Indeed
The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
civic
Well-known member
SOP ?
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Dear @civic, @synergy and @Fred
Paul, as a Jewish Pharisee, educated in the Tanakh, knew that God, YHWH, was called Adonai (My Lord).
Most of his readers (Jewish Christians of Corinth) also knew that YHWH was called Adonai.
So, the use of Adonai for The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was not the topic in dispute here. It was already written, already known. Nothing to clarify.
Pau'ls topic is the loyalty to a Theos among competing gods, and to a Kurios among competing masters.
Paul is not interested in "putting Jesus to compete" with Zeus, Apollo, Mythra or Ares.
Paul is interested in "putting Jesus to compete" with political, military or religious leaders of his time, some of whom declared themselves saviors, sons of the gods, etc.
If Paul ever wanted to teach the Trinity, he had in 1 Cor 8:6 a FANTASTIC opportunity to do it once and for all. Not just there, but in about other 20 times where he puts "The Father" and "Jesus Christ" next to each other. If Paul wanted to teach the Trinity, it seems that for some weird reason, he WASTED all those opportunities.
civic
Well-known member
1 Cor 8:6 is the EQUALITY of the FATHER/SON in creation as Co-Creators. The Lord God is the creator. And Paul makes that point the both the Lord and God created everything as Father/ Son.
You are not seeing the forrest through the trees in the passage.
Standard operating procedure
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Jesus prayed to His Father that his followers could be One... as "one" as He was with His Father. Big words, aren't they?
Now, if we think about it...
Was Jesus's prayer just "wishful thinking"... an utopia that could never and would never be realized? Was Jesus so naïve?
Now, assuming Jesus was not naïve and He knew that the unity of his followers was possible... did His Father listen to his prayer? will His Father ever listen to that prayer?
My point is that, under God's grace, we can build the necessary unity among Christians little by little, because that's Jesus will.
Of course, I am not talking about doctrinal uniformity, but about true love. And true love, certainly, cannot flourish when someone thinks that his neighbor deserves to be tortured in hell forever because of theological discrepancies.
I don't think so, and would be needed badly.
But as Civic noted
Your quote of 1 Cor 8:6 would eliminate every single use of Lord from the Father as Lord and only the Son is the Lord in scripture. That’s the only way you can be consistent with the text since your position is only the Father is God from the same text.
and the text states
1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV 1900) — 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
to them only Christ is lord
So if the first half of the verse eliminates Christ from being their God then the second half eliminates God being their lord
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
The forest, my friend, is the problem of idols. Specifically, eating food offered to the idols. I transcribe the whole passage below,
These first Christians lived in a society where food was offered to Zeus, Apollo, Mythra, Artemis, etc... all those were considered gods.
It is in this context that Paul says that, for Christians, there is only One God, The Father.
Paul could have said "There are many who are called gods, but for us, The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit are the Only God". He didn't. Why?
***
Regarding the role in creation, have you noticed that Paul says about God "from whom" but about Christ says: "through whom"?
This is so because Christ represents The Word of God, the instrument, vehicle, means, channel through which God (the Source) makes the universe. In contrast, from God Paul says "from whom" because God is the Source of everything. All power, all authority, all existence.
This is not the only verse in which Christ is presented as vehicle and God as source. There are others.
THE FULL TEXT
Now as concerning food offered to idols: We know that “we all have knowledge.” Knowledge produces arrogance, but love edifies. 2 So if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.
4 So concerning the eating of foods that are offered in sacrifice to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For there are those who are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there are many gods and many lords. 6 But for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist. And there is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
7 However, not everyone has this knowledge. Some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat the food as a thing offered to an idol. So their weak conscience is defiled. 8 But food does not commend us to God. Neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.
9 But take heed, lest by any means this liberty of yours becomes a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you, who have knowledge, eating in the idol’s temple, shall the conscience of him who is weak not be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols, 11 and by your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 When you thus sin against the brothers, wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to stumble.
Yes, men who deny themselves and become "Doers" of the Christ's Sayings, not hearers only, are Christians.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
No, because what I have replied in post 1103.
The use of Adonai for YHWH, who was Pau'ls God, Peter's God, Jesus' God, and the God of Jewish Christians, was not at stake here.
It was already written. Already known. Never debated. Paul was not "undoing" anything.
The question at stake was who was Theos among many competing gods of that time, and who was Kurios among many competing masters of that time.
So, neither the lordship of Jesus is not put to compete with the "deity" of Zeus or Hermes... nor the deity of The Father is put to compete with kings, governors, generals, captains or landowners.
Paul puts The Father and Jesus each one in his own "League", so to speak.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Flesh is not a metaphor.
"The Word became flesh" is a metaphor.
Jesus calls Himself "The Door of the Sheep".
Doors are literal objects. Sheep are literal animals. So, a door for sheep is not a metaphor.
However, "I am The Door of the Sheep" is a metaphor.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
False conclusion.
- First, because the Bible says that it was a Messenger who talked to Moses from the burning bush. A Messenger is not the source, but the vehicle of a message.
- Second, because the Bible explains that Jesus is the Son of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which Exodus 3 identifies as YHWH, the "I Am".
- Third, because Jesus Himself declared several times, in the same gospel of John, who he was... and He said he was One Sent by God, not God. So Jesus was not making appear out of the blue a new doctrine that contradicted his own convictions.
The second argument leads to four additional absurd situations:
- 2.1 If Jesus is The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and such God is a personal God, He is Son of Himself.
- 2.2 If Jesus is The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and such God is a Trinity, Jesus is Son of a Council or Assembly of Three people
- 2.3 If Jesus is The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and such God is a Trinity, Jesus is Son of a Council in which He is Himself a member
- 2.4 If Jesus is The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and such God is a Trinity, although Jesus is Son of the Council He calls "Father" only to one of the members of the Council. The Holy Spirit is left aside.
Why don't you mention the Greek side of Paul? He was obviously schooled in Greek and in the Greek OT.
An idol can be a thing, yourself, or someone else. That's the context of the "one God" verses. Whoever wants to overlook that fact and uses those verses for their own nepharious schemes is dead wrong.
Paul and other Apostles declared it in their Epistles. Jesus flat out declared it to the Pharisees. Why didn't Paul declare it more often for those who need to hear it 100, 200, 1000 times? Do you see where I'm going with this?
I see that you did not address my comments about John 6:46, John 14:9, and Ex 3. If you wish to debate my conclusion then at least tell me how those verses can possibly support Unitarianism.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Certainly... but Paul's mind was Jewish and Paul's religion was Judaism... and he was not ashamed, but proud of it.
In the way to Damascus, he had an encounter with a Jew, Jesus, who sent him to Ananias, a Jew.
Paul sought believers first among the Jews at the synagogues of each city he visited.
Paul with others brought the topic of circumcision to a Jewish Council in Jerusalem.
The knowledge of Greek culture and language was a tool for Paul to convey his message to a Greek audience.
I agree, although the context of 1 Corinthians 8 was the pagan idols to which food was offered.
In any case, what I am saying is that such "One God", for Paul, was "The Father".
Shouldn't surprise anyone. Jesus, Master of Paul's life, had called The Father "The One and Only God".
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
In my post I'm not refuting Trinitarism.
I'm refuting the use of the "I Am" argument as support for Trinitarism.
Our debates are long because there are many arguments to consider.
Now I have to call it a day, my friend.
May God bless you and all Forum members. Good night.
All his Epistles were to Greek-speaking people based on the Greek Old Testament that named God with Greek names. I just want a balanced Greek/Jewish view of Paul. That's all I'm asking.
which is against Idolatry, not against Trinitarianism.
The "I Am" ("ἐγώ εἰμι) of John 8:58 = the "I Am" (ἐγώ εἰμι) of Ex 3:14.
The Greek proves that your conclusion is incorrect.
He identified himself as the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. I believe God, not your false statement.
6 Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.
Jesus is the Son of God. And he is God (John 1:1). And he faced God meaning 2 Persons (John 1:1).
God the Father sent God the Son. Perfectly Trinitarian.
All your questions can be answered by answering me this question: Who appeared and spoke the words in Ex 3 when you take into account the following verses:
- Ex 3:6 declares that it's God speaking but
- John 6:46 precludes the possibility that it's the Father appearing to anyone except Christ but
- John 14:9 allows the Father to be seen when one sees Jesus, the Preincarnate Jesus in the case of Ex 3.
Conclusion: Jesus is the "I Am" OT God mentioned in Ex 3 which is supported both Biblically and Logically.
It speaks of the incarnation
Philippians 2:5–8 (KJV 1900) — 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.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
The Greek version of the Old Testament (The Septuagint) that Paul quoted so often, was written by monotheistic Jewish Scholars, not by polytheistic Greeks. They did the translation two or three centuries before Christ, and they wrote it for Jew readers who were also monotheists.
So, thinking in God as One Single Person is the basic foundation upon which Paul preached the Gospel.
I agree.
Paul was not arguing against Trinitarism, because Trinitarism did not exist. Not in his mind, not in the mind of the Christians he wrote to.
