I've often wondered about the Lord's Prayer that the Christians go on about, so I thought I would take closer look. I'm sure this is not original, that is, someone has thought of it before.
Perhaps some Christians could offer a point of view?
The REB (Revised English Bible) translation is used for the Lord’s Prayer.

Dictionary definitions:
Pray. "To speak to God or a god aloud or in thought making a request or confession, giving thanks or praise, etc."
Meditate. "To empty the mind of thoughts and fix the attention on one matter."
I thought I would give the above definitions, since some theists seemed to confuse the two as though if one prays, then one is actually meditating. I believe 'Prayer' and 'Meditation' to be two totally different activities with different functions.
How & manner. The dictionary definitions for these two words seem to complement each other but nowhere in the definitions does it suggest that they could be used to imply or be substituted for the verb ‘to say’.

(In the KJV of the Bible (translated from the Latin) Jesus said to his disciples 'After this manner pray ye...' and in later translations (from the original Greek) he said 'This is how you should pray...'. (Matt. 6:9-13).
Throughout the Christian world children are taught to say the words of the Lord's Prayer by rote and in many cases devoid of instruction about what the words actually mean. The Lord's Prayer seems to be said universally in the Christian world as a prayer of supplication as though Jesus actually said 'When you pray, these are the words you shall say...'.

If the assumption is made that Jesus gave the instruction ‘This is how you should meditate’ so that one might reach the same ‘Anointed State’ as himself, that is, become 'a Christ' (since that seemed to be the object of his teaching), then the following interpretation seems reasonable:

“Our Father…
Here he is suggesting that the ‘Anointed State’ (that to him was the ‘Spirit of God’), should be looked upon as a ‘Father’, the provider of life, the authority for living, indeed, one might say the meaning of life.

…in heaven”
And he is stating where this ‘Father’ resides, and where it is to be found. In Luke 17:20-21 Jesus specifically states (to the Pharisees) that the ‘Kingdom of God’ is not to be found ‘here or there’ (in a physical place), but is ‘among you’, ‘within you’ or ‘within your grasp’ (depending on the translation).
In the transliteration from the Greek here it states "...the kingdom of-the God inside of-you is."

“May your name be hallowed”
In meditation, to ‘hallow’ a name or a focussing sound, would be to repeat the name or sound as a mantra. If the phrase is taken literally, it seems reasonable to suggest that it is pointless to try to make a name ‘holy’ if in fact it is already considered to be ‘holy’. Which makes this line pointless if said as a prayer of supplication.

“Your kingdom come”
Here he is making a statement, pure and simple: if you repeat the mantra then you are on the path to being ‘anointed’ with the ‘Spirit of God’. He is addressing an audience in the third person 'Your Kingdom...'. He is not making a requirement that you should ask for the ‘Kingdom of God’ as you would in a prayer of supplication. I don’t think an attitude of obsequiousness was what Jesus was trying to teach.

“Your will be done on earth as in heaven”
Again, this is a statement pure and simple: when the ‘Spirit of God’ is within you, that is, you have reached the ‘Anointed State’ after repeating the mantra, then your whole life will transformed. All material things will ‘seen’ through the 'eyes' of heaven (‘Spiritual Realisation’). Life will be lived outside the normal materialistic way of living and apart from friends and family*. Another religion might call this 'Nirvana'.
This is not a request for ‘God’ to do something as in a prayer of supplication.

“Give us today our daily bread”
This is an exhortation from Jesus: do not delay! Begin to practice this meditation today and every day! The ‘daily bread’ is a euphemism for essential ‘spiritual’ food – the ‘staff of life’ in a spiritual sense. To think of it as ‘bread’ in the literal sense, as a material food, is meaningless. This is not a request for ‘God’ to do something as in a prayer of supplication.

“Forgive us the wrong we have done, as we have forgiven those who have wronged us”
Another statement by Jesus. It would make more sense rewritten as “The wrong we have done will be forgiven as we now forgive those that have wronged us.” When life is being lived through ‘Spiritual Realisation’, we give up the material way of life and live life in a forgiving spiritual manner, he seems to be suggesting.
This is not a request for ‘God’ to do something as in a prayer of supplication.
(I have a problem with the use of ‘wrong’ and ‘wronged’ here. The transliteration from the Greek here clearly says ‘debt’ and ‘debtors’).

