The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

[Runningman]

Is that the only suggestion you have for these verses?
Do you not have the NT to inform you of the greater revelation of God to humanity? You make up foreknowledge even though that does not imply existence. The verse speaks of existence. THen John 17:24 speaks against of existence before having the physical incarnation as Jesus. So Rev 13:8 can speak of the plan of Jesus from the disruption or foundation of the world. Then Ephesians 1:4 is not have to be pre-existence of individual people but rather that people would be in Christ as planned early on.
You lack any substance though you try to find proof texts for your denial of the deity of Christ in the Godhead. You should seek to understand Christ instead of just denying who he is.

This is very inconsistent. John 17:5 speaks of Jesus' glory before the world was and you say that means he pre-existed. Revelation 13:8 says Jesus was slain before the world was and yet to you it doesn't refer to pre-existence. Yet when other people are brought into the mix, you completely switch ideas and say they didn't pre-exist. The only understanding of all of this that merrys up things the Bible says, nicely, is that people can pre-exist in God's plans and it is as if God knows them, understands them, and glorifies them in an intimate way without them actually having pre-existed. (we're still waiting on verses about where Jesus pre-existed in the OT)

Another example is Jeremiah. God know him before he was even born. How is that possible if Jeremiah didn't actually exist?

Jeremiah 1
5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

 

[mikesw]

Two things are available in the OT if one chooses to see them:

1. The "Messiah" would suffer [Isaiah 53 among other places].
2. The "Son of Man" is God-like or is God [Daniel 7 - I think].

I leave it to people with a desire to strain gnats and swallow camels to argue about whether the OT ever identifies (prophetically) that the Messiah will be the Son of man (or the Son of Man is the Messiah). I am content to take the word of John and Jesus that it is so without concerning myself with OT prophecy about the link.

Right. Dan 7:13-14 is probably what the High Priest in Matt 26:62-65 as Jesus' blasphemy. We do not find Matthew disclaiming that interpretation of Daniel.

 

[mikesw]

This is very inconsistent. John 17:5 speaks of Jesus' glory before the world was and you say that means he pre-existed. Revelation 13:8 says Jesus was slain before the world was and yet to you it doesn't refer to pre-existence. Yet when other people are brought into the mix, you completely switch ideas and say they didn't pre-exist. The only understanding of all of this that merrys up things the Bible says, nicely, is that people can pre-exist in God's plans and it is as if God knows them, understands them, and glorifies them in an intimate way without them actually having pre-existed. (we're still waiting on verses about where Jesus pre-existed in the OT)

Another example is Jeremiah. God know him before he was even born. How is that possible if Jeremiah didn't actually exist?

Jeremiah 1
5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

If you have nothing coherent to say...

With Rev 13:8, no logic seems to justify that Christ was dead before the foundation of the world. we therefore recognize this as a plan. If not a plan, it would speak of his existence at that time.

Even if people are written in the book of life before the foundation of the world, they are not representing themselves as remembering that moment. Even if you say they preexisted, that would not deny Christ remembering his glory before the creation of the world.

As to having glory before the world existed, it does not make sense unless the Son of God existed. Your reversing of logic is what I have noticed about your interpretations.

 

[Runningman]

If you have nothing coherent to say...

With Rev 13:8, no logic seems to justify that Christ was dead before the foundation of the world. we therefore recognize this as a plan. If not a plan, it would speak of his existence at that time.

Even if people are written in the book of life before the foundation of the world, they are not representing themselves as remembering that moment. Even if you say they preexisted, that would not deny Christ remembering his glory before the creation of the world.

As to having glory before the world existed, it does not make sense unless the Son of God existed. Your reversing of logic is what I have noticed about your interpretations.

Nope. Jesus was definitely chosen or foreordained before the world. It means he achieved a status he didn't previously had. He isn't an eternal being hence he is never called eternal one time in the Bible. Christ was not Christ until after his birth and was made such by God. God never changes, but didn't Jesus change a lot?

Acts 2
36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

1 Peter 1
20Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

 

[mikesw]

Nope. Jesus was definitely chosen or foreordained before the world. It means he achieved a status he didn't previously had. He isn't an eternal being hence he is never called eternal one time in the Bible. Christ was not Christ until after his birth and was made such by God. God never changes, but didn't Jesus change a lot?

Acts 2
36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

1 Peter 1
20Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

So you want certain terms to appear in scripture to counter your incorrect view? I cannot say God has intentionally omitted these just to trip you up.

