The Trinity and Light

[dizerner]

and for us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ...

[Jose]

and for us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ...

That's right. For us Christians there is only one King. That is because the LORD God, the Almighty, who is head over Christ and is in fact Christ's God, has decreed that His children obey and have no other master except the one whom He has set as ruler over all mankind. Jesus is indeed Lord of Lords. He was given authority over all men by the One who holds supreme authority over all creation. If the Lord Jesus appeared to me and told me to stand in the corner, I would (hopefully) say "Yes, Lord." If 30 seconds later, the Lord God, the Almighty appeared standing next to Jesus and told me to stop standing in the corner and sit down on the ground, again, I would (hopefully) say "Yes, Lord." Is there a conflict ? Do I have two Lords? No, because the Father and the Son are one in purpose. Jesus wants what the Father wants, so if the Father tells me to sit down, then Jesus wants me to do likewise. If Jesus tells me to stand, it is because He wants me to, and whatever He says, He says with the Father's full approval. This does not necessitate that they both be God, nor does the fact that Jesus is Lord usurp the authority of the Almighty.

Jesus is my one Lord because YHWH his Father said "this is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased, Listen to Him."

At least that's the way I understand it.

[Paidion]

For those who are interested, check this out in the ESV translation:

Jude 1:5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Your thoughts and God bless?

The ESV is an excellent translation, Robby, and my regular Bible is of that translation. However, there is no justification for the translators to render "ὁ κυριος" (the lord) as "Jesus" other than the fact that the New Testament authors often referred to Jesus as "the Lord." To the best of my knowledge, no other translator renders "ὁ κυριος" as "Jesus" in this verse. I think that Jude was using "ὁ κυριος" in place of "Yahweh" as was done in the Septuagint and as the New Testament writers when they quoted the Old Testament.

Actually, Jose, there are no variations as you suggested, in the Greek texts of this verse except that some have "ὁ κυριος" while others have only "κυριος."

[Jose]

Actually, Jose, there are no variations as you suggested, in the Greek texts of this verse except that some have "ὁ κυριος" while others have only "κυριος."

Hi Paidion,
Perhaps I've put too much trust in some of what I've read in this regard. I'm not sure where to begin to look to verify the information, but I was going by what is written below.
__________________________________________________
The Vatican 1209 manuscript and the Alexandrian Manuscript (two of the oldest Greek manuscripts available), both have the Greek form of “Jesus” in Jude 1:5 instead of the Greek word often transliterated as KURIOS. The Latin Vulgate, has a Latin form of the name for “Jesus”. The Peshitta Syriac has the form for “God”. Thus, there are at least four variants in early manuscripts of Jude 1:5 as related to who brought the people out of Egypt: “Lord”, “Jesus”, “God”, and “God Christ”.

Nevertheless, due to fact that some translations put “Jesus” as the one who saved the people out of the land of Egypt, many cite this verse as proof that Jesus is Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Does the fact that some early manuscripts contain “Jesus” in this verse mean that we should accept the reading of the Greek form for “Jesus” in Jude 1:5 instead of the Greek for “Lord”? Obviously, someone did change the reading from its original, else we would not have variant readings. Based on the Hebrew Scriptures that are being referred to, it appears that more than likely Jude here originally wrote the Holy Name, which later copyists may have abbreviated, which other copyists may have misunderstood as meaning Jesus, while other copyists changed the Holy Name to the Greek word often transliterated as KURIOS (lord, master, ruler), or to THEOS (God). Thus, several translators, including trinitarian translators, have restored the Holy Name in Jude 1:5 where one finds the Greek word transliterated as KURIOS. — See the footnote of the New World Translation, 1971 edition, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.

As best as we can tell the following are Manuscripts often attributed to the fourth century that contain Jude 5:
p72 reads “God Christ”
Vaticanus reads “Jesus”
Sinaiticus reads “Lord”
Bohairc Coptic reads “Jesus”
Latin Vulgate reads “Jesus”
__________________________________________________

I know you are knowledgeable in Greek. Can you verify if the above is true?

[Jose]

Paidion,

I had also read the notes on Jude 1:5 from the NET bible which I forgot to quote in my prior post. The NET also uses Jesus in this verse. Here are the notes.

