Who Ya Gonna Call?
March 1st, 2009 by Ron S.
I grew up being taught to pray to God our heavenly Father and to always close (as the NT instructs us to) with a “in Jesus’ name” tag. However I’ve heard others pray directly to Jesus. Of course our Catholic friends tend to pray to Mary. And I’m sure others in the overall Christian-based extended family may very well even pray to someone else. But what is the correct way? Does Scripture clearly indicate whom we should be directing our prayers to?
The following article (from fellow Biblical Unitarian – Ivan Maddox’s web site) by Richard Winstead gives some good Bible-based answers on this very subject. Below is the article in its entirety. After, be sure to post your thoughts and any other points of Scripture on the subject. Thanks.
-
Who Ya Gonna Call?
Atlanta, GA
When you really need help as a Christian, who are you going to call? God the Father? Christ Jesus? the Holy Spirit? Who does God’s Word say we are supposed to call?
John 16:23.
23 _ And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give [it] you.
Jesus is speaking in this verse. Here he says quite clearly that “in that day” we will ask him nothing. Instead, he instructs us to ask the Father in his name. What day is Jesus talking about?
John 16:16-23.
16 _ A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
17 Then said [some] of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father?
18 They said therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while? we cannot tell what he saith.
19 Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto them, Do ye enquire among yourselves of that I said, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me?
20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.
21 A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.
22 And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you.
23 _ And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give [it] you.
He’s talking about today! When we have a need or a problem, who are we supposed to call? Jesus? Is that what he instructed us? Or are we to call the Father in Jesus’ name?
John 14:11-14.
11 Believe me that I [am] in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
12 _ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do [it].
If you don’t look carefully here, it might appear that Jesus has instructed us to ask him here. But Jesus doesn’t say that, and, in light of what we read in John 16, we have no right to read that into the verse. All we are told here is that when we do ask, we are to ask in Jesus’ name. We are also told that when we ask in Jesus’ name, Jesus will do it.
John 11:22.
22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give [it] thee.
Who did Jesus call when he had a need? He called God, his Father. Did he instruct us to go to a source different from the one he relied on?
John 14:13.
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
When we ask in Jesus’ name, and he does it for us, who gets the glory? The Father gets the glory by means of His Son.
John 15:7-16.
11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and [that] your joy might be full.
12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Here again we are instructed to ask in Jesus’ name; but who are we instructed to ask? Again, we are specifically and clearly instructed to ask the Father.
If we’re asking the Father, why is it so important to ask in Jesus’ name? What is the significance of that?
John 14:6.
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
We have no access to God, the Father, except through His Son Jesus Christ. Without Christ, we cannot get to God. Everything that comes to us from God comes through, and by means of, Jesus Christ. And everything that goes from us to God must go through, and by means of, Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 3:14-21.
14 _ For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what [is] the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
21 Unto him [be] glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
This is one of the greatest prayers in the Bible. To whom is Paul praying? Verse 14 gives us the answer: “…the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…” Jesus Christ is specifically omitted as the object of his prayer, as is the holy spirit. To some, this might seem like a serious omission or oversight; but it is completely in agreement with how Jesus instructed his disciples to pray.
Who does Paul say, in verse 16, is able to “grant you… to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man?” Clearly, it is “…the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…” who does this, even though He does it “…by his Spirit…”
In verse 20, who is it that Paul says “…is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us…”? Again, it is “…the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…”
And in verse 21, who is it who is glorified in the church by Christ Jesus? Once again, it is “…the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…”, even though Christ Jesus is the means by which He receives this glory.
I John 3:18-24.
18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
20 _ For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, [then] have we confidence toward God.
22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
23 _ And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
In verse 22, who are we instructed to direct our petitions to? Clearly, we are to ask God. Because verse 23 refers to “his Son Jesus Christ,” it is clear that “God” in verse 22 is referring to the Father of Jesus Christ.
I John 5:10-15.
10 _ He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
14 _ And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.
If we were just to read verses 12 through 15, it might appear that we are being instructed to ask Jesus Christ, and to ask according to his will. However, in verse 11 God is the subject, and it is He that verses 14 and 15 refer back to. If we read it in context, this passage agrees with every other passage we have read about addressing our petitions and prayers: we are to ask God the Father, according to His will, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ.
My concern is that we not be just satisfied with praying to someone “up there,” but that we pray in accordance with God’s Word, which is His will, and that we maintain a right relationship with God, the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. We cannot govern our prayer life by the traditions of men and be sure of walking in obedience to God; we must make the Word of God the foundation and guidebook for our prayer life.
James 1:5-7.
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
When you have a need, when you have a problem, “Who ya gonna call?”
Please don’t say, “Ghostbusters!”
John 16:26-28.
26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
28 _ I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.
I believe we are instructed to call upon God as Jesus taught us.
I saw an interesting thing once. A man and his wife always came to
the prayer meeting. Each time he prayed, he prayed to “Father God”, and each time she prayed, she prayed to “Lord Jesus”. They
got along fine.
I do believe God answers prayers that go to Jesus. Maybe Jesus takes them to God for us.
Thanks for posting!
I went to a pray group once with some “Trinitarian Messianic” friends of mine in Israel. During the prayer session not once did they pray to God. All their prayers were to “Yeshua.” Even at times chanting the name “Yeshua” over and over. I felt this was not following what Christ had taught us. This article puts it so well, we are to pray to God and ask in the name of the Son. Why go beyond what Scripture instructs us to do? We are to follow in the footsteps of Messiah.
2. Jesus’ Practice of Prayer.
We do not know for certain but may assume that Jesus was brought up to say the Shema and the Eighteen Benedictions twice a day (cf. Mk 12:29). The fact that he regarded the Temple pre-eminently (?) as “a house of prayer” (Mk 11:17 par.; cf. Is 56:7), or is so remembered, suggests that prayer was central for Jesus within the much larger ritual and sacrificial ritual focussed on the Temple (contrast Mt 17:24–6). And it was evidently his regular practice to attend the synagogue on the Sabbath (Lk 4:16), when he would no doubt join with the rest in the prayers; although the particular occasions recalled by the Evangelists speak only of his teaching and preaching (Mk 1:21–29 par.; 1:39 par.; 3:1 par.; 6:2 par.; Mt 9:35; Lk 4:15–16; 13:10).
However, Jesus’ own practice of prayer is vividly recalled in all the Gospels. Mark 1:35 recalls an occasion when Jesus had gone off “a great while before day” to “a lonely place” to pray. And again in 6:46 he went off again alone, up the mountainside (see Mountain and Wilderness) to pray, evidently through the evening and into the night. Mark’s third account finds Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (14:35–42), when again Jesus is recounted as praying well into the night. Two points are worthy of note.
(1) Although his praying covered the usual times of prayer, morning and evening, his need of prayer, at least on these occasions, went far beyond the formal saying of prayers.
(2) Each of the occasions recalled by Mark seems to have been a time of decision and temptation (see Temptation of Jesus) regarding the character and emphases of his vocation. This would explain the longer time spent in prayer on these occasions. Consequently, the Markan account should not be regarded as indicating Jesus’ normal practice of prayer.
Matthew follows Mark’s second account (Mt 14:23), and both Matthew and Luke record the Gethsemane prayer (Mt 26:36–46; Lk 22:40–46). Matthew and Luke (Q) also share the record of Jesus’ prayer in Matthew 11:25–26 and Luke 10:21. But in addition Luke records a further eight occasions when Jesus prayed—following his baptism (3:21), following his early success (5:16; equivalent to Mk 1:35), prior to his choosing the Twelve (6:12–13; see Disciple), prior to Peter’s confession (9:18), on the mountain of Transfiguration (9:28–29; closely parallel to 3:21), prior to his teaching the Lord’s Prayer (11:1) and twice on the cross (23:34 and 46; see Death of Jesus). Why Luke contains so many extra recollections of Jesus at prayer is not clear, but it certainly matches the emphasis he also gives to Jesus’ teaching on prayer (see 5. below). Evidently, only Luke wants to present Jesus as a model of prayerful piety (Lk 11:1–4; cf. Lk 3:21–22 with Acts 1:14 and 2:1–4; Lk 6:12–13 with Acts 13:2–3; and Lk 23:34 with Acts 7:60). But we need not doubt that he was able to draw on a substantial living memory of Jesus as a man of prayer.
The instances recorded by the Fourth Evangelist, on the other hand, are curiously stylized and artificial: in 11:41–42, he prays not for his own benefit, but “on account of the people standing by”; in 12:27–28, he denies the sort of distress and petition the Synoptics attribute to him in Gethsemane; in 17:1–26, without parallel in the other Gospels. John’s purpose is clearly very different from Luke’s on this topic: to portray Jesus as the incarnate (Son of) God rather than as the Jewish Messiah (Son of God) dependent on prayer (see Christ).
In short, even when the Evangelists’ pastoral and apologetic motivations are discounted, the evidence is still clear and consistent: that Jesus was a man of prayer whose natural response particularly to situations of crisis and decision was to seek God alone in prayer.
Green, Joel B. ; McKnight, Scot ; Marshall, I. Howard: Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1992, S. 618
Good article. I was sent here by Brian K. because of a question I’d asked, “The tag line, ‘in Jesus’ name. Amen” is so often quoted (by me) that I was wondering if it has lost it’s meaning. What does it mean to pray in his name?”
I always address Yahweh in prayer. He has invited us to do that by the work Jesus has accomplished for us.
I also talk to Jesus. Why not? He’s alive, He’s my master, and I’m his disciple, so why not communicate to him?
Anyway, it is a good article, and I’m better for reading it.
Chuck
This article does not consider the several instances of prayer/praise that are given directly to the Lord Jesus as well as passages that teach the Lord Jesus is the object of such prayers/praise. These would include John 5:23; Acts 1:24, 25; Acts 7:59; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 12:8; Philippians 2:10; 2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18 as well as in several places in the book of Revelation.
I’m not sure if this topic was ever formally debated here but I would be willing to if any Unitarian is interested.
Thank you
Marc Taylor
Marc
Have you considered the fact that in the bible “worship” was offered to both God [YHWH] and human beings?
The OT Hebrew uses the words: šāḥāh, (Gen 47.31; 1K 1.47; 1Ch 29.20; šāḥāh (Gen 43:28; Gen 24:26; Gen 37:7; Jdg 7:15; Jos 23:7; Zep 2:11); and the Aramaic verb segeed, corresponding to the Hebrew sāg̱aḏ (Dan 2:46; Dan 3, 28; cf. Rom 12:1).
The NT uses the koine Greek proskuneo, for “angels” [Rev 19.10; 22.8], human beings [Mat 20.20; Acts 10.25] and false gods or idols [Act 7:43; Rev 13:8; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4].
Lastly, consider this from James D.G. Dunn…
Xavier,
Many of the passages I cited are prayers and praying is the kind of worship that God alone ought to receive and yet the Lord Jesus is prayed to.
Are you willing to debate this one on one?
Marc
I thought we are.
If “prayer” [and "worship" for that matter] is somehow proof of Deity, Isaiah has the nations praying to Israel in Isaiah 45:14. Where most translate the Hebrew palal as “plead” or “supplication” and worship as “bow”. YLT actually has “payer”. Does that make them Divine?
You going to reply to my previous post and engage with Dunn’s statement regarding “prayer” in the Pauline letters?
Xavier,
I mean a debate that is something like I had with Danny Dixon.
Isaiah 45:14 is not really praying to the Israelites for they were physically in their presence. Christ receives proseuxomai by anyone at anytime and can always act upon it. Furthermore unsaved people may not know it is wrong to do this (Acts 10:25, 26). In fact, even newly saved people are apt to make this mistake – Naaman in the house of Rimmon (2 Kings 5:18).
Xavier,
Your citation of Dunn fails to take into acount that Paul prayed to the Lord Jesus (2 Corinthians 12:8) and offered a doxology to Christ (2 Timothy 4:18). Dunn wrote “normal prayer terms”. There are oftentimes other ways to express the same idea.
I think I nearly always call upon the name of the Lord Jesus when I pray to the Father because I will pray in Jesus’ name. I believe my prayers to to the Father not only because I address the Father in my prayers, but also because I likely wouldn’t be praying to God were it not for Jesus.
It’s because of Jesus that I came to salvation and therefore do pray to God. Jesus made the way for me to come to God. I often thank God for the things Christ did for me.
The name of Christ has often been my access to God. When I call upon God, I do make mention of Jesus.
There have been a few times when I have directed prayer to Jesus, but the great majority of my prayers are directed to God. It’s how I learned from Christ the Lord.
I tend to praise the Lord Jesus way more than I pray to him. It seems so natural as a Christian for that to be. I think it’s by God’s design. I think that’s what he wants for me.
I was at a church service today and the youth pastor did lead us in prayer to Jesus. Some people seem raised that way, but I grew as a Christian praying to God.
I suppose people will pray as they have learned or as they have been led.
Isaiah 45:14 reminds me of I Cor 14:25.
Marc
The text reads…
Any Hebrew lexicon will tell the reader what these words mean.
Now if you want to go on and change the meaning of simple words, as you do with echad, that is another thing.
True. NT phrases such as “calling on the name” and “blessings…thanksgiving” MAY BE synonymous with SOME TYPE of prayer language. But again, I have proven that there is a Hebraic precedence for both “worship” and “prayer”, of a NON-RELIGIOUS, sense to figures other than the one God of Israel, YHWH. Same with calling humans or angelic figures “god[s]” [elohim].
Whatever “debate” you want to have I am sure we can have it here, as we are.
Xavier,
Thanks for ignoring what I previously wrote in post #10. Here it is again.
Furthermore unsaved people may not know it is wrong to do this (Acts 10:25, 26). In fact, even newly saved people are apt to make this mistake – Naaman in the house of Rimmon (2 Kings 5:18).
———
The subject of THIS ARTICLE aserts that the Lord Jesus is not to be prayed to. The apostles Paul, John, Luke and Peter all refute this false belief.
No surpise that you don’t want a more formal debate. Your position is an untenable one.
Marc
I did not miss it, I just do not see what this has to do with Isa 45.14 and the fact that others apart from the one God of Israel, YHWH, are either “worshiped” or “prayed” to in an obvious, secondary sense. i.e., not as Deity. Furthermore, I never said that praying to Jesus is a “mistake”. As if it is something you have to get out of your system. I do not have a problem if people petition/ask/pray to Jesus for who he is [exalted human Son of God] and not for what he is not [Deity].
To be honest I did not even read this article, I was simply responding to one of your comments where you said that because people worship and pray to Jesus he must be God. This argumentation is false in light of the WHOLE of the Biblical witness.
What exactly do you want to debate me about? Why would you if your already claiming victory?
I suppose it can be argued that because Jesus is God it’s right for men to pray to Jesus, however we will not be judged according to our prayer life primarily. We will be judged according to our obedience.
I can not find any scripture that says I am not to pray to Jesus, but I do see a lot of scripture that teaches me to pray to God on account of Jesus or in his name.
If we find an example where men did pray to Jesus which also can not possible interpreted as them praying to God, we might be able to argue that it’s taught in the Bible that men ought to pray to Jesus, but I think we should look at it as an example of something someone did and not as instruction to do as they did, unless we find more on the subject.
I’ve seen a verse where it says the men prayed to the Lord, and it could be the Lord God, or it could be the Lord Jesus.
I do not believe it to be out of place for men to pray to God saying “Thou Lord which knoweth the hearts” or something similar especially right after quoting from the Psalms, where God is so often times called the Lord.
