The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

[synergy]

We've already went over how the Lord they prayed to in Acts 1 is the same Lord who sent Jesus in Acts 3. We've already been discussing this.

Within Acts 1, it is clear that the name "Lord" is continuosly being ascribed to Jesus.

(Acts 1:6) Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

(Acts 1:21) “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

Then you want us to believe that all of a sudden in Acts 1:24, the Lord is no longer Jesus but is the Father, for no other reason than to support your judaizing unitarian heresity. Your English Linguistic Comprehension continues to so horrendous that it makes us all want to puke.

It's good that you're here because you demonstrate for all to see the faults behind your judaizing heresies.

 

[Runningman]

Within Acts 1, it is clear that the name "Lord" is continuosly being ascribed to Jesus.

(Acts 1:6) Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

(Acts 1:21) “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

Then you want us to believe that all of a sudden in Acts 1:24, the Lord is no longer Jesus but is the Father, for no other reason than to support your judaizing unitarian heresity. Your English Linguistic Comprehension continues to so horrendous that it makes us all want to puke.

It's good that you're here because you demonstrate for all to see the faults behind your judaizing heresies.

No that's all wrong. The Lord in Acts 1:24 isn't Jesus. No one ever prayed to Jesus in the Bible and Jesus never taught anyone to do that. The Lord in Acts 1:24 that they prayed to is the Father. That's the same Lord who sent Jesus in Acts 3:19,20. I understand this is a difficult pill for you and @everyone else here to swallow, but what you lack that is severely hindering your credibility are actually any examples or teachings about praying to Jesus.

Acts 1
24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

Acts 3
19Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

 

[Runningman]

What about it? When Jesus speaks of God he refers to the Father. This is true of the heavenly saint’s perspective that we are reconciled to the Father/God by the blood of the Lamb, the Son of God who is God the Son. The blood of God the Son reconciles us with God the Father.


Doug

Simple English dictates that God and the Lamb aren't the same person. So we have Revelation 5:9 where God and the Lamb are clearly not the same person. There is more.

Does this verse help clear it up for you?

Revelation 21
22And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

 

[mikesw]

Simple English dictates that God and the Lamb aren't the same person. So we have Revelation 5:9 where God and the Lamb are clearly not the same person. There is more.

Does this verse help clear it up for you?

Revelation 21
22And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

Wow. That is tremendous. They both are equally our Temple in testimony of the deity of Christ. It is great to find more of these verses. Someone would be against the testimony of Christ to deny his divinity in the Godhead here.

 

[Peterlag]

Huh? Heaven in its entirety will be worshipping and praying to both the Father and the Son, both sitting on the Father's Throne.

Everyone in Heaven will care. Where does that place you?

Nobody may care that they got it wrong because in heaven they will then have it right.

 

[synergy]

Nobody may care that they got it wrong because in heaven they will then have it right.

Huh? You're saying that everyone in Heaven "got it wrong" except you. That's a sheer denial of reality on your part, typical behavior for a judaizing unitarian heretic.

 

[synergy]

No that's all wrong. The Lord in Acts 1:24 isn't Jesus. No one ever prayed to Jesus in the Bible and Jesus never taught anyone to do that. The Lord in Acts 1:24 that they prayed to is the Father. That's the same Lord who sent Jesus in Acts 3:19,20. I understand this is a difficult pill for you and @everyone else here to swallow, but what you lack that is severely hindering your credibility are actually any examples or teachings about praying to Jesus.

Acts 1
24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

Here are more reasons why "Lord" refers to Jesus in Acts 1:24:

1. Jesus chose the original apostles: In Luke 6:13, Jesus personally chose the Twelve. Since this prayer is about choosing a replacement for Judas, it would make sense to pray to Jesus to reveal His choice.

2. In John 2:25, it says that Jesus knew what was in a person’s heart. "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all": The New Testament often emphasizes Jesus' ability to discern hearts.

3. In Acts 1:21-22, Peter says that Judas' replacement must be someone who had been with Jesus during His ministry. Since the focus is on Jesus' original choosing of the apostles, the prayer addresses Jesus.

4. The context of Acts 1 focuses on Jesus’ role in building the church.

Acts 3
19Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

Context, context, context.

The context of Acts 1:24 is significantly different than the context of Acts 3:19. They differ in terms of setting, purpose, and audience, which is why the word "Lord" refers to different persons in each passage.

The context of Acts 1:24:​

• Setting: The apostles are gathered in the Upper Room in Jerusalem after Jesus’ ascension. They are seeking guidance on who should replace Judas Iscariot as one of the Twelve.
• Purpose: They are praying to Lord Jesus, asking Him to reveal His choice for the new apostle (either Matthias or Justus). This moment emphasizes Jesus’s sovereignty in appointing leaders and His ability to know the hearts of men.
• Audience: The prayer is directed to Lord Jesus, and the apostles are the ones praying.

