The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

[synergy]

So you lost your kurious argument, but that isn't enough. I need to root you out of every hole of heresy you've nested in until you have no where else to go? Is it really going to take that?

It's not a hole that I'm in and it's not heresy that I promote. It is the entire Bible I promote and your judaizing heresies have been exposed countless times. This time you wish to degrade all occurrences of kurios (Lord) down to "according to the flesh" which makes the Father our kurios (Lord) "according to the flesh". Sheer heresy on your part.

 

[MTMattie]

removed duplicate

 

[TomL]

Blah blah blah. Your "Jesus is God because he's kurious" argument was shot down and crashed and burned. Don't use that argument again.

Your 1 John 1:1 argument does not fly

James L. Boyer wrote an article that is helpful here, "Relative Clauses in the Greek New Testament: A Statistical Study," Grace Theological Journal 9 (Fall 1988): 233-256. I will quote the relevant part of his conclusions on 1 John 1, but then challenge his ideas with an alternative using his own categories. Points in the quote below particular relevant to the discussion here are bolded by me. Boyer states generally of relative pronoun agreement (245): Since a relative has connections with both the antecedent and the relative clause, its grammatical identifiers (gender, number, and case) do double duty . Normally, gender and number agree with the antecedent, but the case of the relative is determined by its grammatical function in its own clause. This normal rule is true in the NT more than 96% of the time. The exceptions to this rule are often called by grammarians The “ad sensum” agreement, i.e., agreement in sense but not in grammatical form. exceptions may be listed in five categories. He also states in footnote 20 on the title of his section about agreement: For the rest of this section on the mechanics of relative clauses, I have depended largely on the thorough work of A. T. Robertson ([A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in theLight of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934)], 714–22). Very helpful also is the discussion of ὅς in BAGD, 583-85. So that gives you his sources. Now one of those five exception categories he refers to as the "Neuter of Abstraction," which he classifies the 1 John 1 within (247): In the NT as also classical Greek, and especially in John’s writings, the neuter is frequently used of a person when he is being thought of in an abstract way 29 . This happens at least 6 times in which a neuter relative is used to refer to an antecedent who is obviously a person. An example is found in John 17:24: Πάτερ, ὅ δέδωκάς µοι, θέλω ἵνα ὅπου ἐιµὶ ἐγὼ κἀκεῖνοι ὦσιν µετ ̓ ἐµοῦ, “Father, I desire that they also whom [the neuter, ὅ] Thou has given Me be with Me where I am.” The antecedent is obviously not impersonal. This abstract neuter is used elsewhere of God (John 4:22) and of men (John 6:37, 39; 17:2 ; 1 John 5:4)

 

[Runningman]

So that's your counterargument against Jesus being kurios not according to the flesh.

I've refined my argument thanks to you. You are a great help in helping me to pinpoint exactly the difference between how the Apostles used the word kurios for Jesus & the Father and how they used the same word for everyone else. You've helped many times before in other occasions such as Rev 3:21. I can't thank you enough.

There is no counter argument to make because kurious isn't a direct 1:1 relation to God. As I already showed you, kurious applies to people like Jesus and other humans.

 

[Runningman]

Why do you keep on rejecting scripture? Is it because you had an encounter with what you thought was God so you hold that as more important than scripture? Maybe you can describe why that supposed vision or encounter is so persuasive.

You want to jump on the same sinking ship @synergy is on. Ok, thank you for the oppurtunity to continue to push the same irrefutable point that kurious applies to humans in the Bible.

There's at least a dozen examples of regular earthly masters being called kurious. It isn't exclusive to God or Jesus.

Matthew 10
24The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. 25It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

Ephesians 6
5Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

Colossians 3
22Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:

 

[Runningman]

Yep

Mark 12:29 (LEB) — 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Listen, Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

Lord here is kurios

Kurios substitutes for Jehovah of the Old Testament

Deu 6:4 "Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.

Try to stay on track. @synergy 's failed argument was that because God in kurious in the LXX and Jesus was called kurious that it means he's God. That's a big error because this very word applies to humans too. Kurious isn't an exclusive God title.

There's at least a dozen examples of regular earthly masters being called kurious. It isn't exclusive to God or Jesus.

