.
The words in question are:
Et ne nos inducas in tentationem.I know someone who has been saying the Rosary with a group and using different words for the Pater Noster. When I asked him about this he tried to act as if he didn't know what I was talking about.
So I told him, "When you're saying the Rosary, I hear you using different words, when you say 'Let us not be led into temptation.' Is there a reason for that?"
He replied, "We can talk about this later." Really? Do you have any source for your different words?
He replied, "Yup." So I then asked for him to tell me what his source is, and he repeated, "We can talk about this later." I repeated: You have a source but you're not going to tell me what it is? "We can talk about this later."
This is the same man who, when handed a printout describing the moral crimes of Nelson "the Necklace" Mandela, changed the topic, after saying he thought that Mandela was a force for equality and resolution in Africa. He didn't want to discuss Mandela any more.
So a few weeks went by, and I asked again. Here is what happened:
I quoted Matt. vi. 13 to him and he said that "when something only appears one time in the Bible it's not conclusive." So I said, okay, so if it occurs twice then is it any more convincing to you, or do you need to see it three or four or five times?
He agreed that two times would be enough, but the words would have to be identical. I said, okay so two places on like what, different pages of the Bible, with the same context and the exact same words and then it's a matter of definitive wording that we cannot question, is that right?
He said okay.
Then I said, "take a look at St. Luke, xi. 4. He didn't have a Bible to look at. So I said, "Would you like me to read it to you?" He said, okay. I asked him, "Do you have any particular version you would like me to use, like the King James Version? He said, "yeah, use the KJV." So I quoted to him Luke 11:4 in KJV: "And lead us not into temptation."
He said, "That doesn't prove anything."
So you see, when you go out of your way to meet all their requirements and give them the proof they're asking for, when it's inconvenient for them, they say it's still not acceptable, even though they said a minute before that it would be acceptable.
Here is a reference I found using a search engine. I looked for the words "Let us not be led into temptation," and the only website that had them all was this one, below. So my friend says he has a source for this alternative wording, and he would not tell me what that source is, and when I searched the Internet, all I can find is this one page. Therefore, is it unreasonable to expect that this is the page that my friend is quoting as his "source?"
One online source for this text replacing Matt. vi. 13 and Luke xi. 4:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/ssm/ssm05.htmThis web page has numerous heresies and errors in it, but there are four of particular interest to me regarding Matt. vi. 13 and Lk. xi. 4.
In one place, the author says
he is gathering his material on this page from ancient teachings of a gnostic religion from Atlantis.In another place he says that Jesus taught things that were misunderstood, and that three of them are as follows:
When He was dying on the cross, he did not ask a question, saying, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" No, rather
He made a statement, saying that his face is covered with darkness as he faints, or, that is to say, "I feel that basically, he's trying to say that Our Lord had said, 'Oh, my, I think I'm about to lose consciousness'!"
And in another place, our rank imbiber of the grand sewer of all heresies says that
the Great Master, Jesus, taught re-incarnation.
Maybe his actual source is the Daily Mail, or perhaps The Enquirer, Atlantis version.
And immediately preceding that, he says that he "feels" that the translation of Matt. vi. 13 SHOULD be,
"Let us not be led into temptation."
But again, he does not provide any source, other than his "feelings" about that.
This is a long and tedious page of about 4,000 words, which is quite a lot of fanciful musings with no really clear objective, other than perhaps this one: to obfuscate and befuddle the reader, for it goes on for thousands of words about a mystery religion from 70,000 years ago, without being specific regarding where it was found or to what reference it is to be traced, even though elsewhere on the same website it says he's getting his stuff from Atlantis, without explaining how he knows it's from there or where he actually found it or any other citation of standard detail like that.
It comes down to how the author "feels" that the sentence in Matt. vi. 13 and Luke xi. 4 "ought" to read, instead of how they DO read. BTW, they read this way in all the online versions of the Bible, whether Douay-Rheims, KJV or the "Good News Bible" of whatever sect it was.
They all say this: "And lead us not into temptation," 6 identical words.
But our modern ear rebels against such words, therefore they must not be correct! (Read, our ears corrupted with Modernism.)
What does our practitioner of the ancient mystery religions of Atlantis have to say? What does the practitioner say who asserts that the Great Master Jesus taught re-incarnation?
He says this:
"I think the words of the Master, correctly translated, would be: 'Let us not be led into temptation'; for in the Sacred Writings we find: 'O Heavenly Father, let not temptation overtake or surround us. If it does, deliver us from it.' These are the reasons why I feel that the words of the Great Master have been unintentionally misquoted or mistranslated."
Nor does this practitioner waste any time, for his next sentence is this:
He told me that one of the cardinal themes of the Great Master, Jesus, was re-incarnation, something almost entirely omitted in our Biblical account of Him, also in our religious services.
****************************
Here is the complete text: "You will notice, my son, our temple has no wealth nor have those connected with it any wealth. We depend entirely on what the Heavenly Father sends us day by day through the people. Our faith in Him is implicit, so he never allows us to want." And so he could go on through every sentence of the Lord's Prayer.
Another favorite sentence in the Lord's Prayer to comment on was: "Lead us not into temptation." This, he said, "was unquestionably a mistranslation of the Master's words and, no doubt, was unintentional, arising from careless reading." He then went on: "Let us reason it out. In one of the paragraphs it is shown that the Heavenly Father is the All Powerful, for it says: 'For Thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory.' Here it is shown that the supposed leader into temptation is the All Powerful. Therefore, being All Powerful, He cannot fail; and who is the All Powerful? Our kindly Heavenly Father whose love is so great it rules the universe. Could He forget His great love and set a trap for a son's downfall? Impossible!
"I think the words of the Master, correctly translated, would be: 'Let us not be led into temptation'; for in the Sacred Writings we find: 'O Heavenly Father, let not temptation overtake or surround us. If it
p. 52
does, deliver us from it.' These are the reasons why I feel that the words of the Great Master have been unintentionally misquoted or mistranslated."
He told me that one of the cardinal themes of the Great Master, Jesus, was re-incarnation, something almost entirely omitted in our Biblical account of Him, also in our religious services.
************************
Yes, our religious services are
extremely deprived without re-incarnation in them!
The final lines of this screed attempt to explain away what Our Lord said, hanging on the Cross, and quoted by the infallible Apostles, who explained His words, when He said,
"Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani," as meaning "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"
But no, they may have been infallible, but they were wrong! You see, the screed author knows better, for he believes it was badly translated by some unnamed copyist (even though numerous copies were made by many scribes and they all are the same, as above), and what he should have written is
"Hele, hele, lamat zabac ta ni," which translated means,
"I faint. I faint, darkness is coming over my face." ***************************
Here is the complete text: On one occasion the old Rishi informed me that temple legends stated: "Jesus, during his sojourn in the Himalayan monastery, studied the contents of the Sacred Inspired Writings, the language, the writing and the Cosmic Forces of the Motherland."
That Jesus was a Master of the Cosmic Forces, with a perfect knowledge of the Original Religion, is manifest in the Books of the New Testament; but it is not there shown that he understood the language of Mu. His acquaintance with it is proved by his last words when nailed to the Cross: "Eli, Eli, lama sabac tha ni."
This is not Hebrew nor any tongue that was spoken in Asia Minor during the life of Jesus. It is the pure tongue of the Motherland, badly pronounced and spelt in the New Testament. It should have been spelt, read and pronounced:
"Hele, hele, lamat zabac ta ni."Translation:
p. 55
Hele--I faint. Hele--I faint; lamat zabac ta ni--darkness is coming over my face.I do not stand alone on this translation. The late Don Antonio Batres Jaurequi, a prominent Maya scholar of Guatemala, in his book, "History of Central America," says: "The last words of Jesus on the Cross were in Maya, the oldest known language." He says they should read, "Hele, Hele, lamah sabac ta ni." Put in English: "Now I am fainting; the darkness covers my face." Thus we virtually agree on all material points. The slight differences are easily explained.
Jaurequi spells the word "lamah." I spell it "lamat." He spells the word "sabac." I spell it "zabac." This difference is brought about by the translations coming from two different lines of colonization. Mine comes from the Naga-Maya of Eastern Asia; Jaurequi's comes from the modern Maya of Central America. The two, taken from vastly distant parts of the earth, agree in all material points.
***************************
A Latin way of saying this (Let us not be led into temptation):
Non induci in tentationem. .