Preexistence

Participant

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 10 2009,21:30)

In fact the last time I remember seeing someone switching Lord for “Jesus” was the Catholic Church, they had it in there Catholic Bible.

Con

Yes of course, now you invoke the Father as “Lord” (kurion) when it is convenient and supports your view, though you guys claim 1 Cor 8:6 for Jesus being the “One Lord” (kurion) as opposed to him being God.

But as Jack has pointed out, this scripture proves that Jesus the “Only Lord” is the one that saved Israel and destroys the Arian concept that Jesus didn't preexist him coming in the flesh but in fact was the “Rock” that followed them in the wilderness. 1 Cor 10:4

AT Robertson says…

Our only Master and Lord (ton monon despothn kai kurion hmwn). For the force of the one article for one person see on “2Pe 1:1”. For despothn of Christ see 2 Peter 2:1 . Denying (arnoumenoi). So 2 Peter 2:1 . See also Matthew 10:33 ; 1 Timothy 5:8 ; Titus 1:16 ; 1 John 2:22 .

So the force of the one article for one person meaning “Master” and “Lord” are the same person and is the “One Lord” that saved them.

The GSR is in effect here as well as here…

Simeon* Peter, a servant* and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our “God and Savior Jesus Christ“ 2 Pet 1:1

And here…

while we wait for the blessed hope–”the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ“, Tit 2:13

Yes how convenient that the Arians claim that the Word “One True God” (theos) is exclusive to the Father, while they claim that “One Lord” (kurion) is not exclusive to Jesus.

This proves the insincerity of their stance.

Here are some amazing facts about the use of the word “kurion” in the NT.

The word Lord (kurion) is used in the NT some 748 times and almost invariably it is applied to Jesus and yet they want us to accept that the “Lord” (kurion) that saved the people out of the land of Egypt in Jude 1:5 is not the “only Lord” (kurion) in Jude 1:4!

BTW, the Greek word for (kurion) which is translated in the English as “Lord” is also the same Greek word in the LXX that the Hebrew scholars translated the Hebrew tetragammation (YHWH) into Greek. HMMM???

December 11, 2009 at 7:43 pm#163840

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 12 2009,06:37)

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 10 2009,21:30)

In fact the last time I remember seeing someone switching Lord for “Jesus” was the Catholic Church, they had it in there Catholic Bible.

Con

AT Robertson says…

So the force of the one article for one person meaning “Master” and “Lord” are the same person and is the “One Lord” that saved them.

The GSR is in effect here as well as here…

Simeon* Peter, a servant* and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our “God and Savior Jesus Christ“ 2 Pet 1:1

And here…

while we wait for the blessed hope–”the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ“, Tit 2:13

Yes how convenient that the Arians claim that the Word “One True God” (theos) is exclusive to the Father, while they claim that “One Lord” (kurion) is not exclusive to Jesus.

This proves the insincerity of their stance.

Here are some amazing facts about the use of the word “kurion” in the NT.

Excellent post Keith!

thinker

December 11, 2009 at 7:52 pm#163842

Participant

WorshippingJesus said to Con:

Quote

Yes how convenient that the Arians claim that the Word “One True God” (theos) is exclusive to the Father, while they claim that “One Lord” (kurion) is not exclusive to Jesus.

This proves the insincerity of their stance.

Yes indeed!

thinker

December 12, 2009 at 2:25 am#163914

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 11 2009,11:37)

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 10 2009,21:30)

In fact the last time I remember seeing someone switching Lord for “Jesus” was the Catholic Church, they had it in there Catholic Bible.

Con

AT Robertson says…

So the force of the one article for one person meaning “Master” and “Lord” are the same person and is the “One Lord” that saved them.

The GSR is in effect here as well as here…

Simeon* Peter, a servant* and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our “God and Savior Jesus Christ“ 2 Pet 1:1

And here…

while we wait for the blessed hope–”the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ“, Tit 2:13

Yes how convenient that the Arians claim that the Word “One True God” (theos) is exclusive to the Father, while they claim that “One Lord” (kurion) is not exclusive to Jesus.

This proves the insincerity of their stance.

Here are some amazing facts about the use of the word “kurion” in the NT.

Yes nicely put, in many verses it applies to many things, but you still negate the fact that in the original manuscript it is Kuros and not Jesus (Iesous) in the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS).

