I do trust the Bible, but I haven't abandoned critical thinking since there is proof the Bible has been altered by people down the line. While "God in the flesh" was used by some of the early church fathers, there is still proof the earliest manuscripts didn't say anything about "God in the flesh" in 1 Timothy 3:16. My point is that this verse isn't a shoe-in for the hypostatic union without controversy. Long story short, there are different versions of this manuscript.
Also, there were others who said "He was manifested in the flesh" in the 4th century and earlier. It wasn't "all" of the church fathers saying Jesus is God.
"He was Himself manifested in the flesh,"
Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea (329 AD - 379 AD)
Epistle 261 “To the Sozopolitans”
"He was revealed in the flesh"
Epistle of Barnabas
section 12:10
Furthermore, God being vindicated or justified by the Holy Spirit doesn't make any sense. However, if Jesus is a human there is no problem with a human being justified by the Holy Spirit. God manifesting in the flesh doesn't make any sense in 1 Timothy 3:16 even if we pretend it's the correct reading.
Here's the correct version:
1 Timothy 3
16By common confession, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was proclaimed among the nations,
was believed in throughout the world,
was taken up in glory.