Which I pointed and have shown does not apply.
Which also proves Jesus is God in that He is the proper recipient of prayer (Acts 7:59-60).
Glory to the Son
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
Which I pointed and have shown does not apply.
Which also proves Jesus is God in that He is the proper recipient of prayer (Acts 7:59-60).
Pancho Frijoles
Active member
You have said it does not apply.
You haven't shown it, my friend.
I have shown what the practice in ancient times was, as attested in the Book of Esther.
You replied that is not applicable because happens at a small scale. Obviously it happens at small scale! That's exactly the point of analogies and parables.
An analogy of something that happens at celestial scale should be something that happens at a human scale.I give you one more example:
Paul uses another cultural analogy in how Jesus returns to the king victorious with the enemies He capture in battle (his captives).
In the times of the Roman Empire, a conqueror would bring the Cesar's enemies in chains, to present them to Cesar as evidence of his victory and make them servants/slaves of the Emperor. He wouldn't just kill them all in the battle field.
We have that analogy in Ephesians 4:8 and 1 Corinthians 15:20-28.
In conclusion, those cultural habits appear in the Bible and we must try to understand the historical / cultural context to appreciate them.
I have shown it. You just refuse to see it.
Open your eyes this time:
This is on a very limited scale and what was done by a king who we aren't even sure was a believer. (post 99).
...dodged Acts 7:59-60.
It's not surprising.
Grace ambassador
Well-known member
Precious friends, furthermore, there is:
Which Is In Complete Harmony with:
To which I acknowledge, And "give honor"!:
"That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto
all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of
The Mystery of God [ The Holy Spirit ] , and of The Father, and of Christ;
In Whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."
(Colossians 2:2-3 AV)
Which Is In Complete Harmony with:
"For there are Three That bear record in heaven, The Father, The Word, and The Holy Ghost:
and These Three are One." (1 John 5:7 AV)
To which I acknowledge, And "give honor"!:
Amen.
Last edited:
Pancho Frijoles
Active member
Of course it is a very limited scale, my brother. It's supposed to be that way. No king on earth has the power of God. No conqueror on earth has the power of Jesus. So, if the inspired author was to look into an analogy from kings, it would necessarily be at very small scale compared to God's scale.
Whether the king was a believer or not does not matter. Romans Caesars were not Christians. Were they?
We're talking about cultural habits among the kings, not among the believers.
I'm not.
I have work to do and a bladder to void.
It is essential that we all keep respect for all Forum members. Do you agree with me?
Thus, it does not apply. You are using what was done unto a pagan king and applying that on a much larger scale in reference to God. There may be some similarities, but for the Jews they knew that God alone is the proper recipient of worship
You are.
I have work to do and a bladder to void.
Then take care of that first and then respond.
Yes, because dodging an important point would be disrespectful.
Pancho Frijoles
Active member
Hi @Fred
Regarding Acts 7:59, 60.
Jesus is alive and it would be perfectly fine if Stephan or you or me talked to Him, particularly in a situation in which we are seeing him.
However, Jesus taught us to pray to his Father (Mat 6:6,9).
So I suppose that you, as follower of Jesus, normally pray to his Father.
Paul adds that the God he prayed to, is the Father of Jesus
We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you. (Col 1.3)
Let's go back to Stephan
Stephan saw in his vision two Beings, right? One sitting at the right of the Other.
Did Stephan call the two beings "God"?
Did Stephan call "God" to just one of those 2 beings?
If so, to which of the two beings?
“Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
Certainly, only One of those Two Beings is called "God", and it is NOT the Son of Man.
So, Stephan prayed to God, and also talked to Jesus.
This use to give only the Father the title of God, when mentioned in the same sentence of Christ, occurs over and over and over across the New Testament. It is not an isolated event.
Regarding Acts 7:59, 60.
Jesus is alive and it would be perfectly fine if Stephan or you or me talked to Him, particularly in a situation in which we are seeing him.
However, Jesus taught us to pray to his Father (Mat 6:6,9).
So I suppose that you, as follower of Jesus, normally pray to his Father.
Paul adds that the God he prayed to, is the Father of Jesus
We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you. (Col 1.3)
Let's go back to Stephan
Stephan saw in his vision two Beings, right? One sitting at the right of the Other.
Did Stephan call the two beings "God"?
Did Stephan call "God" to just one of those 2 beings?
If so, to which of the two beings?
“Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
Certainly, only One of those Two Beings is called "God", and it is NOT the Son of Man.
So, Stephan prayed to God, and also talked to Jesus.
This use to give only the Father the title of God, when mentioned in the same sentence of Christ, occurs over and over and over across the New Testament. It is not an isolated event.
Last edited:
Zero proof that Stephen was seeing Jesus when he prayed to Him.
The vision took place in the city. The prayer took place afterwards when Stephen was dragged out of the city (Acts 7:58).
Jesus never taught to pray only to the Father.
Paul also thanked Jesus (1 Timothy 1:12).
No. The Father and Son are the same being, but not the same Person.