And the “English Standard Version” is the Authority because of what, and why?

Funny ESV, claims it is one of the best “Literal Translations” and then it implies words in verses that are vacant in the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS. Not to literal or trustworthy in my view.

Quote

kyrios – From kuros (supremacy):

1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord

a) the possessor and disposer of a thing

1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master

2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor

b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master

c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 748:
AV — Lord 667, lord 54, master 11, sir 6, Sir 6, misc 4

A-1 Noun Strong's Number: g2962 Greek: kurios:
Lord, Lordship:

properly an adjective, signifying “having power” (kuros) or “authority,” is used as a noun, variously translated in the NT, “'Lord,' 'master,' 'Master,' 'owner,' 'Sir,' a title of wide significance, occurring in each book of the NT save Titus and the Epistles of John. It is used
(a) of an owner, as in Luk 19:33, cp. Mat 20:8; Act 16:16; Gal 4:1; or of one who has the disposal of anything, as the Sabbath, Mat 12:8;

(b) of a master, i.e., one to whom service is due on any ground, Mat 6:24; 24:50; Eph 6:5;

Â of an Emperor or King, Act 25:26; Rev 17:14;

(d) of idols, ironically, 1Cr 8:5, cp. Isa 26:13;

(e) as a title of respect addressed to a father, Mat 21:30, a husband, 1Pe 3:6, a master, Mat 13:27; Luk 13:8, a ruler, Mat 27:63, an angel, Act 10:4; Rev 7:14;

(f) as a title of courtesy addressed to a stranger, Jhn 12:21; 20:15; Act 16:30; from the outset of His ministry this was a common form of address to the Lord Jesus, alike by the people, Mat 8:2; Jhn 4:11, and by His disciples, Mat 8:25; Luk 5:8; Jhn 6:68;

(g) kurios is the Sept. and NT representative of Heb. Jehovah ('Lord' in Eng. versions), see Mat 4:7; Jam 5:11, e.g., of adon, Lord, Mat 22:44, and of Adonay, Lord, Mat 1:22; it also occurs for Elohim, God, 1Pe 1:25.

“Thus the usage of the word in the NT follows two main lines: one– a-f, customary and general, the other, g, peculiar to the Jews, and drawn from the Greek translation of the OT.

“Christ Himself assumed the title, Mat 7:21, 22; 9:38; 22:41-45; Mar 5:19 (cp. Psa 66:16; the parallel passage, Luk 8:39, has 'God'); Luk 19:31; Jhn 13:13, apparently intending it in the higher senses of its current use, and at the same time suggesting its OT associations.

“His purpose did not become clear to the disciples until after His resurrection, and the revelation of His Deity consequent thereon. Thomas, when he realized the significance of the presence of a mortal wound in the body of a living man, immediately joined with it the absolute title of Deity, saying, 'My Lord and my God,' Jhn 20:28. Thereafter, except in Act 10:4; Rev 7:14, there is no record that kurios was ever again used by believers in addressing any save God and the Lord Jesus; cp. Act 2:47 with Act 4:29, 30.

“How soon and how completely the lower meaning had been superseded is seen in Peter's declaration in his first sermon after the resurrection, 'God hath made Him, Lord,' Act 2:36, and that in the house of Cornelius, 'He is Lord of all,' Act 10:36; cp. Deu 10:14; Mat 11:25; Act 17:24. In his writings the implications of his early teaching are confirmed and developed. Thus Psa 34:8, 'O taste and see that Jehovah is good,' is applied to the Lord Jesus, 1Pe 2:3, and 'Jehovah of Hosts, Him shall ye sanctify,' Isa 8:13, becomes 'sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord,' 1Pe 3:15.

“So also James who uses kurios alike of God, Jam 1:7 (cp. Jam 1:5); 3:9; 4:15; 5:4, 10, 11, and of the Lord Jesus, Jam 1:1 (where the possibility that kai is intended epexegetically, i.e. = even, cp. 1Th 3:11, should not be overlooked); Jam 2:1 (lit., 'our Lord Jesus Christ of glory,' cp. Psa 24:7; 29:3; Act 7:2; 1Cr 2:8); 5:7, 8, while the language of Jam 4:10
; 5:15, is equally applicable to either.

