Okay, so we just take your word for it then? No wonder your theology is unclear and bit messed up, being that you're your own authority.
That just shows you didn't look at the links. They're different articles at different sites.
The Bible doesn't instruct to pray to Jesus
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 22,503
- 3,786
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
The Word of God substantiates the Filioque clause. As I indicatd before - the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father - – AND the Son (John 13:23, 15:26, 16:7, 20-22).
Speakng of the Spirit of Truth (Holy Spirit), Jesus said:
John 14:23
Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and WE will come to them and make OUR home with them.
The father and the Con have ta UNITED will - nor individual wills. It is because of this singularity of the hypostasis of the Father and Son that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both. Because Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son, He proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, and all 3 are ONE in Being.
My post is very clear. It seems that you misunderstood it as you're arguing against something I never said. What I clearly stated was: "You’re promoting the heresy of Modalism/Oneness theology."
You replied: "The doctrine of the Trinity is not heresy. It is not "Modalism" or "Oneness" theology. The problem here is YOU and your misunderstanding - and misuse of these terms."
I never said the doctrine of the Trinity was heresy; I'm Trinitarian, so why would I say it was heresy? I clearly stated that Modalism/Oneness theology was heresy. Perhaps rather than just jumping in like that and making false accusations, you should go back and read more of the discussion so you know who is saying what.
@JimKnox has been strongly implying that when Isa. 9:6 states the son is the "Everlasting Father," that Jesus is the Father. That is something he refuses to clarify or deny. That is Modalism/Oneness.
Last edited:
JimKnox
Member
False.
I did follow the links.
They are word for word of each other.
Same cite, same site.
You ought to try more than ONE source.
Ultimately, ALL of you modernist are robots of the Nestle-Aland Critical Apparatus.
No, you either didn't follow the links or you opened one of them twice. The first half of the first article:
"Christian readers are sometimes puzzled when they read a quotation from the Old Testament in the New Testament, and then, in looking up the quoted Old Testament text in their Bible, they discover that it is somewhat different from the cited quotation in the New Testament. Often, this difference is based on the fact that the Old Testament has been translated from Hebrew Scripture Master Texts which are primarily based the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible from the Masoretic text of the 6th to 10th centuries C.E., whereas the New Testament is citing the same passage as it appears in the early Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Greek Septuagint Version (LXX).
The fact is that the writers of the New Testament generally quoted or paraphrased their quotes of the Old Testament from the LXX.
The Greek Septuagint was used by Hellenistic Jews, and by the early church. Greek was the international language of communication. Most scholars believe that the Greek translation of the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy) was produced by Jewish scholars in the mid-to-late-third century B.C.E. in Alexandria, Egypt. The rest of the Old Testament was completed during the following century or so. Apocryphal writings were added after this. This means the Septuagint was virtually complete about 150-200 years before the time of Christ. Some parts of the Septuagint reflect a more literal approach to translation, while others provide a freer rendition. Some portions are also more skillfully translated than others. Sometimes the Septuagint translators translated from a Hebrew text that differed slightly from the later, now standard, Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible.
The Greek Septuagint Version (LXX) has been preserved in many Greek manuscripts, most them fragmentary, but some of the fairly complete. The most famous of these are the Vatican Manuscript 1209 (almost 100% complete), and the Sinaitic Manuscript (only partial), both of the 4th century, and the Alexandrine Manuscript (mostly complete, except for parts of Genesis, 1 Samuel and Psalms) of the 5th century.
The Septuagint (LXX) is the version of the Old Testament with which early Greek-speaking Christians would have been familiar. It had been used by most Jews in the Roman Empire. Naturally, then, most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament reflect its influence. There are about 90 direct quotations in the New Testament from the LXX, and about 80 paraphrases or allusions to it. In the vast majority of instances the Septuagint agrees with the Masoretic text—if not word-for-word, at least in basic thrust. In a few cases the Septuagint may even reflect the original Hebrew text better than the Masoretic text does. The Masoretic text may, for instance, contain a copyist’s error, so that it does not at a given point accurately reflect the original Hebrew text. Sometimes, in such cases, the Greek reading in the Septuagint allows scholars to reconstruct what was in the original Hebrew manuscript (most modern translations of the Old Testament are based on the Masoretic text, with occasional emendations drawn from the Septuagint and other early Versions). This fact gives evidence to support what the scriptures say about God preserving his word:
“All people are like grass, and all their glory is like flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord endures forever”—1 Peter 1:24,25 NIV"
The entire second article:
"Sometimes when a New Testament writer quotes the Old Testament, the two passages do not match precisely. Is the New Testament writer misquoting the Old Testament? Or is there another explanation?
Luke records that when Jesus began his ministry, he went to the synagogue in Nazareth on the Sabbath day. When he stood up to read the Scriptures, “The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him” (Luke 4:17
). Jesus read the description of a climactic arrival of the anointed one from Isaiah 61:1–2
, excluding the last half of verse two. That omission is understandable, but if you look at Luke 4:18–19
and Isaiah 61:1–2
side by side, several dissimilarities in what Jesus read are readily apparent.In the original Old Testament passage, there is no reference to making the blind see. Conversely, Isaiah speaks of “binding up the brokenhearted,” a phrase absent in Luke. Since Luke is clear that Jesus was reading from a scroll, the divergence is not due to Luke (or Jesus) quoting from memory and messing up the passage! What’s going on here?
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. (Luke 4:18–19
)The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. (Isaiah 61:1–2
)Most of the time when a divergence occurs between a New Testament quotation and the Old Testament, the answer is the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. It often does not match the Hebrew text from which most Old Testaments were translated. Jesus apparently either read from a Hebrew text that reflected the Septuagint, or Luke fills in the quoted passage with the Septuagint. (And since Luke was not Jewish and spoke Greek, the Septuagint would have been his Bible.)
The Septuagint version of Isaiah 61:1–2
reads, “The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the poor, to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim the release of the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to summon the acceptable year of the Lord” (NETS). Jesus (or Luke) gets the “recovery of sight to the blind” line from the Septuagint. The Septuagint also contains a line from the traditional Old Testament that isn’t in Luke’s record!This example shows that it’s worth our time to check cross-references, especially in quotations. Do it yourself by comparing New Testament quotations both to translations of the traditional Hebrew text, like the NASB or ESV, and an up-to-date English translation of the Septuagint.
We often don’t realize that even biblical writers depended on translations that they considered the Word of God. In the same manner, we can consider our own translations the Word of God."
Different articles, different sites.
“Hypostasis” is silly, obtuse, Greek philosophical terminology. You mean in English substance, essence, or being.
At one point at least, the will of Jesus existed as distinct from His Father’s will, but Jesus suppressed His will and preferred His Father’s will to be done.
Luke 22:42
saying, “Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Thine be done.”
The Holy Spirit proceeds (Greek: ekporeuetai) from the Father only.
In addition to accurately reflecting the words of Scripture, “proceeds” (for the Spirit) and “begotten” (for the Son) describe the distinct ways each person of the Trinity relates to the Father. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God, these relationships distinguish them as unique persons.
John 15:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth who proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me.
Other passages fill in that picture:
- John 16:7 — Jesus says of the Spirit, “I will send him to you.”
- John 20:22 — Jesus breathes on the disciples after His resurrection and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”
- Galatians 4:6 — “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts.”
In fact, in John 14, when telling His disciples at the Last Supper that He would not abandon them through this departure from this world, Jesus said that He would come to them, in the context of sending the Holy Spirit to them (see John 14:18).
Furthermore, the New Testament authors tell us that the Holy Spirit indwells those who believe in Jesus, and then Paul tells us in Colossians that Christ dwells in us who believe (cf. Ephesians 1:13-14; Colossians 1:27)
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
Your argument here is circular. It relies on the conclusion as a premise.
Also, it's demonstrably wrong. It can be proven that Jesus, and all the New Testament writers, quote from the Septuagint.
Finally, what manuscript would you prefer? The Masoretic has FAR more corruptions. The Dead Sea scrolls, perhaps?
JimKnox
Member
Ok. Mea culpa.No, you either didn't follow the links or you opened one of them twice. The first half of the first article:
"Christian readers are sometimes puzzled when they read a quotation from the Old Testament in the New Testament, and then, in looking up the quoted Old Testament text in their Bible, they discover that it is somewhat different from the cited quotation in the New Testament. Often, this difference is based on the fact that the Old Testament has been translated from Hebrew Scripture Master Texts which are primarily based the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible from the Masoretic text of the 6th to 10th centuries C.E., whereas the New Testament is citing the same passage as it appears in the early Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Greek Septuagint Version (LXX).
The fact is that the writers of the New Testament generally quoted or paraphrased their quotes of the Old Testament from the LXX.
The Greek Septuagint was used by Hellenistic Jews, and by the early church. Greek was the international language of communication. Most scholars believe that the Greek translation of the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy) was produced by Jewish scholars in the mid-to-late-third century B.C.E. in Alexandria, Egypt. The rest of the Old Testament was completed during the following century or so. Apocryphal writings were added after this. This means the Septuagint was virtually complete about 150-200 years before the time of Christ. Some parts of the Septuagint reflect a more literal approach to translation, while others provide a freer rendition. Some portions are also more skillfully translated than others. Sometimes the Septuagint translators translated from a Hebrew text that differed slightly from the later, now standard, Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible.
The Greek Septuagint Version (LXX) has been preserved in many Greek manuscripts, most them fragmentary, but some of the fairly complete. The most famous of these are the Vatican Manuscript 1209 (almost 100% complete), and the Sinaitic Manuscript (only partial), both of the 4th century, and the Alexandrine Manuscript (mostly complete, except for parts of Genesis, 1 Samuel and Psalms) of the 5th century.
The Septuagint (LXX) is the version of the Old Testament with which early Greek-speaking Christians would have been familiar. It had been used by most Jews in the Roman Empire. Naturally, then, most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament reflect its influence. There are about 90 direct quotations in the New Testament from the LXX, and about 80 paraphrases or allusions to it. In the vast majority of instances the Septuagint agrees with the Masoretic text—if not word-for-word, at least in basic thrust. In a few cases the Septuagint may even reflect the original Hebrew text better than the Masoretic text does. The Masoretic text may, for instance, contain a copyist’s error, so that it does not at a given point accurately reflect the original Hebrew text. Sometimes, in such cases, the Greek reading in the Septuagint allows scholars to reconstruct what was in the original Hebrew manuscript (most modern translations of the Old Testament are based on the Masoretic text, with occasional emendations drawn from the Septuagint and other early Versions). This fact gives evidence to support what the scriptures say about God preserving his word:
“All people are like grass, and all their glory is like flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord endures forever”—1 Peter 1:24,25 NIV"
The entire second article:
"Sometimes when a New Testament writer quotes the Old Testament, the two passages do not match precisely. Is the New Testament writer misquoting the Old Testament? Or is there another explanation?
Luke records that when Jesus began his ministry, he went to the synagogue in Nazareth on the Sabbath day. When he stood up to read the Scriptures, “The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him” (Luke 4:17
In the original Old Testament passage, there is no reference to making the blind see. Conversely, Isaiah speaks of “binding up the brokenhearted,” a phrase absent in Luke. Since Luke is clear that Jesus was reading from a scroll, the divergence is not due to Luke (or Jesus) quoting from memory and messing up the passage! What’s going on here?
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. (Luke 4:18–19
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. (Isaiah 61:1–2
Most of the time when a divergence occurs between a New Testament quotation and the Old Testament, the answer is the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. It often does not match the Hebrew text from which most Old Testaments were translated. Jesus apparently either read from a Hebrew text that reflected the Septuagint, or Luke fills in the quoted passage with the Septuagint. (And since Luke was not Jewish and spoke Greek, the Septuagint would have been his Bible.)
The Septuagint version of Isaiah 61:1–2
This example shows that it’s worth our time to check cross-references, especially in quotations. Do it yourself by comparing New Testament quotations both to translations of the traditional Hebrew text, like the NASB or ESV, and an up-to-date English translation of the Septuagint.
We often don’t realize that even biblical writers depended on translations that they considered the Word of God. In the same manner, we can consider our own translations the Word of God."
Different articles, different sites.
Both sites are purveyors of deception, lies and fraud. Want proof? They say things like "the original" when even Jesus never saw them.
Nevertheless: the LXX is a fraud and anyone who says it isn't is a liar.
The LXX says Methusalah was 100 years older than the Hebrew texts, thereby making him survive 14 years PAST the flood.
That is just one of many "problems" with so called "modern scholarship " and the fraudulent LXX.
The LXX is a hodgepodge of corrupted texts which include such nonsense as Bel and the Dragon or several extra chapters to Daniel. It teaches purgatory, works salvation and prayers to the dead.
ANYBODY who claims to be a Christian that uses the LXX and translations based upon it are either ignorant or outright wolves in sheep's clothing.
JimKnox
Member
No. You CAN'T "prove" Jesus or anybody else in the NT quoted from the fraud commonly called the LXX. Jesus is God and the NT writers were indwelt and inspired by the Holy Spirit who is God. God doesn't lie. The LXX is a lie.
For crying out loud...it has Methusalah living 14 years PAST the flood. It teaches purgatory, prayers for the dead and works salvation.
They who trust it are either ignorant, deceived, or wolves in sheep's clothing.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
Yes, I can.
Mark 7:66 [Jesus] answered and said unto them, "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.'"
Here, Jesus is quoting Isaiah 29:13:
Isaiah 29:13 is translated differently in the Septuagint than the Masoretic text:
The Septuagint Wording: "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."
The Hebrew Masoretic Wording: "...and their fear toward me is as a commandment of men taught by rote."
Jesus has here quoted the Septuagint, preferring it over the Masoretic [corruption] of the same passage.
Proved.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
The LXX is not just one manuscript... you know that, right? The LXX is ALL the Greek translations of the Old Testament. Some are better than others.
Are any of them perfect? No... because there's no such thing as a perfect translation.
Do they comprise a viable translation of the Old Testament? Yes.
But the more important question is... Is it better than the Masoretic Hebrew text? I think so.
The Masoretic text was made by a group of Jews whose purpose in making it was to EXCLUDE Christian doctrines and REMOVE anything that pointed to Jesus. The text suffers significant corruption because the people who made it intentionally corrupted it in this way.
That IS a problem.
It isn't just a problem for the Septuagint, though. We can look at the genealogies in the Dead Sea scrolls - a Hebrew text far older than the Masoretic. The numbers there match the LXX; not the Masoretic.
The Masoretes "corrected" the Hebrew text to "fix" the problem you've seen. I think that changing the Biblical text is a bigger problem than "the math seems wrong."
I would like to see evidence for each of these.
Are you sure you aren't thinking of the deuterocanonical books? Purgatory and Prayer-for-the-dead are taught in Maccabees.
You have a strong opinion, but where is coming from?
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
You've confused the LXX with the Apocrypha. Not the same thing.
JimKnox
Member
JimKnox
Member
JimKnox
Member
That is retarded.
No. The LXX is not "all the Greek translations... blah blah blah"
That is complete nonsense.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
Let's let the readers who come behind us judge who is embarrassing themselves
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
Jimk...,Agreed...typical...it seems...today with the new age religion group. Just as with OSAS...teaching that baptism is not required for sin cleansing....etc.
The Bible list....great deceptions...in the end days ...and we can see it daily in scripture debates.
Sad.
stevesonthebay
Active Member
What is prayer. 1 Thessalonians 5: 16-18 says Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.
Its more than just stopping for a set time to pray. Its a continual relationship that includes God in just about everything. Christ said "I will do whatever you ask for in my name". That is asking the God the Father in Christs name. So that the Father is glorified in the Son.
The Son is the word made flesh. When the Son is glorified God the Father is glorified. Jesus the Son is the physical example we can refer to that will turn peoples heads towards God.
John 14:13-14: "And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it". [1]
Its more than just stopping for a set time to pray. Its a continual relationship that includes God in just about everything. Christ said "I will do whatever you ask for in my name". That is asking the God the Father in Christs name. So that the Father is glorified in the Son.
The Son is the word made flesh. When the Son is glorified God the Father is glorified. Jesus the Son is the physical example we can refer to that will turn peoples heads towards God.
John 14:13-14: "And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it". [1]
No, people who are not God are not worshipped as God, regardless of whether or not they are bowed to. Let's just look at the verses you provided.
Hebrews 1:3 - a presentation of God isn't God. You didn't quote the whole verse, but the rest of it says "He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." So the Son in this context isn't God, but rather a representative of God, exalted to the right hand position of the throne (not on the throne of God)
Hebrews 1:5 - is proof that Jesus is begotten offspring, not an eternal being.
Hebrews 1:6 - limited to the birth of Jesus, not a command for the angels to continue worshipping him going forward, not a commandment or direction to the church or believers, doesn't follow from the immediate context that the angels see Jesus as God.
Hebrews 1:8,9 - quoted from Psalm 45:6,7 where the context refers to a human king with a queen who is not "God" with a capital G in the context. When the author of Hebrews transferred Psalm 45:6,7 to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8,9 they were not intending to represent Jesus as God. As you can see, this speaks of Jesus being exalted by God, not the other way around.
So there is nothing in Hebrews about Jesus being worshipped at all. No commandments to worship Jesus in all of Scripture.
Similar threads
