Pope Francis changes prayer Our Father the words of Jesus himself

a reply to: Woodcarver

Go ahead copy and paste the story especially the parts that show like u said God hurt Job and his family...

a reply to: KansasGirl

Uhhmmm... none of the gospels are thought to be written by any of the apostles. The earliest they are thought to be written is around 40-70 years after the events are said to take place. Although there are no originals around to be studied. The oldest copies are from 200 years after the events.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Woodcarver

Go ahead copy and paste the story especially the parts that show like u said God hurt Job and his family...

as you asked

God allows Satan to torment Job to test this bold claim, but he forbids Satan to take Job’s life in the process.

In the course of one day, Job receives four messages, each bearing separate news that his livestock, servants, and ten children have all died due to marauding invaders or natural catastrophes.

There it is. Satan asks god if he can hurt Job. God agrees, and allows Satan to kill everyone that Job loves.

In this story, god has all of the power. And allows satan to harm people to win a petty bet. Does god need to prove himself to satan? Didn’t god create satan? Why does god give satan so much power over him?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: KansasGirl

Uhhmmm... none of the gospels are thought to be written by any of the apostles. The earliest they are thought to be written is around 40-70 years after the events are said to take place. Although there are no originals around to be studied. The oldest copies are from 200 years after the events.

Uhhmmm...the church was still forming 40-70 years after Jesus's death. Not all of the apostles died early on, and just because they weren't written seconds after the events they record doesn't mean they weren't written during the lifetime of the people about whom have parts in the gospels. A 200 year-old after-the-fact copy doesn't mean the content was written 200 years after the events in question.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Do you think you proved something besides your misconceptions and hatred for God and or religion?
Because you sure didn’t prove your point...

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: KansasGirl

Uhhmmm... none of the gospels are thought to be written by any of the apostles. The earliest they are thought to be written is around 40-70 years after the events are said to take place. Although there are no originals around to be studied. The oldest copies are from 200 years after the events.

Uhhmmm...the church was still forming 40-70 years after Jesus's death. Not all of the apostles died early on, and just because they weren't written seconds after the events they record doesn't mean they weren't written during the lifetime of the people about whom have parts in the gospels. A 200 year-old after-the-fact copy doesn't mean the content was written 200 years after the events in question.

Here ya go

The earliest copies of the Hebrew Bible were written without vowels or accents, as written Hebrew did not represent vowels until the Middle Ages. To preserve traditional spoken readings, starting in the fifth century C.E., a group of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes carefully selected, copied, and annotated biblical scrolls, adding vowels and accents to the ancient Hebrew consonants in the process. Though the Masoretic scribes added these vowels to the ancient text long after it had been written, they were likely preserving traditional vocalizations that dated to much earlier times. The Masoretes produced several different systems of vocalization (writing in vowels) between 500 and 700 C.E.

Until the last few decades, most biblical scholars believed that the Masoretic biblical texts were, with some exceptions, the best witnesses to the most ancient Hebrew text of the Hebrew Bible (what Christians sometimes call the Old Testament).

Recent discoveries from the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, suggest that there were several different versions of many biblical books in the Second Temple period. Some of these versions differed only slightly from each other, but some versions were very different. After the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans in 70 C.E., Jewish groups dispersed across the ancient world, preserving these versions of the Hebrew Scriptures in their communities. One of these groups preserved the texts that would later become the Masoretic Text. Others are preserved in versions such as the Septuagint, the earliest Greek translation.

In the 10th century C.E., the ben Asher scribal family of Tiberias produced a manuscript of the Hebrew Bible that Maimonides, a famous Jewish scholar, declared to be the best known version of the sacred text. Soon after, the Tiberian Masoretic text and its particular version of vowels and annotations became the standard, authoritative text of the Hebrew Bible for rabbinic Judaism. The most important Masoretic medieval manuscripts are the Aleppo Codex, which dates to the 10th century C.E., and the Leningrad Codex, which dates to 1009 C.E.

The Masoretic Text is the version held as authoritative and used liturgically in most synagogues today. The Catholic Church since the time of Jerome (fourth century C.E.) and most Protestant Christian churches use this version as their source text for modern translations.

www.bibleodyssey.org...

Since Jesus didn't speak English, I think it's kind of unimportant if a word gets changed here or there. If the meaning or spirit of the prayer was radically altered, then yes, that would be cause for concern. I don't see any problem here.

What this does is open up a much, much larger can of worms because it makes people confront the fact that the text they read (whatever English translation of the Bible most people have) isn't anywhere close to the original Koine Greek, etc. depending on how far back you want to go.

I would suggest if someone is really that worked up about it they learn to read the original text and decide/translate for themselves. But as someone in this thread already mentioned, even that was transcribed centuries after the mentioned events. The whole point, I think, is to have a level of faith that the text is spiritually accurate - if that is your belief.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Woodcarver

Do you think you proved something besides your misconceptions and hatred for God and or religion?
Because you sure didn’t prove your point...

Hatred? Is it easier for you if you think i hate? I don’t believe in god. That is not the same as hatred, can you understand the difference?

And yes, i proved my point quite succinctly. The god you pretend is real, the god written about in the old jewish texts, is an evil being.

a reply to: Woodcarver

I’m going to play along with your stupid line of inquiry as you try to fault God...
God did create Satan, but Satan created something too he created evil...
It was Satan when he originally sinned as well as in this story that is trying to prove something to God...
God just gives him the chance, it’s all about free will...
And God didn’t give Satan so much power over him obviously there boy genius, because Job has free will too see, so he has his own power to decide for himself...

a reply to: Woodcarver

I don’t pretend God is real, I believe he is... There is quite a difference...
You keep pretending like you know something though...
Your conclusions which are based on misconceptions due to what? low level of comprehension or that hatred you have for God?
Perhaps all of the above...
Next you will be quoting the Old Testament entirely out of context and all you will accomplish is to show that hatred you have for God...
If you don’t believe in God you liar, you wouldn’t have an opinion of him...

a reply to: 2012newstart


I changed a long while ago...


"My Father who does art in Heaven...."

a reply to: 2012newstart

Honestly, how would anyone ver know if Jesus said those words or not? Assuming Jesus is real and the story accurate (big assumption but we won't go into that), early Christians didn't follow any written word so there was no record. It was Paul who started organising Christians and he never even met Jesus - it was around 30 years after his death. Early Christians didn't have an organised structure, it was Paul that introduced all that side. Peter, who did know Jesus, was superceded by Paul - you have to ask why this happened and why the structure started to change.

As such, we know the message of what Jesus preached but we have no means of knowing the wording, without inventing time travel.

Therefore it doesn't really matter what the words are changed to - it is all inaccurate anyway. Added to that, Jesus's message was that the temple wasn't important - God is all around. In point of fact, early Jesus rails AGAINST organised religion.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: 2012newstart

Surprisingly or maybe not
Jesus probably spoke Galilean Aramaic not English or any of its derivatives

It’s crazy people, mostly fundamentalists who act the way the OP is acting

It could be as easily translated to “ lead us away from temptation”

Making a storm where no student of language would see a storm
The pope is not the first person to note this issue

Even Tertullian some two thousand years ago noted the anomaly

I like your translation, "lead away" as opposed to "lead not". I think that the translation of "lead us not into temptation" is really saying "lead us into righteousness and away from temptation".

I'm not catholic, but go ahead and keep changing it. I'm glad I'm not the one to make that decision. I've put my faith and trust in HIM, and that is all that matters to me. I'm not naïve enough to believe it's not been MANY changes over the years. Has it affected my relationship with Christ? Nope.

Revelation 22:18-19 - I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Your argument was much stronger before that post (but still wrong.) We are not discussing the Hebrew Masoretic text here but the New Testament. You are referring to the Old Testament.

Even if the Gospels were written years afterward, they were sourced from earlier versions. If you believe the higher critics (academics) there is internal evidence of earlier versions like Q that writers of the current Gospels drew from.

Or you can believe they were in fact written by the saints and say the same thing in places because they all knew each other and saw the same things.

The Gospels were edited and added to over the years but there are so many early copies that these additions have been identified and weeded out for the most part. Witness the various different endings for the Gospel of Mark.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
So is it really more correct to say or believe that God would abandon you to sin?
Sort of sounds like the same thing to me...
The reality is Sin is all ours, because of free will...
It’s also taken out of context because what follows is deliver us from evil...
It was never meant to imply that the Lord led us to temptation it is a plea to protect us from evil by first protecting us from temptation by doing Gods will which will deliver us from evil...

Anyway the Pope should make some real changes, like allowing priest to marry, and for women to not only be nuns but also priests well maybe they could still be called nuns priestesses just doesn’t sound right... At any rate they should be allowed to lead mass and preform sacraments... And they should also be part of the hierarchy and have the right to become bishop cardinal or even the Pope... While the Pope is at that he may as well reach into the coffers and start solving some real issues for the poor... Then after that I’m thinking cleaning house is in order the immediate removal of all accused of those sins so many are aware of... They do not need to be condemned just not allowed to be in a position to abuse through their position of power... Let them be on their own to serve the Lord and seek repentance, you know jail for them...

I guess I’ll stop, I could go on but that would be a good start I’m thinking...

Hmm, I don’t think it’s just the Catholics who have these issues with women in rolls equal to men in the church. Even us Protestants could be a bit more Christian

But overall, I agree with your sentiments

a reply to: Tekaran

My faith is not in a book either, mine is also in Christ
Jesus is Jesus, He is enough

a reply to: Woodcarver

You need to read it again. If you come to the same conclusion then the problem is one of comprehension.

a reply to: Woodcarver

So God didn't do it. Thanks.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Woodcarver

I don’t pretend God is real, I believe he is... There is quite a difference...
You keep pretending like you know something though...
Your conclusions which are based on misconceptions due to what? low level of comprehension or that hatred you have for God?
Perhaps all of the above...
Next you will be quoting the Old Testament entirely out of context and all you will accomplish is to show that hatred you have for God...
If you don’t believe in God you liar, you wouldn’t have an opinion of him...

Accepting something as real, even though it has not been demonstrated to even be possible, is pretending.

And you can’t very well say there is good reason to believe that any of it is real, because faith is the whole point of the message. If there was good evidence that would stand up to any scrutiny, you and your ilk, would be parading it up and down the streets.


If i misquote anything. ( i obviously haven’t yet) you can point it out.

Again you have to pretend my disbelief equates to hatred? I’m just pointing out why i don’t accept what you claim.

I don’t believe in gods, my opinions of them are based on you and your ilk’s claims. Which are patently nonsensical. If you really cared, you would put some effort into proving your claims, but i’m sure you know how fruitless that would be, so you just get on the internet and call people who disagree with the facts, stupid. Par for course with small minded christians though. It’s to be expected.

I know it would be nearly impossible to change your mind, but, the more you spew nonsensical arguments to the demonstrable facts, the more young people will see which side holds the reasonable position. Thanks for contributing to the demise of your blood cult.