The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
101G
Well-known member
LOOK, don't worry about responding...... "Diversified Oneness" ....... this is not for you. you cannot comprehend this CLEAR TRUTH of GOD. .....
101G.
In your imaginationLOOK, don't worry about responding...... "Diversified Oneness" ....... this is not for you. you cannot comprehend this CLEAR TRUTH of GOD. .....
101G.
I repeat
It is a oneness of being but not of persons
You have the exact same person which is not diversity at all
No you deal with thisLOL, not a Physical throne.... lol, lol, nor a lazy boy type either.... lol, lol, . Listen and Learn. Hebrews 1:3 "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"
do you know what "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" or do you know and understand what this mean? Revelation 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." do you understand and know this?
Read the post 101G responded on this. just goto Genesis chapter 22 and see who spoke to Abraham from heaven about his .... "only begotten son" ...... (smile)....
101G.
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.
Who in heaven bears the relationship with Jesus so that he may be called the Father and Jesus the son.
Is a person their own father ? own son?
Runningman
Well-known member
That is a problem since Jesus prayed that the disciples would be One with the Father, himself, and each other in the same way Jesus is.
You have just subtly introduced idolatry into Scripture because if the spiritual unity of Jesus with the Father means prayers to the Father also go to Jesus then the natural consequence is we are also praying to each other. The buck stops at the Father in regards to prayer.
John 17
20I am not asking on behalf of them alone, but also on behalf of those who will believe in Me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
22I have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one— 23I in them and You in Me—that they may be perfectly united, so that the world may know that You sent Me and have loved them just as You have loved Me.
Runningman
Well-known member
If all you have are ad homs then I will correctly assume you don't have a rebuttal. If you don't have a rebuttal the debate is done.This is a statement from someone who not only projects his bitterness at being slammed by the Bible at every turn but has also proven to possess a dirt poor understand of basic logic, as evidenced by your statement here:
You just crack me up.
By you conveniently skipping over my question and by your request to end the debate, it is becoming obvious that you grow weary at being slammed by the Bible at your every turn. Here is my question again:
Runningman
Well-known member
Your question doesn't apply to me because I'm not a Judaizer. You should speak to people with respect, even if you disagree with them, instead of backhanding them with all of your comments. Just talk normal.
Once again you have proven yourself true to your name and have run away from Bible verses as fast as your legs can take you.
Runningman
Well-known member
Still no rebuttal I see. What ever happened to class when someone loses? It’s not a big deal. It happens all the time. It’s better to learn, come back stronger, rather than drawing it out over many days and publicly have sour grapes.
I've offered several counterarguments to your Judaizing interpretation of Acts 3:13 and your heretical interpretation of John 1:1.Still no rebuttal I see. What ever happened to class when someone loses? It’s not a big deal. It happens all the time. It’s better to learn, come back stronger, rather than drawing it out over many days and publicly have sour grapes.
As for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Jesus does reveal the Father in himself. He who sees the Son also sees the Father. Jesus said so himself. Do you believe him?
(John 14:9) Jesus said to him, Have I been with you such a long time and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father. And how do you say, Show us the Father?
In fact, no one can directly see the Father. The Father can only be seen through Jesus.
(John 6:46) Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God, He has seen the Father.
Conclusion: It's the Pre-Incarnate Jesus that Moses saw in Ex 3.
As for John 1:1, you exposed your heretical view as such. Do tell us more:
Read up on the Heresy of Adoptionism:
What is adoptionism? | GotQuestions.org
What is adoptionism? Why is it a heresy to believe that Jesus was adopted as God’s Son?
www.gotquestions.org
Your request to end the debate is understandable now that you realized how much your Judaizing theories are continuously being slammed by the Bible at every turn you take.
Last edited:
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Probably we both are dancing around two very different premises:
- THE MONOTHEISTIC PREMISE. Once a person is identified as the True and Only God, we can confidently exclude all other persons. Then I can have 150 or more verses that proves that the Bible considers "God" a person who is not Christ. A person who is sometimes called "The Father" or "YHWH".
- THE POLYTHEISTIC PREMISE. The fact that a given person is identified by the Bible as God does not preclude another person to be God, because God is an essence, a nature, that can be shared by several individual minds. Under that premise, I have zero verses that say "Jesus is not God", just as I have zero verses that say "Caesar is not God".
The monotheistic premise is supported by Jesus, who treated His Father always like a Person, and called such Person “The Only and True God” (John 17:1-3) and "My God" (John 20:17)
The second premise was supported by most of the ancient world: Yes, Jupiter is god, but that does not preclude Caesar being god as well.
Under such premise, Who could deny, for example, that the "Angel of Jehovah" mentioned in the Tanakh is another Person of the Godhead, different than Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit? Perhaps there are Four Persons in the Godhead! Perhaps many more that we are not aware of! There are no limits!
Your reasoning is very appropriate... from the perspective of an ancient Greek, like the ones in the Areopagus where Paul preached.
Your reasoning is not appropriate from the perspective of the post-exile monotheistic Jew.
Such Jew would tell you: “Human” is a category that may include billions of individuals, while “God” is One Person.
First, Jesus did not declared being God in John 8.
Second, you are using the term “Judaizing” your own way. That's OK, but bear in mind that use of the term is not shared by most scholars or students of Christianism. The Pharisees you are talking about in John 8 were not "Judaizing". They were just Jews who didn't believe in Christ.
Judaizing people were believers in Christ who had been baptized, were part of the church, but wanted non-Jews converts to observe the Law of Moses as part of the package of being Christians.
In no place in the New Testament you read apostles debating or refuting Judaizers on the deity of Christ.
Last edited:
Um Trinitarian does not teach many Gods. It teaches one God who is one being who manifests himself simultaneously, equally and eternally as three persons.
p
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
When you say "three persons", do you imply "three minds"?
If there are three minds, with their own will (agency), then the Being that Trinitarians love would not be personal. It would be an abstraction. We could call it an essence, a category or class. We could also call it a family, council, assembly. Nothing of that is a personal God.
Pantheists believe that God has trillions of minds, since all existing minds (including those of beings in other planets or galaxies, including that of animals like dolphins or chimpanzees) are God's. They admit they believe in a non-personal God and are happy with that. I respect that.
Monotheists believe that God has One Mind.
I sympathize with pantheists. I sympathize with Trinitarians and certainly with Unitarians.
I just encourage people to reflect on their own beliefs and understand why others think differently.
***
So, Jesus and his apostles were Jewish post-exile monotheists. Jesus' God, such as Peter's God, was the singular God of the "Shema, Israel...". The same One God believed by Pharisees like Paul. Jesus never preached a different God. "Go to My brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God." (John 10:17)
The Trinitarian view developed gradually soon in early Christianity, but is not the gospel taught by Jesus and his apostles. Perhaps you can believe that God revealed the Trinity to some of the First Fathers, like Ireneus. That could be a respectable position.
Last edited:
Lets see you have a mind. You have a will. So do I. We must be an abstraction then
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
I have one mind.
You have one mind.
That's why we are not abstractions, but persons.
A society or community encompasses a plurality of minds. That's why "society" or "community" are abstractions.
If God encompasses a plurality of minds, then God is not a personal God. It is a concept, like "society" or "community".
I do enjoy the factual and non-emotional way you simply lay out undeniable truths while under fire from those whose philosophies you bring into question.
Thank you.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Obvious for whom, synergy? Not for me!
I'm as intelligent as you, my brother... and it is not obvious to me that @Runningman is "growing weary at being slammed by the Bible at his every turn".
Since I am not drunk nor dumb, and since I have held and defended the Trinitarian position in the past, I think I deserve some grace from you in that the interpretation you give to John 1:1 could be right, but not obvious. The attitude of @Runningman could be what you say it is, but it is not obvious.
The more arrogant one gets, the most obvious one thinks one's beliefs are.
Besides, please stop thinking in the Bible as a weapon that "slams" people for their theological errors.
The Bible is a weapon, a sword, but against evil. It is meant to prepare us to do good things.
If we can't tell the difference between evil and a theological error, we will start thinking we are fighting evildoers in this Forum.
If I'm as intelligent as you then I'm the one who's flattered. Thank you for that complement.Obvious for whom, synergy? Not for me!
I'm as intelligent as you, my brother... and it is not obvious to me that @Runningman is "growing weary at being slammed by the Bible at his every turn".
Since I am not drunk nor dumb, and since I have held and defended the Trinitarian position in the past, I think I deserve some grace from you in that the interpretation you give to John 1:1 could be right, but not obvious. The attitude of @Runningman could be what you say it is, but it is not obvious.
The more arrogant one gets, the most obvious one thinks one's beliefs are.
Besides, please stop thinking in the Bible as a weapon that "slams" people for their theological errors.
The Bible is a weapon, a sword, but against evil. It is meant to prepare us to do good things.
If we can't tell the difference between evil and a theological error, we will start thinking we are fighting evildoers in this Forum.
If one pays very special attention to the original John 1:1 Koine Greek verse, it does begin to be obvious.
