The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

[synergy]

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

Nope. They're Polytheists which is what your closet self is with statements like "Jesus being God justifies Christians being God" coming from you.

 

[mikesw]

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?

You don't trust what Paul wrote. He has understood scripture better than anyone. He was appointed by God and inspired as any prophet. Pray that Christ will give you grace despite your denial of him. Nor is there any reason to trust your arguments when they lack basic understanding of scripture and even deny that Paul has interpreted and conveyed the situation best to us. He was poised perfectly to understand the OT in light of Christ. But you don't trust him.

 

[Runningman]

Nope. They're Polytheists which is what your closet self is with statements like "Jesus being God justifies Christians being God" coming from you.

Goodness. You don't even know what Mormon believe. They believe in in a triune godhead like you do. That is more along the lines of what you believe.

 

[Runningman]

You don't trust what Paul wrote. He has understood scripture better than anyone. He was appointed by God and inspired as any prophet. Pray that Christ will give you grace despite your denial of him. Nor is there any reason to trust your arguments when they lack basic understanding of scripture and even deny that Paul has interpreted and conveyed the situation best to us. He was poised perfectly to understand the OT in light of Christ. But you don't trust him.

Love Paul's writings, but manuscript variations are a real thing. On the matter of 1 Corinthians 10:9, if you will go back to the OT, there is no Christ there.

Look YHWH was there. No Jesus or Christ.

Numbers 21 (KJV)​

6And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died​

Look again, Jesus isn't YHWH.

Psalm 110 (KJV)​

1The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.​

Many a theologian disagree with what you are proposing. It doesn't match the Bible.

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.

 

[mikesw]

Love Paul's writings, but manuscript variations are a real thing. On the matter of 1 Corinthians 10:9, if you will go back to the OT, there is no Christ there.
... 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.

You forget that after the P46 confirmed that Christ is the oldest word used in 1 Cor 10:9, there is no longer a real debate whether any other word suffices in 1 Cor 10:9. Like mentioned before, you cling to the unlikely options in hope of denying the deity of Christ. You just choose the wording that reduces your thinking and understanding so you do not recognize the continuity of the one we know as Christ. We do not simply reduce scripture to what we expect it to say. We have to accept scripture along with those ideas that challenge one's expectation, such as finding Christ in the OT.

 

[synergy]

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

If that's the case then you should follow their example and become Trinitarian. Stop being a closet Polytheist with comments like "Jesus being God justifies Christians being God".

 

[Runningman]

If that's the case then you should follow their example and become Trinitarian. Stop being a closet Polytheist with comments like "Jesus being God justifies Christians being God".

I don’t believe Christians are God therefore Jesus isn’t God. That’s my point. This is a debate to expose the fallacies in your beliefs, not me declaring I believe Jesus or Christians are God. I am a Unitarian not a Trinitarian in my beliefs. So keep that in mind to know what angle I’m coming from.

 

[Runningman]

You forget that after the P46 confirmed that Christ is the oldest word used in 1 Cor 10:9, there is no longer a real debate whether any other word suffices in 1 Cor 10:9. Like mentioned before, you cling to the unlikely options in hope of denying the deity of Christ. You just choose the wording that reduces your thinking and understanding so you do not recognize the continuity of the one we know as Christ. We do not simply reduce scripture to what we expect it to say. We have to accept scripture along with those ideas that challenge one's expectation, such as finding Christ in the OT.

There isn’t just a cache of manuscripts and all you gotta do is find the oldest one and now you have the truth. Not how it works. The manuscripts are regional and there were theological differences in beliefs based on whatever community one was in. So age isn’t the sole indicator and that’s it because there is still the matter of the Bible to deal with. Jesus is no where to be found in the Old Testament saying or doing anything. That’s proves your preferred version of 1 Cor. 10:9 to be a fairy tale.

 

[civic]

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.

nope Paul identifies Christ as Lord in his epistle, not the Father,

argument from silence fallacy alert.................

 

[Runningman]

nope Paul identifies Christ as Lord in his epistle, not the Father,

argument from silence fallacy alert.................