“And do not put us to the test, but save us from the evil one”.
This again is an exhortation from Jesus: ‘Don't be tempted away from the spiritual way of life by the pleasures of material things’.
This is not a request for ‘God’ to do something as in a prayer of supplication.

To say this ‘Lord’s Prayer’ as a prayer of supplication by repeating it ‘parrot fashion’ is futile and sterile and leads to a dullness of mind where an attitude of complacency reigns. Once the prayer is said, Christians seem to believe, then the ‘Duty to God’ has been carried out, no further action is needed. Self-satisfaction rules and nothing else outside of that 'self-satisfaction' has been, or will be, achieved or even required.

It is as though the Lords Prayer is treated as the instructions on a packet of ‘Holy Soup’. The ‘instructions’ are read, without knowledge gained or meaning perceived, and then the packet is put back on the shelf until the next time, ad infinitum. No one bothers to actually carry out the instructions (because they are not understood) and open the packet to make the ‘soup’ (metaphorically speaking). Instead, the instructions are used as a set-piece to be repeated by rote and treated as a means to an assumed ‘promised’ end – that is, an ‘end’ that ‘God’ will provide as an external action.

*This gives meaning to Jesus’ statement: “…I have not come to bring peace but a sword…” - meaning to split apart. The ‘sword’, as a metaphor for 'splitting apart', could well be understood by the peoples of that time under the yoke of Roman occupation. (Mat:34-36).

The main problem with this prayer is that it is translated into Greek from Aramaic, which is now lost.

edit

First of all, much to Catholic's chagrin, the Lord's Prayer is not necessarily a prayer of "holy importance" and is not a revered prayer. The context in which Jesus gave the Lord's prayer was to instruct the people that were gathered around him during his sermon on the mount on the proper way to pray.

‘Our Father in heaven[a], hallowed be your name[b],

Part I in prayer is the [a] addressing of God. "Dear Heavenly Father" "Dear God" "Dear Lord" all of these and more are suitable ways to address God, as long as it is followed by a statement of praise [b]. For example, "Dear Heavenly Father, you are the God who provides..." is a perfectly fine substitute for Part I of the Lord's Prayer.

As an aside: the usage of "hallowed" should be considered "holy." Remember for the people the Lord's name was a holy name. Holy enough that there was a 3rd Commandment stated that commanded people to "not take the Lord's name in vain."

your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Part II is a positively affirming of the address. After addressing God with praise, the Christian makes a positive statement about God. In this case he is talking about God's kingdom coming to earth and God assuming mantle of King of Kings and that God's desires would become the desires of the world. The believer makes the claim that God will come down to earth and His will become the desire of the world. It is not the believer asking God, but rather making a statement about what God will inevitably do or has done. For example, I can substitute(following the pattern from my first example) with "your generosity and grace abounds in my life." It is a positive affirmation about God.

Give us today our daily bread.

Part III is in fact supplication. This is the part in which the believer asks God to directly assist him or her with a need or want. Instead of "daily bread" it can be substituted for nearly anything and in any amount the believer believes is needed in the prayer.

And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

Part IV is seeking forgiveness otherwise known as confession. This is where the believer goes to God and lays all the "sin" that he or she may have done and asks the Lord to forgive, which means abstain from punishing. The OED says that forgiveness is " to grant free pardon and to give up all claim on account of an offense or debt" which is what the believer is asking God to do. In fact, one could say, "Please forgive me Lord for my sins just as I have forgiven those who sinned against me"

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

Part V is the believer asking for deliverance. In a sense, it is not just deliverance from sin, but as well, it is an acknowledgement of the believer that God is in control. This does not have to be as broad either. I can easily substitute this phrase with something along the lines of "And help me overcome my desire of covetousness and place me on the path of righteousness."

So summing up the points we have
I. Address
II. Affirmation
III. Supplication
IV. Confession
V. Deliverance

So the Lord's Prayer can be repeated when the believer is at a loss of what to prayer, but it is a model prayer in which the believer bases his or her prayers off of.

