Since you have been a Baptist, have you . . .

[standingfirminChrist]

Did Christ allow that disciple to go to his dad's funeral? My Bible tells me He didn't.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Oh bury me not on the lone prairie
The dying cowboy said
The sun is much too hot out there
And besides that, I ain't dead.
-----------------------------------
Anonymous

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Did Christ allow that disciple to go to his dad's funeral? My Bible tells me He didn't.

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 am grateful that I serve a Lord Who allows me to be there when friends and family need a shoulder to cry on.

You have constructed a false dichotomy. Being at a funeral is not more contrary to following Christ than sitting a computer.

This is a dead issue - let the dead bury the dead and follow Christ.

 

[Craigbythesea]

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.

And the moon is made of Swiss cheese!

Neither the RSV New Testament nor the New Testament of ANY modern English Translation of the Bible that I have heard of (I have about 85 of them in my home library) were based upon the Westcott & Hort Greek text.

The New Testament Greek text of the Revised Standard Version is an eclectic one. Many sources were used and the best readings of each were combined together and translated into English. Adolph Deissmann's studies of the papyri discovered in Egypt and his proof that many words previously thought to be unique to "Biblical Greek" were simply the everyday spoken vernacular of the first century shed new light on the vocabulary of the Greek New Testament and the meaning of individual words. The discoveries of Chester Beatty in the early thirties of New Testament papyrus manuscripts brought to light very early texts of parts of the New Testament, especially the epistles of Paul. These discoveries and the ongoing studies of the papyri were given careful attention and the most recent information was utilized in establishing and translating the New Testament text.

The second edition of the Revised Standard Version New Testament, published in 1971, reflects discoveries and studies made available since the first edition was published in 1946. Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 are restored to the text, being set off by a blank space and accompanied by textual notes. On the basis of new manuscript support, Luke 22:19b-20 and Luke 24:51b are also restored to the text, being accompanied by textual notes. Luke 22:43, 44 and a phrase in Luke 12:39 are removed from the text and placed in the notes.

The second edition also removes the following verses from the text and places them in the notes: Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:3b-4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:6b-8a; 28:29; and Romans 16:24. All of these same verses are bracketed in the New American Standard Bible and accompanied by notes indicating that they are of questionable origin.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Here is an excerpt from the preface of the first edition of the RSV:

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.

What a shame it is that knowledgeable Baptists have to spend a large portion of their time correcting the false teachings of other Baptists.

 

[Hope of Glory]

OK, I saved the web page on my computer, but I don't have the URL. Here is what it says about the versions that are based on texts that are more reliable than the TR. When they were translated generally reflects their source:

Some English New Testaments that are based on more reliable Greek texts. The primary standard Greek texts for each of the most recent four periods are below.

1. 1869-1881 - The Tischendorf text (1869).
2. 1881-1898 - The Tischendorf text and the Westcott & Hort text (1881).
3. 1898-1956 - The Nestle text.
4. 1956-present - The UBS text and Nestle-Aland text, which are identical.


Here are several versions and when they were translated:

Versions with a reliable textual basis Date
American Standard Version [book review] 1901
Bible in Basic English 1949, 1964
Contemporary English Version 1995
English Standard Version [book review] 2001
God's Word (website) 1982,1995
Goodspeed's Bible 1939
Holman Christian Standard Bible (if all bracketed text is excluded) 2004
The Jerusalem Bible 1966
Moulton's Modern Reader's Bible 1895, 1935
Moffatt's Bible 1954
New American Bible [book review] 1987
New Century Version 1986
New English Bible 1971
New International Version [book review] 1978
New Jerusalem Bible [book review] 1985
The New Living Translation 1996
New Revised Standard Version [book review] 1993
Phillips' New Testament 1957
Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha [book review] 1996
Revised Standard Version 1952
Revised Version 1881-1885
Rotherham's Emphasized Bible [book review] 1902
Schonefield's New Testament, Revised Edition 1985, 1998
Today's English Version [book review] 1976, 1992
The Twentieth Century New Testament 1904
Weymouth New Testament 1930

 

[Craigbythesea]

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.

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.

The true teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue was first taught in Latin and English speaking people with poor reading skills often have a difficult time understand Roman Catholic theology when it is expressed in English terminology.

The terms Co-redemtrix and Co-redeemer both use the Latin prefix cum that is found in many words in the English language meaning “with” in the sense of “accompaniment” or “associate with.” Compare the English word “co-worker.” Co-workers don’t do each other’s work; they work with each other.

When Roman Catholic theologians speak of Mary as the Co-redeemer they are speaking of Mary in her suffering at the cross. When Roman Catholic theologians speak of fellow Christians as co-redeemers they are speaking of our suffering with Christ and the part that we play in bringing the message of the gospel to others.

From the Roman Catholic point of view, co-redeemer does not suggest equality or partnership with, but dependence upon and subordination to the Redeemer who is Christ our Lord. Compare 1 Cor. 3:9,

1 Cor. 3:9. For we are God's co-workers; you are God's field, God's building. (NAB, 1971)

1 Cor. 3:9. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. (NASB, 1995)

1 Cor. 3:9. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. (KJV, 1769)

</font>[/QUOTE]Wrong on all counts Craig. Please explain these quotes from a Catholic bishop published in 1750:

This from Alphonsus de Liguori's "Glories of Mary": [He was a Catholic bishop in the 18th century and a canonized saint]. Published in 1750, it has been the most celebrated Marian devotional work in the Catholic Church with over 800 editions in many languages.

"With reason does an ancient writer call her [Mary] "the only hope of sinners", for by her help alone can we hope for the remission of sins. (pg 83) Isa. 43:8-11, Acts 4:12

”He fails and is lost who has not recourse to Mary.” (pg 94).

”Shall we scruple to ask her to save us, when the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary?” (pg 169)

"At the command of Mary all obey - even God." St. Bernardine [Catholic canonized saint] fears not to utter this sentence; meaning, indeed, to say that God grants the prayers of Mary as if they were commands...Since the Mother, then, should have the same power as the Son, rightly has Jesus, who is omnipotent, made Mary also omnipotent; though of course, it is always true that where the Son is omnipotent by nature, the Mother is only by grace. (Pg 180-82)

"There is no doubt, (St. Bernardine adds) that Jesus Christ is the only mediator of justice between men and God; [the bad, harsh one] but because men acknowledge and fear the divine Majesty, which is in him as God, for this reason it was necessary to assign us another advocate, [don't miss that] to whom we might have recourse with less fear and more confidence, [more confidence?!] and this advocate is Mary, than whom we cannot find one more powerful with his divine majesty, or one more merciful [Rom. 9:15] towards ourselves...A mediator, then was needed with the [mean] mediator himself." (Pg. 195-96)

"Be comforted then, O you who fear," will I [also] say with St. Thomas of Villanova [another lost Catholic saint]: "breath freely and take courage, O wretched sinners; this great Virgin, who is the mother of your God and judge, [again, the mean one] is also the advocate of the whole human race; fit for this office, for she can do what she wills with God; most wise, for she knows all the ways of appeasing him; universal, for she welcomes all, and refuses to defend no one." (Pg. 198). So much for Luke 13:2-5 and John 12:48.

St. Anselm, to increase our confidence, adds, that "when we have recourse to this divine Mother, only we may be sure of her protection, but that often we shall be heard more quickly, and be thus preserved, if we have recourse to Mary and call on her holy name [Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:13] , than we should if we call on the name of Jesus our Saviour," and the reason he gives for it is, "that to Jesus as a judge it belongs to punish; BUT MERCY ALONE BELONGS TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN as a patroness." (Pg. 136-37) Isa. 55:1-9; PS. 31, Rom. 9:15.

If God is angry with a sinner, and Mary takes him under her protection, she witholds the avenging arm of her Son, and saves him. (Pg. 124). Ex. 34:5-7.

I supplied the Scripture to refute his false worship of Mary.

Alfonsus de Liguori (1696-1787) was a principal proponent of the Marianist Movement, which glorifies Mary. He wrote a book entitled The Glories of Mary which is famous, influential and widely read. In this book, de Liguori says that Mary was given rulership over one half of the kingdom of God; Mary rules over the kingdom of mercy and Jesus rules over the kingdom of justice. De Liguori said that people should pray to Mary as a mediator and look to her as an object of trust for answered prayer. The book even says that there is no salvation outside of Mary. Some people suggest that these views are extreme and not representative of Catholic Church teaching. However, instead of silencing de Liguori as a heretic, the Catholic Church canonized him as a saint and declared him to be a “doctor of the Church” (a person whose teachings carry weight and authority).

Furthermore, his book is openly and officially promoted by the Catholic Church, and his teachings have influenced popes. [9]

Pope Benedict XV said of Mary that “[O]ne can justly say that with Christ, she herself redeemed mankind.” [10]

Pope Pius IX said, “Our salvation is based upon the holy Virgin... so that if there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her.” [11]

[9] William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History , page 87.
[10] In the Encyclical Intersodalicia (1918). Quoted in Donald G. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology , Vol. 1, page 196.
[11] In the Encyclical of February 2, 1849. Quoted in Donald G. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology , Vol. 1, page 196. </font>[/QUOTE]I am not wrong on any “count.” The truth of what I posted can very easily be verified.

I have myself read more lies and distortions of Roman Catholic theology than I care to reflect upon even to prove that they are lies and distortions. And I have read no fewer “quotes” from Catholic Bishops only to look them up in the original documents in which they supposedly appeared to learn that they were either not there at all, or taken out of context in a deliberate attempt to make them appear to say what they did not say.

But, of course, the Roman Catholic Church, just like the Baptist Church, has its share of heretics and one need not spend much time to find them if one knows where to look. But unlike the Baptist Church, the Roman Catholic Church has found a way to make it very easy for any reader to distinguish between genuine Roman Catholic dogma and the heresies of some individual priests and bishops. I am speaking here, of course, of the NIHIL OBSTAT and the IMPRIMATUR. If a “Roman Catholic” publication does not bear both of these, it is highly probable that the views expressed in it are contrary to the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.

Now it is my turn to ask you a question? Did you personally verify the accuracy of the quotes that you posted, or did you post them without first verifying their accuracy by looking them up in the original documents?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

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.

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.

 

[4His_glory]

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.

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Your hermenutics are simply amazing. Seriously though, I exhort as one brother to another, please go and learn how to interpret the Scriptures better.

 

[4His_glory]

I found this interesting:

"Allow the dead to bury their dead. By these words Christ does not condemn burial: for it would have been shameful and cruel to throw away the bodies of the dead unburied, and we know that the custom of burying originated in a divine command, and was practiced by the saints, in order to strengthen the hope of the last resurrection. He intended only to show, that what ever withdraws us from the right course, or retards us in it, deserves no other name than death. Those only live, he tells us, who devote all their thoughts, and every part of their life, to obedience to God; while those who do not rise above the world, —who devote themselves to pleasing men, and forget God, —are like dead men, who are idly and uselessly employed in taking care of the dead." (From Calvin's Commentaries)

 

[4His_glory]

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?

I think it is pretty obvious that they have no answer for this. </font>[/QUOTE]Ditto.

 

[4His_glory]

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!!

Amen and amen!! We as Christians are to be salt and light, showing compassion on everyone not just other Christians.

"And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith." Ga. 6:9-10 (NKJV)

 

[Artimaeus]

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?

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.

 

[Ron Arndt]

What? Give me a break. I don't care if my own Mother was Jewish, Hindu or Roman Catholic, when laid out at a funeral. Her religion when she was alive was HER CHOICE, not yours. RESPECT THAT! Go to the funeral and pay your respects and remember the loved one for WHO they were and not what denomination you claim they should be.

You don't have to partake in a religious ceremony of the bereaved at a funeral. Just sit there AND BE QUIET and quit fussing about it.

Many years ago, my Mother died a nominal Lutheran. My Father died a 3rd degree Masonic Mason. Both had different religious funeral ceremonies. I just sat there and was quiet. But I still paid my respect and SHOWED respect to the other people who attended as well.

 

[Joshua Rhodes]

I've been to several weddings and funerals in the Catholic church. Was there to support the family, and didn't take part in anything I felt was questionable. I did participate in responsive reading and such, but again, I was there to support the family with whom I was good friends. It was a good look at how they do worship... and gave me a lot to think about.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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.

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Your hermenutics are simply amazing. Seriously though, I exhort as one brother to another, please go and learn how to interpret the Scriptures better. </font>[/QUOTE]Yup - this is indeed astounding hermenutics. Whenever one says "must have meant" we are diving into strange waters.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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?

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.

I am amazed at some of the reasoning here.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

You want to really call me a heretic?

I have even been to Catholic christening when some close friends invited us.

Never been to a first communion or confirmation, they are usually on Sunday and I am busy .

 

[PastorSBC1303]

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.

This is exactly my point of scary eisegesis taking place here. You can make Scripture say whatever you want it to.

There is no way hermeutically speaking you can get to your interpretation from the text.

Word studies without proper context are useless!

 

[standingfirminChrist]

If it does not mean what Diggin and I see it to mean, maybe you can enlighten us? Apparently God reveals to you and not to us the meaning of His Holy Word?