Pancho Frijoles
Active member
You're right.
Still, as I say, it is perfectly fine if you ever want to talk to Jesus. He is an intercessor.
That's true. Then, are Catholics OK in praying to the saints and Virgin Mary?
Jesus never taught to pray only to the Father right?
And what about being baptized for your dead relatives or friends, as some contemporary of Paul did?
Jesus never taught that you should be baptized only for yourself.
What about replacing wine by water in the celebration of the Last Supper as the Mormons do?
Jesus never taught that their disciples should use only wine.
Sure, and that is great. I also thank Jesus.
But when Paul thanked Jesus, Paul didn't call Him God.
in contrast, when Paul thanked his Father, Paul called him God.
One single being could not be sitting at the right of Himself and he could not be called and not called God at the same time.
So we must admit that Stephan saw two persons, one sitting next to the other.
He called "God" to only one of them: the one who was not the Son of Man.
That means He is the proper recipient of prayer which proves He is God.
Pancho Frijoles
Active member
No, it does not mean that.
People could speak with an angel, a Messenger of God, and that did not make Him God.
The assumption that speaking to a Messenger, making him questions or thanking him equals to admitting the deity of such being is incorrect.
So, your argument is clinging from two verses so far, written not in a passage whose focus were how to pray or whom to pray:
- That Stephan asked Jesus to receive his spirit
- That Paul thanked Jesus.
The first one, despite the fact that Stephan saw TWO persons, and called ONLY ONE of them God: not the Son of Man.
The second one, despite the fact that Paul calls "God" the person he has thanked and identified as the Father of Jesus, but does not call "God" the person he has thanked an identified as "Jesus Christ".
Consider the weight of such arguments against
- the explicit and very specific teaching of Jesus, who is giving us a model on how to pray and whom to pray.
- the example of Jesus Himself, who personally prayed to His Father, and called the Person he was praying to "The Only and True God".
- The example of his apostles few days after Pentecost, who prayed specifically to the God of David, identified as a person distinct to "His Christ" (Acts 4:24-26)
Last edited:
That isn't prayer. Prove otherwise and cite the passage.
Pointing out where the Bible teaches the Father is prayed to does not nullify prayers to Jesus.
Both are true.
Pancho Frijoles
Active member
Then please define prayer.
Nor to Mary, for that matter. In one occasion people got a blessing from Jesus through the interaction with Mary.
But my point is not how "right" or "wrong" is to thank Jesus (or Mary) for something or ask him/her something which is good and noble.
If a person comes to Jesus with a contrite/ broken heart, Jesus will never turn his head and leave him alone saying "you are not praying correctly". on the contrary, He will be delighted to convey this to God His Father.
My point is
1) that the people you have presented in your examples (Stephan and Paul) did know quite well who God was: and it was not Jesus.
2) that, if receiving prayer is indeed a sign of deity, Jesus was not interested in showing us He was God by asking us to pray to him, even when Jesus had the chance to provide us a good model of prayer, or a personal example of how to address God.
If you don't know what it is by now then you are more confused than I thought.
You used 'pray,' 'prayed,' and 'praying' in post 107, so ask yourself.
Try to actually supply a text that you think backs up your outlandish assertion.
Last edited:
Pancho Frijoles
Active member
Probably I am.
Since we are debating on whether being an appropriate recepient of prayer means deity, then we better define it.
The abscense of a text is precisely what supports my assertion.
You take as a supporting argument the absence of a text in which Jesus teaches to pray only to the Father.
Well, if that's the logic, perhaps Catholics are OK in praying to Mary.
That doesn't constitute evidence for your outlandish assertion.
I know the ridiculous game you are playing.
It's not working, nor will it.
Pancho Frijoles
Active member
My friend, I am not playing games, but sharing wiht you and our readings my personal understanding of these things.
You were the one that brought the argument that Jesus never taught to pray only to the Father.
That is a case of argument based on lack of evidence: the kind of, if something is not explicitly excluded, it is included... or if something is not forbidden, then it is permitted. That seems to be your reasoning.
I'm telling you that under such logic, praying to Mary could also be supported by lack of evidence of a teaching of Jesus that ask us to pray only to the Father.
I don't find my arguments ridiculous, and I don't find your arguments ridiculous.
We all fall in logical fallacies and sucumb to our biases when debating.
No big deal. I encourage you to continue our conversation
Which is correct.
See post 115.
Incorrect, because to be the proper recipient of all one must fully know the hearts of all people.
Since Mary does not have this knowledge proves she is not the proper recipient of prayer.
1 Kings 8:38-39
whatever prayer...is made...then hear in heaven...for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men.
Only God fully knows the hearts of all, so only God is the proper recipient of prayer.
In fact, since the Lord Jesus fully knows the hearts of all demonstrates He is the proper recipient of prayer.
And since the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer proves He is God.
See post 110.
Pancho Frijoles
Active member
Thanks for keeping the dialogue open.
I see clearly your logic and I appreciate your argument.
I am about to take a plane now, but will continue tomorrow, God's willing.
