The Bible doesn't instruct to pray to Jesus

[Justified]

No. I am not.
I am promoting the orthodox Trinity.

To quote you: “Your post and query assume that Jesus is NOT also The Father.
…
Isaiah 9:6-7 clearly teaches that Jesus IS the Everlasting Father.” (HERE)

When I responded with: “Well, Jesus isn’t also the Father, that’s why he’s the Son.
…
The Son is absolutely not the Father and never has been, despite what you think Isa. 9:6-7 says.” (HERE)

You appeared to respond to me by quoting Isa. 9:6-7 and stated: “I don't care what you say: GOD says that Jesus IS CALLED the everlasting Father.” (HERE)

By definition, you are promoting Modalism/Oneness theology, not Trinitarianism. Jesus absolutely cannot be the Father since he is the Son. To say that Jesus is the Father, as you are doing, is to believe in a unitarian (single person) view of God. The Father and the Son have always been distinct “persons.”

Then, when I responded with: “However, given the significant amount of NT evidence that the Son is not the Father and never has been, that means the son of Isa. 9:6 being called “Everlasting Father” means something other than how Father is used in the NT, which is exclusively of the first person of the Trinity.” (HERE)

All you respond with is: “You dance, twist and deny deny deny.” (HERE)

But it is you who is dancing, twisting, and denying. As I stated, and you ignored, the name or title Father is reserved only for the first person of the Trinity, as seen throughout the NT, and is why the second person is called the Son. That means your understanding of “Everlasting Father” in Isa. 9:6–that the Son is the Father—is incorrect and must necessarily be meant in a different sense; it does not and cannot be referring to the same one that is called Father in the NT.

 

[JimKnox]

1 John 5:7

To quote you: “Your post and query assume that Jesus is NOT also The Father.
…
Isaiah 9:6-7 clearly teaches that Jesus IS the Everlasting Father.” (HERE)

When I responded with: “Well, Jesus isn’t also the Father, that’s why he’s the Son.
…
The Son is absolutely not the Father and never has been, despite what you think Isa. 9:6-7 says.” (HERE)

You appeared to respond to me by quoting Isa. 9:6-7 and stated: “I don't care what you say: GOD says that Jesus IS CALLED the everlasting Father.” (HERE)

By definition, you are promoting Modalism/Oneness theology, not Trinitarianism. Jesus absolutely cannot be the Father since he is the Son. To say that Jesus is the Father, as you are doing, is to believe in a unitarian (single person) view of God. The Father and the Son have always been distinct “persons.”

Then, when I responded with: “However, given the significant amount of NT evidence that the Son is not the Father and never has been, that means the son of Isa. 9:6 being called “Everlasting Father” means something other than how Father is used in the NT, which is exclusively of the first person of the Trinity.” (HERE)

All you respond with is: “You dance, twist and deny deny deny.” (HERE)

But it is you who is dancing, twisting, and denying. As I stated, and you ignored, the name or title Father is reserved only for the first person of the Trinity, as seen throughout the NT, and is why the second person is called the Son. That means your understanding of “Everlasting Father” in Isa. 9:6–that the Son is the Father—is incorrect and must necessarily be meant in a different sense; it does not and cannot be referring to the same one that is called Father in the NT.

 

[Justified]

1 John 5:7

What about it and how does that address what I posted? How does it relate to Isa. 9:6?

 

[JimKnox]

What about it and how does that address what I posted? How does it relate to Isa. 9:6?

Isaiah 9:6-7
1 John 5:7-8
=
Trinity.
You accuse me of Modalism and I say you are lying.

 

[Justified]

Isaiah 9:6-7
1 John 5:7-8
=
Trinity.

How so, exactly? Simply making claims like that is not at all helpful. It literally communicates nothing. You have to show how they connect.

You accuse me of Modalism and I say you are lying.

Then prove it. Actually address what I’ve said without making vague claims.

 

[JimKnox]

How so, exactly? Simply making claims like that is not at all helpful. It literally communicates nothing. You have to show how they connect.


Then prove it. Actually address what I’ve said without making vague claims.

There is nothing "vague" about two of the clearest declarations on the Triune Godhead in all of Scripture.

I refuse to be goaded into a useless debate with you.

If you think Scripture "literally communicates nothing" then you need more help than I can give you.

Buh-bye.