There is absolutely no way a man could prove that the prayer of Acts 1:24 is to the Lord Jesus only. Even if the one doing the praying was praying to the Lord Jesus, who can possibly prove that the other men were not praying to the Lord God? Or, do they claim to be the one that knowest the hearts of men?
I believe the scripture is clearly in favor of men praying to God, but I also believe there’s nothing saying that men can not pray to the Lord Jesus at any time. I’ve never seen prayer to the Lord Jesus forbidden by scripture.
In fact when I read this article, I didn’ t see it forbidden in the article.
Xavier,
You are using Isaiah 45:14 as an example of “prayer” and I have cited an examples where such an act can be “misplaced” worship. You are confusing is and ought.
Mounce: The fact that people pray to both God (Mt. 6:9) and Jesus (Acts 1:24) is part of the proof of Jesus’ deity (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, Pray, page 531).
But hey, if you insist on changing the meaning of the word for “prayed” as used in Acts 1:24 that is another matter.
It seems to me that any man that is out to “prove” ( as if they are ready to fight to the death over) that Acts 1:24 is a prayer that is not to God but rather is to the Lord Jesus, may as well be holding a sign over his head that reads, “I am more interested in building my own kingdom, rather than the kingdom of heaven.”
It’s one of those things that can’t be proven. It’s not something that one should expect all of the Church to have consensus in.
It’s of the things that men do to cause division in the Church.
Ray,
When one compares the evidence as to Whom is the recipient of the prayer in Acts 1:24, 25 it overwhelmingly points to the Lord Jesus.
Furthermore, Luke records another prayer to the Lord Jesus in Acts 7:59.
The thing is the article just chose a few passages and ignored so many prayers/worship passages that are directed to Christ.
Luke, Paul, Peter and John all record them but this article comes bumbling along and insists otherwise.
Marc
In what way would Isa 45.14 be some kind of “misplaced worship” when the text CLEARLY says that YHWH will command those nations to both worship and pray TO Israel? Have you actually looked at the text and looked at the commentaries on it?
The biblical witness obviously is at odds with Mounce’s statement since “worship” can be an act of obeisance to human beings…it need not imply worship in the religious sense. As if every time worship appears it means that the object is Deity. This is clearly not the case.
As for Acts 1.24-25 it is vague to say the least who the “Lord” in question is. Could be the LORD God or the lord Messiah. Remember, according to Ps 110.1 you have 2 “Lords” you have to take into consideration. But even if it is the lord Messiah, it is clear that he is the human, adoni and not Deity Adonay of Ps 110.1. Even so, I have no problem with people who want to “pray” to or “worship” Jesus as this HUMAN Messiah.
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=414
Marc,
There is no evidence given from the scripture that those who prayed in Acts 1:24 were praying to Jesus rather than to God the Father. Rather, the reader is left to decide that for himself. Some things the scripture is silent on.
The men certainly may have been praying to Jesus. They also may have been praying to God the Father. As a group they may have been praying to both.
You pretend to have evidence but supply none. You want to build your own boat, rather than do the work of God. That’s the case you are making against youself, which will become more clear as you continue if you should decide to go on in that direction.
I see Acts 7:59 more as a man calling out to the Lord Jesus rather than as a man praying to Jesus as if it were his usual manner to specifially address him at the beginning of his prayers.
Here’s how it looks in my KJV.
Acts 7:59
And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
The word God is italicized. Maybe it communicates to us that Stephen called upon the Lord Jesus with his words, the result being that he was calling upon God. Maybe he called upon both simply by saying “Lord”. I’m not convinced that all of his exact words are given here, though they could be.
I don’t know of any example in scripture where we can see without any doubt that men addressed their prayers specifically to Jesus as the usual.
Acts 1:24,25 and Acts 7:59 do not support such an idea.
However, I do believe Christians do pray to Jesus and that Jesus does hear prayers, but I think the usual manner, and by divine order, it is that God hears our prayers which we pray to him, and he gives them to Jesus, and he dispatches his angles.
It seems to me that should a man call upon Jesus, he is also calling upon the one who sent him into the world to be his saviour. I don’t think he’s enlisting the help of one without any regard to the other.
God knows what’s in the heart of a man.
Ray,
Here’s one for starters:
Thou hast chosen (eklegomai)
a. The same author of this prayer uses “chosen” in association with the “Lord” only to the Lord Jesus (Luke 6:13 and Acts 1:2). I’d like to see where Luke ever applies “chosen” to the “Lord” in reference to the Father.
b. TDNT: In accordance with the leading motif of Ac., the guidance of the community by the risen Lord, prayer is directed to the kurios in 1:24 that He will show which of two He has chosen (4:174, eklegomai – Schrenk).
c. F.F Bruce: The same verb is used in ver. 2 of the choosing of the apostles; it is appropriate, therefore, that Jesus should be the subject here as there (The Acts of the Apostles, page 80).
Any evidence you give that it was not a prayer directed to the Lord Jesus I can supply much more that it was a prayer to the Lord Jesus. Go ahead.
—————
Acts 7:59 Stephen called out to the Lord Jesus but wasn’t praying to Him? That’s absurd. Here’s some for you:
a. TDNT: Stephen prays: kurie Iesou dezai to pneuma mou (Ac. 7:59) (5:771, paradeisos – Joachim Jeremias).
b. Mounce: Peter in his Pentecost message quotes from the prophet Joel: “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21; see also 9:14, 21; 22:16; Rom. 10:12; 2 Tim. 2:22). Some NT books use this verb to express the idea of calling on Jesus with the idiomatic phrase “call(s) on the name of the Lord” (Rom. 10:13; 1 Cor. 1:2). Jesus is the addressee when epikalew is used in the sense of praying (Acts 7:59) (Mounce’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Call, page 93).
c. Robertson: {They stoned} (eliqoboloun). Same verb and tense repeated, they kept on stoning, they kept it up as he was calling upon the Lord Jesus and making direct prayer to him as “Lord Jesus” (kurie iesou) http://www.godrules.net/library/robert/robertact7.htm
d. Vincent: An unquestionable prayer to Christ. http://www.godrules.net/library/vincent/vincentact7.htm
e. Vine: Prayer is properly addressed to God the Father, Matt. 6:6; John 16:23; Eph. 1:17; 3:14, and the Son, Acts 7:59; 2 Cor. 12:8 (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Prayer, page 872).
Marc,
The kind of word games you play don’t work. The scripture may use a word like chosen and connect it with anyone it will, and by that it’s not saying that none other can make a choice, or that whenever we see that word used again, we are to know who it was that made the choice because of who it was previously connected to by it’s prior use. Where do you come up with these rules?
That’s not how scripture works. It was never designed by God to be used that way.
Before you assume that I do not recognize in any way that a calling out to the Lord Jesus by a man, may be referred to as prayer in some sense of the word, read again what I gave you to read, and stop doing the devil’s work. Resist him and he will flee.
What you’re telling everyone here is that you are a modern day Pharisee, of the trinitarian sect of religious police.
What you offer me, I don’t bite on. You may as well try changing the bait, or get a net without so many holes in it. But what do I know?
I’m just a little fish.
I’m beginning to wonder if you were raised wrong spiritually from the beginning. Who taught you to be this way? Maybe you could bring him on this blog so that we can see his sins also, if he’s willing to show himself.
Are there any pastors with you on this? Any prophets? Any apostles? Maybe you can find a newly converted member of the Sunday school class at the church you attend who will support you on this. Or, are you alone in this endeavor?
Ray,
You should try not to let it bother you so much when someone disagrees with you like Marc does. I agree with you that it is not clear if they are praying to God (the Father) or Jesus in Acts 1:24. It seems to me it could be either (or both), but Marc is entitled to his own opinion just like everyone else. We as Christians need to learn to disagree with each other in a respectful manner. So as not to offend one another.
James 1:19-21, “Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, ‘SLOW TO ANGER’; (20) for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. (21) Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.” (ESV – emphasis mine).
I’m sure that you want to produce the righteousness of God in your life (just like I do). This means we must try, as best we can, to avoid getting angry at our fellow brothers, whenever possible…
Marc,
You say you would ” like to see where Luke ever applies ‘chosen’ to the Lord in reference to the Father.” (line 5, post 22)
How about Luke 23:35?
And the people stood beholding, And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he
be the Christ, the chosen of God.
Luke’s words, not mine alone. Here in Lukes words, application is made to Christ being the one chosen of the Father. So here is an example of Luke showing us how Christ is spoken of by some people as being someone chosen of the Father. That’s how words are used to convey meaning in Luke’s own words.
Yes, according to Luke, God is spoken of as the one choosing a particular person. *
I suppose a man will argue that it was profane persons who chose those use of words and Luke did nothing more than simply report to us how those words were used. Nonetheless, this is how words are used by Luke to convey meaning.
I think it’s fair to say that Luke tells us that it was commonly understood by people in his day that God may certainly choose a particular person for some position or purpose.
I wonder if it was understood by Luke himself that God may at times choose a particular person.
Haggai 2:23 speaks of the Lord of hosts, as being the one who chose a particular man, one Zerubbabel by name. (KJV) I don’t think it to be too far fetched to believe that it’s OK to say that it was God who chose Zerubbabel to make as a signet. Certainly he would not have been chosen for such a purpose except that it was according to the will of God the Father whether he left that up to the Lord Jesus or not. I think we should at least understand that it could have been the Father that had an initial desire to make someone as a signet for his purposes in Christ Jesus.
————————————————————————————
*By this we should understand that the answer men seek for their condition may often be found at the cross of Christ.
You are right Thomas in that we shouldn’t be soon angry and that we should allow others to have their opinon, just as we should also fight the good fight of faith and lawfully contend for it, lest the workings of Satan capture many through deceit and the hypocrisy of men.
I often struggle at keeping my passion in check.
I don’t find it odd that God would choose Jesus to be the savior of the world. No doubt the first call for a need of salvation would have reached the Father. I think he already had this all planned out.
If you were God, and you knew the world needed a saviour, who would you call? I’m glad he chose Jesus. I needed him.
Ray,
You said, “I’m glad he chose Jesus. I needed him.”
I’m also glad he chose Y’shua/Jesus. The whole world needed him, and still needs him…
Ray,
What you call word games is just a refusal to believe the evidence. I even cited F.F. Bruce, the TDNT as well as Mounce.
Luke 23:35 does not use the Greek word “Lord” like Acts 1:24 does in association with being “chosen”.
This is just one example that this prayer is to Christ. I have yet to see the evidence that the Father is the recipient of the prayer in Acts 1:24, 25.
Xavier,
Where in Isaiah does it say that God will “command” them to do as such.
Marc
Unless you actually read the text, as well as its context, this will be very tedious and time consuming.
Either way, I am simply arguing for the fact that whatever worship, praise or prayers are offered TO Jesus, they are made with the firm knowledge of his Messiahship and not Deity. As per the OT precedence.
Xavier,
What God is describing in Isaiah that you appealed to is descriptive not prescriptive.
The fact that Christ receives prayer/worship necesitates His Deity for only an omniscient Being can be able to hear all the prayers offered to Him and only an omnipotent Being is able to act upon them.
1. NIDNTT: God alone can reveal the things hidden in the heart of man (1 Cor. 4:5), examine them (Rom. 8:27) and test them (1 Thess. 2:4) (2:183, Heart – T. Sorg).
2. NIDNTT: This belief in the omniscience of God is expressed succinctly by the adj. kardiognswttess (2:183, Heart – T. Sorg).
3. TDNT: the omniscient God knows the innermost being of every man where the decision is made either for Him or against Him (3:613, kardiognwstees – Behm).
All the above applies to God ALONE also applies to Christ since He is the proper recipient of prayer.
Marc,
Forgive me for not being so gentle with you.
Let’s assume that there is nothing that any of us can see from scripture that would suggest that Jesus can not or does not know all that is in the heart of every man.
Let’s also assume that all of us believe in our heart that Jesus does know everything that is in the heart of every man, including all of us here on this blog.
May we also assume that all of that is not enough to prove that the men who prayed in Acts 1 could not have been praying to God the Father?
May we assume that it’s still a possibility that the men were addressing their prayer to God the Father, the Lord of all, and because none of us are the one who knows what’s in the heart of all men, that none of us should require others to believe that the men praying in Acts 1 were making their prayer specifically to the Lord Jesus Christ, though we may certainly make our case that it could be a real possibility, and also that we personally believe it was likely, or even that without a doubt in our own mind that is was exactly so?
Would that be fair in your opinion?
If not, why not?
Marc, It’s been said that real soldiers run to a battle and not away from it. I’m not asking you to run away here.
Hello Ray,
Almost anything is possible but the evidence overwhelmingly points to Christ as the recipient of the prayer in Acts 1:24, 25.
I won’t run away.
Marc
Okay, so we’re back to how many YHWHs does the Bible describe right?
Are you even able to conceptualize the implications behind calling Deity Messiah?
BTW are you a trini or Oneness or what?
Xavier,
Since the Bible teaches it I believe it. I can’t conceptualize, in the sense of even coming close to fully understanding, how God has always been but as with the fact that it teaches that He has and it also teaches that Christ is God I bow my heart and mind to what the Scriptures declare.
I am a Trinitarian.
Marc
This is not a debate about God’s existence, how He came to be ect. This is about how many God is. And if He is more than one Person then we have to break all the rules of grammar starting with the way you refer to “They” as a “He”.
Marc,
Do you believe that acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity is required for salvation?
Xavier,
There are some things in life that can go beyond our vocabulary, descriptions and “rules”. Wouldn’t you agree that the ontology of God is not something that we can FULLY comprehend and describe?
Since the Scriptures teach that the Lord Jesus is God that is sufficient for me.
—–
Antioch,
Yes, otherwise one has a false god and a false god can not save anyone.
Marc,
Where is the trinity in Acts 2? Where is the trinity with the thief on the cross? Seems there was salvation happening without confessing this required doctrine.
I cannot fathom that if we did not have the doctrine of the trinity today that the average Joe could ever piece that doctrine together from the Bible. Very clear that Jesus is Son of God. Very clear that Jesus is Messiah. If it is required for salvation, the trinity should be as abundantly clear as those points. But instead, a required doctrine that only a few people even pretend to understand? Hmm.
Is a layperson that doesn’t understand it but ‘accepts’ it anyway still saved? If so, are they really qualified to make such a decision?
Antioch,
Can a false god save you?
Marc,
You said, “Since the Scriptures teach that the Lord Jesus is God that is sufficient for me.”
There is no scripture that explicitly states that “the Lord Jesus is God”. You have to imply this from vague scriptures that can be interpreted and understood differently by different people. If there were a clear passage of scripture that stated that “the Lord Jesus is God” then the Arians and other Unitarians (that have existed throughout the entire history of the Christian church) would have never existed. And the 4th century Roman Catholic church wouldn’t have had to pass laws invoking the death penalty on anyone who spoke against the Trinity.
BTW – Throughout most of the last two millennium the death penalty was used to threaten anyone that dared to speak the truth, and say that the Trinity doctrine (including the doctrine that “the Lord Jesus is God) is not explicitly taught anywhere in the N.T. writings…
DT,
There is no Scripture that explicitly states that “The Lord Jesus is not God”.
Many times in life there is more than one way to express a truth claim. The fact that Christ receives several prayers and doxologies proves He is God….nothing vague about that.
Marc,
The only evidence there can be that Jesus was the one directly prayed to rather than God the Father would be if it were revealed by the Holy Spirit as there is no such thing as evidence from scripture.
