To pray to Jesus or not to pray to Jesus?

F

Fred

Well-known member
Okay to do
Wayne Jackson: In this writer’s judgment, the allegation that it is inappropriate to speak to Christ by means of song or prayer is a position that cannot be sustained in light of the available evidence. (see the "Conclusion")
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1024-may-a-christian-address-christ-in-praise-or-prayer

Not okay to do
Jason Patrick Hilburn: Considering the clarity with which the Scriptures teach to pray "always" to their Father, why is it that some have openly taught or advocated the doctrine of praying to Jesus? There are numerous arguments, although none of them warrant belief in such a doctrine (We Need the Truth About "Praying to Jesus", page 4).
http://www.thebibledomain.com/docs/The_Truth_About_Praying_to_Jesus_%28Jason%20Hilburn-public%20file%29.pdf
 
The articles you quote disclose that your either/or question is artificially and wrongly constructed; whereas the proper question is really about the forms of address in respect of the particular type, nature and form of the words spoken or sung.

So at least four distinct types or forms of words are identified (may be more) (1) Particular thanksgiving to Christ and / or to God for specific acts done in a personal or joint capacity, (2) Spiritual songs about what Christ and / or God have done in their personal capacities, (3) Formal thanksgiving to God, as the Father of Christ, for what has been accomplished on our behalf (e.g. gift of salvation, etc.), (4) Specific supplications to God (in Jesus's name).

The apostolic language is natural, never forced, and distinctly anti-Sabellian. In respect of (4), supplications, the bible undeniably provides clear instructions as to the proper forms of address: to God in Jesus's name. It would therefore be wrong to exclude the Father from supplications, if only because it is discourteous both to the Father and to Jesus who issued the instructions. Also, the apostles never did exclude the Father here. (The main exception - Stephen the martyr - is when the pray'er had a concurrent revelation of Jesus and so appealed directly to him.) So IMO, there is no precedent for excluding the Father in either supplications (4), or in formal thanksgivings (3). As to (1) or (2), the forms of address or reference in song will be decided largely by the semantics; also considering that Jesus without "Lord" is always wrong, but that "Lord" without Jesus is permissible.
 
Last edited:
Fred said:
You just don't have any evidence to back up your ridiculous claim.
Click to expand...
Why would I need evidence? It stands to reason that God cannot be his own Son. Perhaps you need to reflect on why Christianity is such a diminishing religion in this day and age. When the foundation of it is the promulgation that God is his own Son, you can understand why it's sucg a big turn off. People aren't willing to accept your mumbo jumbo. And then you insult anyone who disagrees with you.

Check out Alexander Hyslop, the Two Babylons: he argues that when God becomes his own Son, then what you have is the religion of antichrist.
 
Fred said:
To back up your claim.

Duh.
Click to expand...
My claim that the son of God cannot be God? Because he is the son of God. Duh! If he was God, then he wouldn't need to be called the son of God, would he? I mean, why would you call God by the name of the son of God, when you could call him God? What's the point? As the Trnitarians reason: God begets God. End of.
 
cjab,

Your position is so absurd that you quoted from The Expositor's Greek Testament concerning Romans 10:13, but it refutes your ridiculous belief.

Remember this?
Expositor's Greek Testament
Romans 10:13. For every one who invokes the name of the Lord shall be saved. The words are from Joel 3:5 (= Joel 2:32 LXX). “The Lord” in the original is Jehovah; here, manifestly, Christ—a proof how completely Christ stands in God’s place in all that concerns salvation.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/kenosis-heresy.4721/page-40#post-445245



You took that to mean the "Lord' in Romans 10:13 does not refer to the Lord Jesus.
How pathetic.

Here you go, cjab. This is how "manifestly" is properly defined:
in a way that can be readily seen by the eye or the understanding; plainly or obviously
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/manifestly

Thus, you lack understanding to what is plain and obvious.

Here's some help:
Romans 10:8-13
(8) But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach):
(9) that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
(10) For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
(11) For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
(12) For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
(13) For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved." (NKJV)

The use of For in the beginning of vv. 10-13 connects back to what was said in the previous verse and this connects all the way back to the Lord in reference Jesus in verse 9. Thus, all the underlined words above refer to the Lord Jesus.
Not surprisingly, both the BDAG (3rd Edition) and Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament also affirm the "Lord" in Romans 10:13 refers to Jesus.

BDAG (3rd Edition): Kyrios is also used in reference to Jesus
τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου Ro 10:13 (cp. Jo 3:5) σὺ κατ’ ἀρχάς κύριε τὴν γῆν ἐθεμελίωσας Hb 1:10 (cp. Ps 101:26). εἰ ἐγεύσασθε ὅτι χρηστὸς ὁ κύριος 1 Pt 2:3 (cp. Ps 33:9) (kyrios, page 577-578).

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: I call upon (on my behalf) the name of the Lord, i.e. to invoke, adore, worship, the Lord, i.e. Christ: Acts 2:21 (from Joel 2:32 (Joel 3:5)); Acts 9:14,21; 22:16; Romans 10:13; 1 Corinthians 1:2...Romans 10:12; 2 Timothy 2:22 (epikaleō, page 239).
 
Last edited:
Fred said:
cjab,

Your position is so absurd that you quoted from The Expositor's Greek Testament concerning Romans 10:13, but it refutes your ridiculous belief.

Remember this?
Expositor's Greek Testament
Romans 10:13. For every one who invokes the name of the Lord shall be saved. The words are from Joel 3:5 (= Joel 2:32 LXX). “The Lord” in the original is Jehovah; here, manifestly, Christ—a proof how completely Christ stands in God’s place in all that concerns salvation.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/kenosis-heresy.4721/page-40#post-445245
Click to expand...
Christ ...... stands in God's place. Doesn't say that Christ metamorphosed into God.


Fred said:
You took that to mean the "Lord' in Romans 10:13 does not refer to the Lord Jesus.
How pathetic.

Here you go, cjab. This is how "manifestly" is properly defined:
in a way that can be readily seen by the eye or the understanding; plainly or obviously
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/manifestly

Thus, you lack understanding to what is plain and obvious.

Here's some help:
Romans 10:8-13
(8) But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach):
(9) that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
(10) For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
(11) For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
(12) For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
(13) For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved." (NKJV)

The use of For in the beginning of vv. 10-13 connects back to what was said in the previous verse and this connects all the way back to the Lord in reference Jesus in verse 9. Thus, all the underlined words above refer to the Lord Jesus.
Not surprisingly, both the BDAG (3rd Edition) and Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament also affirm the "Lord" in Romans 10:13 refers to Jesus.

BDAG (3rd Edition): Kyrios is also used in reference to Jesus
τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου Ro 10:13 (cp. Jo 3:5) σὺ κατ’ ἀρχάς κύριε τὴν γῆν ἐθεμελίωσας Hb 1:10 (cp. Ps 101:26). εἰ ἐγεύσασθε ὅτι χρηστὸς ὁ κύριος 1 Pt 2:3 (cp. Ps 33:9) (kyrios, page 577-578).

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: I call upon (on my behalf) the name of the Lord, i.e. to invoke, adore, worship, the Lord, i.e. Christ: Acts 2:21 (from Joel 2:32 (Joel 3:5)); Acts 9:14,21; 22:16; Romans 10:13; 1 Corinthians 1:2...Romans 10:12; 2 Timothy 2:22 (epikaleō, page 239).
Click to expand...
Unfortunately titles are not directly transferable between OT and NT. Why? When the OT was written, JC hadn't been born. Your ingenious but flawed theories are dispelled by the simple truths in 1 John.

What is written above I stand by: Jesus stands in God's place. That doesn't mean to say that Jesus is God.

So for instance, a father can give his son's inheritance to him before he dies. Doesn't mean to say that the Father is not still the Father, or that the son is not still the son. Moreover, in this case, Jesus sits at the right hand of the power of God (look it up). So the power of God and Jesus remain distinguishable, in concept and in conception.

Look into 1John: a consistent naming convention is applied: Jesus is always "the son", the Father always "God."
 
cjab said:
Christ ...... stands in God's place. Doesn't say that Christ metamorphosed into God.
Click to expand...

Paul applied an OT text about YHWH to Jesus.

Your assertion fails.

cjab said:
Unfortunately titles are not directly transferable between OT and NT. Why? When the OT was written, JC hadn't been born.
Click to expand...


Totally stupid argument of yours. It's not JC, heretic. It's Jesus Christ. Show respect to who He is.


Romans 10:13 destroys your heresy.

Thanks for making this easy for me.
 
Last edited:
Fred said:
Paul applied an OT text about YHWH to Jesus.

Your assertion fails.
Click to expand...
Thanks for making it easy for me. Although Paul applied an OT text, he didn't call Jesus 'YHWH', which would have amounted to Sabellianism if he had (which is your heresy).
.
Fred said:
Totally stupid argument of yours. It's not JC, heretic. It's Jesus Christ. Show respect to who He is.
Click to expand...
As I said, the degree of insults coming from you make it inevitable that you are wrong, because you speak in a manner that discloses the truth is not in you. You can't answer my points: your mind is fixed only your "joker" card.

Fred said:
Romans 10:13 destroys your heresy.

Thanks for making this easy for me.
Click to expand...
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Obviously God and the Lord Jesus are different persons. Nothing further is required, Joker.
 
Fred said:
It means the same thing,
Click to expand...

It does not "mean" the same thing. And even if the gist of the reference is to divinity in both the OT and the NT cases, the NT reference is different because of the revelation of the Son in the NT.

Fred said:
heretic,
Click to expand...
As you are not the author of either official or popular opinion, your use of the word 'heretic' is misconceived. Moreover you do not follow Christ, because he never used such language. This tells me you are a carnal worshipper of Christ. What you mean by heretic is someone who does not follow your high Trinitarian/Sabellian bible commentaries: such is an iimpermissible use of "heretic" as it shows you are really a worshipper of men, not God.

Moreover I concur with the Expositor's Greek NT: "Christ stands in God’s place in all that concerns salvation" (but see my caveat below).

It is you who resile, by maintaining that, as Christ is God (YHWH), the allusion is to Christ in each case. Such entails the heresy of Sabellianism, which entails an inability to mark the Son as distinct from the Father.

You are obviously wrong, because YHWH always denotes the Father as is evident from Psalm 110:1. Indeed it is possible that the Expositor's Greek NT is wrong in the sense that Paul may have been intending only to include Christ (the Son) in the Joel prophecy, rather than to completely replace the Father by Christ as the Expositor's Greek NT suggests - that may well have been an exegetical error.

The Son is only connoted in the OT (Col 1:26), but never explicitly denoted, except in prophecy, such as in Psalm 110:1, and by the use of types (and antitypes).
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
It does not "mean" the same thing.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. YHWH is applied in reference to Jesus.

cjab said:
the NT reference is different because of the revelation of the Son in the NT
Click to expand...

The same thing is taught in Acts 2:21.

cjab said:
.Such entails the heresy of Sabellianism, which entails an inability to mark the Son as distinct from the Father.
Click to expand...

That was already done in Romans 10:9.

Thanks for making that easy for me.
 
Fred said:
Yes, it does. YHWH is applied in reference to Jesus.



See above



That was already done in Romans 10:9.

Thanks for making that easy for me.
Click to expand...
There is not one reference to Jesus "as YHWH" in the NT. Rather, your heresy rests on two erroneous premises: (a) that Jn 1:1c can be used to 'prove' Jesus as YHWH, whereas it is clear from Jn 1:1b and from many other passages that YHWH denotes significantly more than Jesus (or the Word), (b) that Jesus identifies himself as "one with the Father." However he also identfies the Father as greater than he.

Thanks for making your errors so obvious to all. Your reasons have run out.
 
cjab said:
There is not one reference to Jesus "as YHWH" in the NT.
Click to expand...

This is taught in Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13.

cjab said:
Rather, your heresy rests on two erroneous premises: (a) that Jn 1:1c can be used to 'prove' Jesus as YHWH, whereas it is clear from Jn 1:1b and from many other passages that YHWH denotes significantly more than Jesus (or the Word),
Click to expand...

I didn't bring this passage up. You are trying to hide from the two that I have (see above) because they refute your heresy.
Your attempt failed.

cjab said:
Thanks for making your errors so obvious to all. Your reasons have run out.
Click to expand...

Stop runninhg away from Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13.

Thanks again for making this easy for me, heretic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top