The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

[Fred]

No one ever taught anything concerning prayer to the son of man in Scripture. The son of man didn't teach that. No sermon I've ever heard mentioned it. No commentaries I've read mentioned it. I believe in your zeal to find reasons to pray to Jesus you have gone done a very dark and confusing path. Come back to the light. Jesus taught us to the pray to the Father in Matthew 6:6,9. The choice is yours.

Total dodge of Daniel.

Come back and stop hiding.

 

[Runningman]

To be the proper recipient of pelach (Daniel 6:16) is to be the proper recipient of prayer (Daniel 6:10).

Can you explain what you mean by your reference to Daniel 6:16.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Because all three Persons are being worshiped.

You can claim to worship 3 persons because God is not a Person but a class or category… and if that is your position, then it is consistent… consistent with polytheism… and completely alien to the monotheism that Jesus practiced.

Jesus is mentioned first in the prayer.
You dodged this fact. Why?

Because it is irrelevant for the discussion. The Father is called God, and Jesus is not.
Even if the Father were mentioned in thirteenth place of a list, if He is called God and none of the other 12 persons of the list is called God, we have our answer: The Father is the Only and True God.
Look at this sentence:
“I am surprised and humbled by this award. I wanna thank tonight my mother Karen, my wife Susan, Professor Gray, my loyal friend Arthur, Reverend Taylor and my God.”

Now, it is time for me to ask you openly and directly:
Are you dodging the fact that in the verse you quoted, Paul gives the title God to the Father and not to Jesus?

No, because "Lord" when applied to Jesus means YHWH.

Jesus can’t be YHVH and the Son of YHVH at the same time. The messianic passages of the Tanakh, Acts 3:13 as well as the way Jesus refers to The God of Israel in third person, directly refute your proposition.
Coming back to the verse you quoted from 2 Thessalonians, why would Paul have the habit of giving the term Theos to the Father, but Kurios to Jesus? Why not the other way around?

 

[Fred]

Can you explain what you mean by your reference to Daniel 6:16.

One of the ways Daniel rendered pelach (Daniel 6:16) was by his prayers (Daniel 6:10).

 

[Fred]

Because it is irrelevant for the discussion.

No, it isn't.
A monotheist would not put a creature before the Creator in prayer.

Now, it is time for me to ask you openly and directly:
Are you dodging the fact that in the verse you quoted, Paul gives the title God to the Father and not to Jesus?

Irrelevant, because Jesus is "Lord" in that He is YHWH.
I already pointed this out.
This time try reading it.

Jesus can’t be YHVH and the Son of YHVH at the same time.

Zero proof given by you to back up your claim.

Acts 3:13

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-bible-does-not-teach-to-pray-to-jesus.2040/page-10#post-113475

 

[Runningman]

One of the ways Daniel rendered pelach (Daniel 6:16) was by his prayers (Daniel 6:10).

So you've proven Daniel didn't serve or pray to Jesus. The "son of man" or "son of God" isn't who YHWH is identified as in the OT. You're wanting to merge Jesus into being God. How are you going to directly do that?

 

[Fred]

So you've proven

I have proven that prayer is a component of pelach.

 

[Runningman]

I have proven that prayer is a component of pelach.

There's more to it than that. You would also need to prove that the grammar is matching the context. In the context, is the Son of Man the same person as the Ancient of Days? @TomL said replied to my question "The son of man is not the Ancient of Days. True or False." with a True in comment #642.

 

[Fred]

There's more to it than that.

No, there isn't.

 

[Runningman]

No, there isn't.

You still have the Daniel 7:27 problem in which the sovereignty and dominion is given to the people and then it refers to the "everlasting kingdom" that was given to the son of man in Daniel 7:14. "Son of man" refers to a son of a human in scripture. The son of man is one of the people in all of the context of Daniel 7. Can't be God.

 

[Fred]

You still have the Daniel 7:27 problem

I have already addressed this.

Look for a new rock to turn over.

 

[Runningman]

I have already addressed this.

Look for a new rock to turn over.

Looks like the son of man isn't God. Keep in mind this chapter deals heavily with eschatology so I can lean on some things from Revelation. The sovereignty that was given to the people refers to the saints reigning with Jesus. Jesus is one of the people.

Revelation 20
4Then I saw the thrones, and those seated on them had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image, and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

5The rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand years were complete. This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection! The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

 

[Fred]

Looks like the son of man isn't God.

Which proves you are not looking.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

No, it isn't.
A monotheist would not put a creature before the Creator in prayer.

1. A monotheist does not call God anyone who is not God. Paul is a monotheist, just like his parents and granparents.
2. In 2 Thes 2:16 and 17 Paul is not praying but expressing a wish.
3. If you are so keen on the order in which names appear in such expressions, you may want to explain to our readers why Paul mentions The Father before Jesus Christ in 1 Thes 1:1 | 1 Thes 1:3 | 1 Thes 3:11 | 1 Thes 3:13 | 2 Thes 1:1 | 2 Thes 1:2 , among many other places.
4. Your attempt to present 2 Thes 2:16 as supporting the deity of Jesus has been refuted.

Irrelevant, because Jesus is "Lord" in that He is YHWH.
I already pointed this out.
This time try reading it.

Jesus is NOT YHWH, but His son. Peter already point this out. Try reading his words, recorded by Luke, in Acts 3:13, and share with our readers how you interpret that passage.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Zero proof given by you to back up your claim.

Dear readers

Fred states that I have provided “zero proof” that Jesus is not YHWH, but the Son of YHWH

The proof is clear and I have mentioned several times. I gladly do it again:

• In Exodus 3:14,15, we learn that YHWH is “THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB” or “ THE GOD OF YOUR ANCESTORS”.
• In Acts 3:13, Peter presents Jesus Christ as the Son of “THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB”, “THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS”

So, Jesus is not YHWH, but the Son of YHWH.

In addition, for those interested, I can present further evidence from the mouth of Jesus Himself, and from messianic prophecies, that Jesus is not YHWH but a Servant and Worshiper of YHWH

 

[TomL]

There's more to it than that. You would also need to prove that the grammar is matching the context. In the context, is the Son of Man the same person as the Ancient of Days? @TomL said replied to my question "The son of man is not the Ancient of Days. True or False." with a True in comment #642.

Of course not. The son is not the father and the father is not the son

 

[synergy]

This was already debunked in a previous post.

The one among the people the dominion was given is the son of man, not the Ancient of Days.

That's in line with what I mentioned earlier. In fact, he was given glory which reinforces the fact that the Son of Man is God.

Daniel 7
13“I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
14And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

Now skip to the end of the chapter... the one they are serving is not God. They are serving the son of man.

Daniel 7
27And the kingdom and the dominion
and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven
shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High;
his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom,
and all dominions shall serve and obey him.’

They are serving the Son of Man the same way Israelites served Jehovah God as recorded in Eze 20:40.

A few important points here. Firstly, the son of man is never worshipped or prayed to as God in the context. Jesus and God are within vicinity of each other and clearly distinct one from the other.

Again, the Son of Man is worshiped the same way as the Israelites worshiped Jehovah God, as recorded in Eze 20:40.

Two, this proves that the son of man (Jesus) is one from among the people, not God. Three, most translations and commentators affirm these points.

Nope. The people are given rule but they will worship (δουλευσουσιν) the one whose dominion shall never end: the Son of Man.

Conclusion, Jesus is not God nor does servitude translate to worship/prayer when in the direct context the one being served is a human.

Conclusion: Since the Son of Man is worshipped (δουλευσουσιν) as Jehovah God is worshipped in Exe 20;40 and since the Son of Man is given glory as glory is only given to God, then Jesus is God.

 

[synergy]

Dear readers

Fred states that I have provided “zero proof” that Jesus is not YHWH, but the Son of YHWH

The proof is clear and I have mentioned several times. I gladly do it again:

• In Exodus 3:14,15, we learn that YHWH is “THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB” or “ THE GOD OF YOUR ANCESTORS”.
• In Acts 3:13, Peter presents Jesus Christ as the Son of “THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB”, “THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS”

So, Jesus is not YHWH, but the Son of YHWH.

It makes perfect Trinitarian sense that Jesus (God the Son) is the Son of God the Father. We already went through how the word "God" denotes either Person or Nature based on context.

In addition, for those interested, I can present further evidence from the mouth of Jesus Himself, and from messianic prophecies, that Jesus is not YHWH but a Servant and Worshiper of YHWH

Give me one, just one verse, where Jesus explicitly says that he is not YHWH and which is not based on Judaizing conjectures.

 

[Complete]

'And whatsoever ye shall ask in My name,
that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.'
(Joh.14:13)

'If ye shall ask any thing in My name, I will do it.'
(Joh.14:14)

'Ye have not chosen Me,
but I have chosen you, and ordained you,
that ye should go and bring forth fruit,
and that your fruit should remain:
that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in My name,
He may give it you.'
(Joh.15:16)

'And in that day ye shall ask Me nothing.
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in My name,
He will give it you.'
(Joh.16:23)

Hitherto have ye asked nothing in My name:
ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.'
(Joh.16:24)

'At that day ye shall ask in My name:
and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
For the Father Himself loveth you,
because ye have loved Me,
and have believed that I came out from God.
I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world:
again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. '
(Joh.16:26-28)

Hello there,

These words were spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ to His disciples. He says that they should 'ask' the Father, in His Name. To the Father for the Father loved them because they loved His only begotten Son, Who was now returning to the Father.

'That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.
He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him. '
(Joh 5:23)

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[TomL]

This was already debunked in a previous post.

The one among the people the dominion was given is the son of man, not the Ancient of Days.

Daniel 7
13“I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
14And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.


Now skip to the end of the chapter... the one they are serving is not God. They are serving the son of man.

Daniel 7
27And the kingdom and the dominion
and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven
shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High;
his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom,
and all dominions shall serve and obey him.’

A few important points here. Firstly, the son of man is never worshipped or prayed to as God in the context. Jesus and God are within vicinity of each other and clearly distinct one from the other. Two, this proves that the son of man (Jesus) is one from among the people, not God. Three, most translations and commentators affirm these points.

Conclusion, Jesus is not God nor does servitude translate to worship/prayer when in the direct context the one being served is a human.

False conclusion

All that can be concluded is the son of man is not the ancient of days

The verse says nothing which would deny the trinity doctrine which does not insist they are the same person

Your verse may be problematic for a modalist, but it is not for a trinitarian