The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

[Runningman]

He had it with him before the world was

John 17:5 (KJV 1900) — 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Revelation 13:8 proves Jesus didn't literally exist before the world was.

False

Stephen on earth prayed to Jesus in heaven to receive his spirit. The Spirit goes back to God who made it

Jesus in likewise told his disciple who were on earth they could ask of him while he was in heaven and stated he would do it

As I noted you are simply framing and ignoring the factsi






That is simply denial see above

You're ignoring the facts. You have not demonstrated using Scripture how speaking to Jesus is any different than speaking to someone else in heaven. You lack a mountain of Biblical support to substantiate your claims.

Furthermore, receiving a spirit does not require someone be God. There are many examples of people receiving a spirit in Scripture and it didn't require them to be God to do it. You are getting desperate dear Tom.

Examples of people receiving a spirit just like Stephen said to Jesus:

Numbers 11​

17And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.​

​

John 20​

22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:​

​

Acts 8​

17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.​

 

[Runningman]

1- John 17:3 still gas the Son equal with the Father in the creation of everything

Are you sure? John 17:3 says the only true God sent Jesus.

Then Jesus denied equality with the one who sent him in John 13.

John 13 (KJV)
16Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

2- John 17:5 the context has the Son and Father together before anything was created sharing the exact same glory together with each other.

Next fallacy

Revelation 13:8 in the KJV says " And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Then the precedent is that Jesus didn't literally pre-exist since Jesus was not literally slain from the foundation of the world.

We can actually test the falsehood of your theory with Scripture. Case in point.... Jesus never said or did anything in the Old Testament.

Case closed.

 

[civic]

amen

Yes indeed brother

 

[civic]

Are you sure? John 17:3 says the only true God sent Jesus.

Then Jesus denied equality with the one who sent him in John 13.

John 13 (KJV)
16Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.


Revelation 13:8 in the KJV says " And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Then the precedent is that Jesus didn't literally pre-exist since Jesus was not literally slain from the foundation of the world.

We can actually test the falsehood of your theory with Scripture. Case in point.... Jesus never said or did anything in the Old Testament.

Case closed.

lol He did dozens of things as the I Am who spoke to Adam in the garden and all the prophets He spoke with and personally appeared to.

No man has seen the Father or heard His voice Jesus declared about the OT.

Game over

Case closed

Next fallacy

 

[mikesw]

Are you sure? John 17:3 says the only true God sent Jesus.

Then Jesus denied equality with the one who sent him in John 13.

John 13 (KJV)
16Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.


Revelation 13:8 in the KJV says " And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Then the precedent is that Jesus didn't literally pre-exist since Jesus was not literally slain from the foundation of the world.

We can actually test the falsehood of your theory with Scripture. Case in point.... Jesus never said or did anything in the Old Testament.

Case closed.

You missed the aspect of Jesus speaking this in is humanity (Joh 17:3 followed by verse 5 with his glory he had before the world existed). Nor does the Bible support souls existing before people are born. I did not exist before the world existed. If nothing else interferes, you could claim that within the Godhead there is a degree of distinction. But you cannot deny Christ's existence having the same glory.

Then you get less smart on Rev 13:8. It appears some translators depended on 1 Peter 1:19-20 when translating Rev 13:8. Then you use the bad interpretation. Go figure.
1 Peter 1:19-21

but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

Revelation 13:8–9 (ESV)

8and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
9If anyone has an ear, let him hear:

The earlier translation probably misplaced the modifier "before the foundation of the world" in Rev 13 by taking the association of "before the foundation of the world" with the lamb in 1 Peter. Either translation makes sense and does not nullify the deity of Christ. The interpretation of being slain before the foundation of the world speaks of God's plan of redemption being designed such that the Son would redeem the earth at the right time. The ESV indicates the Son had the book of life written before the foundation of the world.

You cannot make such errors and be convincing at the same time. I do not expect you will attempt to improve your interpretation process either. You show negligence or immaturity in the analysis of scripture. Plus, you miss the nuances -- which happens with many people these days.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

This is confusing. Who's the Baha'i Mediator now?

What are you saying? In the end of the day, Jesus is no longer needed to be mankind's Mediator? What exactly are you saying. Don't be shy, spit it out.

Hi, synergy

I will answer that in the Baha'i thread, as you are asking a question about a specific Baha'i understanding.

Wonderful verse that signifies the Personhood of the Holy Spirit, another magnificent Trinitarian verse. Keep those Trinitarian verses coming!

