Thursday, 6 February 2014

The Pater Noster is not the Filius or Mater Noster!

The Pater Noster
is not the
Filius or Mater Noster!
Dedicated to Kate Bates

 John 20:16-18 - New International Version (NIV)
16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).
17 Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.

(The bold is mine)

There is no way that RABBONI or RABB can ever be translated as “teacher”!   The Arabs who have preserved for more than 1400 years the best form of Arabic in their Holy Book, the Qur’ân or Furqân, Al Rabb is an Arabic expression for The God, The Lord, The Sustainer, The Cherisher, The King (Al Malik or The Supreme Master), which in the Islamic context refers to ALLAH, The One and Only God.  
It must also be remembered that Aramaic was not a pure language but a lingua franca and Hebrew was just a Palestinian (Arab) dialect that had its origins from those who crossed the Euphrates (including Abraham) and who settled in Palestine.  

To this day most Christians are confused about who really is THE LORD!  Jesus was “Lord”, but only a Servant of THE SUPREME LORD, “The Father” (ABBA), Allah, Al Rabb, rendered more or less imperfectly in other languages by Bog, Got, Deus, Theos, Bhagavan, Pati, Beylerbeyi (Lord of Lords) or simply THE LORD, meaning God Almighty.  But, the English Lord by itself can by no means convey the meaning of the Almighty God, the Sole Almighty Creator of everything.  We have the House of Lords, and English Lords by the tons!  Christianity is just poor translations of already heavily corrupted (or censored) Latin and Greek texts based on other heavily corrupted and censored non original texts.  

And if you want to really grasp the Lord’s Prayer as Jesus uttered it in his own language, there is only one way to get even close to doing that: learn the ancient Palestinian dialect of Aramaic. Translating words from one language into another always involves some transformation of meaning. There is simply no way to fully grasp the precise meaning and nuance of anything in another language than by becoming intimately acquainted with the language and culture in question. - James F. McGrath 

So, right at the beginning we have a huge problem with the ambiguous, wrong, and misleading word or title attributed to Jesus.  It would be blasphemous for any Arab (even non Muslim Arabs) of the time to address Muhammad YA RABB instead of YA MUHAMMAD, YA RASSUUL ALLAH, etc.  Translations into Greek and Latin did no justice at all to “Semitic” cultural and other realities.  They kept so few “Semitic” terms that it can easily be suspected that most of their writings were just concoctions.

Luke 6:46: New International Version
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?

But, Jesus did not utter the word “Lord” itself! 

Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

 Jesus is here promising heaven to everyone who DOES THE WILL OF HIS (THEIR) FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN!

But, later Christians, Paulians and Romans invented a new religion where they do not have to do the will of Jesus’ “Father” anymore, because they had manufactured a religion or were forced to accept and believe in a religion where Christians are not saved from “Hell” (or the evil consequence of their own actions) by doing the will of Jesus’ “Father” anymore, but only by their faith in the New Jesus according to the “Gospel of Paul” who Paul claimed to be in fact the “Gospel of Jesus” revealed to him alone, not even to the Apostles of Jesus.  To make things worse Emperor Constantine sparked the utter paganisation of the Christian religion by falsely claiming like Paul that Jesus spoke to him. (Many modern Christian preachers and converts alike claim Jesus spoke or speaks to them in order to convert others!)

Christians do not believe in what Jesus really preached, but in what Paul preached, and in one of the many translations into mainly European languages of what Jesus is claimed to have preached for which indisputable evidence does not exist.  When Jesus is recorded to have ordered or advised the Israelites to worship “ The Father”, THE GOD, AL LAH, the Christians worship instead “The Son” and the famous Pater Noster became thus corrupted over and over again to the Filius Noster.  Mater Noster, the worship of Saints, Relics, Churches (dogma), and Apparitions, and so on. 

The Bible itself does not protect the Christian doctrine as it cannot be relied upon.  For example, anonymous Matthew and anonymous Luke cannot possible have recorded the real words of Jesus in what we can clearly see here:

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts (?),
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
            but deliver us from evil.

Father, (missing) ?
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come.
. (missing) ?
.  (missing) ?
Give us each day our daily bread,
and forgive us our sins (?)
for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us.
And lead us not into temptation.
. (missing) ?
The others are the Byzantines

Making the “Father God” equal to the “Unique Son” Servant of God, and to the “Only Begotten Son of God” or making “The Son” replace “The Father” is totally absurd.  Further, having debts and committing sins cannot be the same.  So, which one is it?  “Trespasses” seem more appropriate than “debts” or “sins”.  As we can see, the translated Christian texts (as no originals exist) from Greek and Latin are very heavily corrupted and not the very words of Jesus (or those of God as He never claimed He revealed anything to Jesus or how He did so!) and there are in the English language several different translations of “The Lord’s Prayer”.  Christians have corrupted “THE LORD’S PRAYER” into the “LORD’S PRAYER”.  In a “Semitic” tongue like Arabic, this makes a huge difference like between LAH and AL LAH!

Christians worship both “The Father” and “The Son” or “The Son” that has replaced “The Father” when Jesus clearly ordered (advised) them to worship only “The Father”, The Lord God, and NOT him “Lord Jesus”.  A further corruption (addition) is contained in the doxology* of certain Sects, Rites or Churches added to The Lord’s Prayer:

"For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory: of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen."

* A doxology (from the Greek “glory”, "saying") is a short hymn of praises to God in various Christian worship services, often added to the end of canticles, psalms and hymns.

1. Anonymous Mathew 6:12 uses the term debts (Latin debita).
2. Older English versions of The Lord's Prayer use the term trespasses.
3. Ecumenical versions often use the term sins.

Catholic (without doxology) and 1928 Anglican Book of Common Prayer (with doxology)

Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

[The 1928 BCP adds:
For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever.]

1662 Anglican Book of Common Prayer (BCP)

Our Father, which art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come;
thy will be done,
in earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation;
but deliver us from evil.

[For thine is the kingdom,
the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever.]

1988 English Language Liturgical Consultation (ELLC)

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those who sin against us.
Save us from the time of trial
and deliver us from evil.

[For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours
now and for ever.]

Note: The square brackets in three of the texts above “indicate the doxology often added at the end of the prayer by Protestants and, in a slightly different form, by Eastern Orthodox ("For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory: of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen." (Wikipedia)

 The Lord's Prayer in Greek

Matthew 6:9–13 (English Standard Version)
"Pray then like this: 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts,  as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.'"

Luke 11:2–4 (English Standard Version)
And he said to them, "When you pray, say: 'Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.'"

There are similarities between The Lord's Prayer and both biblical and post-biblical material in Jewish prayer especially Kiddushin 81a (Babylonian).

"Hallowed be thy name" is reflected in the Kaddish

"Lead us not into sin" is echoed in the Morning Blessings of Jewish prayer.

A blessing said by some Jewish communities after the Evening Shema includes a phrase quite similar to the opening of The Lord's Prayer: 

"Our God in heaven, hallow thy name, and establish thy kingdom forever, and rule over us for ever and ever. Amen." 

There are parallels also in 1 Chronicle 29:10-18.

The Lord's Prayer exists in the Aramaic language only in the form given to it in the probably 2nd-century Syriac Peshitta version (a dialect of Aramaic) of the New Testament.  Syriac is not the original Palestinian Aramaic and differs in some respects from Galilean and other Palestinian dialects of Aramaic.

« In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. »

The Pater Noster is in the name of THE FATHER ALONE and not also in the name of “The Son” and “The Holy Spirit”. 

Anonymous John made Jesus a "Unique" Son of God (of a single kind, monogenēs), but Apologist Jerome (c. 347-420) made him “The Begotten” Son God (unigenitus), that is, God biologically sired Jesus (using Mary as partner!).

Dr. Raymond Brown informs us that the innovated concept of Jesus being the "only begotten son" of the Father was developed in the fourth century, injected by Jerome into the Latin Bible to refute the claims made by Bishop Arius (d. 336) and his associates that Father alone was really God and Jesus was made (created) and not begotten.

(The Opening of the Divine Writ)
Mecca Period (The First Surah)
Muhammad Asad (Leopold Weiss)

THIS SURAH is also called

Fatihat al-Kitab ("The Opening of the Divine Writ"),
Umm al-Kitab ("The Essence of the Divine Writ"),
Surat al-Hamd ("The Surah of Praise"),
Asas al-Qur'an ("The Foundation of the Qur'an"),

