The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

[mikesw]

Maybe they didn't mention it because it's irrelevant?

Paul did not think it irrelevant to use the concept in Gal 3:19-20. Paul does not have to tell people what they already knew. He only addressed the problems at hand. It is the big error of critics of scripture to think that Paul or other writers have to tell the targeted readers every doctrine. That is not how the New Testament is written.

You seem to have assigned yourself the roles of judge and jury. Which earlier post are you talking about?

You did not even ready your post that I was addressing. You explicitly numbered six items but described around 4 more items. Here is the link:
#Runningman list of 6-10 errant beliefs

If you want a soften description, you views in that post are incongruent with logical as well as standard concepts. None of your observations make sense to able interpreters of scripture. Your view shows no intersect with decent interpretations of Daniel or the New Testament.

 

[Runningman]

Paul did not think it irrelevant to use the concept in Gal 3:19-20. Paul does not have to tell people what they already knew. He only addressed the problems at hand. It is the big error of critics of scripture to think that Paul or other writers have to tell the targeted readers every doctrine. That is not how the New Testament is written.

I think Paul provided a powerful argument from Gal. 3:19-20 that Jesus is not in the Godhead since Jesus and Moses are both mediators. For consistency purposes, if Moses is not in the Godhead then neither is Jesus. It's because Trinitarianism is an inconsistent theology of who God is.

You did not even ready your post that I was addressing. You explicitly numbered six items but described around 4 more items. Here is the link:
#Runningman list of 6-10 errant beliefs

Those are not errant beliefs. Those specific points are in the Bible.

If you want a soften description, you views in that post are incongruent with logical as well as standard concepts. None of your observations make sense to able interpreters of scripture. Your view shows no intersect with decent interpretations of Daniel or the New Testament.

It doesn't align with Trinitarianism you mean. It means perfect sense from a Biblical perspective which is the Unitarian perspective. I am not interested in enabling Trinitarianism.

 

[MTMattie]

But in order for your argument to be valid, you must maintain the position that Jesus is against God. Doesn't work. I believe in attempting to discredit me, you will only increase the surface area for me to discredit you on.

He does not have to discredit you. You do a fine job of that all by yourself.

 

[Runningman]

He does not have to discredit you. You do a fine job of that all by yourself.

The people who accused Jesus of claiming to be God are the same people who Jesus said their father is the Devil. Don't you think you should stop believing liars and rather believe Jesus who never said he is God?

 

[mikesw]

I think Paul provided a powerful argument from Gal. 3:19-20 that Jesus is not in the Godhead since Jesus and Moses are both mediators. For consistency purposes, if Moses is not in the Godhead then neither is Jesus. It's because Trinitarianism is an inconsistent theology of who God is.

No one has been settled on Gal 3:19-20 but you. It is the inclusion of the Shema in verse 20 that especially has confused people.

Those are not errant beliefs. Those specific points are in the Bible.

You have not convinced anyone of this. S/o we have to treat your points as unreasonable.

It doesn't align with Trinitarianism you mean. It means perfect sense from a Biblical perspective which is the Unitarian perspective. I am not interested in enabling Trinitarianism.

If it made sense from a Unitarian perspective, the holders of that Unitarian view are very confused.

 

[mikesw]

The people who accused Jesus of claiming to be God are the same people who Jesus said their father is the Devil. Don't you think you should stop believing liars and rather believe Jesus who never said he is God?

the demons acknowledged Jesus as Messiah. Evildoers can interpret stuff correctly and is acceptable as correct since the gospel writers do not speak of a problem with their acknowledgement of Christ's divinity claim based on the event. You have to deny too much of scripture to adapt the ideas to a Unitarian view.

 

[Runningman]

the demons acknowledged Jesus as Messiah. Evildoers can interpret stuff correctly and is acceptable as correct since the gospel writers do not speak of a problem with their acknowledgement of Christ's divinity claim based on the event. You have to deny too much of scripture to adapt the ideas to a Unitarian view.

Being the son of God means Jesus is not himself God. Easy concept. Why do you not understand it when even the demons do?

 

[mikesw]

Being the son of God means Jesus is not himself God. Easy concept. Why do you not understand it when even the demons do?

You forget everything that has been discussed. Cannot really help you any further until you get your memory back.

 

[Runningman]

You forget everything that has been discussed. Cannot really help you any further until you get your memory back.

You're the one who needs help. Let me know when you're ready.