The Holy Spirit, as well as other abstractions related to God's action or attributes, is presented as executing actions, not just in the Bible, but in our common conversations. That's what we saw in Proverb 8 about the Wisdom of God.
However, there is no independent personhood inherent to "Wisdom", "Word", "Love", "Light", "Grace" or "Spirit".
Otherwise you could say that the Godhead has eight or more divine persons.

For example, we can say "The Grace of God strengthens our faith". But that does not mean that the Grace of God is a person who is performing that action. By the same way, we can say "The Holy Spirit called me to serve as a doctor in that village" but it doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit was a person performing that call.

That's why it is important, I guess, to stick to personhood in the sense of "independent mind".
The Holy Spirit operates through independent minds (eg the prophets, Jesus, you and me), but it is not an independent mind.

 

[TomL]

Revelation 13:8 proves Jesus didn't literally exist before the world was.

Sorry you have to deny many scriptures to support your misinterpretation

John 1:1–3 (UASV) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and apart from him, not one thing came into being that has come into being.

John 1:10 (UASV) — 10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through him, and the world did not know him.

Colossians 1:13–16 (KJV 1900) — 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Hebrews 1:2 (KJV 1900) — 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Hebrews 1:8–10 (KJV 1900) — 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

Ephesians 3:9 (KJV 1900) — 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

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.

John 17:5 (KJV 1900) — 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

It is a matter of desperation you could think you can contradict so many verses by Rev 13:8


Revelation 13:8 (ESV) — 8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

You're ignoring the facts. You have not demonstrated using Scripture how speaking to Jesus is any different than speaking to someone else in heaven. You lack a mountain of Biblical support to substantiate your claims.

Open your eyes. Jesus was in heaven; the petitioners are on earth asking in at least one case to do something only God can do

Hello

Furthermore, receiving a spirit does not require someone be God. There are many examples of people receiving a spirit in Scripture and it didn't require them to be God to do it. You are getting desperate dear Tom.

Receiving a spirit?

Wrong context

This is receiving the spirit of one who is dying. A man who is on earth speaking to Jesus in heaven to function as God

This is your desparation for you are clearly off topic

Examples of people receiving a spirit just like Stephen said to Jesus:

Numbers 11​

17And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.​

Seriously?

This YHWH talking to Moses

Numbers 11:16–17 (LEB) — 16 And Yahweh said to Moses, “Gather for me seventy men from the elders of Israel whom you know are elders of the people and their officials; take them to the tent of assembly, and they will stand there with you. 17 I will come down and speak with you there; I will take away from the spirit that is on you, and I will place it on them; and they will bear the burdens of the people with you; you will not bear it alone.

But again you are off topic

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The phrase only true (in “only true God”) in John 17:3—in both grammar and context—is not intended to contrast the Father and the Son, but rather to contrast the one true God’s nature with that of false gods.32 The Greek word for true in this verse carries the meaning “real” or “genuine.” Hence, Jesus in this verse is simply saying that the Father is the “only true God”—the only real or genuine God—as opposed to the many false gods and idols (see 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John 5:20; Rev. 3:7; 2 Chron. 15:3; Isa. 65:16).

This argument is incorrect for at least two reasons:

FIRST.
If Jesus was contrasting any false divine person (eg Moloch) with a true set of divine persons (The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit), Jesus would have said: "We are the only and true God". However, Jesus is contrasting any other false god with ONE SPECIFIC PERSON. That single, specific person is being called by Jesus "Father", "You". So, the exclusivity of deity belongs to one specific person... not to three persons.

SECOND
Jesus is indeed making a contrast between His Father and him, because He mentions himself and his role in the very same sentence, and however, does not include himself as God. Jesus considers himself as He who was sent by the One and Truly God.
"This is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent."

This verse does not take away from Christ’s deity in any way.

That verse is indeed conclusive that Jesus did not consider Himself as God, for the two reasons above.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Only if one believes in the Unitarian view that the Person who said “I am God” in Ex 3:6 is not telling the truth. There is no indication whatsoever in that verse that there is a non-God spokesman/angel speaking on behalf of God. All Prophets and Angels would always and clearly identify themselves as a spokesmen of God There is no indication of that here. In fact, it can be said that the Unitarian view renders that person an imposter.