“Jude, Jud 1:4, speaks of 'our only — Lord, Jesus Christ,' and immediately, Jud 1:5, uses 'Lord' of God (see the remarkable marg. here), as he does later, Jud 1:9, 14.

“Paul ordinarily uses kurios of the Lord Jesus, 1Cr 1:3, e.g., but also on occasion, of God, in quotations from the OT, 1Cr 3:20, e.g., and in his own words, 1Cr 3:5, cp. 1Cr 3:10. It is equally appropriate to either in 1Cr 7:25; 2Cr 3:16; 8:21; 1Th 4:6, and if 1Cr 11:32 is to be interpreted by 1Cr 10:21, 22, the Lord Jesus is intended, but if by Hbr 12:5-9, then kurios here also = God. 1Ti 6:15, 16 is probably to be understood of the Lord Jesus, cp. Rev 17:14.

“Though John does not use 'Lord' in his Epistles, and though, like the other Evangelists, he ordinarily uses the personal Name in his narrative, yet he occasionally speaks of Him as 'the Lord,' Jhn 4:1; 6:23; 11:2; 20:20; 21:12.

“The full significance of this association of Jesus with God under the one appellation, 'Lord,' is seen when it is remembered that these men belonged to the only monotheistic race in the world. To associate with the Creator one known to be a creature, however exalted, though possible to Pagan philosophers, was quite impossible to a Jew.

“It is not recorded that in the days of His flesh any of His disciples either addressed the Lord, or spoke of Him, by His personal Name. Where Paul has occasion to refer to the facts of the Gospel history he speaks of what the Lord Jesus said, Act 20:35, and did, 1Cr 11:23, and suffered, 1Th 2:15; 5:9, 10. It is our Lord Jesus who is coming, 1Th 2:19, etc. In prayer also the title is given, 1Th 3:11; Eph 1:3; the sinner is invited to believe on the Lord Jesus, Act 16:31; 20:21, and the saint to look to the Lord Jesus for deliverance, Rom 7:24, 25, and in the few exceptional cases in which the personal Name stands alone a reason is always discernible in the immediate context.

“The title 'Lord,' as given to the Savior, in its full significance rests upon the resurrection, Act 2:36; Rom 10:9; 14:9, and is realized only in the Holy Spirit, 1Cr 12:3.” *
[* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 25.]

A-2 Noun Strong's Number: g2962 Greek: kurios:
Master (Noun and Verb):

“a lord, one who exercises power,” is translated “masters” in Mat 6:24; 15:27; Mar 13:35; Luk 16:13; Act 16:16, 19; Rom 14:4, AV (RV, “Lord”); Eph 6:5, 9 (twice), the 2nd time of Christ; so in Col 3:22; 4:1.
See LORD.

1 Strong's Number: g2962 Greek: kurios:
Owner:

“one having power” (kuros) or “authority, a lord, master,” signifies “an owner” in Luk 19:33.
See LORD, MASTER, SIR.

Quote

xxviii. κύριος, δεσπότης.
A man, according to the later Greek grammarians, was δεσπότης in respect of his slaves (Plato, Legg. vi. 756 e), therefore οἰκοδεσπότης, but κύριος in regard of his wife and children; who in speaking either to him or of him, would give him this title of honour; “as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord” (κύριον αὐτὸν καλοῦσα, 1 Pet. 3:6; cf. 1 Sam. 1:8; cf. Plutarch, De Virt. Mul. s. vv. Μίκκα καὶ Μεγιστώ). There is a certain truth in this distinction. Undoubtedly there lies in κύριος the sense of an authority owning limitations—moral limitations it may be; it is implied too that the wielder of this authority will not exclude, in wielding it, a consideration of their good over whom it is exercised; while the δεσπότης exercises a more unrestricted power and absolute domination, confessing no such limitations or restraints. He who addresses another as δέσποτα, puts an emphasis of submission into his speech, which κύριε would not have possessed; therefore it was that the Greeks, not yet grown slavish, refused this title of δεσπότης to any but the gods (Euripides, Hippol. 88: ἄναξ, θεοὺς γὰρ δεσπότας καλεῖν χρεών); while our own use of ‘despot,’ ‘despotic,’ ‘despotism,’ as set over against that of ‘lord,’ ‘lordship,’ and the like, attests that these words are coloured for us, as they were for those from whom we have derived them.

Still, there were influences at work tending to break down this distinction. Slavery, or the appropriating, without payment, of other men’s toil, however legalized, is so abhorrent to men’s innate sense of right, that they seek to mitigate, in word at least, if not in fact, its atrocity; and thus, as no southern Planter in America willingly spoke of his ‘slaves,’ but preferred some other term, so in antiquity, wherever any gentler or more humane view of slavery obtained, the antithesis of δεσπότης and δοῦλος would continually give place to that of κύριος and δοῦλος. The harsher antithesis might still survive, but the milder would prevail side by side with it. We need not look further than to the writings of St. Paul, to see how little, in popular speech, the distinction of the grammarians was observed. Masters are now κύριοι (Ephes. 6:9; Col. 4:1), and now δεσπόται (1 Tim. 6:1, 2; Tit. 2:9; cf. 1 Pet. 2:18), with him; and compare Philo, Quod Omn. Prob. Lib. 6.

But, while all experience shows how little sinful man can be trusted with unrestricted power over his fellow, how certainly he will abuse it—a moral fact attested in our use of ‘despot’ as equivalent with ‘tyrant,’ as well as in the history of the word ‘tyrant’ itself—it can only be a blessedness for man to regard God as the absolute Lord, Ruler, and Disposer of his life; since with Him power is never disconnected from wisdom and from love: and, as we saw that the Greeks, not without a certain sense of this, were well pleased to style the gods δεσπόται, however they might refuse this title to any other; so, within the limits of Revelation, δεσπότης, no less than κύριος, is applied to the true God. Thus in the Septuagint, at Josh. 5:14; Prov. 29:25; Jer. 4:10; in the Apocrypha, at 2 Macc. 5:17, and elsewhere; while in the N. T. on these occasions: Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10; 2 Pet. 2:1; Jude 4. In the last two it is to Christ, but to Christ as God, that the title is ascribed. Erasmus, indeed, out of that latent Arianism, of which, perhaps, he was scarcely conscious to himself, denies that, at Jude 4, δεσπότης is to be referred to Christ; attributing only κύριος to Him, and δεσπότης to the Father. The fact that in the Greek text, as he read it, Θεόν followed and was joined to δεσπότην, no doubt really lay at the root of his reluctance to ascribe the title of δεσπότης to Christ. It was for him not a philological, but a theological difficulty, however he may have sought to persuade himself otherwise.

This
δεσπότης did no doubt express on the lips of the faithful who used it, their sense of God’s absolute disposal of his creatures, of his autocratic power, who “doeth according to his will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth” (Dan. 4:35), more strongly than κύριος would have done. So much is plain from some words of Philo (Quis Rer. Div. Hoer. 35), who finds evidence of Abraham’s εὐλάβεια, of his tempering, on one signal occasion, boldness with reverence and godly fear, in the fact that, addressing God, he forsakes the more usual κύριε, and substitutes δέσποτα in its room; for δεσπότης, as Philo proceeds to say, is not κύριος only, but φοβερὸς κύριος, and implies, on his part who uses it, a more entire prostration of self before the might and majesty of God than κύριος would have done.

[The following Strong's numbers apply to this section: G1203, G2962.]

December 12, 2009 at 4:40 am#163926

banana

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 12 2009,06:52)

WorshippingJesus said to Con:

Quote

Yes how convenient that the Arians claim that the Word “One True God” (theos) is exclusive to the Father, while they claim that “One Lord” (kurion) is not exclusive to Jesus.

This proves the insincerity of their stance.

Yes indeed!

thinker

W.J. There is LORD and Lord. LORD in capital letters IMO is always the Father. At least I have not seen LORD for Jesus.
You have such good understanding of the scriptures, but how do YOU prove the trinity doctrine to yourself and others. There are several Scriptures that prove to me that the trinity is a man made doctrine.
Irene

December 12, 2009 at 6:03 am#163928

kerwin

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 12 2009,00:05)

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 11 2009,18:11)

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 11 2009,12:06)

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 11 2009,09:44)

You can always tell who is the loser in an argument. The loser gets angry. Martian seems to be getting close.

All I hear in that statement is pride.

