JWs: Isn't the Jesus' title of Kurios...a bit curious?

If Jesus was less than God Almighty, why in the world would the Apostles freely call him the Greek equivalent of the Tetragramaton? And for that matter, wouldn't the fact that he was called "tou kurios" in Greek mean that He'd be called "ha adon" in hebrew? And who else but Almighty God is "ha adon?"

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Jehovah's
• Witnesses
• Watchtower
• arianism
• socinianism
• Jesus
• Deity
• kurios

[reslight]

@msm1876 I did not present or cite the actual evidence. I hope to present a video later that will do this.

[reslight]

@msm1876 The video I spoke of was evidently prepared by a JW; I do not necessarily agree with absolutely all conclusions given; I have doubts that the earlier manuscripts referred to as being of the LXX were actually a part of the LXX, although that is the general assumption.

[reslight]

@msm1876 A video made by another, entitled, "The Tetragrammaton in the New Testament", mentions this evidence. That evidence, of course, does not at all give anyone any reason to think that the NT writers changed God's Holy Name to Kurios (Lord), Dunamis (Power), Theos (God), etc.

[msm1876]

@reslight >>>with the thousands of variations that exist in the various extant manuscripts, we still have faith that God has preserved the NT,

That evidence you just cited gives me the same confidence that God was referred to as "The Lord" in the NT as well. It's in all the Manuscripts.

[reslight]

@msm1876 Nevertheless, with the thousands of variations that exist in the various extant manuscripts, we still have faith that God has preserved the NT, although we may have to use spiritual judgment regarding what has been and what has not been corrupted. This is simply a fact.

[reslight]

@msm1876 What we find in the extant NT manuscripts, however, is that the Holy Name has been changed to words, such as forms of Kurios, Theos, Dunamis, etc. Thus it is self-apparent that the Holy Name has been changed in the New Testament and changed with other words that are not God's Holy Name, nor do they even reflect the meaning of the Holy Name.

[reslight]

@msm1876 Strictly speaking, if no one changed the name in the New Testament, when the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament scriptures that contain the Holy Name, we would find the Holy Name in those New Testament scriptures. That is not what we find.

[reslight]

@msm1876 There indeed would be need to distrust the entire NT if Jesus and the NT writers did change God's eternal Holy Name. There is evidence, however, that the name was removed by Christians shortly after the death of apostles in an effort to keep the Jews from destroying the NT writings.

[msm1876]

@reslight >>>Of course, I believe that Jesus and the writers of the NT used God's Holy Name.

Then you just caused me to distrust the entire new testament. If wicked scribes could change that, and there not be a TRACE of evidence in the Manuscripts of it happening, then how can I be sure that other stuff wasn't changed between the autographs and the earliest manuscripts?