The fact that the Bible calls him "Messenger" ("Angel" in Hebrew) is evidence that such being is speaking on behalf of God.
Why would the Bible call somebody a Messenger of God if he is not a Messenger of God?
Why would the Bible say that nobody has seen God if Abraham and Moses and Gideon and Jacob and Manoah and his wife have seen Him?

Still,
even if the Person who spoke from the burning bush had been God Himself...
even if God were visible, defying the Scripture ...
even if the Bible had made a mistake in taking God for "a Messenger"...
Acts 3 shows that the "I Am who I Am", "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", is not Jesus, but the Father of Jesus.

This "I am who I am", who is NOT Jesus, asked in Mount Sinai, as the First of the Ten Commandments, to love Him above everything else. Let's read how Jesus Himself uttered the Shema, Israel, and how Jesus considered "wise" the answer of the scribe who referred to Yahweh ("I Am who I Am") in third person (Mark 12:28-34)

One of the scribes came and heard them reasoning together. Perceiving that Jesus had answered them well, he asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?”​

​

Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is, ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”​

​

The scribe said to Him, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, that there is one God and there is no other but Him. 33 To love Him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”​

​

34 When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” After that, no one dared to ask Him any question.​

 

[synergy]

Hi, synergy

I will answer that in the Baha'i thread, as you are asking a question about a specific Baha'i understanding.



The Holy Spirit, as well as other abstractions related to God's action or attributes, is presented as executing actions, not just in the Bible, but in our common conversations. That's what we saw in Proverb 8 about the Wisdom of God.
However, there is no independent personhood inherent to "Wisdom", "Word", "Love", "Light", "Grace" or "Spirit".
Otherwise you could say that the Godhead has eight or more divine persons.

Huh? Jesus has multiple names but we don't ascribe a person to each of his names. We know better than to do that.

For example, we can say "The Grace of God strengthens our faith". But that does not mean that the Grace of God is a person who is performing that action. By the same way, we can say "The Holy Spirit called me to serve as a doctor in that village" but it doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit was a person performing that call.

That's why it is important, I guess, to stick to personhood in the sense of "independent mind".
The Holy Spirit operates through independent minds (eg the prophets, Jesus, you and me), but it is not an independent mind.

We do stick to the 3 Persons as revealed by the Bible.

 

[synergy]

The fact that the Bible calls him "Messenger" ("Angel" in Hebrew) is evidence that such being is speaking on behalf of God.
Why would the Bible call somebody a Messenger of God if he is not a Messenger of God?
Why would the Bible say that nobody has seen God if Abraham and Moses and Gideon and Jacob and Manoah and his wife have seen Him?

You still haven’t realized that it's the human person (Moses, Stephen, etc...) who puts forward the name "Angel of God". It's the truth from our human perspective that it is the Preincarnate or Postincarnate Jesus that is seen by the human person. Verse 6 confirms it is God speaking but it is the Pre or Post incarnate Jesus that is seen by the human person. That perfectly aligns with the Bible, logic, and nobody is rendered an imposter.

Conclusion: Jesus is the "I Am" OT God mentioned in Ex 3 which is supported both Biblically and Logically.

Still,
even if the Person who spoke from the burning bush had been God Himself...
even if God were visible, defying the Scripture ...
even if the Bible had made a mistake in taking God for "a Messenger"...
Acts 3 shows that the "I Am who I Am", "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", is not Jesus, but the Father of Jesus.

This "I am who I am", who is NOT Jesus, asked in Mount Sinai, as the First of the Ten Commandments, to love Him above everything else. Let's read how Jesus Himself uttered the Shema, Israel, and how Jesus considered "wise" the answer of the scribe who referred to Yahweh ("I Am who I Am") in third person (Mark 12:28-34)

Lets investigate who appeared and spoke the words in Ex 3 by taking into account the following verses:

1. Ex 3:6 declares that it's God speaking but
2. John 6:46 precludes the possibility that it's the Father appearing to anyone except Christ but
3. 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.

One of the scribes came and heard them reasoning together. Perceiving that Jesus had answered them well, he asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?”​

​

Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is, ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”​

​

The scribe said to Him, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, that there is one God and there is no other but Him. 33 To love Him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”​

​

34 When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” After that, no one dared to ask Him any question.​

There is nothing in there that contradicts Trinitarianism.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You still haven’t realized that it's the human person (Moses, Stephen, etc...) who puts forward the name "Angel of God". It's the truth from our human perspective that it is the Preincarnate or Postincarnate Jesus that is seen by the human person. Verse 6 confirms it is God speaking but it is the Pre or Post incarnate Jesus that is seen by the human person. That perfectly aligns with the Bible, logic, and nobody is rendered an imposter.

