HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Hal Camping prediction for Second Coming, Sept. '94!!
Date: 10 Sep 92 07:41:50 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <Sep.9.04.43.51.1992.22282@athos.rutgers.edu> han@npg-sd.sandiegoca.ncr.com (Chuck Han) writes:
>... 
>2) 7 year Peace Treaty that will start between Israel and the Arabs.
>3) Beginning of EC on January 1st, 1993
>	This could mean Rapture this YEAR, not 1994 :-)
>4) Antichrist's rise via the EC.
>5) The '666' end-time sign and the EC's mark.
>6) New World Order governed by the EC.
>...
>13) The oath of loyalty EC members take
>14) Danish rejection of some of EC participation .
>...  
>These are all signs for the 7 year tribulation not for rapture.  

I have some questions about these items above. Some of these are
events that have taken place, some are not. WHAT 7-year peace
treaty between Israel and the Arabs? I knew they were talking,
I didn't know they had arrived at anything as concrete as a 
specific 7-year treaty. 
Where is it stated that the Antichrist shall rise via the EC?
Where is it stated (other than in someone's imagination) that
the EC shall govern a "new world order"?

I caution us all to remember two people who in the past offered
concrete time frames for the Second Coming and the Rapture of the
Church: Hal Lindsey and William Miller.

Lindsey is well-known in our time. Miller was well-known before the
American Civil War. The efforts of both men were earnest, carefully
studied attempts from scripture to discern the timing and estimate
closely the arrival of important events like this.

I guess I'd better read Mr. Camping's book to better comprehend
what he is saying, but for now, I advise most all of us to be very
careful about this sort of thing. (I'm sure our friendly moderator
would agree, no?)

As a final note, I would think a more compelling prophecy of our
times and where they might take us would be the economic picture
of the modern world; in our own day, we are precariously balanced
on the edge of a great worldwide economic debacle analogous to the
great abyss faced by the generation of 1914.  They in their time
could not see it; we in our own time, apparently, cannot see ours,
either.

Reading with GREAT interest,
				Pete
From: boe@cadsun2.slac.stanford.edu (Robert Boeninger)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Question for fundamentalists
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:57:39 GMT
Reply-To: boe@cadsun2.slac.stanford.edu (Robert Boeninger)
Organization: SLAC

As a serious sceptic, I have a fundamental question for so-called Christian 
fundamentalists.

Concerning the claimed inerrancy of the Bible, how is it possible to 
accept as true, facts about the nature of the Bible, such as its inerrancy,
its being inspired by God, and so on, based on the Bible making such claims
for itself?  That would appear to be a a case of circular reasoning.  Any 
supposed corroboration of such claims by independent evidence all appears to 
me to be cases of wishful thinking, arguing after the fact.  You like to think 
of the Bible as being God-inspired, and therefore you go to great pains to 
bring up supporting evidence from within the Bible itself.  From a purely 
logical standpoint, it seems to me that no amount of claims in the Bible about 
the Bible itself can ever be taken as a validation of those claims. 
Predictions
of supposed miracles are again always referred to after the fact, when it's 
easy to interpret the original statements however best suits the events that 
supposedly fulfill the prediction.  Look at the difficulty fundamentalists are 
having predicting the end of the world based on statements in the Bible.
Do any of you have a sensible response to these issues, one that does NOT
consist of simply quoting the Bible some more?

Bob Boeninger
From: mfv23060@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Maurice F. Vallejo)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Catholic semenarians
Date: 14 Sep 92 01:50:36 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


	Is there anyone there who is a semanarian (sp?) for a Catholic order 
or diocese?  I am interested in the religious life and would love to talk 
(through e-mail) to someone who is experiencing this life.

						God bless:
						Maurice
From: mdavidch@cayley.uwaterloo.ca (Matthew Francis Davidchuk)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: University Bible Fellowship
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:36:59 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo


	If anyone has information about the "University Bible Fellowship"
could they please send information on how to get in touch.  I believe
this fellowship is based in Korea but has missions to North American campuses.

				Matthew Francis Davidchuk
From: Steve.Gross@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: A RIDDLE FOR YOU.
Date: 9 Sep 92 05:15:09 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

Something that might break up the doldrums for some here, I thought might
be nice.  I have posted this on t.r.c because some of the people there
have labeled me a non-thinker.  Sadly enough, that may be true when
dealing with their nonsensical arguments to Christianity, but not true
when it comes to fun little things that challenge the mind.   See if you
can figure this one out, and I PROMISE you it came from the bible.


