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 20 by Elijah John]

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.

I have not argued otherwise. I wrote this in post #3

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 prayer itself has become well established repetitive rhetoric. However one can ascertain both through the words and the preceding advise that Jesus was focused upon the individual having relationship with The First Source, which he refereed to as 'The Father' due to his particular relationship. It appears to be no accident that Jesus is never quoted as referring to GOD as "Yahweh" or any other OT title.

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?)

I am expanding on a concept which you yourself appear primarily focused upon through the many thread topics you introduce to the forum EJ - namely your protestations that Jesus should not be considered a medium between the individual and GOD (which I understand as "The First Source" - different from Yahweh.)

Just as you obviously protest Jesus being called 'GOD', I take that and expand upon it in a similar fashion, that Yahweh (the OT idea of GOD) should likewise not be called GOD. I can and do regard the ideas of both as being aspects of The First Source, and thus 'are we all not GODs?" is explained, but I do not limit the FS by making a medium-idol out of either of them as actually representing being the the example of the sum totality of the FS. Rather they represent aspects of the FS and are best regarded in that light. The individual making mediums/idols of them is not having a relationship with the First Source. It is having a relationship with an aspect of the FS. Having a relationship with ideas of GOD rather than with The First Source Itself.

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).

Considering my overall contribution to this forum EJ, your judgement of me is harsh, unbalanced and misrepresenting my intention and an attempt at sullying my person.

Furthermore, my saying 'go directly to The Source' is not something one should expect any theist to be asking. The bible itself gives clues on how this can be accomplished, not excluding Jesus. Many have simply decided that the bible can become the medium regarding that relationship.

Furthermore I clearly have written 'how' going directly to The Source can be accomplished by the individual in my initial post;

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.

as well as in subsequent posts, specifically;

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...

and;

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...

So, it should be clear to the reader that I have given clear indication as to exactly what I mean by the individual going directly to The Source and how this is best achieved.

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 understand through your many thread topics that you do not wish to have any direct relationship with The First Source EJ. Many are in the same boat as you in that regard. This does not mean that I cannot point out deficiencies in your or anyone else's arguments re their stated beliefs based on mediated ideas of GOD, or that I should have to refrain from taking opportunity now and again to make mention of those deficiencies in threads they start, for the sake of the passing reader whom might glean insight which can assist them in their own journey toward that end.

In saying that, we are both clear on each others agenda's, as I am sure the reader will be. I have stated all I need to and the reader can decide for themselves, as they will, from this interaction. I have nothing more to add in this thread at this time.

[jeremiah1five]

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.

It is not necessary to say "In Jesus's Name" because before we open our mouths we are to make sure that what we pray - or confess - is in accordance with His will. All we will be doing is saying the same thing as God.

-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?

You can say your prayer in any sequence you desire as long as you pray/say the same thing as God.