You are using semantics with the terms Christ, Jesus, Son of God, and Son of Man in your attempt to sabotage the discussion. It is not a problem to say that in humanity and resurrection that Jesus was made Lord and Christ. This does not deny his deity he already had in the Godhead. But if you have an argument for your view, maybe you will share it.

 

[TibiasDad]

That is just begging the question. Where was it taught to pray to Jesus in Scripture? if it doesn't exist its's ok so say so. We are 109 pages of this and I am still waiting for someone to confess the truth.

18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (May 28:18-20)

Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” (John 4:10)

The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are given a singular name, because they are of a singular nature, which is being God. To pray/ask/request/converse with any of the three persons is to pray/ask/request/converse with God.

Jesus has all authority, and thus is the only one who can authorize a request. That is why we are told to pray/ask/request/converse in his name. Thus Stephen’s prayer when he was dying was directed to Jesus who appeared before him. In his name is equivalent to asking his person for he has the authority to grant the request. He is equally God with the Father and the Spirit.

Doug

 

[Runningman]

So you want certain terms to appear in scripture to counter your incorrect view? I cannot say God has intentionally omitted these just to trip you up.

You are using semantics with the terms Christ, Jesus, Son of God, and Son of Man in your attempt to sabotage the discussion. It is not a problem to say that in humanity and resurrection that Jesus was made Lord and Christ. This does not deny his deity he already had in the Godhead. But if you have an argument for your view, maybe you will share it.

A number of my questions have gone unanswered. They are all good questions that have yet to be answered.

 

[Runningman]

18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (May 28:18-20)

Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” (John 4:10)

The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are given a singular name, because they are of a singular nature, which is being God. To pray/ask/request/converse with any of the three persons is to pray/ask/request/converse with God.

Jesus has all authority, and thus is the only one who can authorize a request. That is why we are told to pray/ask/request/converse in his name. Thus Stephen’s prayer when he was dying was directed to Jesus who appeared before him. In his name is equivalent to asking his person for he has the authority to grant the request. He is equally God with the Father and the Spirit.

Doug

Well, that doesn't really work either because the nature of God doesn't make someone God. The divine nature is something you can have also. It should be the standard for all Christians according to 2 Peter 1:4. There is a lot to say about having the same righteousness as God, though it's unpopular. The bible does say to be holy as God is holy and to be perfect as He is perfect. So the argument about Jesus and God having a singular name and thus they having a singular nature doesn't really help make the point when Christians have that same nature as well. So by that logic, a prayer to God would become a prayer to me for example. Ideas can be taken to an extreme and sorta stop making sense. It's the red flag to turn back.

Also, Jesus doesn't have the authority of God in the Bible. For example, Jesus doesn't know when he return according to Matthew 24:36 and Acts 1:7. He also doesn't have authority over God according to 1 Corinthians 15:27 and other verses that speak of Jesus belonging to God and God being the head of Jesus. Actually there are numerous verses about people being given authority to do the same things Jesus does. For example, there is Revelation 3:21 where people will sit with Jesus on his throne. There is a verse about saints judging the world. There is evidence in Matthew 9:6-8 that says God gave authority to the men to forgive sins.

So I believe if we focus too much on how Jesus is different we may miss that we can be "heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ" as Paul said in Romains 8:17. So I will leave you with a question... what does it mean to be an Heir of God and a Co-Heir with Christ?

 

[Peterlag]

Two things are available in the OT if one chooses to see them:

1. The "Messiah" would suffer [Isaiah 53 among other places].
2. The "Son of Man" is God-like or is God [Daniel 7 - I think].

I leave it to people with a desire to strain gnats and swallow camels to argue about whether the OT ever identifies (prophetically) that the Messiah will be the Son of man (or the Son of Man is the Messiah). I am content to take the word of John and Jesus that it is so without concerning myself with OT prophecy about the link.

There's no teaching on the trinity anywhere in the Bible. No whole paragraph or chapter teaching that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Not in the Old or New Testament.

 

[mikesw]

A number of my questions have gone unanswered. They are all good questions that have yet to be answered.

