Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Changing the Lord's Prayer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    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.
    Yes, and as in Job's statement in Job 23:10, "he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold."

    "To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy—to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen." (Jude 24–25)

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      Yes, and as in Job's statement in Job 23:10, "he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold."

      "To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy—to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen." (Jude 24–25)

      Blessings,
      Lee
      So, Jesus wasn't led into temptation, He was led into PROVING.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        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?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          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.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #65
            It was technically possible for Jesus to sin. Without the potential for sin, it would be impossible to be tempted.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              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?

              Comment


              • #67
                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
                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                .
                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                Scripture before Tradition:
                but that won't prevent others from
                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  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
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    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/

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                      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?

                      The changes to the Italian Missal was a 16 year undertaking with aims to “contribute to the renewal of the ecclesial community in the wake of the liturgical reform.”

                      “Bishops and experts worked on improving the text from a theological, pastoral and stylistic point of view, as well as on fine-tuning the presentation of the Missal.”


                      Altering the translation to something that doesn't conform with the original texts = improvement ...
                      Last edited by tabibito; 06-29-2019, 09:37 PM.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            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." ??
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                              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 distortion is of the theology of the passage.

                              A leading theme of the theology of the NT is, that God is King. So central is this, that the Good News Jesus preached is, the Good News of the Kingdom/Reign/Kingship of God. It is Good News because the fact that God is King, means that the “binding of the strong man”, the devil, by the stronger, Who is Christ, is “at hand/imminent” in Jesus, Who is God’s Chosen/Anointed/Son.

                              One of the ways that the Kingship of God is made effective, is by His total control over all events - however untoward they may seem. (A similar point is made in C. S. Lewis’ “The Silver Chair”.) No events, no opposition to the progress of the Good News, not even the most devilish persecution, is outside the total control of God the King. This point is especially prominent in the Book of Revelation - though it also appears in the Gospels; as one might expect it to.

                              One of the ways in which this complete Divine Kingship over all events is expressed, is for the NT to speak as though God were the Author of the demonic evils which are subject to His Will and Power. So Our Lord, and St Matthew, speak of God Who controls the tempter and his power to tempt and his temptations, as though God “bring[s] us into temptation” - the choice of language glorifies God’s Royal Power by speaking of His action alone, and by saying nothing of the tempter whose malice he uses for His own Righteous and Kingly purposes. The entire prayer is centred on God’s eschatological Kingship that, in and through Jesus and His Good News, is already in some measure realised “on earth as it is in Heaven”.

                              My gripe with the phrasing I criticised is, that it moves the emphasis from God Who controls and thwarts all the malice of the tempter, to us the tempted. And it amputates the very word that reminds the reader that God is in control; replacing it by a word that does not translate the Greek, since there is no word in the Greek meaning “to fall”. The Greek speaks of what God does; the “translation” speaks of what man does.

                              If an author writes under the influence of certain ideas, it is the business of the translator to render the text of the author with those ideas. The translator has no right to prettify or dilute or distort his author’s known and ascertained meaning: regardless of how alien that meaning may be to the readers. If the translation has to include ideas that are offensive or perplexing to the readers, then let the passage be explained. But to alter the meaning of the translated author when his
                              text gives no warrant for this, is unethical.

                              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.
                              That does not mean those translations are correct. How translations render a passage, is not the standard for translation. The standard ought to be a combination of:

                              1. The most accurate possible text for translation available.
                              2. The most accurate possible exegesis of the text.
                              3. The most accurate rendering possible into the receptor language, for the purposes of that particular work of translation.

                              Differences of judgement arising from uncertainties in the translated text, or from doubts as to how many strophes of verse a Greek line represents (as in St. Luke 2.14) are often inescapable. Those disagreements are normal, and are not the problem. The problem is with translations that water down the translated text in order to be readily comprehensible to the readership intended.

                              This has nothing to do with flat-footed literalism, and everything to do with making the entire meaning of the author in his own language, that of the text, as clear and complete and full in translation as in the author’s own words. If it is a duty to be faithful to the mind and meaning and ideas of an author outside the Bible, surely this duty is far greater when the words translated are God-breathed words, some of them the words of Christ Himself ? 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 ?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                                If an author writes under the influence of certain ideas, it is the business of the translator to render the text of the author with those ideas. The translator has no right to prettify or dilute or distort his author’s known and ascertained meaning: regardless of how alien that meaning may be to the readers. If the translation has to include ideas that are offensive or perplexing to the readers, then let the passage be explained. But to alter the meaning of the translated author when his text gives no warrant for this, is unethical.
                                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!
                                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X