HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: An open question...
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 01:11:18 GMT

mmcgreg@uswnvg.com (Mark McGregor) writes:
: 
: I think that this started out as sort of a scholarly question 
: regarding what was termed "misquotes" of the O.T. on the part
: of the gospel of Matthew.
: 
: So, I offer some (hopefully) scholarly thoughts.
: 
: 1)  Out context and style of argument is different than the
:     styles 2000 years ago.  Matthew was (it would seem), writing
:     to a primarily Jewish audience.  One has to have a good
:     grasp of O.T. writings (or Torah, Writings, and Prophets if
:     you don't like the term O.T.) in order to gain a great
:     appreciation for the message.  The way in which Matthew
:     quotes the O.T. is very consistent with the style of the day
:     and age.  Jewish people would expect no other style at that
:     time.  To them it made perfect sense.  To us today, this 
:     causes some problems, since this is not our method of
:     argument or style.

I don't think you are saying that such usage was any more valid
then that it is today, only that it was more commonly accepted.
Why should we assume that the other testimony was any more 
credible?  Couldn't it be subject to the same flaws in reason?
If taking prophesies out of context was acceptable, what about
recording rumours and legends as if they were fact?  I think
their credulity in this area may reflect credulity in others.

: [explaination for the missing prophesies deleted for space]

I agree that Matt. would have had other sources that didn't
make it into to version today and were probably lost.

: 
: If you want to better understand the Jewish writing and arguing
: style of that time, I suggest you examine the older sections of the
: Talmud and Midrash.  The style of arguing is definately foreign
: to today.

Note that there is a significant Christian population that 
still believes the validity of such usage today.  Maybe 
rationality hasn't advanced as far as we like to think.

: [reference sources deleted for space] 

Thanks, I will check these out.

: 
: I believe that if you are going to present material either for or
: against a position, you better understand the material, and know 
: the sources.  This helps you from looking back down a 2000 year
: old tunnel and seeing today.

I don't really question that such usage was commonly acceptable 
then, only that isn't wasn't any more valid than it is today.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mmcgreg@uswnvg.com (Mark McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: On the History of Bible Translation
Date: 5 Sep 92 03:58:50 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5


A few "corrections".

1)  Martin Luther used Erasmus' GREEK translation of the N.T.  This was
    one of the greatest scholarly advances of that time.

2)  Most "reputable" 20th century translations are not "based" on the
    KJV.  They are based on much more ancient texts.

If you take the time to read the fine print at the front of the Bible
you will probably find the following:

1)  The O.T. is generally translated from the Masoritic texts (MT).  Although
    some Qumran texts (such as Isaiah) are older than the MT, the MT is
    generally held to be more accurate because of the strict rules of
    the Jewish scribes.  Additional help on translation has been provided
    by Ugaritic texts which helped clear up the meaning of many Hebrew
    terms.  

2)  Most N.T. translations go back to the oldest Greek texts, many of which
    are fragments.  These are broken down into various "traditions", some of
    which are deemed to be more "pure" than others.  The reason that these
    translations are superior to the KJV is the age of the sources.  The
    KJV was based on texts from around 900 a.d. (or later), and these
    translations and copies have more errors than earlier texts.  Current
    translations such as the NASB use things such as the Chester-Beatty
    papyrus and other fragments from as early as 200 a.d.  The seven hundred
    year difference is significant.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:33:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep7.033823.28710@news.cs.brandeis.edu>,
aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) wrote:
> In article <1992Sep5.154610.17229@bcars6a8.bnr.ca>, davem@bnr.ca (Dave Mielke) writes:
> >There appears to be abundant Biblical evidence which indicates that the
> >Lord Jesus Christ will return as the judge of all the earth sometime
> >during September in 1994. 
 
> Jesus didn't know when the end was going to occur (Mark 13:32) and it didn't
> seem to bother him.  Why, then, should we care when it's going to happen?

> "But of that day or hour NO ONE KNOWS, not even the angels in heaven, nor the
> Son, but the Father alone." [Mark 13:32 (NASB), emphasis mine]  Give it up.

So fellow airm chair theologians, isn't this another nail in the coffin
concerning the issue of the holy trinity? If Jesus didn't know, only the
Father did. How could he be God then at the same time, and not knowing
about it, wonders Calvin?

