|
|
Post by ReGeNeRATE on Nov 21, 2005 13:09:24 GMT -5
on the Lord's Prayer. When we recite the Lords Prayer at my church I always begin to wonder about a sentence in that prayer. "...and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil..." does this imply that God leads us into temptation? Or does this also imply that temptation can be nonexistent to us? Did Jesus make a mistake in the wording or could it be that the writers of the gospels misquoted Christ? shouldn't say "help us not to fall into sin when tempation comes". I don't know I'm just wondering, maybe the Greek says different. The reason why I wonder is because we all know that James tells us that God does not tempt us or is tempted then I come to this prayer and it says "LEAD us not into temptation. Maybe you guys could help a brotha out. In Spanish we say "no los deje cajer en temptacion" which means "don't let us fall into temptation" which I can handle better but........I don't know  Sola Agape |
|
|
|
Post by ChristVader on Nov 21, 2005 16:03:03 GMT -5
...Good question ReGen,
Jesus made many mistakes, and continues to let things slip through the Cracks everytime the Bible goes through another language translation. You simply have come across one more.
This is why we must embrace Orthodoxy like never before. Only the Church has the answers that can be depended upon. That is why God left the Church here.
It is all just part of having chosen to serve this particular God as opposed to Budah or Muhamed. THis God's track record is just frought with oversight's and bad word choices. All overshadowed by the choice to use Fallable man to write down His thoughts. The irony here is that God in His Omniscience knew that man could not know anything the He God knew, or else man would be God. Clearly He should have used monkey's or Polar Bears to translate for Him. Thank God though that the trees and stars tell us to circumcise our male children.
The creation of Lucifer was the first of the Judeo Gods mistakes. Then thousands of years later He tried again with Adam and Eve. Next came the Mosaic System which failed miserably. Fortunatly it appears that the ecomomy of the Church Age has been Gods best move yet. It has survived 2000+ yrs. so far and looks to make it another 5 or 6yrs based on most Futurist Emperical Models. That would put us about 600yrs beyond Isreals best run.
The "tension" of Vos, which can be "felt" but not explained could be our biggest obstacle yet: but "steady as she goes" as they say.
Now, the Decunstruction of Language has seemed an insurmountable front but, with the advent of, and the Understanding (no pun intended) of the same, "Apparent Contradictions"; has truely been a real "god send". For since the Church has embraced this Understanding, (or lack of depending on your Orthodoxy meter), it has made great strides in keeping itself locked onto the great strides of the Reformed movers and shakers of the late 1500's.
But, back to Christ mistakes in using human language. You are right on the money. THere is a good chance that He did this because we know that he spent about ten or 15yrs across the Himalayn Mountains in China studying. So when He came back to His home town of Isreal, He had forgotten alot of the correct words and cultural phrases. We have Missionaries who do this kind of thing all the time. THey come home from being in the Jungle for 20yrs, and you'd think they were crazy witht the way they talk and act and all. Picking their noses in public. Belching. Ahh the list just goes on and on, and includes the loss of language skills.
Well, keep your eye's open as you study and embrace Orthodoxy at all cost! Wittenstein and VanTil, are some great sources to check out when you come to these frustrating points. But belive me, I understand the desire to understand this God. It is something we have all struggled with. But remember, we can't have that, because that would make us "God" too. God must remain Incomprehensible. Period. That includes His language too.
|
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Nov 21, 2005 16:23:38 GMT -5
Uh...CV? I think you need to go back to comedy school. Start with the slippery bannana peel, work way up to knock knock jokes, and perhaps one day you will graduate to the levels of theological humor. But start with small, baby steps. You can do it buddy!
Regernerate, I think the comment is more image oriented than theologicaly doctirnal. "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil," I think comments on what you propose you would rather of Him have said. There is a tension filled graphic that fills our mind as we pray and comment on our life, and God's activity within it.
It is a strange comment though contextualy, since the discussion of forgiveness initiates, gets put on hold, and then picks right up as though nothing interrupted it with "for if you forgive..." I would gather that some people would see this as an interpolation, or at least a seperate grafted in tradition. I haven't studied it, but just by virtue of the reading I can see people making that case.
It can also be read though as a comment itself on the issue of forgiveness, though it is a hard sell at first look.
But ultimately, as I originaly stated, there is a consistent contrast being developed throughout the prayer, good and bad. What God does good, and what we do bad, and here what God does good is not leading us into temptation, not that He does lead us into it. And of course we get into evil, and He rescues us from it.
I just think it is a contrasting tool, a picture driven theology, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by ReGeNeRATE on Nov 21, 2005 17:28:29 GMT -5
...Good question ReGen, Jesus made many mistakes, and continues to let things slip through the Cracks everytime the Bible goes through another language translation. You simply have come across one more. This is why we must embrace Orthodoxy like never before. Only the Church has the answers that can be depended upon. That is why God left the Church here. It is all just part of having chosen to serve this particular God as opposed to Budah or Muhamed. THis God's track record is just frought with oversight's and bad word choices. All overshadowed by the choice to use Fallable man to write down His thoughts. The irony here is that God in His Omniscience knew that man could not know anything the He God knew, or else man would be God. Clearly He should have used monkey's or Polar Bears to translate for Him. Thank God though that the trees and stars tell us to circumcise our male children. The creation of Lucifer was the first of the Judeo Gods mistakes. Then thousands of years later He tried again with Adam and Eve. Next came the Mosaic System which failed miserably. Fortunatly it appears that the ecomomy of the Church Age has been Gods best move yet. It has survived 2000+ yrs. so far and looks to make it another 5 or 6yrs based on most Futurist Emperical Models. That would put us about 600yrs beyond Isreals best run. The "tension" of Vos, which can be "felt" but not explained could be our biggest obstacle yet: but "steady as she goes" as they say. Now, the Decunstruction of Language has seemed an insurmountable front but, with the advent of, and the Understanding (no pun intended) of the same, "Apparent Contradictions"; has truely been a real "god send". For since the Church has embraced this Understanding, (or lack of depending on your Orthodoxy meter), it has made great strides in keeping itself locked onto the great strides of the Reformed movers and shakers of the late 1500's. But, back to Christ mistakes in using human language. You are right on the money. THere is a good chance that He did this because we know that he spent about ten or 15yrs across the Himalayn Mountains in China studying. So when He came back to His home town of Isreal, He had forgotten alot of the correct words and cultural phrases. We have Missionaries who do this kind of thing all the time. THey come home from being in the Jungle for 20yrs, and you'd think they were crazy witht the way they talk and act and all. Picking their noses in public. Belching. Ahh the list just goes on and on, and includes the loss of language skills. Well, keep your eye's open as you study and embrace Orthodoxy at all cost! Wittenstein and VanTil, are some great sources to check out when you come to these frustrating points. But belive me, I understand the desire to understand this God. It is something we have all struggled with. But remember, we can't have that, because that would make us "God" too. God must remain Incomprehensible. Period. That includes His language too. WHAT IN TARNATIONS? |
|
|
|
Post by ReGeNeRATE on Nov 21, 2005 17:29:36 GMT -5
Uh...CV? I think you need to go back to comedy school. Start with the slippery bannana peel, work way up to knock knock jokes, and perhaps one day you will graduate to the levels of theological humor. But start with small, baby steps. You can do it buddy! He was being humorous? |
|
|
|
Post by ReGeNeRATE on Nov 21, 2005 17:32:44 GMT -5
Regernerate, I think the comment is more image oriented than theologicaly doctirnal. "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil," I think comments on what you propose you would rather of Him have said. There is a tension filled graphic that fills our mind as we pray and comment on our life, and God's activity within it. It is a strange comment though contextualy, since the discussion of forgiveness initiates, gets put on hold, and then picks right up as though nothing interrupted it with "for if you forgive..." I would gather that some people would see this as an interpolation, or at least a seperate grafted in tradition. I haven't studied it, but just by virtue of the reading I can see people making that case. It can also be read though as a comment itself on the issue of forgiveness, though it is a hard sell at first look. But ultimately, as I originaly stated, there is a consistent contrast being developed throughout the prayer, good and bad. What God does good, and what we do bad, and here what God does good is not leading us into temptation, not that He does lead us into it. And of course we get into evil, and He rescues us from it. I just think it is a contrasting tool, a picture driven theology, IMO. I'm not sure if I understood what you intended to say. Can you elaborate on it a little more, thanx Sola Agape |
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Nov 21, 2005 18:41:32 GMT -5
Hey welcome to the board!
A lot has been written about this request. It seems like a strange one. It would seem to suggest that we are asking God to not do something that he would normally do.
It almost like the request is " Lord, I know u usually lead us into temptation, but can u please NOT do that?" It looks weird.
The way I think it can be understood is as a LITOTES. This is a figure of speech which expresses something by negating the contrary. For example 'not a few' means MANY right? We negate 'a few' to produce this LITOTES.
In John 6:37 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. As the passage continues, u see Jesus is saying I will not lose any that come to me.
I think "Into Temptation" is negated: Lead us NOT into temptation, but AWAY from it, away from situations, that would cause us to sin. Then he goes on to note deliverance fro the devil.
We must rely on God for our food, clothing, life...But here Jesus points out we must always rely on God for our MORAL PURITY.
I hope that was a little helpful
grace n peace
|
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Nov 21, 2005 18:59:42 GMT -5
Right. Good post answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by ReGeNeRATE on Nov 22, 2005 9:45:41 GMT -5
Hey welcome to the board! A lot has been written about this request. It seems like a strange one. It would seem to suggest that we are asking God to not do something that he would normally do. It almost like the request is " Lord, I know u usually lead us into temptation, but can u please NOT do that?" It looks weird. The way I think it can be understood is as a LITOTES. This is a figure of speech which expresses something by negating the contrary. For example 'not a few' means MANY right? We negate 'a few' to produce this LITOTES. In John 6:37 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. As the passage continues, u see Jesus is saying I will not lose any that come to me. I think "Into Temptation" is negated: Lead us NOT into temptation, but AWAY from it, away from situations, that would cause us to sin. Then he goes on to note deliverance fro the devil. We must rely on God for our food, clothing, life...But here Jesus points out we must always rely on God for our MORAL PURITY. I hope that was a little helpful grace n peace Dope Good post homie |
|
