The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

[synergy]

Yes because he isn't God. You're a skeptic.

Hebrews 4
15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

That proves that Jesus does not fall into the category of "drawn away of his own lust". Thank you for providing the verse that proves what I was saying.

Then we can be in the perfect image of the Father according to "orthodoxy."

Romans 8
29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

If the "Express image of His essence" is not good enough for you then read on to where "He sat down on the right of the Majesty on high". Tell us O Great One when will you sit on his Throne?

(Heb 1:3) who being the shining splendor of His glory, and the express image of His essence, and upholding all things by the word of His power, through Himself cleansing of our sins, He sat down on the right of the Majesty on high,

Why are you running away? Post what you said here.

You even run away from links, I see. Here is the link for the 2nd time. You are so true to your name.

https://berean-apologetics.communit...s-not-teach-to-pray-to-jesus.2040/post-119689

 

[Runningman]

You continue to have difficulty reading what I wrote. See what I wrote below. I said "here", not "everywhere" in the Bible.

And you are having difficulty reading what I wrote. Trinitarianism was not discussed by Jesus. It wasn't discussed anywhere.

Thus, you have failed miserably to once again prove that it's not idolatry and paganism that is being contrasted with the one true God.

Umm... Jesus said he's a man. Men aren't God. Therefore worshipping Jesus as God is idolatry.

Hosea 11
9I will not execute the full fury of My anger;
I will not turn back to destroy Ephraim.
For I am God and not man—
the Holy One among you—
and I will not come in wrath.

Nobody "lost his glory", least of all Jesus. Sheesh. Once again you are resorting to outrageous strawmen, I see.

Ahh... so Jesus didn't pre-exist then.

It's the glory that we receive when we're saved. Not the glory that is exclusive to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So no, we do not become God. If you have a different opinion then let's have it

Then Jesus didn't receive God's exclusive glory. The disciples got the glory God gave Jesus. That proves Jesus isn't God.

Jesus has been recorded with many names in the Bible. Are you saying some names gives you more entitlements than his other names?

None of those names are God's names.

Jesus is called multiple times kurios (Lord) in the NT. That most certainly is Jesus' name. Thank you for continuing to stream Trinitarian verses.

Not the same person. God made Jesus lord. He wasn't inherently lord. He isn't eternal and his lordship had a beginning point.

Acts 3
36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

 

[Runningman]

That proves that Jesus does not fall into the category of "drawn away of his own lust". Thank you for providing the verse that proves what I was saying.

Thus we have proof that Jesus was drawn away of his own lust. We have one who was tempted in all ways as we are and yet was without sin. You are under the wrong idea that Jesus couldn't sin. He absolutely hypothetically could have because temptation refers to desire. Jesus was absolutely tempted.

If the "Express image of His essence" is not good enough for you then read on to where "He sat down on the right of the Majesty on high". Tell us O Great One when will you sit on his Throne?

What are you going to do about Revelation 3:21?

Revelation 3
21To 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.

(Heb 1:3) who being the shining splendor of His glory, and the express image of His essence, and upholding all things by the word of His power, through Himself cleansing of our sins, He sat down on the right of the Majesty on high,

This proves Jesus isn't God. Jesus isn't the same person as God.

Hebrews 1
3Who 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;

You even run away from links, I see. Here is the link for the 2nd time. You are so true to your name.

https://berean-apologetics.communit...s-not-teach-to-pray-to-jesus.2040/post-119689

I'm not clicking your links. Bring your words here.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Romans 10
13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

The LXX of Joel 2:32 uses kurios for the Hebrew YHWH. That isn't Jesus.

Parroting nonsense.

Mat 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Mat 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

Care to study?

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'm not clicking your links. Bring your words here.

The link is here.....

 

[101G]

(Heb 1:3) who being the shining splendor of His glory, and the express image of His essence, and upholding all things by the word of His power, through Himself cleansing of our sins, He sat down on the right of the Majesty on high,

Runningman said, This proves Jesus isn't God. Jesus isn't the same person as God.

Hebrews 1
3Who 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;

but is not Express means the exact? ... meaning HIS PERSON?

