Where In Scripture Are We Instructed/Exampled To Pray To Jesus?

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Uh, number 4 is not a new thing except for the part about the 1 person of God. OPs have always believed in the incarnation. Unfortunately and partly because of bad teaching by some pastors and I believe a misunderstanding of what others like David Bernard were saying, some OPs sound like they don't believe this.

Also the Son is not merely that added human nature. The Son is GOD HIMSELF with the human nature and divine nature ontologcally united.

Number 1? Not temporary. And Number 1 and 4 are basically the same. The son IS a mode or form of God or manifestation. That simply means it is another way God Himself has come to exist or be revealed to man.

Prax,
thanks for so many aspects to explore.

The one I will consider a thread over in the "deep thoughts" section is "The Son is GOD HIMSELF with the human nature and divine nature ontologcally united." in an effort to identify the vast (great cloud) of witnesses revealed in the words of the Son and try to see if your statement bolded above, has any reasonable ability to be reconciled with those words.

Most of those items will be stuff you are all too aware of from other discussions like:
In an ontologically united human and divine nature comprising God himself, how can the human nature be tempted if it exists in this ontological union with the divine nature (which can not be tempted)?

In an ontologically united human and divine nature comprising God himself, how can this union testify that his father is greater than himself when his father is person of God represented in this ontological union?

In an ontologically united human and divine nature comprising God himself, how can this union testify that his witness and the witness of the father (his own divine nature according to you) represents a legal witness of TWO?

How can the witness of EXCEPTATION as illustrated in the 1Co 15:27 be a true witness in a scene that involves God himself as a non-ontologically united Spirit and God himself as an ontologically united human and divine nature?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by tbpew

In an ontologically united human and divine nature comprising God himself, how can the human nature be tempted if it exists in this ontological union with the divine nature (which can not be tempted)?

Union does not mean mixing. The human nature remained distinct from the Divine and as well Paul mentions the kenosis

Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

In an ontologically united human and divine nature comprising God himself, how can this union testify that his father is greater than himself when his father is person of God represented in this ontological union?

"The Union" does nothing. You are confusing nature with person. The PERSON can testify and speak of His Father as though the Father were someone else because of the human nature. Having a complete human nature gives him, as the Son a distinct psyche. He wills through the Human nature as the Son while the Father is that same God existing both in and external to the Son and willing exclusively through the Divine nature external to the Son...BTW in all fairness can you tell us what you are theologically? Can you come close to telling us where you fit in since you don't seem to be Oneness. Are you Unitarian? and also do I know you under a different nick from other boards?

In an ontologically united human and divine nature comprising God himself, how can this union testify that his witness and the witness of the father (his own divine nature according to you) represents a legal witness of TWO?

According to me? Please quote me saying the Father was a divine nature.

How can the witness of EXCEPTATION as illustrated in the 1Co 15:27 be a true witness in a scene that involves God himself as a non-ontologically united Spirit and God himself as an ontologically united human and divine nature?

Father and Son are psychololgically different "persons", but not hypostatically different.

[Praxeas]

BTW tbpew...I quotes several scriptures and made some points pertaining to the actual topic here that I have not seen you reply on....does this mean you are in agreement and do you pray to Jesus?

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BTW tbpew...I quotes several scriptures and made some points pertaining to the actual topic here that I have not seen you reply on....does this mean you are in agreement and do you pray to Jesus?

Prax, I will come back to your previous reply to my exploration questions.

Do I pray to Jesus?
Of course I pray with my spiritual-mindeness directed toward my Lord and saviour, Jesus Christ.

Using the name which was given to the begotten Son, seems to introduce unnecessary vagueness that does not serve a conversation; a debate YES, a conversation, NO.

So are you asking...Do I pray to the Son? I suppose I do.
I do not 'visualize any plurality of any kind because a visible plurality does not exist. My father in heaven has provided a means for my earthly understanding to consider an express image of that which is invisible, a point of approach to help me in my pursuit of the Spirit from within the infirmities of my present mortality. All spiritual blessings are in heavenly places in CHRIST, in the anointing of God's spirit.

You are well aware that I am a staunch advocate of a POV that the scriptures mean what they say when they witness an Eternal Father and a begotten Son. Also, that I advocate a position that the scriptures are not out to fool us by knowing that we would think that the word 'SON' means an offspring --when it actually is a hypostatic union of two natures revealing God himself. I can not out-jargon you, though my old nature would love to give it a try .

No man comes unto the father except by the Son, NO MAN.
The Christ is the way, the truth and the life.

Whatever can be had and experienced within the realm of the Spirit, in the Kingdom of God, can only be had by entry through the door provided, the way made.

The true witness of John 8:24 is: we either acknowledge that the Christ is the Son of God or we die in our sins.
....compare this with SOBER ADMONITION of 1 John 4:15;
Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
Prax, John 8:24 is about confessing that Jesus is the Son of God, the same understanding given Peter by the begotten Son's father, the same witness that voice of the father spoke from the clouds at the begotten Son's baptism and transfiguration.

Our life is by our faith in the Son of God:[Gal 2:20]
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Our entire transformation process is the result of the Spirit of God indwelling us just as our example of our heavenly father indwelling his only begotten Son, it is our knowledge of the Son of God that lights this path.
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Prax, do you want to overcome the world? If so, here's how...
Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
Why Prax, why is God so tricky in the mind of bible scholars? So indirect, so down right elusive? My answer; He is NOT!

1John 5:10 is what should be preached every time some teacher wants to scare people with John 8:24 (with italics included).
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

If I believe in a Father and a son I have a far better perspective to receive the admonition of 1John 5:10 then if I believe that God became a man, added to himself a human nature in some hypostatic union.

The father and the son being MODES rather than a FATHER and a SON, puts me in far greater peril of the sober warning of 1John 5:10 then believing that the father fathered/begat and the Son was begotten just like you were born of the action of involving your father.

[tbpew]

Prax wrote:

Union does not mean mixing. The human nature remained distinct from the Divine and as well Paul mentions the kenosis

Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

See for me, all this does is reinforce that when a student engages philosophies he can interpret the subtleties any way his philosophy requires. You cite this beautiful witness of a Father and a Son revealed in Phillipians to support an ontological union that has miraculously maintains separateness out at the natural level despite your assertion that both natures are sponsored by God himself. It strikes me as astounding, the degree to which effort will be expended to search for other considerations then the most simple, plainly stated witness, God fathered a Son who was begotten.

Your dogmatic search for separateness within the same person of God himself has required the word phrase, “ontological union” be evoked. But if the source, the core sponsor, the agency of record, is GOD HIMSELF, your advancing the notion that “the UNION DOES NOT MEAN MIXING” is blatant intellectual double speak. Something inherently founded/authored in a singular person does not need to evoke the word “mixing, unless you are prepared to travel down a road that would conclude....

....God HIMSELF is double-minded. I chose not to consider that road.

Scholarly minds have created a hypothesis with a word structure that I feel no need to refute based on my last posting. I believe the scriptural admonition is clear and voluminous -–we are to believe that God sent his Son into the world; the Christ has come and overcome the world so that I who was dead in trespasses may live. First things first.

Your scholarly word construction satisfies your reading of the scriptural record of a Father and his only begotten Son. With your view of God himself becoming a man by adding a human nature, can your heart actually feel the love that a Father had for your lost condition demonstrated by not withholding his son, his only son? Is what God himself experienced LESS than what was asked of Abraham at Moriah? If I could die and raise myself to deliver you from death, would I be revealing my love more than if I did not withhold my son, my only son for you? Kill me any day rather than ask me to see my Son suffer because of my bigger purposes or love for you. My father in heaven LOVES ME and PRAX, so much so that HE GAVE his only begotten Son.

Prax, you have found comfort in your present interpretation of scriptures. A very fluid, evolving, adaptable use of word structures to find some means to say, God has a SON but…..not like a Son that the uninitiated would think a Son is, rather, it was just a word he chose to represent his arrival on earth with his new ontological union between his divine nature and his man-nature.

If a person gets to make up the rules about what an ontological union does or does not require in the general application of normal usage/vocabulary associated with this union, a perfect amorphous scholarly position is provided that has no value on my part to continue to engage.

[tbpew]

bump for prax...I answered your post!

Originally Posted by tbpew

Prax, I will come back to your previous reply to my exploration questions.

Do I pray to Jesus?
Of course I pray with my spiritual-mindeness directed toward my Lord and saviour, Jesus Christ.

Using the name which was given to the begotten Son, seems to introduce unnecessary vagueness that does not serve a conversation; a debate YES, a conversation, NO.

So are you asking...Do I pray to the Son? I suppose I do.
I do not 'visualize any plurality of any kind because a visible plurality does not exist. My father in heaven has provided a means for my earthly understanding to consider an express image of that which is invisible, a point of approach to help me in my pursuit of the Spirit from within the infirmities of my present mortality. All spiritual blessings are in heavenly places in CHRIST, in the anointing of God's spirit.

You are well aware that I am a staunch advocate of a POV that the scriptures mean what they say when they witness an Eternal Father and a begotten Son. Also, that I advocate a position that the scriptures are not out to fool us by knowing that we would think that the word 'SON' means an offspring --when it actually is a hypostatic union of two natures revealing God himself. I can not out-jargon you, though my old nature would love to give it a try .

No man comes unto the father except by the Son, NO MAN.
The Christ is the way, the truth and the life.

Whatever can be had and experienced within the realm of the Spirit, in the Kingdom of God, can only be had by entry through the door provided, the way made.

The true witness of John 8:24 is: we either acknowledge that the Christ is the Son of God or we die in our sins.
....compare this with SOBER ADMONITION of 1 John 4:15;
Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
Prax, John 8:24 is about confessing that Jesus is the Son of God, the same understanding given Peter by the begotten Son's father, the same witness that voice of the father spoke from the clouds at the begotten Son's baptism and transfiguration.

Our life is by our faith in the Son of God:[Gal 2:20]
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Our entire transformation process is the result of the Spirit of God indwelling us just as our example of our heavenly father indwelling his only begotten Son, it is our knowledge of the Son of God that lights this path.
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Prax, do you want to overcome the world? If so, here's how...
Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
Why Prax, why is God so tricky in the mind of bible scholars? So indirect, so down right elusive? My answer; He is NOT!

1John 5:10 is what should be preached every time some teacher wants to scare people with John 8:24 (with italics included).
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

If I believe in a Father and a son I have a far better perspective to receive the admonition of 1John 5:10 then if I believe that God became a man, added to himself a human nature in some hypostatic union.

The father and the son being MODES rather than a FATHER and a SON, puts me in far greater peril of the sober warning of 1John 5:10 then believing that the father fathered/begat and the Son was begotten just like you were born of the action of involving your father.

[Praxeas]

I see you responded to me...I don't see you actually engaging my different points, point by point and the verses I posted. What you did seems more like a polemic intermixed with strawman arguments, like assuming I believe the term Son does not mean an offspring.

Truth is based on what the bible says and I have and can quote a plethora of scriptures. Dismissing them as you have here does not make them NOT mean what I set out to show

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I see you responded to me...I don't see you actually engaging my different points, point by point and the verses I posted. What you did seems more like a polemic intermixed with strawman arguments, like assuming I believe the term Son does not mean an offspring.

Truth is based on what the bible says and I have and can quote a plethora of scriptures. Dismissing them as you have here does not make them NOT mean what I set out to show

thanks prax,
I leave you two with your two natures and the extra-biblical wide open range for applying how they are united when needed to be united and how they are separate when that would be handy.

bye.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by tbpew

thanks prax,
I leave you two with your two natures and the extra-biblical wide open range for applying how they are united when needed to be united and how they are separate when that would be handy.

bye.

Jesus is both God and man and that is biblical. The two natures are not united together. The two natures are united TO HIM. In other words He has two natures and are not fused together to form a new nature like a demi-god.

The scriptures are abundantly clear. Jesus is both God and man

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The two natures are not united together.
The two natures are united TO HIM.

In my experience, only a scholar could put those two sentences together. How does the singular HIM/sponsor/person not make the two natures united together? How does a common HIM dis-unite the natures attached to the HIM?

The scriptures are abundantly clear. Jesus is both God and man

but to make the whole scriptural witness readable without "special glasses" you need to uncouple the two natures at various times through the NT witness. God's left hand has to be completely uninvolved with his right hand.

Hey, if that makes your Christology work, I have come way to late to change your mind.

If that makes a true witness that God has an offspring and that offspring is a Son, and that offspring was God himself, that is just crazy stuff the needs special glasses and a unigue customized english language usage manual.

Time will tell how well the "two natures sharing an ontological union" teaching point holds up. I'll check back in a year or so. My hope is that it will go the way of the wonderfully paradoxical utterance that Jesus is FULLY God and FULLY Man. Its the FULLY part that just makes me wag my head at what some us are able to digest from another man's table.


regards,
tbpew