	MY CENTER IS NOTHING;
	MY FIRST IS MY LAST;
	AND WHEN THE LONG AGES
	   ARE OVER AND PAST;
	THEN VENGEANCE DIVINE
	   SHALL DEVOUR ME AND MINE.



Good luck to all, and if you think you know the answer, send me a note
with it to 
Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu   or
Steve.Gross@lambada.unc.edu


Have fun, and God bless all,
Steve.Gross
 


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Marriage to a Catholic outside a Catholic Church
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:17:35 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

In article <Sep.4.02.26.32.1992.29177@athos.rutgers.edu> norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak) writes:

>Ordaining a divorced man with children is very unlikely: the difficulties of
>a divided family are enough without adding the stresses of the ministry.

>And even if there are no children, the case isn't simple. For example,
>whether the divorce is amicable or not, public knowledge of the situation
>could cause both the priest and his ex-wife much distress.  My guess is that
>a divorced man (with annulment, if he was a Christian at the time of the 
>marriage) might pursue the monastic or missionary life, but not service 
>as a parish priest.

Speaking from my limited experience with the vocations office in the Diocese
of Oakland:  this Diocese (under its current bishop) does not seem to 
regard a divorced man with a valid annulment as being ineligible _a priori_
for the priesthood.  In the one case I am aware of, the vocations director
was willing to pursue the matter further.  I don't know if there were
children involved however.

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
From: aaw4229@ultb.isc.rit.edu (A.A. Warmack )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. Conservative
Date: 9 Sep 92 07:27:56 GMT
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

In article <Sep.1.03.42.19.1992.13602@athos.rutgers.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>
>This is obvious with some parts of the letter.  It is not appropriate,
>for example, to ask "what is the text trying to say to me" in
>reference to Romans 16:1.  ("I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a
>deacon of the church at Cenchreae.")  I don't see any deacons named
>Phoebe, so I can't obey.  But even if there were, this would be
>irrelevant, even if the woman in question were actualy from Cenchreae.

[rest of article deleted]

Excuse me, but what translation of the Bible is this from?  The King
James Version says:

     "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a
     servant of the church which is at Cenchrea..."
     ^^^^^^^
Also, I think that the Bible clearly does not make any implications that
women are intended to be deacons.  In fact, the opposite is the case.

Of course, I got the point of the article.  I just felt I should say
something about the quote above.

Andy  <><

[RSV, I assume.  RSV: deacon; NJB, NAB: deaconess; TEV: who server the
church; NIV: servant, deaconess given as alt. in footnote.

The word is diakonos.  The English "deacon" is a translitation of
that.  Its original meaning is personal servant (not slave).  However
in the NT it is used for Christian service.  It has a variety of
meanings e.g. Jn 2:5, Mt 22:13, Jn 12:26, 2 Cor 11:14-15, 2 Cor 11:23,
1 Th 3:1, 1 Tim 4:6, Col 1:25, Phil 1:1, 1 Tim 3:8.  It's used for
Paul as a servant of Christ, Timothy as a servant of God, but also as
a specific office.  So the translation depends upon context.  The
translators of the RSV thought that the context here suggested a
specific responsibility in that church, and in fact I think that's
pretty clear.  What isn't clear is exactly *what* responsibility,
whether it involves general church leadership, the sort of leadership
of other women exercized by widows in some of Paul's letters, or
whatever.  I don't think we can tell enough about the structure of the
churches at this time to be sure.  But note that the same word is used
in 1 Tim 3 when talking about the requirements for the office of
deacon.

--clh]
From: tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Hal Camping prediction for Second Coming, Sept. '94!!
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:41:35 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <Sep.5.16.59.14.1992.17228@athos.rutgers.edu> laura@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com (Laura Gillespie) writes:
>I don't know if all of you are aware of it yet, but a big event just
>happened last night on the radio.  One of the most respected, humble,
>and trusted servants of God, Mr. Harold Camping of Family Radio,
>headquartered out of Oakland, Calif., actually gave a prediction for
>the end of the world, that is, for the Second Coming, for September
>1994.  ...

I heard Mr. Camping's broadcast.  Unfortunately, it was more devoted to
hawking the book than to a serious discussion of the rational behind the
book.

I have been a contributor to Family Radio in the past.  My wife and I
attended a WKDN banquest in the late '70s where Mr. Camping was the
speaker.  I've truly enjoyed his ministry at FR for 15+ years.   Especially
his "Open Forum" program where he clearly taught from a Calvinist
perspective.  I agree with much of what he teaches, but unfortunately, I
also disagree with some of what he teaches.  He and I disagree on this
matter of the timing of the second coming.

