Spirituality
23 Sep 18
25 Sep 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneIt is "incoherent" to you simply because you do not believe it.
[b]Just because you cannot reconcile what you think with what is written?
Because what is written is not coherent.[/b]
Originally posted by @sonshipBut it is God's will. "Thy will be done" is the entire focus of the prayer. It matters not "by whom". If anything, it's inferred that it be "by God" and "by us".Could someone with more knowledge/experience explain: who is the "by whom" implied in the line "Your will be done"? In other words, is the prayer really saying, "Your will be done by you [God]"--as in, "May you do to/in the world whatever you see fit"? Or is the prayer really saying, "Your will be done by us"--as in, "May we do to/in the world whate ...[text shortened]... ng for His good pleasure. " (Phil 2:12 RcV)
I thought it was a very good question.
The prayer doesn't mention "by whom" because it's simply not important, and by focusing on this unimportant detail, the importance of God's will is lessened.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Sep 18
2 edits
But it is God's will.
Hi Suzziane, Long time no squabble.
The prayer of Matthew 6:9-13, offered as a model really, is for the disciples to learn how to pray, more than [I] "the Lord's prayer". I would say the real "Lord's Prayer" is in John chapter 17.
They are surely related though.
I agree that this prayer of Matthew 6 includes a petition for God to do His will - and that on the earth as it is being already carried out in heaven.
"You then pray in this way:
Our Father who is in the heavens, Your name be sanctified,
Your kingdom come, Your will be done, as in heaven, so also on earth." (vs. 9,10)
The doing of His will is the coming of His kingdom to the earth.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Suz,
"Thy will be done" is the entire focus of the prayer. It matters not "by whom". If anything, it's inferred that it be "by God" and "by us".
In light of the whole rest of the Bible I think it should mean God in man operating, working, infusing man with a willingness to cooperate with God's heart. Man blended and united with the Father who begets actual children with His own divine nature.
Arriving they do eventually at a seamless interweaving of living such as it is Jesus Christ Himself again on earth, yet in a great collective way.
His will is His realm of government.
His will is His realm of administration.
The ultimate kingdom is His -
"For Your's is the kingdom ..."
The power to thank for the kingdom's existence is also His.
"For Your's is ... the power..."
The eventual splendorous expression is also His.
"For Your's is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever .."
The prayer doesn't mention "by whom" because it's simply not important, and by focusing on this unimportant detail, the importance of God's will is lessened.
But to His possession is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.
It is not MAN's kingdom apart from "the [begetting] Father" .
It is not of MAN's power apart from the power of the Father's divine life and nature.
It eventually is not to MAN's glory apart from the Father's universal and total splendorous eternal expression.
Still reading ? I think, though is doesn't exactly mention who is performing His will, the implication of the kingdom, the power, and the glory being forever His - the Father's surely shows that He is the ultimate Source.
Man is the secondary and cooperating source.
As the Father is the source of the divine life and the sons and daughters of the Father are the recipients of the Father's life and nature.
Originally posted by @suzianneC'mon suzianne. Seems you've gone off half-cocked again.
It is "incoherent" to you simply because you do not believe it.
I'll lay it out as simply as I can for you.
My first post was in response to a post made by pudgenik which contained the following:
<<As far as the separation of the Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit. it is a mystery beyond most, if not all. We don't fully understand it, but we have faith in it.>>
Seems pudgenik acknowledges that when all is said and done, there's no making logical sense of it, yet they have faith in it regardless. Kudos to pudgenik for having the integrity for acknowledging it.
The reason I don't believe it is that it's incoherent. When all is said and done, there's no making logical sense of it. Just because you have faith in it regardless, doesn't change this fact. Just because you lack the integrity to acknowledge it, doesn't change this fact.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Sep 18
2 edits
The reason I don't believe it is that it's incoherent - when all is said and done, there's no making logical sense of it. Just because you have faith in it regardless doesn't change this fact.
Yes, the three-oneness of God is really hard, perhaps and probably, impossible to fully understand.
But are you being too hard on God?
Is it not understandable that when created man bumps up against the uncreated Eternal Life there would be at least something incomprehensible about Him to us?
If a two dimentional beings encounter a three dimensional creator of them, who assigned them existence on a two dimensional paper environment, might there not be at a least something which is incomprehensibly different about this Creator from themselves ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Sep 18
3 edits
ToO,
Draw back from the realm of the divine for just a moment to the natural realm of some scientists' beliefs.
Do you really understand how space/time could be CURVED? Space/Time, Einstein mused, CURVES around matter. And this curvature of Space/Time around mass is what gives rise to the phenomenon of GRAVITY ??
Aren't there some things even Agnostics and Atheists propose for our belief which can also be pretty incomprehensible?
We can experience God and enjoy God without fully comprehending everything about God.
Originally posted by @sonshipYes, the three-oneness of God is really hard, perhaps and probably, impossible to fully understand.The reason I don't believe it is that it's incoherent - when all is said and done, there's no making logical sense of it. Just because you have faith in it regardless doesn't change this fact.
Yes, the three-oneness of God is really hard, perhaps and probably, impossible to fully understand.
But are you being too hard on God?
Is ...[text shortened]... be at a least something which is incomprehensibly different about this Creator from themselves ?
But are you being too hard on God
Hey Jaywill.
Why do people so often speak as if it's going against God when it's going against a man-made doctrine that doesn't make sense?
Face it. The concept of the "trinity" was necessitated by the insistence of some people's belief that Jesus is literally God even though Jesus did not claim to be literally God during His ministry. So the doctrine of the "trinity" was invented in an ill-thought-out attempt to reconcile problems that arise from this belief. This despite that fact that the sensible thing to do is dispense with the belief that Jesus is literally God. Problem solved.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Sep 18
3 edits
Originally posted by @thinkofone
Face it. The concept of the "trinity" was necessitated by the insistence of some people's belief that Jesus is literally God. So the doctrine of the "trinity" was invented in an ill-thought-out attempt to reconcile problems that arise from this belief. This despite that fact that the sensible thing to do is dispense with the belief that Jesus is literally God. Problem solved.
The problem is not solved in that way.
You still have the words of Jesus.
You still have the deeds of Jesus.
You still have the proclamation of the Apostles of Jesus.
Problem not solved.
But most of all you still have people who claim -
"Before I met Jesus I didn't know God ... AT ALL" .
And you still have people who can talk a lot about the history of doctrine and church history and councils and objective religious information - yet God is simply not real to them.
So no problem is solved by simply going along with your natural mind and deciding " I will throw away this concept that Jesus is God incarnate. "
I think instead the one wanting to discard this thought should honestly go before God in prayer and ask -
"God, Why don't I know who you are ? What is it that you want from me ? I'm doing the best I can sometimes. But God is still not real to me. Why ? "
Now the beginnings of the solution to THAT problem is to humble yourself as a child and confess with "doubting Thomas"
"Thomas answered and said to Him [Jesus], My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28)
Problem solved. Confess this God-man Jesus as your Lord and your God. You'll have resolved a deeply personal problem which decision will issue in unspeakable peace in your heart that you have made finally, the right decision concerning Who Jesus is.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Sep 18
Originally posted by @handyandyDo you think the question/s posed are that simple?
Note to OP: Obviously, this isn't the place to get a simple, straightforward answer.
who is the "by whom" implied in the line "Your will be done"? In other words, is the prayer really saying, "Your will be done by you [God]"--as in, "May you do to/in the world whatever you see fit"? Or is the prayer really saying, "Your will be done by us"--as in, "May we do to/in the world whatever you see fit"?
The question is rather many layered and not all that simple.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Sep 18
1 edit
So the simple-most answer I could possibly give -
who is the "by whom" implied in the line "Your will be done"? In other words, is the prayer really saying, "Your will be done by you [God]"--as in, "May you do to/in the world whatever you see fit"? Or is the prayer really saying, "Your will be done by us"--as in, "May we do to/in the world whatever you see fit"?
... by God and His saints, pertaining to God's will.
25 Sep 18
4 edits
Originally posted by @sonshipLooks like you beat my edit:
[quote] Face it. The concept of the "trinity" was necessitated by the insistence of some people's belief that Jesus is literally God. So the doctrine of the "trinity" was invented in an ill-thought-out attempt to reconcile problems that arise from this belief. This despite that fact that the sensible thing to do is dispense with the belief that Jesus is lit ...[text shortened]... ble peace in your heart that you have made finally, the right decision concerning Who Jesus is.
<< The concept of the "trinity" was necessitated by the insistence of some people's belief that Jesus is literally God even though Jesus did not claim to be literally God during His ministry.>>
You must have started formulating your response right after I initially posted it.
You still have the words of Jesus.
Actually you don't. During His ministry, Jesus did not claim to be literally God.
But most of all you still have people who claim -
"Before I met Jesus I didn't know God ... AT ALL" .
C'mon jaywill. People make claims that aren't true all the time. Just because people claim something doesn't make it true.
Ezekiel 18
24“But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die.
Matthew 7
23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
People claim to "know God" and "know Jesus" even though they have not ceased to sin - have not ceased to do evil.
25 Sep 18
Originally posted by @handyandyIt’s not about obeying laws that is purely legalistic, its more about having a heart right which would get even better results. Obeying laws don’t change people making them better, but a new heart, spirit would.
"Thy will be done" is a prayer that we and others obey the laws specified by God.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
25 Sep 18
Originally posted by @suzianneBelieving in the Trinty does indeed require faith as the concept is an awkward 'add-on' to the Bible that stretches plausibility to its very limits. For every biblical passage that would seem to support the notion, another can be provided to negate it. How is that not an inconsistency?
Just because you cannot reconcile what you think with what is written?
Calling something an "inconsistency" just because you don't believe part of it isn't telling the whole truth.