You are dodging prayers to Jesus because it refutes your heresy.
The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
You are dodging prayers to Jesus because it refutes your heresy.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
If Peter knew and accepted your argument, why did Peter keep considering the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as different from Jesus?
Why didn't Peter seize such a wonderful opportunity to tell the Israelites: "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our Fathers, has taken flesh and walked with us, died on the cross and raised again for his own power and will?"
If Paul knew and accepted your argument, why did Paul kept considering God as separate from Jesus Christ when he talked about praying? Why didn't Paul seize the opportunity to teach that Jesus was a proper recipient of his prayers, because Jesus is God?
We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you. (Col 1:3)
Furthermore, why does Paul ask us to thank the Father, who Paul calls "God", through Jesus? If Jesus is God, why Paul considers Jesus a vehicle of our prayers and not the final recipient of our prayers?
And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. (Col 3:17)
Your argument is a non-sequitur and has been refuted by Paul himself through Colossians and other epistles.
Because Peter was not a Modalist.
Peter also knew the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer which proves He (Jesus) is God (Acts 2:21).
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
I am not dodging prayers to Jesus.
I see with good eyes that anyone pray to Jesus in some instances, as long as Jesus is considered a vehicle or intercessor before God, as the Bible teaches.
What Peter and Paul have refuted is your non-sequitur that, since it is OK to pray to Jesus in some circumstances, Jesus is God.
***
You can make one thousand accusations to your brothers of "dodging" and "hiding", while considering with sincerity that you are addressing arguments that you, actually, are not.
A moderator could be very useful in this kind of debates, so that nobody could be accused of that.
Is there any rule in the Forum that forbids to look for a moderator? I would like to have the opinion of the @Administrator
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Who is talking about modalism?
We both accept that Jesus is not The Father. That is not being questioned here.
Therefore, modalism is out of the scope of the argument.
What Peter is saying is that Jesus is not the God of Israel.
That's how Peter is refuting you.
If for a second time in 72 hours a Trinitarian is reading automatically "The Father" when the text says "God", he revealing, once again, that in his heart of hearts he knows who is the Only and True God: The Father.
I would like to call the attention of our friend @dwight92070 to this recurrent psychological phenomenon.
Most of our Trinitarians brothers are Unitarians living in a closet.
It would prove Jesus is God.
You have not because you cannot this evidence.
https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-trinity-made-easy.87/page-4#post-3446
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Dear readers
Our friend @Fred is using Acts 2:21 to support the idea that Peter knew that Jesus, as proper recipient of prayer, was God.
Actually, Acts 2:21 refers to the God of Israel, since Peter is quoting directly from the Book of Joel.
Quoting from the Orthodox Jewish translation:
32 (3:5) And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the Shem of Adonoi shall be saved; for in Mt Tziyon and in Yerushalayim shall be deliverance, as Hashem hath said, and in the seridim (remnant, survivors) whom Hashem shall call
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
That's why I am not using the argument "Jesus is not the Father". We both know and accept that.
What Peter is saying is that Jesus is not The God of Israel.
Now, will you address this?
So don't waste my time giving me passages where Jesus is not the Father.
You need to address the passages which prove Jesus is God.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
It is not hard to see how Fred's arguments are filled with non-sequiturs.
His adherence to a cherished argument seems to be a major obstacle to identify them.
Below the quote he kindly provided me the link to.
He first advance the premise that "one of the ways " to render latreuo is to pray.
From here, he jumps to saying "Thus, when one prays they are offering latreuo".
We could do follow the same deficient argumentative line to conclude that when one sings a hymn, one is offering latreuo
I wonder what Fred thinks of Jehova's witnesses claim that saluting the flag is rendering latreuo and therefore an act of idolatry.
His adherence to a cherished argument seems to be a major obstacle to identify them.
Below the quote he kindly provided me the link to.
He first advance the premise that "one of the ways " to render latreuo is to pray.
From here, he jumps to saying "Thus, when one prays they are offering latreuo".
We could do follow the same deficient argumentative line to conclude that when one sings a hymn, one is offering latreuo
- One of the ways to render latreuo is to sing a hymn
- Thus, when one sings a hymn, one is offering latreuo.
I wonder what Fred thinks of Jehova's witnesses claim that saluting the flag is rendering latreuo and therefore an act of idolatry.
You continue to have a serious English Comprehension problems, this time with Subject/Object Comprehension.That's what the Greek says. It's supported by all of scripture. Let's just use an example to from the Bible to demonstrate your fallacy.
Did Jesus' words become a calm sea or did they cause the sea to be calm?
Matthew 826He said to them, “Why are you afraid, you men of little faith?” Then He got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and it became perfectly calm.
In John 1:14, the Word (Jesus) is the object and became flesh.
In Matt 8:26, Jesus and his words are the subject (the causal agent), not the object. Water is the object and became calm.
My my. What a dirt poor understanding of subject/object concepts you possess. You continue to embarrass yourself.
I back up my assertion with citing passages.
Try it some time, because you didn't do it in your post.
Simple.
Sorry to enter this discussion so late but don't you sing hymns to God as part of your church's worship service?
The flag symbolizes our union, land, and its founding fathers, not God. So there's no worship there.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
The passage I am giving you does not say "Father".
Why do you think that the expression "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" of Acts 3:13 refers to the Father?
I understand why I think in those terms, but I don't get why you think in those terms.
As a Unitarian, when I read "God" I think in the Father.
But as a Trinitarian, you should be thinking "The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit". Why don't you do it, then?
****
Dear readers
As you can perceive, Fred, as many of our Trinitarian brothers, are intellectually (not spiritually) trapped in the closet.
When a Trinitarian reads “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son " in John 3:16, he visualizes "The Father" when he reads "God". But the text does not say "The Father", but "God".
Why doesn't he think in John 3:16 this way: "For The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit so loved the world that They gave Their only begotten Son..."
Why don't they preach that Jesus was sent by a Council in which He was also sitting? Why don't they preach that Jesus is the Son of a Council?
Certainly, the truth is that John 3:16 treas God and Jesus as two different beings. One being sending another being.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
The problem is not with the passages, but with the way you link premises with conclusions.
Following your logics, some could also "prove", supported by passages, that it is OK to
- stone homosexuals
- keep slavery
- declare biological evolution heresy
- avoid all blood transfusions
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Excellent. I agree.
I would just like to know why you are so sure.
evasion
