HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: taking care of your body (was Re: where does the bible mention about smoking?)
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:44:15 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

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

This is true.  Yet there are some important Scriptures on the subject which
do refer to fermented wine.  One example would be the wedding of Cana in
John.  The King James translates the governor of the feast's words
as "when the men have well drunk" yet the word in Greek used in this passage
refers to drunkeness.  This is evidence that fermented wine was used at these
feasts.  Though it says nothing about the wine that Jesus made from water.  

Also, in I Corinthians 11, Paul corrects the Corinthians concerning the
way they ate the Lord's supper.  Paul wrote that at their feasts, one man
was hungry and another was drunken.  This might have been literal or Paul
might have written this to make a point, but the passage would have made
little sense if these Christians only used unfermented grape juice in
Communion.

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

Be that as it may, it does not prove that Christ or the early church
did not drink wine.  I do not drink alcohol myself, but there is some
evidence that alcohol might actually be beneficial to the body if
used in moderation.  It is believed that it lowers cholesterol.  
However, drunkeness is very damaging to the body.

>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?

That is highly subjective.  Many, many people consider well-aged wines to
taste better.  We do not know what the contents of Jesus' wine was.  From
the governors words, many of the people at the feast may have already been
wasted by the time this wine came out.  But if Christ could turn water into
wine, then He could turn it into wine that tasted like old wine, but without
any alcohol.  

Link Hudson.
From: rjb@akgua.att.com (Robert J Brown)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: SBC Ensuring Orthodoxy (Virgin Birth Disc)
Date: 15 Sep 92 07:13:42 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Sep.12.23.16.18.1992.12739@athos.rutgers.edu>, jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll) writes:
> 
> My present understanding is that the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is based
> on a mistranslation of the original Hebrew of the Prophets into the Greek
> of the Septuagint, which was used by the gospellers as their source for
> prophecy which they considered to be fulfilled by the birth and life of
> Jesus.
> 
> It's certainly possible to formulate a doctrine which arbitrarily excludes
> the Virgin Birth based on arguments like these; but the doctrine which we
> *do* have mentions it explicitly.
> 
> Jeff Carroll
> carroll@reston.cray.com  

The usual argument from the Jewish side is that Isaiah 7:14 rendered
into English as Virgin is the Hebrew - alma - meaning, young woman or
maiden.  The technical term in Hebrew for VIrgin is b'tullah.

The Septuagint of Isaiah 7:14 renders the word as parthenos .
There seems to be the source of argument about what parthenos means
(technical vs popular usage ?)

Anyway, we probably have a tough argument on our hands relative to
our Jewish counterparts who indeed are the Hebrew experts and easily
tell us the difference between young maiden and virgin.

Do you reckon that most "young maidens" of 2000 years ago were more
likely/most likely to be technical virgins than they are today ?

While I believe the Virgin Birth, I think I believe it on the theological
and Christological necessity of it as much as on the Scriptural record.

Bobby - akgua!rjb

[That Mat. quotes a mistranslation seems hard to dispute.  Even if
young women were likely to be virgins, the word doesn't *mean* virgin.
However I think it's speculation to suggest that Is 7:14 created the
idea of the virgin birth.  Luke doesn't cite the passage in his birth
account.  Mat likes citing OT passages.  He likes to show Jesus'
actions as fulfillments of the OT.  In fact, I think he might have
cited this passage even if translated "young woman".  Its relevance
does not entirely depend upon the virgin.  Sometimes he may get
overzealous in his OT citations.  But I'm by no means convinced that
we should concluded on that basis that he made the events up based on
the passages.  There are normally parallels from other gospels.
--clh]
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:32:46 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <Sep.15.02.46.00.1992.24290@athos.rutgers.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:

>I'm confused about what the doctrine of inerrancy really means.  Isn't it

As I understand it, it means simply that the Bible is without error.  An
error could be of two forms; internal or external.  An internal error would
be two different passages contradicting each other.  An example of this
would be the discrepancy between Matt 1:16 "and Jacob the father of Joseph"
and Luke 3:23 "Joseph, the son of Heli".  An external error would be a
contradiction between a passage in the Bible and external evidence.  The
most common forms of these would be differences between Archaeology and
Biblical history (a classic example might be the conquest of Canaan by Joshua,
which does not accord with current archaeological knowledge).
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 10 Sep 92 07:43:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Sep.9.04.44.29.1992.22306@athos.rutgers.edu> stovall@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Steven Stovall) writes:
>Well, Bro Camping is betting the farm that he is right. Either we're
>outta here or his ministry is finished. But you're right the biggest
>fallout of an error here is the disillusionment of thousands, if not
>millions, of believers which we have had a lot of the last few years.
>But what if he's right?

If he's right, then fortunately we'll all be too busy glorifying God
for me to have to worry about him telling me "I told you so." :-)

For believers who don't go overboard on Camping's prediction, the
results may well be good -- "But what if he's right? What about my
unsaved friends and neighbors?"  I'd be concerned about those
friends and neighbors if the basis of their "conversion" is such
a prediction, though.  I am convinced that even if we think such
an interpretation is true, we should bring it up with nonbelievers
and new Christians only in the most general of terms.  Because
we can't be sure our interpretation is correct, and there are
enough stumbling blocks out there already.

-- 
The powers not  delegated to the United States by the | Mike Van Pelt
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are | mvp@netcom.com
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.|
U. S. Constitution, Amendment 10.  (Bill of Rights)   |
From: stovall@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Steven Stovall)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 13 Sep 92 02:33:08 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department

kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:

>Some fellow has cooked up Yet Another Apocalyptic Timetable, and we have had
>quite a bit of discussion.  Steven Stovall wrote:

>> Bro Camping is betting the farm that he is right.  Either we're outta here
>> or his ministry is finished.

>Then why is he charging for the book?

>Why doesn't he take out a big loan to be paid back in 1995, and give the book
>away for free?  Or sell his home/farm/whatever to fund distributing copies of
>his book?

Actually he isnt saying he is *absolutely* sure, just that his understanding
of the Bible *strongly indicates* that we have been in the Tribulation since
sometime in 1988, and that the *LAST DAY* will be sometime (I presume around
the Feast of Trumpets) in September 1994. Note that he believes that the
Rapture coincides with *JUDGEMENT DAY*. Anyway, if this is true, Family Radio
needs to double their efforts to get the Gospel out, and that takes money.

_______________________________________________________________________________

steven stovall
stovall@exeter.cs.ucla.edu
(310) 825-7307
From: doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 9 Sep 92 05:14:30 GMT
Organization: Bush in 92 ? NOT!

davem@bnr.ca (Dave Mielke) writes:
:  
: There appears to be abundant Biblical evidence which indicates that the
: Lord Jesus Christ will return as the judge of all the earth sometime
: during September in 1994. The proofs are far too lengthy for a short[...]
:  

Gee, and everyone including Hal Lindsay thought it would have been in
1988, with the Rapture taking place in 1981 or so.... and there were
"abundant" scriptural proofs for that.

And there were abundant scriptural proofs for many other times.  I'm not
convinced, I just plan on being prepared.  NO man knows the day, nor the
hour... 
--
Doug Sewell (doug@cc.ysu.edu) Youngstown State Univ. Computer Center
Recent surveys show that congresspeople, lawyers, and Bush administration
officials are the REAL ones believed to be bereft of moral and ethical
standards... and THESE people are talking about the immorality of others ?
From: carl@brahms.udel.edu (Carl Krauthauser)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Holy Tradition
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:56:30 GMT

In a recent article on s.r.c, it was said that Holy Tradition for the
Eastern Orthodox was given as:

                   1. Scripture
                   2. The Seven(7) Oecumenical Councils
                   3. The writings of the Church Fathers

I have several questions in regard to this:

            1. What are the accepted, canonical books of the Eastern
               Orthodox Scripture, and how do they differ from what
               the Roman Catholic consider canonical?
            2. The first eight Oecumenical Councils of the Universal
               Church are, as I understand the usual designations:
                              
                              i) The First General Council of Nicaea (325) 
                             ii) The First General Council of Constantinople 
                                 (381)
                            iii) The General Council of Ephesus (431)
                             iv) The General Council of Chalcedon (451)
                              v) The Second General Council of Constantinople
                                 (553)
                             vi) The Third General Council of Constantinople
                                 (680-681)
                            vii) The Second General Council of Nicaea (787)
                           viii) The Fourth General Council of Constantinople
                                 (869-870)
         
               I post these because the general councils that took place
               beyond these occurred after the accepted scandalous breach
               that took place between the Universal Church in the East and
               the Universal Church in the West. Also, all succeeding Councils
               took place in the West. My question is this: the eight Councils
               I listed would be considered, I believe, by all parties to be
               Oecumenical Councils by whatever definition one cares to use
               for 'oecumenical.' What is the difference between my eight(8)
               and the seven(7) said to be part of Holy Tradition?
            3. Who are considered to be the Chursh Fathers and how was this
               determination made?

Any help that can be given on this would be greatly appreciated. Thamk You.

                                                             Yours in Christ,

                                                               Carl Krauthauser
 
               split between the
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 6 Sep 92 19:44:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Sep.5.17.38.36.1992.17903@athos.rutgers.edu> davem@bnr.ca (Dave Mielke) writes:
>There appears to be abundant Biblical evidence which indicates that
>the Lord Jesus Christ will return ...during September in 1994. The
>proofs are far too lengthy for a short article such as this, but can be
>found in the book titled "1994" by Mr.  Harold Camping ...

C. S. Lewis pretty much settled this sort of thing.

Jesus Himself said that He did not know when The Day of the Lord
would take place.

Therefore, any claim to know a date is a claim that the date-setter
has more knowledge on the subject than Jesus Christ Himself.

If this is not blasphemy, then it is sure skirting the edge of it.

I am apalled that Harold Camping is getting involved in this.

>This book contains 576 pages of detailed Biblical analysis and does not
>rely in any way on human speculation.

Didn't the last guy who claimed to have scriptural proof of a date
also pin it in September?  (This was a few years ago; the date came
and went without incident.)   Why September?

>I urge and beseech you to please check out this evidence before it is
>too late as the divinely decreed punishment for sin, of which we are
>all guilty, is eternal damnation.

True.  However, it doesn't take the Second Coming to make this an
urgent issue.  Any one of us could have a heart attack this very
moment, or be hit by a truck tomorrow morning.  And where would you
be then?  That's the question, and it's a lot closer to home than
more esoteric threats.

>With perhaps only two years at the most left, I would like to conclude
>my private remarks within this article with the question with which I
>began. Are you truly ready to meet your judge, His Majesty, the King of
>Kings and Lord of Lords, God Almighty, face to face?

My biggest problem with the date-setting is the destruction of the
faith of people who get caught up in it.  One January 1, 1995, what
happens to the people, perhaps new Christians whose faith is none
too solidly grounded?  Do they say "Gee, I've been stupid", and
stomp off into the Darkness?

The fact that it gives the world another excuse to laugh at the Church
is a side issue; they're determined to laugh themselves to death
regardless.  Still, I'd hate to be responsible for giving them another
excuse.

Now that the date has been firmly set for September, 1994, I think I
can quite safely say that either the Lord is coming back on or before
August 31, 1994, or on or after October 1, 1994.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                     Will your long-winded speeches never
mvp@netcom.com                    end?  What ails you that you keep on 
                                  arguing?    --    Job 16:3
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The O'Callaghan Case, part I
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:21:08 GMT
Organization: none

In article <Sep.4.03.03.59.1992.29940@athos.rutgers.edu> cw1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chi-Tai (Frank) Wu) writes:

   What has the oldest Gospel fragment been dated so far?
   How about the New Testament?

   Frank

   [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.
   --clh]

That particular passage is part of the primary Scriptural basis for
the Catholic doctrine of Christ the King.  I was reading something
recently that suggested that it was no coincidence that that set of
verses, in a fragment dated so early, was found when it was.
From: clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Prayerline
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:41:41 GMT
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Hello.

This is just a note of a help I am providing for all those out there.  I am
establishing a prayerline.  If you are facing a problem and need some help,
drop me a line, and I'll drop you a prayer.  One can set one thousand aflight
and two ten thousand-scripture.

Your brother in time of need

ken
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Science and Faith [was: The O'Callaghan Case, part I]
Date: 15 Sep 92 06:26:40 GMT
Organization: none

In article <Sep.12.23.58.44.1992.13153@athos.rutgers.edu> ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:

   I guess what I'm trying to say is this: if scientific scholarship is not
   applicable to _disproving_ your particular model of the world, then neither
   is it acceptable to use it --or rather to claim to use it-- to support that
   view either.

My position on Reason and Faith is that of St. Thomas Aquinas.  Faith
is knowledge that flows from Divine Revelation.  Reason works with our
own natural faculties.  Both are valid sources of Truth, and cannot
contradict each other.

If I understand you correctly, I agree with what you say above.  Faith
is based on Divine Revelation, on truths that are not accessible to
human reason.  Truths of Faith can therefore, strictly speaking, be
neither proved nor disproved.  (Goedel's theorem would seem to have
some applicability here.)  All that Reason can do is show that they
are reasonable, and in harmony with the truths of Reason.

What I object to in modern Scripture scholarship is this, that it
arrives at "truths" of Reason that are opposed to truths of Faith.
Essentially, the modern Scripture scholar is a rationalist.  He is
attempting to arrive at Truths of Faith through Reason alone.  That's
quite impossible!  You can study Scripture all your life and never
know the real meaning of some basic passages.
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: End of the World Question
Date: 10 Sep 92 07:37:04 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

In article <Sep.9.04.25.50.1992.21939@athos.rutgers.edu>, sperry@convex.csd.uwm.edu (Robert Joseph Sperry) writes:
>By my reading of the above, the world should've ended about 1900 years ago.
>If I am reading these wrong, please let me know, but honestly I only see
>two explanations for the above:

I think it simply means that the signs of the end of the world started soon
after Jesus' death (within the same generation).  What many of my brothers
and sisters out there don't seem to realize is that people have been reading
the signs and making predictions of the date ever since Jesus left the first
time.  The reason behind the Thessolonian letters is that there were many in
that church who were so convinced the second-coming was soon by their standards
that they weren't doing anything but waiting.  They needed to get back to work
and living their lives.  We will not know the time until the time has actually
arrived.  Read Mark 13:32.  Jesus didn't know the time and it didn't bother him.
Why, then, should it bother us to not know?  We have been in the end times for
~2000 years and will continue to be in them until Jesus returns.  We will not
know when so stop trying to guess.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: GIF of Rylands papyrus available
Date: 9 Sep 92 05:24:23 GMT
Organization: none

I have put a scanned image of the Rylands fragment of the Gospel of
St. John on my archive server.  (I already posted the instructions for
accessing the server.)

The file name is:

bw-pictures/misc/p52-rylands-papyrus-john-18:31,32,33,37,38-circa-100AD.gif

and it's about 500k bytes.  There is also a thumbnail version that
ends in .preview.gif, that is only about 10k bytes.
From: ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: End of the World?
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:40:46 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <Sep.6.15.43.10.1992.7798@athos.rutgers.edu> 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?  

I got some sort of prophecy from a woman about 3 weeks ago; some sort of
dream about an ocean liner and the date of October 28th, 1992. Somebody
must really dread the prospect of a Clinton White House... :-)

Her message boiled down to the Lord saving us from the ultimate Titanic-like
disaster due to hit in November by snatching us off the deck in October.
Oh well, we'll see, I suppose. I haven't changed my plans for Thanksgiving,
if you know what I mean.

Pete
From: jmrg9881@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Cell Group Churches (1 of 3)
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:18:12 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

I originally made the following 3 posts to GEnie, and thought that folks
here would also be interested...

----

My church (Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Champaign) is in the process of a
_fundamental_ change from being a church _with_ small groups to being a _small
group church_.  It's a total change to a new paradigm, a new understanding of
what "church" is.  Our goal is to establish 2000 small groups of roughly 10
people each by the year 2000.

Actually, the cell group church is not really a new idea... except in the U.S.
I'm sure most of you know that Dr. Cho's church in Seoul is the largest in the
world... did you know that it is a cell-based church?

The book _Where Do We Go From Here?_ (subtitled "A Guidebook for the Cell
Group Church") by Ralph Neighbor is excellent, life-changing reading.  It's
changed my life, and it's turned our church upside down.  Highly recommended!
-- 
Jon Reid    j-reid@uiuc.edu    GEnie: THE.REIDS
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."