If Jesus is God, why didn't he teach..

[Elijah John]

If Jesus is God, why didn't he teach anyone to pray to Jesus? If he had, do you think his apostles would have been able to take him seriously?

If the notion of praying to Jesus was ridiculous in his own day, then isn't the notion that Jesus is God also ridiculous?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 30 by For_The_Kingdom]

So Jesus commends his Spirit to the Father when he was martyred on the cross, and Stephen commends his Spirit to Jesus when he was martyred.

Interesting, and something to contemplate.

Stephen, like Paul, treats Jesus like God. But the fact that they related to Jesus in this way, does not mean Jesus taught them to do so.

[steveb1]

This is why NT prayer always addresses God "through" Jesus or "in Jesus's name".

I agree with much of your post here, Steve. But not in this quoted part. The most important NT prayer, the Lord's prayer, makes no mention of praying "in Jesus name". The only name alluded to in that most important prayer, is the name of the Father.

Only John's Jesus teaches to pray "in Jesus name".

Right, but when I was thinking of NT prayer, I meant prayer as performed and referred to by the authors, which is prayer to the Father through Jesus. So, in keeping with what the NT says about Jesus pointing away from himself and to the Father, Jesus would never be expected to mention himself in a prayer to the Father.

Moreover, no NT author cites the Lord's Prayer as a community prayer such as the Maranatha - there are no examples such as, "And then the brethren met to break bread and pray the Lord's prayer". The NT has the Lord's Supper as a communal practice, but never refers to repetitions of the Lord's Prayer as such a public practice. It does not exist in the NT beyond the respective Gospels' single mention of it. Its popularity as a "set", formal prayer seems to have emerged post-New Testament.

In any case, it may not have gone back to Jesus. Luke 11:2-4 attributes its format to John the Baptist - as Jesus's response when the crowd asks him to teach them how to pray - surprisingly, not how to pray like Jesus was praying - but rather how to pray like the Baptist used to pray.

[Elijah John]

This is why NT prayer always addresses God "through" Jesus or "in Jesus's name".

I agree with much of your post here, Steve. But not in this quoted part. The most important NT prayer, the Lord's prayer, makes no mention of praying "in Jesus name". The only name alluded to in that most important prayer, is the name of the Father.

Only John's Jesus teaches to pray "in Jesus name".

Right, but when I was thinking of NT prayer, I meant prayer as performed and referred to by the authors, which is prayer to the Father through Jesus. So, in keeping with what the NT says about Jesus pointing away from himself and to the Father, Jesus would never be expected to mention himself in a prayer to the Father.

Moreover, no NT author cites the Lord's Prayer as a community prayer such as the Maranatha - there are no examples such as, "And then the brethren met to break bread and pray the Lord's prayer". The NT has the Lord's Supper as a communal practice, but never refers to repetitions of the Lord's Prayer as such a public practice. It does not exist in the NT beyond the respective Gospels' single mention of it. Its popularity as a "set", formal prayer seems to have emerged post-New Testament.

In any case, it may not have gone back to Jesus. Luke 11:2-4 attributes its format to John the Baptist - as Jesus's response when the crowd asks him to teach them how to pray - surprisingly, not how to pray like Jesus was praying - but rather how to pray like the Baptist used to pray.

Perhaps Jesus and The Baptist had more in common than Trinitarian apologists would have us believe.

Perhaps, as HJ scholars have concluded, Jesus was a disciple of John for awhile.

Also, yes, perhaps there is no real epistle evidence of the disciples comunally praying the Lord's prayer, but this could be that the teachins of Paul supplanted the teachings of Jesus in their minds.

But there is early evidence from the Didache, that the Lord's prayer was important to the daily life of the disciple. That tome advocated it's "repetion" three times a day.

But yes, we are in complete agreement that Jesus never directed prayer or woship to himself, but only to the Father.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 33 by Elijah John]

Yeah, I don't have a problem at all with the notion that Jesus had for a time been JBap's disciple - it would explain Jesus's getting baptized and why he traveled the then-long-and-dangerous distance from Galilee to Judea for the express purpose of seeing the Baptizer. Seems pretty plausible. And John affords us the interesting story that, once Jesus's baptismal movement had begun to attract more followers than John's, Jesus moved his baptism site some distance away - perhaps out of deference to his former mentor (?). And yes, per your Didcache reference, it does seem that the "our Father" caught on fairly early and was very popular in some Christian groups.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 30 by For_The_Kingdom]

So Jesus commends his Spirit to the Father when he was martyred on the cross, and Stephen commends his Spirit to Jesus when he was martyred.

Interesting, and something to contemplate.

That is interesting..and thanks for bringing that to my attention, as I never correlated the two

Stephen, like Paul, treats Jesus like God.

But the fact that they related to Jesus in this way, does not mean Jesus taught them to do so.

Well, the very fact that he (Jesus) answered the prayer is the implication that he approved of the action, which is just as good as "teaching" it.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 30 by For_The_Kingdom]

So Jesus commends his Spirit to the Father when he was martyred on the cross, and Stephen commends his Spirit to Jesus when he was martyred.

Interesting, and something to contemplate.

That is interesting..and thanks for bringing that to my attention, as I never correlated the two

Stephen, like Paul, treats Jesus like God.

But the fact that they related to Jesus in this way, does not mean Jesus taught them to do so.

Well, the very fact that he (Jesus) answered the prayer is the implication that he approved of the action, which is just as good as "teaching" it.

Or Jesus was God's "receptionist", who simply recieved Stephen on God's behalf. Seems reasonable.

But that would not make Jesus "God".

[For_The_Kingdom]

Or Jesus was God's "receptionist", who simply recieved Stephen on God's behalf. Seems reasonable.

Sure, that does seem reasonable. The problem with that is; the scripture clearly states that Stephen prayed directly to Jesus. God (The Father) is just simply no where in context.

But that would not make Jesus "God".

Jesus answered prayers, was worshipped, and forgave sins..all of which are "God" duties.

[brianbbs67]

Or Jesus was God's "receptionist", who simply recieved Stephen on God's behalf. Seems reasonable.

Sure, that does seem reasonable. The problem with that is; the scripture clearly states that Stephen prayed directly to Jesus. God (The Father) is just simply no where in context.

But that would not make Jesus "God".

Jesus answered prayers, was worshipped, and forgave sins..all of which are "God" duties.

Unless as scripture says, they were delegated to Christ? Much like a prophet it the OT, God's intermediary on earth.

[shnarkle]

Or Jesus was God's "receptionist", who simply recieved Stephen on God's behalf. Seems reasonable.

Sure, that does seem reasonable. The problem with that is; the scripture clearly states that Stephen prayed directly to Jesus. God (The Father) is just simply no where in context.

The father can't be anywhere but in the context as Jesus pointed out that if you have seen the son, you have seen the father. The father can't be seen anywhere but through the son. Christ pointed out that the Father was in the son

But that would not make Jesus "God".

Jesus answered prayers, was worshipped, and forgave sins..all of which are "God" duties.[/quote]

One can't worship the father except through the son. The son is effectively transparent which fits right in with his teaching to "deny yourself". He would have led by example and by denying himself, makes the father known.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Unless as scripture says, they were delegated to Christ? Much like a prophet it the OT, God's intermediary on earth.

But those prophets in the OT weren't worshipped, though. Jesus was. And that "delegated" stuff might work for things like answering prayers and forgiveness of sins (and that is a big "might"), but it wont work for acts of worship.

Scripture is clear that rendering worship to anyone/anything besides God is a no-no...yet, we have scriptures of Jesus being worshipped.

1. Worship no one but God
2. Jesus was worshipped
3. Therefore, Jesus is God

After that is established, then those other duties like answering prayers and forgiving sins makes that much more sense.