The reading ᾿Ιησοῦς (Ihsous, “Jesus”) is deemed too hard by several scholars, since it involves the notion of Jesus acting in the early history of the nation Israel. However, not only does this reading enjoy the strongest support from a variety of early witnesses (e.g., A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881 2344 pc vg co Or1739mg), but the plethora of variants demonstrate that scribes were uncomfortable with it, for they seemed to exchange κύριος (kurios, “Lord”) or θεός (qeos, “God”) for ᾿Ιησοῦς (though Ì72 has the intriguing reading θεὸς Χριστός [qeos Cristos, “God Christ”] for ᾿Ιησοῦς). In addition to the evidence supplied in NA27 for this reading, note also {88 322 323 424c 665 915 2298 eth Cyr Hier Bede}. As difficult as the reading ᾿Ιησοῦς is, in light of v. 4 and in light of the progress of revelation (Jude being one of the last books in the NT to be composed), it is wholly appropriate.

[Homer]

No, because the Father and the Son are one in purpose

I don't think that Jesus used those last two words when He said it.

[Homer]

It is often claimed that the earliest Christians had no Trinitarian thoughts. I've been reading about the subject in a book I have, "A History of Christian Doctrine", Fortress Press, where I found this comment:

Ignatius uses similar Trinitarian language (note: as Clement), exhorting the Magnesians to act "by faith in love, in the Son and Father, and in the Spirit".......Most important is his very direct ascription of deity to Christ as the Son and Word of God. "The one God manifested Himself through Jesus Christ his Son who is His word that proceeded from silence". This is a remarkable concept of the Son as the revelation of the transcendent God. He is the uttered word of God because he is the divine purposive mind as expressed to men; He is the mouth by which God communicated with them. Hence Christ is often called, simply, "our God", and Ignatius can speak, in terms which would seem extraordinarily paradoxical to the Greek world where the impassibility of the divine was held to be an axiomatic truth, of "the passion of our God". Prayer to Christ is assumed as a natural expression of faith.

[Jose]

No, because the Father and the Son are one in purpose

I don't think that Jesus used those last two words when He said it.

That's true Homer, but I believe it is implied. I don't think it can be understood in the trinitarian sense as in the Father and Son being one deity, one "ousia." In the same context, Jesus prayed that we would all be one with them in the same way that they are one. If being one means being the same deity, wouldn't that mean that all believers would also be part of the "godhead?" I believe that we share in God's nature to some degree, but that doesn't make us one deity with him. It seems that the purpose of them being one, and us being one with them was unity.

"I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me."

I am open to other suggestions.

[Jose]

It is often claimed that the earliest Christians had no Trinitarian thoughts. I've been reading about the subject in a book I have, "A History of Christian Doctrine", Fortress Press, where I found this comment:

Ignatius uses similar Trinitarian language (note: as Clement), exhorting the Magnesians to act "by faith in love, in the Son and Father, and in the Spirit".......Most important is his very direct ascription of deity to Christ as the Son and Word of God. "The one God manifested Himself through Jesus Christ his Son who is His word that proceeded from silence". This is a remarkable concept of the Son as the revelation of the transcendent God. He is the uttered word of God because he is the divine purposive mind as expressed to men; He is the mouth by which God communicated with them. Hence Christ is often called, simply, "our God", and Ignatius, in terms which would seem extraordinarily paradoxical to the Greek world where the impassibility of the divine was held to be an axiomatic truth, of "the passion of our God". Prayer to Christ is assumed as a natural expression of faith.

From this quote, the author writing about Ignatius states that he is using trinitarian language, but I don't see him doing so. Simply mentioning the Father, Son and Spirit in the same sentence does not account for a trinity. Again, the author claims that Ignatius is speaking about the deity of Christ, but that, I believe, is only his interpretation. Ignatius does talks about Christ as being the word of God, the one who has revealed and manifested the divine "purposive" mind of God and as the mouth by which God communicated, but I think that all Christians, whether trinitarian, unitarian or otherwise believe all those things. Ignatius did refer to Jesus as God, but that is not surprising, as the term "theos" was used more broadly back then, especially in that culture. I think maybe that topic was previously discussed somewhere on this forum.

[Homer]

I inadvertently left two words out in my last post and have edited it; the missing words are in red. So when Ignatius speaks of "the passion of our God" that is at least a binitarian statement.