Praying to the Father or Jesus?

[Steven Avery]

Philippians 3:3 (AV)
For we are the circumcision,
which worship God in the spirit,
and rejoice in Christ Jesus,
and have no confidence in the flesh.

This next Granville Sharp error is not from the pseudo-rule, it just shows his confusion when it comes to the Bible text. He tries to work with the Alexandrian ms. to come up with:

“We are the circumcision, who worship the Spirit God.”
"who worship the Spirit of God"

Paul and Timothy "pay divine honour to the Spirit of God, and that they glory in Cbrist".

This is a pseudo-Trinitarian kludge of no Bible merit.

[Steven Avery]

From one of the better discussions:

Vasileios Tsialas » July 25th, 2011, 4:37 pm
It is a logical tendency in the Greek language, not an absolute rule. It cannot be an absolute rule when it has exceptions, when it is so complicated in order to avoid (unsuccessfully) exceptions; it cannot be an absolute rule in a developing lingua franca spoken mostly by multinational groups, and when it overlooks overwhelming historical data in the case of theology.

B-Greek: The Biblical Greek Forum
Examples of the Granville Sharp rule outside the NT
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/...11&t=460#p2019

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

You don't suppose you are misunderstanding Thomas' statement in light of the rest of the Gospel of John?

You might also ask yourself whether or not Paul and the other Apostles had in mind the idea that God was manifest in the flesh (meaning working outwardly from within the human, Jesus of Nazareth), or God was manifested as the flesh (meaning becoming and acting as the human, Jesus of Nazareth).

No, I don’t believe I misunderstood a thing. God is very powerful while having very simple truths.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Actually, the don't mean the same thing, especially in light of the other uses of the phrase God our Savior in Titus.

Umm, yes it does, unless you are coming from another view that isn’t oneness. Is that what you are doing?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by esaias

if we have paul then we have the father?



If he isn't the mighty god and everlasting father then he isn't the prince of peace, either.

👍🏻

[Esaias]

Thank you brother Avery for the citations. Lord willing I will look into this more this evening.

[shag]

1 John 3:1
Jesus was/is the Father.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Thank you brother Avery for the citations. Lord willing I will look into this more this evening.

Welcome.

You might also appreciate this short article.

Pure Bible Forum
grammatical analysis descends to satire - J. Edward Komoszewski GSR paper
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index...-gsr-paper.54/

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

You don't suppose you are misunderstanding Thomas' statement in light of the rest of the Gospel of John?

You might also ask yourself whether or not Paul and the other Apostles had in mind the idea that God was manifest in the flesh (meaning working outwardly from within the human, Jesus of Nazareth), or God was manifested as the flesh (meaning becoming and acting as the human, Jesus of Nazareth).

Originally Posted by Esaias

Explain Thomas’ statement.



Explain the difference, in light of John 1:14, please.

Waiting for a response on both points from Votive.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by shag

1 John 3:1
Jesus was/is the Father.

Incarnate.

Not simply the Father. He is the Son of God, that is, a Man indwelt by the Father, with whom He is in a perfect oneness of relationship.