101G

 

[Runningman]

Parroting nonsense.

Mat 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Mat 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

Care to study?

Jesus is the son of David, but God is not the son of David. David's Lord is genealogically his own descendent. We must not counterintuitively confuse Jesus' appointed position as Lord with him also being David's son. Hence, the LORD God told Jesus to sit at His right hand. Another proof God and Jesus aren't the same person.

Matthew 1
1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

 

[Runningman]

Runningman said, This proves Jesus isn't God. Jesus isn't the same person as God.

Hebrews 1
3Who 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;

but is not Express means the exact? ... meaning HIS PERSON?

101G

Do you believe the image of a person is the same person? Sounds like a copy of the original, in the "like father like son" sense, but not the original.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I like to use the analogy of a videochat you're having with beloved Uncle James.
Uncle James asks you in that videochat to please transfer to his account, say, 1000 dollars that he needs to buy a Medicine.

The image and audio perceived in the videoconference is not Uncle James. It is a pattern of colored bits and a pattern of acoustic waves.
Uncle James is a person who is hundreds of kilometers away. A person you could not possibly talk to were it not for the videochat.
Still, you do what the image and audio of Uncle James tell you to do.

So, imagine now a heated debate on whether what you saw on the screen and you heard with your earphones was Uncle James... while others insist that the real Uncle James was not there, but lives hundreds of kilometers away.

May I ask: In the end of the day, does this debate really matter? You did transfer the 1000 dollars. You did out of love what he asked you to do.

Well, our Father cannot talk directly with us because, due to our limited condition as creatures, He is not visible and audible to our senses and not intelligible to our minds.
He then speaks through a videoconference, Jesus Christ.
We must obey Jesus Christ as if we were seeing and hearing Our Father talking to us.

Now, to go still deeper in the analogy, let's imagine that Uncle James has always existed and has always been broadcasting his image and voice to trillions of nephews.
Then you could say that for all practical purposes, "In the beginning, the image and audio were, and the image and audio came from Uncle James, and the image and audio were Uncle James". Now you have a prosaic, yet useful illustration of John 1:1

 

[Runningman]

I like to use the analogy of a videochat you're having with beloved Uncle James.
Uncle James asks you in that videochat to please transfer to his account, say, 1000 dollars that he needs to buy a Medicine.

The image and audio perceived in the videoconference is not Uncle James. It is a pattern of colored bits and a pattern of acoustic waves.
Uncle James is a person who is hundreds of kilometers away. A person you could not possibly talk to were it not for the videochat.
Still, you do what the image and audio of Uncle James tell you to do.

So, imagine now a heated debate on whether what you saw on the screen and you heard with your earphones was Uncle James... while others insist that the real Uncle James was not there, but lives hundreds of kilometers away.

May I ask: In the end of the day, does this debate really matter? You did transfer the 1000 dollars. You did out of love what he asked you to do.

Well, our Father cannot talk directly with us because, due to our limited condition as creatures, He is not visible and audible to our senses and not intelligible to our minds.
He then speaks through a videoconference, Jesus Christ.
We must obey Jesus Christ as if we were seeing and hearing Our Father talking to us.

Now, to go still deeper in the analogy, let's imagine that Uncle James has always existed and has always been broadcasting his image and voice to trillions of nephews.
Then you could say that for all practical purposes, "In the beginning, the image and audio were, and the image and audio came from Uncle James, and the image and audio were Uncle James". Now you have a prosaic, yet useful illustration of John 1:1

I love the spirit of the way you think, but I believe, based on what I have read, and testing out the Trinitarian's theory, that the idea of God having always spoken through His Son is not compatible with Scripture, at least not in the literal sense.

For example, if the Son is the Word then we should be able to replace "Son" with "Word" and anywhere in the Bible it would make sense. Let's try it with Hebrews 1:1,2

Hebrews 1 (Literal Standard Version)​

1In many parts and many ways, God, having spoken long ago to the fathers by the prophets, 2in these last days speaks to us in [His] Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the ages;​

So if the Son is the same as the Word, then God didn't speak through the Word long ago, but only in these last days. Therefore, since the universe was made long ago as God spoke, then the Word wasn't involved in creation.

