The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

[TomL]

what rest?

yes another of the SAME SORT......... READ. remember in English, "another" also in Greek is G2087 ἕτερος heteros (he'-te-ros) which is notG243 ἄλλος allos (al'-los) .... (smile) ... uh o.....

Hello

that is still two

And that would describe the trinitarian view of father and son

go to bible hub and look up on the verse Isaiah 41:4 "the Last" and see what Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions says....... (smile). and see what Isaiah 48:12 states... oh too easy.

see what Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions says about the Last

101G

No need i have it in multiple versions

You are making assumptions as to the meaning of with the last

as commentary indicated and then assuming both cannot be first and last

 

[101G]

But consider

One praying to another - that is two

One sending another - that is two

One loving another - that is two

One obeying another that is two

One with another that is two

One the father another the son - that is two

see, you have not KNOWLEDGE of the H259 ECHAD..... Learn it please..... EQUAL SHARE.

now who is it that sits on the throne?

101G.

 

[101G]

Hello

that is still two

no if it's the equal share of himself...

 

[Runningman]

If you would crack open an OT at least once in a while and you would have read statements like:

• 1 Kings 12:22 "But the Word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God, saying,"
• 1 Ch 17:3 "And it happened the same night the Word of God came to Nathan, saying,"

This proves that there were multiple Personal appearances of the Pre-Incarnate Word of God (Jesus) to OT Prophets. That clearly shows that the Pre-Incarnate Word of God was a Communicative Person who had all the attributes of a Person (Mind, Will, Individuality, etc...)

Rev 19:11-16 just picks up on that fact and drives it home.

Bad theology. Your premise doesn't make any sense because the "word of God" speaks of God in the third person construct... meaning the "word of God" is not referring to itself as God. It also says it came to a "man of God" and you said a man is God already yet the "man of God" isn't God. Your theology seems to change as often as someone changes shirts.

Same issue with the "word of God" speaking of God in the third person perspective in 1 Ch 17:3. By verse 15 it's referred to as a vision.

Swing and a miss. Try again.

 

[synergy]

Do we need a list of verses that explicitly say that Peter is not God in order to accept that Peter is not God?
For any verse that I give you that points out to who is God, you could argue: "Well, Pancho, that verse does not say that Peter is not God."
How would you use the Bible to prove that you are not God?

Do you see the problem of your question?

No, but I do see all the dancing you're doing around the fact that you have not even one verse that explicitly supports your position. So you went from 150 conjecture verses to 0 explicit verses. What does that tell you if you remove all the dancing you're doing?

I can give you a large list of verses that say who is God.

So can I which include Jesus.

Anyone else not identified as God is not God, by definition.

So everyone not explicitly identified as human is not human? That's your logic right there.

Moreover, if the person being mentioned next to God is not identified as God, you can by definition rule that person out.

Judaizing conjectures deal with circumcision, festivities, meals and sacrifices. The Law of Moses.
I beg you to give us one single verse that shows that Judaizing people were concerned about the Trinity.
Otherwise, please retract your "Judaizing conjectures" from the discussion.

Judaizing Pharisees were concerned about the declared Divinity of Jesus in John 8. Those Pharisees are the Prototype Judaizing Unitarians.

 

[Runningman]

How about these in the New Testament

John 1:1–14 (KJV 1900) — 1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Philippians 2:3–8 (KJV 1900) — 3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. 4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

both clearly display a preincarnate being who became flesh

As afar as the Word that "became" flesh goes, as I already pointed out above, it doesn't match how this word is used in Scripture. We can work with the idea that the Word "became" flesh but became doesn't suggest an incarnation based on how it's used in the New Testament.

If that were true, as I already pointed out above, that would mean that when "there arose" a great storm in Matthew 8:24 that it the storm existed as something else before it was a storm, yet still retained the nature of a storm, but that isn't how storms coming into being. They are caused by the effect of wind, temperature, pressure and other factors that give rise to the conditions in which a storm can develop. Furthermore, when Jesus spoke to the storm, the weather became perfectly calm in Matthew 8:26. If we apply your incarnated word idea to Matthew 8:24-26 based on your interpretation of "became" in John 1:14, then the seas were calmed by Jesus' words rather than words of Jesus themselves becoming a calm sea.

There are hundreds of examples like this all over the New Testament that don't match what you're saying. Your idea about an incarnate Word is unprecedented.