Conclusion: Jesus is the "I Am" OT God mentioned in Ex 3 which is supported both Biblically and Logically.

Lets investigate who appeared and spoke the words in Ex 3 by taking into account the following verses:

1. Ex 3:6 declares that it's God speaking but
2. John 6:46 precludes the possibility that it's the Father appearing to anyone except Christ but
3. 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.

There is nothing in there that contradicts Trinitarianism.

You may be mixing two different claims in this argumentation. Both are non-sequiturs.
Please bear with me and keep a critical eye

The first one is: “If the Father was not who talked to Abraham, Moses, Manoah or Gideon, the it must have been pre-incarnate Jesus”
The second one is: “If the pre-incarnate Jesus was the one who talked to Abraham, Moses, Manoah or Gideon, He must be God.”

FIRST NON-SEQUITUR

Suppose that a baha’i like me tells you that the Person who talked to Moses from the burning bush was pre-incarnate Bahá’ullah.
You, understandibly, ask for biblical evidence. We answer there is none. So, understandibly, you reject our belief. Then We, in turn, ask you for the biblical support for Jesus being that Person, since you are the one who believes in the Bible as the sole source of doctrinal authority. Where is it? Nowhere.

The OT has many references to the future Messiah, but none of them says that the pre-incarnate Messiah had talked to Abraham, Moses, Manoah or Gideon. Ask any Jew rabbi about that. Likewise, Jesus never claimed to have been that Person in those appearances. None of the apostles claimed that. Stephen, when talking in so much detail about the history of Israel, could have said it. That was a fantastic opportunity. Look how long his speech was. Did he seize the opportunity? No. That’s why many Christians do not adhere to your thesis.

SECOND NON SEQUITUR

If it was Jesus or Bahaullah who appeared to Abraham, Jacob, Moses. Manoah or Gideon, that wouldn’t make them God, but messengers of God… unless we deny these two truths

1. God is invisible. Jesus is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:16) If God were visible, He wouldn’t use a Person as an “image” to communicate with their creatures.
2. That a Messenger speaking on behalf of God in first person is logically possible. It does not violate the concept of Messenger. However, that God was a Messenger sent by Himself is not logically possible. It violates the concept of God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Huh? Jesus has multiple names but we don't ascribe a person to each of his names. We know better than to do that.

I know, my friend. I was not implying you do.
I am just saying that those words are often personified, both in the Bible and in our day-to-day conversations, and none of us take those personifications literally.

We do stick to the 3 Persons as revealed by the Bible.

God reveals Himself in the Bible as One Person, a “He”, and not a “They” or an “It”
For example, “For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son…”

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

There is nothing in there that contradicts Trinitarianism.

In this conversation, YHVH, the “I am who I am”, is referred in third person.
This means that neither the scribe nor Jesus were claiming to be “I am who I am”.
In fact, Jesus Himself identified the “I am who I am” the scribes and pharisees believed in as His Father.

Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing. It is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say that He is your God. (Joh 8:54)

 

[synergy]

You may be mixing two different claims in this argumentation. Both are non-sequiturs.
Please bear with me and keep a critical eye

The first one is: “If the Father was not who talked to Abraham, Moses, Manoah or Gideon, the it must have been pre-incarnate Jesus”
The second one is: “If the pre-incarnate Jesus was the one who talked to Abraham, Moses, Manoah or Gideon, He must be God.”

FIRST NON-SEQUITUR

Suppose that a baha’i like me tells you that the Person who talked to Moses from the burning bush was pre-incarnate Bahá’ullah.
You, understandibly, ask for biblical evidence. We answer there is none. So, understandibly, you reject our belief. Then We, in turn, ask you for the biblical support for Jesus being that Person, since you are the one who believes in the Bible as the sole source of doctrinal authority. Where is it? Nowhere.

It's in John 8:58. Jesus explicitly declares himself the "I Am" OT God, the very same name that God named himself in Ex 3:14. The Pharisees, like Unitarians, were appalled at Jesus' declaration.

The OT has many references to the future Messiah, but none of them says that the pre-incarnate Messiah had talked to Abraham, Moses, Manoah or Gideon. Ask any Jew rabbi about that. Likewise, Jesus never claimed to have been that Person in those appearances. None of the apostles claimed that. Stephen, when talking in so much detail about the history of Israel, could have said it. That was a fantastic opportunity. Look how long his speech was. Did he seize the opportunity? No. That’s why many Christians do not adhere to your thesis.