 

[mikesw]

I love the spirit of the way you think, but I believe, based on what I have read, and testing out the Trinitarian's theory, that the idea of God having always spoken through His Son is not compatible with Scripture, at least not in the literal sense.

For example, if the Son is the Word then we should be able to replace "Son" with "Word" and anywhere in the Bible it would make sense. Let's try it with Hebrews 1:1,2

Hebrews 1 (Literal Standard Version)​

1In many parts and many ways, God, having spoken long ago to the fathers by the prophets, 2in these last days speaks to us in [His] Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the ages;​

So if the Son is the same as the Word, then God didn't speak through the Word long ago, but only in these last days. Therefore, since the universe was made long ago as God spoke, then the Word wasn't involved in creation.

I suppose you thought you had some logic in there somewhere. It got lost in translation though. You always miss the nuance of scripture. This time you made up something nonsensical. Your argument is like this one:
Breadcrumbs are better than nothing.
Nothing is better than steak.
Therefore breadcrumbs are better than steak.

I guess your logic is why you are a Unitarian.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I love the spirit of the way you think, but I believe, based on what I have read, and testing out the Trinitarian's theory, that the idea of God having always spoken through His Son is not compatible with Scripture, at least not in the literal sense.

For example, if the Son is the Word then we should be able to replace "Son" with "Word" and anywhere in the Bible it would make sense. Let's try it with Hebrews 1:1,2

Hebrews 1 (Literal Standard Version)​

1In many parts and many ways, God, having spoken long ago to the fathers by the prophets, 2in these last days speaks to us in [His] Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the ages;​

So if the Son is the same as the Word, then God didn't speak through the Word long ago, but only in these last days. Therefore, since the universe was made long ago as God spoke, then the Word wasn't involved in creation.

You’right, my friend. I was not precise in my analogy… in part because I wanted to be delicate .
For me the historical Yeshua of Nazareth ( 33 year old male, carpenter, Jew, bearded, Speaker of Aramaic) would be the equivalent of the ipad in which the videochat takes place.
The Logos is the equivalent of the electromagnetic waves and therefore can be “tuned” by several “tablets” (Messengers of God) through history.
To me, the Word was not the historical Jesus… the Word was manifested through the historical Jesus.

That the Word “became flesh” is a metaphor. If it were literal, it would mean that the Word would have become confined within the limits of a human body. During the ministry of Jesus, I believe that the Word continued to be active in all continents and in many planets, without any bodily limitation.

 

[mikesw]

You’right, my friend. I was not precise in my analogy… in part because I wanted to be delicate .
For me the historical Yeshua of Nazareth ( 33 year old male, carpenter, Jew, bearded, Speaker of Aramaic) would be the equivalent of the ipad in which the videochat takes place.
The Logos is the equivalent of the electromagnetic waves and therefore can be “tuned” by several “tablets” (Messengers of God) through history.
To me, the Word was not the historical Jesus… the Word was manifested through the historical Jesus.

That the Word “became flesh” is a metaphor. If it were literal, it would mean that the Word would have become confined within the limits of a human body. During the ministry of Jesus, I believe that the Word continued to be active in all continents and in many planets, without any bodily limitation.

uh. Who is the Word then?

 

[101G]

That the Word “became flesh” is a metaphor. If it were literal, it would mean that the Word would have become confined within the limits of a human body. During the ministry of Jesus, I believe that the Word continued to be active in all continents and in many planets, without any bodily limitation.

he was LIMITED, did he not G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') v. HIMSELF, while in flesh? see Phil. 2:7
1. to make empty.
2. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify.
[from G2756]
KJV: make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain
Root(s): G2756
and was it not the reason to go to the Father to be Limited-less with glorification of the Spirit? John 14:12 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." in the glorification of the Spirit, he now is empowered as before... no limitation.... John 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." what is thew Father self? ... Spirit.

101G.

 

[Runningman]

I suppose you thought you had some logic in there somewhere. It got lost in translation though. You always miss the nuance of scripture. This time you made up something nonsensical. Your argument is like this one:
Breadcrumbs are better than nothing.
Nothing is better than steak.
Therefore breadcrumbs are better than steak.

