The Lord's Prayer...What are we Praying For?

[Terrywoodenpic]

The numerous scholarly opinions gives evidence to the interest in determining the origin of the 'Our Father', in Latin the 'Pater Noster'.

http://raymondebrownss.weebly.com/uploads/2/0/5/9/20590956/raymond_brown_pater_noster.pdf

The link you give is a catholic paper considering mainly Biblical versions of the lords prayer, though it does mention the version in the Didache, in passing.
It does delve into the eschatological meaning of the prayer and compares it with other readings.

I was considering only the version in the Didache as understood and taught by the people at the time, which was purely eschatological.

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

By the time we finish replying to one another with these walls of text we're both fond of writing, we're going to have one heck of a page all to ourselves.

I've taken your remarks and compartamentalized them using the Quote option.
Blessings.

I explained this in some detail. It doesn't mean what many Christians think it means. In the context that Jesus said it, it makes no sense to tell the Pharisees that the Kingdom is within them....it never was.

I think you would have to substantiate that declaration, "never was", with textual proof.
Whereas in my study it makes perfect sense that Jesus would declare the kingdom of God/Heaven is within and especially to those Pharisee whom he referred to also as a brood of vipers who's father was the Devil.
Doing so as a condemnation for their egocetrism that attempted to put their office in the seat of God, reigning over those subordinates under their charge. Prosecuting laws as if they were God themselves.
This is why Jesus openly violated those same Pharisee's belief, prosecution thereof, of the Sabbath rest command. Jesus "worked" on the Sabbath doing God's work. Which was at times under the Pharasee's rule a death penalty, stoning death, offense.
This is also why he stepped before the Magdalene, who was not an adulteress nor prostitute, and challenged those men holding stones and ready to murder her, to cast them if one was first himself without sin.
Jesus set aright the laws of God. And condemned the Pharisee for abrogating them for the sake of their own ego's, pride, and power.
So yes, Jesus would make that observation and especially before the Pharisee's. "The Kingdom of God/Heaven is within." Because it was clearly something they were unconscious of as pertained to themselves.

The Kingdom is 'coming' to set this world to rights, crushing all corrupt human rulerships out of existence and replacing them. The "sheep" will be separated from the "goats" and then we can get back what Adam lost for us in Eden. Jesus' blood bought that for us.

Agreed.
Jesus, Emmanuel="God with us", did not come to start a religion. He came to destroy religion. His teachings were those of living the holiness doctrine.
Religion was the Pharisee's road to perdition. Which he condemned.

Do you believe that the Bible that we have today is the word of God or the word of men?

I believe it is the work of men who imagined themselves able to edit the Word that is God and his inspired message to the world. And as we know over the centuries with the differences in scripture, especially now with the edits some publishers make so as to not upset of all things, Muslims, with the wording, due to political interests and pursuits.

I think if you invest in study as to how the faith came to be what it is today, pre and post-Reformation, you'll learn a great deal concerning that evolution.
In the beginning of the faithful practice there were hundreds of different faiths, practices, beliefs, under the umbrella term today of, "Christianity".
Early on we and the Jews were referred to by the Pagans as, "People of the book". Because while the pagan's saw their god's and goddesses in all things, "Animism", "Pantheism", they learned that our God arrived to our knowledge from scrolls, or, "a book", that then informed us of "his" presence.
Not until Constantine, a Roman pagan emperor, was Christianity condensed into a succinct creedal system of belief. Hence, the "Nicene creed".
Contrary to the amended truth , Constantine was a pagan until just before his death. Wherein he exercised what is today known as Pascal's Wager. Until then he was a pagan who used the new god as a tool for personal power and empiric supremacy. Insuring through the convening of the Council of Nicea, which he did oversee regardless of what is claimed by some sources, that the Roman empire would indeed fulfill its own creed. I.E. to rule the world forever.
And it has. The Roman's Catholic Church, is proof. The smallest sovereign state on the planet, Vatican city, a walled city, contrary to this current Pope's condemnation of walls when thinking as a world leader to berate president Trump for his intent to build a southern U.S. border wall. Overseen by the worlds most powerful sovereign dictator, the Pope, who's office replaced the Caesar. Commanding as a dictatorship the largest citizen population on the planet. Over 2 billion Roman Catholics.
Which is why the office of Pope is treated as a head of state when in political meetings with other world leaders.
The office of Pope is the office of the Caesar continued. And the Roman's Catholic tradition is Roman polytheistic necromancer paganism. And entirely of the adversary to Christ.

For over 1600 years the Catholic church has taken the credit for the Bible canon....but many do not accept the Apocrypha, so to me they didn't do a very good job at choosing what we would need to come to Christ. They just created confusion and promoted their own ideas adopted from Roman paganism, passing them off as "Christian" for centuries. Protestantism wasn't much better. It just broke Christianity up into bickering, disunited fragments. (1 Corinthians 1:10)

Here's a really good question.
If The Word (God) inspired His words to be recorded so as to comfort, lead, guide, and save the world, what primacy could mortal men, exclusively in charge of augmenting the scriptures throughout history, i.e. no women involved, think themselves entitled to exercise or invoke when then claiming they are fit to elect what inspirational communications God delivered are then worthy of entering their described "Canon"?

Those who elected the Canon, which occurred over a period of more than 1200 years and through the convening of many different appointed councils, put themselves as editors in chief of Gods words.
How then, when the King James 1611 Bible did contain what is referred to as the Apocrypha,hidden books, be seen fit to publish in its day in 1611? If the Apocrypha were not then worthy of inclusion?
What credible sense would it make for electors of that version of the Bible after the printing press was first invented to say the Canon was worthy of publishing.While what is considered unworthy of being titled, canonical, should be pressed right along side it?
And then there is the Ethiopic Bible. That which not only as the Apocrypha but other books therein. So, if the "Bible" is God's inspired word entirely, which one is that? Not to mention the RCC Vatican approved Bible, the American Standard, does contain the Apocrypha. And the organized structure of "Christianity" began as that of the Roman's Catholic.
Which lead to the revolution that we know today as the "Protestant=protest-ant Reformation."

God took the Bible from the church at the Reformation and put it back into the hands of the common people where it belonged. The church had kept it hidden away, failing to impart to their flocks its wonderful truths, but instead introducing all manner of pagan traditions that are still there to this day.

Agreed as to the latter part of your observation. However, the difference in the Protestant scriptures to that of the RCC is the omission of the Apocrypha.

I do not believe that the contents of the Bible we have today had anything to do with men at all. If its God's word then he was responsible for its contents.

As you wish.

It helps to understand why the church became a haven for pedophiles and homosexuals in the first place. Easy access to children who were orphaned or disadvantaged in some way so that they could get away with their sin for so long with no one to complain because of fear, and easy access to like minded men with no one to answer to because God was apparently looking the other way.

Agreed, it is easy to understand. When that church is the church of the adverse, it is no wonder devils creep in to seek refuge and authority so as to exercise their depravity on the generational conditioned innocence who are born into the flock. And who are raised to believe they may never question that man they call father. Who in many instances is a very well disguised ravenous perverted wolf.

 

[pearl]

The link you give is a catholic paper

The author is Catholic, but presented is a spectrum of inclusive scholarship; " 'the most valuable work is that of Ernst Lohmeyer", a Protestant theologian.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The author is Catholic, but presented is a spectrum of inclusive scholarship; " 'the most valuable work is that of Ernst Lohmeyer", a Protestant theologian.

I have absolutely no problem with the paper, it is a scolarly study of the Lords prayer as found in the Bible.
What it is not, is a study of the Lords Prayer as found in the Didache. Though I beleve they are both eschatological in nature. Which is one of the conclusions he covers for the Bible version.

 

[Deeje]

By the time we finish replying to one another with these walls of text we're both fond of writing, we're going to have one heck of a page all to ourselves.

Ah...someone else who is a stickler for detail.

I've taken your remarks and compartamentalized them using the Quote option.
Blessings.

I'll try to do the same without writing a novel (hopefully)

I think you would have to substantiate that declaration, "never was", with textual proof.
Whereas in my study it makes perfect sense that Jesus would declare the kingdom of God/Heaven is within and especially to those Pharisee whom he referred to also as a brood of vipers who's father was the Devil.

I see how you are arriving at your conclusion, but the kingdom, according to Daniel is not something internal. To destroy all the kingdoms ruling this world (under the control of satan, 1 John 5:19) it itself is a governmental arrangement with a king and his army.....they will remove and replace all those kingdoms. (Matthew 25:31-32; Daniel 2:44) The devil claimed to have been given authority over "all the kingdoms of the world" (with a lot of help from his false religious empire) and Jesus did not dispute it because it happened before Jesus came to earth. (Luke 4:5-8) Why would God deliver control of the world to his enemy, knowing what that would mean for all of us? There is method in his madness.

So yes, Jesus would make that observation and especially before the Pharisee's. "The Kingdom of God/Heaven is within." Because it was clearly something they were unconscious of as pertained to themselves.

I understand your thinking but, I believe that it disagrees with other parts of scripture. It all has to mesh. It's one story from Genesis to Revelation. God's purpose unfolds gradually from beginning to end.

Jesus, Emmanuel="God with us", did not come to start a religion. He came to destroy religion. His teachings were those of living the holiness doctrine.
Religion was the Pharisee's road to perdition. Which he condemned.

Agreed. Religion is man made. God will ultimately destroy it. It never served his purpose but aided the devil to divide mankind.

Jesus' identification of the title "Emmanuel" was God's promise to always be with his people. God's was "with" Israel....he was also "with" Jesus. He was God's means of salvation. Jesus was never called Emmanuel though, was he?

I believe it is the work of men who imagined themselves able to edit the Word that is God and his inspired message to the world. And as we know over the centuries with the differences in scripture, especially now with the edits some publishers make so as to not upset of all things, Muslims, with the wording, due to political interests and pursuits.

Man's efforts to distort it aside, it remains God's message. He would not allow humans to tamper with it enough to alter its message. The kingdom and its king remains its central theme.

In the book of Daniel, (whilst telling Daniel to seal up his prophesies till "the time of the end") God revealed that this was the time for an 'abundance of knowledge' to be made available, and a cleansing of his worship as a result. This was the time for the rot to be exposed....there was no point in foretelling a 'cleansing, whitening and refining' of God's worship if it wasn't going to be obvious. With Jesus' parable of the 'wheat and the weeds', he indicated that in the beginning, both would resemble each other, so in the early stages of apostasy, the difference wasn't all that noticeable, but once the "harvest time" drew close, the distinction between true "cleansed" Christianity and the 'dirty' counterfeit sown by the devil would be obvious. There would be no similarities. Jesus also said that "few" are on the cramped and narrow road to life....so true Christians would be a minority and they would stand out as completely different to the mainstream. Like it was with Jesus' ministry, some would listen, but the majority would hang onto their comfortable old habits, unwilling to change, listening to their religious leaders instead of God.....confident in the numbers.

I think if you invest in study as to how the faith came to be what it is today, pre and post-Reformation, you'll learn a great deal concerning that evolution.

Most people are so busy bickering about the small things that none of them see the big picture.....they are all deceived by the same lies. Christendom is not Christianity. It's so far removed that Jesus would not even recognise it. (Matthew 7:21-23)

In the beginning of the faithful practice there were hundreds of different faiths, practices, beliefs, under the umbrella term today of, "Christianity".
Early on we and the Jews were referred to by the Pagans as, "People of the book". Because while the pagan's saw their god's and goddesses in all things, "Animism", "Pantheism", they learned that our God arrived to our knowledge from scrolls, or, "a book", that then informed us of "his" presence.
Not until Constantine, a Roman pagan emperor, was Christianity condensed into a succinct creedal system of belief. Hence, the "Nicene creed".
Contrary to the amended truth , Constantine was a pagan until just before his death. Wherein he exercised what is today known as Pascal's Wager. Until then he was a pagan who used the new god as a tool for personal power and empiric supremacy. Insuring through the convening of the Council of Nicea, which he did oversee regardless of what is claimed by some sources, that the Roman empire would indeed fulfill its own creed. I.E. to rule the world forever.
And it has. The Roman's Catholic Church, is proof. The smallest sovereign state on the planet, Vatican city, a walled city, contrary to this current Pope's condemnation of walls when thinking as a world leader to berate president Trump for his intent to build a southern U.S. border wall. Overseen by the worlds most powerful sovereign dictator, the Pope, who's office replaced the Caesar. Commanding as a dictatorship the largest citizen population on the planet. Over 2 billion Roman Catholics.
Which is why the office of Pope is treated as a head of state when in political meetings with other world leaders.
The office of Pope is the office of the Caesar continued. And the Roman's Catholic tradition is Roman polytheistic necromancer paganism. And entirely of the adversary to Christ.

Yep, agree with all of that.

Here's a really good question.
If The Word (God) inspired His words to be recorded so as to comfort, lead, guide, and save the world, what primacy could mortal men, exclusively in charge of augmenting the scriptures throughout history, i.e. no women involved, think themselves entitled to exercise or invoke when then claiming they are fit to elect what inspirational communications God delivered are then worthy of entering their described "Canon"?

The Word (not God) was not the inspiration for scripture but more the subject of it. God's spirit inspired scripture. (2 Timothy 3:16-17) I believe it is God's thoughts in man's words. The Bible itself is the only thing God gave us for our instruction. To devalue it is to deny God's power to inspire its contents, and in "the time of the end" to preserve what we all need to ascertain his truth. In this time of separation, why would he create confusion? That's the devil's job. He's good at it.

So, if the "Bible" is God's inspired word entirely, which one is that? Not to mention the RCC Vatican approved Bible, the American Standard, does contain the Apocrypha. And the organized structure of "Christianity" began as that of the Roman's Catholic.
Which lead to the revolution that we know today as the "Protestant=protest-ant Reformation."

If we do our homework, it becomes obvious what belongs and what doesn't. The apocryphal books may have some historical value, but if the contents of these books contradicts what is in the bulk of scripture, then the commonly held Bible translations will be sufficient to get the Bible's message and to identify what God's kingdom is and how it comes.

Agreed, it is easy to understand. When that church is the church of the adverse, it is no wonder devils creep in to seek refuge and authority so as to exercise their depravity on the generational conditioned innocence who are born into the flock. And who are raised to believe they may never question that man they call father. Who in many instances is a very well disguised ravenous perverted wolf.

Sadly true. They will answer for their corruption. (Hebrews 4:13)

Taking the Bible as a whole, we see that God's people have never been 'mainstream' in their beliefs or practices. So it isn't about the various points of agreement in the multitudes of "Christian" sects, it's really about how different the "wheat" are from the multitude of "weeds".....and how closely they conform to the standard Jesus set for them.

Oops....guess I blew it again. It's a novel.....sorry.

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

Ah...someone else who is a stickler for detail.

I'll try to do the same without writing a novel (hopefully)

I have that same hope when I enter a topic I'm passionate about. The novella side usually wins.

I see how you are arriving at your conclusion, but the kingdom, according to Daniel is not something internal. To destroy all the kingdoms ruling this world (under the control of satan, 1 John 5:19) it itself is a governmental arrangement with a king and his army.....they will remove and replace all those kingdoms. (Matthew 25:31-32; Daniel 2:44) The devil claimed to have been given authority over "all the kingdoms of the world" (with a lot of help from his false religious empire) and Jesus did not dispute it because it happened before Jesus came to earth. (Luke 4:5-8) Why would God deliver control of the world to his enemy, knowing what that would mean for all of us? There is method in his madness.

Great observation. I agree with that.

What did Jesus mean when He said, “The kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21, KJV)?

I understand your thinking but, I believe that it disagrees with other parts of scripture. It all has to mesh. It's one story from Genesis to Revelation. God's purpose unfolds gradually from beginning to end.

True, it is one story from start to finish. Though I don't believe I am in error as to the spirit within and that being absent in the Pharisee.

Agreed. Religion is man made. God will ultimately destroy it. It never served his purpose but aided the devil to divide mankind.

Agreed.

Jesus' identification of the title "Emmanuel" was God's promise to always be with his people. God's was "with" Israel....he was also "with" Jesus. He was God's means of salvation. Jesus was never called Emmanuel though, was he?

Yes. In Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23. He was actually never referred to as "Jesus". He would have been called Yoshua, or Yeshua, "Joshua". Jesus is the Greek translation of Joshua.
And that he was to be called Emmanuel , as the angel informed Mary, was so that upon introduction with that title he would be recognized as Messiah. God with us. Or, God is with us.

Man's efforts to distort it aside, it remains God's message. He would not allow humans to tamper with it enough to alter its message. The kingdom and its king remains its central theme.

Yet it has been tampered with.

In the book of Daniel, (whilst telling Daniel to seal up his prophesies till "the time of the end") God revealed that this was the time for an 'abundance of knowledge' to be made available, and a cleansing of his worship as a result. This was the time for the rot to be exposed....there was no point in foretelling a 'cleansing, whitening and refining' of God's worship if it wasn't going to be obvious. With Jesus' parable of the 'wheat and the weeds', he indicated that in the beginning, both would resemble each other, so in the early stages of apostasy, the difference wasn't all that noticeable, but once the "harvest time" drew close, the distinction between true "cleansed" Christianity and the 'dirty' counterfeit sown by the devil would be obvious. There would be no similarities. Jesus also said that "few" are on the cramped and narrow road to life....so true Christians would be a minority and they would stand out as completely different to the mainstream. Like it was with Jesus' ministry, some would listen, but the majority would hang onto their comfortable old habits, unwilling to change, listening to their religious leaders instead of God.....confident in the numbers.

However, the book of Daniel was part of the Tanakh that which is that third part, the prophets. Well before anyone thought of Canon.

Most people are so busy bickering about the small things that none of them see the big picture.....they are all deceived by the same lies. Christendom is not Christianity. It's so far removed that Jesus would not even recognise it. (Matthew 7:21-23)

True. Jesus did not come to establish Christianity.
That we were first called Christian in Antioch was meant to report we were slurred in Antioch. Because Christian was an insult at that time. Acts 11:19-26 Acts 11:19-26 - When The Disciples Were First Called Christians

Yep, agree with all of that.

The Word (not God) was not the inspiration for scripture but more the subject of it. God's spirit inspired scripture. (2 Timothy 3:16-17) I believe it is God's thoughts in man's words. The Bible itself is the only thing God gave us for our instruction. To devalue it is to deny God's power to inspire its contents, and in "the time of the end" to preserve what we al need to ascertain his truth. In this time of separation, why would he create confusion? That's the devil's job. He's good at it.

Don't misunderstand, I do not mean to devalue the Bible. I simply recognize man's part in its manufacture.
In the beginning was The Word and the word was with God and The Word was God. John 1:1
When Paul wrote his epistle to Timothy, 2 Timothy 3:16, he was referring to the Tanakh. The Hebrew's Canon of scripture. His epistles/letters preceded the Synoptic Gospels. And of course he knew nothing of what we today call the New Testament.
As a Pharisee he was foremost educated in the Tanakh and its purpose and meaning.

If we do our homework, it becomes obvious what belongs and what doesn't. The apocryphal books may have some historical value, but if the contents of these books contradicts what is in the bulk of scripture, then the commonly held Bible translations will be sufficient to get the Bible's message and to identify what God's kingdom is and how it comes.

I agree that the holy spirit guides our studies. It is a text meant for those of God.

Sadly true. They will answer for their corruption. (Hebrews 4:13)

Indeed. It is tragic that so many have been corrupted since they were babies. And those who never venture to seek outside that doctrine shall perish with it.

Taking the Bible as a whole, we see that God's people have never been 'mainstream' in their beliefs or practices. So it isn't about the various points of agreement in the multitudes of "Christian" sects, it's really about how different the "wheat" are from the multitude of "weeds".....and how closely they conform to the standard Jesus set for them.

Agreed. Holiness teachings are the bread .

Oops....guess I blew it again. It's a novel.....sorry.

I'm shocked! Truly.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

This is the “No true scotsman” fallacy in practice. everybody claims to,practice true christianity while pointing to everyone else and claimimg they are practicing false christianity. All while they use the same book of stories.

Sure, and as Jesus said MANY would prove false at Matthew 7:21-23.
So, it should be No surprise about everyone claiming,etc. and using the same book or manual text book.
To me there is a difference between claiming and verifying through the pages of Scripture.
Daniel's last chapter lets us know at our time people would be roving to and fro.
Not just traveling around, but traveling through the pages of Scripture.
A comprehensive concordance puts the Bible in alphabetical order by topic or subject arrangement.
Since the Bible has corresponding or parallel cross-reference verses and passages that shows internal harmony.
Thus, this helps make it possible to search or research the Scriptures and see internal harmony among Bible writers.
So, if one places one's beliefs on one half of a page, the beliefs on the other half should match to the Scriptures.

 

[Deeje]

Sit down, grab a coffee, plan to spend quite a few minutes reading my latest novel......

Great observation. I agree with that.

What did Jesus mean when He said, “The kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21, KJV)?

He was the King of God's Kingdom and he was right there, "in their midst" (an alternative rendering in the NASB) walking among them, but they only saw him as another trouble maker.....another fake Messiah. He did not live up to their expectations to liberate Israel and to elevate them to their proper status.

True, it is one story from start to finish. Though I don't believe I am in error as to the spirit within and that being absent in the Pharisee.

You are not entirely wrong because your own observation is very true, but it doesn't go far enough to gel with the rest of scripture. The Kingdom itself is not an internal experience but a real government.....one that we humans should have been enjoying all this time. God will bring it back. (Revelation 21:2-4)

Committing ourselves to Christ is an internal experience involving hearts and minds. The Kingdom is the way we get back to God with Jesus leading us. (Ephesians 1:8-10)

Yes. In Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23. He was actually never referred to as "Jesus". He would have been called Yoshua, or Yeshua, "Joshua". Jesus is the Greek translation of Joshua.

Well, actually 'Jesus' is the English version of 'Yeshua'. The Greek is "Iēsous".

Yahweh's name in English is Jehovah.

There is no "J" in the Hebrew language....but to change all the "J" names in the Bible now, would be a bit silly.

And that he was to be called Emmanuel , as the angel informed Mary, was so that upon introduction with that title he would be recognized as Messiah. God with us. Or, God is with us.

Yes it was the meaning of the name Immanuel that applied. God's son was not known by any other name than Jesus (Yeshua).

Yet it has been tampered with.

Not enough to alter the message. Anyone can glean the truth from any Bible if they are aided by God's spirit. It is impossible to understand the Bible without that vital ingredient. (John 6:44)

However, the book of Daniel was part of the Tanakh that which is that third part, the prophets. Well before anyone thought of Canon.

Did you know, that despite the magnitude of his far reaching prophesies, Daniel is not included among the prophets in the Tanach?

Jewish tradition credits Ezra with beginning the compiling and cataloging of the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, and it says that this was completed by Nehemiah. Ezra was certainly well equipped for such a work, being one of the inspired Bible writers himself as well as a priest, scholar, and official copyist of sacred writings. (Ezra 7:1-11) There is no reason to doubt the traditional view that the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was fixed by the end of the fifth century B.C.E.

True. Jesus did not come to establish Christianity.
That we were first called Christian in Antioch was meant to report we were slurred in Antioch. Because Christian was an insult at that time. Acts 11:19-26 Acts 11:19-26 - When The Disciples Were First Called Christians

Whether it was opposers who called the believers Christians or it was God by Christ Jesus, the calling of them by this name was within the divine providence according to the Scriptural usage of the Greek verb used.
In any case, Jesus and his apostles were used to insults...it was water off a duck's back. And the designation "Christians" simply meant followers of Jesus.

Don't misunderstand, I do not mean to devalue the Bible. I simply recognize man's part in its manufacture.

Yes, man did play a role in its printing and distribution, but I don't believe that man played any role in its contents, except as its subjects....and secretaries.

In the beginning was The Word and the word was with God and The Word was God. John 1:1

If the Logos was "with" God, how can he be God? If someone is "with" you...are they you?

John 1:18 says "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him."
If no man has seen God...and if Jesus was "fully man and fully God" as some people claim, then how many saw Jesus? John 1:18 does not contradict John 1:1....it clarifies it. Jesus is a god (a mighty one) but he is "begotten" which means he needed a 'begetter'....someone to produce him. (Colossians 1:15-17; Revelation 3:14) Jesus is a creation of his Father....his "firstborn".

Understanding the word "theos" in Greek opens up a whole different scenario to what is presented in Christendom. Have you done any study on this?

The Greeks were polytheists and all their gods had names. When referring to a particular god they used its name, collectively they were just called "the gods". But now the Jews were telling of another God which was the only true God, but the Jews had lost his name. The only way to identify this "god" (literally a "mighty one") was to use the definite article "THE". So in all reference to distinguish this god from other "mighty ones", (like Jesus) was to call him "ho theos" or "THE God". Reading John 1:1 you will see in the Greek that "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with "ho theos" and the Word was theos." Only one god in that verse is THE God. Jesus is a divine "mighty one" but he is not THE God....and never once claimed to be.

When Paul wrote his epistle to Timothy, 2 Timothy 3:16, he was referring to the Tanakh. The Hebrew's Canon of scripture. His epistles/letters preceded the Synoptic Gospels. And of course he knew nothing of what we today call the New Testament.
As a Pharisee he was foremost educated in the Tanakh and its purpose and meaning.

Paul was chosen for completely different reasons to the 12. He was an apostle (one sent forth) but he was assigned a special mission in which his education, his background as a Pharisee, his Roman citizenship and his zeal for God's worship would be used in a different but powerful way. He contributed more to Christian scripture than any of the 12. In fact only three of the 12 wrote books of the accepted Bible canon.

I agree that the holy spirit guides our studies. It is a text meant for those of God.

No one can read the Bible and make sense of it without guidance. (Acts of the Apostles 8:26-36)

I'm shocked! Truly.

I should be.....but its one of my main failings.

I am never satisfied with a surface knowledge of the important things.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

By
Whereas in my study it makes perfect sense that Jesus would declare the kingdom of God/Heaven is within and especially to those Pharisee.............................
So yes, Jesus would make that observation and especially before the Pharisee's. "The Kingdom of God/Heaven is within." Because it was clearly something they were unconscious of as pertained to themselves.
Religion was the Pharisee's road to perdition. Which he condemned.
I think if you invest in study as to how the faith came to be what it is today, pre and post-Reformation, you'll learn a great deal concerning that evolution.
In the beginning of the faithful practice there were hundreds of different faiths, practices, beliefs, under the umbrella term today of, "Christianity"....................

I agree that at Luke 17:20-21 Jesus is addressing those hate-filled Pharisees.
It is Not until the next verse at Luke 17:22 that Jesus addresses his disciples.
What I find at Mark 7:20-23 is what Jesus finds ' within ' ( especially within those Pharisees )
If we continue reading to Luke 19:11-15 we can read that Jesus did know God's kingdom would Not be instant or immediately appearing. So, God's kingdom (Daniel 2:44) would Not take place in the first century.
We are asked to pray for God's kingdom to come (future tense) 'thy kingdom come ...'
That is why Jesus gave the assignment at Matthew 24:14 to be proclaiming God's kingdom earth wide as it is being done internationally today.

If we invest in a study of Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30 as to how the 'faith' (apostate Christendom) came to be what it is today, you'll learn a great deal concerning how that 'so-called form of Christianity' evolved.
Evolved into a run-afoul, modern-day monstrosity which calls itself 'Christendom' (so-called Christian mostly in name only).

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Liturgy is public prayer, and there is an order to it and is probably where the Our Father found its form, to be recited together, in unison, long before it is penned in the Gospel we now read.

I don't understand what the ^ above^ has to do with Jesus' words found at Matthew 6:7

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Probably the earliest written version of the Lords prayer is found in the Didache.
The Lords prayer
from the Didache Aaron Milavec The Didache Text, translation, analysis, and commentary.
Our Father, the one in heaven,
your name be made holy,
your kingdom come,
your will be born upon earth as in heaven,
give us this day our loaf that is coming,
and forgive us our debt at the final judgement
as we likewise now forgive our debtors.
and do not lead us into the trial of the last days
but deliver us from that evil
because yours is the power and glory forever.
The prayer is a collective petition to God, by his people, for the establishment of his kingdom on earth. And for their successful place within it. When we repeat it as individuals we do so as one of many of the petitioners.
(my version of this)
Our Heavenly Father,
may your name be holy throughout the world
and your kingdom established among us,
so that the earth, like heaven, obeys your will.
may we soon be gathered in to your kingdom
and be forgiven at the final judgement,
as we have forgiven others.
but spare us on the day of trial
and from the evil of the last days.
because yours is the power and glory forever.
Terry Andrews July 2014

I know this is going to sound nit-picky:
The model prayer of Matthew 6:9-10 and Luke 11:2-4 to me is the Our Father model prayer.
The ' Lord's prayer ' is Jesus' prayer found in the 17th chapter of John.

 

[Dawnofhope]

What you are doing is take a Christian version of a Q-lite saying and tell me that it is Tantric.
Of course it is Tantric if it comes from Q-lite.

But the edited version is not half as convincingly Tantric as the original because Christians have extended and changed the ideology of Q-lite into their own ideology and have added a lot of their own stuff.
And this happened before the narrative gospels were written, so long before the meeting at Nicea.

The original text reads:

Q-lite: The reconstructed sayings of the tantric-mystic Master Yeshua

Q 17: 20b-21 / Luke 17: 20b-21 = Matthew 24: 26

20b The Rule of God does not come by observation [‘parateresos’]. 21 They should not say: “He can be observed in the wilderness, nor in the inner, secret chambers (of temples) [‘tameiois’]. For the Rule of God is within you! [‘entos humon’].

It needs to be remembered Jesus’s audience was almost exclusively Jewish and they understood Him to be the Messiah promised in Jewish scripture. There was an important political aspect too in that the Jews were unhappy with Roman rule and were expecting a Messianic Figure like King David in the Old Testament who would free them from the yoke of Roman oppression. Unlike Buddha He didn’t teach people on the Indian subcontinent. However both Jesus and Buddha used parables or allegorical stories. Within such stories are Teachings that are more universal and tantric.

 

[Deeje]

It is important to state that what I have written is in the context of the Didache which was written circa 50-60 CE by the earliest Jewish- Christian communities and as used by them to train their converts.

There is no indication anywhere in the text that they knew of any other "Christian Scriptures" nor had any concept of the Trinity, the virgin birth, or any other later manifestations of Christian tradition. They did teach how to baptise, and the practice of the weekly Eucharist, and the version of the Lords Prayer given in my previous post and shown below.

I would assume that closer to the apostolic period, things were much different, i.e. before the Romans fully corrupted Christianity. Mind you they were in a pathetic condition when that happened so its not surprising that what happened in Judaism, happened to Christianity as well. They have the same scenario.....starting off well, and fallen human nature leading them to add their own explanation of things and adopting beliefs and attitudes that did not belong.

The prayer is a collective petition to God, by his people, for the establishment of his kingdom on earth. And for their successful place within it. When we repeat it as individuals we do so as one of many of the petitioners.

It is my understanding from what precedes the Lord's Prayer that it was to be a model for Christians upon which to base their own prayers. He told his disciples to "pray this way".....not "pray this prayer".

It was Jesus praying on their behalf, not a collective praying that one prayer.

As I said in my previous post the Lords prayer is Eschatological It is essentially praying for the coming of the kingdom, which those people expected to occur during their life time. They never wrote what they expected to occur except that it would be a time of great tribulation.

Yes, the coming of the Kingdom was expected to fix everything that was wrong with the world. But God's counting of time is not like ours. It was a long way off, but God kept the expectation high. It gave each generation hope that it would come in their time. But it will not come unless the greatest tribulation in the history of mankind comes first. (Matthew 24:21) But, there will be survivors (Matthew 24:13)

The Original Greek in the Didache suggest it was a collective prayer of petition and it makes sense to continue using it as such

Yet you can see by the context that it was never meant as such. Christian prayer was not liturgical like the prayers of Israel. Their worship does not seem to be either. Rather it was a coming together to discuss God's word and to offer praise and thanks to God. The disciples sang songs of praise to God when in prison. It was not formal but more educational and upbuilding as Christians knew their fellow believers as a family. and helped each other out as needed. (Hebrews 10:24-25)

They never mentioned the name of God.
I suspect they were using "in the Name of God" in the sense we use "in the name of the law" today meaning with the Authority of. so the meaning would be That the authority of God be known through out the world.

Actually Jesus said that he had come to make God's name known to his disciples. They already knew who God was, so it was more about the name that God had made known to Israel.

Exodus 3:13-15....
"And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"
And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation." (The Complete Tanach)

The Jews had stopped using the divine name in their speech, but it was still visible in their Hebrew text. So verse 15 reads..... "So shall you say to the children of Israel, יְהֹוָ֞ה (Yahweh, Jehovah) of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation."

It is apparent that God did not want his illustrious name to be lost, but Israel managed to do it anyway.

It does not say how, nor does it need to, as the establishment of God's kingdom would be more than obvious to all.

Jesus said it wasn't going to be obvious to a lot of people in his day, because their expectations were not accurate.
Luke 17:20-21....
" Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.” (NASB)

Knowing what he meant here is important because many people misinterpret the last part of that scripture. Jesus was speaking about himself as the representative of God's Kingdom, its appointed King, who was right there among those wicked Pharisees and they rejected him. The actual coming of the Kingdom to this earth was still a long way off, in the time of the last ruling kings....the ones we have now. (Daniel 2:44)

The old testament makes it clear that it was not, however those times were past, though they believed Satan was still at work on earth. God's will is certainly done on earth but not consistently. with the coming of the kingdom that was expected to change.

