Did Jesus pre-exist before his birth on Earth?

Where did Jesus come from?

John 6:38-40
For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

The first verse suggests that Jesus came down from Heaven. This seems to contradict that belief which suggests he first existed as a man when he was born into this world. For if Jesus came into existence for the first time when he was conceived through Mary, how could he come down from Heaven? We (Man) came into existence when we are born into this world, but would it be correct to say that we came down from Heaven too? If a verse said that we came down from Heaven, would you think that we pre-existed in Heaven? If so, then why not Jesus?

John 3:17 is another verse that provides support that Jesus came down from Heaven or was sent rather than created.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

The word ‘send’ is the Greek word ‘apostello’.

apostello {ap-os-tel’-lo}
1) to order (one) to go to a place appointed
2) to send away, dismiss
2a) to allow one to depart, that he may be in a state of liberty
2b) to order one to depart, send off
2c) to drive away

To be sent surely implies existence otherwise you would just say born or created. In fact this word (sent) is similar in meaning and sound to the word Apostle (apostolos), which means “one sent forth with orders”. To be sent forth with order, you must exist.

John 6:62
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Jesus is clearly stating here that he came from above since he eventually ascended into Heaven to be at the right-hand of God.

How old is Jesus?

John 1:15
15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.‘ “

John the Baptist was six months older than Jesus Christ. So it is physically impossible for Christ to be before him in age. If this verse is referencing age, then it shows preexistence. Jesus existed before  John the Baptist in the least.

John 8:58
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!

Jesus claimed to exist before Abraham, the father of the Jews. The words ‘I am’ mean ‘I exist’. So Jesus claimed existence before Abraham. We can see that Jesus is getting older as we explore the scriptures. But how old?

Jude 1:25
to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

Here we can see that majesty, power, and authority through Jesus Christ is before all ages (all worlds) and forever more into the future. This strongly implies that Jesus existed even before all things. But can we substantiate this?

Did Jesus exist before all creation?

Colossians 1:17
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Colossians answers the question outright. It states that “He is before all things“.  But are there other verses that support this idea?

John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

So there is nothing that was made that didn’t involve Jesus being there. This verse alone answers the question because the universe, angels, and men were made and Jesus was present when they were created according to these verses. In case that is not enough to convince you, I also add another clear verse that says the same thing.

Hebrews 1:1-2
1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

Is Jesus the Word of God?

But some say that this is talking about the Word and not all believe that Jesus is the Word of God. They argue that Jesus came from the Word, but is not the Word itself that was with God in John 1:1. If you believe this, then please explain the next two verses within their wider context:

Revelation 19:13
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

Colossians 1:15-18
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Okay, if you are honest, this is a closed case. God created all things through the Word. Jesus is called the Word of God and also the son of God. We are also told that God created all things through the son of God. Even if you do not believe that Jesus is the Word, then you still have to believe that Jesus pre-existed on account of him being the son of God. But what we know from scripture is that Jesus existed as the Word of God before he came as a man called Jesus. We know that the Word became flesh.

More proof verses

If Jesus pre-existed, then you might expect that even though the above verses are clear, there would be more verses that teach or at least imply that he pre-existed. So let’s see if this is the case.

Revelation 22:16
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

Here we see that Jesus is the offspring of David, yet he is also the root of David, which at appears to show existence before King David. He also claims to be the bright Morning Star and we read in Job how the Morning Stars were present when God created the Earth.

Job 38:6-7
“On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy? 

Luke 10:18
He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

Comparing Luke 10:18 with Revelation 12:1-10, some say that Satan and his angels fell to the earth before the birth of Christ as a man. If this was the case, then Jesus saw an event that took place before he was born as a man. However, others argue that Satan hasn’t fallen to the Earth yet, or that he has, but Jesus saw this in a vision. Regardless, it certainly doesn’t contradict that Jesus pre-existed.

Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

The above verse talks about someone who will rule Israel and whose origin is from ancient times. Who but Jesus could fit that description?

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God/Divine.

John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[ 1:14 Or the Only Begotten] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Clearly, Jesus was with God in the beginning as the Word of God. This places his existence as before all things and thus comes as no surprise that he was there when God created all things.

The Angel of YHWH

We know from certain scriptures that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath and many assume that Jesus gave the Law of God. We are told in Acts:7:30-39 for instance that an Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses through whom God spoke and this is the same Angel who spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai and passed on the living words (The Law) to Moses.