This is very inconsistent. John 17:5 speaks of Jesus' glory before the world was and you say that means he pre-existed. Revelation 13:8 says Jesus was slain before the world was and yet to you it doesn't refer to pre-existence. Yet when other people are brought into the mix, you completely switch ideas and say they didn't pre-exist. The only understanding of all of this that merrys up things the Bible says, nicely, is that people can pre-exist in God's plans and it is as if God knows them, understands them, and glorifies them in an intimate way without them actually having pre-existed. (we're still waiting on verses about where Jesus pre-existed in the OT)

Another example is Jeremiah. God know him before he was even born. How is that possible if Jeremiah didn't actually exist?

Jeremiah 1
5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

ok. God had a plan and design for Jeremiah. However, in view of early posts, Jeremiah did not know his design before he was born. Consequently, this has no bearing on our discussion except as a distraction.

I think that was the only unanswered question. You still have to answer who Christ is, per the Unitarian misunderstanding. There isn't much of him left in what you proclaim in your Adoptionist view.

 

[mikesw]

There's no teaching on the trinity anywhere in the Bible. No whole paragraph or chapter teaching that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Not in the Old or New Testament.

You can follow Thomas' example. Nothing more needs to be said.

 

[Peterlag]

You can follow Thomas' example. Nothing more needs to be said.

I just put up some data on Thomas. I wrote...

“My Lord and my God.” A very likely way to understand John 20:28 is that Thomas had realized the power of God working in Jesus, and in saying “my Lord and my God” he was pointing out that Jesus did reveal God in a unique and powerful way. In seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas clearly saw both the Lord Jesus, and the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus always taught that he only did what God guided him to do, and said that if you had seen him you had seen the Father. In that light, there is good evidence that “doubting Thomas” was saying that in seeing Jesus he was also seeing the Father.

We have to remember that Thomas’ statement occurred in a moment of surprise and even perhaps shock. Only eight days earlier, Thomas had vehemently denied Jesus’ resurrection. Thomas could no longer deny that Jesus was alive and that God had raised him from the dead. Thomas, looking at the living Jesus, saw both Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead. When Thomas saw the resurrected Christ, he became immediately convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead. But did he suddenly have a revelation that Jesus was God? That would be totally outside of Thomas’ knowledge and belief. Jesus had never claimed to be God despite Trinitarian claims that he had.

In other places in the Bible where the apostles speak about the resurrection of Jesus, they do not declare “This proves Jesus is God!” Rather, they declare that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead. The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveler, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and they crucified him." The disciples thought Jesus was the Messiah, a “Prophet” and the Son of God, but not God Himself.

Are we to believe that somehow Jesus taught the Trinity, something that went against everything the disciples were taught and believed, but there is no mention of Jesus ever teaching it anywhere, and yet the disciples somehow got that teaching? That seems too incredible to believe. There is no evidence from the gospel accounts that Jesus’ disciples believed him to be God, and Thomas upon seeing the resurrected Christ was not birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise.

 

[mikesw]

I just put up some data on Thomas. I wrote...

“My Lord and my God.” A very likely way to understand John 20:28 is that Thomas had realized the power of God working in Jesus, and in saying “my Lord and my God” he was pointing out that Jesus did reveal God in a unique and powerful way. In seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas clearly saw both the Lord Jesus, and the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus always taught that he only did what God guided him to do, and said that if you had seen him you had seen the Father. In that light, there is good evidence that “doubting Thomas” was saying that in seeing Jesus he was also seeing the Father.

We have to remember that Thomas’ statement occurred in a moment of surprise and even perhaps shock. Only eight days earlier, Thomas had vehemently denied Jesus’ resurrection. Thomas could no longer deny that Jesus was alive and that God had raised him from the dead. Thomas, looking at the living Jesus, saw both Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead. When Thomas saw the resurrected Christ, he became immediately convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead. But did he suddenly have a revelation that Jesus was God? That would be totally outside of Thomas’ knowledge and belief. Jesus had never claimed to be God despite Trinitarian claims that he had.

In other places in the Bible where the apostles speak about the resurrection of Jesus, they do not declare “This proves Jesus is God!” Rather, they declare that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead. The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveler, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and they crucified him." The disciples thought Jesus was the Messiah, a “Prophet” and the Son of God, but not God Himself.

Are we to believe that somehow Jesus taught the Trinity, something that went against everything the disciples were taught and believed, but there is no mention of Jesus ever teaching it anywhere, and yet the disciples somehow got that teaching? That seems too incredible to believe. There is no evidence from the gospel accounts that Jesus’ disciples believed him to be God, and Thomas upon seeing the resurrected Christ was not birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise.

None of that is pertinent. We have Thomas recognizing Jesus as Lord and God. We have the same situation where Peter acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah. It was not flesh and blood that revealed this to him, nor was flesh and blood what revealed to Thomas of Jesus being Lord and God. You are trying to proclaim that the disciples learned nothing and could infer nothing beyond what you see written in scriptures (while denying half of what is written). Nor have you proven any case against the scripture's revelation of the deity of Christ in the Godhead. All you offer is who, in your estimation, Jesus is not.
Anyhow, what was your choice of the nature and purpose of Christ? It sounds to be Arian.

 

[Peterlag]

None of that is pertinent. We have Thomas recognizing Jesus as Lord and God. We have the same situation where Peter acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah. It was not flesh and blood that revealed this to him, nor was flesh and blood what revealed to Thomas of Jesus being Lord and God. You are trying to proclaim that the disciples learned nothing and could infer nothing beyond what you see written in scriptures (while denying half of what is written). Nor have you proven any case against the scripture's revelation of the deity of Christ in the Godhead. All you offer is who, in your estimation, Jesus is not.
Anyhow, what was your choice of the nature and purpose of Christ? It sounds to be Arian.

If it's natures you want. Then I give you this. And go right ahead after reading the following and tell me none of it makes sense and that I must be just making it all up...

The supposed “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible and contradicts the Bible and the laws of nature that God set up. Nothing can be 100% of two different things. Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, and that is not a “mystery” but it's a contradiction and a talk of nonsense. A fatal flaw in the “dual nature” theory is that both natures in Jesus would have had to have known about each other. The Jesus God nature would have known about his human nature, and (according to what the Trinitarians teach) his human nature knew he was God, which explains why Trinitarians say Jesus taught that he was God. The book of Hebrews is wrong when it says Jesus was “made like his brothers in every respect” if Jesus knew he was God (Hebrews 2:17). Jesus was not made like other humans in every way if Jesus was 100% God and 100% human at the same time. In fact, he would have been very different from other humans in many respects.

For example, in his God nature he would not have been tempted by anything (James 1:13), and his human part would not have been tempted either since his human nature had access to that same knowledge and assurance. It is written he was tempted in every way like we all are (Hebrews 4:15). Furthermore, God does not have the problems, uncertainty, and anxieties that humans do, and Jesus would not have had those either if he knew he was God. Also, Luke 2:52 says Jesus grew in wisdom, but his human part would have had access to his God part, which would have given him infinite and inherent wisdom. Hebrews says Jesus “learned obedience” by the things that he suffered, but again, the human part of Jesus would have accessed the God part of him and he would not have needed to learn anything.

 

[mikesw]

If it's natures you want. Then I give you this. And go right ahead after reading the following and tell me none of it makes sense and that I must be just making it all up...

The supposed “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible and contradicts the Bible and the laws of nature that God set up. Nothing can be 100% of two different things. Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, and that is not a “mystery” but it's a contradiction and a talk of nonsense. A fatal flaw in the “dual nature” theory is that both natures in Jesus would have had to have known about each other. The Jesus God nature would have known about his human nature, and (according to what the Trinitarians teach) his human nature knew he was God, which explains why Trinitarians say Jesus taught that he was God. The book of Hebrews is wrong when it says Jesus was “made like his brothers in every respect” if Jesus knew he was God (Hebrews 2:17). Jesus was not made like other humans in every way if Jesus was 100% God and 100% human at the same time. In fact, he would have been very different from other humans in many respects.

For example, in his God nature he would not have been tempted by anything (James 1:13), and his human part would not have been tempted either since his human nature had access to that same knowledge and assurance. It is written he was tempted in every way like we all are (Hebrews 4:15). Furthermore, God does not have the problems, uncertainty, and anxieties that humans do, and Jesus would not have had those either if he knew he was God. Also, Luke 2:52 says Jesus grew in wisdom, but his human part would have had access to his God part, which would have given him infinite and inherent wisdom. Hebrews says Jesus “learned obedience” by the things that he suffered, but again, the human part of Jesus would have accessed the God part of him and he would not have needed to learn anything.