Matthew 10
24The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. 25It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

Ephesians 6
5Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

Colossians 3
22Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:

 

[Runningman]

Why is it that you never actually provide the biblical translation that says what you insist is correct.
There is not one that I can find that says what you claim here.
Not even the twisted New World Translation which says

1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
2. This one was in the beginning with God.
3. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

And even while this JW translation calls the Word a god (little g) it does not call Him a thing.

So unless you are willing to put up what you claim for all to examine you are merely a spoiler who knows not what he speaks.

You will probably find the Word being called an "it" in 1 John 1:2 in almost any version your happen to stumble upon. I provided the verse from the KJV, but if you want the translation then don't assign it to me to do it. Why don't you go look it up? Do you know how to find it?

 

[TomL]

Your 1 John 1:1 argument does not fly

James L. Boyer wrote an article that is helpful here, "Relative Clauses in the Greek New Testament: A Statistical Study," Grace Theological Journal 9 (Fall 1988): 233-256. I will quote the relevant part of his conclusions on 1 John 1, but then challenge his ideas with an alternative using his own categories. Points in the quote below particular relevant to the discussion here are bolded by me. Boyer states generally of relative pronoun agreement (245): Since a relative has connections with both the antecedent and the relative clause, its grammatical identifiers (gender, number, and case) do double duty . Normally, gender and number agree with the antecedent, but the case of the relative is determined by its grammatical function in its own clause. This normal rule is true in the NT more than 96% of the time. The exceptions to this rule are often called by grammarians The “ad sensum” agreement, i.e., agreement in sense but not in grammatical form. exceptions may be listed in five categories. He also states in footnote 20 on the title of his section about agreement: For the rest of this section on the mechanics of relative clauses, I have depended largely on the thorough work of A. T. Robertson ([A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in theLight of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934)], 714–22). Very helpful also is the discussion of ὅς in BAGD, 583-85. So that gives you his sources. Now one of those five exception categories he refers to as the "Neuter of Abstraction," which he classifies the 1 John 1 within (247): In the NT as also classical Greek, and especially in John’s writings, the neuter is frequently used of a person when he is being thought of in an abstract way 29 . This happens at least 6 times in which a neuter relative is used to refer to an antecedent who is obviously a person. An example is found in John 17:24: Πάτερ, ὅ δέδωκάς µοι, θέλω ἵνα ὅπου ἐιµὶ ἐγὼ κἀκεῖνοι ὦσιν µετ ̓ ἐµοῦ, “Father, I desire that they also whom [the neuter, ὅ] Thou has given Me be with Me where I am.” The antecedent is obviously not impersonal. This abstract neuter is used elsewhere of God (John 4:22) and of men (John 6:37, 39; 17:2 ; 1 John 5:4)

Further

1 John 1:1–3 (NET 2nd ed.) — 1 This is what we proclaim to you: what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched (concerning the word of life—2 and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and announce to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us). 3 What we have seen and heard we announce to you too, so that you may have fellowship with us (and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ).

with the note

tn The phrase “This is what we proclaim to you” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to clarify the English. The main verb which governs all of these relative clauses is ἀπαγγέλλομεν (apangellomen) in v. 3. This is important for the proper understanding of the relative clauses in v. 1, because the main verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν in v. 3 makes it clear that all of the relative clauses in vv. 1 and 3 are the objects of the author’s proclamation to the readers rather than the subjects. To indicate this the phrase “This is what we proclaim to you” has been supplied at the beginning of v. 1.

Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible (Second Edition.; Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019).

 

[synergy]

There is no counter argument to make because kurious isn't a direct 1:1 relation to God.

Explain what you mean.

As I already showed you, kurious applies to people like Jesus and other humans.

What about the Father?

 

[Runningman]

Your 1 John 1:1 argument does not fly

James L. Boyer wrote an article that is helpful here, "Relative Clauses in the Greek New Testament: A Statistical Study," Grace Theological Journal 9 (Fall 1988): 233-256. I will quote the relevant part of his conclusions on 1 John 1, but then challenge his ideas with an alternative using his own categories. Points in the quote below particular relevant to the discussion here are bolded by me. Boyer states generally of relative pronoun agreement (245): Since a relative has connections with both the antecedent and the relative clause, its grammatical identifiers (gender, number, and case) do double duty . Normally, gender and number agree with the antecedent, but the case of the relative is determined by its grammatical function in its own clause. This normal rule is true in the NT more than 96% of the time. The exceptions to this rule are often called by grammarians The “ad sensum” agreement, i.e., agreement in sense but not in grammatical form. exceptions may be listed in five categories. He also states in footnote 20 on the title of his section about agreement: For the rest of this section on the mechanics of relative clauses, I have depended largely on the thorough work of A. T. Robertson ([A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in theLight of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934)], 714–22). Very helpful also is the discussion of ὅς in BAGD, 583-85. So that gives you his sources. Now one of those five exception categories he refers to as the "Neuter of Abstraction," which he classifies the 1 John 1 within (247): In the NT as also classical Greek, and especially in John’s writings, the neuter is frequently used of a person when he is being thought of in an abstract way 29 . This happens at least 6 times in which a neuter relative is used to refer to an antecedent who is obviously a person. An example is found in John 17:24: Πάτερ, ὅ δέδωκάς µοι, θέλω ἵνα ὅπου ἐιµὶ ἐγὼ κἀκεῖνοι ὦσιν µετ ̓ ἐµοῦ, “Father, I desire that they also whom [the neuter, ὅ] Thou has given Me be with Me where I am.” The antecedent is obviously not impersonal. This abstract neuter is used elsewhere of God (John 4:22) and of men (John 6:37, 39; 17:2 ; 1 John 5:4)

The Word being called an it in 1 John 1:1-3 flies because it directly says such. A theological argument won't help you contradict what 1 John 1:1-3 says. Provide a grammatical argument to explain why dozens of Greek experts got it wrong and you, a lone wolf, on a random message board is right. Thank you.

 

[synergy]

You want to jump on the same sinking ship @synergy is on. Ok, thank you for the oppurtunity to continue to push the same irrefutable point that kurious applies to humans in the Bible.

You just demoted the Father to just a human every time He is called kurios (Lord) in the NT! Well done!

 

[TomL]

Try to stay on track. @synergy 's failed argument was that because God in kurious in the LXX and Jesus was called kurious that it means he's God. That's a big error because this very word applies to humans too. Kurious isn't an exclusive God title.

There's at least a dozen examples of regular earthly masters being called kurious. It isn't exclusive to God or Jesus.

Matthew 10
24The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. 25It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

Ephesians 6
5Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

Colossians 3
22Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:

That simply ignores the use of Kurios in the cited verse

Kurios can be and is used as a substitute for the divine name (Yahweh) God

Mark 12:29 (LEB) — 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Listen, Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

It has a higher and lower use

The context in which it is used is critical and you cannot dismiss the higher use by appeal to passages which clearly are addressing the lower earthly fleshly masters use

 

[Runningman]

You just demoted the Father to just a human every time He is called kurios (Lord) in the NT! Well done!

Now you turn on God so easily when your pride takes a hit. Why can't God stay Lord of heaven and earth, Jesus the Lord of the church, and other lords/masters the same over their household, business or otherwise? You take a very ridgid approach to language. Koine Greek wasn't invented exclusively to talk about who God is.

 

[Runningman]

That simply ignores the use of Kurios in the cited verse

Kurios can be and is used as a substitute for the divine name (Yahweh) God

Mark 12:29 (LEB) — 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Listen, Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

It has a higher and lower use

The context in which it is used is critical and you cannot dismiss the higher use by appeal to passages which clearly are addressing the lower earthly fleshly masters

Kurious is used to refer to others who aren't God or Jesus. The Bible makes my argument for me. If you don't believe Scripture just say so.

 

[TomL]

The Word being called an it in 1 John 1:1-3 flies because it directly says such. A theological argument won't help you contradict what 1 John 1:1-3 says. Provide a grammatical argument to explain why dozens of Greek experts got it wrong and you, a lone wolf, on a random message board is right. Thank you.

