Praying to the Father or Jesus?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The thing that stands out to me is that they address God- “They lift up their voice to God...”

My second thought is that Thomas understood who Jesus was - “My Lord and my God.”

My third thought is that in our Trinitarian saturated environment today, we are too far removed from the apostles knowledge and truth in who God was and His plan becoming “God manifest in the flesh”.

That is something that we as individuals are responsible to arrive at. It is something I strive for. Let me understand and think as the apostles did.

This is an interesting verse in Psalm 69:4 “Those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head; many are my enemies without cause, those who seek to destroy me. I AM FORCED TO RESTORE WHAT I DID NOT STEAL.”

The Apostles, IMO, were acknowledging the Work of God.

"Let me understand and think as the apostles did." Amen! That's what we should be striving for.

In their understanding, it seems to me anyway, they weren't simply conflating the Father and Jesus. They address God as Lord (Yahweh/Adonai) and speak to him about Jesus. I have never heard people pray this way in the Oneness churches I have attended for 30 years.

We baldly say Jesus is the Father, without qualification, and do not pray the way the early church prayed in Acts 4, distinguishing Jesus from the Father. We mostly pray to Jesus because, after all, "he is the Father," yet we don't really see that pattern of prayer in the NT. I'm not sure what to make of all this. :-)

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Toward the end of my time with the UPCI, I began to realize the need to pray more Biblically. That was going on six years ago. Now, I pray very much, intentionally, to both God the Father in the name of the Lord Jesus and also, at times, I specifically call upon the Lord Jesus.

I realized that if I was going to be afraid of the Biblical language of prayer, or that if I was going to be too concerned with what others thought of me making distinctions between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, even when such distinctions are Biblically accurate, that my relationship with the Father and the Son, would suffer.

Well said.

The way you describe how you pray now seems to be the biblical norm.

Were you able to find another Oneness church that you were more comfortable attending?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The doctrine of Christ is that Christ IS BOTH the Father and the Son. In Christ we have BOTH.

Isaiah 9:6-7

Why do you say "Christ" is both? Christ, as you know, is just the Greek for the Hebrew Messiah. The messiah is a man, and Son is a messianic title. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say Jesus is both the Father and the Son?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

In the AV texts, there is dual addressing.

God
our Saviour Jesus Christ

The mistranslation in the Granville Sharp text tries to conflate this to a simple statement that Jesus is God.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Tit 2:13 προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

Literally: "... the appearing of the glory of the great God and saviour of us Jesus Christ."

Let's say there are two possible ways to translate Titus 2.13 and 2 Pet 1.1, one that identifies Jesus with God and one that distinguishes him from God.

Would it be reasonable to say that maybe the best way forward is just to read Paul's and Peter's letters to determine what their normal pattern is? Does Paul normally distinguish God from Jesus or identify them? What does Peter do?

It seems to me that they normally distinguish them. Is that fair to say? In one obvious way, several times Paul refers to "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." In 1 Peter 1.3, Peter says the same thing. If they have said several times that the Father is Jesus's God and distinguish them in other ways, then when we come across ambiguous texts that can be read as either identifying Jesus with the Father or distinguishing him from the Father, it's reasonable to interpret them in a way that conforms to their normal usage.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Why do you say "Christ" is both? Christ, as you know, is just the Greek for the Hebrew Messiah. The messiah is a man, and Son is a messianic title. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say Jesus is both the Father and the Son?

Yes, I agree.

Psalm 118:14 "The LORD is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation."

"The Lord (Yah - proper name of deity) is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation (Jesus - yeshuah: salvation.)"

The Lord has become my Jesus.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Costeon

"Let me understand and think as the apostles did." Amen! That's what we should be striving for.

In their understanding, it seems to me anyway, they weren't simply conflating the Father and Jesus. They address God as Lord (Yahweh/Adonai) and speak to him about Jesus. I have never heard people pray this way in the Oneness churches I have attended for 30 years.

We baldly say Jesus is the Father, without qualification, and do not pray the way the early church prayed in Acts 4, distinguishing Jesus from the Father. We mostly pray to Jesus because, after all, "he is the Father," yet we don't really see that pattern of prayer in the NT. I'm not sure what to make of all this. :-)

There is a lot to unpack in Acts 4.

It is all about the NAME.

verse1-2 - Sadducees angry because they don't believe in a resurrection, so the NAME is verboten to them.

verse 7 - By what power and what NAME are you doing all of this?

verse 10 - it is by that the NAME of Jesus Christ that you crucified whom God raised from the dead.

verse 11 - this is the stone which was rejected by you builders - referencing Psalm 118:22. Note my previous post showing that Jah is Jesus - Psalms 118:114

verse 12 - no salvation in any other NAME, no other NAME given....speaks to Isaiah 43:11

verses 24-31 - they are quoting Psalms 2 prophesying of the coming Messiah - the NAME

Through all of that discourse, they have acknowledged that GOD is the one doing all of this, and that He alone has the power to allow them to use the NAME that was given. They say that they want God to allow healing, signs and wonders "through" that NAME.

By quoting Psalm 118, taking the whole psalm into account, they very well knew they had a NAME that meant something. And I believe it was more about the NAME, than the body.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Let's say there are two possible ways to translate Titus 2.13 and 2 Pet 1.1, one that identifies Jesus with God and one that distinguishes him from God.

Would it be reasonable to say that maybe the best way forward is just to read Paul's and Peter's letters to determine what their normal pattern is? Does Paul normally distinguish God from Jesus or identify them? What does Peter do?

It seems to me that they normally distinguish them. Is that fair to say? In one obvious way, several times Paul refers to "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." In 1 Peter 1.3, Peter says the same thing. If they have said several times that the Father is Jesus's God and distinguish them in other ways, then when we come across ambiguous texts that can be read as either identifying Jesus with the Father or distinguishing him from the Father, it's reasonable to interpret them in a way that conforms to their normal usage.

This is all correct.

Even more fundamental is a simple point. If Paul wanted to write "Jesus is God" there is no reason to set up a complex super-subtle, ambiguous grammatical point, defended by convoluted analysis, to try to get that across. There are many simple formulations that could be used.

Note, that Paul does say that "God was manifest in the flesh" in the Lord Jesus.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Costeon View Post
Why do you say "Christ" is both? Christ, as you know, is just the Greek for the Hebrew Messiah. The messiah is a man, and Son is a messianic title. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say Jesus is both the Father and the Son?

Well sure Jesus is both. But is it NOT accurate to say Christ is the FATHER?

1 Cor. 10:1-4

1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 5But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

Paul says the Rock with Israel in the wilderness was CHRIST. Verse 5 goes on to identify the rock as God. Does the "rock" turn out to be the FATHER? If so Christ is the FATHER amen?

Duet. 32:3-6

3Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.

4He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

5They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.

6Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?

Moses said the Rock was the Father. Paul said that Rock was......CHRIST!

Christ is the Father as well as the Son. The Messiah is the EVERLASTING FATHER as well as the Son who was given.

Moses goes on verse 18:

Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.

So it is not wrong to believe the MESSIAH-CHRIST is both the Father and the Son.

THAT.....is the doctrine of Christ according to John. To teach otherwise he calls "antichrist.

[Esaias]

I haven't forgotten this discussion, I am still researching the Granville Sharp debate.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

This is all correct.

Even more fundamental is a simple point. If Paul wanted to write "Jesus is God" there is no reason to set up a complex super-subtle, ambiguous grammatical point, defended by convoluted analysis, to try to get that across. There are many simple formulations that could be used.

Note, that Paul does say that "God was manifest in the flesh" in the Lord Jesus.

Is there any place where Paul explicitly says anything to the effect that "Jesus is God"?

(Note, I accept the epistle to the Hebrews as an authentic Pauline epistle.)