What??
ECT why don't you say the Our Father?
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
What??
there have been many discussions about who is a christian
how can you call yourself a christian
if
you don't use the prayer Jesus taught us?
how can you call yourself a christian
if
you don't use the prayer Jesus taught us?
turbosixx
New member
We are not instructed to pray this particular prayer, it's a model.
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
a questionable translation is not a good excuse for not saying it
Matthew 6:9 New International Version (NIV)
9 “This, then, is how you should pray:
“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
turbosixx
New member
Says how you should pray not what you should pray.
Original Word: οὕτως
Part of Speech: Adverb
Transliteration: houtó and houtós
Phonetic Spelling: (hoo'-to)
Short Definition: thus, so, in this manner
Definition: thus, so, in this manner
What makes it special?
in this manner
is
nebulous
how you should pray
is
very clear
why not play it safe
and
just say the prayer the way Jesus taught us?
turbosixx
New member
NIV says how, but that is not one of the definitions of the original Greek word. NIV is not a word for word and uses "textual smoothing." Do you like the new gender generic version?
The way it’s being prayed today by certain groups is just what Jesus was warning against. It’s repetitious and done in a public setting seen by men.
5"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
For prayer in the assembly, one man prays (women are silent) and we all follow along with our heart and mind.
When is the first time we see it prayed?
I do play it safe, I pray from the heart, not a repetition from memory.
is that what rightly dividing is all about?
genuineoriginal
New member
Reading the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 shows that Jesus was prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
The disciples were told to flee Jerusalem when they saw the city surrounded by the Roman Armies, which they saw in 66 CE and they fled to Pella as recorded by Eusebius.
Either the destruction of Jerusalem was the great tribulation prophesied by Jesus, or it was the beginning of the great tribulation.
Since Jesus prophesied that He would return immediately after the great tribulation, and He did not return in 70 CE-74 CE, the obvious conclusion is that the destruction of Jerusalem was only part of the great tribulation.
In the Old Testament, the Hebrew words for tribulation (צָרָה tsarah
, צַר tsar) were translated into English as trouble in most English translations.
The passages describing the trouble (tribulation) of the children of Israel in the Old Testament speak about them being scattered into all the nations and the land of Israel being desolated.
This accurately describes the Jewish Diaspora that began with the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and continues even unto this day.
So, the great tribulation of the children of Israel (scattering into all the nations) began in 70 CE and continued ever since.
turbosixx
New member
Sorry, meant gender neutral. The NIV is the last version I will look at and usually just out of curiosity. I especially do not like the new version that is gender neutral. No, it is not rightly dividing.
Consider that the way you are going about this issue is similar to just picking any tax system prior to the current one; to do your taxes by "because it was sanctioned" at some point.
I don't think so
It seems to me that if you take the "Lord's Prayer" seriously, you cannot assert that only by making a bloody sacrifice of Jesus can you be forgiven from sin.
The Our Father tells us this is not an option for forgiveness of self and others.
The Gospel of John, Paul's letters and the metaphoric act of drinking Jesus' blood and eating his flesh are the parts in the Bible that take a clear stance toward the blood sacrifice framework.
The actual fully realized theology was first worked out by Anselm of Canterbury about 900 years after Jesus died.
The Our Father tells us this is not an option for forgiveness of self and others.
The Gospel of John, Paul's letters and the metaphoric act of drinking Jesus' blood and eating his flesh are the parts in the Bible that take a clear stance toward the blood sacrifice framework.
The actual fully realized theology was first worked out by Anselm of Canterbury about 900 years after Jesus died.
I am having trouble focusing on what I think you may be really saying here.
Could you say it again in a different way? Sometimes I am too dense to see the obvious.
I was going to say the same thing about your statement here
you need to state this more coherently
and
allow me to suggest what I think you are saying
the Lord's prayer suggests that your sins were not forgiven at the cross
well they weren't
and
that is the problem they have with this prayer
do you have this problem?
I hope this makes sense.
I think that to extract the meaning that Jesus died for the sins of humanity on the cross is perfectly fine.
To me, that's what theology is. It sees the actual, authentic historical fact and devises a religious meaning to help make sense of that factual event.
I see other meanings of his crucifixion and resurrection that help me make more sense of what I personally see. I like to find out what a passage meant to its original authors and actual ancient readers and listenera.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't have a problem with the Lord's Prayer. In the light of my own studies, it seems to cohere pretty well with the portrait of the authentic Jesus behind all the later-applied theology of the church. It is close to his authentic voice and is similar to the Q Gospel version, a collection of sayings only that predate the four gospel accounts.
but the issue is
were your sins forgiven at the cross?
you didn't even use the word
so
I suspect you are being deliberately vague
I have a problem with the theology of blood sacrifice applied to Jesus. I see him finding a God of mercy that requires forgiveness and repentance.
That's all.
My sins are forgiven to the same extent that I forgive others in turn.
Matthew's version of the Lord's prayer ends with a very significant redaction by Matthew.
He clearly states that if we do not forgive others, we will not be forgiven by the Heavenly Father. The converse is also stated, that is, if we forgive others we will be forgiven.
Matthew--in my view--seems to say that one must forgive in order to merit the forgiveness of God.