standingfirminChrist
New Member
Did Christ allow that disciple to go to his dad's funeral? My Bible tells me He didn't.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Amazing interpretation of an event. Jesus knew the man's heart, pure and simple. He knew that the burial was simply an excuse, it was an attempt to try the man's heart. We have no idea if the man's father was a believer or not.Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Did Christ allow that disciple to go to his dad's funeral? My Bible tells me He didn't.
And the moon is made of Swiss cheese!Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:
Fictitious? NOT!!! Most of the modern versions are based on the RSV which was based on W & H.
That is a known fact. Even Smithsonian Institute will attest to that.
What a shame it is that knowledgeable Baptists have to spend a large portion of their time correcting the false teachings of other Baptists.The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516 1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century. And he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text. Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus.
We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament. and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. The evidence for the text of the books of the New Testament is better than for any other ancient book, both in the number of extant manuscripts and in the nearness of the date of some of these manuscripts to the date when the book was originally written.
The revisers in the 1870's had most of the evidence that we new have for the Greek text, though the most ancient of all extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament were not discovered until 1931. But they lacked the resources which discoveries within the past eighty years have afforded for understanding the vocabulary, grammar and idioms of the Greek New Testament. An amazing body of Greek papyri has been unearthed in Egypt since the 1870's private letters; Official reports, wills, business accounts, petitions, and other such trivial, everyday recordings of the activities of human beings. In 1895 appeared the first of Adolf Deissmann's studies of these ordinary materials. He proved that many words which had hitherto been assumed to belong to what was called "Biblical Greek" were current in the spoken vernacular of the first century AD. The New Testament was written in the Koine, the common Greek which was spoken and understood practically everywhere throughout the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era. This development in the study of New Testament Greek has come since the work on the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version was done, and at many points sheds new light upon the meaning of the Greek text.
It absolutely amazes me that any Baptist living in the enlightened 20th-21ist century could possibly believe such grossly pitiful nonsense about the Roman Catholic Church.Originally posted by JackRUS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Christ is not the only redemptor according to the Catholic faith. Mary is also a Redemptrix. She also shares the power to redeem people from sin, thereby removing the faith in Christ alone.
The fact that our Lord said 'Let the dead bury their dead' tells us the father was indeed an unbeliever.Amazing interpretation of an event. Jesus knew the man's heart, pure and simple. He knew that the burial was simply an excuse, it was an attempt to try the man's heart. We have no idea if the man's father was a believer or not.
The fact that our Lord said 'Let the dead bury their dead' tells us the father was indeed an unbeliever.Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Amazing interpretation of an event. Jesus knew the man's heart, pure and simple. He knew that the burial was simply an excuse, it was an attempt to try the man's heart. We have no idea if the man's father was a believer or not.
I think it is pretty obvious that they have no answer for this. </font>[/QUOTE]Ditto.Originally posted by PastorSBC1303:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
Once again, where is the conflict between following Christ and going to a funeral?
Amen and amen!! We as Christians are to be salt and light, showing compassion on everyone not just other Christians.Originally posted by C4K:
And while you are letting the spiritually dead (even if how you insist on interpreting it) bury their dead, show the love of Christ to hurting family and friends by being there to support them in their time of sorrow.
Amen!!
I think it is pretty obvious that they have no answer for this. </font>[/QUOTE]It isn't the word "funeral" or "wedding" which is the problem. It is the fact that it is a Roman Catholic religious ceremony. There is a huge conflict between following Christ and partaking in the religious services of a heretical church.Originally posted by PastorSBC1303:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
Once again, where is the conflict between following Christ and going to a funeral?
The fact that our Lord said 'Let the dead bury their dead' tells us the father was indeed an unbeliever.Originally posted by 4His_glory:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Amazing interpretation of an event. Jesus knew the man's heart, pure and simple. He knew that the burial was simply an excuse, it was an attempt to try the man's heart. We have no idea if the man's father was a believer or not.
I think it is pretty obvious that they have no answer for this. </font>[/QUOTE]It isn't the word "funeral" or "wedding" which is the problem. It is the fact that it is a Roman Catholic religious ceremony. There is a huge conflict between following Christ and partaking in the religious services of a heretical church. </font>[/QUOTE]Who is partaking in the religious services.Originally posted by Artimaeus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PastorSBC1303:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
Once again, where is the conflict between following Christ and going to a funeral?
This is exactly my point of scary eisegesis taking place here. You can make Scripture say whatever you want it to.Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
The fact that our Lord said 'Let the dead bury their dead' tells us the father was indeed an unbeliever.
The first word 'dead' had to have meant 'spiritually dead', for we know a physically dead person cannot bury another physically dead person. There is a key word here that shows the father was indeed unsaved... the word 'their'. They were spiritually dead. The father belonged to their class of people. We know this because the word 'their' speaks of belonging to someone.