The context of Acts 3:19: ​

• Setting: Peter is preaching publicly at the temple (Solomon’s Portico) after healing a lame man.
• Purpose: To remind the crowd of the Lord (the Father in this case) and His plan that was previously preached to them.
• Audience: The Jewish crowd in Jerusalem.

Conclusion:
Your attempt to totally disregard context and to suddenly change who is being referred to as Lord in Acts 1:24, for no other reason than to promote your judaizing unitarian heresy, crashes and burns before your very eyes.

 

[civic]

Within Acts 1, it is clear that the name "Lord" is continuosly being ascribed to Jesus.

(Acts 1:6) Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

(Acts 1:21) “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

Then you want us to believe that all of a sudden in Acts 1:24, the Lord is no longer Jesus but is the Father, for no other reason than to support your judaizing unitarian heresity. Your English Linguistic Comprehension continues to so horrendous that it makes us all want to puke.

It's good that you're here because you demonstrate for all to see the faults behind your judaizing heresies.

Its really OBVIOUS its the same Lord in 21-24- that Lord is Jesus whom they prayed to so his bluff was called and his greek word came back to bite him. Paul also using that same greek word prayed to the Lord Jesus is Acts 9.

So he made a false claim saying its only used of the Father. His heterical beliefs were exposed once again concerning Christ.

Good job brother defending the truth about Christ and His Deity.

 

[synergy]

Its really OBVIOUS its the same Lord in 21-24- that Lord is Jesus whom they prayed to so his bluff was called and his greek word came back to bite him. Paul also using that same greek word prayed to the Lord Jesus is Acts 9.

So he made a false claim saying its only used of the Father. His heterical beliefs were exposed once again concerning Christ.

Good job brother defending the truth about Christ and His Deity.

I gave @Runningman many more reasons in Post #2467 explaining why his judaizing viewpoint crashes and burns. He continues to stay true to his name by always running away from context, linguistics, and logic and always running to judaizing heresies.

 

[Runningman]

Wow. That is tremendous. They both are equally our Temple in testimony of the deity of Christ. It is great to find more of these verses. Someone would be against the testimony of Christ to deny his divinity in the Godhead here.

Wow. Those who are part of the temple are God now? Pillars are part of the temple. Try again.

Revelation 3
12Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

 

[Runningman]

Here are more reasons why "Lord" refers to Jesus in Acts 1:24:

1. Jesus chose the original apostles: In Luke 6:13, Jesus personally chose the Twelve. Since this prayer is about choosing a replacement for Judas, it would make sense to pray to Jesus to reveal His choice.

2. In John 2:25, it says that Jesus knew what was in a person’s heart. "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all": The New Testament often emphasizes Jesus' ability to discern hearts.

3. In Acts 1:21-22, Peter says that Judas' replacement must be someone who had been with Jesus during His ministry. Since the focus is on Jesus' original choosing of the apostles, the prayer addresses Jesus.

4. The context of Acts 1 focuses on Jesus’ role in building the church.

Context, context, context.

The context of Acts 1:24 is significantly different than the context of Acts 3:19. They differ in terms of setting, purpose, and audience, which is why the word "Lord" refers to different persons in each passage.

The context of Acts 1:24:​

• Setting: The apostles are gathered in the Upper Room in Jerusalem after Jesus’ ascension. They are seeking guidance on who should replace Judas Iscariot as one of the Twelve.
• Purpose: They are praying to Lord Jesus, asking Him to reveal His choice for the new apostle (either Matthias or Justus). This moment emphasizes Jesus’s sovereignty in appointing leaders and His ability to know the hearts of men.
• Audience: The prayer is directed to Lord Jesus, and the apostles are the ones praying.

The context of Acts 3:19: ​

• Setting: Peter is preaching publicly at the temple (Solomon’s Portico) after healing a lame man.
• Purpose: To remind the crowd of the Lord (the Father in this case) and His plan that was previously preached to them.
• Audience: The Jewish crowd in Jerusalem.

Conclusion:
Your attempt to totally disregard context and to suddenly change who is being referred to as Lord in Acts 1:24, for no other reason than to promote your judaizing unitarian heresy, crashes and burns before your very eyes.

But you are only begging the question. The matter is that there is no precedent for praying to Jesus. No one ever did it by example nor is that something Jesus taught his disciples. The way your logic works is that randomly out of the blue they started praying to Jesus when it doesn't match the context. Yes it's true that the Father and Jesus are both a Lord, but they aren't the same Lord nor were non-understanding people meant to misrepresent it.

The only Lord in the context of Acts 1:24 and Acts 3:19,20 would be the Father. The Father is the one who sent Jesus Christ (John 17:1-3) and He is the only true God. Matthew 6:6,9 shows that Jesus only ever taught on praying to the Father. Since the Lord sent Jesus and we only pray to the Father, then your interpretation falls flatout without any Biblical support to hold it up.

 

[Runningman]

I gave @Runningman many more reasons in Post #2467 explaining why his judaizing viewpoint crashes and burns. He continues to stay true to his name by always running away from context, linguistics, and logic and always running to judaizing heresies.

You said that then logged off. Who's running away now?