If you believe you have evidence that proves that Jesus is the one they specifically addressed in Acts 1 as they prayed, please provide it and show us why it proves whether it was Jesus they specifically prayed to.
You might be seeing what could be called “circumstantial evidence”, that might suggest that it was Jesus whom they prayed to, but it isn’t hard evidence.
Feel free to show us what you have and we on this blog can help you put it in the proper perspective.
Don’t expect us say that something is when it isn’t. I don’t think we will be fooled. We’re not that ignorant on these kind of spiritual matters. It really is a very simple matter.
I think it’s evident that the biggest problem you have is that you like to pretend you are right when you are wrong.
It’s one thing to say that the scripture doesn’t exactly say who the men prayed to specifically, God the Father, or Jesus Christ, but we should be able to discern properly that they were praying to one, the other, or both, and it’s quite another thing to think so much of ourself that we think we can prove it was one or the other, or even both, as we are not the one that knowes the hearts of the men, as God does, or as the Lord Jesus does.
This could be interesting as we may be getting into discerning of spirits by the manifestion of the holy spirit.
Ray,
I have already given you a specific word from the prayer and you refuse to accept this evidence because your mind is already made up. There other words in this prayer that point to the Lord Jesus as well but these facts wouldn’t matter to you.
After I gave you this evidence I asked you to supply evidence that it was the Father being prayed to. Thus far I have received nothing. I’m not going to go into further proofs with a person who refuses to do what I ask them to but then at the same time they keep insisting that I do what they ask me to. Nope. Won’t work that way.
Marc,
It’s not wise to go around with a chip on your shoulder saying you can prove this or that. It’s simply a manifestation of pride, an evil spirit that people sometimes get under. It’s doesn’t minister the way Christ wants people to minister.
A man may certainly be a witness to Christ, by telling his neighbor what he believes and why. It should be done to help another
get to where he should be spiritually if that man is spiritual enough to be aware of such a thing and be mature enough so as to walk as an able minister of the grace of God to another.
As Christians we should beware of those who minister to others in the wrong spirit as much harm can come of it.
Marc,
FWIW – no
Ray,
Pride is when evidence is presented and the person just refuses to believe it simply because they don’t want to.
Pride is asking someone to do something but when they ask you to you refuse but still insist the other person continues to do what you want them to.
Lecture yourself about pride.
Marc,
Have you ever heard the term “fishing on the wrong side of the boat?”
Here’s an example of what I suggested as to how to win others to Christ in some particular matter:
I have said that Jesus is God and I do believe that he is. This is my perspective. I don’t expect everyone to agree with it, though it is mine.
Jesus called people the salt of the earth in his sermon on the Mount.
(Matt 5-8, by that I mean 5 through 7) Now it seemed to me that if people can be salt, then Jesus can be God.
The reason I say that is because though there is a difference between salt and people, there is something about the substance of salt that those who follow Jesus and listen to him have.
Because this world has fallen into sin and corruption because of it,
but Jesus has not, for he was the perfect sacrifice of God and knew no sin, that all the fine qualities of salt with which Jesus knew of do not compare in my mind as well as when Jesus is called God.
It seems to me that all of the people Jesus called the salt of the earth, have at one time lost some of their godly savor, and it seems to me that at the time Jesus called them the salt of the earth, that many of them might not have been at their godly best, though in the presence of Christ most of them may very well have been, in my opinion.
Yet, it seems to me that Christ is more as God, than the people were as salt (in the way that Jesus meant it) should be.
This is one reason why I believe there is more to saying that Jesus is God, than simply comparing how he is, to how people are, in comparison to salt of the earth.
When I say that Jesus is God, I do not believe I am taking away anything from his true identity as the Son of God, not in the least.
When I say that Jesus is God, I do not believe I am robbing God of his name in any way. I believe Jesus fills all that the name of God is.
I do not believe there is anything lacking in Jesus at all. I believe he is the fullness of God as I believe the scripture says.
I believe Jesus and God had communion before the world began.
I believe Jesus and God were one. I perceive Jesus as being in a “full share” situation with God before the world was made. Being one with God, it seems to me that one might not know where the Father began and Jesus started, both of them being the same from beginning to end, in one.
I don’t know how to describe these kind of spiritual things. I believe
this to be a feeble attempt to see Jesus as he is, as God himself, just as much God as God himself is.
Yet I know there is a distinction between him and God. I don’t see this as a contradiction in any way, though some might believe that it is.
All I can do is to try to describe what it is that I believe in the words that I have, such as I have received by the grace of God, and such as I can find with his help.
I do not believe that I should say that these are his words. I consider them to be mine, though I can sense his leading me even as I write this. I can not say as to how well I am following the spirit of God in this, though this is an attempt to do so.
I do not write this as something others must receive in it’s entirety.
It is offered here by the grace of God. May God bless Kingdom Ready for allowing this to thus appear here.
Mark,
You asked me to prove to you that it was the Father that the men in Acts 1 prayed to. I’ve already told you that it may have been the Father that they prayed to just as it may have been Jesus who they prayed to. It may have been both at the same time.
Just as I’ve told you that the scripture gives no evidence one way or the other, you have not heard me.
Stop asking me to prove one thing or another by the use of scripture. It comes from a legalistic religious spirit that has pride and self-righteousness along with it. It’s full of all kinds of evil.
Repent of these things as you notice them, in Jesus’ name. It’s by his name that I tell you to be saved. His blood is able to cleanse sinners. He is able to make men whole.
Resist the devil and he will flee.
Don’t ask me to partake of the things I see you do that I so despise.
I will resist your ways. By the power of Christ I will refuse those ways. In these things that I make known to you, I say Get away from me Satan, in Jesus’ name.
Typo, Mark should be Marc.
Ray,
Scripture gives “no evidence one way or the other”. No Ray, Scripture gives the evidence but it is you who simply says “No way”.
Antioch,
Please excuse my ignorance, but I’m just curious what “FWIW” means???
Marc,
Since you seem so sure about what you are saying, please get yourself some witnesses. Don’t you know of any prophet, or pastor that will stand up with you as a brother? It seems to me that you are alone on this.
Get yourself a real man of God. I believe you need some serious help. And please get someone that walks in the power of God in the name of Jesus’ Christ. I’m looking for righteous judgment here.
Get two or three if you can. It seems to me that you are alone in this. God is not with you in this. That is evident.
Marc,
You said, “There is no Scripture that explicitly states that ‘The Lord Jesus is not God’.”
Mark 9:36
” He took a little child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, ‘Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me ‘DOES NOT’ welcome me but ‘THE ONE’ who sent me.’ ” (ESV – emphasis mine).
You can’t get much more explicit then this. “…whoever welcomes me ‘DOES NOT’ welcome me but ‘THE ONE’ who sent me. It is clear that Y’shua is saying he is not God.
Mark 10:18
“And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone’.”
Here is another explicit scripture where Y’shua clearly says he “IS NOT” God.
Mark 10:40
“… but to sit at my right or left ‘IS NOT FOR ME TO GRANT’. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.” (ESV – emphasis mine).
If “the Lord Jesus is God” then he obviously would be able to decide who is going to be sitting on his right side or left side, but Y’shua clearly says it “IS NOT FOR ME TO GRANT”.
Mark 14:62
” And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
If “the Lord Jesus is God” then how can he be sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One???
Mark 13:32
” No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
If “the Lord Jesus is God” then why doesn’t he know when he will return???
These are the most obvious verses that explicitly state that “The Lord Jesus is not God’.”
Please show me “ONE” verse that explicitly states that “the Lord Jesus is God”…
Having had some conversations on this blog about who it might be that men prayed to, when they inquired as to who should be an apostle (Acts 1) to replace Judas, I now come to I Cor 1:1 for some additional information on the subject by the holy scriptures.
I Cor 1:1
Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
Now Paul is not saying that his calling to be an apostle was also through the will of Sostnenes a brother in the faith. What he is saying is that his calling to be an apostle of Jesus Christ was through the will of God, and that the letter he writes is with Sosthenes a brother in the faith.
What I can learn here about the calling of this particular apostle is that his calling was through the will of God. I take it here that he is making reference to God the Father of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.
That’s what it looks like to me. That’s my opinon.
I wonder if all apostles were called through the will of God, or if Paul was the exception rather than the rule. I tend to think this calling of apostles as a rule was through the will of God, something Jesus always did.
This of course does not prove who the apostles of Acts 1 prayed to specifically about who should be an apostle to replace Judas. I’m not out to prove who it was that they prayed to. I leave it open for men to decide for themselves, as I believe the scripture itself isn’t detailed enough on the matter in such a way that all of us can know for certain if it was God the Father that the disciples and / or apostles prayed to specifically, or if they addressed the Lord Jesus Christ alone by their prayer. I don’t believe that scripture alone will tell us who the men specifically addressed by the information given us by the printed word.
It seems to me that by this article (Who Ya Gonna Call?) there is much evidence that scripture does teach men to pray to God the Father.
I don’t think I should find it an odd thing if in fact it is revealed at some later time, that those of Acts 1 did in fact pray to God the Father specifically about the choosing of an apostle since we can see by scripture that the apostle Paul was chosen through the will of God.
It may be that some have a strong bias, so strong in fact that when they see the word God, they may be thinking that it is Jesus, here in I Cor 1:1. I am quite confident in believing that Paul is calling God the Father, God, here.
All men have some bias. It’s something we all have had in some measure and likely still have as a result of being in this world. Some biases are stronger than others.
Some people have more and some less on different matters, but none of us are unaffected in some way toward one thing more than another. We all have developed certain likes and dislikes. There are some things we prefer over others and we should be aware of these as much as we are reasonably able.
Being aware of biases may help us be less likely to respond hastily on a matter. It should also be a help to us if we know that we might have a particular bent so as we may call upon him who is God, a present help to us who do fear his name and call upon him in a time of need.
DT,
Mark 9:36 proves that the Lord Jesus is not the Father. Thanks for disproving Modalism.
Mark 10:18 – asking does not necessitate a denial.
I am not going to bother refuting all of your heresy here. You can formally debate me one on one if you want. I noticed you dodged prayers to the Lord Jesus…the subject of THIS ARTICLE…for the prayers that I cited from the Bible prove the Lord Jesus is God. But those who embrace heresy so often ignore this and spout off about everything else like you are doing.
Mark Taylor, you said…
So if one reads the scripture and comes to the conclusion that Yeshua is not God, then that person would need you to clarify for them something that you yourself say is not able for man to fully comprehend?
Don’t you see the hypocrisy in your own creed of understanding “truth.”
The problem with most Trinitarians is they try and spiritualize everything as if it gives more holyness to a aspect of the creation.
Sometimes when reading scripture a God is a God, a man is a man, and a sin is a sin. Not everything has or needs a between the lines definition that goes beyond the simple plain understanding.
To me, the physical is spiritual. Are we not going to be with restored physical bodies? On a restored physical Earth? Eating physical food and celebrating passover with our Messiah?
People tend to forget that it doesn’t have to be invisible to be spiritual.
Joseph,
God is so much more wonderful and complex than our language can fully describe.
No hypocrisy here. Those who reject that the Lord Jesus is God can not explain how He receives prayer. They must either deny He is being prayed to or they must believe that even though He is being prayed to this doesn’t prove He is God.
Either choice is disasterous.
Scripture is clear that He is the proper recipient of prayer. That being so He is omniscient to hear all the prayers and omnipotent in that He is able to act upon them.
An omniscient and omnipotent Being is by definition “God”.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omniscient
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent
Marc
Where does scripture say it is “heresy” NOT to pray to Jesus? Or let alone believe he is [somehow] God?
Furthermore, could you answer one of my previous queries…Are you even able to conceptualize the implications behind calling Deity Messiah?
1 Corinthians 1:2 teaches that Christians are the ones who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus. To call upon here means to pray to.
Thus since He is to be prayed to this necessitates that He is God.
I already answered your previous question. I can but not to the fullest extent.
Since Christ receives prayer He is the kardiognwstees (heartknower, cf. Acts 1:24) of all. Do you agree that this term means being omniscient?
Marc
No it does not. Just as “worship” does not NECESSITATE anyone else who is worshiped is Deity.
Heartknower? Is that even a word?
I believe Jesus is the second [human] Adam who HAS NOW BECOME “the heavenly spiritual man [human]“. Even in this exalted state scripture is clear on WHO/WHAT Jesus is…the ONE HUMAN MEDIATOR between Deity and human beings, 1Tim 2.5!
DT,
For
What
Its
Worth
Marc,
So the key point you are conveying is that because Jesus is prayed to, he is therefore deity? Can you remind me of scripture that says we only pray to the Father?
While I personally direct my prayers to the Father (Mt 6), I don’t see a problem when people direct them to Jesus, since he is the image of the invisible God and the annointed one of God. Clearly, Jesus holds a special place and relationship with God.
Just taking one of the verses you selected to demonstrate prayer to Jesus, I picked Philippians 2:10. It does not say ‘pray’ in the NIV but that
“at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,”
I know you know the distinction between proskuneo and letreu and that latreu is never used of Jesus. So bowing to Jesus is not the same as the worship we do of the Father.
Since we are looking at the Philippians passage, I would like to understand how you reconcile the very next verse with trinitarianism:
“and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father”
There are many references in the NT to ‘God the Father’ and not one to ‘God the Son’. Seems clear to me that God = Father. Jn 17:3, when Jesus is speaking to the Father and calls Him ‘the only true God’.
I admit there are passages that are tough to reconcile with unitarian theology, but there are far more that I cannot reconcile with the trinity.
Marc,
When you invoke the “heresy” card, you have already lost the debate.
Antioch
IF Jesus is God, shouldn’t we be seeing more examples where worship or prayer of a religious sense is given to Jesus? Let alone explicit teachings regarding this weirdly silent topic. Yet, the theme and content of the NT teaching practice shows that it is IN or THROUGH Jesus that everything is made.
The fact remains that whatever worship or prayer is offered to Jesus it is dependant on what his God and Father has commanded for us to do. Since he remains the means by which those who believe in him can come to God.
The name calling always gets me. But I guess your right Ron.
Marc,
I wanted to look at the other verses you mentioned. First, the greek word used in Matthew 9 for prayer (which I take as the weightiest of passages in the instruction of prayer) is ‘proseuche’. Studylight defines the word as ‘prayer addressed to God’. Deesis is also translated as prayer, but is also translated as supplication or request and can be addressed not only to God but to men.
John 5:23 – The key word is honor, which in the greek is ‘tima’. That is an entirely different word. Studylight does not define that as prayer. In John 12:26, same word is used where God the Father is honoring those who serve Jesus.
Acts 1:24-25 – It uses ‘proseuche’ and addresses ‘kurie’, which is typically how Jesus was addressed, but it is not explicit. I tend to think they were addressing Jesus, but I would not hang my hat on that.
Acts 7:59 – The greek word is epikaloumenon, a different word. Other translations ‘who is calling’. It makes more sense to me that because Stephen is seeing Jesus, he is calling to him and not praying.
1 Corinthians 1:2 – Same word epikaloumenois, to call upon. A major explanation as to why the trinity has held so long is that all of the popular transalations for centuries and centuries were done by trinitarians and there would be a bias to read the trinity into the text.
2 Corinthians 12:8 – Key word is parakalesa, which is the same word Paul uses earlier in 1:4, 1:6, 2:7. It is translated ‘comfort’ and not ‘pray’ in those other verses.
Philippians 2:10 – covered earlier, but the greek is kampse.
