HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Church and Rome
Date: 1 Sep 92 01:56:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <BttJA6.DLr@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes...
>Bob, you say, "The early church was basically a vague assortment of
>people that banded together."  I do hear this argument fairly often
>from many Protestants, but have never really taken the time to
>challenge it before.

	What's a Protestant?

>   This statement puzzles me, because the Scriptures tell us that
>basically the opposite happened.  That is, the Apostles were sent out
>to the various lands to spread the Gospel.  Having established the
>various churches, they remained in consultation with one another.

	"Therefore those who had been scattered	went about preaching 
the word." (Acts 8:4 NASB)

>   The churches didn't just spring up out of nowhere; they were
>started by the apostles sent to each respective land.  This means that
>since the leaders of the various churches were part of the same group
>(the Apostles and disciples), they were never in isolation from one
>another, and so could not "band together" (i.e. you cannot join what
>is not separated).

	"And on that day a great persecution arose against the church 
in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of 
Judea and Samaria, *except* the apostles" (Acts 8:1b)

	"Therefore those who had been scattered	(i.e., except the 
apostles) went about preaching the word." (Acts 8:4) 

>   The primacy of the See of Rome is actually that of the See of
>Peter.  This is because Peter was the leader of the Apostles, as
>Scripture always places him first among the Apostles, as do the
>historical writings of the early Church.  

	James seems to be the leader of the council in Jerusalem in 
Acts 15, and Paul corrected Peter's errors in Galatians. 

[...]

>   Sometimes Protestants will also say that the second "rock" Jesus
>spoke of in the above passage refers to Himself.  This is not the
>case.  The standard Protestant argument is that in the Greek, the
>first "Peter" is "Petros," while the second "rock" is "petra".  First
>of all, when this saying was translated _into_ Greek, it would have
>been improper to call Peter "Petra," as that is a woman's name.  So
>the masculine "Peter" was used instead.

	I don't know about Protestants, but it seems that the 
revelation that Peter gave was the rock on which the church was built.
The rock of revelation...

>   Furthermore, notice I said "translated _into_ Greek"; Jesus did not
>speak these words in Greek -- He spoke in Aramaic, and in Aramaic the
>only word for "rock" is "kepa".  Therefore, He said, "Thou art Kepa,
>and on this kepa I shall build my church," i.e. Jesus used the same
>word in both places.

	What Aramaic text are you quoting from here? 



 en agape,
 Bob 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: QuickMail/SMTP interface.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:28:30 EDT
From:         Leo W <Leo_W@QM.CIRCA.UFL.EDU>
Subject:      RCC & married priests
X-To:         Christia <christia@asuvm.inre.asu.edu>

I just ran across something that had totally escaped me before -- THERE ARE
MARRIED PRIESTS IN THE RCC!  Well, at least back in 1918 there were.  Quoting
from pages 305-307 of "The Externals of the Catholic Church," by Right Rev.
John F. Sullivan, D.D. of the Diocese of Providence, published by P.J. Kenedy &
Sons ("Publishers to the Holy Apostolic See") in 1918:

"The Church imposes a law of celibacy upon her ministers, but she has not
always done so ... and even now it is not extended to all parts of the Church's
domain and is not enforced in regard to all her clergy ...

"Are there any married priests in the Catholic Church?  Yes, several thousands.
 They are really married, and they are not living in opposition to God's or the
Church's law.  These are the clergy of serveral Oriental churches which are
united to ours in faith and government, though differing from it in ritual and
laws ...

"In nearly all the Oriental churches which are in communion with the Holy See,
marriage before receiving deaconship is not an obstacle to that or the
succeeding orders; but marriage is not allowed afterwards ...

"The result of these long-established customs in the Eastern Catholic Churches
is that the candidate for Holy Orders, before receiving deaconship, usually
withdraws from the seminary and is married -- after which he returns, resumes
his studies, and is finally ordained."

Yours in Christ Jesus,
Leo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:52:26 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Some thoughts on US religious history.
              3 Sep 1992 09:31:00 EST from <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>

Hi all:

In addition to what Dan said about Jehovah's Witnesses and 7th Day
Adventists, you might be interested to know that most of the
"separation of church and state" rules that we have now (1962 prayer
case excepted) came from lawsuits by these groups (most famously
the case in which it was determined that you cannot say the Pledge of
Allegience corporately in public school.)

Love INC,
         --Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:52:00 CDT
From:         BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU
Subject:      Re: 2 Peter 3

>Dear Brian ;

>Study hermeneutics regarding the Bible.

>Apocalyptic language employs metephors which refer to literal events.
>The alagorical is used to indicate the literal.

Dear Jesse,

We've been over this ground before.

Again in the abscence of any scripture in which prophecy was literally
fulfilled and apocalyptic language was used to describe that event in
a non-literal, allegorical way I must conclude that you are begging
the question.

Please supply references from scriputure to prove your point.

Brian
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:      UK.AC.SOLENT;  4 SEP 92  9:31:56 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 09:31:00 GMT
From:         Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK
Subject:      RE: I just got this plaque...

Kerry,

Thank you for that.  I had only just stopped to read the mail before
dashing of again - yours was the last message at that time.
The sun is streaming through the window and for the first time this a.m.
I actually stopped, changed modes and now I'm better able to get on with
the day.  Those first few lines are a saver !

Carol A Long

...Normal bumf not included ... can't include the file in this mail mode
and I can't be bother to type it  .... It all still applies though !
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:48:45 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Pledging allegiance

(Hi, I'm back, and I'm not talking about the A-word.....! :)

>Sorry, I'm a rabid separationist.  I'm happy to keep the government out of
>my church, and I want God kept out of the government, from the human point
>of view, that is.  From God's point of view, He sets 'em up, and takes 'em
>down.

While I understand your point of view, I disagree with the idea that the
government of the USA (or any other group, or person) can be neutral
toward God.  As Jesus said (I can't quote chapter & verse, but I think this
is accurate), "Whoever is not for me is against me."

I believe that, while allowing individuals to believe as they wish, the
government itself must decide whether it will be WITH God (which means
accepting and fearing God), or AGAINST God.  Right now, by trying to be
neutral, I feel that the government must be seen as AGAINST Him, and that's
wrong.

If for no other reason, the fact that the vast majority of Americans believe
in God should be reason enough for the US government to officialy recognize
God, and do its best to respect His wishes.  "In God we trust" should remain
on our money, "under God" should remain in the pledge, and humanism should
not rule in our schools.  (any more)

(Am I alone in thinking it's ridiculous to ban the 10 Commandments in schools?)

Of course, this is all opinion, but I strongly feel that the government can
either be with God or against God, and that it cannot be neutral (God doesn't
allow that), and it shouldn't try to be.

...now, if this has already been beaten to death while I wasn't here, someone
shut me up. :)  Otherwise, I think it's something constructive to discuss.
(As opposed to some other topics of discussion, which I won't mention here.)

>Dan Graham

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 06:18:47 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forgiveness of Sins, by Priests?
              26 Aug 1992 15:59:25 EST from <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>

On Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:59:25 EST Ian Williams said:
>I am not suprised that there was no vocal outcry..
>
>especially with the risk of 'excommunication' or even death for people who do..
>
>
>---------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------
>Ian Williams         |    _--_|\   |      Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
>Oracle Systems       |   /      \  |	  Phone	  : +61 8 239 3900
>Adelaide, Australia  |   \_.--*_/  |
>                     |         v   |

        Ian,

        Your statement suggests that you were paying more attention to
        stereotypes than to the facts.

        I wrote, "Early Church history is full of heresies and schisms
        over far more esoteric points of doctrine, but there is no record
        of any outcry against this alleged newly imposed obligation to
        confess to a priest.  Also, there is no record of any such de-
        cree.  No one can say when it was imposed."  Everything you say
        could apply to these heresies and schisms, but did not prevent
        them from happening.

        Let's look at more specific facts.  In recent years the Catholic
        Church has made a number of changes in the liturgy and in Catho-
        lic religious practice.  Many Catholics are unhappy with one or
        more of those changes.  They obey them, but they petition Church
        authorities to rescind or modify the changes.  They write books,
        articles, and letters to the editors of Catholic publications
        arguing against the changes.  There is no record of anyone de-
        ploring the alleged introduction of the practice of confession to
        a priest while still obeying it even this would not carry any
        risk of excommunication or death.

        Some Catholics have not obeyed or accepted the recent changes.
        Some of them, such as the late Archbishop Lefebvre, have gone
        into schism rather than accept the changes.  Archbishop Lefebvre
        excommunicated himself by engaging in actions that incurred
        automatic excommunication.  The risk, and the reality, of excom-
        munication did not deter him.

        It is my impression that heresy did not become a crime, particu-
        larly not a capital crime, until several hundred years until
        after the time of St. Augustine and other Church Fathers who
        wrote about confessing to priests, and that happened in response
        to heresies that also threatened civil society.  However, if that
        impression is mistaken it doesn't affect the point.  Many people
        have accepted persecution and death because of disagreements over
        theological and even liturgical matters.  Any attempt to impose
        confession to a priest on Christians who had never known the idea
        would have led to a similar schism even in the face of excommuni-
        cation or death.

        Marty Helgesen
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson and feminism
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:39:59 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century

KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET (Kerry Stephenson) writes:

>John:

>Sorry to burst your bubble, but if Robertson means *radical* feminism,
>he is right on the money.  (I used to be one; I should know.)

If, so, then why didn't he say _radical_ feminism?

The reason is, he doesn't. He means all feminism. In fact, I'm not
sure he knows what he means, as the man appears to be somewhat
deranged.

P.

The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992

-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.2 (R4).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:57:53 PST
From:         FRANK@LAW.UCLA.EDU
Subject:      Re: Catholicism

> When we pray *to* God, *through* Christ, with the assistance of
> the HOLY SPIRIT, who is indwelling in *us*, why should we need
> the outside intervention of anyone else?
>
> God is *in* us as we pray; He hears instantaneously, and needs
> no intermediaries, living or dead.



Kerry

 When we ask the Saints or Mary for their prayers we ask them to
do so, not for intercession, but in communion with us.  This is not
unlike the many prayer requests that come down the line on CHRISTA.
For me as a Catholic these souls are very much alive.  They represent
the deposit of the faith.  They are shining examples of how as a man
I can imitate a life of Christ.  Yes, Jesus is the ultimate example
of the life I should imitate, but, he was God.  Yes he was man as
well but somehow I get the feeling that resisting temptation my have
come a bit easier for him.  The Saints represent people with the
capacity for gluttony, envy, hate, ego, and any other sin you want.
They rose above this flesh, some more successfully than others.

Anyway, getting back to my original thought.  They are not
intermediaries or intercessors they are fellow pilgrims.

I hope this helps.

Frank
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:41:00 EST
From:         "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
Subject:      Stray thoughts on Sodom.
X-To:         christia <christia@asuvm.inre.asu.edu>

I've not been really into this thread, but a couple of posts did arouse
some thinking.

One poster observed that Sodom rejected the message of warning brought by
the angels.  They didn't have any such message.  they were sent for one
reason, to save Lot and some of his family.  Sodom was given no warning.
If it had, it would have repented.

For proof, see Matt. 11:23,24.  Jesus clearly says that if the miracles
which had been performed in Capernium had been done in Sodom, the city
would remain to that time.  The obvious question is them, why on earth
weren't they performed, didn't God want them saved?

In the verses immediately preceeding verse 23, Jesus is saying the same
thing about two other cities.  He says that if Tyre and Sidon had their
opportunity, they would have been spared.  Again, why weren't they given
opportunity?

The answer is simple and streightforeward and found in Isaiah 46, (read
whole chapter).  God is the real and only Master of the Universe.  He will
decide what happens in the affairs of men.  There are no random events.
Since His elect, chosen from before creation, are fixed, He can destroy an
entire city and save its only elect inhabitants.  This is His prerogative.

I don't want this to sound hars, but it is the privilege of the Creator to
do with His creation as He chooses.  those words from Matthes 11 are not
exactly sweet.

Note now, that those words are followed by some of the most sublime words
to fall from Jesus mouth.  All who labor and are heavily burdened with sin
are invited to come.  How about the Sodomites?  They were under sin's yoke,
but felt no burden ... they loved their lifestyle.  Jesus is calling to
those who feel the weight of sin, and that weight can only be felt if the
Spirit has done a work of regeneration in the heart.

Dan Graham
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:05:03 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hermenuetics
              3 Sep 1992 14:19:29 EDT from <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>

Dear Lon ;

Could my hermeneutics ASK more questions for you because your presuppositions
are faulty.
We assuredly must ask the correct questions before the answers make any sense.
Your idea of implementing hermeneutics may be stymiedby some predjudices held
by yourself.
Let's get down to some real exegetical rat-killing if you want to, but be
specific as to which passege(s) and be specific as to your queries.




Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:27:59 -0700
From:         MARK DRAKE <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Interpretations, Proportion, and Shutting One's Mouth
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU

>And BTW, I believe that Mark Drake may have been misunderstood in this post.
>
>Madge McBurney

Thanks Madge!  My intent was to get more information, rather than all the
accusations and condemnations.  I tried to write in a non-inflamatory way,
but I guess I failed.

Or maybe there has been _ so much _ of it going on, everything is getting
interpreted that way?

My own view on dealing with Homosexuals:

I have a problem with people who try to tell nonchristian homosexuals that they
must change.  I think it is more important to lead them to Christ!  Let Him deal
with their homosexuallity.  And I am also not going to say that a christian
homosexual is out of God's will, unless I know him or her very well, and see
_ other _ reasons for believing they are far from God.  Even then, I would
not make a pronouncement, but ask them about it.  Who am I to judge another
person's closeness to God?  I encourage any person who calls himself a christian
to get closer to God, and provide any help they ask for.

This is incomplete, but I'm not at home and don't have time to go on.

Mark
drake@asuchm.la.asu.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 11:07:33 CDT
Comments:     In-Reply-To: note of Wed,
              26 Aug 1992 12:00:48 EDT from carol nemec
From:         Stuart <K119TO@TAMVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      prayer suggestion

From:   Stuart T Oliver
Dittoes.





Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 11:16:16 CST
From:         A16905@ITESO.BITNET
Subject: Re: Their Lady of Guacamole

Tom,

Very much apart of what I believe about Our Lady of Guadalupe, I find
your couple of lines quite offensive.

Shalom,   (I guess you really need it)

Memo.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sun, 30 Aug 1992 18:53:39 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: biblical interpretations on homosexuality

Jason:

And *that* is all you need.

Love INC,
         --Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sun, 23 Aug 1992 13:26:35 EST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: Jesus ... OR Pope?
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
              Stephenson" at Aug 22, 92 9:44 am

>
>Excuse me:
>
>But if the Pope is the successor to Peter, why can't he get married?
>Peter was married.  Besides, what's the big deal about Peter?  I don't
>understand why Paul isn't more important than Peter, since he was
>the one who (apparently) did the most work in building the church.
>
>In 1 Cor 3:4, Paul says, "For when one says, 'I am of Paul,' and
>another 'I am of Appollos,' are you not mere men?"  (He doesn't
>mention Peter.)  Also, he says, "For no man can lay a foundation
>other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."  If
>Peter was the first Pope, with the same spiritual authority the
>Pope is said to have today, wouldn't it bg incumbent upon Paul to
>tell them to follow *Peter* in following Christ?   If the early
>church members weren't paying any attention to Peter, were they  '
>in serious error, even to the point of damnation?  I just don't
>understand why Peter should be considered all that
>important.
>
>Love INC,
>         --Kerry
>

Kerry,

In the beginning of 1 Peter, peter starts by saying something like (from
memory)

"I Peter, an apostle of Christ"..


Even in his own words he did not claim to be the 'head of the church' but
merely an apostle along with the many others mentioned in the NT..

In fact Peter was an apostle to the Jews in Jerusalem, a member of a team,
a an apostle who was rebuked by Paul for his error. No, the bible does not
place him as the head of the church anywhere. To me it is a case of
a doctrine being built out of ONE scripture passage, even if that passage
is not consistant with the rest of the bible.. Now why is that scripture
not in context? Because they are taking it to mean something that it
does not say.. Jesus will build his chruch on the revelation that He is the
Son of God, not on a man...



---------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------
Ian Williams         |    _--_|\   |      Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems       |   /      \  |	  Phone	  : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia  |   \_.--*_/  |
                     |         v   |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Orig-To: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:11:40 CDT
Comments:     Answering received message
From:         THERESA BLACKWELL <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Subject:      C'mon, Lon...

 It's there... just read it! :)
 Guess ya can take the BOOK at face value...
 And, pray that HE will reveal it's meaning to you.
 That's the only way to really understand some of
 what's contained in the pages of HIS WORD.
 Smile, dude... Jesus loves ya!
 Theresa

 * <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>