Missing element in the Lord's prayer.

[Elijah John]

When Jesus' disciples asked him to teach them to pray, he taught them the "Our Father" otherwise known as the "Lord's Prayer".

Either verbatim or as a model for prayer, there seems to be a missing element. The Lord's Prayer does not include the phrase "in Jesus name we pray".

By contrast, the prayer does include praise for the name of the Father.

For debate,

-If concluding prayer with the phrase "in Jesus name we pray" is so important, why didn't Jesus include it in the Lord's Prayer"? Why did John add this and so many modern Christians include it when Jesus did not seem to have taught it? At least not in that model prayer found in Matthew and Luke.

-So many modern Christians include the addition of "in Jesus name we pray", why do these same Christians so often omit praise to the Father's name? Why don't they begin every prayer with "Father, hallowed be your name"? Isn't that what Jesus actually taught?

[William]

[Replying to post 10 by Elijah John]

"instead of God, a man is preached".

A common practice really. The OT idea of God was often enough represented as some form - usually male. All mediums of one sort and the other. One's aversion to Jesus being the medium of GOD would do well to extend into those pre-Jesus times, where other mediums ruled the day. Ditch 'em all and be happy. Have an actual relationship with GOD without those mediums.

[brianbbs67]

Missing from the Original Lord's prayer is also the whole of Mat. 6:13 after "temptation".

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 10 by Elijah John]

"instead of God, a man is preached".

A common practice really. The OT idea of God was often enough represented as some form - usually male. All mediums of one sort and the other. One's aversion to Jesus being the medium of GOD would do well to extend into those pre-Jesus times, where other mediums ruled the day. Ditch 'em all and be happy. Have an actual relationship with GOD without those mediums.

God as depicted in the OT is beyond images, beyond "mediums" as you put it. There is even a commandment to that effect (no graven images). Unique in the ancient world.

Paine was referring to Jesus and Jesus-worship when he wrote "instead of God, a man is preached". But I think he would agree that the antropromorphizing of God as was sometimes done in the OT is limiting, and does no service to the Deity.

But it was a literary way for the Ancients to make the unfathomable, mysterious Creator more relatable.

[William]

[Replying to post 13 by Elijah John]

God as depicted in the OT is beyond images, beyond "mediums" as you put it.

That is simply untrue.

But it was a literary way for the Ancients to make the unfathomable, mysterious Creator more relatable.

Again the resorting to the justification of mediums.

There is little point in criticizing the one/the others and turning a blind eye to the preferred. All are mediums. All are graven images, even if some are not carved from stone or cast of precious metals.

Allow that so-called 'unfathomable, mysterious creator' and oneself to enter into relationship free from all encroachment of mediation. Go direct to The Source.

[Elijah John]

Go direct to the Source.

Assuming for the sake of argument that absolute Monotheists do not already go directly to the Source, how do you suggest one does that?

[William]

[Replying to post 15 by Elijah John]

Assuming for the sake of argument that absolute Monotheists do not already go directly to the Source, how do you suggest one does that?

Asking me is simply appealing to medium.

I am not The Source. That is your journey entirely. I am only using the opportunity to attempt to show one the defects in ones position of argument, in the hope that one will consider those defects and - in doing so - remove some of the barriers one presently has in attaining unmediated relationship with The Source - assuming one is wanting to do so...presently one is engaged in arguing against one form of medium-ship, whilst upholding another...is all I am revealing...

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 16 by William]

You seem to think you know, so I'm asking you once again. How does a panentheist such as yourself "go directly to the Source"? By not answering are we to conclude you being pretentious? Or evasive. Dismissive?

You tell us believers to "go to directly to the Source" yet you do not answer when asked "how". So what are we to conclude? Are you attempting to "enlighten" us with your evasiveness?

No, I am NOT asking you to be my "medium" bur rather asking a simple question. Can you answer it?

Also, and this is partly my fault for engaging you, how do your comments relate in any way to the OP?

How are you not attempting to redirect the topic according to your own agenda?

[Elijah John]

All are mediums. All are graven images, even if some are not carved from stone or cast of precious metals.

So, presumably this includes the label you have chosen to characterize your own beliefs, "panentheist".

Labels, too, are idols or "mediums" are they not?

Where does it end William?

[William]

[Replying to post 17 by Elijah John]

How are you not attempting to redirect the topic according to your own agenda?

I didn't hide my agenda, any more than you hide your own. I said;

I am only using the opportunity to attempt to show one the defects in ones position of argument, in the hope that one will consider those defects and - in doing so - remove some of the barriers one presently has in attaining unmediated relationship with The Source - assuming one is wanting to do so...

[Replying to post 18 by Elijah John]

All are mediums. All are graven images, even if some are not carved from stone or cast of precious metals.

So, presumably this includes the label you have chosen to characterize your own beliefs, "panentheist".

Labels, too, are idols or "mediums" are they not?

I use the label panentheist sparingly enough as a means of allowing for those interested in understanding my basic position to get the gist, but it serves no more purpose than that and certainly has no other bearing on my relationship with The First Source, or my understanding and relationship with Jesus or Yahweh or any other idea of GOD.

Where does it end William?

Use of mediums doesn't end EJ, until we each see them for what they are and cease to use them for that purpose.

Meantime, the reader has my opinion in post#3 to go on re the OPQ and my subsequent posts reflect back to that one, which in part also answers your Qs to me about 'how to' have a direct relationship with The First Source without those mediums mentioned.

I also suggested how one can do that, in post #14, where I wrote;

Allow that so-called 'unfathomable, mysterious creator' and oneself to enter into relationship free from all encroachment of mediation.

The key word is bolded...where the mediums end is also where the relationship begins...

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 19 by William]

By a stretch, I can see how your post does relate to the OP. But it's a stretch. Jesus did teach direct access to God, or the "Source" in the Lord's prayer. The Synoptic Jesus that is. Johannine Christians introduced another element by insisting prayer always end "in Jesus name". An element the Synoptic Jesus did not teach.

AND those same Johannine Christians seldom hallow the name of the Father in prayer, as way Jesus taught.

And now you, William, are introducing a concept that isn't really related to the OP, (namely that even Jesus, the Bible or taught prayers are "idols"?? Or words and labels themselves?)

You say, "go directly to the Source", but when asked "how" you evade by, in effect, telling us that any answer you give to that question amounts to an idol. Sorry, but that is not the "enlightened guru" response you seem to suppose.. It's only a dodge. and it is certainly not honorable debate. AND, it amounts to an unsupported claim (not answering the question) and Zen flavored preaching (telling others what to do).

THat is a path I do not which to pursue on this thread. If you want to continue down this road, please start your own thread. But I doubt I would participate. I find arguments over words themselves tiresome.