The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

[TomL]

As I stated delirious

@Runningman

You are delirious

lets look at your claims regarding 1 Cor 10:4 and 1Cor 10:9

and list some translations

1 Corinthians 10:4 (ESV) — 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

1 Corinthians 10:4 (KJV 1900) — 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

1 Corinthians 10:4 (LEB) — 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.

1 Corinthians 10:4 (NIV) — 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

1 Corinthians 10:4 (NASB 2020) — 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

All say Christ Cristos in the Greek using a masculine singular noun

An impersonal thing follows no one

Hello your false claim is exposed

now lets look at verse 9

1 Corinthians 10:9 (KJV 1900) — 9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

1 Corinthians 10:9 (ESV) — 9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents,

1 Corinthians 10:9 (LEB) — 9 nor put Christ to the test, as some of them tested him, and were destroyed by snakes,

1 Corinthians 10:9 (NIV) — 9 We should not test Christ, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes.

1 Corinthians 10:9 (UASV) — 9 Neither let us put the Lord to the test, as some of them tested him, and were destroyed by serpents.

1 Corinthians 10:9 (NASB 2020) — 9 Nor are we to put the Lord to the test, as some of them did, and were killed by the snakes.

not one speaks of an impersonal anointing, nor can one provoke an impersonal thing

exposing your false claim once again

and in context the lord is Christ


And BTW here are the various texts

1 Corinthians 10:4 (NA27) — 4 καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν ἔπιον πόμα· ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός. Nestle Aland 27

1 Corinthians 10:4 (WH1881MR) — 4 και παντες το αυτο πνευματικον επιον πομα επινον γαρ εκ πνευματικης ακολουθουσης πετρας η πετρα δε ην ο χριστος Wescott-Hort

1 Corinthians 10:4 (TR1550MR) — 4 και παντες το αυτο πομα πνευματικον επιον επινον γαρ εκ πνευματικης ακολουθουσης πετρας η δε πετρα ην ο χριστος Stephan's Textus Receiptus - received text

1 Corinthians 10:4 (TR1881) — 4 καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πόμα πνευματικὸν ἔπιον· ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας· ἡ δὲ πέτρα ἦν ὁ Χριστός. Schrivener Textus Receptus

1 Corinthians 10:4 (Elzevir) — 4 και παντες το αυτο πομα πνευματικον επιον επινον γαρ εκ πνευματικης ακολουθουσης πετρας η δε πετρα ην ο χριστος Elzevir's received text

1 Corinthians 10:4 (Tisch) — 4 και παντες το αυτο πνευματικον επιον πομα επινον γαρ εκ πνευματικης ακολουθουσης πετρας η πετρα δε ην ο χριστος Tischendorf's

1 Corinthians 10:4 (BYZ) — 4 και παντες το αυτο πομα πνευματικον επιον επινον γαρ εκ πνευματικης ακολουθουσης πετρας η δε πετρα ην ο χριστος Byzantine majority text

It's obvious you are a bible denier

either ignoring or denying what the bible states

either one is completely deluded or completely opposed to biblical truth to argue as you do

BTW you must think Jehovah is a thing as well because he is termed a Rock

Hello

Deuteronomy 32:4 (KJV 1900) — 4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: For all his ways are judgment: A God of truth and without iniquity, Just and right is he.

Your arguments are refuted

PS

2 Samuel 22:32 (KJV 1900) — 32 For who is God, save the LORD? And who is a rock, save our God?

Psalm 18:31 (KJV 1900) — 31 For who is God save the LORD? Or who is a rock save our God?

Seems as scripture States the rock was Christ then Christ is their God

And unitarians have nothing but denial to offer

 

[Runningman]

To the readers:

You have lost 1 Corinthians 10:4 & 9 as a proof text for the pre-existence of Jesus.

1 Cor. 10:4 says it's a spiritual rock, i.e., not a person. And there is not a person named Christ following the Israelites around in the desert. The Christ or Messiah is a human and didn't exist until after his birth. He wasn't made Christ until after he was already human according to Acts 2:36. The Messiah didn't pre-exist as the Messiah so the idea of Christ being a spiritual rock that followed them is either prophetic or a misnomer. It's not a misnomer, therefore you're flatout wrong.