Asking for God's will to be "done on earth as it is in heaven" is not asking for inconsistency. The Kingdom will bring righteousness with it and crush unrighteousness out of existence. (2 Peter 3:13) Only then can God's will be done in any satisfactory way "on earth as it is in heaven".....having evicted all rebels from both realms. (Revelation 12:7-12) First satan and his hordes are tossed out of heaven to do their darndest on earth before the final showdown. I think it is not too far away.

The didache does not make this clear, nor do I think the how is important. I am not sure what the "Only" kingdom can serve, outside its own being.
The section covering the Eucharist in the Didache, goes to some length comparing the scattering of grain in the hills, and then harvesting it to make one loaf (of Bread) to the gathering of the people in Gods kingdom. this has been forgotten in today's version of the lords prayer which refers to bread as food.

The Bible is clear.....the Kingdom comes by forcibly removing every last vestige of corrupt human rulership and replacing it with God's rulership in the hands of his Christ. The final judgment will see the earth cleansed like it was in Noah's day, ready for a new beginning. This time it will not be by a flood. (Matthew 24:37-39)

the context seems to infer "Horror" of the last day rater than evil.

The Bible indicates that the final part of these last days will be harder to endure than anything that has happened in the past. The greatest tribulation in the history of mankind is about to be unleashed....and nothing can stop it. (Matthew 24:21) There will be survivors however. (Matthew 24:13)

As an Anglican with both liberal and "Unitarian" sympathies. I also have considerable sympathy with the people of the "Didache.
However their belief in the coming of the Kingdom in their lifetime has proved incorrect.
That does not mean that the version of the Lord's prayer that I have given is wrong, but it does mean that the "expectation" needs to be re-positioned.
I find it a more believable version than that used by most churches today.

As a former Anglican I can tell you that I believe that the church system as a whole is doomed. It in no way represents Christ or his teachings. It is too busy being friends with the world, and serving its own interests. (James 4:4) The bulk of what it teaches cannot be squeezed into scripture without a whole lot of tap-dancing. Jesus will not accept their weak excuses. (Matthew 7:21-23)

What is interesting, is that few mainstream Christians believe that the Kingdom will be established on earth but in heaven. which is a more understandable belief. Their belief is that they will go to heaven when they die and live in God's Kingdom. few people still believe that we will rise from our graves. ( which is not something I can support either)

This is something that I believe has been bent all out of shape. Not all Christians go to heaven because those chosen for that privilege are going to be 'kings and priests' (Revelation 20:6) If they are going to be rulers and priests then they need subjects and sinners for whom to intercede.
Jesus said that the "meek shall inherit the earth" so apparently the heavenly rulers have earthly subjects, which makes sense in light of Revelation 21:2-4.

"I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

This is the rulership of the kingdom coming down from heaven to rule over redeemed mankind. The "former things" that created pain, suffering and death, have passed away.

Now that is the good news of the Kingdom!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I would assume that closer to the apostolic period, things were much different, i.e. before the Romans fully corrupted Christianity. Mind you they were in a pathetic condition when that happened so its not surprising that what happened in Judaism, happened to Christianity as well. They have the same scenario.....starting off well, and fallen human nature leading them to add their own explanation of things and adopting beliefs and attitudes that did not belong.


It is my understanding from what precedes the Lord's Prayer that it was to be a model for Christians upon which to base their own prayers. He told his disciples to "pray this way".....not "pray this prayer".

It was Jesus praying on their behalf, not a collective praying that one prayer.



Yes, the coming of the Kingdom was expected to fix everything that was wrong with the world. But God's counting of time is not like ours. It was a long way off, but God kept the expectation high. It gave each generation hope that it would come in their time. But it will not come unless the greatest tribulation in the history of mankind comes first. (Matthew 24:21) But, there will be survivors (Matthew 24:13)



Yet you can see by the context that it was never meant as such. Christian prayer was not liturgical like the prayers of Israel. Their worship does not seem to be either. Rather it was a coming together to discuss God's word and to offer praise and thanks to God. The disciples sang songs of praise to God when in prison. It was not formal but more educational and upbuilding as Christians knew their fellow believers as a family. and helped each other out as needed. (Hebrews 10:24-25)



Actually Jesus said that he had come to make God's name known to his disciples. They already knew who God was, so it was more about the name that God had made known to Israel.

Exodus 3:13-15....
"And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"
And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation." (The Complete Tanach)

The Jews had stopped using the divine name in their speech, but it was still visible in their Hebrew text. So verse 15 reads..... "So shall you say to the children of Israel, יְהֹוָ֞ה (Yahweh, Jehovah) of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation."

It is apparent that God did not want his illustrious name to be lost, but Israel managed to do it anyway.



Jesus said it wasn't going to be obvious to a lot of people in his day, because their expectations were not accurate.
Luke 17:20-21....
" Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.” (NASB)

Knowing what he meant here is important because many people misinterpret the last part of that scripture. Jesus was speaking about himself as the representative of God's Kingdom, its appointed King, who was right there among those wicked Pharisees and they rejected him. The actual coming of the Kingdom to this earth was still a long way off, in the time of the last ruling kings....the ones we have now. (Daniel 2:44)



Asking for God's will to be "done on earth as it is in heaven" is not asking for inconsistency. The Kingdom will bring righteousness with it and crush unrighteousness out of existence. (2 Peter 3:13) Only then can God's will be done in any satisfactory way "on earth as it is in heaven".....having evicted all rebels from both realms. (Revelation 12:7-12) First satan and his hordes are tossed out of heaven to do their darndest on earth before the final showdown. I think it is not too far away.



The Bible is clear.....the Kingdom comes by forcibly removing every last vestige of corrupt human rulership and replacing it with God's rulership in the hands of his Christ. The final judgment will see the earth cleansed like it was in Noah's day, ready for a new beginning. This time it will not be by a flood. (Matthew 24:37-39)



The Bible indicates that the final part of these last days will be harder to endure than anything that has happened in the past. The greatest tribulation in the history of mankind is about to be unleashed....and nothing can stop it. (Matthew 24:21) There will be survivors however. (Matthew 24:13)



As a former Anglican I can tell you that I believe that the church system as a whole is doomed. It in no way represents Christ or his teachings. It is too busy being friends with the world, and serving its own interests. (James 4:4) The bulk of what it teaches cannot be squeezed into scripture without a whole lot of tap-dancing. Jesus will not accept their weak excuses. (Matthew 7:21-23)



This is something that I believe has been bent all out of shape. Not all Christians go to heaven because those chosen for that privilege are going to be 'kings and priests' (Revelation 20:6) If they are going to be rulers and priests then they need subjects and sinners for whom to intercede.
Jesus said that the "meek shall inherit the earth" so apparently the heavenly rulers have earthly subjects, which makes sense in light of Revelation 21:2-4.

