How dare you accuse me of not trusting in scripture. Shame on you. You are quite the deceitful and a prideful one indeed. Scripture reading and understanding is the heart of me and part of my salvation. Have you been studying scripture for over 40 years, on and off?
You say scripture are clear statements. That alone speak volumes about your sheer ignorance and ineptitude on the subject. I would not speak too much if I were you, because you have proven that you cannot interpret scripture at all. You cannot even tell me what Jude 1:5 not Jude 5 as you keep writing, means to and why? You are not honest with me sir and you must know this!
So about 3 percent of the poorly translated versions of scripture, the LEB, the Darby, and ESV and a few others, all followed suit and not the NIV as you quoted, saying 'Jesus' is applicable in Jude 1:5 and not 'Lord.'
These blatantly and clearly cause error, and in this case translate ‘ho kuros’ of the Greek of Jude 1:5 into the word ‘Jesus.’ Any mature Bible believing Catholic or any Protestant student of scripture would shy away from it and your false belief. It always means ‘the God, of all’ or ‘the Lord, of all,’ not Jesus, in its context.
So, you are telling me that Jesus actually freed the Israelites from bondage in Egypt and them destroyed the unbelieving ones later?
Are you kidding me!! (I cannot say it enough times….)
Are you now rewriting the OT and Torah??
You are a foot soldier for the Trinitarian cause indeed.
As one of many scholars write about 'Jesus' in Jude 1:5 of a few versions of scripture: "When Trinitarian academics are too incompetent to figure out why a manuscript variant cannot be authentic."
Remember, the name Jesus simple was given as a name for a baby boy created by God. It also means Joshua or Jeshua. Jesus the Christ was the anointed one, the Messiah. Why did not these Trinitarians used Jesus Christ at least. It would at least been more believable although still a blatant lie.
Bless you,
APAK