 

[Runningman]

No one has been settled on Gal 3:19-20 but you. It is the inclusion of the Shema in verse 20 that especially has confused people.

You have not convinced anyone of this. S/o we have to treat your points as unreasonable.

If it made sense from a Unitarian perspective, the holders of that Unitarian view are very confused.

Galatians 3:20 is, once again, strong evidence that God and Jesus aren't the same party.

Galatians 3:20 (ESV)
Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.

Galatians 3 (NIV)
A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

This is basically saying what I just told you. God and Jesus aren't the same person. Name any example where the intermediary and God were the same person. As I already demonstrated with Moses, for the third time already, that God and His mediator(s) are not God.

 

[mikesw]

Galatians 3:20 is, once again, strong evidence that God and Jesus aren't the same party.

Galatians 3:20 (ESV)
Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.

Galatians 3 (NIV)
A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

This is basically saying what I just told you. God and Jesus aren't the same person. Name any example where the intermediary and God were the same person. As I already demonstrated with Moses, for the third time already, that God and His mediator(s) are not God.

This has nothing to do with Moses
I guess, in your world, the Galatians were confused and thought God was two people so, in your world, Paul had to say God is only one "person."

You have to modify the verse in an anti-Trinitarian sense by add "person" which is never the meaning of the Shema. The mention of oneness can say there are no other gods, as they saw these pagan gods promoted by the neighboring countries. Moses certainly shares there are no other gods, but the oneness aspect also speaks of the essence of God. His oneness despite existing in a Triune form may also be implied here.

The idea of "one" is a theme appearing, oddly enough, three times. Once in Gal 3:16 and then twice in verse 20. The mention of "one offspring" recognize Jesus as one in v 20. We have the one Seed, the issue of one person in the promise, and the issue of God's oneness. This oneness explains why a mediator is not needed in the promise. But the promise has two -- from God to Jesus. Jesus is not the mediator from God to Jesus. That is ridiculous. Jesus cannot be the promisee and the mediator. That option then is off the table. This leaves that no mediator is possible because God and Jesus are one (in the Godhead).

You have shared no argument to overcome the obstacles you encounter. I do not think it useful that you have to deny what Paul shares.

 

[mikesw]

An explanation of the two verses has to explain why the promise from God to Jesus does not need a mediator. The explanation begins with that context. People who say God acts directly with humanity through the promise have forgotten to explain why Jesus is the one to whom the promise is fulfilled.

 

[synergy]

So the God of Abraham (I AM THAT I AM) is His own Son? The Father is the Son's Father and the God of Abraham is YHWH who said He is alone God. I thought you were at least a Trinitarian, but you seem to have changed organizations. Are you now of the Oneness variety because you don't have a way out of what you just stepped in with that comment. By the very fact that Jesus is the Son of YHWH should be more than sufficient to confirm that the Father is YHWH who said I AM THAT I AM in Exodus 3:14. To further troubleshoot your misunderstanding, please see Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:1. YHWH and Jesus aren't the same person.

It's Apostle John who wrote that no one has seen the Father except for Christ (John 6:46) and whoever sees Jesus sees the Father (John 14:9), not me. So now you're accusing Apostle John of being a "Oneness" advocate. It has now come down to that for you.

Acts 3
13The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus;

Acts 3:13 aligns perfectly with Trinitarianism. The Person who appeared to Moses could not have been the Father because no one has seen the Father except for Christ (John 6:46). So it was the Preincarnate Christ who appeared, since whoever sees Jesus sees the Father (John 14:9). That perfectly aligns with the fact that Jesus called himself "I AM" in John 8:24 and allows Ex 3:14 to prove that Jesus is God.

Keep those Trinitarian verses coming!

 

[synergy]

It required some digging, but this is a minority translation and is grammatically incorrect. Furthermore, "I am" is just a conjuction in english used to make the language more comprehensible. There is no claim to being God here. This is a very weak argument.

In Greek ἐγώ εἰμι is the name that God gave to Moses to give to anyone who asked for God's name.

(John 8:24) That is why I told you that you would die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM (ἐγώ εἰμι), you will die in your sin.

Jesus is explicitly declaring that he is ἐγώ εἰμι in John 8:24 and in several other passages. You continue to blatantly contradict what Jesus explicitly said in no uncertain terms. Your ignorance of Greek plays a role here.

Verse?

I don't have a preference about what the Bible says, but it doesn't in any way equate Jesus to God. Your argument has already been refuted by the fact that Jesus is not the God of Abraham in Acts 3:13.

See Post 2753.

Keep those Trinitarian verses coming!

 

[Runningman]

This has nothing to do with Moses
I guess, in your world, the Galatians were confused and thought God was two people so, in your world, Paul had to say God is only one "person."

You have to modify the verse in an anti-Trinitarian sense by add "person" which is never the meaning of the Shema. The mention of oneness can say there are no other gods, as they saw these pagan gods promoted by the neighboring countries. Moses certainly shares there are no other gods, but the oneness aspect also speaks of the essence of God. His oneness despite existing in a Triune form may also be implied here.

The idea of "one" is a theme appearing, oddly enough, three times. Once in Gal 3:16 and then twice in verse 20. The mention of "one offspring" recognize Jesus as one in v 20. We have the one Seed, the issue of one person in the promise, and the issue of God's oneness. This oneness explains why a mediator is not needed in the promise. But the promise has two -- from God to Jesus. Jesus is not the mediator from God to Jesus. That is ridiculous. Jesus cannot be the promisee and the mediator. That option then is off the table. This leaves that no mediator is possible because God and Jesus are one (in the Godhead).

You have shared no argument to overcome the obstacles you encounter. I do not think it useful that you have to deny what Paul shares.

Yes I understand you went off on a tangent, but before you continue then who is the mediator being talked about in Galatians 1:19? To be direct... who was the mediator of the Law? None other than Moses?

Galatians 3 KJV
19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

 

[Runningman]

It's Apostle John who wrote that no one has seen the Father except for Christ (John 6:46) and whoever sees Jesus sees the Father (John 14:9), not me. So now you're accusing Apostle John of being a "Oneness" advocate. It has now come down to that for you.

Then after that others saw the Father and knew him. The island you are on is shrinking.

Acts 3:13 aligns perfectly with Trinitarianism. The Person who appeared to Moses could not have been the Father because no one has seen the Father except for Christ (John 6:46). So it was the Preincarnate Christ who appeared, since whoever sees Jesus sees the Father (John 14:9). That perfectly aligns with the fact that Jesus called himself "I AM" in John 8:24 and allows Ex 3:14 to prove that Jesus is God.

Keep those Trinitarian verses coming!

You're advocating modalism if you still think the Father (YHWH) and Jesus (the Son) are the same person. The Father (YHWH) is directly and explicitly stated to be such in Scripture.

 

[Runningman]

In Greek ἐγώ εἰμι is the name that God gave to Moses to give to anyone who asked for God's name.

(John 8:24) That is why I told you that you would die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM (ἐγώ εἰμι), you will die in your sin.

Jesus is explicitly declaring that he is ἐγώ εἰμι in John 8:24 and in several other passages. You continue to blatantly contradict what Jesus explicitly said in no uncertain terms. Your ignorance of Greek plays a role here.

See Post 2753.

Keep those Trinitarian verses coming!

You're still making the error of perpetuating the fallacy that if anyone says "I am" then they are suggesting they are God. Do you ever say those words in your day-to-day life?

 

[synergy]

You're still making the error of perpetuating the fallacy that if anyone says "I am" then they are suggesting they are God. Do you ever say those words in your day-to-day life?

So now you're denigrating Christ's very words "ἐγώ εἰμι" as being a "fallacy". It's not enough that you accuse John's words of coming from a "Oneness" advocate. You're now denigrating Christ's words. Stop.embarrassing yourself.

 

[synergy]

Then after that others saw the Father and knew him. The island you are on is shrinking.

Who other than Jesus literally saw the Father? Book, chapter, and verse please.

You're advocating modalism if you still think the Father (YHWH) and Jesus (the Son) are the same person. The Father (YHWH) is directly and explicitly stated to be such in Scripture.

They're John's verses, not mine. You're effectively accusing him of being a "Oneness" advocate. Stop.embarrassing yourself.

 

[Runningman]

So now you're denigrating Christ's very words "ἐγώ εἰμι" as being a "fallacy". It's not enough that you accuse John's words of coming from a "Oneness" advocate. You're now denigrating Christ's words. Stop.embarrassing yourself.

I got it already. Ego eimi isn't used in the exclusive sense to claim deity that you are suggesting. Nor did Jesus repeat God's words in Exodus 3:14,15.