HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Lord's Table (Part 1 of 2)
Date: 18 Aug 92 06:28:08 GMT

K. Paulson writes:

>I took the Biblical stand the Jesus Christ himself founded the first New
>Testament church.  This independent, local church then in turn sent out
>missionaries which in turn planted other N. T. churches which would eventually
>become independent and self-sustaining relying solely on the Bible and the
>Holy Spirit for truth, doctrine, and wisdom in the things of God.

This image is, I think, a projection backward of the non-conforming (i.e.,
baptist) group upon the text.  While it seems to me a mistake to see in the
early church an exact rendering of one of the modern three systems of
polity, the evidence is more inclined towards the episcopal or presbyterian
than the congregationalist.  The selection of the deacons (leading up to the
stoning of Stephen), with its strong flavor of delegation, is much more in
line with the notion of the apostles as elders or bishops than as ministers
called forth from the congregation.

Also, the independence of the various churches is quite debatable; Paul, for
instance, cuts right across an such independence.  Also, the pattern of
expansion noted in the NT is quite consonant with the modern pattern of
episcopal evangelism.

>(Christ is the rock mentioned in Matthew 16:18.)

This is quite untenable, as it makes a hash out of the greek.  Peter is the
rock because "Peter" is "rock".  What this means exactly is another issue,
of course, but insisting that Jesus is talking about himself is quite
contrary to scripture.

>Jesus Christ has ALWAYS been the Rock.  "And have ye not read this
>scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the
>corner:"  Mark 12:10.

This is a linguistic fallacy.  The same symbol need not always stand fo the
same thing, even within the same text.

>However, this authority DID NOT include forgiving sins.  The Bible says
>NOTHING BUT the shed BLOOD of Jesus Christ can forgive sins.

The bible quite flatly says that the apostles are given the power to forgive
sins.  John 20:23: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them;
if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

This whole thing seems to consist of the emphasis of one passage of
scripture at the expense of another, thus losing the truth of the whole.
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
From: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Online Bible
Date: 18 Aug 92 04:18:44 GMT
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)

In article <Aug.14.02.07.27.1992.26979@athos.rutgers.edu>, rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires) writes:
> The Online Bible was mentioned recently in soc.religion.christian
> Judging by the responses (and some email) not everyone who should
> be interested knows what the package is or where it may be obtained.
> I am not involved with the package, but seems to me it deserves more
> advertising, hence this letter.  Followups to s.r.c
> 
> Here are simple directions for downloading the package.  Remember that
> this is an MSDOS package, and that you will need the current version
> of Pkunzip (1.1 or better) to uncompress the files.  This routine
> is in the mirrors/msdos/zip directory: PKZ1110EU.EXE.
> 
> 	ftp wuarchive.wustl.edu
> 	[login as anonymous and give your email addr as the password]
> 	cd doc/bible
> 	prompt		[this is just so you can use wildcards]
> 	mget README*	[use this to decide which bible versions you want]
> 	binary		[transfers of .zip and .exe files must use binary mode]
> 	mget *.zip	[this will retrieve all the files, assuming you
> ***************************************************************************
> Roger Squires
> rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu

    I recently downloaded the online Bible [KJV] and I am very impressed.
Everybody who has a need for a computer Bible should consider this one. It is
very fast (mind you i'm using a 486!!) and easy to use. My only gripe is that
it is not a windows program! It is extremely useful as it has a greek/hebrew
lexicon and Strongs numbering. 

   I really liked the software authors attitude. If you want to pay for
it(shareware) then he asks you to send money to your favourite missions group!

  There is also plenty of support in various countries (list provided with zip
files!)


-- 
                                               []
                                            [][][][]
                                               []
                                               []
                                               []   2Chron 7:14
================================================================================
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     
================================================================================
From: johnsone@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Erik A. Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Jewish view of laws binding on Gentiles
Date: 17 Aug 92 07:41:22 GMT

You write (on then end of another article posted on s.r.c):
> [I think not.  The Law of Moses were part of a covenant between God
> and the Jews.  Jews now and many Jews in the 1st Cent. do not expect
> the whole world to become Jewish and accept the Laws of Moses.
> Traditional Jewish exegesis says that non-Jews are bound by the
> covenant that God made with Noah when they got out of the ark.  This
> passage was expanded by Jewish commentators to 7 laws that non-Jews
> were expected to follow.  Many commentators see a great similarity
> between the rules in Acts 15 and those laws.