Truth should be the winner at the end of the day.

Ego's should stay out of it. Bias should be put away.
Humility should be embraced.

You may be right in what you hear but I would state that the thinker should also consider that Jesus was known to get angry with those with unrepentant hearts. Does that mean Jesus was a looser?

Show where Jesus got angry with people for their impentinence or when He was in a debate. The only example of His being angry I am aware of was when they were polluting the temple.

Anyway, I only stated an observation. Those who lose an argument tend to get angry and stomp off. There is nothing prideful or inaccurate in what I said.

thinker

The scripture where it mentions Jesus being angry is Mark 3:5 but that is irrelevant since you can also be angry for the reasons you gave. The bottom line is to test the spirits not only of what other say but of what we ourselves choose to say and believe even when anger is involved.

December 12, 2009 at 4:47 pm#163970

Participant

Constitutionalist said to WJ:

Quote

Yes nicely put, in many verses it applies to many things, but you still negate the fact that in the original manuscript it is Kuros and not Jesus (Iesous) in the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS).

It doesn't matter. Verse 4 says that Jesus Christ is the “only Master and Kurios.” Verse 5 says that the Kurios saved them out of Egypt. Ergo, Jesus saved the people out of Egypt.

Con:

Quote

And the “English Standard Version” is the Authority because of what, and why?

You need to go back to my original post to Gene when I gave the ESV and the NASB together and told him to “choose one.” No one has said that the ESV is “the” authority. I said, “choose one.” Then I said, “No matter which translation you choose it is still Jesus who saved the people from Egypt.”

Con:

Quote

Funny ESV, claims it is one of the best “Literal Translations” and then it implies words in verses that are vacant in the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS. Not to literal or trustworthy in my view.

Did you see the translator's preface which says that the ESV is based on the Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.)? The ESV is a literal translation from the text on which it was based. And did you see the translator's footnote on verse 5? It says this,

“Some manuscripts: although you fully knew it, that the Lord once saved”

So the translators give the text which they used in the preface and indicate the reading of other manuscripts in their footnote. So your beef is really with the manuscript they used and not with the translation itself. And your insinuation that they were untrustworthy is blatantly false. Where do novices get off making such accusations?

I see no doctrinal difference in the various manuscripts. Whether Jude said “Jesus” or “the Lord” in verse 5 doesn't matter for “the Kurios” who saved the people from Egypt in verse 5 is “Jesus Christ the ONLY Master and Kurios” of verse 4.

WJ has accurately pointed out your insincerity in reference to “only true God.” Your insincerity is clearly evident because for you “only” means “only” when it supports your presuppositions. But you abandon that principle when the scripture says that Jesus Christ is the “only Master and Lord” and that “the Lord saved them out of Egypt.”

So let's look at Jude's words again:

4″For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

5Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.”

It is Jesus who saved the people from Egypt. It is clear!

thinker

December 12, 2009 at 5:22 pm#163972

Participant

Quote (banana @ Dec. 11 2009,23:40)

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 12 2009,06:52)

WorshippingJesus said to Con:

Quote

Yes how convenient that the Arians claim that the Word “One True God” (theos) is exclusive to the Father, while they claim that “One Lord” (kurion) is not exclusive to Jesus.

This proves the insincerity of their stance.

Yes indeed!

thinker

Irene

You do realize that capitol letters are not in the original text but are added by the Translators don't you?

There is no “LORD” in the NT that is applied to the Father, but interestingly enough there is for Jesus.

Father

But while he thought on these things, behold, “the angel of the Lord (kurion)” appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. Matt 10:25

Jesus

And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND “LORD (kurion) OF LORDS (kurion)“. Rev 19:16

December 12, 2009 at 7:40 pm#163981

Participant

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 11 2009,21:25)

Funny ESV, claims it is one of the best “Literal Translations” and then it implies words in verses that are vacant in the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS. Not to literal or trustworthy in my view.

Con

First of all they are not vacant in some manuscripts.

Secondly, where are your credentials that you should rebuke the translators and claim they are not trustworthy?

The way the translations rendered the verse is not disingenuous at all seeing that in the context the “Lord” (kurion) is obviously Jesus the Savour.

What you are showing by your statement is you know nothing about translating the scriptures, for if you did then you would understand that translators did and had to add words to the translations to make sense of the text.

So there is nothing wrong with adding words especially when some of the manuscripts had “Jesus” (Iēsous) in them.

See strongs here

Sorry to bust the “Arians” and “Unitarians” bubble, but this isn't the only time in the NT that the Apostles claimed Jesus was “preexistent”, for instance when Paul writes that “Christ” is the Rock that followed them in the wilderness. But none of that seems to matter to you guys who deny these truths. Your doctrine seems to be more important IMO.

Also, the GSR is further proof that the “Only Sovereign (Master)” and “Lord” in Jude 1:4 is the same person as AT Robertson had pointed out in which you seemed to ignore…

So the force of the one article for one person meaning “Master” and “Lord” are the same person and is the “One Lord” that saved them.

The GSR is in effect in Jude 1:4 as well as here…

Simeon* Peter, a servant* and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our “God and Savior Jesus Christ“ 2 Pet 1:1

And here…

while we wait for the blessed hope–”the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ“, Tit 2:13

“But they refused to pay attention; “STUBBORNLY THEY TURNED THEIR BACKS AND STOPPED UP THEIR EARS”. Zech 7:11

December 12, 2009 at 10:14 pm#164006

Participant

WorshippingJesus said to Con:

Quote

First of all they are not vacant in some manuscripts.

Secondly, where are your credentials that you should rebuke the translators and claim they are not trustworthy?

The way the translations rendered the verse is not disingenuous at all seeing that in the context the “Lord” (kurion) is obviously Jesus the Savour.

WJ,
Con shows also that he cares nothing about context. He totally ignored the use of “Kurios” in verses 4 & 5. It is clearly the Kurios Jesus Christ who saved the people out of Egypt. Con devoted his entire post to trying to refute the ESV citing what he thinks are the only manuscripts available.

I wish these guys would stop trying to pass themselves off as scholars when they are not.

Good post on the GSR as usual.

thinker

December 12, 2009 at 11:28 pm#164035

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 12 2009,08:47)

Constitutionalist said to WJ:

Quote

Yes nicely put, in many verses it applies to many things, but you still negate the fact that in the original manuscript it is Kuros and not Jesus (Iesous) in the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS).

It doesn't matter. Verse 4 says that Jesus Christ is the “only Master and Kurios.” Verse 5 says that the Kurios saved them out of Egypt. Ergo, Jesus saved the people out of Egypt.

Con:

Quote

And the “English Standard Version” is the Authority because of what, and why?

Con:

Quote

Funny ESV, claims it is one of the best “Literal Translations” and then it implies words in verses that are vacant in the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS. Not to literal or trustworthy in my view.

“Some manuscripts: although you fully knew it, that the Lord once saved”

So let's look at Jude's words again:

5Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.”

It is Jesus who saved the people from Egypt. It is clear!

thinker

Your adding. Just like your Catholic translations. And loed does not imply “only Jesus”.

December 12, 2009 at 11:38 pm#164037

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 12 2009,14:14)

WorshippingJesus said to Con:

Quote

First of all they are not vacant in some manuscripts.

Secondly, where are your credentials that you should rebuke the translators and claim they are not trustworthy?

The way the translations rendered the verse is not disingenuous at all seeing that in the context the “Lord” (kurion) is obviously Jesus the Savour.

I wish these guys would stop trying to pass themselves off as scholars when they are not.

Good post on the GSR as usual.

thinker

Latin translated garbage

December 12, 2009 at 11:47 pm#164039

Participant

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 13 2009,10:38)

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 12 2009,14:14)

WorshippingJesus said to Con:

Quote

First of all they are not vacant in some manuscripts.

Secondly, where are your credentials that you should rebuke the translators and claim they are not trustworthy?

The way the translations rendered the verse is not disingenuous at all seeing that in the context the “Lord” (kurion) is obviously Jesus the Savour.

I wish these guys would stop trying to pass themselves off as scholars when they are not.

Good post on the GSR as usual.

thinker

Latin translated garbage

In other words, you lost the argument.

What exactly is it that is “garbage” to you? Is it the word “Kurios” in verses 4-5 or “Jesus” in verse 4 according to the Novum Testamentum?

Is the “Kurios” of verse 4 the same “Kurios” in verse 5 who saved the people out of Egypt? You are still evading the point.

thinker

December 13, 2009 at 7:54 am#164066

Participant

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 12 2009,18:28)

Your adding. Just like your Catholic translations. And loed does not imply “only Jesus”.

Yes, And God (theos) does not imply only the Father!

December 13, 2009 at 10:22 am#164072

Participant

Constitutionalist said:

Quote

And lord does not imply “only Jesus”.

So the “Kurios” of Jude 4-5 who delivered the people from Egypt is the Father and the Son.

I can live with that. :cool:

thinker

December 14, 2009 at 3:07 am#164227

Proclaimer

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 13 2009,18:54)

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 12 2009,18:28)

Your adding. Just like your Catholic translations. And loed does not imply “only Jesus”.

Yes, And God (theos) does not imply only the Father!

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Not according to these 3 witness scriptures.

Seriously, I don't disagree for the fun of it.

It seems a serious error to say that the Father is not the only God, not the only true God, and not the one God and Father, because the Trinity says that the Father is not the only true God, but that there are 2 others.

December 14, 2009 at 3:27 am#164232

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 13 2009,22:07)

It seems a serious error to say that the Father is not the only God, not the only true God, and not the one God and Father, because the Trinity says that the Father is not the only true God, but that there are 2 others.

That is not what the Trinitarian faith says at all!

Its not the Trinitarian that says there are more than One True Theos or one divine being.

It is the Henotheist that says their are other true theos's!

Is Jesus “True Theos” or not?

Scriptures say he is! Do you deny scriptures?

I call him my Lord and God, that is scriptural! How about you?

December 14, 2009 at 6:24 am#164238

logoslogic

Participant

Quote (Not3in1 @ May 30 2007,05:38)

The belief that Jesus was alive before his conception raises a number of questions about his nature. Is it possible to be a human being in any meaningful sense if one does not originate in the womb of one's mother?

John Knox said this, “We can have the humanity of Christ without the preexistence and we can have the preexistence without the humanity. There is absolutely no way of having both.”

The Messiah, according to scripture was to be a descendant of David, of Abraham (Gal. 3:16), and the seed of the women (Gen. 3:15). Paul constantly thinks of Christ as the last Adam (man). If he existed as a person before his conception, in what sense is he – the real person – a human being and a descendant of David and Abraham?

What do other's think? If you believe Jesus existed prior to his birth, please give your scriptural understanding. As most of you know, I contend for the Son of God beginning his life – for the first time – at conception.

If Jesus is the Son, and words mean anything, a “son” is derived and dependent.

Hello Not3 in1,
Allow me to comment on this thread, specifically on John Knox’s statement that:
“We can have the humanity of Christ without the preexistence and we can have the preexistence without the humanity. There is absolutely no way of having both.”

John Knox was a 3 in1 Trinitarian that caused him to be wrong on all three counts of the above statement.

Jesus indeed had a human beginning when He was born of His human mother Mary. But, He also preexisted His human birth, but not as Jesus, not as the Son of God, not as a second being in a trinity. He existed as the WORD of God and the WORD of God was always with God, and the WORD of God was God, until the WORD of God BECAME the SON of God 2000 years ago.

The WORD of God was not a second God, even though the WORD of God is often personified, for it is living and sharper than any two-edged sword. God is the THINKER (person/being); His WORDS are His THOUGHTS. In the beginning is my word, and my word is with me, and my word is me. That makes ONE person – me. There was but ONE God being, Yahweh Elohim, from the beginning and throughout Old Testament time, until God fathered His (only so) begotten, and firstborn Son whom He named Jesus, in the fullness of time, 2000 years ago.

And, if the Spirit of God dwells in you, then you are also a born human being and a begotten God being, who will be “born again” by a resurrection from the dead, just as our example Jesus was.

December 14, 2009 at 5:39 pm#164257

Participant

Take your two early manuscripts and compare them by dates of all the other manuscripts by dates, and see where it lays. By date they come later than other manuscripts, this alone should create speculation, but go ahead and use it to your advantage, no others are buying into it.

Personally I really don't care if you worship a trinitarian golden calf, but you seem so adament to convince us to bow down to your bovine gods.

Why do you bother?

And he received [them] at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These [be] thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These [be] thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

December 14, 2009 at 5:40 pm#164258