 

[mikesw]

Wow. Those who are part of the temple are God now? Pillars are part of the temple. Try again.

Revelation 3
12Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

If you disregard the original verse, you would almost have a point. We see again in Rev 21:22 that Jesus is not a pillar in the temple. He and God are the temple and thus equals, even though Jesus incarnate had temporally humbled himself by coming among humanity. Pillars are just placed within the temple and thus are not the whole temple, like the Son of God and God the Father.

You keep using eisegetical approaches to defend a weak unitarian thesis.

 

[Runningman]

If you disregard the original verse, you would almost have a point. We see again in Rev 21:22 that Jesus is not a pillar in the temple. He and God are the temple and thus equals, even though Jesus incarnate had temporally humbled himself by coming among humanity. Pillars are just placed within the temple and thus are not the whole temple, like the Son of God and God the Father.

You keep using eisegetical approaches to defend a weak unitarian thesis.

You take it too far because without the pillars the temple falls! God falls without the pillars? No sir. Furthermore, the Lamb is never said to be God, but rather a man in John 1. So of course God Almighty and the Lamb are not the same person in Rev. 21:22.

So the Lamb is a man, but God Almighty isn't a man.

John 1
29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

 

[mikesw]

You take it too far because without the pillars the temple falls! God falls without the pillars? No sir. Furthermore, the Lamb is never said to be God, but rather a man in John 1. So of course God Almighty and the Lamb are not the same person in Rev. 21:22.

So the Lamb is a man, but God Almighty isn't a man.

John 1
29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

You do not seem to remember that the humanness of Jesus in the incarnation is not an issue here. Also note that you highlighted Lamb of God which does not say, as you would wish, Lamb of man. When you get a complete argument against the divine origin of Christ Jesus, that would be useful for discussion.

 

[Peterlag]

Huh? You're saying that everyone in Heaven "got it wrong" except you. That's a sheer denial of reality on your part, typical behavior for a judaizing unitarian heretic.

Well, think about it for a minute. Not everyone got it wrong. I did not. But billions of people who say they are Christian believe Jesus is God and those people have it wrong. The thinking that Jesus is God is Catholic with deep roots with the Pagans and has nothing to do with the Bible. So now when those people get to heaven. Will they care that they got it wrong? Or will they just care that they made it and now see the truth. Will some of the billions ask but God why could you not have sent someone to show me the truth? And will one of those people be you? If so I hope I'm standing nearby.

 

[Runningman]

You do not seem to remember that the humanness of Jesus in the incarnation is not an issue here. Also note that you highlighted Lamb of God which does not say, as you would wish, Lamb of man. When you get a complete argument against the divine origin of Christ Jesus, that would be useful for discussion.

The Lamb of God is a man as John the Baptist said. The Lamb of God is not God since JTB didn't say so. Therefore, the Son of God being 100% human is compatible with Scripture. The Son of God being himself God is not a Biblical concept.

 

[mikesw]

Well, think about it for a minute. Not everyone got it wrong. I did not. But billions of people who say they are Christian believe Jesus is God and those people have it wrong. The thinking that Jesus is God is Catholic with deep roots with the Pagans and has nothing to do with the Bible. So now when those people get to heaven. Will they care that they got it wrong? Or will they just care that they made it and now see the truth. Will some of the billions ask but God why could you not have sent someone to show me the truth? And will one of those people be you? If so I hope I'm standing nearby.

I however would disagree. Abraham did start off as pagan but believed God. Moses maybe had basic introduction to the God of Abraham and Isaac but this was sufficient not to call him pagan. The Israel people usually followed pagan gods, but the prophets were aligned with the true God. So I would say the pagan influence was effectively non-existent.
It is also very boastful and exaggerating to say billions got it right but a little colony of people figured out the "true christ" and thus stand high above all others. If your doctrine is as messed up as other unitarians, it would be best to hide in a little corner and hope at least you will still be accepted by Christ.

 

[mikesw]

The Lamb of God is a man as John the Baptist said. The Lamb of God is not God since JTB didn't say so. Therefore, the Son of God being 100% human is compatible with Scripture. The Son of God being himself God is not a Biblical concept.

Wow. Really? You think John the Baptist was supposed to know all the nature of the Messiah within the depths of the prophecies? I'm not sure why he had to know the deity of Christ when no one fully grasped that until really the end of Christ's incarnation and not really until the Day of Pentecost. You put the standard too high so as even to deny even Jesus' testimony of his divinity in the Godhead and to reject the testimony of the fourth gospel. However, most people can recognize the testimony of Jesus, the prophets, Paul, the Apostles, etc...

 

[TibiasDad]

Simple English dictates that God and the Lamb aren't the same person.

The Father and the Lamb are not the same person, and no one is saying anything otherwise. Both are equally God in nature.

So we have Revelation 5:9 where God and the Lamb are clearly not the same person. There is more.

Does this verse help clear it up for you?

Revelation 21
22And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

I didn’t need anything cleared up; your understanding of what I believe is apparently is a little foggy though.


Doug