This gives meaning to Jesus’ statement: “…I have not come to bring peace but a sword…” - meaning to split apart. The ‘sword’, as a metaphor for 'splitting apart', could well be understood by the peoples of that time under the yoke of Roman occupation. (Mat:34-36).

Not quite. In that fact, Jesus is talking about causing division, but in that fact that families will be divided upon the belief in Jesus. That there will be families disowning children because they chose to follow Christ or in retrospect the opposite families disowning children because they chose to not follow Christ.

Thankyou for your reply, willhud9, and with respect, all I can see is that you are quoting the 'Party Line'.

willhud9 wrote:First of all, much to Catholic's chagrin, the Lord's Prayer is not necessarily a prayer of "holy importance" and is not a revered prayer. The context in which Jesus gave the Lord's prayer was to instruct the people that were gathered around him during his sermon on the mount on the proper way to pray.

I contend that there is no 'proper' way to pray since the 'way to pray' cannot be defined and is as diverse as there are humans on this planet. But, there are 'proper' ways to meditate and they are well defined. The difference being is that meditation is internalised and relies upon the structure of the brains 'thought pathways' which is common to all, and prayer is externalised - 'praying to a god' - the visulisation of which is different from one person to the next.

willhud9 wrote:‘Our Father in heaven[a], hallowed be your name[b],

Part I in prayer is the [a] addressing of God. "Dear Heavenly Father" "Dear God" "Dear Lord" all of these and more are suitable ways to address God, as long as it is followed by a statement of praise [b]. For example, "Dear Heavenly Father, you are the God who provides..." is a perfectly fine substitute for Part I of the Lord's Prayer.

As an aside: the usage of "hallowed" should be considered "holy." Remember for the people the Lord's name was a holy name. Holy enough that there was a 3rd Commandment stated that commanded people to "not take the Lord's name in vain."

This suggestion that 'addressing God' (and the way you interpret the manner of addressing), implies that this 'God' is external which is flatly contradicted by Jesus in Luke 17:20-21. If, as Jesus said, 'the Kingdom of God is inside you' and that the Kingdom of God cannot be seen (or reached) by external observation, then what is the point of externalised prayer? (Again, Luke 17:20-21). One really cannot treat Matt. 6 & Luke 17 as separate items just because one would appear to deny the other.
I think quotations from the OT are irrelevant to the 'God' Jesus was teaching about. The OT 'god' was a genocidal control freak whereas the Jesus 'God' couldn't be more different, an internalised 'mind-state' (I would suggest - through meditation) that would allow each person to 'take control' of their own lives.

willhud9 wrote:your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Part II is a positively affirming of the address. After addressing God with praise, the Christian makes a positive statement about God. In this case he is talking about God's kingdom coming to earth and God assuming mantle of King of Kings and that God's desires would become the desires of the world. The believer makes the claim that God will come down to earth and His will become the desire of the world. It is not the believer asking God, but rather making a statement about what God will inevitably do or has done. For example, I can substitute(following the pattern from my first example) with "your generosity and grace abounds in my life." It is a positive affirmation about God.

There again, the person praying in this manner is treating 'God' as an external 'God' that can do things in the external world. How can 'God's Kingdom come to Earth' if it is already inside you?

willhud9 wrote:Give us today our daily bread.

Part III is in fact supplication. This is the part in which the believer asks God to directly assist him or her with a need or want. Instead of "daily bread" it can be substituted for nearly anything and in any amount the believer believes is needed in the prayer.

I do not see this section as supplication but what one can expect when meditating to reach the 'Kingdom of God'. Refer to Luke 17:20-21 once more.

willhud9 wrote:And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

Part IV is seeking forgiveness otherwise known as confession. This is where the believer goes to God and lays all the "sin" that he or she may have done and asks the Lord to forgive, which means abstain from punishing. The OED says that forgiveness is " to grant free pardon and to give up all claim on account of an offense or debt" which is what the believer is asking God to do. In fact, one could say, "Please forgive me Lord for my sins just as I have forgiven those who sinned against me"

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

Part V is the believer asking for deliverance. In a sense, it is not just deliverance from sin, but as well, it is an acknowledgement of the believer that God is in control. This does not have to be as broad either. I can easily substitute this phrase with something along the lines of "And help me overcome my desire of covetousness and place me on the path of righteousness."

