18a No man hath seen God at any time;
1 John 4:12a ASV
12a θεον ουδεις πωποτε τεθεαται [G2300 θεάομαι - theaomai]
12a No man hath beheld God at any time:
No one disputes either of the above statements and all important manuscripts and codices agree. And yet these two statements comprise an insurmountable obstacle for your doctrine because they no doubt speak of "seeing" and "beholding" according to the physical ocular-visual natural eye. You now have two Greek words for "seeing" and-or "beholding" which absolutely cannot apply to anyone you might claim to be "God Almighty", (whether it be Jesus or anyone else), for if you say that "Jesus is God Almighty" then the scripture plainly states in these two places that no man, (or no one), has seen or beheld him at any time. Do you see the problem here or do you simply wish to ignore these plain emphatic statements from the scripture writings so that your doctrine may remain? And here is the next issue from these same two passages: both of them contain Theos, ("God" or "Elohim"), in an anarthrous form, (θεον without an article), like as in John 1:1. What do you suppose the implications of this to your doctrine might be? if any? Moreover, mind you, I have not said that "Jesus is not God". :chuckle:
