HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: taking care of your body (was Re: where does the bible mention about smoking?)
Date: 10 Sep 92 07:40:54 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

In article <Sep.6.15.43.21.1992.7818@athos.rutgers.edu> Malachi.Robertson@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson) writes:

[in a discussion on the Bible and alcohol:]

>Consideration 2:  The ancients could preserve unfermented grape juice.

I have seen this claim several times and frankly don't believe it.
Would anyone care to explain how this was possible, and then forgotten
until the invention of pastuerization?

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: GIF images of Qumran 7Q4 and 7Q5 available
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:34:59 GMT
Organization: none

I have put monochrome GIF images of Qumran fragments 7Q4 and 7Q5 up on
the archive server on my machine.

To access the server, send an email message to

	catholic-archives@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us

with

	help
	send help
	index

in the body, and you should bet plenty of information.  Sorry, there
is no FTP access to sarto.  If I get a lot of accesses, I may ask for
volunteers to put the files up for FTP.

The names of the files and their sizes follow.  Note that I have taken
the images from 30Days, with permission.  I have marked them
copyrighted because of this, but I rather doubt that the images of the
fragments can be copyrighted.

bytes  modified file
------ -------- --------------------
368761 09/05/92 bw-pictures/30-days-magazine/copyrighted/qumran-fragment-7q4-possibly-1-timothy-circa-50AD.gif
  6046 09/05/92 bw-pictures/30-days-magazine/copyrighted/qumran-fragment-7q4-possibly-1-timothy-circa-50AD.preview.gif
359940 09/05/92 bw-pictures/30-days-magazine/copyrighted/qumran-fragment-7q5-possibly-mark6:52-53-circa-50AD.gif
  7690 09/05/92 bw-pictures/30-days-magazine/copyrighted/qumran-fragment-7q5-possibly-mark6:52-53-circa-50AD.preview.gif
From: dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: End of the World?
Date: 9 Sep 92 07:48:11 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia

Malachi.Robertson@lambada.oit.unc.edu writes:

>Recently I have heard from three people from varying locations speak of
>some Christian group advertising that the world is to somehow end (or
>something along these lines) on October 28 (I believe that was the date).
>I was curious to know if anyone knows anything about this?  

Various groups have predicted that October 1992 is the end of the
world.

Well, I think they have missed something.

< End of Time != (does NOT equal) End of World. >

Most Catholic Prophesies I've studied said that the Seven years of
Tribulation will start at the end of 1992, until mid-1999.  I don't
have the relevant books with me, so I can't quote on them, sorry.

BUT, people most realize there is a difference between End of Time
and End of World and Second Coming of Christ.

End of Time is the end of time God has given mankind to repent;
and it ends with the end of Great Tribulation.

However, end of time does not equal end of the world.  Almost all
prophets mention a period of Peace after the Great Tribulation
which may happen soon.  And NO ONE has given the date nor the year
nor even the decade (if not century) of the End of World, nor the
Second Coming of Christ.  Hence, do not worry, as the world will
still go on.

However, be ready for the Great Tribulation and the end of time.
A lot of things will happen, including the destruction of the
Roman Catholic Church and major (natural and man-made) disasters.

-- 
1)-----------------------Rev 6:8 "... They were given authority over a quarter
of the Earth, to kill by the sword, by famine, by plague, and wild beasts."
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Re. money and mouths
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:28:24 GMT

I wrote the following in response to electronic mail from someone
commenting on my earlier item Re. Money and Mouths:

I have no doubt that there are many . . . VERY many . . . people who
take VERY seriously the call to give of their substance (rather than
just their frivolously-disposable income) in alms.  What I am curious
about is whether the politicians who so loudly call for private support
of charity do themselves give any more of their substance than the
<expletive deleted> "tax and spend" bleeding-heart liberals that seem to
feel that the GOVERNMENT has any obligations towards widows and orphans.
--
                                              --- Tim Rolfe
                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Infallibility
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:14:33 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <Sep.1.03.43.24.1992.13615@athos.rutgers.edu> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>In article <Aug.31.03.33.22.1992.25874@athos.rutgers.edu> OFM (Chuck Hedrick) comments:
>>Perhaps a better example would
>>be Mary as mother of God.  I think the phrase "Mary mother of
>>God" should be seen as intentionally provocative.  There was a
>>dispute, and the Church chose to deal with it be asserting its
>>view in the most aggressive possible way.
>
>Frankly, I don't think Catholics who use the phrase "Mother of God"
>to describe Mary have provocation on their mind.  It's religious
>jargon, and perfectly comprehensible in its context, which is not
>at all an ecumenical one.  In fact, isn't "Mater Dei" a very old
>title for Mary?

   It may be provocative, but to say the title is an inaccurate one is
to espouse heresy.  To say that Mary is the mother of Jesus the man
only, and not the mother of Jesus, God, is to separate Jesus' divinity
from His humanity.  And that particular heresy was condemned more than
1500 years ago.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

[I don't think either I or Steve Dyer suggested that the title is
wrong, when its meaning is understood.  Your explanation agrees with
my understanding.  If taken out of that context, of course it's
nonsense.  --clh]
From: cee1@ra.msstate.edu (Charles Evans)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:39:51 GMT
Organization: Mississippi State University

There is a book, "Armageddon" arrghh something else anyway, when
I get home I will repost.. He carefully dates the reformation of
Israel in 1945 and such and pretty much says what I said in a previous
post (rapture in 1993, Milleneum starting in 2000) .. I read this AFTER
I had made my conclusions about what I beleive the Bible to hint at.

chuck

-- 
+--------------------+-----------------------+------------------------+
|  Charles E. Evans  |  cee1@ra.msstate.edu  |  All things are green  |
|    iDLE CHATTEr    |  cee1@MSSTATE.BITNET  |  unless they are not.  |
+--------------------+-----------------------+------------------------+
From: cee1@ra.msstate.edu (Charles Evans)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Hal Camping prediction for Second Coming, Sept. '94!!
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:40:23 GMT
Organization: Mississippi State University

laura@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com (Laura Gillespie) writes:

>I don't know if all of you are aware of it yet, but a big event just
>happened last night on the radio.  One of the most respected, humble,
>and trusted servants of God, Mr. Harold Camping of Family Radio,
>headquartered out of Oakland, Calif., actually gave a prediction for
>the end of the world, that is, for the Second Coming, for September
>1994.  Now, this is a REALLY SERIOUS matter, since Mr. Camping is
>just about the most conservative Bible commentator on the air.

I have always thought that it would be September 1993. It's more fitting
with time.. Seven years from 2000.. A _convenient_ time for the Millenium
to start 2000-3000. I mean they are really not sure when Christ was born:
4BC-3AD(whatever terms you want to use). and what aever the bishops'
name was who charted the Fall of Man to 4004 BC could easily show.. ya know
1000 years is as a day to God. Well lets see:

  BC           BOChrist       Milleniummm 
4000--3000--2000--1000-0-1000-2000-3000 
  1    2     3     4   5  6    7
(days of Creation)

And the millenium is referred to as the Rest, the Lord's rest, etc.. and
what day of Creation did God rest.. the seventh day. and what day did God
make man the 6th.. referring possibly to post-Christ and the church etc.

and 2000-7=1993 and by what i can tell from Song of Solomon, unfulfilled
feasts etc teh Rapture would be pointed as May or September (1993) for
in Song of SOlomon when talking about the Rapture it says winter is over..
the grass is greeen etc.. come away my love!!

I am looking forward to about 1 more year on this place I used to call home.



>-- 
>US MAIL: Laura Gillespie  Mailstop 360    Concurrent Computer Corporation
>FAX: 908-870-5952  2 Crescent Pl. Oceanport NJ 07757  Voice: 908-870-5782 
>UUCP: rutgers!ocpt.ccur.com!gillespi     Internet: gillespi@ocpt.ccur.com
-- 
+--------------------+-----------------------+------------------------+
|  Charles E. Evans  |  cee1@ra.msstate.edu  |  All things are green  |
|    iDLE CHATTEr    |  cee1@MSSTATE.BITNET  |  unless they are not.  |
+--------------------+-----------------------+------------------------+
From: mpaul@unlinfo.unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The End is Coming [________]!
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:09:46 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln

I recall sitting in the small prayer group I was in at the Christian co-op
where I lived as an undergraduate at UN-L in about, oh, 1980 I believe.
Someone had the radio tuned to a Christian station and a radio minister
was holding forth, when he made the astounding predition that "While the
Bible says we will not know the day or the hour..." and there followed 
a great deal of explanation I didn't quite follow as to why he _did_
know the day and hour, he proceeded to predict the physical return of
Jesus during the midnight watch, Jerusalem time, on X date (I've forgotten
what it was.)

Our jaws all dropped.  And through my veins coursed that heady mixture of
fear, expectation, hope, and derision that comes everytime this kind of
thing is publicized.  "Maybe it's true!"  I don't think I'll ever lose that
reaction no matter how many times it's provoked, even though this gentleman
proved wrong in a way that was quite devestating to his personal ministry.

The thing that is so very striking to me about all of the Second Coming
scenarios that have been proposed - and  proven wrong - is not how wrong
they were, but how probable they sounded.  They all seem to be more than
amply testified to by Scripture, signs of the times, dreams and/or visions.
Even so, they all in turn fall by the wayside, or stand in marked contrast
in the details they elaborate.  So I've developed _profound_ skepticism,
not that Christ will come in the _near_ future, but that anyone will be
remotely successful in coming within a mile of predicting it.  I'll leave
the scriptural debate to others: with me it's just the impression that with
a mighty and infinite God such as we serve, who specializes in surprising
us, it doesn't seem likely He'd subscribe to any human timetable.  The
most compelling evidence of this, to me personally, is just how badly
humanity mis-predicted and mis-interpreted His _first_ coming, proposing
a Messiah that was amply attested to by Scripture but far removed from what
God actually sent.
 

--
===============================================================================
paul marxhausen                              \/               grace 
university of nebraska - lincoln             /\              happens           
===============================================================================
From: chas@castle.ed.ac.uk (C Spencer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Giving of your Heart
Date: 9 Sep 92 07:48:42 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

I've just been reading Paul's own account of his conversion, in Acts
22:6-16. It sounds so easy - see verse 16. I think we make it difficult
by making it very personal and private. It should be a simple decision
"Let's go with Jesus." It helps if it also means going with His people.


-- 
Chas Spencer			email :	Chas@ed.ac.uk
User Support, EUCS
University of Edinburgh
From: masimo@netcom.com (Michael Maas)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Ministries
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:58:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Aug.30.03.05.29.1992.12676@athos.rutgers.edu> jonh@david.wheaton.edu (Jonathan Hayward) writes in inviting others to share their ministries:

>I have seen in this group a great many reproves and corrections - as a matter
>of fact, I would dare to say that they comprise a majority of the material.

and then mentions this as one of his ministries:

>	Just being there, and being able to listen or give a hug.  Many times,
>		great opportunities are there to the one who will simply open
>		his or her eyes, and take the courage to speak up in a
>		situation where it would be much easier to walk off and forget
>		it.  When I do not do so, I act as a living incarnation of
>		Christ, and (this is the mark of Christian service) by what I
>		do bless others and receive blessing myself.

This is an admirable summation of what it means to follow Christ.  Thankyou.

Might I add that this can and should be carried into all walks of one's life.

Things like commenting on the clothes someone wears or their hair or whatever
it is that one notices go a long way toward making someone's day.  That
someone might be a bus driver, a cleaning lady, a teacher or your wife.

Speaking up, doesn't have to mean bringing one's particular religious view
into the conversation either, though it certainly doesn't deny the possibility
of doing so.  But sometimes God's love working through one is enough and
there are certainly times where adding one's own opinions in would be more
harmful than helpful.  Sometimes words aren't even necessary, a simple touch
or hug may carry much more meaning.

I hope I haven't betrayed the original intent of this posting.  I'm surprised
that there haven't been more responses.  Is it that obvious?  I hope so, but
like as the poster the number of reprovals on this net would lead me to doubt 
it. 

>May God bless you as you read this post and meditate upon it.

God has blessed me once again, thankyou.

In Christ,

Mike
From: sjreeves@eng.auburn.edu (Stan Reeves)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: defining fundamentalism
Date: 10 Sep 92 05:46:53 GMT

dlhpfm!dlh@ncoast.org (daniel lance herrick) writes:
>sjreeves@eng.auburn.edu (Stan Reeves) writes:
>
>> One only has to read the Baptist Confession to see how far Baptists as a
>> whole have drifted from their historical doctrinal roots.  Most of the 
>> contents of the Confession would be completely foreign to the typical 
>> Baptist (fundamentalist or otherwise) today.
>
>I had a copy of The Baptist Confession of 1689 in my hands last night. 
>I was quite surprized at who showed it to me.  I immediately flipped it
>open and read aloud about the decrees of God.  Essentially the same
>declaration as the Shorter Chatechism, God's eternal decrees account
>for every detail of everything that will happen.  No shying away from
>Romans 9 by those Baptists.
>
>That was chapter 3.  Chapter 9 was titled Free Will and says that God's
>eternal decree determining every detail in no way detracts from man's
>free and independent choice and man's responsibility for the
>consequences of those choices.

Of course, essentially the same chapter (on "Free Will") is found in the
Presbyterian's Westminster Confession.  This is nothing but classical
Reformed theology.

>It was a 300th anniversary edition prepared by the current pastor of
>Charles Haddon Spurgeon's church.  An earlier edition (around 1835) was
>published by that church under Spurgeon's stewardship, primarily for
>distribution to the congregation of that church.  This story shortens
>the timetable for the drift from their roots.

Of course, different branches of Baptists have left the Reformed camp at
different times.  But a close scrutiny of Southern Baptists, the largest
of the Baptist denominations, shows that they held to Calvinistic (Reformed)
soteriology at the beginning of the denomination (1845) and remained in
this course for the most part through the turn of the century.  The first
professor of theology at Southern Seminary was James P. Boyce.  He was
trained at Princeton under Charles Hodge, the great Presbyterian theologian.
His views were considered completely in line with Baptist orthodoxy in his 
day.  He was even asked to write a Baptist catechism for children.  I can 
provide a ton of references to anyone who is interested, but a good summary 
of historic Baptist views can be found in _By His Grace and For His Glory:  A
Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Southern Baptist Life_ by Tom Nettles.
(I'm reciting the title from memory, so it may not be word-for-word.)


Stan Reeves
Auburn University, Department of Electrical Engineering, Auburn, AL  36849
INTERNET: sjreeves@eng.auburn.edu
From: jhays@hpbs2500.boi.hp.com (John D. Hays)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Looking for Resources
Date: 10 Sep 92 07:44:05 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise Printer Division (LAFS)

I am very active on the GEnie Religion RT.  Among other Categories
there is a Private area for Religious Professionals (you and your
wife would qualify) where a lot of the time is spent sharing information
on "the work" ...

I run the LDS Categories, but there are Cats for every major faith 
group and I am sure you would find many resources there.  I subscribe to
both GEnie and Compu$erve and spend about 20 times the time on GEnie 
as compared to Compu$erve.   At $4.95/month the religion discussions are
included in the base price.  

The Topic threads on GEnie have a much longer life than those on Compuserve
and the current management is working towards good exchange without flamage
(though there is a flamage area for those who can't live without it.)

Hope to see you there soon.

John
-- 
John D. Hays [KD7UW]           |Email: [UUCP]          ...!hplabs!hpdmd48!jhays
Firmware Engineer              |       [INTERNET]              jhays@boi.hp.com
Boise Printer Division         |       [GEnie]                             HAYS
Boise, Idaho                   |       [Compu$erve]                   72725,424
From: manning@halley.est.3m.com (Arthur T. Manning)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Plymouth Brethren address list
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:34:28 GMT
Organization: 3M Company, 3M Center, Minnesota, USA

In the interest of facilitating communication between christians of the
Plymouth Brethren flavor, I have compiled and am administrating an email
address list of people interested in keeping in contact with other
like-minded christians via email.

  Send your name and email address if you're interested.

  This is not a mailing list.  I find them annoying sometimes, and
I don't know how to set one up even if I wanted to.

God Bless,

Arthur

--
Arthur T. Manning   <manning@halley.est.3m.com>                       O
3M Center 518-1    St Paul MN  55144-1000        \___/______         o   
ph. 612 733-4401   fax 612 736-3122             __  / _ _ _  \      .
Allin1--> <MANNING @MRGATE @EST780>            (_/_/_/ / / /_/      <><
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The O'Callaghan Case, part I
Date: 5 Sep 92 20:04:32 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA

OFM responds:
>[The oldest one that is generally accepted is P52, a small fragement
>from John, which is generally dated 110 to 125.  It contains John
>18:31-34 and 37-38.  Comfort (whose summary I'm using here) says
>recent scholarship is tending to date it nearer to 100 than 125.

p52 is the oldest fragment that we have of the canonical gospels.

However, one of the Egerton fragments (#2?) which contains "portions of an
unknown gospel" is, I believe, generally held to be a little earlier.

NICHAEL  
nichael@bbn.com  --                Bush/Gorbachev: One Down, One to Go
From: Malachi.Robertson@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: taking care of your body (was Re: where does the bible mention about smoking?)
Date: 6 Sep 92 19:43:23 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

I have just read another post speaking about maoderation in several
activities.  My first problem is that alcohol is on a level with sugar. 
My second problem is that I question whether this moderation principle
particularly in the area of alcohol is Biblically compatible.  

Consideration 1:  The Bible's usage of the word signifying wine is generic
in that it covers fermented and unfermented grape juice.

Consideration 2:  The ancients could preserve unfermented grape juice.

Consideration 3:  Jesus and wine, particularly the wedding at Cana.  The
best wine meant the sweetest wine.  The sweetest wine was unfermented. 
Also, could Jesus still be our sinless savior leaving the door open for
people to thoroughly intoxicate themselves?

Consideration 4:  Certain NT texts point to the Christian as abstinent
from wine when viewed from the Greek (I Thess. 5:6-8; I Pet. 1:13; 4:7;
5:8; 2 Tim. 4:5; 1 Tim. 3:2, 11; Titus 2:2).  The words are nepho which
means "to abstain from wine" and nephalios which means "abstinent, without
wine."

"Malachi Robertson" better known as Ian Robertson Brown
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: julian@sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The problem of pain - query
Date: 15 Sep 92 08:15:28 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong) writes:

>In article <Sep.11.00.09.00.1992.16163@athos.rutgers.edu> hartley@maths.uwa.oz.au (Mike Hartley) writes:
>>autodesk!mickw@uunet.uu.net (Mick Washbrook) writes:
>>
>>No. As another person noted, God did not create evil. When He created
>>the universe, it was all good. Evil came about as a deliberate choice
>>on the part of some of His created beings. 

>If everything that God created was good, how could a good creature choose
>evil? There must be something wrong with it already.

 Thomas Merton in his book "The New Man" has an interesting idea.
He suggests that evil consists in reality taking refuge in unreality.
So Adam's sin consisted of not accepting God's reality (in the relationship
that God had with Adam) but choosing to believe the serpent's lies
(ie choosing unreality). So Adam lost his relationship with
GOd by refusing to believe in it, preferring to believe in himself as
sufficient.

julian