Pope wants to change the Lord's Prayer

[Marymog]

Marymog:

The Pope didn't change it. He wants to. Evidence? Easy. It isn't the same! Its like asking for evidence for a sloth not being a cat.

Hi FHII,

Now you have me really confused. In post #148 you said, "I disagree with all who say he didn't change the prayer."

Maybe you misspoke?

Mary

 

[aspen]

Aspen:

So what have I said that is not true about God? He is all those things but as I noted he is also love. He is also lomg suffering and forgiving. He is also "good" and even the things we say are bad are good.

Furthermore, my point is that yes... God can and may tempt you and lead you too temptation. For the Pope to say otherwise is wrong. But according to his word and his history, he will provide a way out.

Further-furthermore... Ignoring attributes of God or in this case flat out denying they exist is not coming closer to God.

Or do you disagree?

Thanks for your response. There are several points i would like to respond to.

1. As I have alluded to in my proceeding post, i do not believe that God is jealous, vindictive, nationalistic, murderous, counts his enemies, gloats over his victories, brags about his power, sends out people to murder other people, kills off humanity in floods, kills people for touching his Ark, writes up certificates of divorce for himself, tells people not to sin - while secretly hoping that we do sin and then, punishing all humanity for doing so. The list of projecting negative and self serving character deficits of humanity onto God continues, but you get the drift.

2. You claim that God has all of these attributes and is also love; can you say the same for bullies and abusers? If not, what is the difference? This is a serious question.

3. Being alive is to be lead into temptation. God has set the plate and he is sanctifying us. As far as the Pope is concerned, i believe he is concerned that people will misinterpret God as a volcano type god who requires appeasement or he will destroy us - i agree that this is crazy that people are at this point, but I think his concerns are valid. Also, i see nothing wrong with the new translation France is using; yet, I do not see a new translation as necessary for myself.

4. I do agree that ignoring attributes of God’s character is not a good spiritual practice; i do not believe i am doing so and i think holding to tightly to negative attributes assigned to God is more dangerous. I am a student in the school of sanctification so I attempt to allow God to teach me - this requires me to leave space open for growth. I cannot continue to grow into a full human who loves perfectly if I am following a despot who lacks even my own flawed discipline. I have a long way to go and I value love over sovereignty.

I speak strongly about this, but I do not speak or think badly of Christians who view God differently. We are all on this path together.

 

[GodsGrace]

That is not what Jesus said, that is what Protestants claim Jesus said. You don't understand. Amoris Laetitia did not cause more annulments, that's absurd.

I have a big problem reconciling what Jesus commanded with a person having to remain alone a whole lifetime. So do I listen to Jesus or a church?
Did Paul even understand what Jesus wanted??

Your big problem is not understanding what Jesus commanded, which is the same as what the Church teaches. In fact, separating what Jesus commanded from what the Church teaches is Protestantism to the core. Therefore you don't know what the Church teaches or you are a closet Protestant.
There is no divorce in the CC. We cannot summarize reasons for divorce in a forum because each case is different. You have blurred the difference between divorce and annulments. Most of the readers in this forum are anti-Catholic and you are sowing seeds of confusion and I am left with giving long explanations of divorce and annulment that's off topic. You should read the Catholic understanding of Matthew 19:9 and leave the erroneous Protestant view alone.

Oh, we can't have people pick up the pieces of their shattered lives, and get married (there is no remarriage). Let's keep them miserable. Tribunals don't let excuses go by that easily. Again, you don't know what you are talking about.


Your faulty interpretation of a complex document is not ok. But you are under the influence of cheap media tabloids that twist Amoris Laetitia and numerous other church documents into something that is unrecognizable.

"...yours is the Protestant position and it is based on a misunderstanding of the application of the Exception Clause. Here is why. Protestants want to except adultery from porneia because they incorrectly interpret the Exception Clause to apply to both the divorce and remarriage. They (at least many of them) correctly believe that it is immoral to divorce and remarry for adultery. Thus, they believe that porneia cannot mean adultery because, according to their interpretation, it is permissible to divorce and remarry for reasons other than adultery (i.e., incest). If porneia included adultery, then, according to their interpretation, it would be okay to divorce and remarry for adultery but this is not true. That is why they argue that porneia does NOT include adultery. You have fallen into this error, and it makes your exegesis of Matthew 19:9 also erroneous.

The weight of the exegetical evidence, as well as the Church Fathers and Medievals (Clement of Alexandria, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Lombard, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Bellarmine) and the Council of Trent, all side with the Catholic position (which, of course, happens to be my position as well): the Exception Clause applies to the divorce only, not the remarriage.

Porneia, Divorce, and Remarriage ::[/QUOTE]
I don't read cheap media tabloids.
First of all, I'm not that type.
Second of all I live in Italy.
Thirdly, I'm trained in the Catholic church with all its doctrine.

I'll answer your post later on.

 

[FHII]

Your Genesis 22:1 example is better interpreted as TESTED not tempted. That makes Genesis 22:1 a poor example.

Yet the Bible says "tempt". That's the KJV. I won't deny that some other versions may say different. Not into that game. So do you feel better if Mat 6 says, "Don't test us with tempation?" I somwhow think the Pope would run from that too.

In your Matthew 4 example it was the devil who was tempting Jesus. God allowed it to happen (actually it had to happen) just like God allows it to happen to you and me and everyone on this earth.

Absolutely. But it was the spirit who led him into the wilderness to be tempted/tested. Matt 6 says, ,lead us not into temptation...". The Pope said that God doesn't lead us into temptation. But clearly this verse says otherwise.

Here is a related tidbit for you to consider: who was moved to destroy Job? God or Satan? The answer is God. Job 2:2. Furthermore Satan caused it, but let's be real... God instigated that fight.

 

[Marymog]

Yet the Bible says "tempt". That's the KJV. I won't deny that some other versions may say different. Not into that game. So do you feel better if Mat 6 says, "Don't test us with tempation?" I somwhow think the Pope would run from that too.


Absolutely. But it was the spirit who led him into the wilderness to be tempted/tested. Matt 6 says, ,lead us not into temptation...". The Pope said that God doesn't lead us into temptation. But clearly this verse says otherwise.

Here is a related tidbit for you to consider: who was moved to destroy Job? God or Satan? The answer is God. Job 2:2. Furthermore Satan caused it, but let's be real... God instigated that fight.

Hi FHII,

It does depend on what translation you are using. You prefer KJV...nothing wrong with that. MOST other translations say TEST not tempt. Test is the more accepted translation.

Leading someone into the wilderness is not the same as tempting/testing them. I don't understand how you are conflating the two? The question is why did the spirit lead Jesus into the wilderness OR why did he need leading into the wilderness?

The Greek verb in the Lords Prayer passage eisphero means “bring,” so “do not bring us into temptation” or “lead us not into temptation” are good, literal translations. The petition in the Lord’s Prayer should be understood as a request that God protect us from temptation. If he leads us into temptation, wouldn't that make him evil?

Here's a little tidbit for YOU to consider: Theologically speaking, God does not tempt anyone. The book of James states:

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. (Jas. 1:13-14)

Your Job 2:2 example makes zero sense to me. I apologize.

Love, Mary

 

[Truth]

That would mean that all of the "doctrines of men" that were invented in the 16th century and beyond make the followers of these men "Legalists" . . .

Yes! Men make up all kinds of rules and regulations, you know fiery hoops for believers to jump through, called doctrines, even before the 16th century. God and Savior said that the Doctrines of men Make the word Of God to No Effect!

 

[FHII]

1. As I alluded to in my proceeding post, i do not believe that God is jealous, vindictive, nationalistic, murderous, counts his enemies, gloats over his victories, brags about his power, sends out people to murder other people, kills off humanity in floods, kills people for touching his Ark, writes up certificates of divorce for himself, tells people not sin - yet, secretly hoping that we do and then punishing all humanity for it. The list of projecting negative and self serving character deficits of humanity onto God continues, but you get the drift.

I edited your pst in my quote because whats in bold is the only thing that makes your point even somewhat valid.

God is all those things and I think you realize that. Yet he has his reasons and his reasons are above ours. No. He doesn't want us to be that way. Every single thing you listed God has done. Even divorcing a wife. But no... He doesn't want us to do it. He waants us to lean on him.

2. You claim that God is all of these attributes and also love; can you say the same for bullies and abusers? If not, what is the difference? This is a serious question.

No I can't. I agree with you. God has all those attributes but is not a bully nor an abuser. God has all those attributes and still is love. An abuser or a bully doesn't have love. You are 100% correct (did that work out as planned for you?).

3. Being alive is to be lead into temptation. God has set the plate and he is sanctifying us. As far as the Pope is concerned, i believe he is concerned that people will misinterpret God as a volcano type god who requires appeasement or he will destroy us - i agree that this is crazy that people are at this point, but I think his concerns are valid. Also, i see nothing wrong with the new translation France is using, I do not see a new translation as necessary for myself.

Well its ignorance. Ignorance is not bad. It simply means you are unaware of the truth. Now is the truth what the Pope said or is the truth that God can lead you to be tempted? I have verses that say he can!

Yes! People are crazy and stupid. But telling them something that is not true is not the answer.

The truth is that God can lead you to temptation and also make an escape. There is a reason for that, but its beyond the scope of this conversation.

4. I do agree that ignoring attributes of God’s character is not a good spiritual practice; ........ I cannot continue to grow into a full human who loves perfectly if I am following a despot who lacks even my own discipline in some areas. I have a long way to go and I value love over sovereignty.

I am not suggesting that God is a despot. I am not suggesting he lacks your own discipline. Seriously? For you even to suggest that is rediculous. AS IF your discipline or mine is even comparable! I mean, damn Aspen! He doesn't even regard death like we do! How can we even talk about our discipline in regards to God's? He makes the universe run smoothly for 2 trillion years and we struggle to make it to Church for 75 years.

 

[Truth]

Thanks.
I like obeying Jesus and God's commandments, the moral ones. Like the 10 commandments.

Let's say I TRY to obey them. Don't always succeed, but Jesus is there to cover for me. Or...He covers me, that's more biblical.

Galatians 3:27

Yes, The 10 represent all of the Commandments, Our Savior Quoted Two, and said that in these were the Balance of the Commandments,- Love God with all your Heart and Soul, and all that you are! The first 5 Commandments!, and Love thy Fellow people as yourself, the last 5. How to Love God and how to be with all others.
I also must admit, I have to wipe dirt off of my face, after getting up!

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, The 10 represent all of the Commandments, Our Savior Quoted Two, and said that in these were the Balance of the Commandments,- Love God with all your Heart and Soul, and all that you are! The first 5 Commandments!, and Love thy Fellow people as yourself, the last 5. How to Love God and how to be with all others.
I also must admit, I have to wipe dirt off of my face, after getting up!

The first 4 are for God.
Yes. You're right. If we follow jesus' two great commandments they encompass all the others.
He made Christianity so simple and beautiful and complete.
Praise God.

 

[Truth]

What do you think about Mark 16:9-20? Do you believe it is inspired?

As far as my finite brain can understand, what is there not to believe, all I can do is Believe! Inspired I can only HOPE so!

 

[aspen]

As far as my finite brain can understand, what is there not to believe, all I can do is Believe! Inspired I can only HOPE so!

Well, those verses are believed by scholars to be added by some monk in antiquity - simply to tie up the ending of the gospel.

 

[Truth]

The first 4 are for God.
Yes. You're right. If we follow jesus' two great commandments they encompass all the others.
He made Christianity so simple and beautiful and complete.
Praise God.

Well I believe that when God said! "I AM" the God that lead you out of Egypt!! that it is also a Commandment, only not an imperative one an Indicative one. BELIEVE. if we do not believe He is then no need to follow the rest!

 

[GodsGrace]

Well I believe that when God said! "I AM" the God that lead you out of Egypt!! that it is also a Commandment, only not an imperative one an Indicative one. BELIEVE. if we do not believe He is then no need to follow the rest!

Amen to that!
Thanks for explaining.

 

[Truth]

Well, those verses are believed by scholars to be added by some monk in antiquity - simply to tie up the ending of the gospel.

Well, again there may be others that have fooled with Scriptures, But I believe that Jesus Commanded His followers to teach what He taught, and do what He did, and that they would Heal, cleanse people from demons, all these signs would follow them, He Jesus would do these signs to prove their Authority in His Name!

 

[FHII]

It does depend on what translation you are using. You prefer KJV...nothing wrong with that. MOST other translations say TEST not tempt. Test is the more accepted translation.

Leading someone into the wilderness is not the same as tempting/testing them. I don't understand how you are conflating the two? The question is why did the spirit lead Jesus into the wilderness OR why did he need leading into the wilderness

It makes no difference. If you want to say God tests us but does not tempt us, you will get nothing more than an eye roll from me and a, "yea... Sure".

Your arguement is nothing more than blaming a translation.

Your question as to why Jesus needed to be led by the spirit is more intriuging.

The Greek verb in the Lords Prayer passage eisphero means “bring,” so “do not bring us into temptation” or “lead us not into temptation” are good, literal translations. The petition in the Lord’s Prayer should be understood as a request that God protect us from temptation. If he leads us into temptation, wouldn't that make him evil?

Well he has demonstrated he will. Its not a bad prayer to request him not to. I don't understand why people are against the idea.

Here's a little tidbit for YOU to consider: Theologically speaking, God does not tempt anyone. The book of James states:

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. (Jas. 1:13-14)

Wel here's a tidbit for you: james never said theologically speakng, that the Lord doesn't tempt anyone. It says no man should say that. But I have 2 verses that say God does.

There is a deep reason ehy James is right. Its not because God doesn't tempt. It has to do with his wife not charging her husband.

Your Job 2:2 example makes zero sense to me. I apologize.

I apologize. The poi t was that God charged Satan with moving HIM (God) to destroy Job. God took the credit/blame for what happened to Job. He charged Satan for provoking him. But Satan initially wanted no paet of it. God provoked Satan.

He didn't care a rat's behind about Job's current well being. He let Job suffer just to win a bet with Satan and prove a mere mortal was better than him.

Most "Chistians" wouldn't treat Job that way, or Satan.

 

[Taken]

Thought this was interesting.... For the record, I'm against it.

Pope Francis Suggests Changing The Words To The 'Lord's Prayer'

Not surprising.
Many with a platform what to CHANGE what the Lord reveals.

The Platform provides the audience, the Change provides "their words" to be Preserved.

I also do not agree with the Pope's idea.

God Bless,
Taken