Again, John 8:58 proves that Jesus did exist as the "I Am" God even before Abraham existed.

Paul wrote in 1 Cor 10:4 that the Rock that followed the Israelites was Christ. Do you believe him or do you believe Muhammad more?

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Conclusion: Jesus is the OT God named "I Am".

SECOND NON SEQUITUR

If it was Jesus or Bahaullah who appeared to Abraham, Jacob, Moses. Manoah or Gideon, that wouldn’t make them God, but messengers of God… unless we deny these two truths

Jesus' eternal existence and omnipresence does not make him God? Tell me what will convince you and I'm sure I can prove that Christ has that attribute.

1. God is invisible. Jesus is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:16) If God were visible, He wouldn’t use a Person as an “image” to communicate with their creatures.

Cor 1:16 is perfectly Trinitarian in that the Father is invisible but the Son can be seen because he is the image of the invisible God the Father. Perfect Trinitarianism right there.

1. That a Messenger speaking on behalf of God in first person is logically possible. It does not violate the concept of Messenger. However, that God was a Messenger sent by Himself is not logically possible. It violates the concept of God.

It makes perfect sense viewed in a Trinitarian way. The Preincarnate Jesus being sent as a Messenger by the Father makes perfect sense.

In conclusion, you conveniently skipped over the verses I mentioned and brought in other ones. To show that Christian Trinitarianism is compatible with every single verse of the Bible, I did not skip over the verses but I addressed versus you skipping over my verses.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

In conclusion, you conveniently skipped over the verses I mentioned and brought in other ones. To show that Christian Trinitarianism is compatible with every single verse of the Bible, I did not skip over the verses but I addressed versus you skipping over my verses.

You’re right. I skipped over the verses and that was not respectful to the care and interest you put in bringing them.
My sincere apologies, Synergy. Let me go through them

Ex 3:6 declares that it's God speaking. Yes, if taken in isolation. The fact that other verses say that it is NOT God who is speaking and that God cannot be seen should lead us to a solution that satisfies the use of the first person.

John 6:46 precludes the possibility that it's the Father appearing to anyone except Christ.
First, The verse says “except he who is from God”. That can include other Messengers from God, like Moses.
Second, that “seeing” is not physical, since God is spirit. There is no single verse in the Gospels which narrates Jesus having a direct vision of God. On the contrary, He prayed as we pray.
Third, “seeing God” does not mean that such Seer is God, but “of God”. Jesus always declared He was of God.

John 14:9 allows the Father to be seen when one sees Jesus, the Preincarnate Jesus in the case of Ex 3. I agree that when we see Jesus, we see the Father (metaphorically)... but I don’t understand what are the implications of this on the debate about the deity of Jesus… unless you are modalist and believe that Jesus and The Father are the same person.
So, if you believe that Jesus was the Angel of YHVH, that’s fine… it is speculative, but hurts nobody. The point, I insist, is that thinking that the Angel of YHVH is YHVH is a logical contradiction.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Cor 1:16 is perfectly Trinitarian in that the Father is invisible but the Son can be seen because he is the image of the invisible God the Father. Perfect Trinitarianism right there.

No. It is rather perfect evidence that you are NOT a Trinitarian at a subconcious level… Don’t worry: Nobody is!
Look:
1 Cor 1:16 says “Jesus is the image of the invisible God”… but you automatically read “Father”.
If it said “Jesus is the image of the invisible Father”, you could argue that a visible Person of the Trinity, who is God, is the image of an invisible Person of the Trinity, who is also God. Some divine persons are visible, some are not.
However, the text is not allocating attributes to two members of the Trinity. It is allocating attributes into Jesus, on one side, and God, on the other.
Jesus was visible. God was not.

It makes perfect sense viewed in a Trinitarian way. The Preincarnate Jesus being sent as a Messenger by the Father makes perfect sense.

Another perfect evidence that you are NOT a Trinitarian.
We are talking about a Messenger of God, a Messenger from Yahveh. Nobody said “The Angel of the Father”
If the text said “An Angel of the Father” you could argue that one member of the Trinity, who is God, or YHVH, sends another member of the Trinity, who is also God, YHVH, as a Messenger.
But the text says Angel of God, not Angel of the Father.
It is God who sends a Messenger. So, that Messenger by logical definition cannot be God.

