Changing the Lord's Prayer

[lee_merrill]

God knew that Jesus would pass the test - He was led by the Spirit to the "proving ground" with every confidence of God that He would pass.

[Cow Poke]

So, Jesus wasn't led into temptation, He was led into PROVING.

[Sparko]

So, Jesus wasn't led into temptation, He was led into PROVING.

I have always wondered about the whole desert scenario.

1. Jesus is God so he couldn't sin.
2. As God he already had all of the world's kingdoms and power so what did Satan think he was tempting him with?
3. Surely Satan knew he couldn't corrupt Jesus so why did he even try?

[Cow Poke]

I have always wondered about the whole desert scenario.

1. Jesus is God so he couldn't sin.

I've heard that debated so much my head hurts -- that if it was impossible for Jesus to sin, then His life here on earth was pointless.

2. As God he already had all of the world's kingdoms and power so what did Satan think he was tempting him with?

Personally, I think that was exactly it! God was exposing Satan for what he is.

3. Surely Satan knew he couldn't corrupt Jesus so why did he even try?

I think I disagree with that. Satan was so full of pride that he tried to be equal with God, and may have been acting out of revenge or hate or.... I really don't know.

[tabibito]

It was technically possible for Jesus to sin. Without the potential for sin, it would be impossible to be tempted.

[Sparko]

I've heard that debated so much my head hurts -- that if it was impossible for Jesus to sin, then His life here on earth was pointless.

He came to be an example and to teach us, and to be one of us. He was the example of how we should have been in the first place, if Adam had not sinned. He was the second Adam. Plus he had to die for us.

Personally, I think that was exactly it! God was exposing Satan for what he is.



I think I disagree with that. Satan was so full of pride that he tried to be equal with God, and may have been acting out of revenge or hate or.... I really don't know.

Satan is supposed to be pretty smart and he knew God a lot more intimately than any of us have. Surely he knew he was not God's equal and never could be, since he was a creature, and not omnipotent or omni anything?

[tabibito]

Hebrews 2:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; [ 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Hebrews 2:17 he was obliged in every way to become as his brothers

[lee_merrill]

So, Jesus wasn't led into temptation, He was led into PROVING.

Well, the word "peirasmos" can mean either testing or temptation, can it not? And I would say that the devil tried with Jesus what he does with us, to draw us away with our desires. Which was indeed pointless, in the case of Jesus! And also in the case of Job, I might add, except to refine him.

Blessings,
Lee

[Rushing Jaws]

Indeed, John Piper is arguing that the change is incorrect, and for the wrong reason.


Well, this is a substantial change, which changes the meaning of the phrase. So I could see why mossrose is saying Christ's words have been changed.

Blessings,
Lee

STM mossy is right on this, and that the Pope is missing the point of those words pretty badly :( The change, alters the theology of the LP significantly, and therefore changes the theology of St Matthew significantly. It is a distortion of Scripture, which is absolutely not tolerable - regardless of who in the Church makes the change, or why. There is no adequate reason for this change, end of story.

The suggested change to the Italian text of the Gloria, from St Luke 2.14, is no better: https://www.ucatholic.com/news/pope-...talian-missal/

[tabibito]

STM mossy is right on this, and that the Pope is missing the point of those words pretty badly :( The change, alters the theology of the LP significantly, and therefore changes the theology of St Matthew significantly. It is a distortion of Scripture, which is absolutely not tolerable - regardless of who in the Church makes the change, or why. There is no adequate reason for this change, end of story.

The suggested change to the Italian text of the Gloria, from St Luke 2.14, is no better: https://www.ucatholic.com/news/pope-...talian-missal/

Peace on Earth to those beloved of God?



Altering the translation to something that doesn't conform with the original texts = improvement ...

[tabibito]

[Terraceth]

STM mossy is right on this, and that the Pope is missing the point of those words pretty badly :( The change, alters the theology of the LP significantly, and therefore changes the theology of St Matthew significantly. It is a distortion of Scripture, which is absolutely not tolerable - regardless of who in the Church makes the change, or why. There is no adequate reason for this change, end of story.

It's my understanding that for a long time this has been how it's been rendered in some other languages.

Even if someone thinks it's an inferior translation, I don't see how it's a "distortion."

The suggested change to the Italian text of the Gloria, from St Luke 2.14, is no better: https://www.ucatholic.com/news/pope-...talian-missal/

In what way is it "no better"? The suggested change is how virtually all modern Bible translations render the verse (not necessarily that exact phrasing, but the general meaning). The question of "people beloved by God" vs. "people of good will" is a question of textual variety rather than translation.

[tabibito]

και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου οτι σου εστιν η βασιλεια και η δυναμις και η δοξα εις τους αιωνας αμην
It is interesting:"Do not lead us ... but (αλλα) ... deliver us."

It may be that the old rendering is deficient, but the new doesn't even try to follow the Koine.
αλλα is not amenable to a change to "and" - it denotes a contrasting action.
"Save us ... but deliver us" "Instead of saving us, deliver us." ??

[Rushing Jaws]

It's my understanding that for a long time this has been how it's been rendered in some other languages.

Even if someone thinks it's an inferior translation, I don't see how it's a "distortion."

In what way is it "no better"? The suggested change is how virtually all modern Bible translations render the verse (not necessarily that exact phrasing, but the general meaning). The question of "people beloved by God" vs. "people of good will" is a question of textual variety rather than translation.

[lee_merrill]

Well said!

Source: C.H. Spurgeon

My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the Word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the Word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

If Christ teaches His disciples to pray in a certain way, how can any other man, one whose work is not God-breathed, take it on himself to alter words belonging both to the Bible & to Christ ?

Yes indeed!