I was just wondering from what source comes your info here about the
"traditional Jewish exegesis" on what laws are binding on Gentiles.  I've
been wondering about this recently.  Any reference you could give me would
be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.


Erik A. Johnson        \    Internet: johnsone@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu     \       |
------------------------\    AmericaOnline: ErikAJ                   \    --+--
Graduate Student         \--------------------------------------------\     |
Aero/Astro Engineering    \  "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and    \    |
University of Illinois at  \  the truth, and the life; no one comes to  \   |
   Urbana-Champaign (UIUC)  \  the Father except through me.'" (Jn14:6)  \

[I'm using primarily a book by a Jewish scholar of the NT: H. J.
Schoeps: "Paul".  There are a number of other standard works giving
Jewish background for the NT, one of which I believe is Davies, "Paul
and Rabbincal Judaism".  (Our library system seems to be down, so I
can't get an exact reference.)  There have also been periodic
postings on the Noachic covenant by Jewish readers in this and
other groups.  --clh]
From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Opinions Qualifications for Deacon
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:41:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <Aug.14.02.29.32.1992.27609@athos.rutgers.edu> mdw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mark.d.wuest) writes:
>My congregation is about to appoint deacons.  The men were presented
>to the congregation a few weeks ago for consideration.  I have read
>the passage in I Timothy (and the passage in Titus regarding elders),
>and several commentaries.  In addition, I have been at several
>congregations where this was done and had the qualifications explained
>by many people.

I think an even better question to ask is what exactly is the
duties of a deacon.

The Bible at least gives an idea of the qualifications for being a
deacon but what does the Bible tell us about the purpose
(responsabilities, duties, authority, etc.) of a deacon?  I have found 
nothing in the Bible indicating the duties of a deacon.  Certainly the role
of a deacon differs greatly from denomination to denomination.


Robert

[Acts 6:1 ff is often considered an account of the ordination of the
first deacons.  On this basis, they are often thought to be
responsible primarily for charitable works.  --clh]
From: NU169273@vm1.nodak.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Lord's Table (Part 1 of 2)
Date: 14 Aug 92 06:21:12 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network

[This is in response to Eric James Ewanco's posting:
>Jesus Christ founded the FIRST New Testament church?  I'm afraid I disagree --
>he founded the ONLY New Testament church, Matthew 16:18.  Jesus desired only
>one church, and gave the "keys" (a symbol of authority) to Peter (Kepha,
>meaning Rock) to this church.  He wishes the church to be one - John 17:11, 1
>Cor 12:13.
--clh]


Peter got some "keys"?  What are the keys?  And why Peter?
Please use scripture.  All the churches mentioned in the New Testament are
local, independent churches.  There is no such thing as a Universal
invisible or visible Church (assembly) I'm afraid.

Next you'll be telling us that mere men can forgive sins and
and that Mary is a co-saviour with Jesus Christ.  Sorry, your mistaken.

K. Paulson
1109 16th Street North #1
Fargo, ND  58102
From: Malachi.Robertson@lambada.oit.unc.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Peter's Vision
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:19:32 GMT

In article <Aug.14.05.12.34.1992.629@athos.rutgers.edu>
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au (Derek Abbott) writes:
 
>How does one explain that a jot and a few tittles were changed.
>
>eg. When Peter sees the visions of animals on a sheet and declares that
>we are free to eat anything. Doesn't this change the dietry laws?
>
>I know it's only a minor tittle, but that's what's at issue here.
 
That is if Peter was really learning that and teaching that.  I believe
that what his vision was an exhortation against was the man-made rule of
defilement by association (re: the clean foods that Peter could eat were
defiled or common for being in the presence of unclean foods, but God
declares do not call common what has been cleansed).  This was then to
apply in Peter's dealings with the Gentiles.
 
"Malachi" Ian Robertson Brown
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Textual Evidence and the Johannean Comma [was: 1 John 5: 6-8]
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:48:25 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA

aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) asks about the variations in
1Jn5:7 (i.e.  the Johannean Comma).  OFM cites the scanty textual support
given in the critical apparatus of UBS3.  It is probably useful going over
the (textual) evidence in a little more detail as it is even more one-sided
than even this pessimistic account would imply.

1] The evidence in the Greek manuscripts.

The passage appears in only four Greek manuscripts.

 o Greg 88: A 12th cent. manuscript in which the passage is written in the margin
   in a 17th cent. hand.

 o Greg 629. A manuscript variously dated as from the 14th to the 16th cent.

 o Tisch 110: A manuscript copy, dating from the 16th cent, of the Greek text
   from the Complutensian Polyglot[*].
 
 o ms 61: Which, as we've seen, shows every indication of being created
   expressly in order to supply a justification for the inclusion of this
   passage in Erasmus' Greek NT.

(There is a great deal of variation as to the actual wording of the passage
among even these four witnesses.)

So, to repeat the obvious, the passage is not known in _any_ Greek
manuscript before the 14th century.  The later evidence is highly suspect
(to say the least).
					  
   [* The Complutensian Polyglot was prepared by Cardinal Ximenes of Spain
      for Pope Leo X.  The NT consisted of parallel columns of Greek and
      Latin.  It has the distinction of being the first _printed_ Greek NT
      --although Erasmus' editon was _published_ first.  It, in a certain
      sense, functioned as the "official" Greek text of the Catholic Church
      for several centuries.]

2] Evidence of the Latin Manuscripts:

The passage does not appear in manuscripts of the Vulgate before the 8th
century and is missing from major manuscripts for some time after that (e.g.
it does not appear in the revision by Alcuin from the 9th cent.)  In
particular, it does not occur in the version released by Jerome.

It does not appear in the earliest version of the Old Latin (i.e.
pre-Vulgate) versions.  The first appearance in a Latin manuscript is a
single occurance in a 6th century manuscript.

3] Evidence from other versions:

The passage does not occur in _any_ of the other ancient versions: Syriac,
Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabian or Slavonic.

4] Patristic Evidence.

The passage is not cited by any of the Greek Father.  (Given their
prediliction for Trinitarian controversies, this would have been a most
surprising omission, had they actually known of the passage.)

The earliest citation by a Latin Father is the 4th cent. "Liber Apologeticus"
(attributed to either Priscillian or Instantius).  Not until the 5th century
did any Latin Father explicitly cite the passage as part of 1Jn.

N
From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Healing Statistics
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:07:31 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

On the subject of medically verified healings:  before a miraculous
cure can be accepted at Lourdes, the person healed must be examined
by at least one (possibly two) medical boards.  I don't know a great
deal about the procedure, but I seem to recall that these boards
are chosen to be non-biased (e.g. non-Catholic?).  As a result of
this rigorous evaluation system, very few miracles at Lourdes have
been officially accepted by the Church.  However, the few that have
seem to be quite clear that something miraculous happened.
When I was at Lourdes several years ago I picked up a pamphlet about
one case--does anyone know whether details on all the cases are
available?

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dr. Peter Ruckman and the KJV as divinely inspired
Date: 16 Aug 92 04:29:45 GMT
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <Aug.14.05.09.04.1992.157@athos.rutgers.edu>, vek@allegra.att.com (Van Kelly) writes:

> Facts of History:

> During the years of 400-1700, say, God saw fit to leave most believers
> with extremely scant access to His Word *in any written form*, due to
> illiteracy, scarcity of books, and sometimes ecclesiastical politics.
> What little these folks understood of His Word came by oral preaching
> only, yet many were converted in those conditions.  Of the luckier ones
> with some access to written Scripture, most had only translations,
> which varied greatly in completeness and quality.  Among the select
> elite who could access a Greek text, only the tiniest fraction ever
> actually read the *whole* NT in Greek in their lifetimes.

Mostly due to the fact that the printing press was not invented until the 
sixteeth century.  One could hardly expect handwritten copies of Scripture
to be common.  Sometime in the 5th century, St. Jerome completed his Latin
translation of the Scriptures, accurate and accepted as _the_ standard 
until modern times.  Keep in mind that in the Middle Ages, up until probably
after the Reformation, anyone who could read and write could read Latin,
and could read Jerome's accurate Vulgate translation, which was quite common
(well, compared to other translations).

Often, dioceses would set up public copies of Scripture easily accessible
to everyone.  So while there weren't many copies, they did make the rounds.

just some oblique comments not closely related to the thread...

Eric
--
/=============================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer     For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard MA  pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com          they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
\==============================- 2 Th 2:15 -==================================/
    "...[T]he greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and
    organized at Rome by [] Peter and Paul, [is] that Church which has the
    tradition and faith which comes down to us after having been announced
    to men by the Apostles.  For with this Church, because of its superior
    origin, all Churches must agree ...  and it is in her that the
    faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
       -- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 180 A.D., 3,3,3.
From: rls@dexnet.lonestar.org (Ron Skrabanek)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: 2 Pt 1:1-4 -- attn:roger
Date: 17 Aug 92 07:36:42 GMT
Organization: The Order of the Albino Pachyderm

Hi, Roger. Please accept my apologies is taking so long to answer. We 
are in the middle of corn harvest down here in Texas and I have been 
quite busy of late. I might have missed another response completely if 
a friend from Dallas hadn't called to tell me about it.

\\But Ron, you didn't say anything about the "calling and election made 
sure". I'm sure there is more to this than what you wrote.//

You probably saw a bit more on this in the following post on 2 Peter 
1:5-11. In any case, it has never been my purpose to exhaust the angles 
of a passage in each post. What you see is a skeletal form of my 
sermons. And, for me, the difference between preaching and teaching is 
quite distinct. I teach through a passage phrase by phrase, while I 
preach through a passage sentence by sentence. I think this is better 
for the purpose of a sermon, as it tends to mirror the flow of the text 
better. As a result, you don't get near the detail in a sermon, but you 
do get a better idea of the big picture. I think this is very important 
as most Christians tend to "major in minors and minor in the majors." 
This is not to imply that predestination is a minor doctrine -- only 
that it is not part of the major thrust of this passage. For a sermon 
on predestination, I would go to Ephesians 1 or Romans 9-11 where the 
concept is more a part of the major flow of the passage.

\\I'd rather believe this 'C&E' is about some of the meat talked about 
in Heb. whereas most of the things in the NT are about the 'milk'.//

This is something I have been thinking about lately, especially in 
light of the Corinthian's passage about "babes in Christ." Is it 
possible that the difference between milk and meat is much like the 
difference between baby food and "real" food? Babies must be fed, while 
those who have matured have learned to eat by themselves. It almost 
sounds like the difference between those who just sit and listen and 
those who have learned to study God's Word on their own.

Just a thought, ron.

ps --> I see there is a second message from you and will get to it this w
week.

rls@dexnet.lonestar.org  (Ron Skrabanek)
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Abuse and Divorce
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:55:13 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

In article <Aug.12.02.13.26.1992.24346@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>, aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:
>My reading of the passage, as I alluded to last time, is that Jesus didn't want
>to answer the legality question.  So he tried to "duck" it, as it were, but was
>pushed by the Pharisees (the disciples do it in Mark).  I think he just took
>sides as opposed to presenting his legal interpretation, since Jesus was
>not too concerned with such issues.  He was more concerned with getting his
>listeners to understand what proper marriage is.  If they did, questions about
>divorce would be unnecessary.  The Pharisees were concerned with the Law, Jesus
>was concerned with holy living.  Shammai was more or less right in his legal
>reasoning, so Jesus simply sided with him instead of really getting into it.
>And the reason Shammai was more or less right, is the now famous "breaking
>of the covenant."

I would like to put forth another line of thought to support this reading.  In
the parallel statements to Matthew 19:9 in Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18, the
except clause is not present.  What does this tell us?  In my opinion, since
the except clause is missing in the other two statements, it must not have been
important to the authors, and if one accepts divine inspiration of Scripture, it
was not important to God; the core of the statement, "If a man divorces his wife
and marries another, he commits adultery," is the important part of the
statement.  Why?  Because Jesus is trying to get his listener to understand the
proper attitude regarding marriage:  it is designed to be a life-long
commitment by the couple to each other.  This divorce/remarriage statement is
part of that arguement.  If a couple comes into marriage with such a commitment,
the marriage will probably last (I've never been married so...).  Once again,
Jesus side-steps the issue of legality and focusses on the issue of holiness
in marriage.  Matthew adds the except clause to connect his Jewish reader to
the legal debate at the time but Jesus' focus is on holiness, but it should not
be treated as the main part of Jesus' statement.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: angels
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:12:45 GMT
Organization: me

A previous posting says:
>>Actually, this is a topic which has interested me for some time.  What
>>do people know\believe about angels?  I know that the Catholic Church
>>has a detailed system of angelology, but I am unfamiliar with it.

"Beyond Space" by the late Fr. Pascal Parente (Tan Books, Rockford, IL
61105) presents the basic facts about angels we can glean from Scripture
or deduce by philosophical means, along with more speculative angelology
such as the distinctions between the choirs of angels (seraphim, cherubim,
thrones, dominations, virtues, powers, principalities, archangels, and 
angels).  Since there isn't a lot of solid doctrinal material to present
on the subject, the book is probably exhaustive.

---
Richard Chonak, sysmgr                                    office: newz@wit.edu
Wentworth Institute of Technology             sometimes: norris@athena.mit.edu
I have very exclusive and nuanced opinions.  License info available on request.