"I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

This is the rulership of the kingdom coming down from heaven to rule over redeemed mankind. The "former things" that created pain,suffering and death, have passed away.

Now that is the good news of the Kingdom!

I will not answer you post point for point, as I had started out with this preamble...
It is important to state that what I have written is in the context of the Didache which was written circa 50-60 CE by the earliest Jewish- Christian communities and as used by them to train their converts.

There is no indication anywhere in the text that they knew of any other "Christian Scriptures" nor had any concept of the Trinity, the virgin birth, or any other later manifestations of Christian tradition. They did teach how to baptise, and the practice of the weekly Eucharist, and the version of the Lords Prayer given in my previous post and shown below.

For instance your observation...
It is my understanding from what precedes the Lord's Prayer that it was to be a model for Christians upon which to base their own prayers. He told his disciples to "pray this way".....not "pray this prayer".
It was Jesus praying on their behalf, not a collective praying that one prayer.
Is an anachronism, because they had no access to, and knew nothing of the New Testament scriptures.
Though some of Pauls epistles and some PROTO scripture had undoubtedly been written by 50-70 CE. They had not yet been compiled, nor had the individual writings been widely circulated.
The form of the Didache indicates that it had originally been an oral work, and most likey predates the 50-70 CE. in any event nowhere in it, does it indicate it knew of any of these written scriptures.

What is so interesting about the Didache version of the lords prayer are the differences and similarities to the versions that have come down to us in the gospels. ( as shown in my original post.)
It was in use at the time when wandering prophets were still commonplace, and when there were people still alive who had heard the Lord speaking.
In this context I am prepared to give it considerable credence in being an accurate understanding of the meaning, intent and usage of the original lords prayer. The people of the Didache did use it as a "set" prayer but they also used long extemporary prayers during their daily prayers and weekly Eucharist.

This Logic also applies to the anachronistic use of your other biblical references, when interpreting the meanings of the Didache. As they had no access to those verses, they must either have been using direct teachings of Jesus or those of his disciples or perhaps inventing them for them selves.
That last option seem unlikely in view of their general and apparent closeness to some of Jesus teachings as we now receive them today, and the lack of any reason to adulterate what they had received for them selves. Their practices were as yet unaltered by the future "Politics" or "Inventions" of later of Christianity.

I recommend reading "The Didache Text,Translation, Analysis and Commentary by Aaron Milavec.
Which is a shorter version, for students, of his complete Academic work ...
The Didache : Faith, Hope and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. Aaron Milavec

I have both. but be warned the larger work is hard going unless you enjoy detailed Academic works with deep references. I have come to conclusions about the Didache that he has not, as he leave it to the reader to come to their own conclusions in terms of faith. It is primarily an academic work.

 

[pearl]

I don't understand what the ^ above^ has to do with Jesus' words found at Matthew 6:7

Mt 6:2 a warning reflecting an attitude from controversies at the time of Jesus' ministry and opposition between Pharisaic Judaism and the church of Matthew.

6:7 What Christian prayer ought to be like in contrast with the pagans.

Matthew’s form of the "Our Father" follows the liturgical tradition of his church. Luke’s less developed form also represents the liturgical tradition known to him, but it is probably closer than Matthew’s to the original words of Jesus. None of this will make sense unless it is understood that the churches, some speaking Hebrew/Aramaic and others Greek, had their form of worship (liturgy) there was no Gospel to follow, the Gospel followed the churches.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Mt 6:2 a warning reflecting an attitude from controversies at the time of Jesus' ministry and opposition between Pharisaic Judaism and the church of Matthew.
6:7 What Christian prayer ought to be like in contrast with the pagans.
Matthew’s form of the "Our Father" follows the liturgical tradition of his church. Luke’s less developed form also represents the liturgical tradition known to him, but it is probably closer than Matthew’s to the original words of Jesus. None of this will make sense unless it is understood that the churches, some speaking Hebrew/Aramaic and others Greek, had their form of worship (liturgy) there was no Gospel to follow, the Gospel followed the churches.

Thank you for your reply.
Because of the use of different wording at Matthew and Luke then to me would be 'guideline examples' of what Jesus apparently presented at 'many' different times, Not just similar samples said at two times, but a model to follow.
To me Christian prayer would Not be like the people of the gentile nations.
.... do not multiply words.... ( <- the non-Christians were multiplying words - Matthew 6:7)
So, by contrast repeating same words over-and-over again would Not be Christian prayer.
Repeating verses from Scripture can be a good thing to do, but such reciting is Not Christian prayer.
Instead of any memorized prayers, then one's own words from one's heart, in Jesus' name is what God wants.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The "kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 4:17). The "kingdom of heaven" is power and spirit. If someone comes among you, and preaches the kingdom of heaven, and can not heal the sick, or cast out demons, then the kingdom of heaven is probably not at hand, and "has not come upon you".
Matthew 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Luke 17 19 Then Jesus said to him, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well!” 20When asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God will not come with observable signs. 21Nor will people say, ‘Look, here it is,’ or ‘There it is.’ For you see, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”…

[/QUOTE]
I wonder why did you stop at Luke 17:19-21 and did Not continue with Luke 19:11-15 ______
Jesus was in the midst among those hate filled Pharisees - Luke 17:20-21
Whose hearts were 'filled within' with what Jesus said at Mark 7:20-23.
It is Not until Luke 17:22 (after Jesus concludes what he says to the Pharisees) then Jesus addresses his disciples.
Then, Jesus is addressing his disciples, and notice what he says about the kingdom appearing at Luke 19:11 B.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What did Jesus mean when He said, “The kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21, KJV)?
Don't misunderstand, I do not mean to devalue the Bible. I simply recognize man's part in its manufacture.
In the beginning was The Word and the word was with God and The Word was God. John 1:1

I find Jesus was addressing the hate-filled Pharisees at Luke 17:20-21, so Jesus was within their midst among them.
It is Not until verse 22 that Jesus addresses his disciples (after he concludes what he says to his enemy Pharisees)
If you continue reading to Luke 19:11-15 there you will find when the Kingdom of God should appear____________
What was ' within ' (inside) those hate-filled Pharisees is described by Jesus at Mark 7:20-23_____________
No way is God's Kingdom of Daniel 2:44 literally inside or within anyone.

As far as John 1:1 compared with Acts of the Apostles 28:6 B the letter 'a' was added at Acts but omitted at John 1.
So, even though the same Greek grammar rule applies at both verses it is context that helps explain.
John 1:18 helps us see that the Word was divine, but Not the Creator God.
No man has seen God, but people saw Jesus - 1 John 4:12; Exodus 33:20.
Thus, pre-human Jesus was "WITH" God as we would be 'with' another person, but Not be the other person.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I think if you take it sentence by sentence the meaning, or what is asked for, becomes clear.
Jesus said the kingdom of Heaven is within.
Also, have you heard? The current Pope plans to change the line, "lead us not into temptation" so as to read instead, "Abandon us not into temptation."