There again these two lines, to me, are statements by Jesus on what happens when reaching this 'Kingdom of God'. They cannot be supplicative in nature and intent.

willhud9 wrote:So summing up the points we have
I. Address
II. Affirmation
III. Supplication
IV. Confession
V. Deliverance

So the Lord's Prayer can be repeated when the believer is at a loss of what to prayer, but it is a model prayer in which the believer bases his or her prayers off of.

Very neat. Fits quite nicely into theological doctrine - a doctrine that has nothing to do with Jesus. 'Party Line' stuff once more.

willhud9 wrote:

This gives meaning to Jesus’ statement: “…I have not come to bring peace but a sword…” - meaning to split apart. The ‘sword’, as a metaphor for 'splitting apart', could well be understood by the peoples of that time under the yoke of Roman occupation. (Mat:34-36).

Not quite. In that fact, Jesus is talking about causing division, but in that fact that families will be divided upon the belief in Jesus. That there will be families disowning children because they chose to follow Christ or in retrospect the opposite families disowning children because they chose to not follow Christ.

I think that the path to the 'Kingdom of God' that Jesus was teaching (the internal 'Kingdom of God') was an ascetic path of meditation which obviously is not for everyone. This would entail seclusion and isolation from family and friends, that is, 'bringing a sword' - splitting apart.
But all these terrible things that happened in later centuries to those who chose not to 'follow Jesus' was the result of doctrinal imposition built upon Pauline teachings by the Church Fathers in the early centuries of the Christian church. That 'poor sod' Jesus would be 'turning in his grave' if he could see what has been done in his name and how his teachings had been twisted to suit political gain and control.

Alan B wrote:Thankyou for your reply, willhud9, and with respect, all I can see is that you are quoting the 'Party Line'.

willhud9 wrote:First of all, much to Catholic's chagrin, the Lord's Prayer is not necessarily a prayer of "holy importance" and is not a revered prayer. The context in which Jesus gave the Lord's prayer was to instruct the people that were gathered around him during his sermon on the mount on the proper way to pray.

I contend that there is no 'proper' way to pray since the 'way to pray' cannot be defined and is as diverse as there are humans on this planet. But, there are 'proper' ways to meditate and they are well defined. The difference being is that meditation is internalised and relies upon the structure of the brains 'thought pathways' which is common to all, and prayer is externalised - 'praying to a god' - the visulisation of which is different from one person to the next.

Well, Jesus is not saying to the crowd "If you do not pray like this exactly, you are wrong." He is giving a guide to prayer. Matthew 6: 5-9 is Jesus explaining to the crowd that all prayer is is communication between the believer and God. Not some elaborate ritual. He gives the guide so people will not babble or be at a loss for words. Sometimes, my prayers are rather simple and do not follow the "Lord's Prayer" to the letter. But the fact is, when I am at a loss for prayer, I remember the Lord's Prayer and can say a prayer.

willhud9 wrote:‘Our Father in heaven[a], hallowed be your name[b],

Part I in prayer is the [a] addressing of God. "Dear Heavenly Father" "Dear God" "Dear Lord" all of these and more are suitable ways to address God, as long as it is followed by a statement of praise [b]. For example, "Dear Heavenly Father, you are the God who provides..." is a perfectly fine substitute for Part I of the Lord's Prayer.

As an aside: the usage of "hallowed" should be considered "holy." Remember for the people the Lord's name was a holy name. Holy enough that there was a 3rd Commandment stated that commanded people to "not take the Lord's name in vain."

This suggestion that 'addressing God' (and the way you interpret the manner of addressing), implies that this 'God' is external which is flatly contradicted by Jesus in Luke 20:20-21.

Perhaps you have miswritten that Bible verse. Luke 20:20-21 is dealing with paying taxes to Caesar. Next, to a believer God is omnipresent. That is one of the Old Testament beliefs of God. So God can be both internal and external to a believer.

If, as Jesus said, 'the Kingdom of God is inside you' and that the Kingdom of God cannot be seen (or reached) by external observation, then what is the point of externalised prayer? (Again, Luke 20:20-21).

Where does he say that?

One really cannot treat Matt. 6 & Luke 20 as separate items just because one would appear to deny the other.

Again, I do not see how Luke 20 is relevant to the discussion.

I think quotations from the OT are irrelevant to the 'God' Jesus was teaching about. The OT 'god' was a genocidal control freak whereas the Jesus 'God' couldn't be more different, an internalised 'mind-state' (I would suggest - through meditation) that would allow each person to 'take control' of their own lives.

Or they[God] were the same, as the apostle Paul writes about.

willhud9 wrote:your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Part II is a positively affirming of the address. After addressing God with praise, the Christian makes a positive statement about God. In this case he is talking about God's kingdom coming to earth and God assuming mantle of King of Kings and that God's desires would become the desires of the world. The believer makes the claim that God will come down to earth and His will become the desire of the world. It is not the believer asking God, but rather making a statement about what God will inevitably do or has done. For example, I can substitute(following the pattern from my first example) with "your generosity and grace abounds in my life." It is a positive affirmation about God.

There again, the person praying in this manner is treating 'God' as an external 'God' that can do things in the external world. How can 'God's Kingdom come to Earth' if it is already inside you?

How then does the Book of Revelation make sense? If God's kingdom is already established inside us then what is the point of the "Second Coming" that Jesus himself prophesied about? Jesus may have been a philosopher of his time, but he believed in an external God just as Jews at the time did and Christians today do.

willhud9 wrote:Give us today our daily bread.

Part III is in fact supplication. This is the part in which the believer asks God to directly assist him or her with a need or want. Instead of "daily bread" it can be substituted for nearly anything and in any amount the believer believes is needed in the prayer.

I do not see this section as supplication but what one can expect when meditating to reach the 'Kingdom of God'. Refer to Luke 20:20-21 once more.

Paying taxes to Caesar is meditating to reach the "Kingdom of God?" Unless you mean Luke 17:20-21 which is a confusing verse as the King James actually reads, within you. But the Greek word "entos" does not properly translate to "within" but rather "in the midst" which as Jesus does every time the Pharisee's ask Jesus a question, Jesus gives an almost snide remark. Jesus tells them that the Kingdom of God is already here, i.e. where Jesus is so is the Kingdom. Oh the joys of semantics

willhud9 wrote:And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

Part IV is seeking forgiveness otherwise known as confession. This is where the believer goes to God and lays all the "sin" that he or she may have done and asks the Lord to forgive, which means abstain from punishing. The OED says that forgiveness is " to grant free pardon and to give up all claim on account of an offense or debt" which is what the believer is asking God to do. In fact, one could say, "Please forgive me Lord for my sins just as I have forgiven those who sinned against me"

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

Part V is the believer asking for deliverance. In a sense, it is not just deliverance from sin, but as well, it is an acknowledgement of the believer that God is in control. This does not have to be as broad either. I can easily substitute this phrase with something along the lines of "And help me overcome my desire of covetousness and place me on the path of righteousness."

There again these two lines, to me, are statements by Jesus on what happens when reaching this 'Kingdom of God'. They cannot be supplicative in nature and intent.

Which is all good for your interpretation but what basis do you have aside from your own interpretation?

willhud9 wrote:So summing up the points we have
I. Address
II. Affirmation
III. Supplication
IV. Confession
V. Deliverance

So the Lord's Prayer can be repeated when the believer is at a loss of what to prayer, but it is a model prayer in which the believer bases his or her prayers off of.

Very neat. Fits quite nicely into theological doctrine - a doctrine that has nothing to do with Jesus. 'Party Line' stuff once more.

I do not know what "party line" means? But regardless, Jesus taught doctrine. The Lord's Prayer is clearly a model to prayer which in itself is a doctrine of prayer. So....

willhud9 wrote:

This gives meaning to Jesus’ statement: “…I have not come to bring peace but a sword…” - meaning to split apart. The ‘sword’, as a metaphor for 'splitting apart', could well be understood by the peoples of that time under the yoke of Roman occupation. (Mat:34-36).

Not quite. In that fact, Jesus is talking about causing division, but in that fact that families will be divided upon the belief in Jesus. That there will be families disowning children because they chose to follow Christ or in retrospect the opposite families disowning children because they chose to not follow Christ.

I think that the path to the 'Kingdom of God' that Jesus was teaching (the internal 'Kingdom of God') was an ascetic path of meditation which obviously is not for everyone. This would entail seclusion and isolation from family and friends, that is, 'bringing a sword' - splitting apart.

It seems you are trying to force fit Eastern philosophy into Jesus' teachings. Where there are certainly parallels, the Bible has no evidence that Jesus taught pseudo-Buddhist philosophies, rather he taught the law the way the law was supposed to be taught.

But all these terrible things that happened in later centuries to those who chose not to 'follow Jesus' was the result of doctrinal imposition built upon Pauline teachings by the Church Fathers in the early centuries of the Christian church.

Or because people are stupid and bigots who thought they were special because they were already in a position of power and decided to use that opportunity to advance themselves using the "teachings of Christ and Paul" to do so.

That 'poor sod' Jesus would be 'turning in his grave' if he could see what has been done in his name and how his teachings had been twisted to suit political gain and control.

Nice, except Jesus is in heaven

Aaaaggghh! A typo! You're right - it should be Luke 17:20-21. Post edited.

First there is no evidence for any aramaic original - the Gospels all work as complete Greek originals.

That it might be about meditation makes a lot of sense from a gnostic perspective, glass darkly seeking the light.

Thank you for a wonderful point highlighting Jesus as a teaching tool, a character to explain, and the damage that has been caused by reading stuff literally and not as a practice to find god.

second coming

Again, an assumption from positing a historical Jesus. Does it actually say anywhere second or again?

Look at Paul, still expecting the final completion. What is all that groaning and glass darkly about? Part One had been done, the death and resurrection in the heavens. God is with us - immanuel - in the xians' hearts - part two, the Christ coming to earth to establish the new heaven and earth is still awaited.

Clive Durdle wrote:

second coming

Again, an assumption from positing a historical Jesus. Does it actually say anywhere second or again?

Look at Paul, still expecting the final completion. What is all that groaning and glass darkly about? Part One had been done, the death and resurrection in the heavens. God is with us - immanuel - in the xians' hearts - part two, the Christ coming to earth to establish the new heaven and earth is still awaited.

I am mainly talking about the Book of Revelation which mentions the "second coming." Also Jesus told his Disciples in Acts that he would come again. Peter in 1 Peter discusses the second coming of Christ. So it was not just a statement made up, but rather one that was believed in traditional Christian beliefs.

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/ind ... umber=1626

The above link should go to Revelation, it is a word search on the word come.

Revelation does not mention the second coming. As it is very likely a Jewish work originally

http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html

it is not that useful.

I did find in Acts a reference to come back, but that is to be expected as it can be understood as a work to join Paul to the gospels.

Is it not a basis of any study to work out what is actually happening and not assume things?

Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming

1 Peter

Sorry? Where does it say second coming?

Clive Durdle wrote:

Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming

1 Peter

Sorry? Where does it say second coming?

Jesus had already left i.e. ascended into Heaven before the epistle of 1 Peter was written. Therefore "when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming" refers to Jesus coming back again? I thought that was fairly obvious in the text....

willhud9 wrote:Well, Jesus is not saying to the crowd "If you do not pray like this exactly, you are wrong." He is giving a guide to prayer. Matthew 6: 5-9 is Jesus explaining to the crowd that all prayer is is communication between the believer and God. Not some elaborate ritual. <snip>

So, praying in church or at some public gathering is in direct contradiction to Matthew 6: 5-9? I have always viewed these verses as justification for my view that this way of praying as per the advice of Jesus is the same as meditation...

willhud9 wrote:Perhaps you have miswritten that Bible verse. Luke 17:20-21 is dealing with paying taxes to Caesar. Next, to a believer God is omnipresent. That is one of the Old Testament beliefs of God. So God can be both internal and external to a believer.

If, as Jesus said, 'the Kingdom of God is inside you' and that the Kingdom of God cannot be seen (or reached) by external observation, then what is the point of externalised prayer? (Again, Luke 17:20-21).

Where does he say that?

Again, I do not see how Luke 17 is relevant to the discussion.

Yep! A typo - corrected.

willhud9 wrote:

I think quotations from the OT are irrelevant to the 'God' Jesus was teaching about. The OT 'god' was a genocidal control freak whereas the Jesus 'God' couldn't be more different, an internalised 'mind-state' (I would suggest - through meditation) that would allow each person to 'take control' of their own lives.

Or they[God] were the same, as the apostle Paul writes about.

I take a rather narrow view of the teachings of Jesus and only consider The Sermon on the Mount as a teaching of any importance. Any writings about Jesus' life by those that came after his death (in those early centuries) or by those contemporaries who never met him, do not seem to mention the Sermon on the Mount in any detail or discuss it's import. After all, none of Jesus' disciples (except perhaps Judas Iscariot) understood what he was talking about, so what chance did any of the other early writers have who were relying on hearsay?

willhud9 wrote:

There again, the person praying in this manner is treating 'God' as an external 'God' that can do things in the external world. How can 'God's Kingdom come to Earth' if it is already inside you?

How then does the Book of Revelation make sense? If God's kingdom is already established inside us then what is the point of the "Second Coming" that Jesus himself prophesied about? Jesus may have been a philosopher of his time, but he believed in an external God just as Jews at the time did and Christians today do.

The Book of Revelation is nonsense and a product of a deranged mind. Jesus probably did believe in an external god, but what has that to do with an internal God. (Luke 17:20-21 - got it right this time! )
Could I suggest some reading? Try "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality" by Andre Comte-Sponville.

willhud9 wrote:

I do not see this section as supplication but what one can expect when meditating to reach the 'Kingdom of God'. Refer to Luke 20:20-21 once more.

Paying taxes to Caesar is meditating to reach the "Kingdom of God?" Unless you mean Luke 17:20-21 which is a confusing verse as the King James actually reads, within you. But the Greek word "entos" does not properly translate to "within" but rather "in the midst" which as Jesus does every time the Pharisee's ask Jesus a question, Jesus gives an almost snide remark. Jesus tells them that the Kingdom of God is already here, i.e. where Jesus is so is the Kingdom. Oh the joys of semantics

Yeah! I got it. I got it. It's Luke 17.
But this reference here clearly states that 'entos' is 'inside'.

willhud9 wrote:
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

Part IV is seeking forgiveness otherwise known as confession. This is where the believer goes to God and lays all the "sin" that he or she may have done and asks the Lord to forgive, which means abstain from punishing. The OED says that forgiveness is " to grant free pardon and to give up all claim on account of an offense or debt" which is what the believer is asking God to do. In fact, one could say, "Please forgive me Lord for my sins just as I have forgiven those who sinned against me"

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

Part V is the believer asking for deliverance. In a sense, it is not just deliverance from sin, but as well, it is an acknowledgement of the believer that God is in control. This does not have to be as broad either. I can easily substitute this phrase with something along the lines of "And help me overcome my desire of covetousness and place me on the path of righteousness."

There again these two lines, to me, are statements by Jesus on what happens when reaching this 'Kingdom of God'. They cannot be supplicative in nature and intent.

Which is all good for your interpretation but what basis do you have aside from your own interpretation?

None. Exactly the same as any other 'interpretation'. We can can interpret the NT until the cows come home and none of us will actually get to the 'truth' - certainly not the theologians who probably have a political axe to grind.

willhud9 wrote:

Very neat. Fits quite nicely into theological doctrine - a doctrine that has nothing to do with Jesus. 'Party Line' stuff once more.

I do not know what "party line" means? But regardless, Jesus taught doctrine. The Lord's Prayer is clearly a model to prayer which in itself is a doctrine of prayer. So....

'Party Line' is what I would call the Orthodox Doctrine as invented by the Church Fathers in the early centuries. I dont think Jesus taught any doctrine.

willhud9 wrote:

I think that the path to the 'Kingdom of God' that Jesus was teaching (the internal 'Kingdom of God') was an ascetic path of meditation which obviously is not for everyone. This would entail seclusion and isolation from family and friends, that is, 'bringing a sword' - splitting apart.

It seems you are trying to force fit Eastern philosophy into Jesus' teachings. Where there are certainly parallels, the Bible has no evidence that Jesus taught pseudo-Buddhist philosophies, rather he taught the law the way the law was supposed to be taught.

The evidence (if one can call it that) is the marked similarity between the Sermon on the Mount and the teachings of Krishna in the Baghavad Gita and also of Buddha and, if one stretches the imagination, Lao Tzu in the Tao Teh Ching. These similarities do not imply (as some crackpot theorists reckon) that Jesus 'travelled to India', but indicate a common thought process across humanity and across the ages.
(Edit: The similarity is so marked that some passages from Jesus can be compared almost word for word with those of Krishna and Buddha. Perhaps indicating that the human brain with its identical biological mechanism for thought processes from one person to another, will produce similar understandings and thoughts arising from a meditative practice.)

willhud9 wrote:

But all these terrible things that happened in later centuries to those who chose not to 'follow Jesus' was the result of doctrinal imposition built upon Pauline teachings by the Church Fathers in the early centuries of the Christian church.

Or because people are stupid and bigots who thought they were special because they were already in a position of power and decided to use that opportunity to advance themselves using the "teachings of Christ and Paul" to do so.

Agreed.

willhud9 wrote:

That 'poor sod' Jesus would be 'turning in his grave' if he could see what has been done in his name and how his teachings had been twisted to suit political gain and control.

Nice, except Jesus is in heaven

Twaddle!

Clive Durdle wrote:First there is no evidence for any aramaic original - the Gospels all work as complete Greek originals.

I assumed that there might have been since Aramaic was Jesus' mother tongue. But in all likelyhood what Jesus actually said (in Aramaic) would probably have been transcribed directly into Koine Greek. Even so, the earliest Greek MSS are not as old as when Jesus was living.

willhud9 wrote:... Jesus is not saying to the crowd "If you do not pray like this exactly, you are wrong."

I suspect that's *exactly* what Jesus was saying. From the NRSV translation of Matthew 6:-

When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that 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.

Pray then in this way ...

You could argue about whether the final line in the original Aramaic was a command or a suggestion, but from the context, the simplest reading is "Just repeat the prayer below".

Course, this was too prescriptive for people who liked to be heard because of their many words, so as with the ban on divorce, and the command to submit to thugs, the teaching was quietly "interpreted" into nonexistence. It helps that prayers are put into Jesus' mouth elsewhere in the gospels.

willhud9 wrote:

Clive Durdle wrote:

Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming

1 Peter

Sorry? Where does it say second coming?

Jesus had already left i.e. ascended into Heaven before the epistle of 1 Peter was written. Therefore "when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming" refers to Jesus coming back again? I thought that was fairly obvious in the text....

Yes, if you assume a historical Jesus. But it does not actually say that!

the original Aramaic

What original aramaic? The Gospels are written and obviously originally composed in Greek with some aramacaisims for flavour, like me putting je ne sais pas here.

Clive Durdle wrote:What original aramaic?

The language behind the content of the -- now lost -- Jesus traditions, which likely included the Our Father in some form.

Regardless of whether Jesus is behind the pericope, its meaning seems clear enough. If people extract the prayer and ditch the teaching behind it, seems like they ain't following the words of Jesus.

Occam. We have one original synoptic in Greek with two riffs. The original has classic chiasmic structure, almost impossible to achieve if it is a translation. John is a classic greek work.

It is in the homeric tradition. It is false that the Greek is poor, that also is likely the work of a master craftsperson.

Alan B wrote:
(Edit: The similarity is so marked that some passages from Jesus can be compared almost word for word with those of Krishna and Buddha. Perhaps indicating that the human brain with its identical biological mechanism for thought processes from one person to another, will produce similar understandings and thoughts arising from a meditative practice.)

Do you have a handy, brief! source I could peruse on this? I don't remember seeing such and it sounds really interesting. It is of course well known the ubiquity of the golden rule, an obvious evolutionary necessity for any highly social species.