HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spk@aber.ac.uk (Stephen Kingston)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: on being filled with the spirit
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:04:30 GMT
Reply-To: spk@aber.ac.uk (Stephen Kingston)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.

Jeff Shirton writes:
> 
> The support that my Pastor gave to show believers being "refilled", so to
> speak, were:
> 
> Peter:
> 
>    Acts 2:4  And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began
>           to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them
>           utterance.
> 
>    Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them,
>           Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
> 
[also quoted are Acts 4:31, Acts 6:3, Acts 7:55]
> 
> Apparently, my Pastor interprets these successive passages as implying
> a repeated action of filling on the believer, while I tend to interpret
> them as a repeated description of the same state of the believer,
> ...
> 
> Two questions:
> 
> 1)  In your opinion, which is the more accurate interpretation?

I believe your pastor is correct, although he perhaps did not adequately 
explain his exposition. 

When it says Peter was filled with the Holy ghost, an aorist participle
is used in Greek. It is thus perfectly acceptable to translate this 
sentence (and all other such sentences) as saying that Peter was filled
once more with the Holy Spirit.

Of course, the translation which says that this is a repeated description
of the same event is also allowable, but it introduces an unexplained 
redundancy on the part of Luke. Why did he bother to repeat that Peter 
was full of the Spirit if this was in fact a continual state?

Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones believed very definitely that these were repeated
fillings of the Spirit, and then proceeded to show examples of the same
happening in church history. His argument was that the Holy Spirit was 
poured out afresh at times of need (the Spirit being given in large 
measure as power for service).

> 
> 2)  Are there other (and/or better) passages that you know of which
>     indicate a believer being "filled" subsequent to initially receiving
>     the Holy Spirit?

The passages you quoted are the best evidence for repeated fillings of
the spirit. Any time the Bible uses the term "filled with the Spirit"
in an aoristic tense it may be that it is talking of repeated fillings
with the Holy Spirit.

Someone will maybe quote Ephesians 5:18 "Be filled with the Holy Spirit"
which is a present continuos construction which could be translated 
"be being filled with the Spirit". Nevertheless, this seems to refer 
to a continuous process of sanctification, and not to individual fillings
of the Spirit, and consequently I do not see it as suitable evidence for
the above case.

All the best,
  Stephen.
-- 
Gweleis i rac neb nym gweles pop annwyl. ef diwyl yneges. Gweleis i pasc.
(I saw the one above all men,  he saw me;  he, the beloved of his people,
who fulfills his mission. I saw Easter.) "Yspeil Taliesin" ---Taliesin---
spk@uk.ac.aber --- spk%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk --- Stephen Kingston
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:30:00 EDT
From:         Jeff Shirton <SHIRTON@MCMASTER.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Truth

Darryl,

> I am a Protestant.
> You are a Catholic.
>
> Which one is a lie?  By your arguments, one of the above MUST be
> false, as what is true for me MUST be true for you, and vice versa.
>
> If such simple statements can be true for one, but not the other,
> is it such a far reach of the imagination to conceive of belief
> structures that are right for me, but not for you, and vice
> versa?

The two statements under consideration are properly:

"Marty Helgesen is Catholic."
"Darryl Johnson is Protestant."

These two statements are _both_ true, whether you say them, or whether
Marty says them, or whether _I_ say them.

The problem with your wording (using personal pronouns) is that the
statement completely changes when the subject of the pronoun changes.
The flaw in your rendition of the statements is that the pronouns are not
absolutely defined, as they change depending on the speaker.  They are not
absolute statements, so they do not convey absolute Truth.

But there does exist absolute Truth, and it can be conveyed through
absolute statements.  IMO.

In Christ,
.------------------------v----------------------------------------------------.
| Jeff Shirton           | "Now it is God that has...given us the Spirit as a |
| shirton@McMaster.CA    |  deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."  2Cor.5:5 |
`------------------------^----------------------------------------------------'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:33:44 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: to disable call waiting

JR:

You are correct, sir!  The evil (yes, Jeff Sinatra, evil DOES exist, and
its name is NOT Legion any more; its name is GTE!) phone company informs
me that this area does not have the capability to temporarily disable
call waiting.  They can, for a fee, completely permanently remove my
"smart call" package, which would mean that I would never get another
telephone call I did not instigate, essentially, considering the amount of
time I spend on the phone and the computer!  Or they suggest that I get
some gullible friend to let me forward my calls to them while I am on the
computer.  However, that will not work either (even though they said it
would) because call forwarding will ring here once before moving on--and
once is enough (just like with AIDS!  But that's another conversation.)
I hate the phone company.  Not the people.  Just the concept.
                                      Later,
                                            ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: christia@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"christia@asuacad"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:57:00 EDT
From:         Jeff Shirton <SHIRTON@MCMASTER.BITNET>
Subject:      Average Canadians

Since the subject of Canada's identity came up (actually, didn't _I_
start that one?  :-), I am reminded of a group that was kind of popular
up here in Canada in the '60's.  They were a group of Royal Canadian
Mounted Police operating out of Windsor, Ontario (south of Detroit (yes,
I said _south_ :-) ).  They formed a guitar/banjo band, and started
writing songs about controversial issues that we in vogue (this is the
'60's, remember!)

They wrote songs about "Toronto the Good", Batman, the Government,
the KKK, the RCMP, censorship, Hockey, just about anything, and most
of their stuff is pretty funny, especially since there's a lot of
truth to it.

One of the songs they wrote is called, "Average Canadians", and I thought
you folks might enjoy reading it.  Another one you might like is called,
"Canada, USA", a song about Canada becoming the 51st state.  Since it's
really kind of off-topic, but anyone who'd like to receive it, let me
know, and I'll send it along.

BTW, these singing RCMP officers called themselves the "Brothers-in-Law".

                  Average Canadians
                  -----------------

We're trying to describe to you our true identity,
The product of a land that runs from sea to shining sea.
We never veer from left to right, that's very ill-advised...
We travel down the middle where you can't be criticized

For we're neither fat nor skinny, we're neither short nor tall,
We're average Canadians, and we hardly care at all.

We don't care for elections but we have them now and then,
And to our blessed government we send the nicest men.
We have two major parties, they're both well known by name...
It doesn't matter which you choose; they're pretty much the same.

For they're neither fat nor skinny, they're neither short nor tall,
They're average politicians and they hardly think at all.

We've two-and-one-half children and a nicely mortgaged pad.
We're never very happy but we're never very sad.
We always use two languages in official forms and signs...
For we're either French or English, but we can't make up our minds.

For we're neither French nor English, for it's always "en Francais",
We hate each other like the plague, and we hope it stays that way.

We're very well contented in this great and happy land,
And those who criticize it, well we just can't understand.
We hope to stay Canadian, until our dying day...
Unless we get our visa for the good ol' U.S.A.!

For we're neither fat nor skinny, we're neither short nor tall,
We're average Canadians, and we hardly care at all!
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Changing A Church
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:26:52 GMT


Kerry Stephenson writes that "if you want to change the things that, in fact,
make the Catholic church different from other churches," you might as well
just set up a new church.  She also says:

> Some things are negotiable; others are not.  Those things which make a
> denomination or a church fundamentally different are foundational and cannot
> be changed without altering the character of the denomination or church.

But who decides what things are fundamental and what things aren't?  It seems
to me that the Roman Catholics are the ones who get to decide those things.
For example, RC services used to be in Latin, and this was a major difference
from Protestants; but Vatican II allowed the use of vernacular languages in
worship.  By your argument, the RCC has _already_ been fundamentally changed
and should have been renamed.

To the RCs, however, Latin was apparently _not_ a fundamental principle, just
a secondary feature of the Roman Catholic Church.  If the Vatican decides to
allow priests to marry, or ordain women, they will effectively be declaring
that a celibate male priesthood was _also_ not fundamental.  In matters RC,
the people who get to decide what's essential and what's secondary are in the
Vatican, and I think you are on shaky ground when you start second-guessing
their decisions.

[ NB: while the RCC does not allow priests to marry, it has always allowed
  married priests.  For example, a married Anglican priest who converted and
  remained a priest in the RCC would stay married, because the Vatican does
  not allow the dissolution of marriage except by death.  A female Anglican
  priest would not be allowed to remain a priest in the RCC after converting,
  though; the rules on gender being more specific. ]


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"It is easier to fight for principles than to live up to them." - Alfred Adler
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 14:51:11 EDT
From:         Bernice Tennant <U1A9A@WVNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: EITHER AND/OR: A BAPTISIMAL INQUIRY

>        "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in
>         heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Therefore
>         go and make disciples of all nations,

>         - baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the
>           Son and of the Holy Spirit -

>         and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded
>         you.  And surely I am with you always, to the very end
>         of the age."    -- Matt. 28:18-20 (NIV)
 Sounds like a good verse to explain why we believe in the Trinity!


>In Christ,
>.------------------------v----------------------------------------------------
>.
>| Jeff Shirton           | "Now it is God that has...given us the Spirit as a
>|
>| shirton@McMaster.CA    |  deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."  2Cor.5:5
>|
>`------------------------^----------------------------------------------------
>'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:55:46 EDT
From:         Bernice Tennant <U1A9A@WVNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: rain

James Kiefer, I loved it!
From: andrew@cm.cf.ac.uk
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Should women cover their heads?
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:34:05 GMT
Organization: Univ of Wales College of Cardiff

In article <CHRISTIA%92040810371817@ASUACAD.BITNET> LOOT@SNYSYRV1.BITNET (ALICE
LOO) writes:
>Hi all,
>
>        Last Sunday, the speaker at my church preached on a
>rather controversial topic -- that women should cover their
>heads during worship. His sermon was based on 1 Corinthians
>11:3-16. My pastor apparently believes in this practice, and
>a good proportion of women in my church do cover their heads
>with scarfs, etc. But personally, I'm not convicted to do so.
>How do you interpret this passage? Is covering of heads practised
>in your church? I would very much like to hear your sharing
>on this subject.
>
>        For those of you who don't have a bible handy, here's
>the passage <Passage deleted>

It seems to me that Paul is teaching that the Corinthian women
should have their heads covered.

It seems to me that the major issue is whether this teaching is
relevant to today's Christians. It is my belief that it is. You
see, although it might be argued that Paul is teaching that given
the culture of the time, the head should be covered, it should
be observed that he appeals to such things as 'because of the
angels'. That still stands today, I suggest.

In the church to which I belong, women cover their heads. I am
aware that in many churches this is not practised, and many
believe that either Paul never taught that heads should be
covered or that his teaching is no longer applicable. I
hope that my very brief statement of my own viewpoint hasn't
offended!

Andrew.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 11:18:00 CST
From:         "Darryl (The Other Brother) Johnson" <DJOHNSON@TCUCVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Heterosexual risk

From: Brenda Curry-White <BSCURR01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
to sex without condoms, but it certainly does signal a warning sign
for the U.S., where 60 Minutes reports that among teenagers and college
age adults the rate of AIDS among heterosexuals is increasing dramatically.
----------------------------------------------------------------

     In 1988, when the media jumped on a study of HIV infections
on U.S. college campuses as "proof" of the long-awaited
heterosexual breakout (30 of 16,861 students tested were found to
be infected), some commentators stated flatly that these were
heterosexual infections.  Few reporters noted that the percentage
of infections was half the rate estimated for the U.S. population
as a whole, that risk factors were not identified in the study,
and that 93 percent of the infections were found in men.
     In 1990, CNN informed its viewers, "A new report from the
CDC indicates that AIDS is on the rise on college campuses."  The
Associated Press ran a similar story.  The idea was that the
results of this study were an increase from the 1988 study.  In
fact, this WAS the 1988 study -- it simply took two years for a
medical journal to formally publish it.
     Only with AIDS can an old study be declared an alarming
increase over itself.
              -- Segment from "Lynch is Right:  Media Are On
                 An AIDS Crusade" by Michael Fumento
                 Washington Journalism Review, Jan/Feb 1992
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:58:26 -0800
From:         dr798302 <whchen@CS.NTHU.EDU.TW>

Hi, Brenda --
  Thanks for your message telling your stories about your sister who
suffered the disease and, in our opinioun, seemly undersered of what has
happened to her.  I like your point in thinking all His children on
earth as whole in taking the responsibilties of sins.  Just as in a
family that if one selt out the properites, the others have to suffer
from the broke up as well.  We all live on earth and we are in a single
family.  We should  not only to keep ourself clean, but should
moreover be ready to lead the sinners back to his way, and to help those
suffer from the consequences of sins.
  But I just can not stop felling sympathy for those innocents. I felt
that they must have felt deeply helpless in those days.  I wish my story
about my brother can help those.   Similar to your sister, my brother
suffered from cancer and its treatments for two years.  He has to sleep
all day in the bed not even able to turn himself down in the first half
year. The ray and chemical drugs makes him lose his hair and his hearing
ability but not his confidence in Jesus Christ.   He said that because
now I could not hear others so I can hear more from God, and because I
suffer from pain so I know more how Jesus suffer from the pain in the
Cross.  He never once teared but always smile to those who went to see
him. The doctor said that he had never see one to survive over months
in that serious cases, but he did manage to live for two years.  In the
last one and half year, he devoted his time to helping others in the
hospital and in writing his story.  On Nov 25, 1985, he died and so did
a lot of those who cares.
  Everyone told us that our family did a lot for him, as we were very
poor and had no insurance then, but no one realized what he did for us.
He, the first Christian in our family, told us to see life from a
differnt way and showed us a love we never experienced.  I  would like
end this testimony with the verses he as well as use like best
 --------------
 Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, is not pompous, it is
not inflatted, it is not rude, it does not see its own interests, it is
not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice
over wrong doing but rejjoices with the truth.  It bears all things,
believes all things, hopes all things,  endures all things.
                                 1 Cor 14: 4-7.
 --------------

 God love Ash, Johnson, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swagger, ...


Allen W. Chen
Taiwan.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:43:54 EDT
From:         "Jonathan Long x459 rm. H204 +- 1 Way -+"
              <AB38%CATCC.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Request for Hymn Lyrics

> Were you there when they crucified my Lord?
> Were you there when they crucified my Lord?
> Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble;
> Were you there when they crucified my Lord?
>
> Were you there when they nailed Him to the cross?
> Were you there when they nailed Him to the cross?
> Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, trembel;
> Were you there when they nailed Him to the cross?
>
> Were you there when they laid Him in the tomb?
> Were you there when they laid Him in the tomb?
> Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble;
> Were you there when they laid Him in the tomb?
>
> John Hart

I'm not sure if this is one of the original verses, but I've always
also sung this last verse:

  Were you there when He rose up from the grave?
  Were you there when He rose up from the grave?
  When I think of that I shout glory, glory, glory;
  Were you there when He rose up from the grave?

Training to be a Soldier Of The Cross,
Jonathan Long

---+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---
:  "Stand steady, and don't be afraid of suffering for the Lord. Bring :
: others to Christ. Leave nothing undone that you ought to do." 2TI4:5 :
---+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---
Jonathan Long AB38@CATCC.BITNET  Catonsville,Maryland,USA  (301)455-4465
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:40:59 EST
From:         John Ross <ROSSJB@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Retraction

Earlier today I wrote:
>I don't know whose bible you are reading, but I am reading Yahweh's and
>He seems to be AGAINST racism.
>Christ died for the gentiles as well, remember?

Upon further reflection, I realize this message could have been
better worded and apologize for any crushed toes this may have
caused.  No, I have not yet received a backlash from the posting,
but am hoping I can stop the incoming nasties before they are sent.

I have asked Jesus for His forgiveness, and I hope to obtain yours
as well.

Humbly chastising myself with a plastic straw,

John
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:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:12:41 EDT
From:         Leo W <Leo_W@QM.CIRCA.UFL.EDU>
Subject:      Scripturette 4/6
X-To:         Christia <christia@asuvm.inre.asu.edu>

"Ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the
nurture and *admonition* of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4).

"Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the
prize?  So run that ye may obtain ... All our fathers were under the cloud, and
all passed through the sea; and were all baptized ... all did eat ... all drank
.. but with many of them God was not well pleased ... Now all these things
happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our *admonition*" (1
Corinthians 9:24-10:11).

Yours in Christ Jesus,
Leo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 23:39:00 EST
From:         "Jeff Sinatra" <BSC92SPA18@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Evolution ...
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU

The idea that love, thought, compassion, joy, peace, reason, communication,
and the very essence of life, is derived from something as unintelligent as
dirt, or matter, does not sit well with me.  To me, consciousness and matter
cannot be combined, therefore, I do not agree with the theory of evolution.
Just thought I would throw my two cents in.

				love,
				  Jeff Sinatra
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Original-To:  christia@asuacad.bitnet, MB09
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 08:35:00 CDT
From:         MB09@SWTEXAS.BITNET
Subject:      "Safe Sex"

I attended a seminar on the "Myths of Safe Sex" put on by an Austin doctor,
Dr. McIllhaney (sp?), a couple weeks ago.  He has a couple books out on this
topic.  He cited a study that was done with married couples.  One of whom
was infected with the HIV virus while the other partner wasn't.  The couples,
knowing the "danger of unprotected sex" used condoms.  They used them
correctly, 100% of the time, which is usually not the case out in the real
world.  After only 12 months, 18% of the partners who weren't infected became
infected.  I can get the refrerences to this study, but it is going to take
me a while!

Just a fact for interest sake:  The University of Texas Health Center
(Infirmary) unrandomly did HIV testing.  It was found that 1 in 100 UT
students were HIV infected!

Have a happy Easter,

Michelle R. Bruce
(I noticed we have another Michelle now!--welcome!)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU