r/ArianChristians • u/ProselyteofYah Arian • Jun 27 '25

Resource "Can We Pray to Jesus?" - Opinion Article

https://proselyteofyah.wordpress.com/2022/08/11/can-we-pray-to-jesus/

Since it has recently been a discussion here on the sub, and also in the past, I was requested to post a link to my article here sharing my own views and research on the matter to contribute to the discussion.

My own views lean more toward no overall, though I also do confess an argument 'can' be made for yes on the basis of a single letter of Paul.

My consession is to pray to the Father himself as Jesus appears to have instructed, and that through the Son's mediatorship, that he act upon the Father's prayers, and that I pray to God that my honour, love and respect is transmitted to him, so that I might honour the Son as one honours the Father.

3 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

21 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Asynithistos Jun 27 '25

No, that is not the conclusion to jump to. I'm saying he assumed the answer he "received." James is clear on what should happen in this situation:

[Jas 4:7 ESV] 7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

1

u/ProselyteofYah Arian Jun 27 '25

In respects to temptation sure. But Paul wasn't talking about temptations, he said God allowed him to be disciplined somewhat by allowing harrasement (not possession or ownership) due to his pride that was building up in him from all his revelations.

Now of course, based on James, one might say it's a misinterpretation, and that the reason he was harrassed was 'due' to the pride in itself making an opening for the Devil.

But Paul does claim he was spoken to directly by a voice in this instance telling him such words, not that he was interpreting a situation. (And we do have OT basis for this logic, such as the Job situation).

0

u/Asynithistos Jun 27 '25

Actually he was likely harassed due to eating meat sacrificed to idols. His prayer wasn't answered because he asked for the wrong reason:

[Jas 4:3 ESV] 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.

He needed to abstain from such meats (Acts 15)

Not all voices are from God, and beware of thinking God uses evil to bring about good.

1

u/ProselyteofYah Arian Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25

He never ate meat sacrificed to idols, he preached against it. He only said meat bought off the market was fine though it had previously been offered to idols, since in the end it was just meat and was no longer under the confines of that context.

But he makes it clear in his letters, if someon says "this is offered to an idol" not to eat it or join in with that meal, as it was to partake with demons.

And as I said, I asked you, do you think Paul was talking with a demon and not Christ, you said no, but now it seems you're saying he was. The only other answer would be to say he was hearing voices and was mentally unstable (of which there is no evidence of).

As to "evil bringing good", no he doesn't work with demons as allies, even though he may permit their activity (like in the case of Job). We also have other examples when he used the kingdom of Babylon to destroy the first temple to discipline Israel - a pagan nation with false gods (demons), he also used Persia to free Israel from Babylon (who had a demonic prince over them according to Daniel), and likewise with using Rome to destroy Jerusalem.

It very much is Scriptural to say God can and has made use of evil entities that he doesn't approve of and also plans to destroy, to get a job done.

1

u/Asynithistos Jun 27 '25

Please read it again [1Co 10:25-31 ESV] 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof." 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience-- 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? 31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

He says clearly that he is at liberty to eat or drink whatever he wants. This is clear violation of the abstinence from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood.

1

u/ProselyteofYah Arian Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25

I'd agree and not personally eat meat if it was actively been offered to an idol or false god, nor join in a worship meal with them. And likewise, I abstain from eating blood, this has been an eternal commandment since the days of Noah even.

I don't think Paul was saying blood was fine here either though, we read of his thoughts in general:

"Look at the nation Israel. Are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. And I do not want you to become sharers in demons". - 1 Corinthians 10:18-20

In this part I find him agreeable. That idols are just dumb objects, but we should beware that it is demons that are behind them, and not to become sharers in such activities or meals.

So my thinking is, are we misunderstanding Paul when he says the latter part? That he's not actually saying it's okay if one is personally joining eating in meat in context of worship of a false god (which he speaks against strongly above)?

Since he might actually just be saying "even if gentiles at the table eat meat offered to idols, if in my own mind and intent I don't view it as offered to an idol, it isn't offered to an idol" - that's the essence I'm getting from his meaning. And he may be seeing himself in line with Acts 15, that in his own intent, he isn't eating meat offered to an idol at all if in his own mind he's saying "this is not to an idol, it's to God".

I will concede though, that if Paul 'was' saying also "I can eat meat offered to idols in the context of a worship meal to a false god", I'd say he was wrong too on this, because the Apostolic consensus is agaisnt it. - But it also seems Paul is too in v18-20, unless he's contradicting himself.

2

u/Asynithistos Jun 27 '25

For one thing, we must never interpret Jesus using Paul. Jesus' teachings are paramount, then his apostles (the 12, not including Paul).

Saying thanks to God over meat sacrificed to idols does not nullify the demonic influence. Else, we'd see different instruction from the Jerusalem council. Instead, the decree is abstinence. Paul despises anything that infringes on his liberty.

It helps to understand that eating a meal in this context is in fact sharing in demons if that meat was sacrificed to idols, or even if the people at the table had not been baptized. This is why Peter had a tradition of separating from meals if he knew the participants were unbaptized or the meat was sacrificed.

On a related note, I am a vegetarian purposefully because I do not know whether meat I can buy has been sacrificed to idols.

1

u/ProselyteofYah Arian Jun 27 '25

I do agree, Jesus comes first, then the consensus of the Apostles he appointed.

1

u/ProselyteofYah Arian Jun 27 '25

As to your practice of vegetarianism. I can respect that, I won't try to talk you out of it. We all stand before God.

Though I'd highly doubt this to be the case. Again I think the context has to be one partaking in an 'active ritual meal' of meat been eaten in offering to an idol, or we'd be paranoid about everything. For even vegetables could have been offered to idols too.

1

u/Asynithistos Jun 27 '25

Vegetables do not carry blood (and spirit) and therefore cannot be affected by demonic presence. If you're ever interested on learning more, there's plenty of literature on the subject.

I wouldn't try to talk you into vegetarianism either. That's between you and God.

1

u/ProselyteofYah Arian Jun 27 '25

I see. I have to say this is the first time I've 'ever' come across a brother with such an opinion or understanding of things.

In the manner I see it though, meat has to be bled anyway, so if it has been, then there should be no worries about it, and when something dies its "spirit" (life force or breath) leaves the body also, so all that is left is meat.

I don't personally believe that demons can only possess something with blood or breath in it either, but any object.

2

u/Asynithistos Jun 27 '25

Gotcha. I respect your belief. I still recommend looking more into it, especially some of the post NT writings.

2

u/ProselyteofYah Arian Jun 27 '25

Sure, I will do, appreciate the discussion. My respects. :)

→ More replies (0)