Kent
PS: The only solution would be that Jesus was merged to the trinity
later, or that there was a communication blockout between Jesus
and God while he spent time on Earth. Or the obvious one, Jesus
didn't even state that the trinity exists. The logical error was
mapped to the doctrine later. And the monks didn't catch all
the places in the Gospels for correction in the scripts.

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Re: Christology 101 [was: There are two years left!]
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:10:22 GMT

Sean Hartigan made some wild accusations against Charles Hedrick:

In article <1992Sep10.115525.7438@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>Your view smacks of the Apollinarian heresy, actually, which, according
>to Latourette "held that the _Logos_ dwelt in Jesus much as God dwells in
>a temple."

Sean, your attacks on Charles Hedrick are completely unfounded!
The Apollinarian heresy held that the Logos dwelt in the BODY of Jesus
much as God dwells in the temple, and in so doing, denied that Jesus
had a human soul and spirit.  But Charles' position, which by the way
is also my position, is that Logos dwelt in the PERSON of Jesus, and
thus affirms Jesus' full human nature (not just human body, but also
human soul and spirit), in addition to His divine nature.  This is
not Apollinarian heresy by any means.  In fact, this position is the
exact opposite of the Apollinarian heresy.

Actually, the picture of God dwelling in the Temple is a good one,
as long as it is understood that Temple here signifies the entire
PERSON of Jesus, not just His BODY.  This makes sense for the Temple
has three parts: the Holy of Holies, the Holy Place, and the outer
court,; and these three parts, in typology, corresponds to the three
components of the full human nature: spirit, soul, and body.

In fact, the picture of God's dwelling presence in the Temple, as
presented in the OT, was the ancient Hebrew way (as well as the
Biblical way) of expressing that ancient Hebrew messianic expectation
that God would come to His people in the PERSON of messiah.

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 9 Sep 92 00:29:20 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <gate.DuDRqB1w165w@lakes.trenton.sc.us>,
kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki) wrote:
> Kalki responds:
> In the past there were many fools who boasted of their so-called
> "independence" from God and the laws of nature. Without exception, such
> worthless fellows were unceremoniously annihilated and their illusory
> "mastery" perished with them. While they lived, those fools were a
> burden on the world, and when they were killed by the agents of God, the
> world was overjoyed. If a demon will not learn from history, then he
> will learn from the rod, there is no doubt about it.

This starts to smell more and more like one of those skinny
youngsters trying to cause ripples in the bath tube (t.r.m)...

Your statements remind me of nazism.

Cheers,
Kent

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage
Subject: The Adam and Eve Thing
Date: 10 Sep 92 01:20:26 GMT
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.



The Question:

     What does Satan, Eve and Shirley MacLaine have in common?


The Answer:

     All three believe they can be like God. 


     Satan said in Isaiah 14:13-14, "I will raise my throne 
     above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount
     of the assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred 
     mountain.  I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will
     make myself like the Most High."  The Most High replied back 
     in the next verse, "But you are brought down to the grave,
     to the depths of the pit."

     Satan tempts Eve with the same lie in Genesis 3:5.  Satan
     is speaking:  "For God knows that when you eat of it
     your eyes will be opened, and you WILL BE LIKE God, knowing
     good and evil."   Eve fell for it.

     Shirley MacLaine believes she is God.  Being or becoming God
     is not only a New Age religion belief, but also a Mormom
     doctrine.  From the Bible, this belief is one of Satan's 
     original lies.  The second lie to be exact.  (The first one was
     "You will not surely die." in Genesis 3:4. Certainly not true.)
     People are still falling for the I-can-be-God lie today.  A 
     very flattering lie indeed.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Rich Men and Heaven, Part 2
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:17:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

Jesus told the story of the rich man and Lazarus, which seems to yet again
reflect the authentic celibate-communistic principles of Jesus. The only
wickedness of the rich man consists in the fact that he fares sumptuously
and is clothed in purple and fine linen. While the beggar Lazarus, full of
scores, begs at his gate. We are not told if the beggar was a cripple or
not, itUs not of the slightest import. He was poor, and that made him holy.

Both men die. Lazarus ascends to the bottom of Abraham and the rich man
necessarily goes down into the flames of hell. Here, in the extremity of
agony, he begs just a drop of water to cool his burning tongue. Any such
relief would be a denial of the divine justice. But as the Bible states:
Rthou in the lifetime received good things, and likewise Lazarus evil
things: but now he is comforted, and you are tormentedS.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus is basically a story to establish the
ethical necessity of practising wealth sharing on earth in order to escape
hell hereafter.

As for the earlier statement about the young man that didnUt want to sell
everything for joining Jesus. From an objective point of view it clearly
means that no human motivation or persuation could be sufficient to compel
a rich heir to surrender his wealth voluntarily. However, if he was one of
the elected, he would be compelled by a divine, inner compulsion to
renounce his worldly goods. The believe that Jesus meant that the young man
could keep his wealth and also inherit the Kingdom is preposterous. Jesus
does not even state this in the Gospels.



"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:01:09 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <adams.716500714@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>Hmm.  Well, the rules in the OT were not meant to be 'dumb', in my opinoin.
>>Assume for a moment that God did not hand the rules down to Moses on a
>>tablet...now, can we think of rational, logical reasons for those laws?
>
>Sure, I can think of some reasons.
>
>This does not mean that God has to have sacrifices in the 20th Century.  Unlike
>those Old Testament people, we don't live in a world where everyone else does
>sacrifices; therefore, the reason why Old Testament sacrifices were needed no
>longer applies.
Right...but Christ came 2000 years ago into a society that was goverened by
the OT.

>So why didn't God make a world with the rule "sacrifices in ancient times,
>no sacrifices now"?  What he really did, according to you, was make a world
>where sacrifices were needed both then and now, and then kludge around the
>latter by sending Jesus to get rid of the "now" part.  A rather roundabout
>method.  Why didn't he just make the world without it to begin with?

The basic answer to this is, I don't know.  I can't begin to explain this.
Why did God make the world with hurricanes?  Earthquakes?  I don't know of
a rational explanation for those...do you?  At least there is some strain
of rationalism in the dietary, worship and moral laws...

As to God's chosing of the time, that is for Him alone to determine...not
me.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams   "Space-age cybernomad"     Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15987 alt.atheism:16907
From: leifmk@Lise.Unit.NO (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y)
Subject: Re:  Two years left...
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 23:08:52 GMT

Yeah.  Right.  Let's discuss that again in three years' time.  Looking forward 
to it.

Really, the end isn't coming any more now than at the last millennium.  The fact
that we happen to use a certain (miscalculated) calendar doesn't have very much
to do with anything else.  

Bloody fanatics.

Leif the .sigless
Still planning to be here in three years...and in four years...and in twenty...
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What happened to Gavins' kill file
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:26:09 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep6.004905.4410@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
(Eric Rescorla) wrote:
> Hmmm. I, myself, don't use a kill file, but I don't see that it's as bad
> as deliberate censorship. A kill file does nothing to infringe upon
> a person's right to speak, only is an exercise of my right not to listen.
 
> The fact of the matter is that the s/n ratio on the net is appallingly
> low. A kill file can go quite a way towards improving one's perception
> of it. 

I guess I have to defend my view why I personally don't like use of 
kill files (even if it's up to each person do use one or not).

Let's assume a person on the net posts an entry that attacks a 
special group of other people with alternate views. He also has
a kill file where most of the individuals that oppose the comments
are placed in.

It ends up in a very comical situation where the first poster
only indirectly sees comments from the other side. By using
this 'ostrich'-style defense the original poster tries to impose
censorship on his/her own ideas concerning the validity.

I would not be surprised if we sooner or later end up in a situation
where most people post, have kill files, so they never see the comments.
Sort of a one-man-band Usenet postings :-).

I could maybe back off my statement that kill files is as bad as
deliberate censorship (let us say global kill files at sites). However
the notion of kill files also creates the responsibility to know when
kill file entries are suitable or not. Kill files do in no way
help creating a better discussion environment. I would actually like
to see other methods used to improve the S/N ratio on the Net, like
more self awareness about how to handle a dialogue (I'm not got at that
myself,
but I'm aware of my limitations). Also, moderated groups are IMHO
the best possible groups concerning quality of postings (as long 
as the moderator is not biased).

Or my main rule is to keep the postings as short as possible -- to
the point. See, I broke that rule in this posting!

Cheers,
Kent

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: SPS
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:09:57 GMT


m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes: 
>weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
>}hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>}>If God created the universe, who created God?
>}
>}
>}This question seems to pop up frequently. Here goes ...
>}
>}The Bible makes claims that point toward the transcendence of God, that  
>}he exists in dimensions apart from our experience. One of those claims is
>}of his existence "prior to" or "apart from" the existence of the universe. 
>}Since time as we know it originated at the big bang, existence apart from 
>}the big bang points to additional dimensions of time. If God is transcendent
>}and exists in multiple dimensions of time, then the whole concept of a 
>}"begining" becomes absurd. In two dimensions of time, where is the "begining"
>}of a plane? In three dimensions, where is the "begining" of a sphere? The 
>}whole question "who created God" implies a linear timeline, an invalid
>}assumption if transcendence is one of his attributes.
>
>And what makes you think that the universe in total isn't the same?  Your
>description appears insufficient.

Insufficient in regard to what?  I am not offering a "proof" for God.
The question "If God created..., who created God?" assumes God as it's 
premise. I am attempting to show only that the question is nonsensical 
for a supreme being transcendent of time, and that as an argument against
theism, it is of no value.

By the way, the reason I don't attribute such qualities to the universe
in total is that in my understanding of general relativity and the big bang,
the dimensions of the universe do not exhibit transcendence, but rather
exhibit contingency, with an age of 16 billion +/- a few billion years.


Dave Weaver



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: self-worship
Organization: All things are __?__ things!
	<Btwt6C.638@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <ksand-040992193322@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:07:52 GMT

I believe Ken writes:
... as for atheist/agnostic thoughs, I do care shit about becoming
a God. Does that mean that I'm a Christian? According to your
earlier statements, yes. Sigh.
 
And I writes:
I doubt that any of my previous statements pidgeon-holed you into the
Christian mold. If you say you are a Christian, then you are a Christian. It
is you who is the judge of that.

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>I didn't save your earlier comment, so apoligies if I misquote your
>statement that non-belif in God implies belief in self, and that 
>New age and atheist religions believe in humans becoming like God.
>Well, I don't believe I will ever become a God, and I don't wont
>either. That places me in a very special set of people, one that
>does not follow the rules you laid out.

I believe these rules you are refering to are Mr. Buckley's. And if you are
in a class of people that does not follow someone else's rules, congratulations,
that is the path of an authentic individual living an authentic life. Best
wishes on your quest for the Gr-r-rail. Have you learned to roll your r's yet?
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 6 Sep 92 00:44:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep5.011908.19908@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) wrote:
> I am absolutely sure that I do not need to do such things to prove it to
> myself or God.  This is the best example of trying to "get to God" on ones
> own merit.  Faith comes from humility.  Its not "look at me" but rather "look
> at God".  If a Christian was successful they would be separated from God
> because they obviously did not understand or accept His free gift of grace.
> 'Nough said.
> 
> There is a big difference between faith and stupidity, and I only apply it
> (faith) to one thing: that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and
> man, and the joy of my life (both now and "after").

Boy, you really need faith in order to shake out any other possibilities,
for instance that another religion true and your's is false, or that
all religions created by man are false. Some people would call this
something else than faith, by the way (like me).

I wonder how your statement about differences between stupidity and
faith, is this really an *analytical* statement. Or wishful thinking
once again?

Cheers,
Kent
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15724 alt.atheism:16598
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:31:40 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
> 	Pay attention. The stuff mentioned from ZPG was _stupid_. That's
> what I said, that's what I meant, that's my objection, and I've even
> explained why. What is your problem? Perhaps you'd like to defend the
> statement that the world can only feed 3.2 billion, when the present
> population is ~5 billion, and growing all the time? What do you think
> they all eat, sand?

It may have escaped your parochial American attention, but currently in
Somalia the United Nations observers estimate that some 5000 children are
starving to death every day.

Maybe the world really can feed 5 billion, but the evidence suggests
otherwise.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard