The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

[Runningman]

John 5:26–27 (ESV)
26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.
27And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.
There is nothing wrong about a father granting something to his son. This definitely says the Son has life in himself. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. There are not people other than the Son of God who have life in themselves.

This is evidence that Jesus didn't have life before God granted it to him. It means he isn't an eternal being.

 

[Runningman]

ah. you admit to more heresy. You have a works-based religion. So you keep adding heresy upon heresy. It is not surprising though. Once you deny the truth about Christ Jesus, all other doctrine that follows is also corrupted.
By itching ears, I mean that you prey on Christians who have not sufficiently learned about Christ Jesus as being divine in the Godhead. You use that to lead them astray in other doctrines too. At least you are sharing more about the heresy than Peterlag does. But I think he has some other weird Unitarian-derived conception of some sort of alternative spirit involved in the Unitarian's lives.

No. The final judgement is works based according to Scripture. It seems everything I have shown you from the Bible is heresy in your eyes. Pearls before swine at this point, but here it is anyway. Maybe it'll wake you up.

Romans 2
6He will render to each one according to his works: 7to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11For God shows no partiality.

Anyway, are you a Calvinist? I would like to know. You don't have to answer, but I am certain this is probably a hotbed for that cult based on some of the things I've seen you say. By the way, I have already combed through all of his institutes. He scarcely ever talked about the Trinity, but certainly never said belief in it is required.

 

[mikesw]

This is evidence that Jesus didn't have life before God granted it to him. It means he isn't an eternal being.

You mess up again. I am amazed at the distortion here. We look at an analogy in the OT where the blood is the life of man. Now Christ Jesus is the life for those in Christ such that Christ is roughly analogous to blood giving life. But Christ is the greater reality. But, alas, I am throwing pearls before swine.

 

[mikesw]

No. The final judgement is works based according to Scripture. It seems everything I have shown you from the Bible is heresy in your eyes. Pearls before swine at this point, but here it is anyway. Maybe it'll wake you up.

Romans 2
6He will render to each one according to his works: 7to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11For God shows no partiality.

Anyway, are you a Calvinist? I would like to know. You don't have to answer, but I am certain this is probably a hotbed for that cult based on some of the things I've seen you say. By the way, I have already combed through all of his institutes. He scarcely ever talked about the Trinity, but certainly never said belief in it is required.

Each new passage your introduce adds another nail in your coffin. I'm not going to explain the passage for you, but you are way off.

I'm not a Calvinist. For whatever that might signify to you.

 

[mikesw]

Just look at all of the points Paul makes in Acts 17:24-31. Paul didn't believe Jesus is God. Paul taught that the God who made everything also gave life to all people. The Scripture teaches that God gave life to Jesus in John 1:9,10 and John 5:26. Additionally, Paul taught that God's children are His offspring. Jesus is also God's offspring. After that, Paul was clear that the Divine Being is not like gold, silver, or stone. So of course his point is that God isn't a material being made of elements, compounds, etc like humans. Paul was very clear here. In other words, Jesus is not God because he's a human. Paul summed it all up and suggested that believing otherwise is a sin that God is commanding all to repent of. So yes there is a powerful argument to make that you are an unrepentant idolator who will come under judgement "by a man whom he has appointed."

I have to repeat what I said before. The use of a preaching message to pagans hardly is a good place to get your doctrine from.

 

[Runningman]

You mess up again. I am amazed at the distortion here. We look at an analogy in the OT where the blood is the life of man. Now Christ Jesus is the life for those in Christ such that Christ is roughly analogous to blood giving life. But Christ is the greater reality. But, alas, I am throwing pearls before swine.

You're working around it because Jesus being someone who was granted life would mean he isn't God. So the face value reading of John 5:26 is a deal breaker for you. There is a lot more in the Bible that teaches the same thing.

According to Paul, Jesus the Son of God died and and resurrected from where he was to where he was not before. He is a resurrected man who was exalted to the highest place by God. When you are able to just read the Bible without reinterpreting it all through you filter you won't have to always be defending it. It'll make all of the arguments for you.

Ephesians 1:20
"He exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms."

 

[Runningman]

Each new passage your introduce adds another nail in your coffin. I'm not going to explain the passage for you, but you are way off.

I'm not a Calvinist. For whatever that might signify to you.

And I believe you have another nail in your coffin. I know you just simply don't believe what the Bible says unless it's in your wheelhouse of verses or you reinterpret them.

 

[Runningman]

I have to repeat what I said before. The use of a preaching message to pagans hardly is a good place to get your doctrine from.

It's fitting. Trinitarianism has roots in paganism, but regardless it's applicable to Christians too. Now you want to brush aside what Paul said?

 

[mikesw]

It's fitting. Trinitarianism has roots in paganism, but regardless it's applicable to Christians too. Now you want to brush aside what Paul said?

You have not shown how Hindus influenced the OT or NT or church overseers. Your theory is debunked.

 

[mikesw]

And I believe you have another nail in your coffin. I know you just simply don't believe what the Bible says unless it's in your wheelhouse of verses or you reinterpret them.

I just do not limit my understanding to your one verse of john 17:3. There are more verses than just that one.

 

[Runningman]

You have not shown how Hindus influenced the OT or NT or church overseers. Your theory is debunked.

I just do not limit my understanding to your one verse of john 17:3. There are more verses than just that one.

The issue isn't on my end. The Bible directly says in numerous places there is no other God but YHWH the Father. I guess this is a classic case of cognitive dissonance on your part. You seem to refuse to believe that the only true God is the Father no matter how much evidence is out there.

You had a funny story about John 17:3 being a different context, you have a funny story about Acts 17:24,25 being only applicable to pagans. You have a workaround for 1 Cor. 8:6 and Eph. 4:6. You keep creating stories to excuse yourself from believing the plain text. It doesn't seem to be that you're a skeptic because you will say you believe the Bible, of course, but information that is new to you clashes with what you already believe. You are essentially just protecting your beliefs at this point. It's reflexive and you have very little control of it. Sometimes telling people what the issue is will help them wake up. Hope this helps.

 

[mikesw]

The issue isn't on my end. The Bible directly says in numerous places there is no other God but YHWH the Father. I guess this is a classic case of cognitive dissonance on your part. You seem to refuse to believe that the only true God is the Father no matter how much evidence is out there.

You had a funny story about John 17:3 being a different context, you have a funny story about Acts 17:24,25 being only applicable to pagans. You have a workaround for 1 Cor. 8:6 and Eph. 4:6. You keep creating stories to excuse yourself from believing the plain text. It doesn't seem to be that you're a skeptic because you will say you believe the Bible, of course, but information that is new to you clashes with what you already believe. You are essentially just protecting your beliefs at this point. It's reflexive and you have very little control of it. Sometimes telling people what the issue is will help them wake up. Hope this helps.

I can sort of understand how you get tripped up over the use of "god" in the NT. I once had the same confusion. However the pattern is of Christ Jesus having a name above all names as honorific in his divinity in the Godhead while being uniquely entwined with humanity in his birth among humans. You just reject that distinction because you get tripped up on the word "god." Obviously 1 Cor 8:6 shows the Son of God as the one through whom all things exist. This cannot be done except through the Son who is pre-existent before creation. I often check the verses for what you claim, but they do not confirm your beliefs. So I do not know why you throw that verse in, except that you have run out of unitarian verses. You are getting confused and you also show other heretical doctrines as you share more and more of your views.

 

[Runningman]

I can sort of understand how you get tripped up over the use of "god" in the NT. I once had the same confusion. However the pattern is of Christ Jesus having a name above all names as honorific in his divinity in the Godhead while being uniquely entwined with humanity in his birth among humans. You just reject that distinction because you get tripped up on the word "god." Obviously 1 Cor 8:6 shows the Son of God as the one through whom all things exist. This cannot be done except through the Son who is pre-existent before creation. I often check the verses for what you claim, but they do not confirm your beliefs. So I do not know why you throw that verse in, except that you have run out of unitarian verses. You are getting confused and you also show other heretical doctrines as you share more and more of your views.

With the way you interpret verses you seem to only pay attention to the parts that, when isolated from context, seem to say what you want them to say. Since you read 1 Cor. 8:6, did you see the part that says that for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom all things came? Means the the originator of all things would be God the Father, not Jesus, yet you still laser focus on on the part about Jesus. Why is that? So 1 Cor. 8:6 and the rest of the Bible confirm my beliefs.

There should also be some measure with how you read the Bible. Obviously not literally "all things" means all things in the most universal sense. Sometimes this applies to a context or a particular setting. For example, the way to strike balance in Scripture is to study they way they talked. For example, John 14:26 says the Holy Spirit would teach the disciples all things. Following your hardline interpretation of "all things" then it must be true that the disciples became omniscient, knowing literally all things. There are several examples of this around the Bible. Ideas can be taken too far and not really make sense anymore.

For example, the things you claim that make Jesus God, the vast majority of them apply to others who are not God. Everything from being a child of God, partaking of the divine nature, the guarantee of a future resurrection, sitting on the throne with Jesus, ruling the nations, judging the world, being an heir of God and co-heir of Christ, etc. What you miss is that Jesus is the Lord of the church that God has set over us as our example of who we can be, what we should do, and what we can obtain.

 

[mikesw]

With the way you interpret verses you seem to only pay attention to the parts that, when isolated from context, seem to say what you want them to say. Since you read 1 Cor. 8:6, did you see the part that says that for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom all things came? Means the the originator of all things would be God the Father, not Jesus, yet you still laser focus on on the part about Jesus. Why is that? So 1 Cor. 8:6 and the rest of the Bible confirm my beliefs.

There should also be some measure with how you read the Bible. Obviously not literally "all things" means all things in the most universal sense. Sometimes this applies to a context or a particular setting. For example, the way to strike balance in Scripture is to study they way they talked. For example, John 14:26 says the Holy Spirit would teach the disciples all things. Following your hardline interpretation of "all things" then it must be true that the disciples became omniscient, knowing literally all things. There are several examples of this around the Bible. Ideas can be taken too far and not really make sense anymore.

For example, the things you claim that make Jesus God, the vast majority of them apply to others who are not God. Everything from being a child of God, partaking of the divine nature, the guarantee of a future resurrection, sitting on the throne with Jesus, ruling the nations, judging the world, being an heir of God and co-heir of Christ, etc. What you miss is that Jesus is the Lord of the church that God has set over us as our example of who we can be, what we should do, and what we can obtain.

That interpretation disregards the parallels. You try to limit the "all things" about God as if God only had limited "all things" that he created. You actually end up with that concept when you limit the parallel statement of all things created through Jesus. You cannot even remain consistency of ideas in one verse and then worse across all of scripture. Then you end with a concept of being justified by works -- another misunderstanding of scripture in addition to the denigration of who Christ Jesus is.

 

[Runningman]

That interpretation disregards the parallels. You try to limit the "all things" about God as if God only had limited "all things" that he created. You actually end up with that concept when you limit the parallel statement of all things created through Jesus. You cannot even remain consistency of ideas in one verse and then worse across all of scripture. Then you end with a concept of being justified by works -- another misunderstanding of scripture in addition to the denigration of who Christ Jesus is.

Your interpretation seems to just come right out of the blue. I understand how you got to where you are, but your conclusion doesn't match the premise. Just because you can string verses together and infer or imply a trinity god doesn't mean you should, especially when it is directly contradicted by explicit statements about the only God being the Father. You misunderstand Scripture and honestly have no business trying to tell people what it's about. Your philosophers generally confess that the trinity is a great mystery. How can you pretend to get anywhere basing your entire idea of who the Biblical God is around a mystery, despite Scripture stating Jesus made known who God is? Here's a hint: Jesus never said he is God, but rather stated the Father is God.

 

[mikesw]

Your interpretation seems to just come right out of the blue. I understand how you got to where you are, but your conclusion doesn't match the premise. Just because you can string verses together and infer or imply a trinity god doesn't mean you should, especially when it is directly contradicted by explicit statements about the only God being the Father. You misunderstand Scripture and honestly have no business trying to tell people what it's about. Your philosophers generally confess that the trinity is a great mystery. How can you pretend to get anywhere basing your entire idea of who the Biblical God is around a mystery, despite Scripture stating Jesus made known who God is? Here's a hint: Jesus never said he is God, but rather stated the Father is God.

I'm sorry. I'm going against the one-verse unitarian. In reality one verse does not undo the testimony of the broad scriptures. You keep reposting the same verses that have do not contextually support your unitarian conception. Why should anyone be convinced by such a weak approach?

 

[Runningman]

I'm sorry. I'm going against the one-verse unitarian. In reality one verse does not undo the testimony of the broad scriptures. You keep reposting the same verses that have do not contextually support your unitarian conception. Why should anyone be convinced by such a weak approach?

So direct statements about who God is don't help you see, no verses or passages about God being a trinity doesn't help you see, no one having discussed or explained the trinity in the Bible doesn't help you see, Jesus being a human doesn't help you see, almost everything Jesus has being something Christians can have doesn't help. Ok, so you have your religion and you're sticking to it.

Me, personally, I will go with the Bible.

 

[mikesw]

So direct statements about who God is don't help you see, no verses or passages about God being a trinity doesn't help you see, no one having discussed or explained the trinity in the Bible doesn't help you see, Jesus being a human doesn't help you see, almost everything Jesus has being something Christians can have doesn't help. Ok, so you have your religion and you're sticking to it.

Me, personally, I will go with the Bible.

You should just go with a decent teacher instead of misreading the bible. And if you understood even basic Trinity concepts, Jesus came fully as human. So your mistaken perception of the Trinity hardly is supported. And you have only used a few misinterpreted scriptures to say people become divine -- eg Ps 82 that says the people fell away (which I suppose you think all gods can do) and the verse about being partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). Your misreading of those passages does not make a good argument about men becoming divine. Everything you share is a few steps distorted from Christianity and scripture. I wish there was more that could help you understand these points.

 

[Runningman]

You should just go with a decent teacher instead of misreading the bible. And if you understood even basic Trinity concepts, Jesus came fully as human. So your mistaken perception of the Trinity hardly is supported. And you have only used a few misinterpreted scriptures to say people become divine -- eg Ps 82 that says the people fell away (which I suppose you think all gods can do) and the verse about being partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). Your misreading of those passages does not make a good argument about men becoming divine. Everything you share is a few steps distorted from Christianity and scripture. I wish there was more that could help you understand these points.

Seems you're still using theological definitions. "Coming in the flesh" is not an automatic reference to having pre-existed as God. That's a very big leap. It just refers to a face-to-face meeting as opposed to a story in sermons and writings. There were doubters that Jesus had ever existed at all. Paul provided evidence that this is so, by saying he was absent in the flesh. He inferred that if he were absent in the flesh then if he were to come to them then he would have came in the flesh. Bonus... Paul said he was with them in spirit. He isn't an omnipresent God is he?

Colossians 2
5For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.

 

[dwight92070]

The Bible does not teach to meet in homes, either, but it's a good thing to do that. The same is true with praying to Jesus.