so you have an extra-biblical preference against God sending his son to be incarnate among humanity.
Also, in Hebrews, it would mean nothing to say he was "made like his brothers in every respect” unless this was in light of his ultimate divinity in the Godhead. Like mentioned elsewhere, the mention of Christ Jesus as 100% man and 100% God seems primarily to avoid stuff like a rejection of Heb 2:17 or somehow being only partially divine. You would also have to say he is partially human. What would that even men? You also disallow that God could be able to accomplish this -- as his inability to interact in the way he sees fit within creation.
The Trinitarian doctrine provides constraints on how we correlate what we know about Christ Jesus. Trying to understand God and Christ in fullness is beyond the capability of humanity, but that does not mean we ought to deny who Christ is. Again, even if you have trouble understanding how Jesus is tempted while also divine, the verse only makes sense in light of his divinity. If he were a typical human, it would just have to say "though he was just a man he avoided following temptation." The simpler point would be that he became high priest because he was a simple man who never sinned." I just cannot follow the way you reverse the logic of the scriptures you share. But it was nice of you to share passages that point to the divinity of Christ in the Godhead.

 

[atpollard]

There's no teaching on the trinity anywhere in the Bible.

John 1 teaches Jesus is God (unequivocally) and then there is all three persons present at the same time in this ... In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; and a voice came out of the heavens: "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased." - [Mark 1:9-11] and there is the trinitarian authority (name) under which men are baptized ... "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," - [Mat 28:19].

You simply REFUSE to believe [which is a YOU problem rather than a SCRIPTURE problem].

 

[Peterlag]

John 1 teaches Jesus is God (unequivocally) and then there is all three persons present at the same time in this ... In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; and a voice came out of the heavens: "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased." - [Mark 1:9-11] and there is the trinitarian authority (name) under which men are baptized ... "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," - [Mat 28:19].

You simply REFUSE to believe [which is a YOU problem rather than a SCRIPTURE problem].

John 1:1
Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." The "Word" is not synonymous with Jesus, or even the "Messiah."

 

[Peterlag]

so you have an extra-biblical preference against God sending his son to be incarnate among humanity.
Also, in Hebrews, it would mean nothing to say he was "made like his brothers in every respect” unless this was in light of his ultimate divinity in the Godhead. Like mentioned elsewhere, the mention of Christ Jesus as 100% man and 100% God seems primarily to avoid stuff like a rejection of Heb 2:17 or somehow being only partially divine. You would also have to say he is partially human. What would that even men? You also disallow that God could be able to accomplish this -- as his inability to interact in the way he sees fit within creation.
The Trinitarian doctrine provides constraints on how we correlate what we know about Christ Jesus. Trying to understand God and Christ in fullness is beyond the capability of humanity, but that does not mean we ought to deny who Christ is. Again, even if you have trouble understanding how Jesus is tempted while also divine, the verse only makes sense in light of his divinity. If he were a typical human, it would just have to say "though he was just a man he avoided following temptation." The simpler point would be that he became high priest because he was a simple man who never sinned." I just cannot follow the way you reverse the logic of the scriptures you share. But it was nice of you to share passages that point to the divinity of Christ in the Godhead.

I would still like to know why it is important to believe Jesus is God? There's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. Such a concept accomplishes nothing.

 

[mikesw]

I would still like to know why it is important to believe Jesus is God? There's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. Such a concept accomplishes nothing.

We ought to know that this is God's action of sending his Son in an action different from everything that has happened before. Jesus is not Dalai Lama, nor a Mohammed, nor a Baháʼu'lláh, nor Confucius -- all who have only a temporal earthly credentials. The biblical prophets were common men of the Israel tribes who spoke God's message to people, but this was indirect between God and man. However, their message pointed to the unique one sent from God and is God's son. Jesus came as prophesied and was not a middleman but was the Son. This was God's greatest plea to his people to repent. So he was not someone claiming status with no historical context but arrived in accord with prophecy. Only the gift of God's Son on the cross could make the death something beyond simple martyrdom. Instead of an incidental martyrdom, it was the love of God doing this for us. This should be learned in church gatherings. You can see this action in the analog of Luk 20:9-18.
It is surprising that you have studied so much but have missed the big picture.

 

[atpollard]

John 1:1
Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." The "Word" is not synonymous with Jesus, or even the "Messiah."

I said John 1 (the CHAPTER) not John 1:1 (the single VERSE). That you chose to ignore the CHAPTER to attack just the single verse extracted from context PROVES my point that your unbelief is your choice, not any lack of understanding or holding of a contrary belief. You are resolute in your determination to reject the testimony of the Word of God ... and will reap whatsoever you sow.

John 3:16-18 [NLT]

"For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him. There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God's one and only Son."​

Romans 1:18-22 [NLT]

But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools.​