and is known by several other names as well. It is mentioned elsewhere in the Qur'an as As-Sab' al-Mathani ("The Seven Oft-Repeated [Verses]") because it is repeated several times in the course of each of the five daily prayers. According to Bukhari, the designation Umm al-Kitab was given to it by the Prophet himself, and this in view of the fact that it contains, in a condensed form, all the fundamental principles laid down in the Qur'an: the principle of God's oneness and uniqueness, of His being the originator and fosterer of the universe, the fount of all life-giving grace, the One to whom man is ultimately responsible, the only power that can really guide and help; the call to righteous action in the life of this world ("guide us the straight way"); the principle of life after death and of the organic consequences of man's actions and behaviour (expressed in the term "Day of Judgment"); the principle of guidance through God's message-bearers (evident in the reference to "those upon whom God has bestowed His blessings") and, flowing from it, the principle of the continuity of all true religions (implied in the allusion to people who have lived - and erred - in the past); and, finally, the need for voluntary self-surrender to the will of the Supreme Being and, thus, for worshipping Him alone. It is for this reason that this surah has been formulated as a prayer, to be constantly repeated and reflected upon by the believer.

"The Opening" was one of the earliest revelations bestowed upon the Prophet. Some authorities (for instance, 'Ali ibn Abi Talib) were even of the opinion that it was the very first revelation; but this view is contradicted by authentic Traditions quoted by both Bukhari and Muslim, which unmistakably show that the first five verses of surah 96 ("The Germ-Cell") constituted the beginning of revelation. It is probable, however, that whereas the earlier revelations consisted of only a few verses each, "The Opening" was the first surah revealed to the Prophet in its entirety at one time: and this would explain the view held by 'Ali.

1:1 In the name of God, The Most Gracious, The Dispenser of Grace

1:2 All praise is due to God alone, the Sustainer of all the worlds,

1:3 the Most Gracious, the Dispenser of Grace,

(1:4) Lord of the Day of Judgment!

1:5 Thee alone do we worship; and unto Thee alone do we turn for aid.

1:6 Guide us the straight way

1:7 the way of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed Thy blessings, not of those who have been condemned [by Thee], nor of those who go astray!

1 According to most of the authorities, this invocation (which occurs at the beginning of every surah with the exception of surah 9 constitutes an integral part of "The Opening" and is, therefore, numbered as verse 1. In all other instances, the invocation "in the name of God" precedes the surah as such, and is not counted among its verses. - Both the divine epithets rahman and rahim are derived from the noun rahmah, which signifies "mercy", "compassion", "loving tenderness" and, more comprehensively, "grace". From the very earliest times, Islamic
scholars have endeavoured to define the exact shades of meaning which differentiate the two terms. The best and simplest of these explanations is undoubtedly the one advanced by Ibn al-Qayyim (as quoted in Manar I,48): the term rahman circumscribes the quality of abounding
grace inherent in, and inseparable from, the concept of God's Being, whereas rahim expresses the manifestation of that grace in, and its effect upon, His creation - in other words, an aspect of His activity.

2 In this instance, the term "worlds" denotes all categories of existence both in the physical and the spiritual sense. The Arabic expression rabb - rendered by me as "Sustainer" - embraces a wide complex of meanings not easily expressed by a single term in another language.

It comprises the ideas of having a just claim to the possession of anything and, consequently, authority over it, as well as of rearing, sustaining and fostering anything from its inception to its final completion. Thus, the head of a family is called rabb ad-dar ("master of the house") because he has authority over it and is responsible for its maintenance; similarly, his wife is called rabbat ad-dar ("mistress of the house"). Preceded by the definite article al, the designation rabb is applied, in the Qur'an, exclusively to God as the sole fosterer and sustainer of all creation - objective as well as conceptual - and therefore the ultimate source of all authority.

3 i.e., by vouchsafing to them prophetic guidance and enabling them to avail themselves thereof.

4 According to almost all the commentators, God's "condemnation" (ghadab, lit., "wrath") is synonymous with the evil consequences which man brings upon himself by wilfully rejecting God's guidance and acting contrary to His injunctions. Some commentators (e.g., Zamakhshari)
interpret this passage as follows: "... the way of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed Thy blessings - those who have not been condemned [by Thee], and who do not go astray": in other words, they regard the last two expressions as defining "those upon whom Thou hast bestowed Thy blessings". Other commentators (e.g., Baghawi and Ibn Kathir) do not subscribe to this interpretation - which would imply the use of negative definitions - and understand the last verse of the surah in the manner rendered by me above. As regards the two categories of people following a wrong course, some of the greatest Islamic thinkers (e.g., Al-Ghazali
or, in recent times, Muhammad 'Abduh) held the view that the people described as having incurred "God's condemnation" - that is, having deprived themselves of His grace - are those who have become fully cognizant of God's message and, having understood it, have rejected it;
while by "those who go astray" are meant people whom the truth has either not reached at all, or to whom it has come in so garbled and corrupted a form as to make it difficult for them to recognize it as the truth (see 'Abduh in Manar 1,68 ff.).

(Message of the Quran translated and explained by Muhammad Asad Leopold Weiss - 1980)

Kate Bates
(Kaamilah bint Qadar)

N.B. The Pater Noster is 99% not from Jesus Christ!

Why are we Muslims and not Christians? - Dr. Laurence Brown

Published on 22 Jun 2012

Dr. Laurence Brown is a graduate of Cornell University, Brown University Medical School and George Washington University Hospital residency program, Laurence B. Brown is an ophthalmic surgeon, a retired Air Force officer, and the medical director and chief ophthalmologist of a major eye center. He is also an ordained interfaith minister with a doctorate in divinity and a PhD in religion, and the author of a number of books of comparative religion and reality-based fiction. His works can be found on his website, Like DigitalMimbar on Facebook: Follow DigitalMimbar on Twitter:


See also
Our Great Friend Professor Texe Marrs
Turned our Greatest Enemy

Religious Tolerance Around the World ???

11, powerful, photos, of, religious, tolerance, around, the, world, Image Credit: AP

11 Powerful Photos of Religious Tolerance Around the World


Ask a 20-something American what religion means to them, and chances are they'll say something like, "a thing of the past," or, "It’s not important." In fact, 19% of the U.S. population rejects faith and is deeply skeptical about it. This demographic of nonbelievers, also called the "nones" because of their survey responses, is growing faster than any other religion. You’d think religion was on its way out. 

The reality is religion is very much alive, and a mixture of hatred and fear of other religions is spurring conflicts across the globe as you read this. Extremist Christian militias in the Central African Republic are waging war on Muslims in an act they call revenge. A controversial book titled The Hindu and Penguin publishing house’s subsequent decision to pull it from shelves have sparked global outrage. A bill in Israel to legally distinguish between Christian and Muslim Arabs is advancing in Israel’s parliament. A flight was grounded yesterday after schoolchildren panicked upon seeing a man (a masters student in Iranian studies) write in Arabic in his notebook. The list goes on. 

The global community has the same goal: to stop these conflicts. While those in power need to address these conflicts and stop them where possible, is this enough? Can a mostly responsive strategy, where Band-Aids are applied to broken bones, work in an increasingly diverse world?

Forgiveness, compassion and peace (yes, I am absolutely serious) are more than universal values or world ideals. They're security solutions. Teaching them might be the strongest cure for religious wounds, allowing people to stop the cause of conflict before it starts, foregoing revenge or "justice." If the world doesn’t know what peace looks like, it can’t try to achieve it. Here’s a quick look: 

1. Religion as a Force of Peace

A woman holds a sign that reads, "We love each other," in Tahrir Square during the 2011 uprising against former President Mubarak.

2. Creating New Alliances

Via: Shazron
Different religious members talk at an interfaith event.

3. Natural Friendships

Via: Adam Jones
Two friends, a Christian and a Muslim, outside Ethiopia's national museum.

4. Protesting Conflict

Via: Ben Sutherland
Protesters hold a large "Coexist" banner at a 2002 anti-war rally.

5. Creating Policy Solutions

Via: UN Climate Change
A snapshot of the United Nation's Interfaith Conference on Climate Change.

6. Celebrating Unique Backgrounds

Via: U.S. Embassy Tel Aviv
An image of from the Trust-Emun's Women's Interfaith Conference, where more than 60 Jewish, Christian and Druze members celebrated their different faiths together. 

7. Sharing, Not Eliminating, Difference

Via: Yossi Seliger
A Muslim student and Jewish Holocaust survivor holding hands in Auschwitz-Birkenau during a remembrance event. ???

8. Uniting in the Most Basic of Situtations

Interfaith athletes play in the Vatican's cricket club.

9. Coming Together in Times of Crisis

In the wake of the 2013 Boston bombings, religious leaders held a public interfaith prayer service.

10. Sharing Different Experiences

A Pakistani Islamic cleric joins a bishop and other minority leaders to cut a cake at an interfaith Christmas dinner in Pakistan.

11. Rewriting History

Children in a Kurdistan interfaith camp dance together.

Like us on Facebook:
Marguerite Ward's avatar image Marguerite Ward
Marguerite Ward is a journalist and editor based in New York. Connect with her @forwardist. 

No comments:

Post a Comment