The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

Maybe some feedback for you.
You have not clarified what Rom 3:19-20 has said. It seems instead you jumped to Rom 3:27-28ish when you say "the seed of Abraham refers to one, not many." So it is impossible to find any aspect pertinent to an alternative view of Rom 3:19-20.
The interesting aspect of these verses is that they do not teach the divinity of Christ, but as a hidden gem found later on, it confirms the divinity of Christ within the Shema. Consequently, the Rom 3:19-20 verses are an independent confirmation of the divinity of Christ. The recognition of the divinity is sort of the cross-checking of what became the discussion later about the essence of Christ.
The denial would not be that the deity of Christ was unknown but rather that many overseers had perhaps focused on passages about the humanity of Jesus so as to disregard his divine nature. The scripture availability could have been an issue. Also, there could be groups just developing theology in isolation without awareness of the original information passed on.
 
Maybe some feedback for you.
You have not clarified what Rom 3:19-20 has said. It seems instead you jumped to Rom 3:27-28ish when you say "the seed of Abraham refers to one, not many." So it is impossible to find any aspect pertinent to an alternative view of Rom 3:19-20.
Maybe some feedback for you. We are talking about Colossians 3, not Romans 3. Pay attention and don't run away to a different set of verses. I have you right where I want you and won't be releasing you any time soon.
 
Maybe some feedback for you. We are talking about Colossians 3, not Romans 3. Pay attention and don't run away to a different set of verses. I have you right where I want you and won't be releasing you any time soon.
A simple way for you to reply is to say you do not understand Gal 3:19-20. Sorry for the typo where i said Rom 3:19-20.
 
I did,although I said Rom 3:19-20 instead of Gal 3:19-20. You jumped off to vv28-29,which had no relationship to the topic in vv 19-20.
Ok got it. There is a lot of context surrounding Gal. 3:19,20. Don't ignore it and laser focus in on just two verses out of the entire context. It's actually a great chapter that I haven't read in a while. Keep those Unitarian prooftexts coming.
 
Ok got it. There is a lot of context surrounding Gal. 3:19,20. Don't ignore it and laser focus in on just two verses out of the entire context. It's actually a great chapter that I haven't read in a while. Keep those Unitarian prooftexts coming.
Sure. If you want to create prooftexts for Unitarians, it is easy. Just take verses out of context.
 
Sure. If you want to create prooftexts for Unitarians, it is easy. Just take verses out of context.
I should have asked this a long time ago, but it would help to know if you are even reachable. Are you arguing from the position of truth seeking, meaning that if you were to discover the trinity is false and you had misunderstood it all, that you would adapt your position to truth? Or is it your premise that it (the trinity) is unquestionable and infallible?
 
I should have asked this a long time ago, but it would help to know if you are even reachable. Are you arguing from the position of truth seeking, meaning that if you were to discover the trinity is false and you had misunderstood it all, that you would adapt your position to truth? Or is it your premise that it (the trinity) is unquestionable and infallible?
We narrow it down. First, the Unitarian view has proven untenable and illogical. It is good that you have demonstrated the weakness of interpretation behind it. I do accept that the Trinitarian doctrine could be refined in some ways. Like I said earlier, you might not reject the scripture if the Trinity doctrine had some different ways of stating points.
 
We narrow it down. First, the Unitarian view has proven untenable and illogical. I do accept that the Trinitarian doctrine could be refined in some ways. Like I said earlier, you might not reject the scripture if the Trinity doctrine had some different ways of stating points.
John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, Eph. 4:6, and the entire Old Testament, and dozens of descriptive examples of Unitarianism are all over the Bible. It's Scriptural, logical, succent, and unifies the Scripture in a coherent way. Yet you don't have even one example or description of the Trinity. Not any at length discussions of they being God in the Bible. No one ever thought it was important to mention that's who God is.

So I take it you are just here to spread Trinitarianism. Why would I want to believe in that when it isn't in the Bible?
 
John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, Eph. 4:6, and the entire Old Testament, and dozens of descriptive examples of Unitarianism are all over the Bible. It's Scriptural, logical, succent, and unifies the Scripture in a coherent way. Yet you don't have even one example or description of the Trinity. Not at length discussion of they being God in the Bible. No one ever thought it was important to mention that's who God is.

So I take it you are just here to spread Trinitarianism. Why would I want to believe in that when it isn't in the Bible?
You do not have to believe anything specific. However, your beliefs may show you estranged from the gospel. This is especially true since you hold an illogical and untenable view by discounting the passages that speak of the divinity of Christ. If you do not accept those, you pay the penalty, if any.
 
You do not have to believe anything specific. However, your beliefs may show you estranged from the gospel.
Unitarianism states there is one God, the Father, who is the only true God. We don't have any creeds. We just have what the Bible says. We literally just quote the Bible on this particular point. You call it illogical because it doesn't conform to your niche logic. No one one earth thinks like you people except you people and a handful of pagan religions like Hinduism and some others that aren't worth mentioning by name again.
 
Unitarianism states there is one God, the Father, who is the only true God. We don't have any creeds. We just have what the Bible says. We literally just quote the Bible on this particular point. You call it illogical because it doesn't conform to your niche logic. No one one earth thinks like you people except you people and a handful of pagan religions like Hinduism and some others that aren't worth mentioning by name again.
I call it illogical and untenable based on someone who claims to interpret authoritatively of the Unitarian view. Your arguments have failed miserably despite you imagining you are right. That imagination, of course, is a big concern too.
I give some thought to what you post --at least often. But it never pans out the way you imagine scripture would say. And I have to ask as to how many Hindus do you think were creating Bible verses in the OT and NT? I showed that the Galatians had to know of the divinity of Christ so they could understand Gal 3:19-20. You had no significant (or clear) explanation of those verses.
I do change views when warranted by the testimony of scripture. So, that is not a hindrance for me.
 
Last edited:
This verse gives an interesting detail about Jesus as the bridegroom. The church is the bride of Christ. I cannot tell Runningman's interpretation of this. He tends to place Jesus as just one of the brothers and sisters rather than Lord over all. So, this verse shows Christ Jesus' uniqueness from the words of John the Baptist.

John 3:29 (ESV)
29The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete.
 
In Acts 1:24-25 they prayed to the Father. Based on all of the prior examples and teachings of prayer it would follow this is the case.

You have still not provided any Scripture about praying to Jesus. There isn't any.
John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority,
but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
John 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
John 16:15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Works for me, praise Jesus.
 
John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority,
but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
John 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
John 16:15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Works for me, praise Jesus.
“Some of the songs we sing in worship address Christ. Is it appropriate to worship Jesus?”

It is not surprising that some cultists, who deny the deity of Christ, should eschew the worship of the Lord.

What is shocking is the fact that some—who are quite sincere, but who ought to know better, and hopefully will learn better—are expressing themselves in opposition to the idea that Christ is worthy of worship. One man has compiled a significant list of songs which he feels ought to be expunged from church hymnals because they address Christ in sentiments of worship. In fact, a recently-published hymnal has removed those songs which reflect any direct address to the Savior!

Is the criticism valid? We confidently deny that it is.

(1) A divine being, i.e., one who possesses the nature of deity, is worthy of worship. Both Testaments repeatedly affirm this concept (see Psalm 18:3; Matthew 4:10; Revelation 22:9). If it is alleged that only the Father is under consideration in such passages, we reply that such is an unwarranted assertion which not only lacks proof, it contradicts other biblical references.

The truth is, God, as a being, is deserving of praise. If it is the case that Christ is divine (John 1:1; 20:29; Hebrews 1:8), and if deity is worthy of worship, then it follows that Christ is worthy of Christian praise.

(2) During his earthly ministry, Jesus frequently allowed himself to be worshiped. There are numerous passages which portray the Lord in this light (see Matthew 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; Mark 5:6-7; John 9:35-38). It will not do to argue that these texts only show that some merely “reverenced” Jesus in much the same way one would honor any important dignitary.

Consider, for instance, the case of the disciples’ demeanor after Jesus had walked upon the Sea of Galilee. When the Lord entered the boat, these men “worshipped him, saying, Of a truth you are the Son of God” (Matthew 14:33). They were honoring him as a divine being—that is beyond dispute.

Further it is not without great significance that when folks bowed before the Lord and worshiped him, in not a single case did he ever rebuke the worshipers and suggest that he was unworthy of such adoration. Christ thus stands in dramatic contrast to Peter, who refused worship (Acts 10:25-26), and even to angels, who similarly did not allow themselves to be so revered (Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9).

(3) Even the angels worship Christ. In one of his foundational arguments designed to show the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old, the writer of Hebrews affirms that all of the angels (through whom the Mosaic law came) worship Christ (the author of the new law): “Let all the angels of God worship him” (1:6).

Since angels worship Christ, and as we are “lower” than they (Hebrews 2:7), it follows that our worship of the Lord is entirely appropriate. Surely no one can carefully study the fifth chapter of the book of Revelation and not see that the Lamb of God is worthy of the worship of the entire creation. In fact, Jesus is given the same sort of adoration as the Father (see 5:13b).

(4) Paul explicitly states that Christ is so exalted that, in his name “every knee should bow” and every tongue confess that he is Lord (Philippians 2:10-11). The reference to bowing the knee is an obvious allusion to worship (cf. Isaiah 45:23; Romans 11:4).

Clearly, Christ is worthy of worship. Those who are voicing objections to such are in error.

J.
 
I call it illogical and untenable based on someone who claims to interpret authoritatively of the Unitarian view. Your arguments have failed miserably despite you imagining you are right. That imagination, of course, is a big concern too.
I give some thought to what you post --at least often. But it never pans out the way you imagine scripture would say. And I have to ask as to how many Hindus do you think were creating Bible verses in the OT and NT? I showed that the Galatians had to know of the divinity of Christ so they could understand Gal 3:19-20. You had no significant (or clear) explanation of those verses.
I do change views when warranted by the testimony of scripture. So, that is not a hindrance for me.
Repeating verbatim, word for word, what Jesus said isn't called an interpretation. Jesus said the Father is the only true God. So since you don't believe what it says at face value then you are interpreting it. It's a much weaker position to have to explain something away by adding a bunch of philosophy to it. The plain text, face value, reading is more intuitive and isn't open to debate. We can debate your philosophy, you cannot debate that Jesus said the very words he did. Make sense?
 
Last edited:
This verse gives an interesting detail about Jesus as the bridegroom. The church is the bride of Christ. I cannot tell Runningman's interpretation of this. He tends to place Jesus as just one of the brothers and sisters rather than Lord over all. So, this verse shows Christ Jesus' uniqueness from the words of John the Baptist.

John 3:29 (ESV)
29The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete.
This refers to Jesus' Lordship over his brothers and sisters as the bridegroom, but not as their God. Paul believed the same thing. We can draw a parallel between what Jesus said and Paul. The bridegroom (man) is the head of the bride (woman), but that the head of the bridegroom (man) is God in 1 Corinthians 11:3.

1 Corinthians 11​
3But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

We can take another example in which Jesus illustrated his supremacy over his brothers, but did not go so far as to say that he is himself God.

Jesus illustrated that point by talking about himself and his disciples as part of the same vine. He said he is the true vine and that his disciples are the branches. This would mean that the vine and branches are all part of the same plant, but the Father is not part of the same plant, but rather is the keeper of the vineyard because only the Father is God and Jesus with his disciples are not God. Is this starting to make sense?

John 15​
1I am the true vine, and My Father is the keeper of the vineyard. 2He cuts off every branch in Me that bears no fruit, and every branch that does bear fruit, He prunes to make it even more fruitful.​
 
John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority,
but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
John 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
John 16:15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Works for me, praise Jesus.
Hello there and welcome to the forum. I do not believe you and I had a chance to chat yet, but thank you for commenting on my OP. It's nice to have you here. I believe in praying to the Father like how Jesus taught. No one else taught anything to the contrary in all of Scripture.

Matthew 6
6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
9After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
 
Repeating verbatim, word for word, what Jesus said isn't called an interpretation. Jesus said the Father is the only true God. So since you don't believe what it says at face value then you are interpreting it. It's a much weaker position to have to explain something away by adding a bunch of philosophy to it. The plain text, face value, reading is more intuitive and isn't open to debate. We can debate your philosophy, you cannot debate that Jesus said the very words he did. Make sense?
Not when you omit v5. Everything is an interpretation. The bible is not reduced to one verse. But the Unitarian does that. The judges also have to take laws that appear contradictory and reconcile them for a decision. That is what happens in understanding John 17:3-5. Jesus (though before incarnation and not named "Jesus" at that time) preexisted. Your repetition of weak arguments does not add any credibility to your arguments.
 
Back
Top Bottom