I'm trying to hold off final judgment (no pun intended) on his theory until
I can get a copy of the book.  But this announcement should come as no
surprise to anyone who's listened to him over the years.  He has been
saying for a long time that he would be surprised if Christ didn't return
before the turn of the century.

As far as I can tell, his theory is based on the work he started in his
book _Adam When?_.  In that book he outlined the age of the earth as around
13,000 years.  (He give a creation date of 11,013BC (I think)).  Apparently
he's extended those theories to the end of the age.  Camping's not premil,
but he has a basically dispensational premil view of the nation of Israel.
Some of his theory is apparently based on the view of modern Israel in
prophecy.  I think it's biblically defective.

I will hold off final judgment until I can read the book.  But at this
point I'm inclined to believe it will take it's place on my bookshelf next
to _88 Reasons Why the Second Coming will be in 1988_ by Edgar Whisenant.


-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 9 Sep 92 05:11:07 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <Sep.6.15.44.21.1992.7829@athos.rutgers.edu>, mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
> 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.

A story is told that a man asked Moody what he would do if he knew for
certain that the Lord would return an some specific date which the
man had named. Moody pulled out his diary and turned it to the
date that the man had named and read out what was written there.

> -- 
> Mike Van Pelt                     Will your long-winded speeches never
-- 
                                                                      ___
Bill Rea                                                             (o o)
--------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre| E-Mail       b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury          | or         cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand         | Phone +64 3 364-2331 Fax +64 3 364-2332 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Infallibility
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:35:25 GMT

On <03 Sep 1992 20:51> clh said to All :

 SD>[Surely Joe's point is about how people react to challenges, not
 SD>about the importance of incense.  Perhaps a better example would
 SD>be Mary as mother of God.  I think the phrase "Mary mother of
 SD>God" should be seen as intentionally provocative.  There was a
 SD>dispute, and the Church chose to deal with it be asserting its
 SD>view in the most aggressive possible way.  --clh]

I don't think the phrase "Mother of God" was provocative, since the dispute 
was from those who rejected the phrase. The phrase preceded the dispute, and 
in fact was the cause, not the result of the dispute (unless you are thinking 
of the distinction between Theotokos "God-bearer", and "Mother of God").

But I think your point can be illustrated much more graphically by the phrase 
"the holy and righteous ancestors of God, Joachim and Anna". I can just see 
the glee with which those who first used it must have rubbed it in. Makes the 
point much more emphatically than the relatively innocuous "Mother of God". 
It seems calculated to cause the greatest possible annoyance to the arians 
and the like.

Steve Hayes
--  
INTERNET: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
From: johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Tradition vs tradition (was Re: Southern Baptists Ensuring Orthodoxy)
Date: 14 Sep 92 01:53:41 GMT
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison

> In article <Sep.5.16.44.49.1992.17087@athos.rutgers.edu>  
kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
> >One basic principle that all  
> >Protestant denominations rest on is that tradition can be wrong: if we  
> >felt 
> >that it was impossible for church traditions to lead us astray, we'd   
all be
> >Eastern Orthodox.  Traditional Protestant teachings are (hopefully)  
based on
> >sound reasoning from the Scriptures.

     Just to clarify a couple of points. Eastern Orthodox do not maintain  
that it is impossible for church traditions to lead astray. Eastern  
Orthodox maintain that it is impossible for _Holy Tradition_ to lead  
astray. Holy Tradition is defined as Scripture, the Seven Ecumenical  
Councils, and the writings of the Church Fathers. Everything else (art,  
music, liturgy, speculation on a variety of theological issues, questions  
of the application of the Gospel to God's creation, etc.) is flexible and  
open to debate. The way in which different Eastern Orthodox churches deal  
with the "everything else" I've described depends on the times and places  
in which Christians find themselves (this is what comes under the heading  
of local, or church tradition).

     Every major Christian "way" of approaching the Gospel has its own  
unique vulnerabilities that need to be watched out for. For Eastern  
Orthodox, the challenge is not to confuse Holy Tradition with church  
tradition. Such confusion is what leads astray. For Protestants, the  
challenge is not to quench the Holy Spirit by reducing God to a set of  
logical propositions derived from the words of Scripture, thereby turning  
both Scripture and human reason into idols. The teaching of the Gospel is  
not so much based upon sound _reasoning_, but upon sound _love_. The  
Gospel does not proclaim that _reason_ is the way. The Gospel proclaims  
that _love_ (personified in Christ) is the way.