Paul identified the Father as Lord of heaven and earth in Acts 17:24,25 and said He isn't served by human hands.

Guess who has human hands?

 

[synergy]

I don’t believe Christians are God therefore Jesus isn’t God. That’s my point. This is a debate to expose the fallacies in your beliefs, not me declaring I believe Jesus or Christians are God. I am a Unitarian not a Trinitarian in my beliefs. So keep that in mind to know what angle I’m coming from.

You just love to leap from one heresy to another. Tomorrow it's going to be another heresy. It's called Runningman's Heresy du Jour.

 

[Runningman]

You just love to leap from one heresy to another. Tomorrow it's going to be another heresy. It's called Runningman's Heresy du Jour.

One person’s heretic is another person’s saint. I’m an orthodox Christian, believe it or not.

 

[Administrator]

Let's try this..."talk about the post and not the poster" thing.

 

[mikesw]

One person’s heretic is another person’s saint. I’m an orthodox Christian, believe it or not.

Maybe you hold to everything else common among Christians but you deny the primary one of the Trinity. If someone just did not understand the Trinity, that person could still be an orthodox Christian.

 

[mikesw]

There isn’t just a cache of manuscripts and all you gotta do is find the oldest one and now you have the truth. Not how it works. The manuscripts are regional and there were theological differences in beliefs based on whatever community one was in. So age isn’t the sole indicator and that’s it because there is still the matter of the Bible to deal with. Jesus is no where to be found in the Old Testament saying or doing anything. That’s proves your preferred version of 1 Cor. 10:9 to be a fairy tale.

It is not just that we have the oldest testimony of Christ in 1 Cor 10:9, it is that Christ appears in the various languages and geographical distribution. Plus it is used in the majority of texts. You just selectively choose the word that, while not denying Christ in the Exodus, gives you maybe a sliver of hope that he was not there at the time of Exodus. But I do not know what hope you garner from deny the deity of Christ.

 

[Runningman]

Maybe you hold to everything else common among Christians but you deny the primary one of the Trinity. If someone just did not understand the Trinity, that person could still be an orthodox Christian.

Please show me where there were Christians in the Bible practicing Trinitarianism.

 

[Runningman]

It is not just that we have the oldest testimony of Christ in 1 Cor 10:9, it is that Christ appears in the various languages and geographical distribution. Plus it is used in the majority of texts. You just selectively choose the word that, while not denying Christ in the Exodus, gives you maybe a sliver of hope that he was not there at the time of Exodus. But I do not know what hope you garner from deny the deity of Christ.

we still have the Old Testament completely refuting your “oldest testimony” argument.

Question. Is Jesus the same person as YHWH in your beliefs?

 

[TomL]

we still have the Old Testament completely refuting your “oldest testimony” argument.

Question. Is Jesus the same person as YHWH in your beliefs?

Um New Testament references to the Old Testament identify Christ as YHWH

And more than one is called YHWH in the Old Testament

Multiple posts you have not addressed testify to this.

 

[TomL]

There isn’t just a cache of manuscripts and all you gotta do is find the oldest one and now you have the truth. Not how it works. The manuscripts are regional and there were theological differences in beliefs based on whatever community one was in. So age isn’t the sole indicator and that’s it because there is still the matter of the Bible to deal with. Jesus is no where to be found in the Old Testament saying or doing anything. That’s proves your preferred version of 1 Cor. 10:9 to be a fairy tale.

Sorry in context the lord is 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.

and we have your confession the father is not lord as per your handling of 1cor 8:6

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.

So even if lord were the correct translation (it is not the majority one) it still points to Christ

Hello you are refuted once again by your own words

further as all things are by him, he is pre-existent

and another one of your scripture denying doctrine is rebutted

 

[mikesw]

we still have the Old Testament completely refuting your “oldest testimony” argument.

Question. Is Jesus the same person as YHWH in your beliefs?

so you are going to disregard the New Testament. It does not sound like you are worth listening to then.

It gets blended in the Old Testament about who of the Trinity is being encountered. That is what the Jewish interpreters encountered. I'm sorry if you have not understood the nuances.