I guess your logic is why you are a Unitarian.

Mhmm. I will take an example that parallels the Athanasian Creed exactly. Here's a simple demonstration of how the Trinitarians' "logic" works.

Apple one is red
Apple two is green
Apple three is yellow.
not three apples, one apple.

Yes. It's bad.

 

[synergy]

And you are having difficulty reading what I wrote. Trinitarianism was not discussed by Jesus. It wasn't discussed anywhere.

John 1:1 and the rest of the Bible causes Unitarianism to evaporate like a puff of smoke.

Umm... Jesus said he's a man. Men aren't God. Therefore worshipping Jesus as God is idolatry.

Hosea 11
9I will not execute the full fury of My anger;
I will not turn back to destroy Ephraim.
For I am God and not man—
the Holy One among you—
and I will not come in wrath.

That's the OT when the Word of God had not yet taken on the form of a man. Your timelines are all out of whack, typical for a unitarian.

Thus, you have failed miserably to once again prove that it's not idolatry and paganism that is being contrasted with the one true God.

Ahh... so Jesus didn't pre-exist then.

Non sequitur fallacy. Jesus didn't "lose" his Glory. He voluntarily assumed kenosis.

So my question remains: Why would Jesus be asking for glory which he had with the Father (John 17:5) if he already already has glory from the Father which he gave to the Disciples (John 17:22)? So one glory (John 17:5) is different than the other glory (John 17:22), n'est ce pas? You unitarians are so quick to assume your position that you leave your critical thinking in a ditch.

Then Jesus didn't receive God's exclusive glory. The disciples got the glory God gave Jesus. That proves Jesus isn't God.

None of those names are God's names.

False. "I Am" is the name of the OT God that Jesus explicitly named himself.

Not the same person. God made Jesus lord. He wasn't inherently lord. He isn't eternal and his lordship had a beginning point.

Acts 3
36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Wonderful verse that perfectly aligns with more Trinitarian verses:

But Jesus is called God multiple times. The Bible is not a democracy where the 150 verses win over these 9 verses:

(2 Pet 1:1) Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ

(Titus 2:13) waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

(Rom 9:5) To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

(John 8:58) Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I AM!

(Rev 1:8) I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

(John 1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(1 Tim 3:16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among nations, believed on in the world, and received up into glory.

(Matt 1:23) "Behold, the virgin shall conceive in her womb, and will bear a son. And they will call His name Emmanuel," which being interpreted is, God with us.

(John 20:28-29) And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God! Jesus said to him, Thomas, because you have seen Me you have believed. Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed.

 

[synergy]

Mhmm. I will take an example that parallels the Athanasian Creed exactly. Here's a simple demonstration of how the Trinitarians' "logic" works.

Apple one is red
Apple two is green
Apple three is yellow.
not three apples, one apple.

Yes. It's bad.

That exposes your mind block. Here is what you refuse to comprehend:

Apple one is red and is a fruit
Apple two is green and is a fruit.
Apple three is yellow and is a fruit.
not three fruits, one fruit.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[synergy]

Thus we have proof that Jesus was drawn away of his own lust.

Thus we have proof that your motivation is one of slandering our Lord and God Jesus.

 

[101G]

John 1:1 and the rest of the Bible causes Unitarianism to evaporate like a puff of smoke.

don't mean to get into your conversation. if you don't mind, may 101G ask a question. is the Word in John 1:1 a separate and distinct person from God in John 1:1. yes or no. if yes, How?

101G.

 

[TomL]

Thus we have proof that Jesus was drawn away of his own lust. We have one who was tempted in all ways as we are and yet was without sin. You are under the wrong idea that Jesus couldn't sin. He absolutely hypothetically could have because temptation refers to desire. Jesus was absolutely tempted.

What are you going to do about Revelation 3:21?

Revelation 3
21To 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.

This proves Jesus isn't God. Jesus isn't the same person as God.

Um Trinitarians do not believe Jesus and the Father are the same person.

Seems you attack a position you do not even understand