 

[Runningman]

Here's a novel idea.....

Don't pray to Jesus.
Pray to the Father in Jesus name and you'll have resolved the perceived problem.

Just remember....

We are engaged to be married to Jesus.

Eph 5:32 WEB This mystery is great, but I speak concerning Christ and the assembly.


At some point, it strikes me that if we're told be married to him, we're going to want to be talking to and with him.

No problem praying directly to the Father as that's what I already do, as Jesus commanded.

 

[Runningman]

How about saying "Dear God"?

Heavenly Father or holy Father is how I typically address God.

 

[SteveB]

No problem praying directly to the Father as that's what I already do, as Jesus commanded.

Thinking about this further, I find myself remembering that Jesus is our high priest, and we're told to bring our needs to throne of grace. Hebrews 4.

This is yet another place where we want to talk to him.

 

[synergy]

Bad theology. Your premise doesn't make any sense because the "word of God" speaks of God in the third person construct... meaning the "word of God" is not referring to itself as God. It also says it came to a "man of God" and you said a man is God already yet the "man of God" isn't God. Your theology seems to change as often as someone changes shirts.

Same issue with the "word of God" speaking of God in the third person perspective in 1 Ch 17:3. By verse 15 it's referred to as a vision.

Swing and a miss. Try again.

Let's see what you asked for and I delivered:

Any examples from the OT where the pre-incarnate Word was saying or doing anything?

I did that and you are now frantically trying to save face by opening up whatever strawman rabbit hole your imagination can dream up. Even your rabbit holes are futile and pitiful. For example, your strawman idea that the man of God is God is ridiculous. You now embarrass yourself with strawmen in addition to your dirt poor basic logic and English poor skills.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Just because scripture declares He is a man noes not mean He is also not God as you assert. That is what is known as a false dichotomy fallacy. Scripture declares He is both regardless of the percentage of the claims to His humanity vs His Deity. One does not nullify the other. You are smart enough to realize this I'm sure.

Let me tell you,before anyting else, that I appreciate our exchanges because you value reason and respect all people.
I consider these virtues gifts from God and I thank you and thank God for the opportunity to hold these exchanges.

In regard to your post, I want two share two points:

1. I didn’t have in mind any particular dichotomy about Christ’s nature.
For Baha’is the nature of Christ as a Manifestation of God is a mystery.
So, pondering what “percentage”, so to speak, of Christ attributes were human vs divine is out of the my mental capacity and spiritual willingness.

2. A Greek priest would not have any problem with the following statement: “the fact that Hercules was human does not mean that Hercules was not also god”. A Jewish priest, though, would have never agreed with the proposition “the fact that the Messiah will be a man does not mean that He won’t be also God”. This is because God, for a Jew in the post-exile period, was not a kind, category or class, but One Person, YHWH.
So, that’s the big difference between the polytheistic Greek perspective and the monotheistic Jew perspective.
I think The Trinity developed during the first two centuries to enable Greeks, Romans and other nations to digest the notion of a Messiah who comes from God, returns to God, takes us to God, but is not God.

I find nothing evil in the historical development of the Trinity. It enabled millions to start learning about Christ. I just think it is mistaken.
The only thing I find absolutely evil is to use the Trinity as an instrument to approve the eternal damnation of other people, to divide believers, to exert coercion and to validate bullying.

 

[synergy]

Let's review these three verses, 2 Pet 1:1, Titus 2:13 and Rom 9:5, where Christ is explicitly called God

What happened to the other 6 verses I presented? Did we lose them between the cracks?

They correspond to a vast number of instances where God and Christ are put next to each other. In all those instances, except these 3, Christ is not given the title God. The title God is given to another person who is not Christ. In some instances, the identity of such person called "God" is revealed: can you guess who is He?

Let's start with 2 Peter 1:1, because it is already late my brothers... I need to take my dog for a walk
How does the author(s) of the epistles of Peter treat God and Jesus when sitting next to each other in the same sentence? Lets see:

1. 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has given us a new birth
2. 1 Peter 2:5 You also, as living stones, are being built up into a spiritual house as a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ
3. 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also has once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God,
4. 1 Peter 4:11 If anyone serves, let him serve with the strength that God supplies, so that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ
5. 1 Peter 5:10 the God of all grace, who has called us to His eternal glory through Christ Jesus, will restore, support, strengthen, and establish you
6. 2 Peter 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

I have no problem understanding that in each one of those verses, "God" refers to the Father. That's why they weren't included in my list.

So we have 6 instances in which Jesus is presented as a person different from God, but not only that:

• In three of them (1 P 2:5m 1 P 4:11 and 1 P 5:10) Jesus is presented as a vehicle or instrument of God ("through Jesus Christ")
• In one of them, Jesus is presented as a person who bring us to God. (1 P 4:11)
• In one of them (1 P 1:3), God is identified explicitly as the Father of Jesus and God of Jesus.

2 Peter 1:1 should have been transcribed in such a way that could match 1 Peter 1:2
This means: "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and of our Savior Jesus Christ. Grace and peace be multiplied to you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord."

Ahhhhhh. So, you can do a better job than the Apostles and the English Translators? That's when and where cults or cultists are born.

If you want to sustain 1 Peter 1:1 as it is, then you must rule out the other 6 instances, because in all of them God is not Jesus.

Nope. 1 Pet 1:1 stands on its own. And there's absolutely no need to alter the word of God to suit one's heretical cult.

 

[synergy]

The only thing I find absolutely evil is to use the Trinity as an instrument to approve the eternal damnation of other people, to divide believers, to exert coercion and to validate bullying.

Some of the standards we live up to here are basic Human Logic and Critical Thinking, correct English Comprehension, correct Historical Accounts, correct Koine Greek Understanding, and many many other standards. If we don't live up to those standards, then what are we doing here? Of course, everyone is entitled to his/her own beliefs but when heresies are proclaimed we will not sit idly by. We will call out anyone who abuses those standards and promotes heresies. Now if the cultist starts crying in his soup that he is being bullied when we are calling him to a higher level of language, logic, and historical standards then that's his problem.

 

[TomL]

so are you saying that it is the Father who sits on the throne, yes or no.

101G

I am saying Jesus was on earth while another person who is in heaven referred to Jesus as his son

 

[TomL]

As afar as the Word that "became" flesh goes, as I already pointed out above, it doesn't match how this word is used in Scripture. We can work with the idea that the Word "became" flesh but became doesn't suggest an incarnation based on how it's used in the New Testament.

Sorry you mean you claimed while ignoring the context of the passages I mentioned

John 1:1–14 (KJV 1900) — 1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Philippians 2:3–8 (KJV 1900) — 3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. 4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

both clearly display a preincarnate being who became flesh

and I never did get you to explain how Phil 2:6 could ever refer to an impersonal thing

PS there is nothing about a storm in anything I posted

 

[TomL]

no if it's the equal share of himself...

UM that is still two.

 

[TomL]

see, you have not KNOWLEDGE of the H259 ECHAD..... Learn it please..... EQUAL SHARE.

now who is it that sits on the throne?

101G.

Echad is a compound unity - like a cluster of grapes

It is not a division of one grape

Your understanding of it is defective

 

[TomL]

ERROR is not the First WITH the Last? .... who is one person. God is not changing.

so is it the Father who sits on the throne in Rev. chapter 4 and 5 yes or no.

101G.

No you have made an assumption that I am the first and with the last is identical to I am the first and the last

and that attribute is only held by one person

In Rev 4% a good argument may be made for both the lamb and God

But the lamb took the book from him who sat on the throne and that points to two persons

 

[TomL]

so are you saying that it is the Father who sits on the throne, yes or no.

101G

There is no throne here

Who is God but not the father

Matthew 3:16–17 (KJV 1900) — 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Know anyone in heaven who bear a father to son relationship with Jesus

So easy for you to be wrong

 

[TomL]

what rest?

yes another of the SAME SORT......... READ. remember in English, "another" also in Greek is G2087 ἕτερος heteros (he'-te-ros) which is notG243 ἄλλος allos (al'-los) .... (smile) ... uh o.....

And that aligns perfectly with trinitarianism

Another still points to two

G2087 appears 99 times in the KJV

I copied its use in Matthew and it always indicates more than one person



Bible Search for strongs:G2087

King James Version 99 results in 94 verses
Matt 6:24	No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Matt 8:21	And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
Matt 11:3	And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?
Matt 12:45	Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.
Matt 15:30	And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus’ feet; and he healed them:
Matt 16:14 oops	And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.