You just ignored my arguments and the fact that neuter pronouns were used to refer to God and men

T

Post in thread 'The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus'

Feb 28, 2025

Blah blah blah. Your "Jesus is God because he's kurious" argument was shot down and crashed and burned. Don't use that argument again.

Your 1 John 1:1 argument does not fly

James L. Boyer wrote an article that is helpful here, "Relative Clauses in the Greek New Testament: A Statistical Study," Grace Theological Journal 9 (Fall 1988): 233-256. I will quote the relevant part of his conclusions on 1 John 1, but then challenge his ideas with an alternative using his own categories. Points in the quote below particular relevant to the discussion here are bolded by me. Boyer states...

• TomL

T

Post in thread 'The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus'

Feb 28, 2025

Your 1 John 1:1 argument does not fly

James L. Boyer wrote an article that is helpful here, "Relative Clauses in the Greek New Testament: A Statistical Study," Grace Theological Journal 9 (Fall 1988): 233-256. I will quote the relevant part of his conclusions on 1 John 1, but then challenge his ideas with an alternative using his own categories. Points in the quote below particular relevant to the discussion here are bolded by me. Boyer states generally of relative pronoun agreement (245): Since a relative has connections with both the antecedent and the relative clause, its...

• TomL

 

[Runningman]

Explain what you mean.

What about the Father?

Because it's used to talk about humans lords/masters as well.

 

[Runningman]

You just ignored my arguments and the fact that neuter pronouns were used to refer to God and men

T

Post in thread 'The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus'

Feb 28, 2025

Blah blah blah. Your "Jesus is God because he's kurious" argument was shot down and crashed and burned. Don't use that argument again.

Your 1 John 1:1 argument does not fly

James L. Boyer wrote an article that is helpful here, "Relative Clauses in the Greek New Testament: A Statistical Study," Grace Theological Journal 9 (Fall 1988): 233-256. I will quote the relevant part of his conclusions on 1 John 1, but then challenge his ideas with an alternative using his own categories. Points in the quote below particular relevant to the discussion here are bolded by me. Boyer states...

• TomL

T

Post in thread 'The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus'

Feb 28, 2025

Your 1 John 1:1 argument does not fly

James L. Boyer wrote an article that is helpful here, "Relative Clauses in the Greek New Testament: A Statistical Study," Grace Theological Journal 9 (Fall 1988): 233-256. I will quote the relevant part of his conclusions on 1 John 1, but then challenge his ideas with an alternative using his own categories. Points in the quote below particular relevant to the discussion here are bolded by me. Boyer states generally of relative pronoun agreement (245): Since a relative has connections with both the antecedent and the relative clause, its...

• TomL

No you didn't explain how you are right and the Bible is wrong. The vast majority of translators do not call the Word a he in 1 John 1:1-3 because they are talking about a thing. In context, the Word is a thing because the Word is eternal life.

 

[TomL]

Kurious is used to refer to others who aren't God or Jesus. The Bible makes my argument for me. If you don't believe Scripture just say so.

Sorry, it is also used for almighty God.

Why do you ignore that?

Do you not believe scripture or do you interpret scripture apart from context

 

[synergy]

Now you turn on God so easily when your pride takes a hit. Why can't God stay Lord of heaven and earth, Jesus the Lord of the church, and other lords/masters the same over their household, business or otherwise? You take a very ridgid approach to language. Koine Greek wasn't invented exclusively to talk about who God is.

It's you that made the blanket statement "kurious applies to humans in the Bible", not me!! Why do you desecrate the Father that way?

I have no problem saying the Father is Lord according to the Spirit!

 

[MTMattie]

mikesw said:

Why do you keep on rejecting scripture? Is it because you had an encounter with what you thought was God so you hold that as more important than scripture? Maybe you can describe why that supposed vision or encounter is so persuasive.

You replied:

You want to jump on the same sinking ship @synergy is on. Ok, thank you for the oppurtunity to continue to push the same irrefutable point that kurious applies to humans in the Bible.

There's at least a dozen examples of regular earthly masters being called kurious. It isn't exclusive to God or Jesus.

Matthew 10
24The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. 25It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

Ephesians 6
5Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

Colossians 3
22Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:

Why do you never answer a question directly?