Hello and God bless,
>>>Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Stephen actually addresses God and then he asks Jesus to receive his Spirit. Prayers are done in the name of Jesus but directed to the Father, the one you normally speak to is the Father (Matt. 6). Stephen doesnt pray to Jesus in the vision, he speaks to him. It is totally fundamental of this vision in Acts 7:55 onward that Stephen sees Jesus. If he hadnt seen him, we have the rest of NT aswell as Matt. 6 as evidence that he would not be talking to him. Jesus even stands next to.. whom..? The Father or God the Father? No, it merely says GOD so Jesus is not God, but standing next to God. Jesus is the divine mediator and high priest receiving prayers. What says Scripture? Well; "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Heb. 2:17). Jesus receives the prayers of the saints and we ask of God to let them go through Jesus as they are only acceptable to God in Jesus. Jesus is a being on his own yet nessary in human relationship to God. The spirit represent either the power or lifeconduct/style of a person, forinstance the spirit of Elijah (2 Kings 2:15) or of Christ (Rom. 8:9, 1 Peter 1:11), while Gods Spirit goes beyond human limitations. Thus what Stephen really says is "Lord Jesus receive my sacrifice, give it to God, grant me life". <<<
But here is the rub of your problem. You instantly exclude Jesus as the one prayed to, on the basis that you do not believe Jesus to be God. How do you think that someone can call upon God and yet at the same time speak to Jesus? As for the seeing ordeal; strawman. Thats your interpretation.
>>>- The OT law is summed in Christ? I havent seen that in Sciptures. Jesus is however the bread of life that came down from Heaven. Is that literal? Is Jesus bread from Heaven? No, but he came from God and gives life. He is the life and resurrection because he is the one men of the new covenant must believe in. Christ is the word of God that became flesh. A word is not being anymore than the Law is a being. You confuse literal speaking with non literal speaking. It is true Gods word created the world. See; <<<
Youve got to be kidding me? What did Jesus fulfill? What did the Law represent? Read:
Luke24:25 "He said to them, This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
Col2:17 "These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."
>>>Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (.) 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. <<<
Isaiah states that YHWH made the earth with His HANDS. Going to take that literally too? Read:
Jer1:10..cf..1Cor1:24
>>>I think 1 John clearly shows that the word was not a being before that word became flesh. The word is God's word, life, bread from Heaven;
1 John 1:1-2 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) <<<
Rather it demonstrates Christs continued position as the Word of God..cf..also Rev19:13. It doesnt have to mention the "becoming flesh". Why should it?
>>>- Why do you feel a need to say 'feet'? Because you mix a human being with God? "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? (Numbers 23:19). <<<
Well of course at the time He said this He was NOT a man. How hard is that to see? No more strawmen please.
>>>Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: 4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
From this we determine that verse 4 speaks of God. People saw the face of Jesus. Still it was a man of flesh and bones that walked the earth. You are not a Mormon are you? <<<
What point was this supposed to make? BOTH names are written on the people. And you may want to note that the word for serve is latreuo which is a service only allowable to God. Otherwise we have a classic case of idolatry.
>>>- David would not be called Holy One. David wrote of Jesus (Acts 2:25). Now lets think about this one. God having a God? How blasphemous. No, proposal rejected. "God" doesnt mean YHWH all the time as shown in my original post. <<<
How is this blasphemous? Unless you speak of tritheism, there is no problem. Unless you speak of that OUTSIDE of the Godhead [e.g. a creature over/giving TO God], there is no problem. Just like that "giving" strawman argument. A man is god over his wife as I am god over my arms as the Father is god over His only Son. Need we bring up the shallow view of the anti-Trinitarian in regards to Jesus positional fulfillment in taking the role of man FOR us?
>>>- That fascinating comment obviously nullify any context argument from the Bible :). No no, it is a believer that speaks in Ps. 102, not God. Obviously through the Holy Spirit. That still makes it impossible that it suddenly is God that speaks following the context. <<<
Thats called inspiration.
And there is no "contradiction". God speaks THROUGH the prophet concerning HIS SON, who is also YHWH. Therefore when the prophet says "In the beginning O Lord,.." we can perfectly well have the Father addressing the Son THROUGH a prophet JUST AS Yhwh did with David concerning the "Holy One not seeing decay".
Father addressing the Son through a prophet for our reading benefit. Want another example?
Zech14:4..cf..Acts1:11-12 Who is to fulfill this? Jesus? Yes. Note that Zech is a PROPHECY spoken BY YHWH THROUGH a prophet concerning the SON. Whether this is an example of alledged "agency" or not, the fact remains clear that the Father is using the title "YHWH" to refer to the Son. Dito on Heb1:10-12.
The only reason you cant see it is because youve carried your own presuppositions into the text that Jesus is not YHWH.
>>>- But still in the context that a believer speaks. You cant make YHWH speak as a believer needing of salvation and praying to YHWH. God is not the one that needs salvation as the writer of Ps. 102. Your argument is truly her because it distorts the context and makes YHWH a believer. <<<
You cant take one word and apply the same meaning to all occurences. So was Jesus in need of salvation from SIN? I think not....
>>>- Truly "you" is the The Father but you seem to forget that the speaker is the writer of Hebrews, YHWH is being quoted. You already lost it by claiming that YHWH needs salvation (Ps. 102:18-24), as the speaker of Ps. 102 needs salvation. <<<
Ah, this is interesting. Apply what is NOT quoted as being wholly applicable to the NT reference.
Do you know what would happen if we did this to ALL scriptural citations?
Read:
Is7:14 "Therefore YHWH will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birht to a son, and will call HimImmanuel. He will eat curds ad honey when he knows enough to reject wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste."
Where is the bolded scripture fulfilled in Christ? At the virgin birth? No. NOWHERE.
>>>- The point would certainly be to praise God. You just forget that the writer of Hebrews is speaking, not YHWH, who is merely quoted. There is not oddity in verse 13, "he" is the one being quoted, thus showing that the one calling YHWH "you" is another one that this "he". <<<
Thats the whole point. It is a fact that the author of Hebrews is quoting OT SCRIPTURE to make a point. Why suddenly interject MID-CONTEXT, to point out what? YHWHs eternality?
As for he vs you; Because the "you" is part of the quote, whereas "he" is the authors 3 rd person narrative. Easy.
>>>- Interesting claim made necessary because you cant find Jesus in the OT. Why all this strange reading in. Please explain your points about Judges 13, including verses. This goes beyond my fantasy, but I would like to see it. <<<
I can find a prophecy of the name Jesus in Zech. But you wont find YHWH referred to directly as "Yeshua" as the time for SACRIFICE had not come. Why are these kind of obvious to answer questions getting asked?
>>>- Not a singel one of them dealt with prayers. But you are wellcome to show exactly what you want to make out to be prayers. List every verse here. I just havent got time enough to comment on something so totally unnessary so you need to do some work for me. Is it that Jesus speaks to Saul? Is that a prayer?? Sorry, cant follow you. I obviously do comment heavily on Acts 7:59 in this post though. <<<
"Calling on the Lord" ..cf..Gen is equated with prayer. How do you "call on the LORD" if you can't see Him? Sounds like prayer to me. Now address those scriptures.
>>>"As for message. See 1Peter1:11. The Spirit of 'Who?' IN 'whom?'...cf...Rom8:9."
- I quote from previous in this response;
The spirit represent either the power or lifeconduct/style of a person, forinstance the spirit of Elijah (2 Kings 2:15) or of Christ (Rom. 8:9, 1 Peter 1:11), while Gods Spirit goes beyond human limitations.
A bad trinity argument, very bad. <<<
This is merely an example of false equivocation. There is a huge difference. Note the fact that the Spirit of Christ IN them is the very thing that is ACTIVELY doing the prophecy. Did the prophets do this on their own? No. What did the literal foreseeing? The Spirit of Christ. Note it was the Spirit that was pointing to future events. This is not like saying "the spirit of the Alps" or some other.
>>>"As for delineation. Why is this a problem for Trinitarians? The Son was sent forth from the Father, not the other way around. I may as well ask you to read Jude4 then tell me why the Father is excluded from the ONE Lord in 1Cor8:6?"
- Jude 4:
Jude 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ (KJV).
What is the problem here then? Perhaps a wishfull translation? It is the exactly same thing with Titus 2:13. The true rendering is:
Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; <<<
What is this? KJV-onlyism? I invite you to check ALL modern translations concerning this verse. Sadly for you, the KJV was written prior to the discovery of some very important rules in Greek grammar. You might want to go ahead AFTER that, and answer my point on 1Cor8:6.
God bless you Anastasis--Lee
