To pray to Jesus or not to pray to Jesus?

Stephen called upon God and asked Lord Jesus to receive his spirit.....59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
The passage does not teach Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer as you are claiming. It teaches that Jesus receives our spirit...

Everything is easy to the simple
"God" (theos) does not appear in the Greek text.

Stephen called upon the Lord Jesus.

Yes, that was easy and simple.
 
John 16:23
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.

John 16:23
In that day you will not question Me about anything. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you. (NASB)

The confused assertion: The Lord Jesus said that in the future there will be no need to ask Him any more questions. Therefore, in this passage He forbids people to pray to Him.
The biblical response: The context has to do with the apostles not asking the Lord Jesus anymore questions concerning His figurative teachings concerning His resurrection (John 16:18, 30). Their understanding will increase when the Holy Spirit would later be given to them. At that time such questions will no longer be asked.

1. Matthew Henry: They had asked some ignorant questions (as John 9:2), some ambitious questions (as Matthew 18:1), some distrustful ones (as Matthew 19:27), some impertinent ones, (as John 21:21), some curious ones (as Acts 1:6) but after the Spirit was poured out, nothing of all this.
www.studylight.org/com/mhm/view.cgi?bk=42&ch=16
2. W. E. Vine: The Lord did not mean that no prayer must be offered to Him afterwards. They did address Him in prayer, Acts 1:24; 7:59 (John - His Record of Christ, page 154).
3. C. K. Barrett: John's meaning seems to be that in the time when the Holy Spirit is given and guides the believers in all the truth they will no longer ask such questions as, What is the meaning of the 'little while'? of which Jesus speaks (The Gospel According to St. John, Second Edition, page 494).
4. A. W. Pink: But what is meant by "ye shall ask me nothing?" Strangely and deplorably has this been perverted by some. There have been a few who have argued from this verse that we are here forbidden to address Christ, directly, in prayer. But Acts 1:24; 7:59 , to say nothing of many passages in the Epistles, dearly refutes such an error.
www.studylight.org/commentaries/awp/john-16.html
5. And this from (Unitarian) John Schoenheit: In looking at John 16:23, we must remember that John 14:14, 16:23 were both spoken at the Last Supper, perhaps only a very short while apart. The disciples were not confused by the “apparent contradiction,” and we should not be either. The disciples had been asking Jesus many questions, and there was a lot they did not understand. So, for example, they asked, “Where are you going” (John 13:36); “Why am I not able to follow you now” (John 13:37); “How are we able to know the way” (John 14:5); “Show us the Father” (John 14:8); “How is it you will reveal yourself to us and not to the world” (John 14:22); “What is this that he is saying, ‘A little while?’” (John 16:17-18).
Jesus knew the disciples had lots of questions, and carefully navigated his way through them throughout the Last Supper, answering some while not answering others. As he got to the end of the Last Supper, he told his disciples, “In that day you will not ask me anything,” (perhaps Charles William’s translation is clearer: “At that time you will ask me no more questions”). The disciples would not have to ask questions because, for one thing, Jesus said, “I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech, but will tell you plainly of the Father” (John 16:25), plus, after Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension, they would understand all the things they had questions about—something that is quite plain in Acts, as we see the once-ignorant and dumbfounded apostles become bold proclaimers of the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.
www.revisedenglishversion.com/commentary/John/16
 
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.
It is important to understand what is meant by "Son of _______."

For instance, Judas is described as the son of perdition in John 17:12,

" While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled."

Does this mean Judas was literally born by perdition? Obviously no. Instead, being the "son of perdition" is a summary of who is Judas. Judas manifests perdition in his life.

A person's name was very important in the time of Jesus the Christ. A name fully summarizes a person. For instance, Yeshua, the Hebrew name for Jesus, means the Lord is Salvation.

Jesus the Christ is Lord and He saves people. His name summarizes who He is. Just like Judas being summarized as the "son of perdition, Jesus the Christ is summarized as the "Son of God," also as the "Son of Man", as well as many other names.

This doesn't literally mean Jesus the Christ is a son of God in the sense of Father God getting married and the wife giving birth to Jesus. It means Jesus the Christ is "of God." He is the summation or essence of God. Jesus is God in the flesh.

John explains this concept well,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."
John 1:1, 14

Jesus the Christ is also called the Word. He is God. He took up residence with us in the flesh. Being the "Son of God" means being God in the flesh. This is one of the main reasons the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus the Christ. He claimed to be the "Son of God." He claimed to be "of God." He claimed to be the Essence of God. He claimed to be God in the Flesh.

It's also important to realize in John 1:1 that Jesus the Christ didn't come into existence, like a birth of a child is a baby coming into existence. Instead, the Scriptures state, "In the beginning was the Word..."

Jesus the Christ wasn't born into existence. He existed from the beginning because He is God.

So, I highly suggest you change your understanding of what "Son of God" means. For, your premise is incorrect. Thus, your following conclusions will be incorrect as well.

Blessings ?
 
It is important to understand what is meant by "Son of _______."

For instance, Judas is described as the son of perdition in John 17:12,

" While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled."

Does this mean Judas was literally born by perdition? Obviously no. Instead, being the "son of perdition" is a summary of who is Judas. Judas manifests perdition in his life.

A person's name was very important in the time of Jesus the Christ. A name fully summarizes a person. For instance, Yeshua, the Hebrew name for Jesus, means the Lord is Salvation.

Jesus the Christ is Lord and He saves people. His name summarizes who He is. Just like Judas being summarized as the "son of perdition, Jesus the Christ is summarized as the "Son of God," also as the "Son of Man", as well as many other names.

This doesn't literally mean Jesus the Christ is a son of God in the sense of Father God getting married and the wife giving birth to Jesus. It means Jesus the Christ is "of God." He is the summation or essence of God. Jesus is God in the flesh.

John explains this concept well,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."
John 1:1, 14

Jesus the Christ is also called the Word. He is God. He took up residence with us in the flesh. Being the "Son of God" means being God in the flesh. This is one of the main reasons the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus the Christ. He claimed to be the "Son of God." He claimed to be "of God." He claimed to be the Essence of God. He claimed to be God in the Flesh.
No, he did not claim to be "God in the Flesh." He, a man of the flesh who had come from God, claimed to manifest God through unity with God: Jn 14:9 "Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"

Nothing of the flesh can be God, because "God is Spirit."

It's also important to realize in John 1:1 that Jesus the Christ didn't come into existence, like a birth of a child is a baby coming into existence. Instead, the Scriptures state, "In the beginning was the Word..."
Jesus the man was born. The Word, which is spirit, is eternal.

Jesus the Christ wasn't born into existence. He existed from the beginning because He is God.
Yours is a Sabellian take on scripture, which many mistake for Trinitarianism. The only person who is true God in the mouth of Christ is his Father.

So, I highly suggest you change your understanding of what "Son of God" means. For, your premise is incorrect. Thus, your following conclusions will be incorrect as well.

Blessings ?
Sorry, but I rely on the teachings of Christ, not Sabellius.
 
No, he did not claim to be "God in the Flesh." He, a man of the flesh who had come from God, claimed to manifest God through unity with God:

All believers are in unity with God, but since the Lord Jesus claimed to be the proper recipient of prayer is a claim that He is God (John 14:14).
 
Jesus the Christ wasn't born into existence. He existed from the beginning because He is God.
If Jesus is God who is the father he had glory with before the world was? Think carefully before you answer because there is only one God the father.
John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
 
All believers are in unity with God, but since the Lord Jesus claimed to be the proper recipient of prayer is a claim that He is God (John 14:14).
that is nonsense...only the obedient believers are in unity with God. If Jesus is God who did he ascend to? Think carefully before you answer, remember we have only one God
 
John 16:23
In that day you will not question Me about anything. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you. (NASB)

The confused assertion: The Lord Jesus said that in the future there will be no need to ask Him any more questions. Therefore, in this passage He forbids people to pray to Him.
How is that confusing? if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you. What part of anything do you not understand?
The biblical response: The context has to do with the apostles not asking the Lord Jesus anymore questions concerning His figurative teachings concerning His resurrection (John 16:18, 30). Their understanding will increase when the Holy Spirit would later be given to them. At that time such questions will no longer be asked.
What bible? You are limiting the asking to questions about figurative teachings. It clearly says if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you.
1. Matthew Henry: They had asked some ignorant questions (as John 9:2), some ambitious questions (as Matthew 18:1), some distrustful ones (as Matthew 19:27), some impertinent ones, (as John 21:21), some curious ones (as Acts 1:6) but after the Spirit was poured out, nothing of all this.
www.studylight.org/com/mhm/view.cgi?bk=42&ch=16
You should be asking this clown what were the ignorant questions they asked.
2. W. E. Vine: The Lord did not mean that no prayer must be offered to Him afterwards. They did address Him in prayer, Acts 1:24; 7:59 (John - His Record of Christ, page 154).
Lord does not apply to Jesus only...
Luk 1:32
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord G2962 God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
3. C. K. Barrett: John's meaning seems to be that in the time when the Holy Spirit is given and guides the believers in all the truth they will no longer ask such questions as, What is the meaning of the 'little while'? of which Jesus speaks (The Gospel According to St. John, Second Edition, page 494).
This one isn't even sure what he is saying...to him it seems
4. A. W. Pink: But what is meant by "ye shall ask me nothing?" Strangely and deplorably has this been perverted by some. There have been a few who have argued from this verse that we are here forbidden to address Christ, directly, in prayer. But Acts 1:24; 7:59 , to say nothing of many passages in the Epistles, dearly refutes such an error.
www.studylight.org/commentaries/awp/john-16.html
So this one thinks ... "ye shall ask me nothing?" means go ahead and ask me anything.
5. And this from (Unitarian) John Schoenheit: In looking at John 16:23, we must remember that John 14:14, 16:23 were both spoken at the Last Supper, perhaps only a very short while apart. The disciples were not confused by the “apparent contradiction,” and we should not be either. The disciples had been asking Jesus many questions, and there was a lot they did not understand. So, for example, they asked, “Where are you going” (John 13:36); “Why am I not able to follow you now” (John 13:37); “How are we able to know the way” (John 14:5); “Show us the Father” (John 14:8); “How is it you will reveal yourself to us and not to the world” (John 14:22); “What is this that he is saying, ‘A little while?’” (John 16:17-18).
Jesus knew the disciples had lots of questions, and carefully navigated his way through them throughout the Last Supper, answering some while not answering others. As he got to the end of the Last Supper, he told his disciples, “In that day you will not ask me anything,” (perhaps Charles William’s translation is clearer: “At that time you will ask me no more questions”). The disciples would not have to ask questions because, for one thing, Jesus said, “I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech, but will tell you plainly of the Father” (John 16:25), plus, after Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension, they would understand all the things they had questions about—something that is quite plain in Acts, as we see the once-ignorant and dumbfounded apostles become bold proclaimers of the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.
www.revisedenglishversion.com/commentary/John/16
This one is jumping all over the place and not addressing the issue of asking Jesus anything. He never addressed the fact that Jesus said to ask the father anything in his name.
The man has the gall to refer to the apostles as ignorant and dumbfounded.
 
Since only God is the proper recipient of prayer and Christians are to pray to Jesus proves Jesus is God.
God did not command anyone to become a Christian so Christians can do whatever they please. The saints of God have access to the father...apparently, Christians don't
Ephesians 2:18
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
 
No, he did not claim to be "God in the Flesh." He, a man of the flesh who had come from God, claimed to manifest God through unity with God: Jn 14:9 "Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"

Nothing of the flesh can be God, because "God is Spirit."


Jesus the man was born. The Word, which is spirit, is eternal.


Yours is a Sabellian take on scripture, which many mistake for Trinitarianism. The only person who is true God in the mouth of Christ is his Father.


Sorry, but I rely on the teachings of Christ, not Sabellius.
Read John 1:1-14 again carefully. I will quote verses 1 an 14 here,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."
John 1:1, 14

What does it mean "the Word was God?"

What does it mean "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us?"
 
Back
Top