2 Timothy 4:18 – paul is talking about ‘kurios’ which again is usually Jesus in his letters, but I don’t see that as a title that is exclusive to Jesus and could refer to the Father as well, as it did in the Septuagint. There is nothing about ‘prayer’ here.
2 Peter 3:18 – key word is ‘doxa’. It is clear this is talking about Jesus. But ‘doxa’ is also spoken of with men (Ro 2:10 et al)
Got anything else?
Xavier,
I agree and see it the same way. I just wouldn’t beat anyone up for praying to Jesus. I think the Father can judge the heart and understand the intent even if it is technically incorrect.
I recall my early days as a Christian. I accepted the trinity, but I was confused over who I was to address my prayers. If I addressed them to Jesus or the Father, was I snubbing the other? How come nobody ever prayed to the holy spirit?
When I came across the unitarian point of view, it cleared up the whole topic for me.
Antioch
Welcome to the struggle bro.
Is Jesus the God of the Biblical Unitarians?
Ray – I don’t speak for them but I think it is pretty clear that only the Father is the true God for biblical unitarians.
Antioch,
I’m looking at your answer in #69, and I want to ask, From who’s perspective, theirs or the Lord’s?
Xavier,
What a copout. The people who are the most ardent that disagree are often the ones who won’t debate formally one on one.
Heart Knower is what kargiognwstees means. This is how this version reads
“Lord Heart Knower”
http://www.lookhigher.com/bibles/accuratenewtestamentsecondedition/acts/1.html
More examples of worship or prayer in a religious sense? I listed many of them in post #5. Here they are again:
These would include John 5:23; Acts 1:24, 25; Acts 7:59; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 12:8; Philippians 2:10; 2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18 as well as in several places in the book of Revelation.
————
The Lord Jesus is prayed to which means worship in the highest sense. Philippians 2:10 is another pasage where He is worshipped in the highest sense.
But what is the divine response to him? “I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL” (Romans 11:4).
For it is written, “AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD” (Romans 14:11).
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father (Ephesians 3:14)
so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth (Philippians 2:10)
Above are the four passages as found in the New Testament (only by Paul) where “bow” (kamptw) is used – and everyone refers to worship. The fact that the people insist that the Lord Jesus is not to be worshipped runs contrary to what this passage teaches. And since only God is to be worshipped Philippians 2:10 proves that the Lord Jesus is God.
a. TDNT: kamptein gonu (gonata) is the gesture of full inner submission in worship to the one before whom we bow the knee. Thus in R. 14:11 bowing the knee is linked with confession within the context of a judgment scene, and in Phil. 2:10 it again accompanies confession with reference to the worship of the exalted Kyrios Jesus by the cosmos. At R. 14:11 kamptein gonu te Baal signifies surrender to Baal, and at Eph. 3:14 the formula kamptw ta gonata pros ton theon is a solemn description of the attitude of submission to God in prayer (3:594-595, kamptw – Schlier).
b. Thayer: to bow the knee, of those worshipping God or Christ: tini, Ro. 11:4; pros tina, Eph. 3:14; reflexively, gonu kamptei tini, to i.e. in honor of one, Ro. 14:11 (1 K. 19:18); en onomati Iesou, Phil. 2:10 (Is. 45:23) (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, gonu, page 120).
When the Lord Jesus said the only true God (John 17:3) He wasn’t denying that He was God but was saying this in opposition to the Father being the only true God in relation to false gods. The “true God” is always used elsewhere in Scripture is used as such (2 Chronicles 15:3; Jeremiah 10:10, 11; 1 Thessalonians 1:9 and 1 John 5:20, 21).
Jude 1:4 teaches that the Christian has ONLY ONE Master in heaven. The Christian’s only Master in this regard can refer to the Father (Acts 4:24) and to the Son (2 Peter 2:1).
a. NIDNTT: in Jn. 17:3, monos is linked with alethinos, true, in contrast to the deceptive appearance (pseudos) of all alleged gods and revealers (2:724, One – K.H. Bartels).
b. Thayer: “ton theon, the one, true God, in contrast with the polytheism of the Gentiles” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, ginwskw, page 117).
c. Trench: But He is ἀληθινός (1 Thess. 1:9; John 17:3; Isai. 65:16; == ‘verus’), very God, as distinguished from idols and all other false gods, the dreams of the diseased fancy of man, with no substantial existence in the world of realities (Richard C. Trench, alethes, alethinos, #8) http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/trench/section.cfm?sectionID=8
d. Vine: John 7:28; 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 6:10; these declare that God fulfils the meaning of His Name, He is “very God,” in distinction from all other gods, false gods (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, True, page 1170).
e. NIDOTTE – Asa demonstrated unquestionable religious zeal, even to the point of removing his own (grand)mother (cf. 1 Kgs 15:2, 10) Maacah from her place (15:3) – no easy feat, to be sure, given the idolatrous tendencies his father had (15:3) (NIDOTTE 4:413, Asa – Daniel Schibler).
————————
Antioch,
Concerning 5:23 when honouring God one must worship Him. One can not honour Him without worshipping Him. The Lord Jesus honoured the Father (John 8:49) and one of the ways He did so was by worshipping Him.
Acts 1:24 – The evidence overwhelmingly points to the Lord Jesus.
Acts 7:59 – I cited several reliable sources that say it is a prayer.
1 Corinthians 1:2 – Many disagree with you.
a. NIDNTT: categorizes 1 Corinthians 1:2 epikaluew (call upon) under “General prayer” (NIDNTT 2:874, Prayer – H. Schonweiss, C. Brown).
b. TDNT: epikaleomai, often used in combination with onama, serves to emphasise the element of confession in Christian prayer (Ac. 9:14; 22:16; 1 C. 1:2) (2:806, euxomai – Greeven).
c. Mounce: Peter in his Pentecost message quotes from the prophet Joel: “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21; see also 9:14, 21; 22:16; Rom. 10:12; 2 Tim. 2:22). Some NT books use this verb to express the idea of calling on Jesus with the idiomatic phrase “call(s) on the name of the Lord” (Rom. 10:13; 1 Cor. 1:2). Jesus is the addressee when epikalew is used in the sense of praying (Acts 7:59) (Mounce’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Call, page 93).
d. Robertson: http://www.godrules.net/library/robert/robert1cor1.htm
this phrase occurs in the LXX (#Ge 12:8; Zec 13:9) and is applied to Christ as to Jehovah (#2Th 1:7,9,12; Php 2:9,10). Paul heard Stephen pray to Christ as Lord (#Ac 7:59). Here “with a plain and direct reference to the Divinity of our Lord” (Ellicott). {Their Lord and ours} (autwn kai hemwn). this is the interpretation of the Greek commentators and is the correct one, an afterthought and expansion (epanorqwsis) of the previous “our,” showing the universality of Christ.
e. Vincent: http://www.godrules.net/library/vincent/vincent1cor1.htm
Call upon the name (epikaloumenoiv to onoma). Compare Romans x. 12; Acts ii. 21. The formula is from the Septuagint. See Zech. xiii. 9; Gen. xii. 8; xiii. 4; Psalm cxv. 17. It is used of worship, and here implies prayer to Christ. The first christian prayer recorded as heard by Saul of Tarsus, was Stephen’s prayer to Christ, Acts vii. 59. The name of Christ occurs nine times in the first nine verses of this epistle.
2 Corinthians 12:8 – If a Catholic said or wrote the same thing but substituted the word Mary (the mother of Jesus) who would question that they didn’t pray to Mary?
2 Timothy 4:18 and 2 Peter 3:18 are doxologies and doxologies are defined as hymns of praise to God. Christ receives them therefore He is God. – Romans 2:10 is not a doxology.
It is impossible for me to respond to all posts here. If anyone wants to discus things further or if they want a formal one on one debate they can contact me at foudroyant100percent@yahoo.com
Thanks for the discussion.
Marc Taylor
God isn’t limited to the confines of any worldy college. He won’t be comprehended by any particular belief system which is of men. God defines himself his own way. His ways are higher than the ways of men.
Modern Pharisees, the religious police squad of officers of the law, are always going about to put either God or his children in some kind of confines.
God isn’t held in by bands of iron and neither will his children who know him be held captive by worldly prisons. Because the Lord is their shepherd, they will be led in and out and find good pasture.
Ray – of course it is their perspective, but it is based on what they read in the Bible. If we did not have the doctrine of the trinity, I would bet you anything that you could not derive it solely from reading the Bible. It is a syllogism. The vast majority don’t understand it and only accept it because their church told them to. That’s what piques my interest with Marc, cause he represents a large faction that perpetuates the belief that it is required for salvation.
I don’t disagree with your thoughts on God – I think we are mostly clueless about who He is despite all that is in the Bible. But, when an idea is presented claiming to reveal God’s nature and that goes against clear statements made in the Bible, then I think we have a duty to lovingly and patiently make our voice known.
Why is it that the Lord’s disciples didn’t just leave Jesus because he once said that Lazarus is asleep, but then later he said that he was dead?
Why didn’t they just say “This is clearly a contradiction. Therefore you must not be Jesus. We can not go along with you. You must be a different Jesus.”?
But they saw and knew him didn’t they?
Ray,
From what I understand in biblical times the words asleep and dead were interchangeable…
Antioch,
You said, “For What Its Worth”
Thank-you. That does makes sense. I should have been able to figure that out…
Suppose a man says that because Jesus did not sin and never will, therefore I compare him to God as being equal with him, and it’s in that regard I say he is God.
What’s wrong with that? Is there anything wrong with it? Let’s talk about that, but let’s be real.
I suppose we could be hypocritical modern day Pharisees, who look to the letter of a certain verse wherever we can find one, and hold a stone in our hand and say, “I found a verse that shows a distinction between Jesus and God. Therefore you are a sinner to say in ANY regard that Jesus is God. Making a comparison like that is most definately sin because I have a word from God written right here, that shows, even PROVES that, yes indeed, there is a difference between Jesus and God.”
I suppose someone could do that, but what’s the point? Why would anyone want to do that? What could they possibly gain from doing something like that?
Would God promote a man like that to the top of his class? Would he set him up as an example of what a disciple of Jesus should be like?
Or do you think God would simply say something like, “What this man is doing is all wrong. He isn’t honoring his brother as he ought to. He isn’t being honest and real. He isn’t being as a man ought to be. He hasn’t been following Jesus. He isn’t dying daily. He isn’t taking up his cross. He isn’t helping others.”
What are your opinions on that? I think that’s something profitable and relevant to talk about.
Is this too pertinant and to the point? Is it wrong to talk about these things?
Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to go this route rather than the well worn path people have been taking?
Look at the top paragraph again. Read that one sentence again and ask yourself, “Is God offended by this? Should he be? Is God robbed by it? Does the statement say that God is anything less than what he is? Does the statement dishonor him in any way? Does it dishonor Christ, and if so, how? If it doesn’t dishonor him in any way, and if it doesn’t dishonor God in any way, should I go looking for a verse that’s a little bit different that it, and pretend that it should conform perfectly to the verse that I have found? If I did that, would I be doing right?
Is anyone willing to become real? Does anyone want to become a son of God? If you already are a son of God, has it been showing on this blog? If so, how so? Are you all developing a unity of brotherhood? Are not brothers supposed to support and help one another? Are any two brothers exactly the same? Where is the grace of God displayed apart from liberty by the spirit of God? How much grace is shown by people trying to arrest one another for being in violation of some kind of law? Is that the gospel?
Let’s be men. Let’s talk about this.
Marc
I’m sorry but where did I exactly “cop out” of anything? You keep harping on about a “debate”…what are we doing now?
Again, prayer and especially worship in the Bible has a greater general meaning than what your trying to box it in. So the question you should be focusing on is IN WHAT WAY WAS JESUS WORSHIPED OR PRAYED TO? As Deity or Messiah, a title which by definition means you are not God!
Thank you for the word study but please just answer the simple questions first without any presuppositions on either part. Including, how can someone can be both the Anointed one OF God [Messiah, Christ] and at the same time God?!
Xavier,
One on one formal debate. How many times do I have to write that?
But those who reject that Christ is God and those who reject that Christ is to be prayed to won’t do it.
What “greater general meaning” meaning concerning prayer are you talking about? It takes an omniscient Being to hear all prayers that are offered and it takes an omnipotent Being to act upon them.
An omniscient and omnipotent Being is by defintion “God”.
Answer your question? I’m still waiting for your answer to my question in post #59.
Marc
I quoted it once…I’ll quote it again.
To your question on post 59…whatever ominipotence/omniscience he has HAS BEEN DELEGATED/GIVEN by someone else Jesus calls “my God and Father” [John 20.17]!
Now…how can someone be both the Anointed one OF God [Messiah, Christ] and at the same time God?!
Xavier,
I already addressed that. You have not shown if it was approved by God that they did that.
Well the definition for omnipotence and omniscient means that that being is God. So it is you who chooses to make up your own definitions to fit your heretical theology.
Debate me one on one and I will address your so-called stumper question for if these are your excuses for your answers to my questions I seriously pity anyone that you may happen to teach.
Later days!
Marc
If you do not want to see it perhaps others will.
Marc, you do not sound to me like a very respectful individual. Calling people you disagree heretical and trying to wave then off us silly will not win you any battles. Not with people whose eyes are open anyway.
Work on your attitude friend and then get back to me.
It seems to me that Jesus, being a part of the Godhead is to be worshipped, just as Jesus is to be worshipped because he is the Christ, our Lord, and saviour.
When I worship Jesus, I think I worship him for both reasons.
I tend to not want to worship the Godhead as a whole, over much, because I don’t want a religious spirit.
I think for that reason many Christians are wary of doing that.
There is a religious spirit that would have us to be more taken in by our doctrine about the Godhead, than to be involved in living out the Christian life.
Because we have received of the Spirit of God we do have a lot of liberty. (II Cor 3:17)
I just read a prophetic word from an e-mail I received from Christian website. I call it a prophetic word because it was encouraging and true, though I don’t recall it speaking much of what will happen in the future, exactly, but it was so encouraging that I know it is speaking of my future and giving me hope for a bright tomorrow.
In it, I saw Jesus called a God, a God of abundance. I believe we have the liberty in the Spirit to do that.
It seemed strange to me to see that. Maybe it’s something I should get used to. God has reasons for doing what he does. He knows how to do them by his Spirit.
Now suppose I do this:
Jesus is a God of great riches and honor. (Matt 6:19-21) He knows the true value of everything. Everything the Father has is his inheritance. In his ministry on this earth, he gave up everything and in so doing, he lost nothing of true value. He kept his heart in heaven where his true value was.
He wasn’t much valued on earth was he? (Matt 27:9)
Maybe I should go further and open to another place in the gospels.
Mark 6:14. When I look into this I see that Jesus is a God of miracles and multiplies his seed. He is the God over the kingdom of heaven because God made him Lord over it.
Herod thought that the mighty works being done by Jesus’ disciples were done in John because when he heard of these things, he thought that John had been raised from the dead.
I find it interesting that it says in my KJV that Herod thought that these things were done “in him”, meaning John the baptist.
Herod feared John, observing him and hearing him (Mark 6:20) but later had him beheaded.
But it wasn’t in John or in John’s name that the miracles were being done. It was in Jesus and by faith in his name.
I find it interesting that John wasn’t known for doing any miracles (John 10:41) but when Herod heard of miracles being done he thought of John.
I think John the baptist walked in power and did great things even though it wasn’t miracles. He did some great work for the kingdom of heaven.
Ray (msg. #76),
You said, “Suppose a man says that because Jesus did not sin and never will, therefore I compare him to God as being equal with him, and it’s in that regard I say he is God. What’s wrong with that? Is there anything wrong with it? Let’s talk about that, but let’s be real.”
You are correct that Y’shua/Jesus did not sin, but that does not make him God or equal to God!!! God is more than just a person who does not sin. He is much more than that. There is no verse in the bible that says that Y’shua is equal to God (although there are many verses that say that he isn’t). I understand that you have been taught, ever since you were a small child, that “Jesus is equal to God” and that “Jesus is God”.
But, maybe you should consider the possibility that what you have been taught is not correct or accurate. Quite often as Christians mature in their faith they come to realize that things that they used to believe turned out not to be correct or accurate. More often then not though Christians just continue believing, throughout their entire lives, whatever it was they were taught as a small child.
It’s very difficult to get someone to change a belief that they have had their entire lives. It can probably only be done if the power of God is at work in them and in their lives…
Thomas,
The fact that neither Jesus nor God have any sin, and that one can not say that one has more than the other in respect to many things such as righteousness, holiness, etc, yet there certainly is a distinction between the Father and the Son.
It’s important to listen to how one says that Jesus is God, for there is a sense in which it may be said by one, and in the sense he is saying it, he is not saying what others may be representing him to have said.
It’s important to discern how we are hearing, as to whether we are listening or not.
Many people seem to have fallen asleep and others are trying to wake them up.
Is this statement true or false?
Jesus is a member of the Godhead (which consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), and in that sense, he is God. To put it another way, Jesus is God because he is a member of the Godhead, and it’s in that sense that many people say that he is God.
I believe the statement is true in the sense in which it is said.
It’s also true that many Christians say that Jesus is God in that sense,
and when they are saying so, they are not witnessing to the rest of us that they need more instruction about how Jesus came in the flesh while the Father was in heaven. Nor are they witnessing how they need to be more fully instructed in such things as how Jesus was born of Mary, while the Father was in heaven. Those things are not what their witness is saying. Their witness is true and it’s not what their witness is saying. Let him who is spiritual have an ear to hear.
Jesus is equal to God in so many things and yet there is a distinction between Jesus and God. Each member of the Godhead has their place in heaven and on earth.
I don’t think I’ve heard a Christian say word for word that God the Father was born of Mary while Jesus stayed in heaven, though I’ve heard some things that I’m not sure of what they were saying.
I believe there is a sense in which it can be said that God was born of a woman but if it is said that way, I wish people would make it more plain.
Wasn’t God born of a woman when Jesus was born of Mary in the sense that he who was born of Mary was Jesus, and when people properly looked at the life of Jesus, it can be said that they saw God.
They saw God through his life by the love he had for us and still has.
His love hasn’t changed and neither has God. Jesus hasn’t changed either. He’s still the same toward us in the love of God that he always had. He’s just as righteous as he always was, just as true as he always had been, just as patient, just as kind, just as much on fire for God as he always had been, just as gracious, just as true.
To look into the life of Jesus is to see God’s character and God’s love for us. Jesus makes God known to us.
I’ve heard it said that if Jesus would have sinned, God would have died on earth. Think about how dark that would be. Where would be the Word of God on the earth then? Where would be the promises of the scriptures then?
It was said to cause us to think about how important Jesus is to the whole earth. I think it was also said that way as a type of hearing test.
Ray,
You said, “I believe there is a sense in which it can be said that God was born of a woman…”
This is where we disagree. I think it is impossible for God to be born of a women. The first women (or man) was not created until the 6th. day of creation. God had already existed long before that, and had created all of the Universe (and everything in it) long before he created the first man and woman. I don’t think it makes any sense whatsoever to say (or believe) that God was born of a woman.
God is the Creator! How could he have been born from something that he created???
You also said, “To look into the life of Jesus is to see God’s character and God’s love for us. Jesus makes God known to us.”
Now that I can completely agree with. To know Y’shua is to know God, since Y’shua perfectly reflects his Father in heaven. Y’shua and God are one in so many different ways, but I believe it is important to understand that they are not one and the same being. In other words it is important to understand that “Jesus is not God”.
Like I have said before, “I don’t believe that this is a salvation issue.” But, it is important to anyone that wants to understand the nature of God and his relationship to his Son (our Messiah and King). Of course like always this is just my own personal opinion, but if you look at msg. #52 you will see that I asked Marc the following question;
“Please show me ‘ONE’ verse that explicitly states that ‘the Lord Jesus is God’…”
He could not answer me because there is no verse that explicitly states this. Like all Trinitarians he has to imply this indirectly from vague verses that different people can interpret and understand differently then he does. He kept repeating things like that because the bible talks about Jesus being prayed to that this “proves” that he is God. But, like Xavier pointed out, verses from Isaiah like 45:14 show that both Marc’s premise and conclusion are wrong.
But, Marc (like most people) has been taught, ever since he was a small child, that Jesus is equal to God, and that Jesus is God. It is clear that he will cling to this belief regardless of what the scriptures “actually” say on this subject. You on the other hand can see the distinctions between the Son and the Father and (I think) you realize they are not one and the same being, but you continue to repeat over and over again in your writings that “Jesus is God”.
I’m sorry, but I cannot understand why you do this. It seems to me that it is very clear that “Jesus is not God”. He is the right hand of God, or the ultimate final and complete agent representing God, but he “is not” God. I think it is important that we need to be specific when we choose our words. Otherwise people will misunderstand you and think that you are saying that Jesus and God are one and the same being…
Thomas,
God is often born in a woman when she received his seed by the new birth. It’s then that she takes her first breath of life and that life is the Word. It’s Christ in her, he is the Word, and the Word is God.
Christ is given birth out of a person who receives him when the manifestation of him is given through that one for the first time.
The essence of Christ is God the Father himself, for that which is born of the Spirit is his gift of love and is eternal life, and that’s what Christ is. Jesus is God’s gift of love to us and is eternal life.
I Thess 5:19
Ray,
You said, “Jesus is God’s gift of love to us and is eternal life.”
I can agree with that. But, when you keep saying things like “Jesus is a God of great riches and honor. (Matt 6:19-21)”, and “In it, I saw Jesus called a God, a God of abundance. I believe we have the liberty in the Spirit to do that.” (from msg. #83 above).
You leave me confused and bewildered. It seems you are saying that Jesus and God are one and the same being. You might “not mean” to be saying this, but that is how it comes across to anyone who reads this. You say it’s a matter of me not hearing you properly, but I think it is a matter of you not choosing your words carefully.
I believe that you understand that Jesus is the “Son of God” not “God the Son”, but if you keep referring to Jesus as God, like you do above, then you are implying that in reality Jesus is “God the Son” and not the “Son of God”. It is impossible for Jesus to be the “Son of God” and at the same time be God. Jesus cannot be his own Father.
The way I see it, the Father is God and the Son is Jesus. I can understand that you keep hearing from other places (outside of this site) that Jesus is God, but that doesn’t make any sense if you think about it. If the early Christians believed that Jesus is God, then this would have been a very important fact that Peter and the Apostles and all the N.T. writers would have wanted future generations of Christians to know.
Yet like I have pointed out, there is no scripture that explicitly states that Jesus is God…
Thomas,
I keep refering to Jesus as the Son of God and also compare him to God at times. I believe Christians often do that and that we do have the liberty to do so. I know of nothing from scripture that forbids it, do you?
Ray,
I have no problem with you comparing Jesus to God. Like I said, Y’hsua perfectly reflects his Father. He is the right hand of God, and has been given all power and authority in heaven and on earth. But, I don’t know of any scripture that says we are at liberty to call Jesus by his Father’s name. Like I have said, “This is not a salvation issue”, but I think it is important to understand that the Son is not the Father. In other words that Jesus is not God, but the Son of God.
I do understand why you are confused and keep referring to Jesus as God. It is because you keep hearing this from other Christians (outside of this site). I just wish you could understand these things the way that everyone else on this site does. No one else on this site believes that Jesus is God, because this belief “is not” explicitly taught anywhere in the bible, and if you take the time to think about it, it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
Maybe we should just agree to disagree on this, like we have on other things.
Have a great Sunday and God Bless…
Thomas,
It’s not out of confusion that I call Jesus God. I do so as a comparison.
Do you consider Jesus to have been confused when he called the people the salt of the earth? (Matt 5:13)
Have you considered the possibility that you sometimes misjudge people and don’t listen to what they say, but rather work to bring about confusion?
Sometimes the children of God will speak in a similar manner as Jesus sometimes spoke, and it’s not out of confusion. It will be upon you to discern the difference.
Ray,
You said, “It’s not out of confusion that I call Jesus God. I do so as a comparison.”
I’m sorry but I don’t understand your logic in this. Comparing Jesus to God is one thing, saying Jesus is God is a completely different thing. When you say that Jesus is God, then it logically follows you are saying he is “God the Son” and not “the Son of God”. If Jesus is God then he is “God the Son”.
You also said, “Sometimes the children of God will speak in a similar manner as Jesus sometimes spoke, and it’s not out of confusion. It will be upon you to discern the difference.”
Jesus “never” said that he was “God the Son”. So you are not speaking in a manner that is similar to what Jesus sometimes spoke. You are speaking in a manner that Trinitarians speak. BTW – It is not up to me to discern the difference. If you say that “Jesus is God” then you saying that Jesus is “God the Son” whether you mean to or not. That is what you are saying.
I know you don’t actually believe that, which is why I am trying to get you try to be more accurate with your words. But, you keep insisting that Christ has given you the liberty to say that he is God, even though the scriptures don’t explicitly state that Jesus is God. The result is that everyone who reads your words will continue to think that you believe that Jesus is “God the Son”, even though that is not what you believe.
It’s not up to the reader to read the mind of the writer and know what he is saying. It’s up to the writer to be clear and concise in what he says so that people who read his words are not confused. Like I said (in msg. #89), “when you keep saying things like ‘Jesus is a God of great riches and honor. (Matt 6:19-21)’, and ‘In it, I saw Jesus called a God, a God of abundance. I believe we have the liberty in the Spirit to do that.’ – You leave me confused and bewildered.”
You leave me with the impression that you believe Jesus is “God the Son” even though you repeatedly say that this is not what you believe. This is what you are saying. You are saying Jesus is a God (or Jesus is God) and he is the son. That equals “God the Son”. If you really want people to understand that you believe that Jesus is “the Son of God” and not “God the Son”, then you need to stop repeating over and over that “Jesus is God”. Otherwise you are just spreading confusion…
Thomas,
When I say that Jesus is God and say so in the sense of comparison, I am saying that he is the Son of God. I will by the grace of God tell about his virgin birth, how it was Jesus who died on the cross while the Father was yet in the throne of heaven, how God offered to us his Son Jesus as the perfect sacrifice for our sins, and at the same time that I tell this wonderful truth, there may be times that I will compare him with God by comparison, for his is just as righteous as God is and that is not robbery by any means.
Jesus is God in the sense that he is a part of the Godhead. (see Matthew 28:19 where in no Bible on this earth that I am aware of will you see the term “God the Son”.) In that sense I say that he is God, and when I do say so , I am not saying that there is no distinction between him and the Father. I am simply saying that Jesus, the Son of God is a part of the Godhead.
If I can help you in any other way, please let me know.
I fail to see how people who read this will be saying that I believe Jesus is God the Son, as you accuse my writings of doing, but they might be if they have some idea of what in the world the words “God the Son” means when they use the term.
Since you used the term in the above post Thomas, I ask you, what is it that you mean by the use of those words?
When people read what you write it will be clear to many of them that you are trying to confuse the matters we discuss, and that what you do you do not for edification of the Body of Christ, but rather for it’s destruction.
Therefore I ask for your repentance. Didn’ t you come to the cross when you first set out on your Christian journey? You need to remember the cross of Christ and practice repentance when you see the need to do so. If you do not, if you refuse, you will continue in your sins and that will become clear to others also.
Since God has commited all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son even as they honor the Father, (John 5:22.23) to be judged by Jesus is to be judged by the Father. When it comes to judgment Jesus in not one bit lacking in anything toward us, therefore it may be said in a sense of comparison, that when it comes to judgment, Jesus is God.
People have this liberty in Christ by the Spirit of God and they may indeed walk in it.
If you need further instruction in this please let us know, but if you are continuing to play games, it will become known by all. Therefore I caution you on what you do.
Ray,
You asked, “Since you used the term in the above post Thomas, I ask you, what is it that you mean by the use of those words?”
When you hear Christians say that Jesus is “God the Son” they are saying that Jesus is the 2nd. member of the Trinity (or Godhead). I do not believe in the Trinity or that there is even such a thing as a Godhead. I realize your old KJV and your old Geneva bible mention “the Godhead”, but that is because the translators were Trinitarians who believed in the existence of a “Godhead” and so they deliberately inserted the phrase into the texts.
The original Greek texts do not contain the word “Godhead”. That is why all the modern translations (like my ESV) don’t have the word “Godhead” anywhere in them. The word “Godhead” should never have been put in any bible in the first place. It was created by the Trinitarians to help explain this complex theory that God is three separate persons, while at the same time remaining one being (or one God).
I don’t mean to offend you, but I don’t understand how you (or anyone else) can say that Jesus is the “Son of God” and at the same time say “Jesus is God”. I’m sorry, but this is just plain confusing. God cannot be HIS own Son, and Jesus cannot be his own Father. So it logically follows that Jesus cannot be the “Son of God” and at the same time be God. This is just basic common sense. When you combine this with the fact that there is no scripture that explicitly states that “Jesus is God” you can see why I don’t believe that “Jesus is God”.
You also said, “I fail to see how people who read this will be saying that I believe Jesus is God the Son..”
If you say Jesus is a God and he is the Son that equals “God the Son”. I do not understand why you cannot see this. You keep saying you believe that Jesus is not “God the Son”, but then you turn around and say that “Jesus is God”. I’m sorry but this is utterly confusing for anyone (including me) that reads this. My beliefs are very simple and easy to understand. I believe the Father is God and the Son is Jesus. You can’t get any simpler then that.
You also said, “Therefore I ask for your repentance.”
There is nothing for me to repent for. There is no scripture that explicitly and clearly states that “Jesus is God”. Also if Jesus were God, then the way I see it, he couldn’t also be the “Son of God”. So why on earth should I have to believe that Jesus is God??? Like I said, I believe the Father is God and HIS Son is Jesus. There is nothing contradictory or confusing about my beliefs. I really don’t see why you can’t understand why I believe what I believe…
Thomas,
If you say that you can not understand how one thing may be compared to another by saying that one thing is another, I do not believe you.
I don’t believe you are telling us the truth. It’s not a difficult concept to understand. The Bible is full of such comparisons.
In so many ways your judgment has not been true. I find no reason that I should listen to you when you say that the word Godhead should not be in any Bible.
If you believe you are able to make your case about that clear and plain, I will be willing to examine it.
But I caution you, for I will be looking to see if you are more concerned in examinining the matters of others than you are in your own, for men often overlook their own faults while they try to look into the matters of others and theyby have walked in hypocrisy, seeing nothing at all that is of any true value. Through their hypocrisy they trusted in lies and have caused much damage to themeselves and others. Therefore the Lord warned us often of thus judging.
It seems to me that the Godhead is revealed in the Psalms where David speaks of the king, the Son of God, making a distinction between him and God, by the Spirit. Thus we see those three, the Son of God, the Father (for in that we know there is a son, we know there is a father also) and the Holy Spirit.
Whether we call that a Godhead or not, those three by their very nature is Godhood. Those three which are Godhood, is the Godhead which is one.
One need not be trained or indoctrinated by a Trinitarian camp to see such things. It is revealed clearly enough by the truth we have read.
Thomas, are you being fair in judgment to lay upon a certain group only, such a thing as inventing the idea of a Godhead? I think not and I believe I just made my case clear enough to give you reason to repent, to change your thinking on this matter, if you should be willing to follow truth.
I believe Jesus is a God of abundance, a God of truth, a God of holiness, a God of honesty, and a God of justice. He’s also a God of wisdom, power, and might.
If the scripture calls men gods who have received the word of God, is it so wrong to say that Jesus is greater than us?
What other man can be compared to God as men may compare Jesus to God, and do so without robbery? I know of none, and you know of none also.
As to whether that is to say that I am saying that Jesus is God the Son, that is your interpretation of what I say, and is of no greater authority than the interpreter who translates what I have said.
I have chosen to use the term Son of God rather than the term you chose to use.
It seems to me that to you the term God the Son is something you do not define but is something that only Trinitarians use whom you disagree with.
I would prefer to be known as a member of the Body of Christ, rather than as a Trinitarian. I don’t consider myself to be a Trinitarian. I consider myself to be a Christian.
Marc Taylor,
Agreed, but that has nothing to do with Yeshua being God or not. Yeshua is a man and Messiah as Paul so clearly points out in 1 tim 2:5.
And just because God is not described in our language in every way possible, it doesn’t mean that what is written about him isn’t true and meant for us to understood. Jesus understood clearly, and agreed with the Jewish man he recited the shema to, that he understood who God was.
Sure it can be explained. It’s right in front of your eyes in scripture. Because God has put him in position of Messiah. One would expect such a position to be worthy of authority. In no way proves he’s God. Just take a look at this passage…
21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Jesus taught us to pray to the Father, the same Father he called his God in John 20….
“Jesus saith unto her, ‘Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, l ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”
Do you believe Jesus has a God? If not, then you are violating his own creedal declaration.
No where is scripture does it say that I need Marc Taylor to clarify for me what exactly God is. You yourself said that God cannot be comprehended using our own language. So unless you attest to being a special prophet that can understand better then other men your arguments are meaningless.
Joseph,
Thanks for showing me a Scripture that Jesus is a man. I agree He is but Scripture also teaches that He is God.
Again and again…since He is the proper recipient of prayer this necessitates He is both omniscient and omnipotent. Now the meaning of those words must be denied if one rejects that He is God.
Those who say that the Lord Jesus was prayed to but deny He is God must also deny the meaning of these words. Now if you want to make up your own definitions for words that is another matter.
In post #37 I used the word “FULLY” about comprehending God.
Marc,
How do you interpret Mark 13.32 which clearly states that Jesus was not omniscient?
Marc
Again and again I have proven that others apart from the God and Father of the lord Jesus are “worshiped” and “prayed” to in scripture. So if we go by this faulty logic of yours, there are more than just “3 Persons in the 1 Being” that is your triune God.
Ray/DT,
For what its worth, I would side with DT on this discussion. Ray, it seems you are promoting some middle ground idea where Jesus is both God and not God. That is confusing to me as well.
I agree also with DT about the word ‘godhead’. I don’t think it is unreasonable to see that word as an invention to convey multiplicity where it need not be. It is not in my NIV. The three passages in the KJV are:
Acts 17:29 (theion). Same word is used in 2 Peter 1:3 and 2 Peter 1:4 and both times it is translated as ‘divine’ and not ‘godhead’.
Romans 1:20 (theiotes). No other references using same Strongs number but is also transliterated as ‘divinity’.
Colossians 2:9 (theotetos). No other references but is also transliterated as ‘deity’.
Ray – hope you don’t take offense, but I think you leveled some charges on DT that, from my perspective, are not fair.
I pray for peace for you both,
Antioch
That is an unfortunate translation as is “Divine Nature”. As the Encyclopedia Britannica points out:
A good question for trinis would be…
Ray,
You said, “If you say that you can not understand how one thing may be compared to another by saying that one thing is another, I do not believe you…The Bible is full of such comparisons.”
You are correct that the bible is full of analogies. Like the two verses below;
Matthew 5:13, “”You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored?”
Mathew 5:14, “”You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.”
Anyone reading the above verses knows that they are analogies, and that they are not literally saying that people are salt or light. But the verse below is written in a plain and straightforward way.
Gen 19:26, “But Lot’s wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.”
No one reading this verse from Genesis would think that the statement “she became a pillar of salt” was an analogy. It is just a plain and straightforward statement of fact. If you want anyone reading your postings to understand what you are saying (that you are comparing God to Jesus) then you have to change the wording so it is obvious to the reader that they are reading an analogy.
For example you could say, “Jesus is like God”, or “Jesus is similar to God”, or “Jesus and God are one when it comes to the ways of the Father”, etc… But, if you make a straightforward statement of fact like “Jesus is God”, no one (except you) is going to be able to know that you are making an analogy. They are going to think you are making a straightforward statement of fact.
Like I said in my above message, when you say “Jesus is God” then they are probably going to think you are saying that Jesus is “God the Son”. Since this is what most Christians mean when they say, “Jesus is God”. Of course I know that this is not what you believe. That’s why I said you are spreading confusion when you don’t clarify when it is you are making an analogy and when it is you are not.
You also said, ” I find no reason that I should listen to you when you say that the word Godhead should not be in any Bible. If you believe you are able to make your case about that clear and plain, I will be willing to examine it.”
All I can do is suggest you go to biblegateway.com and look into it for yourself. You will see that only the very old translations, like the KJV and the Old Geneva Bible, have the word Godhead in them. The word Godhead does not appear in any of the newer translations because modern day scholars know that the word Godhead is not found anywhere in the original Greek manuscripts. It was deliberately inserted into the text by Trinitarian scholars and translators.
I don’t mean to offend you with anything that I have said or done. I just disagree with you on some things. In msg. #76 above you said, “Let’s talk about that, but let’s be real.” To be real with each other is to be honest with each other. I’ve always tried to be honest with you about what I feel, and what I believe. I hope that you still consider me to be your brother in Christ…
Xavier,
I cannot imagine they would interpret Mt 6 to be anything but directed to the Father. Have you ever seen the argument that it is directed to the ‘godhead’?
One of the things that does make me wonder – if there are so many occurrences of trinitarian bias being read into the texts, why did they not go further and also change the various passages that are still strongly unitarian?
Sean,
a. NIDNTT: God’s name of Lord also becomes his name (Phil. 2:9f.; Rev. 19:16). Above and beyond this, he can bear a name which he alone knows (Rev. 19:12) (2:654, Name – H. Bietenhard).
Each Person of the Trinity has the ability to relegate any part of His omniscience to the other. God in His being always remains omniscient. Speaking of Christ Revelation 19:12 reads that no one knows His name “except Himself”. If those who say that Christ is not omniscient/God based on Mark 13:32 would not apply such an approach to Revelation 19:12.
——————
Xavier,
And I have already pointed out that no one else besides God should be prayed to. You cited Isaiah 45:14 but you have not shown that it is prescriptive rather than descriptive.
In #28 I wrote this:
Where in Isaiah does it say that God will “command” them to do as such.
In #29 your called response was:
Unless you actually read the text, as well as its context, this will be very tedious and time consuming.
—–
So in other words you couldn’t prove what you asserted because it would be “very tedious and time consuming”
Thanks for your so-called proof.
Thomas, people know when someone makes an analogy when the one making the analogy lets the other person know they are making an analogy.
Analogys are made in the scripture and people are not often told that such is a comparison of some kind.
Jesus often spoke in such ways and he did leave it up to us to learn to hear what the spirit is saying.
I think most Christians understand that by the use of the word “Word” in John 1:1, comparison is being made.
Even if there is some disagreement about the use of the word Godhead, it is clearly evident that there is a Father, there is a Son, and there is the Spirit of God and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternal, are holy, and have life, and or is eternal life.
I suppose some kind of word can be used for what we see, whether it be Godhead or some other word, but no matter what we give it as a name, we know that those exist and are one, that they are together, and are the power of God.
I believe God is many things, and one of those things that he is, is
his own power.
Suppose there were no Trinitarians, there would still be what is called the Godhead, even if we didn’t use the word Godhead, but some other word.
I’m used to the KJV. I don’t know what the other readings of the word Godhead are. I don’t care so much about the different readings. I simply know that what is said by the scripture, that is called the Godhead, exists, is eternal, is life, is truth, and is in effect what we may refer to as “God”, for by nature it is so.
Using the word “God” as a descriptive term for what is called the Godhead, is not robbing God of anything. I believe it is acceptable to God for us to do so.
It’s not really a good reason for Christians to argue much of anything about is it? I suppose some will argue about what the best word for it is, but isn’t that about all there is to argue about it?
And, what is that little thing to argue about? What to call what’s being referred to?
Maybe it’s time to forgive every Trinitarian every evil thing they ever did to us….even if they happened to be the ones who gave a word name to…..you know…what’s been observed, that’s been called the Godhead.
Antioch
This is the exact same question I asked myself when I first came to the faith not so long ago. There is always a trail of evidence to a “crime”, especially if you know a bit of history and take the time/effort to search and examione the scriptures.
Marc
What about based on Rev 1.1 where your God-man Jesus is GIVEN A REVELATION by God? Who [and not What] happens to be your God-man’s God in Rev 3.11-13!
EQUIVOOCATION ALERT!! Your trying to dodge the obvious, the nation is prayed to and this is not a bad thing! Why?! Maybe because it is all part of God’s grand plan to have his people be a light to the other nations. Who will both worship and praise them as God’s people!
Prescriptive enough for you?!
Xavier,
Now you are leap frogging from passage to passage. You get refuted in one place so what do you do? You won’t admit you are in error so just jump to another pasage.
Thanks for your “maybe” gues concerning Isaih 45:14. No Xavier, you wrote in #20 that they were “commanded”….but your so-called proof is now a “maybe”.
In post #13 you warned about not changing the meaning of simple words. OK. Concerning the prayer to Christ in Acts 1:24:
Mounce: The fact that people pray to both God (Mt. 6:9) and Jesus (Acts 1:24) is part of the proof of Jesus’ deity (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, Pray, page 531).
Follow your own advice!
Xavier,
Concerning Revelation 3:9:
“The Jews expected homage (not worship in the strict sense) from the Gentiles…”
http://studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=003&verse=009
Marc
Keep quoting Mounce, whoevere he is, and ignore the simple teaching my friend.
Homage different from worship now? I guess when it rains you don’t get wet either?
Ray,
You said, “Suppose there were no Trinitarians, there would still be what is called the Godhead, even if we didn’t use the word Godhead, but some other word.”
According to the original Greek manuscripts the word Godhead doesn’t appear anywhere in the bible. The way I see it, you have Y’shua/Jesus who is the right hand of God and who has been given all power and authority. You have the Holy Spirit which is sent to strengthen us and guide us so we can walk together in God’s ways, and you have God who is above them all. I don’t anything that resembles a Godhead of more then one person. If there is a Godhead that Godhead is God.
You also said, “Using the word “God” as a descriptive term for what is called the Godhead, is not robbing God of anything. I believe it is acceptable to God for us to do so.”
Mark 12:28-29; “…’Which commandment is the most important of all?’ (29) Jesus answered, ‘The most important is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one’.”
To me this means that the Holy Spirit is not God, and Jesus is not God, only the Father is God. It seems clear to me that there is only “one” God. There is nothing in the scriptures that says it’s acceptable to God for us to use “God” as a descriptive term for this imaginary Godhead. Y’shua said the most important commandment was that, “The Lord our God, the Lord is one”.
He didn’t say that, “The Lord our God, is a multiple of persons in a Godhead, and that it was alright to refer to any of these persons as God”. I understand why you believe that it’s alright to say that “Jesus is God”. It is because you hear all these Christians around you saying that “Jesus is God”. You have been bombarded by this message since you were a small child.
Unfortunately the scriptures don’t say anything about it being alright to call Jesus God or to say that “Jesus is God” or to say that “Jesus is a God”. Like I have pointed out to you in my earlier messages, There is no scripture that implicitly and directly states that “Jesus is God” or that “Jesus is a God”. This is a man made invention created by Trinitarians who believe that God is in reality three separate persons who comprise an imaginary Godhead.
These Trinitarians also say you can refer to anyone in this Godhead as God since all three of these separate persons are in reality one being (or one God). These Trinitarian ideas have no basis in the scriptures. Mark 12:29 is very clear; Y’shua said the “most important” commandment is that “The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”
In other words there is only “ONE” God. This is the way I see it anywaze…
Xavier,
Homage:
respect or reverence paid or rendered: In his speech he paid homage to Washington and Jefferson.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homage
Does that necessitate that Washington and Jefferson were worshiped in his speech? No! But in Xavier’s fairy tale definition world it does
No wonder you don’t like Mounce – he refutes your heresy.
Oh and by the way I also cited other sources (post #30) for what the Greek word kardiognwstees means (omniscient) but evasions are your game.
Marc
When it rains do you get wet?
Not if I am inside my home.
Marc,
you wrote:
I’m having some difficulty in understanding what you wrote here. Are you saying Jesus was not fully God (100% participating in the being of God) in his earthly life? Or are you saying that Jesus really did know the day and the hour? Please clarify. Thanks.
Here’s a couple of classic clips that may help [or confuse?] those interested in this thread…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbcIwmnimQw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQdC5ABZf5o
In the shema, that most weighty of biblical passages and reinforced strongly by Jesus himself, it is said that ‘God is one’. The #1 argument to me against the trinity is its redefining the shema to mean God really meant he is ‘three in one’. That, to me, makes God out to be a parser of words.
I know the rebuttal about ‘yashid’ vs. ‘echad’ which they touched upon in Xavier’s second video. But when you count to ten in Hebrew, you use the word ‘echad’ for one and not ‘yashid’ – doesn’t that obliterate the entire concept that ‘echad’ means compound unity?
Sean,
Revelation 19:12 teaches that no one else (it is emphatic) knew the name that was written…ONLY the Lord Jesus. Again I can not fully explain it. Now for those who say that this is a flaw with Trinitarian theology I say then explain Revelation 19:12 how only the Son knows the name written.
————-
Notice also in Revelation 19 verse 6 as it reads in the KJV:
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Those who say that Christ is omnipotent but not God can also try to explain why the word “omnipotent” (pantokratwr) here is translated in other versions as “Almighty” – and by definition to be Almighty is to be “God”.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Almighty
Antioch,
Echad in Scripture doesn’t ALWAYS mean an absolute one. If it did then you would have an airtight case but since it isn’t the door is open that God is a multi-Personal Being.
Xavier,
Great links! I can see why the audience was laughing at the Trinitarian’s attempt to explain the Trinity in the first video. However in the second video I was completely confused when the guy said that God is more then “just” three persons in one, but he was a multiplicity of persons in one. That is something that I certainly had never heard of before. This complex Trinity doctrine (that apparently is a mystery because no-one can understand it) is apparently getting even more complicated as time goes by…
Since the Bible teaches God is Triune that ought to be sufficient. It is irrelevant if one can not fully comprehend His ontology. To insist otherwise is to exalt your reasoning over and above the written word.
Marc,
If the bible so clearly teaches that God is Triune, like you claim, Why do some Trinitarians say God is three separate and distinct persons and others say that God just manifested himself in three persons (that are not really separate and distinct from each other) and yet other Trinitarians say that God is more than three persons, and is in fact a multiplicity of persons???
It doesn’t seem to me like it’s clearly taught at all. It’s all just a bunch of speculation based on vague verses that don’t clearly teach anything even remotely close to a Triune God. If it was clearly taught then it would logically follow that Peter and the apostles and the N.T. writers must have clearly explained it. The fact that there is so much confusion among the Trintiarians clearly demonstrates that this “man made doctrine” is not clearly taught (like you claim).
BTW – I don’t want to overload you with questions, but I also have one more question. I was just wondering how Trinitarians explain Luke 2:52; “And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.” If Y’shua is God, How could he possibly increase in wisdom??? Also, if Y’shua is God, How is it possible that Y’shua could increase in favor with God???
This verse seems to me to conclusively prove that Y’shua/Jesus is not God…
DT,
If a person says “that God just manifested himself in three persons” then the person who asserted as such is not Trinitarian but a Modalist…such as Oneness Pentecostals.
The answer to your question is posted in #119 in response to Sean (#116). Each Person of the Trinity has the ability to relegate any part of His omniscience to the other. God in His being always remains omniscient.
I can turn the question around an ask: If the Father is God how is it that the Lord Jesus ALONE knows the name that is written?
NIDNTT: God’s name of Lord also becomes his name (Phil. 2:9f.; Rev. 19:16). Above and beyond this, he can bear a name which he alone knows (Rev. 19:12) (2:654, Name – H. Bietenhard).
Antioch
Reinforced by the Koine Greek eis, the word for the numeral 1!
DT
This is why I posted these 2 clips from 2 different trinis trying to explain the same, supposedly, doctrine they all believe. They usually range from a Modalist view to Oneness to just ridiculous!
When I look at Rev 1:1, I wonder if Jesus would have had this vision / revelation to give to his servants if God would not have given it to him.
By looking into it, it looks to me like
Jesus only does what the Father tells him to do, and sees exactly what the Father gives him to see, as everything of Jesus comes from God.
He did say that he of himself could do nothing. (John 5:30, John 8:28)
I suppose Jesus is completely trusting in the Father for everything, and that Jesus receives everything he needs from God, looking to God alone for all he needs.
I suppose that’s also the way it was in the beginning when God created everything by him.
We don’t seem to be told much about how it was in the beginning other than “And God said….and it was so”.
I remember how David said, “The Lord said unto my Lord…” (Psalm 110:1)
It seems to me that there has always been holy communion within
the….whatever we wish to call it….Trinity, Godhead, or mumemmm,(you know, whatever it is) in a full sharing kind of way.
By looking into the gospels, it seems that Jesus spoke things and he did the speaking by what God had showed him, the works which the Father did, and it came to be.
Since Jesus does only what the Father says, when Jesus speaks, is there a sense in which it may be said, that “God said”?
If we say that Jesus only did what God said to do, then can we say that when Jesus did it, it was because of what God said, even if Jesus also said it?
If Jesus said it and it was so, did God do it then, or did God do it first, just before Jesus said it, and as soon as Jesus said it, was it then so?
Did Jesus see what God did before he spoke what was to be so, which also became so?
God gave Jesus to have life within himself (John 5:26) and he never lost it, but he did lay it down at Calvary where he bled it all out.
Wow Xavier “ridiculous”? You take the cake with that in believing that paying homage to Washington and Jefferson means they are being worshiped.
Get real.
Marc,
These people you call Modalists don’t know they are Modalists or Oneness Pentecostals. They think that they are Trinitarians!!! The person on the T.V. show that said that God was a multiplicity of persons thought of himself as a Trinitarian. All the other people on the T.V. show that said, “That’s right brother”, “Way to go”, etc.. think of themselves as being Trinitarians. Which brings me back to my original statement from above;
“It doesn’t seem to me like it’s clearly taught at all. It’s all just a bunch of speculation based on vague verses that don’t clearly teach anything even remotely close to a Triune God. If it was clearly taught then it would logically follow that Peter and the apostles and the N.T. writers must have clearly explained it. The fact that there is so much confusion among the Trintiarians clearly demonstrates that this “man made doctrine” is not clearly taught (like you claim).”
You also didn’t answer my question from above, “If Y’shua is God, How is it possible that Y’shua could increase in favor with God???”
Marc
I am getting real and following your argument that by NECESSITY you somehow are Deity if your worshiped.
DT,
They can call themselves whatever they want but it doesn’t make it true.
————–
Xavier,
No Xavier….only God is to be worshiped – that is PROPER worship. There are instances of misplaced worship in the Bible.
Have you figured out your error from post #111?
Marc
Yes, we agree. Only the one true God can be worshiped as such, as Jesus succintly tells us in John 17.3.
Instances of misplaced worship? I do not think so. What we do have are instances where others are “worshiped” as who they are, be they earthly potentates [Kings, princes, etc.] or people who are regarded in high honor/esteem by others [older family members, teachers, etc.]. For example, if by “misplaced worship” you mean it is wrong to do it, we would immediately see this when people “worhip” the Davidic king time and time again in the Hebrew scriptures.
What error?
Xavier,
Post #5 contains passages where the Lord Jesus is worshiped.
1 Kings 18:26 is one example of mispalced worship.
Can one give homage to another without worshiping them?
Marc
Without worshiping as the one true God, YHWH, yes!
If by “misplaced worship” you mean worshiping someone [Satan] or something [idols] as somehow Deity then we agree. But there is obviously right and proper worship, authorized by God, given to others like the Davidic king and especially His unique Son.
Hello this is my post here. I just just wanted to post something that deals with Revelation 3:9 since this was brought up in the discussion here. The text below is written by a man named Daniel O. McClellan (you can find his blog here http://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/ ) and was written in a response to someone on a message board bringing up how the NIV version translates Revelation 3:9
William
Interesting article, thank you.
But what does this mean when it comes to the topic of worship? I mean, if it is “religious worship” being given to others apart from the one God of Israel, YHWH, what does that say [if anything] about those being worshiped?
Marc,
I realize you are carrying on quite a few conversations at once, and I admit I have not been following all of them, so please forgive me if I’m missing something here. I asked you a simple question about how you interpreted Mark 13.32. I gave two possible interpretations:
1. Jesus really did not know something, which means he was not actually omniscient on earth
or
2. Jesus really did retain his omniscience and was lying.
In response, twice now, you have proposed a second text that you consider difficult in Revelation 19 rather than answering my query. One the one hand you say that the persons of the Trinity can transfer omniscience to each other and then on the other you say that God in his being is always omniscient. I’m guessing you are going with option (1) from above –that Jesus really did not retain omniscience. However, this presents me with something rather confusing and seemingly contradictory. For if Jesus is fully God in his being and the being of God is fully omniscient, then Jesus must also be fully omniscient, right? Maybe I’m just missing something here.
thanks for your time
The fact that the prayer of Acts 1:24 teaches that the Lord Jesus is the heart knower of all demonstrates they were praying to Him as God for to know all the hearts necessitates omniscience and an omniscient being by definition is “God”.
—————
Sean,
The Lord Jesus did not know the time (Matthew 24:36) just as the Father did not know the name written (Revelation 19:12).
Marc,
So are you saying that Jesus as God was not omniscient?
Marc,
I usually don’t ask a question a third time. But, I am very curious to see how you can explain away Luke 2:52. I will paraphrase the question for you so that it is even clearer;
“If Y’shua is God, then how can God increase in favor with God???”
This is what so often ocurrs when dealing with Unitarians and/or others who deny the Trinity……evasiveness.
I have already made it clear about the Son not knowing when the end was. Now if you or anyone else take that as meaning He is not God then address Revelation 19:12.
Why is it that ONLY the Son knows the written name?
Marc,
You are over complicating a very simple verse. I don’t speak for others, but it seems rather obvious…
12His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
This verse has many directions it can take in itself, much like most of the book of Revelation. It says that no MAN knew. Unitarians don’t believe that God is a man. So there is nothing to suggest that God didn’t know because he is not a man. In fact, not once in scripture does it say that God is a man. Don’t see how you are using this as some sort of defense to the argument put against you. I would be curious to hear a straight answer from you.
To further expand. The chapter is talking about how man on earth is being judged and the one who sits on the white horse will kill the wicked with the army from heaven. It seems that the “no man had knew” context could be the man left on Earth that are being judged because they don’t accept, or arrogant of the teachings from the Messiah, hence don’t know him (his name).
For sure I’m getting no sort of hard evidence that this has anything to do with Yeshua having exclusivity over the one who he will submit to as Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 15…
24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Anyone other Unitarians have thoughts on what I just said?
Joseph,
The Greek word for “no one” in Revelation 19:12 is oudeis and Thayer says it is used “absolutely”.
This is why modern version (including the New Kking James Version) read “no one”.
NIDNTT: God’s name of Lord also becomes his name (Phil. 2:9f.; Rev. 19:16). Above and beyond this, he can bear a name which he alone knows (Rev. 19:12) (2:654, Name – H. Bietenhard).
This is how this name is defined. Now if anyone wants to go on and change the meaning of simple words then that is another issue.
Marc,
Still don’t see it as a good argument on your part. As I pointed out the parallel of Revelation to 1 Corinthians that the Son is subjected to God, and will hand the keys back to him that were given to him, by his God (John 20:17). This is the context we should be looking for when determining truth.
How do you answer to Jesus’ statement that he has a God, and that God is also our God? God cannot have a God.
I believe there is a way in which a Christian may know for certain that Jesus, the Son of God is God, and that is by the holes in his hands that he showed his disciples after his resurrection.
Joseph,
Don’t confuse functional subjection with ontological inferiority.
The Father also called the Lord Jesus “God” in Hebrews 1:8.
Marc
The Father also calls Moses [Ex 4.16; 7.1] & the Davidic king [Ps 45.6] “God” in the OT.
http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2010/02/human-gods.html
Marc,
I am not being evasive. I simply asked you a question about your trinitarian understanding of Mark 13.32. You have steadfastly resisted giving me an explanation and have constantly tried to switch the conversation to talk about a verse in Revelation. I fear I still do not understand what it is you believe. On the one hand you admit that Jesus (as God) was not omniscient and on the other hand you state that the being of God is omniscient. This is just confusing to me as a non-trinitarian and I feel very dissatisfied with your explanation that different members of the Trinity can transfer omniscience to each other. Is your point in bringing up Rev. 19.12 to say that the Father himself is also not omniscient? I don’t see why we couldn’t just say that no other people (i.e. humans) knew Jesus’ new name, even though obviously God still knew it (being that he is omniscient). This is really quite different than specifically saying he did not know something as in Mark 13.32.
Marc,
As if you aren’t busy enough responding to all the questions here, I’d like to re-ask my questions from post #38.
Is a layperson that doesn’t understand the trinity but ‘accepts’ it anyway still saved? If so, are they really qualified to make such a decision?
While I disagree with your position, I do appreciate your visiting this blog and posting.
Gentlemen,
Presented for your consideration…
http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2011/06/did-first-christians-pray-to-jesus.html
Sean,
I appeal to Revelation 19:12 because through many experiences dealing with those who deny the deity of Christ they will just ignore what I mention.
I have already cited a reliable dictionary that states that only the Lord Jesus knew the written name.
Xavier,
No kidding that others are called “God”. I was responding to Joseph’s response about Jesus having a God – it is not a good argument against His deity despite the fact that many Unitarinas I have encountered use it.
Antioch,
I don’t fully understand the Trinity but I accept it because the Bible teaches this doctrine. Those who don’t acept the Trinity are not saved because they have a false god – not the God of the Bible.
Marc,
I’m wondering how far you are willing to go in believing that Jesus is God. Are you willing to go all the way in believing that Jesus is God? Or, are you one of those people who turn around half way through?
Some people say that Jesus is God and that they will never let that go, that they will never give that up, and I think that what they mean by that is that they really mean never, never, never, under any circumstances will they ever give that up.
And to add one more thing, it seems like they really believe it.
So I’m wondering how far you are willing to go in believing that Jesus is God.
What if…..What if you were reading something from the scripture that seemed to say that it may be that Jesus might not always be omnicient as God the Father is…would you still believe that Jesus is God? I think some people would. I think they really would go that far.
I think some people would believe that Jesus is still God even if he isn’t always omnicient like God the Father is.
Now, it seems to me that those are the real believers. Those are the commited ones. I think that takes real faith….and I think some people do have it. I think they may have it right too.
What’s your opinion on that?
And I don’t think it so strange that people believe that way.
Marc,
I must say I am quite surprised at the Trinitarian explanation for Mark 13.32. I am left to conclude that you believe the Son is not omniscient because he did not know the day or hour of his coming (even though he clearly stated the Father did know). Furthermore, I conclude that, according to your system of belief, the Father likewise is not omniscient because he does not know the secret name of Jesus in Rev. 19.12. I find all of this rather bewildering. How can God be ignorant? Isn’t it blasphemy to say such things of God. Surely he knows all things.
Marc,
You said, “Those who don’t acept the Trinity are not saved because they have a false god – not the God of the Bible.”
You keep repeating this false claim that the Trinity is clearly taught in the bible even though it is obvious most people who think of themselves as Trinitarians are confused about what “the Trinity doctrine” actually means (as I pointed out to you in msg. #123 and #128 above). You responded to what I said in msg. #130 saying, “They can call themselves whatever they want but it doesn’t make it true.”
Implying that because these Trinitarians (that I quoted) misunderstand the Trinity they are therefore not really Trinitarians (in other words they can’t attain salvation). After all, like you said, “A false God can’t save anyone”. Then in response to Antioch’s question, “Is a layperson that doesn’t understand the trinity but ‘accepts’ it anyway still saved?” You said, “I don’t fully understand the Trinity but I accept it because the Bible teaches this doctrine.”
Implying that you don’t have to understand the Trinity but just accept that it is true and you somehow magically attain salvation. You seem to be contradicting yourself saying one thing to me, and then saying the opposite to Antioch…
Ray,
You said, “I believe there is a way in which a Christian may know for certain that Jesus, the Son of God is God, and that is by the holes in his hands that he showed his disciples after his resurrection.”
Who do you believe died on the cross??? Was it God or was it God’s son, our Messiah, King and Saviour.
Also, since Marc refuses to answer the question that I have asked him 3 times now, maybe you can tell me how you can explain away Luke 2:52. If Jesus is God (as both you and Marc claim), How can God increase in stature and in favor with God???
At least I know you will make an attempt to answer these questions…
Marc
So you believe in a God who has a God and Gods that do not know all things.
Got it! :/
Sean…and Xavier,
From post #124:
Each Person of the Trinity has the ability to relegate any part of His omniscience to the other. God in His being always remains omniscient.
——————
And once again kardiognwstees is being ignored (Acts 1:24). The Lord Jesus is said to know all the hearts. This means He is omniscient – and an omniscient Being by definition is “God”.
This is what I mean when dealing with Unitarians how they just won’t address things. I most often do not write very long or long posts but this keeps getting ignored. Oh yeah I will receive some superficial comment about it then refute it then after that it gets dropped. Why? Because Unitarians are at a complete loss as to how the the Lord Jesus Christ can be referred to this without being God.
Who Ya Gonna Call?
That is the title of this thread. The assertion is that the Lord Jesus is not to be prayed to. Ron S, Ivan Maddox, or Richard Winstead (or anyone else), are you willing to debate me in a one on one format concerning whether or not the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to.
Please be willing to defend your position.
I have supplied plenty of information so far that He is to be prayed to. I have more evidence should you so choose to debate.
Thank you
Marc Taylor
Marc,
I see why you want to take the debate to a formal setting rather than a open dialog. It’s because you don’t like being caught in the headlights. I happen to think the readers, the ones that will never comment but like to read, would benefit from a more freestyle approach. Unless it’s a vocal debate, it’s basically the same thing as we are doing now, but with long winded paragraphs.
I believe you are trying to dodge out of this blog by changing the format of the dialog.
Back to the subject….
Question: How did Jesus say the Apostles should pray when they directly asked him? That is the context by which we should follow the rest of scripture.
I’m also not convinced of your argument on Revelation and Jesus being omniscience. As Sean pointed out, on one hand you believe that God the Son is not all knowing, and then on the other hand you believe God the Father, is not all knowing. You are then forced to explain this dilemma by instating a non-biblical rule that this Trinity God, composed of three persons, has the ability to transfer omniscience.
I must applaud you for the effort and imagination, but as a student of the Bible, it makes absolutely no Biblical sense. If you had something more in tune with scripture I would be willing to entertain the idea.
Also Marc,
How does this transfer of omniscience work? Does only one of the three have all knowing power at one time, or can two of the three have omniscience at the same time? Because if Jesus has the holy spirit in him then the holy spirit would have to be excluded from being omniscient at the same time Jesus did not know. Or, is there another special rule for that as well?
Joseph,
1. I would rather have a one on one debate so Unitarians can not hide from answering my questions which they are so good at doing.
2. Revelation 19:12 teaches that only the Son knows the written name. Too bad you disagree with Revelation 19:12.
3. In John 14:14 the Lord Jesus teaches that the apostles can pray to Him.
4. From post #157……you missed it or in typical fashion ignored it:
And once again kardiognwstees is being ignored (Acts 1:24). The Lord Jesus is said to know all the hearts. This means He is omniscient – and an omniscient Being by definition is “God”.
This is what I mean when dealing with Unitarians how they just won’t address things. I most often do not write very long or long posts but this keeps getting ignored. Oh yeah I will receive some superficial comment about it then refute it then after that it gets dropped. Why? Because Unitarians are at a complete loss as to how the the Lord Jesus Christ can be referred to this without being God.
Marc
How exactly does this work? I mean, when “relegation” takes place one of the Persons ceases to be omniscient?
Can you point to where in the NT the word “God” has the meaning of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”?
Xavier,
I can’t fully explain the ontology of God..nor can anyone else.
The Bible teaches that each Person of the Trinity is God. The fact that Christ is properly prayed to in Scripture proves He is God.
Marc
So you know for a fact how the Persons in the Trinity work in terms of their omniscience, but you cannot answer questions pertaining to those facts?
Hi Marc,
This particular argument doesn’t support your case. You haven’t considered other related passages. For example, consider two correlating old and new testament passages:
(12) The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name. – [Rev 3:12 ESV]
(1) For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not be quiet, until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, and her salvation as a burning torch. (2) The nations shall see your righteousness, and all the kings your glory, and you shall be called by a new name that the mouth of the LORD will give. – [Isa 62:1-2 ESV]
The first thing that stands out to me is that Jesus refers to God as “my God”, which doesn’t exactly lend support to ontological equality between them. Also, these passages show that the new names originate from Jehovah. It only makes sense. Why would Jesus give himself a new name? It is God who did that, as a result of his faithfulness to die for our sin:
(4) And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was. (5) So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”; – [Hbr 5:4-5 ESV]
By implication when it says that Jesus’ new name is known only to himself, it is understood that God also knows it. That doesn’t demand that they be ontologically the same person, any more than the passage below demands that we are God if we receive a new name from Jesus:
(17) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.’ – [Rev 2:17 ESV]
Clearly God is the supreme originator of the new names:
(14) For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, (15) from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, – [Eph 3:14-15 ESV]
These passages show a hierarchical structure in which God bestows a new name to Jesus, who is given authority to bestow new names to those who come to him. It paints a picture very similar to the Genesis story when God created and named Adam, and then permitted Adam to name all the creatures God brought to him.
Marc,
I think every one of us falls short of ‘doctrinal perfection’ because there are so many unknown mysteries of God. We make educated guesses hopefully tempered by our sincerest interpretation of the Bible.
When you condemn me as a heretic and a believer in a false God, I am comforted by 1 Samuel 16:7 where it says “People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”
I believe God will judge our hearts on this matter. If in my heart I knew Jesus was God but denied it, that is one thing. But if in my heart I don’t believe Jesus is God because I just don’t see it supported in scripture as strongly as the alternative, then I think that is quite another.
Meanwhile, we all agree the Father is God. We all agree Jesus is messiah. We all believe in the transforming power of the holy spirit working within us. It is sad that we are divided over a confusing doctrine. I wish I could just accept it and not be separated from my own church and my own wife on this matter. But I cannot belie my heart because it would be lying to God.
For me, this is the thorn in my side. It reminds me to be humble. It keeps me focused on what I think is far more important – loving God and loving each other.
Love and peace to you
Antioch
Are you suggesting that this is what the Bible does? Some things are hidden, belonging to YHWH, our God. But the things pertaining to Who God is and His plan for us have been revealed [Deu 29.29].
Have we not been made “kings and priests”?
Sincerity is not a proof of truth. You can be sincerely wrong!
Narrow is the way bro…God tests us like gold, trying us like silver!
Oh, how great are God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways!
Antioch,
You said, “I think every one of us falls short of ‘doctrinal perfection’ because there are so many unknown mysteries of God.”
I agree. We will never be able to fully understand God and HIS mysteries. We will have a much better understanding after the day of judgment when Y’shua returns in power and glory, but even then I don’t think any of us will be able to fully understand God and HIS mysteries.
You also said, “I believe God will judge our hearts on this matter.”
I also agree with this. Both Unitarians and Trinitarians can have pure hearts.
You also said, “Meanwhile, we all agree the Father is God. We all agree Jesus is messiah. We all believe in the transforming power of the holy spirit working within us. It is sad that we are divided over a confusing doctrine.”
I am also in complete agreement with this. I don’t think you need to believe in the Trinity to attain salvation, nor do I think you need to believe in Unitarianism to attain salvation. What is important is how we treat each other and if we walk in the ways that God and HIS son Y’shua have taught us to walk.
You also said, “For me, this is the thorn in my side. It reminds me to be humble. It keeps me focused on what I think is far more important – loving God and loving each other.”
Thank-you for sharing this. You reminded me that I also need to remain humble at all times. Sometimes I get caught up in the debate and forget the need to be humble and respectful of my fellow brothers in Christ. Sometimes we need to remind each other of what it is that is really important. Loving God and loving each other…
Thomas,
In answer to your question as to who I believe died on the cross,
clearly it was Jesus the Son of God, who only could have been our saviour by such sufferings, seeing as he is the only man ever that was born of a woman whose whole life was (and still is) as sinless as God himself and for that reason I say that Jesus is God and that all a Christian needs to do is look at his wounds and they should know that he is God.
His wounds tell us about his love for God and us. His resurrection tells us that he is God’s perfect sacrifice for us, even as pure as God the Father himself, and in that sense (purity) he is God.
There are many more reasons as to why he is God than just as to the matter of purity, but that is one reason a Christian may call him God.
Again, this is an example of comparison.
Ray,
You said, “…as he is the only man ever that was born of a woman whose whole life was (and still is) as sinless as God himself and for that reason I say that Jesus is God…and in that sense (purity) he is God.”
This is where I respectfully disagree. There is more to God that being sinless and pure. I really don’t see how anyone can believe that “Jesus is God” and at the same time believe Jesus is the “Son of God”. A father cannot be his own son, and a son cannot be his own father. There is certainly nothing in the scriptures that explicitly states that “Jesus is God” or that “God is Jesus”.
But, I do see that you sincerely believe this, and I do respect your sincerity even if I do not understand how it is you can believe this. Like we have done before on so many other subjects, I think we should just respectfully agree to disagree. I hope you have a great weekend and may the peace and love of God (‘OUR’ Father) be with you and with us all…
Xavier,
I am saying the Bible isn’t always clear and we are left with interpretations on what it is saying. I think that what is essential for us to know is clear. The shema, eternal life through Jesus. What needs to be added to that?
But these other doctrines: the trinity, doctrine of election, etc… – they really have no bearing on how I am to live my life. They take a studious person to understand them and accept them. That is beyond the capacity of most people, particularly given our proneness to error and illogic and no doubt the confusion and misdirection tossed in by satan.
I have a hard time believing that heaven will only consist of scholars with zero errors in their theology.
DT,
Thank you for your words. You are always most respectful, thoughtful, and encouraging.
Now I must see if I can get some work done. I have spent way too much time on this forum this week. But, the trinity just animates me.
Marc,
I just noticed you found the time to read 6 different threads and post comments on all of them. That’s why I don’t understand why you can’t seem to find the time to respond to one my simple question that I have been repeatedly asking you over the last 3 days. The question is simple and straightforward;
How can you possibly explain away Luke 2:52. After all, if Jesus is God (as both you and Ray claim), Then, “How can God possibly increase in stature and in favor with God???”
The fact that you won’t answer me leaves me with the impression that you might be angry with me about something, and that’s why you’re not talking to me…
Antioch
It is when it comes to these topics we are discussing.
First of all no one is going [or presently in] heaven. The Bible never promised heaven as a reward for us. Secondly, Jesus did say that he would send us scribes to teach us. It sounds like your a smart enough fella, maybe your one of them.
Thomas,
How is it that someone might ask, “How can these people stay on the shelf in the super market so long, right next to the pepper and all the other spices?” ? (Matt 5:13)
Angels have fallen, men have fallen, so many things will fail, but faith, hope, and love are eternal. They have been with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit from eternity.
They stand par-excellence, beyond comparison with any other thing in the creation, though comparisons will be made. They are preemininent. Everything was made by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit which are eternal and will never fail.
Though there be distinctions, I believe that is one. (John 17:11)
The Body of Christ is one but has many members. Though there are distinctions within the Body, the Body of Christ is one body in the Lord.
About faith, hope, and love being eternal, I’ve heard that there is no need for faith in heaven. Maybe it’s also like that with hope.
I wonder if there will be a need for love in heaven. Love is everywhere in heaven where God is. Where Jesus is, love abounds.
I think when I’m in heaven I won’t need faith or hope, but I will still always need love and God will always be supplying it through Jesus Christ. I believe I will need to receive it and live in it. I believe heaven is a place where that always goes.
In this world I call upon God through prayer and do make mention of the name of Jesus. I pray to the Father in Jesus’ name. I make my requests as I remember some things Jesus said. I try to ask for things that are for the purposes of Christ, thereby using his name.
Ray,
You said, “Though there are distinctions within the Body, the Body of Christ is one body in the Lord.”
I agree. In John 17:11 Y’shua asks God, “… that they may be one, even as we are one.” Everyone understands that you and I (as two separate members of the body of Christ) are one, but at the same time they understand we remain two separate and independent beings (with different opinions, personalities, fears, hopes, dreams, etc…).
That is why I believe that when the bible talks about Jesus and God being one, it doesn’t mean that they are one and the same being. In other words it doesn’t mean that “Jesus is God” or “God is Jesus” or any of these other things that the Trinitarians (with their man-made doctrine) believe…
Thomas,
I agree that although God and Jesus are one, there is a distinction between the Father and the Son.
Some may call this distintion a difference, but I like to refer to it as distinction.
Using the word difference seems like it might suggest to someone that there is some type of disagreement between the Father and the Son which is not at all the situation as the Father and the Son are in complete unity and communion at all times. Because they are , we can say that they are one, just as people may be one in Christ, though they are different. There is a distinction between them also.
With people it isn’t just a matter of distinction most of the time as people are here on this earth. With people there are differences that cause division or discord, but it’s not like that between Jesus and God the Father.
I believe that the great majority of Trinitarians live with this understanding that the Father and the Son, are distinct and yet they live together as one in complete holy communion at all times.
Because of this, we may say that they are one.
Same but different = distinction. That’s how I look at it.
A difference with no differences = distinction. That’s another way I use words to describe the truth I am trying to communicate.
Please don’t assume that all Trinitarians confuse Jesus with God. I believe the great majority do not. They would not be in peace if they did, if they are Christians, and I believe the great majority of them are.
Please consider that most people will believe in what does bring them peace. In this world we have tribulation. Jesus told us this.
If we are in tribulation, it may be because we are not thinking something correctly. Maybe we are assuming that other people are wrong about something, but it may be that we are misjudging them.
Being out of fellowship with God can be the cause of tribulation.
Where we have peace is often where we will find fellowhip in the truth, with God, with Christ.
Sombody at some time came up with the word Trinity. I didn’t ask for it. It was already here before I was born into this world. Maybe it is of God. Maybe that’s what he wanted. I don’t know. I tend to think that it’s something man did by permission because of the liberty we have. Not all things that men do because they have liberty to do so are the best things to do. I don’t have much of anything that’s really any better. I can’t fix it by any other word. I know that the word Trinity is here and that it won’t be me that changes the world or should spend my days trying to change that word, or to convince others to not use it, or to not go along with the idea of the Trinity.
I believe it’s here to stay. Let’s get used to it. We don’t have to convert every Christian we see to use it often, or to use the words and phrases we often hear that tip us off that somebody is a Trinitarian. Sometimes I think people use those terms as a clue to let other people know that they are of what seems like the great majority, and they want the favor of the greatest number of people.
Maybe some do use those words and phrases to get acceptance of men. Others use it to try to describe something and think they are doing the best they can. Maybe that is the best they can do. Who am I to say? How would I know unless God tells me?
I might not like their use of words at times. I’m sure they may not like mine at times. None of us are perfect yet. I believe God is working yet on all of us.
When I get to heaven, I’m not even sure if that word will be there.
Maybe it will. It it is, it will be up to me to have the right interpretation of the thing whatever is said. I have to be led by the Spirit to get to the right interpretation of a thing.
I am learning to live with the word Trinity. It’s not so bad really. How about threefold? that’s says about the same thing. If it says the same thing what’s the difference? If there’s no difference, what’s the difference? Why should I use another word unless I’m trying to help someone understand something and think it might help?
I think I would rather spend my time on the gospel instead of much time on this matter, but it seemed to me that there is a need to help one another.
Let’s remember that other Christians are members of the Body of Christ and that now is our chance to love Christ for all he does for us by loving other members of the Body.
I believe Christians may compare Jesus with God the Father and say that he is God, by comparison, for what is the difference really?
Yes, I know there is a distinction, so please don’t remind me of that.
We could talk about how Jesus is as God is, and that might be profitable. That might be good conversation.
Let’s remember that we ought not to think that other members of the Body of Christ have to give up, “Jesus is God.” They don’t have to. They have the right to hold on to that and not let anyone take that away from them. Many of them know this.
Jesus is God in so many ways. I don’t have to give that up. That’s mine to keep.
Ray,
You said, “Same but different = distinction. That’s how I look at it.”
I rather like that definition. I don’t think this is an issue of salvation, but I think it is important for anyone who wants to understand the nature of God and HIS relationship with HIS Son to understand that they are not one and the same being.
You also said, “None of us are perfect yet. I believe God is working yet on all of us.”
Now that I completely agree with.
You also said, “Jesus is God in so many ways.”
I think it is more accurate to say “Jesus is ‘like’ God in so many ways.” But, like you said, You don’t have to give that up. That’s yours to keep. We have each been given the common sense to make our own decisions. God gave each of the right to believe in HIM or not to believe in HIM. We also have the God given right to have our own personal beliefs.
Throughout history there have been men in positions of power and authority that claimed that “no-one had the right to disagree with them”. This is of course the ways of man, not the ways of God…