Pope Francis changes prayer Our Father the words of Jesus himself

www.dailywire.com...

Pope Francis Implementing Change Of Lord’s Prayer: ‘Lead Us Not Into Temptation’
"Abandon us not into temptation."

Last year around Christmas, Pope Francis spoke of his desire to update the "lead us not into temptation" part of the Lord's Prayer, arguing that it portrays God in a false light. "A father does not lead into temptation, a father helps you to get up immediately," the Pope said at the time.

"It is not a good translation because it speaks of a God who induces temptation," he added.

Pope Francis also asserted that other translations had already been changed to correct mistakes and to modernize the language. "The French have modified the prayer to ‘do not let me fall into temptation’, because it is me who falls, not the Lord who tempts me to then see how I fall," he said.

Let me ask in that way: Did Jesus pronounce these words, or not?

If Yes, why should the pope want to change them, why should the French translation change them?

If Not, how could we know what exactly Jesus said? Indeed the Gospels were written 1-2 centuries AFTER Jesus.

What the pope does, under disguise of ever changing "better translations" of old text, in the first option above amounts to nothing else than open flagrant betrayal of Christ.

And if it is not that, if the second option is the true one, why aren't we told the FULL TRUTH about Jesus Christ? And not just being given only pieces of jesuit secret knowledge for their own secret agenda.

Here as you see I don't touch the question of what these words mean, but rather are they said by Jesus in first place, or not. The discussions of what it means to lead into temptation could be very long, and I don't have the time for that. Seems the pope takes on it in a clear jesuit way, trying to redefine words about God.

What do you think about the changing of "Our Father"?

a reply to: 2012newstart

What do you think about the changing of "Our Father"?

I think it is a wise and good change. The original implied that it was the heavenly Father who led us into temptation . I think “abandon us not” is much more appropriate.

That’s my two cents on the matter.

a reply to: 2012newstart

It's not like the words are universal, the one I grew up being forced to recite said "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors" which I find sounds a lot better than "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespassed against us" debtors is less of a mouthful

But those are just words of mortal men, much like the bible....

originally posted by: Sheye
a reply to: 2012newstart

What do you think about the changing of "Our Father"?

I think it is a wise and good change. The original implied that it was the heavenly Father who led us into temptation . I think “abandon us not” is much more appropriate.

That’s my two cents on the matter.

I agree and it has always stuck out in my mind. My thought was always "why would he have been lead there" but that means there are no outside influences which act upon us which can lead us there.

I don't see anything wrong with the words, especially if it is a translation. IDK what the original words are (Aramaic, Greek, etc) but it would be interesting to know.

I think leading is the right word, considering he loves to set up temptations and then punishes the puny humans (he apparently made) for being curious. I'm talking of course about the tree of knowledge.

Also thanks to the serpent for letting the humans know that they are merely dumb pets. Serpents are all around the world worshipped for wisdom and kowledge (from Mexico to Egypt, from the medical profession to the serent kundalini based inthe tree of life).

So please keep the words 'lead us not' as it rightly describes a nasty guy who clearly gets pleasure of honey trapping naked, naive humans and wants to keep them that way.

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

originally posted by: 2012newstart

Let me ask in that way: Did Jesus pronounce these words, or not?

If Yes, why should the pope want to change them, why should the French translation change them?

No, he did not. He did not speak English.

The original word is εἰσφέρω (eispherō), which does mean lead (or bring) though.

So changing the translation is fine as long as the original message is unchanged. I see no place where that word is used to mean abandon, so that would not be a good choice imo.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Lead away from is a much better change than abandon because the actual word used means to lead, it does not mean abandon.

Lead us away from temptation and deliver us from evil.

Or 'do not allow us to be led into temptation, rather deliver us from evil.

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...

a reply to: Sheye

But if this life is but a test to see if you're worthy why would he not tempt you? Is that not the purpose, providing both a conduit for faith and free will and letting you decide, thus testing the truth of your moral convictions.

on the plus side, jesus wont ever say not to change it, he'll have no objections whatsoever... I'm predicting this

a reply to: TheLead

That would be a sin, and well God does not sin...in case you didn’t realize it, that’s the cause of our separation...
Leave sin to Satan, you know the Father of lies, the cause of temptation to sin...
If you don’t believe me take Christ’s words into consideration...
“A kingdom divided upon itself cannot stand”
God does not sin or lead you to sin, you are permitted to sin should you so choose because of free will... And that is the test and make no mistake exactly why you alone are held accountable because you have a choice to sin or not to...
This is absolute...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

I dont know about God not sinning, I mean he does gamble with Jobs faith for the sake of proving something to satan, that doesnt make sense if God is absolute. It also doesnt make since that we would have to learn of him externally as his spirit should be inherent in all that he created. It's also doesnt make sense that the all knowing all understanding would have any thoughts of being revengeful or wrathful but that's beside the point.

That statement could just be a reaffirmation for the speaker to realize when they are lead to temptation it is not of Gods doing. A bit redundant maybe cause the speaker should not assume that God would. Of course if this is all Gods creation he would have to have created sin as well and giving you the freewill to contact the sin inevitably means that you have the potential to blame thee. As your reciting that line you should realize that if you are following temptation its not of Gods will but your own volition.

a reply to: 2012newstart

I saw a video on fox that said the Italian bishops have already changed it. As a Catholic (not so devout) I will say this, "That pope is bats##t crazy."

The traditional version has served us for many hundreds of years. Lead us not into temptation = do not let us fall into temptation, not do not force us to sin. There is nothing wrong with the current prayer.

We should consider changing the pope before we change the Lord's prayer.

a reply to: TheLead

Did God cause any of the temptation or problems for Job?
And please by all means feel free to remind me exactly who won that bet...
Vengeance is mine says the Lord... In other words he will right all wrongdoings...
And seeing as you have free will do you think God chooses to have you or not because of your choices?
Or do you decide that for yourself through your choices?
Smarten up

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Who wwon that bet? Satan, although Job chooses faith satan goaded God into destroying a man's mortal life to prove something to him.

a reply to: TheLead

All the evil sin pain deaths suffering the afflictions are all attributed to Satan dummy, and God won because Job held onto his faith and trusted in the Lord without fail... So Job won too dummy...
And Satan therefore failed lost the bet proved what a dickhead he is a complete and utter failure...
Go read it again...

originally posted by: Sheye
a reply to: 2012newstart

What do you think about the changing of "Our Father"?

I think it is a wise and good change. The original implied that it was the heavenly Father who led us into temptation . I think “abandon us not” is much more appropriate.

That’s my two cents on the matter.

i do see where you got that, but I always interpreted it as:
If you follow where God leads you, you will inevitably end up in places of temptation in this world. The prayer is asking that God, in leading you, not place you in areas of temptation beyond your will power. (Like if God wants me to help a little girls, please God don't ask me to do it in the middle of a chocolate shop b/c I will be tempted to eat all the chocolate!)

I do not think the Pope should change the 'words in red' unless he can prove they were mis-translated.

a reply to: 2012newstart

Bible translation isn't as simple as you are making it out to be here. I'm no big fan of the Pope, but just saying it's not necessarily in this instance a big heresy.

Whether it was Hebrew (Old Testament) or Greek (New Testament), the translations we have today aren't necessarily perfect by any means. Considerations regarding the surrounding words and their functions and tenses must be considered, as well as CONTEXT, so many of the translations we have today contain words and phrases that really don't accurately reflect the text as much as we think.

We don't necessarily have one to one translations from Greek to English. The change the Pope is suggesting isn't necessarily "changing the words of Jesus himself" because he didn't speak them in English.

Where does your claim come from that the gospels were written 100-200 years after Jesus? I'm not sure that's accurate at all. Luke (one of the synoptic gospels; and also the author of Acts) is considered by current scholars to be written by someone who witnessed the early formation of the church. And the gospel of John, though there is contentious debate about the TIME of its creation, was written at the latest in about 90 AD, by John himself.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TheLead

All the evil sin pain deaths suffering the afflictions are all attributed to Satan dummy, and God won because Job held onto his faith and trusted in the Lord without fail... So Job won too dummy...
And Satan therefore failed lost the bet proved what a dickhead he is a complete and utter failure...
Go read it again...

Nope Satan won that bet. He tricked god into hurting Job and his entire family, proving that God is petty and not to be trusted. Which is basically the entire moral story of the bible.