30 “After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai.
31 When he saw this, he was amazed at the sight. As he went over to look more closely, he heard the Lord’s voice:
32 ‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.’Moses trembled with fear and did not dare to look.
33 “Then the Lord said to him, ‘Take off your sandals; the place where you are standing is holy ground.
34 I have indeed seen the oppression of my people in Egypt. I have heard their groaning and have come down to set them free. Now come, I will send you back to Egypt.’
35 “This is the same Moses whom they had rejected with the words, ‘Who made you ruler and judge?’ He was sent to be their ruler and deliverer by God himself, through the angel who appeared to him in the bush.
36 He led them out of Egypt and did wonders and miraculous signs in Egypt, at the Red Sea and for forty years in the desert.
37 “This is that Moses who told the Israelites, ‘God will send you a prophet like me from your own people.’
38 He was in the assembly in the desert, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers; and he received living words to pass on to us.
39 “But our fathers refused to obey him. Instead, they rejected him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt.

So is this Angel of the Lord, Jesus? Well it seems possible. Perhaps the correct model to look at is the one mentioned in Revelation 1:1

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

Here we can see that the order of the Revelation started with the Originator which is God. He then passed the message to Jesus Christ who in turn sent it to his Angel and then to John. So perhaps it is possible that the angel in Revelation is the same angel mentioned in Acts:7:30-39.

But the Angel of YHWH or Angel of the LORD is described as one like the son of gods.

Daniel 3:24-25
Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astounded and stood up in haste; he said to his high officials, “Was it not three men we cast bound into the midst of the fire?” They replied to the king, “Certainly, O king.” He said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!”

The idea that a preincarnate Jesus was this Angel of the LORD is a popular one. We know that this Angel of the LORD is never mentioned while Jesus is walking the earth which supports this idea. But it could also be a coincidence. One connection that can be made with Jesus being this messenger is found in Judges 13:18.

Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, “What is your name, so that when your words come to pass, we may honor you?” But the angel of the LORD said to him, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?”

Now read what Isaiah prophesied in Isaiah 9:6 .

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Clearly, Isaiah was speaking of Jesus Christ and note that he was called Wonderful Counselor. Is there a connection here? Perhaps. What we do know is the word ‘angel’ is the same word messenger in the Old Testament, and while it is held that Jesus is not an angel in kind, we know he certainly was a messenger of YHWH and would be fair to say even ‘The Messenger of YHWH’.

So the idea that he may be this angel is not that far fetched. Some vehemently oppose this idea, but they are not aware that both Jesus and John are called angels in the messenger sense.

More to come here……

More proof that Jesus pre-existed

Rev 3:14
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.

Moving on we read the following in Philippians 2:5-11
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Surely the above verses assumes preexistence.  Look at verse 7: ‘but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness’. This verse points out that Jesus humbled himself to become a (or like a) human and also a servant. So this suggests to us that he preexisted in a higher state because to humble oneself is to become lower. If he started life in this humbled state, then it would be incorrect to say that he humbled himself. Further, he “found himself in appearance as a man” is a weird statement to make if he first existed as a human baby.

This verse is often used in support of the trinity doctrine because of the word ‘equal’. But if you are equal to something it means that you are not that thing, rather you are like that thing. This scripture is also very clear about the following: The Father is God and Jesus is Lord and that God exalted Jesus to the highest place.

A closer look at verse 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: Now I am not sure if Jesus was exalted higher than he was before he came to this world or whether he was exalted to the exact position that he had before. But if we look at John 17:5 again we can see that Jesus asked to return to his former glory.

John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

The above verse is clear about Christ’s pre-existence in glory before the world began. Just to prove this is not an isolated scripture here is a similar verse:

John 16:28
I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”

The next verse also confirms that Jesus pre-existed in Heaven.

John 3:12-15
12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven, the Son of Man.
14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,
15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

Ezekiel 8:1-3
1 In the sixth year, in the sixth month on the fifth day, while I was sitting in my house and the elders of Judah were sitting before me, the hand of the Sovereign LORD came upon me there.
2 I looked, and I saw a figure like that of a man. From what appeared to be his waist down he was like fire, and from there up his appearance was as bright as glowing metal.
3 He stretched out what looked like a hand and took me by the hair of my head. The Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and in visions of God he took me to Jerusalem, to the entrance to the north gate of the inner court, where the idol that provokes to jealousy stood.

This verse is interesting in the sense that the description is very similar to the description of Jesus Christ in Revelation 1:12-18,

12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands,
13 and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,” dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest.
14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire.
15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters.
16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.
18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

Have a look at the next verse. 1 Corinthians 11:3 (English-NIV)
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Now the word head in the Greek is ‘kephale’ which can mean head, source or master. Now if we notice the order in a time sense, we have to admit that God is the first as he is the only one who has existed for all eternity with no beginning. We also know from scripture that the man came first and the woman came from the man. So that part is correct if we use a timeline. That just leaves Christ. Did he come between God and Man. I think so, as I believe that all things came from him and this opinion does fit perfectly into this model in a time sense at least. Anyway the word Christ here is ‘Christos’ which means “anointed”. So the anointed is the head of Man.
God > Christ > Man > Woman

If God created all things for his Son and his Son was the channel for that creation to come into being, then we can only assume that Christ existed at this point. As Genesis says: Let us make Man in our image. God was talking to Christ at this point and we know that Christ is the image of God and we are the image of Christ. Therefore the image of the image of God (man) is still the image of God. But Christ is the original and first image and we can only assume again that that image existed before the image of the image. A bit like a mirror that reflects a mirror, the original mirror has to exist in order to reflect the second mirror.

So we know that Christ preexisted before creation and now we will look at some more scriptures that show that he was born before creation itself?

Colossians 1:15-16
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

The above verse is quite clear that ALL things were created by or through Jesus.

John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

So again, there is nothing that was made that didn’t involve Jesus/The Word being there. Only the Father and Son were not made. God has always existed and the Son was born from God before the creation of the universe, before anything was made. The next verse describes clearly who/what was the first of God’s works.

Proverbs 8:22-30
22 “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, {[22] Or ; or } {[22] Or ; or } before his deeds of old;
23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,
26 before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world.
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,

This verse is talking about Wisdom, whom many believe is Christ. This scriptures compliments other scriptures that that teach that Jesus was given birth by God and then created all THINGS though him.

So from this verse we can see the following points.

Wisdom was brought forth as the first of Gods works.
Wisdom was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
Wisdom was given birth before creation.
Wisdom was the craftsman at his side and rejoiced in his presence before creation.
Some say that Wisdom isn’t Christ, rather this is just wisdom in a conceptual sense and it is true that wisdom is being spoken of in that way. But from verse 22 onward it changes tempo. With terms like I was given birth, I was the craftsman at his side and I was filled with delight, we have to admit that it seems to be talking about a person. Now have a look at the following verses:

1 Corinthians 1:24 (English-NIV)
but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

1 Corinthians 1:30 (English-NIV)
It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God–that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

Let’s look at some other concepts that Jesus personifies:

Jesus is the Truth. Yet truth is also a concept.
Jesus is the Way. Yet the way is also a concept.
Jesus is the Life. Yet life can also be a concept.
Now look at the following mystery:

1 Corinthians 2:6-9
6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
7 No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 However, as it is written:
“No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him”

Ephesians 3:8-10
8 Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,

Perhaps another scripture alluding to Jesus being the Wisdom of God.

Finally I leave you with the following OT scripture that suggests that God had a Son before the birth Of Jesus Christ on earth.

Proverbs 30:4
Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know!


Discussion

Viewing 20 posts - 5,921 through 5,940 (of 19,165 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #163837

    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???

    :D  :D  :D

    WJ

    #163840
    KangarooJack
    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

    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???

    :D  :D  :D

    WJ


    Excellent post Keith!

    thinker

    #163842
    KangarooJack
    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

    #163914

    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

    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???

    :D  :D  :D

    WJ


    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.]

    #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

    #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.

    #163970
    KangarooJack
    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

    #163972

    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


    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


    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

    WJ

    #163981

    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…

    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 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

    WJ

    #164006
    KangarooJack
    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.

    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.


    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

    #164035

    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?


    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


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

    #164037

    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.

    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.


    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


    Latin translated garbage

    #164039
    KangarooJack
    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.

    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.


    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


    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

    #164066

    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!

    WJ

    #164072
    KangarooJack
    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

    #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!

    WJ


    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.

    #164232

    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?

    WJ

    #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.

    #164257

    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.

    #164258

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 12 2009,23:54)

    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!

    WJ


    Your absolutly correct, especially if your a trinitarian.

Viewing 20 posts - 5,921 through 5,940 (of 19,165 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2026 Heaven Net

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account