Don, I gotta say I have a hunch your theory about "trespasses" and poaching is apocryphal. Most Christian churches use "trespasses," while the Calvinist churches generally use "debts." The King James (Authorized) Version uses "debts," as does the New Revised Standard Version (which works really hard at adhering to the original Greek). The Latin text of the Catholic Church is "debitoribus" is obviously "debts." So, it seems to me that the "debts" have it, but a whole lot of people use "trespasses."

But to use the Aramaic Lord's Prayer as a proof text is problematic. It's quite probable that the original wording was Aramaic, but there are no "original" Aramaic texts. So, what you have to do is extrapolate from the Greek to determine what the original Aramaic might have been. Modern linguists can do this quite well, but it's still an extrapolation. It's an interesting exercise, however, since the extrapolation sometimes clarifies what had been difficult to understand in the Greek. But although the New Testament often follows Aramaic language patterns, the earliest texts we have are Greek.

All that being said, I have to say I don't think that in context, there's not a whole hell of a lot of difference between the meaning of "trespasses" and "debts." It's just nice when people are praying together, that they use the same words.

And all this serves to illustrate a point I wanted to make: I think that "mainstream" Protestant and Catholic and Reform Jewish scripture scholars agree fairly well on the meaning of Scripture:

"It could mean this. Then again, it could mean that. But maybe it means the other thing. But in any case, isn't it interesting?"

This, of course, drives the fundamentalists crazy, since they're comfortable only with certainty. It drives many atheists crazy, too, because it's impossible to argue with uncertainty. And many atheists seek the same thing fundamentalists seek: certainty. The Fundamentalists are certain that there Is, and some atheists are certain that there Is Not.

I have to say that I think the Mainstream Protestant/Catholic/Reform Jewish position is correct: all of it can mean a number of things. Unitarians and Buddhists and many Quakers (and a bunch of others) seem to hold that same position. And I think their answer is this: Is/Is Not, is not the question.

And that's OK.

Now, I have to say that here is where I have a problem with many atheists - they cannot accept the "Mainstream Protestant / Catholic / Reform Jewish / Unitarian / Buddhist / Quaker" view of Scripture, because they don't know what it is they're supposed to disagree with. I have a problem with many atheists because they want to tell me what I believe, and then vehemently disagree with what they think I believe. They cannot accept uncertainty. They cannot accept that there are questions we cannot answer, or questions that have an infinite number of answers.

I guess what I believe is that there really are no answers - there are only wonderful questions to explore. At this point in my exploration, I am here, and the view from here is terrific. So, let's have a pint and talk about it.

-Joe-