HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:54:14 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <70499@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> |I have to double check how much Peter actually influenced the Gospels.
> |As it's today those were written by unknown people.
> 
> Check out Acts and see what Peter had to say about the events of Jesus'
> life - see who killed him and how Jesus arose from the dead. (Acts 2)

Due to a huge work load I've been unable to follow this up. I will do
this during this weekend. I'm a little bit skeptical about all this,
wasn't it Peter also that was very much skeptical initially about all
the fuzz Paul had about turning Christianity into a Gentile cult...
 
> |Paul had a vision. I do know of people (like my father's cousin) that
> |had a vision of Jesus. That's nothing unusual. As for the beloved
> |disciple, is there a uniform consensus that John was the beloved
> |disciple?
> 
> What about the simultaneous vision that Ananias had?  Did your father's
> cousin have an independent verification?   Paul's calling did.

Yes, he did. And ultimately he actually killed himself. No wonder
I'm skeptical about such miracle visions...
 
> |So you state that the writers were actually scribes. That's an interesting
> |story I haven't heard before. Why didn't the actual writers then boldly
> |state it's their words? Fear of lying?
> 
> Jerimiah used a scribe (Jer 36).  Paul states very often in his letters
> that he signed or wrote the greeting himself - it was the trademark of his
> letters.  It is not unheard of for a person to have another to write.

But it's unheard to have the scribe defined as the real author. Fear
of facts is one reason. I don't think this is the case with Gospels
anyway. We don't know who wrote them because we don't have any decent
evidence. This is a sore issue with Christians dealing with historical
evidence. So how could we trust books written by people we don't even
know?  And I would still like to know why the early church had to eliminate
500 similar Gospels. What were they afraid about?

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Keywords: LDS, Mormon, Joseph Smith
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:33:41 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <Bw1873.26A@mail.boi.hp.com> jhays@boi.hp.com (John_D. Hays) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.202607.16726@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>>
>>
>>     I follow the one that was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1,
>>Luke 2:4). 
>>
>
>As do LDS.
>
>>     I think that the Mormons follow the one that was born in 
>>Jerusalem (Alma 7:10).
>>
>At least quote the material correctly:
>
>"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, AT Jerusalem which is the land of
>our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who
>shall be overshadowed and conceive by the poser of the Holy Ghost, and
>bring forth a son, even the Son of God." 
>
>Considering the linguistics of the root languages of the Nephite people
>and the words which Joseph Smith choose to represent them, "at" can 
>clearly be understood to mean "in the vacinity" of Jerusalem.  The audience
>is 400 years removed from a first hand knowledge of the geography of
>the Holy Land, a great city like Jerusalem (frequently mentioned in the
>scriptures in their possession) would be more familiar to the intended
>audience than the relatively small Bethlehem. Get out an atlas, and observe
>that Bethlehem is very close to Jerusalem and appropriately could be 
>considered AT Jerusalem (or in the vacinity) --- Just like "Harvard University"
>is at Boston --- although it is really in Cambridge.

If you know anything about Jerusalem, it is a city that is surrounded by
walls.  Something is either in the city or out of the city.  There is no
"in betweens".  This was brought to my attention before through personal
email, and I have done some research on the subject.  My personal, notice
I said personal, is this:  Micah got it right!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:22:05 GMT

From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
>>I have not been following the other thread because I do not beleive
>>the issue concerns the relative dirtyness of sex.  The issue is
>>that the Bible does not teach the LDS position: that God had sex
>>with Mary.
..
>
>Some Lds Believe and Some don't.  I guess that's why I might
>refer to it as speculation.

Fair enough.  I would just point out that the 'Some LDS' who have/do
beleive it were of the 'doctrine expounding' types.

>I was refering to your disclaimer that LDS speclation in God having
>Sex With Mary implied that Jesus was Born in Sin. You said it
>I didn't    You have been invited to back up your belief in this
>heresy with scripture. you haven't

I think you have me confused with someone else, (which seems to be
happening alot lately).  I have not studied the issue of whether
sexless birth=sinless.  I would say God is all powerful and could
utilize any means he saw fit to bring himself into the world.

My point is: God is not an exalted man, with a body of flesh and
bones, living in heaven with his polygamous family, sitting on
a throne with an errect penis (as pictured in LDS scripture).
The Bible presents the virgin birth as just that, and says the
Holy Spirit was the deliverer of the miracle.  It was not
a mad roll in the hay with the LDS exalted man god.

Mark
<standard disclaimer>
From: sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christians are not Christians.a
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:15:12 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <6OCT199222095738@acad3.alaska.edu>, ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu 
(REDELSS JOHN W) writes:
> 
> You cannot love a man by attacking his religion only by showing him something
> better.  If fundamentalists and evangelicals could show me something better, I
> would still be a Baptist.
> 
I disagree.  By showing him something better, are you not bringing him closer
to God?  You cannot show him something that is perfect (in terms of religion)
because religions have a nasty habit of containing people, and people are
imperfect!

> You cannot convince me of the correctness of your teachings or the
> incorrectness of mine because I am convinced you do not undertand the Bible
> when you read it.  Quoting scripture does not persuade unless you understand
> the scriptures you quote.
> 
I believe I understand the scriptures adequately.  However, do not trust me,
ask THE LORD for yourself, for the LORD that surpasses all understanding
provides all understanding.  Do not ignore what I have to say just because my
viewpoint is different and you do not believe that I understand the scriptures
I quote.

> Besides I am in a better position to judge between mainstream Protestantism
> and Mormonism than you are.  I know both positions from the inside.  All or
> most of what you know has been learned by reading pamphlets written by Mormon
> haters or attending their filthy seminars, not a very objective source of
> information.
>
Sure, my knowledge has come from others, such as those that have studied Mormon
texts (BoM, Pearl of Great Price etc.), ex-Mormons and the like.  But I ask you
to look at all I put up in front of you and ask what is true.  Ask the Lord to
show you what is reality.
 
> As for those scriptures about following false prophets, I could find you dozens
> of scriptures warning against failing to follow true ones.  Remember, there
> were many who refused to follow Moses.  I imagine they supposed him to be a
> false prophet.  Nothing can be proven from the Bible or any other scripture
> because it is all incomplete.  That goes for the Book of Mormon as well.
If JS is a true prophet then I am mistaken.  But that scripture was placed in
response to an implication that we should follow JS just in case he was a real
Prophet.
Personally, I have read the BoM and the evidence, and I find it stands on
fairly shakey ground, especially the historical stuff.

BTW: I agree that no scripture is totally complete.  That is why we need the
Holy Spirit.


Stephen..
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Honest Question For Any LDS
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:00:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <7OCT199200441575@acad3.alaska.edu>, ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes...

[...]

> 
>Jesus Christ spoke to the young Joseph Smith when he was only fourteen years
>old.  All the wrangling, scripture quoting, and dictionary quoting in the world
>can't change that.  It happened.  If you don't think it happened, then too bad
>for you.  Not everybody is ready for the truth. 

	Ok. Let me ask you about this visit.

	Did Joseph Smith receive a visit from angels? or from the 
Father and the Son, or from the Father alone, or from the Son alone?


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:58:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

>Little indications is was the product of Joseph Smith's imagenation.
>Have you ever read Mormon historian B.H. Roberts manuscripts?
>He documents it better than I could.  You can get it from
>Lighthouse Ministries 801-485-8894
>
>Mark

Well, BH Roberts "documentation" is based on anthropology, history,
etc. that is about 80-100 years old.  A good part of the secular
theories are no longer current in the anthropology, etc. of today.

If you want to read B.H. Roberts Book of Mormon studies, you can
obtain it in most university libraries.   I think the title is "Book of
Mormon Studies" and it is printed by the University of Illinois
Press.

Robert
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus's bloodline mystery and two different Jesus's was (I'm God.)
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:08:18 EDT
 <ksand-131092142346@wintermute.apple.com> <1992Oct14.175552.13136@digi.lonestar.org>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Oct14.175552.13136@digi.lonestar.org>, gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
> 
> Kent Sandvik writes:
> 
>>Hello again, should we take this one as a good example where the myth
>>is false, or not? Or are the two different genealogies, just, a myth???
> 
> 
> Consider the possibility that with the incarnation of Christ,
> not only the prophecies of the Jews but also the archetypal
> myths of the rest of humanity were fulfilled.  C. S. Lewis
> noticed this and it led ultimately to his conversion from
> skepticism to Christianity.

   Consider the possibility that with the rise of Jesus' ministry
his followers wrote a book that showed him as fulfilling the Jewish
"prophesies" regardless of what he may have actually done in order
to make him appear more Messianic.  It's one of numerous things that 
prevent my conversion from skepticism to Christianity.

   BTW, which "archetypal myths" are you talking about?

Karl
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:28:22 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct13.234310.29405@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>
>Let's see if I've understood _your_ argument:
>
>
>   BoM archalogy is argued and the conclusion is
>   that No metals found means it's a different Christ.
>
>-- 
>         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
>Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
>   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | 

No, I think what the point is, is that the BoM is totally false when it
comes to Historical, Science, and Archeological evidence.  And this is
proven by the LDS church officials (or now former I might say).

If this book was true, there should be _some_ support from these areas.
Therefore, if Mormonism depends on the authority of the BoM, then there
are serious problems.

I think that was the point being made.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? 
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:34:31 GMT

Now on my machine there is a newsreader that I would recomend to you.
It's called trn. It gathers messages together so that one may follow one
thread along and see the responses as well as the anticendent articles.

It makes it much easier to follow mark as he froths at the mouth, changes
the subject and basically does an "Anti Silvonen".  Can anybody tell what
the constantly changing subject of _this_ thread has been?

In article <1992Oct16.173905.28599@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
|From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
|- ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.CO
|-        According to a revelation given by Joseph Smith, those who will
|-not submit to Celestial Marriage are "appointed angels in heaven, which
|-angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of
|-a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory... these
|-angels... remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their
|-saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not Gods, but
|-are angels of God forever and ever." (Doctrine and Covenants 132:16-17)
|
|>These also have "Eternal Life" and in the Celestial Kingdom...
|
|   Fair enough, eternal life as a servant, serving others who
|went to the temple and put on the funny white gown and let someone
|reach their hands inside and touch them.  Sounds like "Truth Restored"
|to me.

	Opps, ye got me there. Even those who are "appointed angels in heaven"
	get those same opportunity.

	Sounds to me as if you are having a tough day. Why don' you
	take two valium and call me in the morning.
|
|> Not all refereces in the NT that talk about "salvation" could be
|> the same as references to exalation.

  And This _was_ the original intent of this thread, wasn't it.
|
|Mark
|<standard disclaimer>


  And you are right this IS talk.religion.misc, and no _you_ don't
  have be consistent (or right) just rabid,  froth at the mouth.

  This is another example of more flash than content..

  << On the other hand, Mark is well known for his volumious down-load
      of material that doesn't make much point either.. >>


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       |
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 10 Oct 92 04:18:03 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct7.164938.27930@macc.wisc.edu> bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner) writes:
>In article <BvqBt1.956@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes...
>>In article <1992Oct6.190910.6964@unislc.uucp>, mls@unislc.uucp (Michael Simons) writes...
>>[...]
>> 
>take offense at this.  LDS sensitivities are aroused when multiple 
>Christian groups begin denying them the title, however the LDS need to realize
>these groups deny each other the title too.  The LDS should learn to shrug
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Can you name a few?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jhays@boi.hp.com (John_D. Hays)
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:49:05 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise Printer Division

In article <1992Oct16.180059.29317@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
>
>Now, if you want to be one of those 3rd heaven, copulating god
>types -- then your gonna have to earn it.
>
Mark,

Are you naturally this offensive, or do you work at it?

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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:50:04 GMT

In article <70503@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>There could have been, but maybe not.  These four could be representative
>of all of the gospels.  
I suggest you read the other Gospels if you think this. The Canonical
Gospels present a very limited slice indeed.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:02:55 GMT
Organization: life is Too $hort! (in the trunk beatin' down the block)

In article <16773@pitt.UUCP> 
geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.121630.13063@phillip.edu.au> 
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
>>        d) A Christian is somebody who: 
>>           - has given their life "lock, stock and barrel" to Jesus!
>I truly doubt that there are many Christians then.  I don't know
>anyone that has really done this, though many may say they have.

Eunichs for Jesus? Luke14:26 followers?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: schaerer@isi.ethz.ch (Thomas Schaerer)
Subject: Re: Mormons . . . are Henotheists
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:38:37 GMT

Jason Hunsaker (slhw4@cc.usu.edu) wrote:
: Mormons are not polytheists.
: Mormons are henotheists.
: There is a difference, and it's a significant one.
: Consult your dictionary to see what it is.
: 
: -----------------------------------------------------------------
: Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu

I don't find 'henotheist' in my dictionary. Please explain this
form of faith with own words, easy to understand for everybody
of not-insider of theology.

Greatings from Thomas
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Joseph a true latter-day prophet
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:08:32 GMT

From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith)
> Mark, may I refer to you to D. Michael Quinn's little mongraph, "Jerald
> and Sandra Tanner's Distorted View of Mormonism." On pages 36 to 37, you
> will find the following:

I have it, and it is quite amusing.  I object to your referring to it
as "Quinn's little monograph" without adding that "he never openly
accepted responsibilty for it".  The story behind this little piece of
work is very interesting, and can be found in the Tanner's "Answering
Dr. Clandestine", Lighthouse Ministries, Salt Lake City, Utah.

>    1819 to 1821, Marks walked to numerous revivals in towns as far as a
>    thirty-mile radius from his home in Junius, but which he described as
>    "confined to a few towns in the vicinity of Junius." If one insists on
>    1819-20 as the time of the pre-vision revivals Joseph Smith described
>    (instead of a very likely 1817 revival that did occur in Palymra and
>    which is supported by the 1832 account), then recent research has
>    substantiated that within a thirty-mile radius of the Smith farm a
>    dozen communities were experiencing religious revivals in the 1819-20
>    period. The categorical rejection of these evidences by Walters and
>    the Tanners make good polemics but not good history.
>
> In short Mark, you are following Walter's polemics, but ignoring the evidence
> to the contrary. Your significant issue strikes me as simply more of the same.

I fail to understand what it is you are arguing.  That Marks refers
to an area of 30 miles radius as "confined to a few towns in the
vicinity of Junius" is meaningless when compared to Joseph Smith
said the revivals occurred in "the place where we lived".

If you are saying revivals occured in 1820 somewhere in the world,
I agree, put someplace in the world is not, "the place where we lived".
Other revivals in other towns fail to so markedly match the accounts
described by Joseph Smith, William Smith and Oliver Cowdery -- which
are in perfect agreement with the historical accounts of the 1824
revival.  A date earlier that 1824 fails to account for references
to Reverand Lane, who was assigned to the area in 1824, and Reverand
Stockton who was in Skaneatles NY until 1822.  This also fails to deal
with Smith Sr. and his apparent problem with Stockton regarding
the death of Alvin -- which occured after 1820.

There are also the "warning out" records from Norwich Vt,
the road tax records of Palmyra, and the land assesment records
of Manchester.  Everything points to the family living in
Norwich in 1816, Smith Sr. moves to Palmyra in 1817, and brings
the whole family in 1819-1820.  They move to Manchester in 1822.
Not more than 2 years after this, the revivals break out.

By avoiding all the evidence, and strecthing "the place where we
lived" to mean many towns in 100 square miles -- you harmonize
the account.  I dare say, you could just as easily propose "1820"
means sometime in the early 1800's.  But, thats not what Joseph said.

Mark
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Mormons, a different Jesus
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:05:37 GMT
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.


Mormom Archeology:

     Horse & Chariots:   Book of Mormon, Alma 18:9-12, 20:6
                                    III Nephi 3:22, 21:14

 
Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol 1.

   by Gordon Willey, Ph.D.  Columbia University

   "Land transportation in native Mesoamerica was
confined to foot travel and to litters borne by
humans (fig 13); there were no draft animals.  That
the principle of the wheel was known is indicated by
the presence of wheeled toys of clay, but there is 
no archeological evidence that it was ever put to
practical use . . . ."


Mormon Archeology--from the National Geographic Society

   by Marilyn Cole Finley, Research Correspondant for
   the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY, letter April 16, 1982
   to Mr. Rick Branch of Marlow, OK:

   "I referred your inquiry to Dr. George Stuart, the staff
archaeologist of the National Geographic Society.  He informed
me that neither the Society nor any other institution of equal
prestige has ever used the Book of Mormon in locating
archaeological sites.  Although many Mormon sources claim
that the Book of Mormon has been substantiated by archeological
findings, this claim has not been verified scientifically."

-------

Mormons, I have a lot of documentation from Biblical,
secular, and Mormon sources that will curl your teeth. 
I want the real Holy Spirit to talk to you and show you
that you are on the wrong track.  We all make mistakes.
Please reevaluate and test the Mormon doctines to see
if their true.  At least test the ones I am showing
you on this net.  Do not cling to false doctrine. 
Stick to what is true.  Test everything.  Seek and cling
to the real Jesus Christ. 


Sincerely,



Brian Ceccarelli
 





     
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc