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?

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

I think because of the book of John where Jesus supposedly preached all about himself.

John 15:16
and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.

John 14:13
And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

[William]

It appears the clues re this prayer are in the preceding advise. When developing relationship with The Father, one is required to place aside the repetitive rhetoric which is so well established in structures of organised religions, and come from a place direct from the heart.

The irony is that this prayer has since become a well established repetitive rhetoric.

The 'missing element' is not the Jewish idea of GOD, for it is very debatable that Jesus was actually referring to such which was already enmeshed in well established doctrinal structures of organised religious - repetitive rhetoric et al.

Moreover, Jesus appears to be showing a way to GODs heart which could navigate around the trappings of organized religions by removing those things as having anything at all to do with developing and sustaining the individuals relationship with GOD.

I think when Jesus said 'no one comes to the Father but through the son" he was referring to individuals adopting his own understanding of personal relationship with GOD and through that - becoming 'sons of GOD' in their own understanding. A blasphemous concept in some organised religious opinions, and dangerous for that.

[tam]

Peace to you EJ,

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"?

Perhaps because it is a teaching moment about praying and He was dealing with a specific issue: that God already knows what we need, so we do not need to keep on babbling like the pagans.

And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. This, then, is how you should pray:


(Mind you, if no one comes to the Father except through the Son, one might consider approaching in the name of the Son (with the Son's permission of course.))

Why did John add this and so many modern Christians include it when Jesus did not seem to have taught it? At least in that model prayer found in Matthew and Luke.

And why do you speak as if Christ taught something when referring to Matt, Mark, Luke... but that John taught something when referring to the gospel of "John"? You're making a distinction that others do not make, and so you might have at least part of your answer in that.

People include it because Christ taught that His people could ask things in His name, and they do not exclude what Christ taught as written in the gospel of "John".

I include it also to show respect (out of love) for both Christ and His Father; and their directions.

-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?

I do not omit that so I cannot answer the question as to why others might do that, (perhaps because they just follow the tradition of their religion and it omits this; perhaps because they did not understand that Christ did indeed teach this?) I try not to listen in on others' prayers if I happen to be near a person who is praying in public. Christ taught that we are to pray in private (except to give thanks, which we can do in public or private, as Christ also did). Many people don't follow His direction on praying in private either.

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

[Elijah John]

Why did only "John" catch it (whoever "John" was) and the others miss it? And remember, the Gospels were not written simultaneously.

Seems to me that modern Trinitarian Christians are far more followers of John and Paul, than they are of the real, historical Yahshua/Jesus.

Of the "Risen Christ" and not so much of the earthy, flesh and blood Jesus.

Scholars consider John the least reliable Gospel, and the Synoptics a far more accurate reflection of the real Jesus. But don't it beat all, that Gospel is the basis of most Catholic and Evangelical theory (theology) and practice. (prayer, liturgy).

Otherwise, they would be praising the name of the Father when they begin their prayers (as the Synoptic Jesus taught) and not so much the Son. If they actually cared what (the Synoptic) Jesus actually taught, that is. The Synopotic Jesus really seems to have taken a back seat to the Johannine and Pauline "Christ" as the Father fades into (relative) insignificance.

But that is the doing of "John" and Paul, and their modern disciples, not so much of Jesus himself.

Why are the Synoptics considered more accurate than the Gospel of John? Because they were written much closer to the events they speak of, and because of the principles of multiple attestation. Three out of four Gospel writers agree, and have Jesus speaking of similar things, (there is little to none of this "I came down from Heaven" talk in the Synoptics and grasping for glory as there is in John) and in similar ways (hardly any parables or pithy maxims in John, instead we have there long, rambling theologically tinged discourses) And they differ on narrative sequence as well.

"John" is the outlier.

So what do you think more likely, that Jesus forgot to mention and teach his Synoptic disciples to always "pray in Jesus name" or that he never really taught that? Could it be that the exclusionary John put that particular prayer imperative, and John 14.6 on Jesus lips?

Why wouldn't it have been inportant for the disciples spoken of in Matthew and Luke to have known about "praying in Jesus name" if that was so essential to effective prayer? And their respective audiences? Do you really think they were relying on John to come along many years later and give a more accurate and complete account? And fill in the gaps?

Were the prayers of Matthew's and Luke's immediate audiences unheard and unaswered because they failed to "pray in Jesus name" but instead began their prayers in praise of the Father's name, as Jesus taught?

Seems they never heard of "John 14.6" but instead went directly to the Father, as Jesus taught.

And again, why don't modern Christians praise the Father's name at the beginning of their prayers (as Jesus taught) nearly as often as they conclude "in Jesus name we pray", which the (Synoptic) Jesus never taught?

[ElCodeMonkey]

[JehovahsWitness]

Number of times "Believe" appears in the Gospels in reference to believing in, on, or who Jesus is:
Matthew: 2
Mark: 2
Luke: 1
John: 79

What are your sources for this list?

My own concordance (Comprehensive Concordance NWT pub 1973) lists the following:

Believe/believed

Matthew 7
Mark 4
Luke 8
John 55

JW




RELATED POSTS



Was the writer of John a liar?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 529#885529

[ElCodeMonkey]

What are your sources for this list?

I made that list a while ago and just copied it from my email, but I went through with a few different phrases like "have faith in me" or "believe in me" etc. I probably used NIV for it, but I wouldn't put it past me to have used Blue Letter Bible as well . Perhaps I should turn it into a list of actual verses so that it's better documented.

[Elijah John]

What are your sources for this list?

I made that list a while ago and just copied it from my email, but I went through with a few different phrases like "have faith in me" or "believe in me" etc. I probably used NIV for it, but I wouldn't put it past me to have used Blue Letter Bible as well . Perhaps I should turn it into a list of actual verses so that it's better documented.

I recall Jesus having said on one occasion "Believe in God, believe also in me". But I bet that overall, (especially in the GoJ) the word "believe" is far more often linked to Jesus than it is to "God" or to "the Father".

As Thomas Paine wrote, (and forgive me if I overuse this quote) "instead of God, a man is preached".