I think it is clear Jesus is speaking to his enemies at Luke 17:20-21.
What those hate-filled enemy Pharisees had ' within' was what Jesus said at Mark 7:20-23.
It is Not until Luke 17:22 that Jesus addresses his followers.
What Jesus tells his followers at Luke 19:11-15 it that the kingdom would Not immediately or instantly appear.
So, Jesus was Not contradicting himself, but to the enemy Pharisees he was saying that he 'Jesus' (as God's king designate) was within their midst right there among them so they had No excuse for their bad behavior.

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

Sit down, grab a coffee, plan to spend quite a few minutes reading my latest novel......

He was the King of God's Kingdom and he was right there, "in their midst" (an alternative rendering in the NASB) walking among them, but they only saw him as another trouble maker.....another fake Messiah. He did not live up to their expectations to liberate Israel and to elevate them to their proper status.

I sincerely believe were he to return today as a man in their midst in Israel they would do the same. Call him names, etc...
And in America, due to all the wolves in the pulpit over the years, and the real loon cultists that died after killing their flock (Jim Jones), he'd be accused of having a god complex, being a cult leader, or institutionalized due to strong delusions.

The truth has been so overshadowed by those in allegiance to the lord of this world that our eyes are numb to the shining of the light.

You are not entirely wrong because your own observation is very true, but it doesn't go far enough to gel with the rest of scripture. The Kingdom itself is not an internal experience but a real government.....one that we humans should have been enjoying all this time. God will bring it back. (Revelation 21:2-4)

That's true.
However, remember too, our souls are from God. "Have I not told you ye are God's". God knew his own before the foundation of the world. It is an illusion we are separate.
That's why Jesus said, I stand at the door and knock.
The closed door of our own consciousness and awareness of that which empowers our spirits that are encased in this flesh.

Committing ourselves to Christ is an internal experience involving hearts and minds. The Kingdom is the way we get back to God with Jesus leading us. (Ephesians 1:8-10)

No one comes to the Father but through me.

Well, actually 'Jesus' is the English version of 'Yeshua'. The Greek is "Iēsous".

Yahweh's name in English is Jehovah.

There is no "J" in the Hebrew language....but to change all the "J" names in the Bible now, would be a bit silly.

Yes it was the meaning of the name Immanuel that applied. God's son was not known by any other name than Jesus (Yeshua).

Indeed. This is why in his time Yeshua was never called by "Jesus", when in ancient Palestine ministering to fellow Jews and those few Gentiles he blessed with his grace.

Not enough to alter the message. Anyone can glean the truth from any Bible if they are aided by God's spirit. It is impossible to understand the Bible without that vital ingredient. (John 6:44)

Amen. As I've said, the Bible was not written for unbelievers to comprehend. (understand)

Did you know, that despite the magnitude of his far reaching prophesies, Daniel is not included among the prophets in the Tanach?

It has always been my presumption until reading your remarks.
Then I had to research it.
Why Isn’t the Book of Daniel Part of the Prophets?
Source Chabad:
Why Isn’t the Book of Daniel Part of the Prophets? - The difference between divine inspiration and prophecy

Jewish tradition credits Ezra with beginning the compiling and cataloging of the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, and it says that this was completed by Nehemiah. Ezra was certainly well equipped for such a work, being one of the inspired Bible writers himself as well as a priest, scholar, and official copyist of sacred writings. (Ezra 7:1-11) There is no reason to doubt the traditional view that the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was fixed by the end of the fifth century B.C.E.

I defer to your knowledge about this.

Whether it was opposers who called the believers Christians or it was God by Christ Jesus, the calling of them by this name was within the divine providence according to the Scriptural usage of the Greek verb used.
In any case, Jesus and his apostles were used to insults...it was water off a duck's back. And the designation "Christians" simply meant followers of Jesus.

We can postulate as we like. What the word means now and has through the centuries is what counts. And, the root of his teachings are still here. With over 2 billion people holding to them faithfully and by God's grace.

Yes, man did play a role in its printing and distribution, but I don't believe that man played any role in its contents, except as its subjects....and secretaries.

OK

If the Logos was "with" God, how can he be God? If someone is "with" you...are they you?

I think the scripture speaks for God himself.
There is no thing that is not of the creator. Yeshua Emmanuel was begat upon Mary by the holy spirit that is God.
Yeshua was brought forth (begat), not created.

J

ohn 1:18 says "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him."
If no man has seen God...and if Jesus was "fully man and fully God" as some people claim, then how many saw Jesus? John 1:18 does not contradict John 1:1....it clarifies it. Jesus is a god (a mighty one) but he is "begotten" which means he needed a 'begetter'....someone to produce him. (Colossians 1:15-17; Revelation 3:14) Jesus is a creation of his Father....his "firstborn".

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.
I defer to Yeshua when he said numerous times, he was God. As in, when you have seen me you have seen the Father. And, I and the Father are one.
John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

24 other verses.

Understanding the word "theos" in Greek opens up a whole different scenario to what is presented in Christendom. Have you done any study on this?

The Greeks were polytheists and all their gods had names. When referring to a particular god they used its name, collectively they were just called "the gods". But now the Jews were telling of another God which was the only true God, but the Jews had lost his name. The only way to identify this "god" (literally a "mighty one") was to use the definite article "THE". So in all reference to distinguish this god from other "mighty ones", (like Jesus) was to call him "ho theos" or "THE God". Reading John 1:1 you will see in the Greek that "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with "ho theos" and the Word was theos." Only one god in that verse is THE God. Jesus is a divine "mighty one" but he is not THE God....and never once claimed to be.

I have studied. Are you aware that the Hebrews were polytheists at one time?

And I've just shared one source link that shows you many times that Yeshua did tell his followers he is God. There were not many god's in Yeshua's teaching. (Hear oh Israel our God is one. And the verse wherein God himself says he is the one and only and beside him there is no other).
Yeshua/Jesus would have never claimed to be any god that was not Father God.

Paul was chosen for completely different reasons to the 12. He was an apostle (one sent forth) but he was assigned a special mission in which his education, his background as a Pharisee, his Roman citizenship and his zeal for God's worship would be used in a different but powerful way. He contributed more to Christian scripture than any of the 12. In fact only three of the 12 wrote books of the accepted Bible canon.

I leave you to your belief.

No one can read the Bible and make sense of it without guidance. (Acts of the Apostles 8:26-36)

Agreed. As was said by you and agreed to by myself earlier in this posting.

I should be.....but its one of my main failings.

I am never satisfied with a surface knowledge of the important things.

The study is like an artichoke. The more layers one uncovers with their zeal to learn and reach the truth, the more they find that makes them seek ever more strongly.