 

[mikesw]

You’re right. I skipped over the verses and that was not respectful to the care and interest you put in bringing them.
My sincere apologies, Synergy. Let me go through them

Ex 3:6 declares that it's God speaking. Yes, if taken in isolation. The fact that other verses say that it is NOT God who is speaking and that God cannot be seen should lead us to a solution that satisfies the use of the first person.

John 6:46 precludes the possibility that it's the Father appearing to anyone except Christ.
First, The verse says “except he who is from God”. That can include other Messengers from God, like Moses.
Second, that “seeing” is not physical, since God is spirit. There is no single verse in the Gospels which narrates Jesus having a direct vision of God. On the contrary, He prayed as we pray.
Third, “seeing God” does not mean that such Seer is God, but “of God”. Jesus always declared He was of God.

John 14:9 allows the Father to be seen when one sees Jesus, the Preincarnate Jesus in the case of Ex 3. I agree that when we see Jesus, we see the Father (metaphorically)... but I don’t understand what are the implications of this on the debate about the deity of Jesus… unless you are modalist and believe that Jesus and The Father are the same person.
So, if you believe that Jesus was the Angel of YHVH, that’s fine… it is speculative, but hurts nobody. The point, I insist, is that thinking that the Angel of YHVH is YHVH is a logical contradiction.

Maybe it seems like we are going around in circles. Maybe the problem is that the explanation on John 6:46 is obvious in another discussion. But the type of seeing by Moses and others (who were not Messengers in any sense like Jesus) is that they did not see God in his fullness. Moses got to see God pass by. Jacob fought with an ephipany rather than God in his fully glory. Similar situation with Samson's parents. (Which reminds me that I'm pretty sure Pancho saw that explanation.) Samson's dad said "we won't live since we saw God" However, this is scripture and history, not the pretend world of Pancho trying to taunt God. This was Samson's Dad's concept and does not equate to Jesus' direct seeing of God. Pancho only wishes to denigrate who Jesus is so that all religions can seem the same.

 

[Runningman]

lol He did dozens of things as the I Am who spoke to Adam in the garden and all the prophets He spoke with and personally appeared to.

No man has seen the Father or heard His voice Jesus declared about the OT.

Game over

Case closed

Next fallacy

It's funny you talk about things that aren't even in the Bible and you say things like "game over, case close, next fallacy, hope this helps."

 

[Runningman]

You missed the aspect of Jesus speaking this in is humanity (Joh 17:3 followed by verse 5 with his glory he had before the world existed). Nor does the Bible support souls existing before people are born. I did not exist before the world existed. If nothing else interferes, you could claim that within the Godhead there is a degree of distinction. But you cannot deny Christ's existence having the same glory.

There isn't another aspect to Jesus. The Bible plainly says he's a man. No one thought of him as "god the son" or a "god man" anywhere in the Bible. So from a Biblical perspective you are simply begging the question based around what your beliefs are rather than representing the Biblical characters by what they believed.

Then you get less smart on Rev 13:8. It appears some translators depended on 1 Peter 1:19-20 when translating Rev 13:8. Then you use the bad interpretation. Go figure.
1 Peter 1:19-21


Revelation 13:8–9 (ESV)

The earlier translation probably misplaced the modifier "before the foundation of the world" in Rev 13 by taking the association of "before the foundation of the world" with the lamb in 1 Peter. Either translation makes sense and does not nullify the deity of Christ. The interpretation of being slain before the foundation of the world speaks of God's plan of redemption being designed such that the Son would redeem the earth at the right time. The ESV indicates the Son had the book of life written before the foundation of the world.

Ah, Revelation 13:8-9 is problematic for you so now you need to knock it down and sweep the inconvenient truths under the rug that don't match your beliefs. Unfortunately for you that will not be possible. The translation describing the Lamb being slain from the foundation of the world is plainly in the Greek manuscript. It's not an outdated, inaccurate, or "not smart" translation as you seem to be blaming me for what the Bible says.

You're free to get educated on this verse here: https://biblehub.com/texts/revelation/13-8.htm

You cannot make such errors and be convincing at the same time. I do not expect you will attempt to improve your interpretation process either. You show negligence or immaturity in the analysis of scripture. Plus, you miss the nuances -- which happens with many people these days.

There is no error on my part. The Bible says Jesus was a Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. He wasn't slain before the foundation of the world. Therefore he didn't pre-exist. John 17:5 is not literal.