The word "Christ" doesn't exist in the manuscripts for 1 Corinthians 10:9 because it doesn't make any sense if it does. If it did, it would be another misnomer because the Christ didn't exist yet. Pretty difficult to anger a non-existent being. The best versions of 1 Cor. 10:9 say "the Lord" in reference to the Father, not Jesus.

1 Cor. 10 (NASB)
9Nor are we to put the Lord to the test, as some of them did, and were killed by the snakes.

 

[synergy]

That's the collateral damage you take for using it as a verse to say Jesus is God. You have been explained this seven ways to Sunday and you still don't get it. The condition for being God in Rev. 3:21 is sitting on the throne of Jesus. It says that those who overcome sit on the throne of Jesus. The condition for being God is met. You can't have it both ways. Either Jesus and the church are God or they aren't.

As far as I am concerned, you argument has been debunked.

Revelation 3
21To the one who overcomes, I will grant the right to sit with Me on My throne, just as I overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

You're echoing Mormon theology. You think we're God because Jesus is God. Only a Mormon would believe that. You're a closet Mormon. When do you get your planet?

 

[mikesw]

To the readers:

You have lost 1 Corinthians 10:4 & 9 as a proof text for the pre-existence of Jesus.

1 Cor. 10:4 says it's a spiritual rock, i.e., not a person. And there is not a person named Christ following the Israelites around in the desert. The Christ or Messiah is a human and didn't exist until after his birth. He wasn't made Christ until after he was already human according to Acts 2:36. The Messiah didn't pre-exist as the Messiah so the idea of Christ being a spiritual rock that followed them is either prophetic or a misnomer. It's not a misnomer, therefore you're flatout wrong.

The word "Christ" doesn't exist in the manuscripts for 1 Corinthians 10:9 because it doesn't make any sense if it does. If it did, it would be another misnomer because the Christ didn't exist yet. Pretty difficult to anger a non-existent being. The best versions of 1 Cor. 10:9 say "the Lord" in reference to the Father, not Jesus.

1 Cor. 10 (NASB)
9Nor are we to put the Lord to the test, as some of them did, and were killed by the snakes.

Wow. Did you miss that Christ in 1 Cor 10 is the predominant and earliest word in the Greek? So you keep on doing stuff like taking weak alternatives and make your arguments based on those. I get you are trying to see how Christ could not be deity but that analysis is not working out to your expectation. You are purposely disregarding the evidence. We speak of Christ now since we did not have a name for him when he was with those in the Exodus. But you cannot handle nuance and have disregarded the arguments against your view on this text.

 

[Runningman]

You're echoing Mormon theology. You think we're God because Jesus is God. Only a Mormon would believe that. You're a closet Mormon. When do you get your planet?

Your theology about Jesus being God justifies Christians being God. In your zeal to turn a man into God, you have brought all the other humans with him. Your argument is very bad.

 

[Runningman]

Wow. Did you miss that Christ in 1 Cor 10 is the predominant and earliest word in the Greek? So you keep on doing stuff like taking weak alternatives and make your arguments based on those. I get you are trying to see how Christ could not be deity but that analysis is not working out to your expectation. You are purposely disregarding the evidence. We speak of Christ now since we did not have a name for him when he was with those in the Exodus. But you cannot handle nuance and have disregarded the arguments against your view on this text.

Thank you for replying. I was hoping someone aside from Tom would actually engage the argument. However, you are wrong about the earliest versions of 1 Cor. 10:9 reading "Christ." They read "Lord."

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
9. tempt Christ—So the oldest versions, Irenæus (264), and good manuscripts read. Some of the oldest manuscripts read "Lord"; and one manuscript only "God."

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(9) Neither let us tempt Christ.—Better, Neither let us tempt the Lord, as some of them tempted, and perished by serpents. There is much controversy as to whether the word here is “God” or “Christ” or “the Lord,” each having a certain amount of MS. support. On the whole, the reading here adopted (the Lord) seems from internal evidence to have been most likely the true reading. It is possible that the word “God” crept into the text, having been put as a marginal explanation to get over the supposed difficulty involved in applying the words which follow, “they also tempted,” to Christ. For in what sense could it have been said that the Israelites tempted Christ? There is no reason, however, for connecting “some of them tempted” (the word “also” is not in the original) with the object of the previous clause: and it is noticeable that the second word translated “tempted” is not the same as the first. “Let us not tempt” is in the original an intensified form of the verb which is used in its simple form in “some of them tempted.” The reading “Christ” may have come into the text as being an explanation that by the word “Lord” St. Paul meant the Redeemer.

 

[synergy]

Your theology about Jesus being God justifies Christians being God. In your zeal to turn a man into God, you have brought all the other humans with him. Your argument is very bad.

There you go again propagating Mormon theology. Jesus being God does not make us God. Only Mormons believe that. Since you believe that, you're definitely a Mormon. It's ok to come out of your Mormon closet and reveal who you really are. A planet is there for your taking.

 

[mikesw]

Thank you for replying. I was hoping someone aside from Tom would actually engage the argument. However, you are wrong about the earliest versions of 1 Cor. 10:9 reading "Christ." They read "Lord."

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
9. tempt Christ—So the oldest versions, Irenæus (264), and good manuscripts read. Some of the oldest manuscripts read "Lord"; and one manuscript only "God."

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(9) Neither let us tempt Christ.—Better, Neither let us tempt the Lord, as some of them tempted, and perished by serpents. There is much controversy as to whether the word here is “God” or “Christ” or “the Lord,” each having a certain amount of MS. support. On the whole, the reading here adopted (the Lord) seems from internal evidence to have been most likely the true reading. It is possible that the word “God” crept into the text, having been put as a marginal explanation to get over the supposed difficulty involved in applying the words which follow, “they also tempted,” to Christ. For in what sense could it have been said that the Israelites tempted Christ? There is no reason, however, for connecting “some of them tempted” (the word “also” is not in the original) with the object of the previous clause: and it is noticeable that the second word translated “tempted” is not the same as the first. “Let us not tempt” is in the original an intensified form of the verb which is used in its simple form in “some of them tempted.” The reading “Christ” may have come into the text as being an explanation that by the word “Lord” St. Paul meant the Redeemer.

so you rely on outdated material to make your arguments. I can kind of get that when you don't have many resources at hand. I mean if you are lacking 21st century writings on such a topic.
Anyhow, the P46 is the oldest copy we have but was not available until the 1930s, after those commentators died.
See BP_II_f_49 of P46 codex

 

[TomL]

To the readers:

You have lost 1 Corinthians 10:4 & 9 as a proof text for the pre-existence of Jesus.

1 Cor. 10:4 says it's a spiritual rock, i.e., not a person. And there is not a person named Christ following the Israelites around in the desert. The Christ or Messiah is a human and didn't exist until after his birth. He wasn't made Christ until after he was already human according to Acts 2:36. The Messiah didn't pre-exist as the Messiah so the idea of Christ being a spiritual rock that followed them is either prophetic or a misnomer. It's not a misnomer, therefore you're flatout wrong.

The word "Christ" doesn't exist in the manuscripts for 1 Corinthians 10:9 because it doesn't make any sense if it does. If it did, it would be another misnomer because the Christ didn't exist yet. Pretty difficult to anger a non-existent being. The best versions of 1 Cor. 10:9 say "the Lord" in reference to the Father, not Jesus.

1 Cor. 10 (NASB)
9Nor are we to put the Lord to the test, as some of them did, and were killed by the snakes.

Sorry God is called a rock

2 Samuel 22:32 (KJV 1900) — 32 For who is God, save the LORD? And who is a rock, save our God?

Psalm 18:31 (KJV 1900) — 31 For who is God save the LORD? Or who is a rock save our God?

Psalm 18:2 (KJV 1900) — 2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; My God, my strength, in whom I will trust; My buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.

Psalm 31:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 For thou art my rock and my fortress; Therefore for thy name’s sake lead me, and guide me.

2 Samuel 22:47 (KJV 1900) — 47 The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; And exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation.

so your claim is refuted or will you argue god is not a person

hello

Why did you just ignore this fact

and you were already refuted on the manuscripts as shown by the text

1 Corinthians 10:4 (NA27) — 4 καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν ἔπιον πόμα· ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός. Nestle Aland 27

1 Corinthians 10:4 (WH1881MR) — 4 και παντες το αυτο πνευματικον επιον πομα επινον γαρ εκ πνευματικης ακολουθουσης πετρας η πετρα δε ην ο χριστος Wescott-Hort

1 Corinthians 10:4 (TR1550MR) — 4 και παντες το αυτο πομα πνευματικον επιον επινον γαρ εκ πνευματικης ακολουθουσης πετρας η δε πετρα ην ο χριστος Stephan's Textus Receiptus - received text

1 Corinthians 10:4 (TR1881) — 4 καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πόμα πνευματικὸν ἔπιον· ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας· ἡ δὲ πέτρα ἦν ὁ Χριστός. Schrivener Textus Receptus

1 Corinthians 10:4 (Elzevir) — 4 και παντες το αυτο πομα πνευματικον επιον επινον γαρ εκ πνευματικης ακολουθουσης πετρας η δε πετρα ην ο χριστος Elzevir's received text

1 Corinthians 10:4 (Tisch) — 4 και παντες το αυτο πνευματικον επιον πομα επινον γαρ εκ πνευματικης ακολουθουσης πετρας η πετρα δε ην ο χριστος Tischendorf's

1 Corinthians 10:4 (BYZ) — 4 και παντες το αυτο πομα πνευματικον επιον επινον γαρ εκ πνευματικης ακολουθουσης πετρας η δε πετρα ην ο χριστος Byzantine majority text


further you ignore 1cor 10:4

1 Corinthians 10:4 (KJV 1900) — 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

when you argue against 1cor 10:9 the lord is not impersonal and in context the lord is the Christ of 1Cor 10;4

Ellicott does not support your impersonal interpretation

1 Cor 10:4

And that Rock was Christ.—As Christ was “God manifest in the flesh” in the New Dispensation, so God manifest in the Rock (the source of sustaining life) was the Christ of the Old Dispensation. The Jews had become familiar with the thought of God as a Rock. (See 1Sa_2:2; Psa_91:12; Isa_32:2.) Though the Jews may have recognised the Rock poetically as God, they knew not that it was, as a manifestation of God’s presence, typical of the manifestation which was yet to be given in the Incarnation. Such seems to be the force of the statement and of the word “But” which emphatically introduces it. But though they thought it only a Rock, or applied the word poetically to Jehovah, that Rock was Christ.

hello

This is but another example of you appealing to sources which do not agree with you

again the translations are against you

the texts are against you

the commentators are against you

and not one assigns an impersonal existence to the Christos

So give it up

you have been refuted once again

 

[TomL]

Thank you for replying. I was hoping someone aside from Tom would actually engage the argument. However, you are wrong about the earliest versions of 1 Cor. 10:9 reading "Christ." They read "Lord."

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
9. tempt Christ—So the oldest versions, Irenæus (264), and good manuscripts read. Some of the oldest manuscripts read "Lord"; and one manuscript only "God."

Deceptive partial out of context citiation

9. tempt Christ—So the oldest versions, IRENAEUS (264), and good manuscripts read. Some of the oldest manuscripts read “Lord”; and one manuscript only “God.” If “Lord” be read, it will mean Christ. As “Christ” was referred to in one of the five privileges of Israel (1 Co 10:4), so it is natural that He should be mentioned here in one of the five corresponding sins of that people. In Nu 21:5 it is “spake against God” (whence probably arose the alteration in the one manuscript, 1 Co 10:9, “God,” to harmonize it with Nu 21:5). As either “Christ” or “Lord” is the genuine reading, “Christ” must be “God.” Compare “Why do ye tempt the Lord?” (Ex 17:2, 7. Compare Ro 14:11, with Is 45:22, 23). Israel’s discontented complainings were temptings of Christ especially, the “Angel” of the covenant (Ex 23:20, 21; 32:34; Is 63:9). Though they drank of “that Rock … Christ” (1 Co 10:4), they yet complained for want of water (Ex 17:2, 7). Though also eating the same spiritual meat (Christ, “the true manna,” “the bread of life”), they yet murmured, “Our soul loatheth this light bread.” In this case, being punished by the fiery serpents, they were saved by the brazen serpent, the emblem of Christ (compare Jn 8:56; Heb 11:26). The Greek for “tempt” means, tempt or try, so as to wear out the long-suffering of Christ (compare Ps 95:8, 9; Nu 14:22). The Corinthians were in danger of provoking God’s long-suffering by walking on the verge of idolatry, through overweening confidence in their knowledge.

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (vol. 2; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 281.

either translation Christ or lord refutes you

also regarding 1 Cor 10:4

spiritual Rock that followed them—rather, “accompanied them.” Not the literal rock (or its water) “followed” them, as ALFORD explains, as if Paul sanctioned the Jews’ tradition (Rabbi Solomon on Nu 20:2) that the rock itself, or at least the stream from it, followed the Israelites from place to place (compare De 9:21). But Christ, the “Spiritual Rock” (Ps 78:20, 35; Ps 78:20, 35, De 32:4, 15, 18, 30, 31, 37; Is 28:16; 1 Pe 2:6), accompanied them (Ex 33:15). “Followed” implies His attending on them to minister to them; thus, though mostly going before them, He, when occasion required it, followed “behind” (Ex 14:19). He satisfied all alike as to their bodily thirst whenever they needed it; as on three occasions is expressly recorded (Ex 15:24, 25; 17:6; Nu 20:8); and this drink for the body symbolized the spiritual drink from the Spiritual Rock (compare Jn 4:13, 14; see on 1 Co 10:3).

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (vol. 2; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 281.

again you are offered no support from this commentator

 

[mikesw]

Deceptive partial out of context citiation

9. tempt Christ—So the oldest versions, IRENAEUS (264), and good manuscripts read. Some of the oldest manuscripts read “Lord”; and one manuscript only “God.” If “Lord” be read, it will mean Christ. As “Christ” was referred to in one of the five privileges of Israel (1 Co 10:4), so it is natural that He should be mentioned here in one of the five corresponding sins of that people. In Nu 21:5 it is “spake against God” (whence probably arose the alteration in the one manuscript, 1 Co 10:9, “God,” to harmonize it with Nu 21:5). As either “Christ” or “Lord” is the genuine reading, “Christ” must be “God.” Compare “Why do ye tempt the Lord?” (Ex 17:2, 7. Compare Ro 14:11, with Is 45:22, 23). Israel’s discontented complainings were temptings of Christ especially, the “Angel” of the covenant (Ex 23:20, 21; 32:34; Is 63:9). Though they drank of “that Rock … Christ” (1 Co 10:4), they yet complained for want of water (Ex 17:2, 7). Though also eating the same spiritual meat (Christ, “the true manna,” “the bread of life”), they yet murmured, “Our soul loatheth this light bread.” In this case, being punished by the fiery serpents, they were saved by the brazen serpent, the emblem of Christ (compare Jn 8:56; Heb 11:26). The Greek for “tempt” means, tempt or try, so as to wear out the long-suffering of Christ (compare Ps 95:8, 9; Nu 14:22). The Corinthians were in danger of provoking God’s long-suffering by walking on the verge of idolatry, through overweening confidence in their knowledge.

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (vol. 2; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 281.

either translation Christ or lord refutes you

also regarding 1 Cor 10:4

spiritual Rock that followed them—rather, “accompanied them.” Not the literal rock (or its water) “followed” them, as ALFORD explains, as if Paul sanctioned the Jews’ tradition (Rabbi Solomon on Nu 20:2) that the rock itself, or at least the stream from it, followed the Israelites from place to place (compare De 9:21). But Christ, the “Spiritual Rock” (Ps 78:20, 35; Ps 78:20, 35, De 32:4, 15, 18, 30, 31, 37; Is 28:16; 1 Pe 2:6), accompanied them (Ex 33:15). “Followed” implies His attending on them to minister to them; thus, though mostly going before them, He, when occasion required it, followed “behind” (Ex 14:19). He satisfied all alike as to their bodily thirst whenever they needed it; as on three occasions is expressly recorded (Ex 15:24, 25; 17:6; Nu 20:8); and this drink for the body symbolized the spiritual drink from the Spiritual Rock (compare Jn 4:13, 14; see on 1 Co 10:3).

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (vol. 2; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 281.

again you are offered no support from this commentator

Info Only: Logos does the copyright a bit oddly. The year for the commentary is 1871 and Logos does not add additional copyright or reprint info at the title page.

 

[Runningman]

so you rely on outdated material to make your arguments. I can kind of get that when you don't have many resources at hand. I mean if you are lacking 21st century writings on such a topic.
Anyhow, the P46 is the oldest copy we have but was not available until the 1930s, after those commentators died.
See BP_II_f_49 of P46 codex

No idea what you're talkin about with outdated material. The Old Testament says the Lord was with them, not Christ. New Testament confirms it. Read 1 Cor. 10:9. The oldest manuscripts agree.

 

[Runningman]

There you go again propagating Mormon theology. Jesus being God does not make us God. Only Mormons believe that. Since you believe that, you're definitely a Mormon. It's ok to come out of your Mormon closet and reveal who you really are. A planet is there for your taking.

I don't believe Jesus or Christians are God, but you are using Revelation 3:21 in such a way as to say that Jesus is God. You are going to have to take the whole verse for what it says whether or not you like it. You're actually pretty close to becoming a Mormon. While they are wrong, that would be a step up for you.

 

[mikesw]

No idea what you're talkin about with outdated material. The Old Testament says the Lord was with them, not Christ. New Testament confirms it. Read 1 Cor. 10:9. The oldest manuscripts agree.

The oldest is P46 and it says Christ. THe majority of diverse copies (different regions) says Christ. and Lord also means Christ. So you are making a fallacious argument. When I mention outdated sources, I mean commentaries written before P46 was available for scholarship. So do not keep promoting your fallacious arguments. So indeed you do not have any idea here.

 

[synergy]

I don't believe Jesus or Christians are God, but you are using Revelation 3:21 in such a way as to say that Jesus is God.

The only way that's possible is if I'm a Mormon like you. Since I refuse to be one that in turn causes your argumentation to crash and burn.

You are going to have to take the whole verse for what it says whether or not you like it. You're actually pretty close to becoming a Mormon. While they are wrong, that would be a step up for you.

It's ok for you to come out of your closet and declare that you are in fact a Mormon.

 

[Ozias]

Jesus simply said, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matthew 11:28-29).


The way to come to Jesus is in prayer.

 

[Runningman]

The oldest is P46 and it says Christ. THe majority of diverse copies (different regions) says Christ. and Lord also means Christ. So you are making a fallacious argument. When I mention outdated sources, I mean commentaries written before P46 was available for scholarship. So do not keep promoting your fallacious arguments. So indeed you do not have any idea here.

Newsflash, the Old Testament is older than the New Testament. No one mentioned Christ in the desert. The original reading how nothing to do with Jesus. You have been overruled.

 

[Runningman]

The only way that's possible is if I'm a Mormon like you. Since I refuse to be one that in turn causes your argumentation to crash and burn.

It's ok for you to come out of your closet and declare that you are in fact a Mormon.

LOL you think I am a Mormon. You are a genius... did you know Mormons are Trinitarian?

 

[mikesw]

Newsflash, the Old Testament is older than the New Testament. No one mentioned Christ in the desert. The original reading how nothing to do with Jesus. You have been overruled.

you believe your own mind rather than scripture as a whole. That is really going out on a limb to deny the deity of Christ. At the same time, you fail to make a case to deny the passages about the deity of Christ. This last one is just another example. Your overruling any doctrine of Christ is meaningless when you cannot even defend one little doctrine within your rejection of Christ. Like we observed, you have to find least trusted versions of 1 Cor 10:9 to try to make your denial of the deity of Christ, and even those only show how easy it is to see Christ being identified with deity.

 

[Runningman]

you believe your own mind rather than scripture as a whole. That is really going out on a limb to deny the deity of Christ. At the same time, you fail to make a case to deny the passages about the deity of Christ. This last one is just another example. Your overruling any doctrine of Christ is meaningless when you cannot even defend one little doctrine within your rejection of Christ. Like we observed, you have to find least trusted versions of 1 Cor 10:9 to try to make your denial of the deity of Christ, and even those only show how easy it is to see Christ being identified with deity.

You've now reached the point of denying the oldest manuscripts on the matter of the Israelites in the desert. Ever heard of the Old Testament before? It doesn't mention Jesus there following there or Jesus getting angry. How do you justify believing "Christ" was in the Old Testament when the Christ didn't exist until after he was born according to all of the Old Testament prophecies?