Arthur Johnson
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu   
  
"O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, despair,  
lust of power, and idle talk. But give rather the spirit of chastity,  
humility, patience, and love to Your servant. Yea, O Lord and King, grant  
me to see my own sins, and not to judge my brother, for You are blessed  
unto ages of ages. Amen" -- Lenten Prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question for fundamentalists
Date: 15 Sep 92 07:59:30 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <Sep.12.23.57.38.1992.13105@athos.rutgers.edu> boe@cadsun2.slac.stanford.edu (Robert Boeninger) writes:
|As a serious sceptic, I have a fundamental question for so-called Christian 
|fundamentalists.

I would, I believe, fit this title.

|Concerning the claimed inerrancy of the Bible, how is it possible to 
|accept as true, facts about the nature of the Bible, such as its inerrancy,
|its being inspired by God, and so on, based on the Bible making such claims
|for itself?  That would appear to be a a case of circular reasoning.  Any 

The Bible is made up of multiple writtings (67), which were written by 
different authors over hundreds of years.  If one man wrote it, then maybe
you'd have a point, but citing one book in support of another is not
a logic error.  These articles written by men moved by the hand of God have 
been compiled into one volume. 

If the books were all written by one being, then you could say that they 
are circular, but no one is saying that they are written by one, except 
for we who believe these men were directed by the One True God.  Did many 
persons write the Bible and so it is not circular reasoning?  Or did God 
direct them and so you argue against God?

|supposed corroboration of such claims by independent evidence all appears to 
|me to be cases of wishful thinking, arguing after the fact.  You like to think 
|of the Bible as being God-inspired, and therefore you go to great pains to 
|bring up supporting evidence from within the Bible itself.  From a purely 
|logical standpoint, it seems to me that no amount of claims in the Bible about 
|the Bible itself can ever be taken as a validation of those claims. 

Again depends whether you believe plain old individuals wrote the Bible
and they are independent works or they are written by inspiration of God.

|Predictions
|of supposed miracles are again always referred to after the fact, when it's 

I'd have to have some specifics here for me to respond.

|easy to interpret the original statements however best suits the events that 
|supposedly fulfill the prediction.  Look at the difficulty fundamentalists are 
|having predicting the end of the world based on statements in the Bible.

I think you have hit on a pretty good point - usually, fundamentalists are
in on the end of the world predictions, but we are not encouraged to do
so - we are encouraged to BE READY and to watch the signs, for they are
present.

|Do any of you have a sensible response to these issues, one that does NOT
|consist of simply quoting the Bible some more?
|
|Bob Boeninger

How was that?

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: phantom@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (James Choi)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: virgin birth
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:04:39 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

I was told recently that the only book that mentions Christ's virgin birth
is Lukes.  Other three books of his disciples do not mention the virgin
birth.  Is that true?

James Choi

[No.  Matthew 1 is the most explicit.  While Luke 1:34 presumably is
based on it, it's not quite as explicit as in Mat.  It's often claimed
that Mark 6:3 (calling Jesus "Son of Mary") indicates that Joseph was
not his father.  John 1:13 has been cited, though I think it's weak.
I've even heard a claim that John 8:41 is a sarcastic reference to
Jesus' unusual birth: *We* were not born of fornication.  I vaguely
recall a similarly indirect reference in Paul, but can't come up with
it.  However I think the only safe references are Mat. and Luke.  --clh]
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: SBC Ensuring Orthodoxy (Virgin Birth Disc)
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:53:41 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

|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 ?)

|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.>

Let us not forget Luke 1:34 where Mary herself questions her pregnancy by
saying that she was never with a man!!
From: Steve.Gross@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: A RIDDLE FOR YOU  [2]  :-)
Date: 11 Sep 92 04:15:17 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

Congratulations to all who have played along with me and answered my
riddle correctly.  I hope you have all enjoyed yourselves, and maybe
picked up a thing or two from the bible you didn't know before.  To the
riddle    A RIDDLE FOR YOU  the answer is indeed Gog.
   
Here, however, is a much more difficult riddle (IMO) for you all.  It is
once again inspired by the bible, NOT found in it.  The objects or object,
person, or persons etc... that are the answer to this riddle are found in
the bible.  If you need clues, leave me a note at my box.

	IN THE WATER, IN THE AIR, AND IN THE BUSY BRAIN;
	BUSY ONCE, BUT NEVERMORE TO HATE OR LOVE AGAIN;
	ONE OF FIVE, ALL LIKE ITSELF, IN DEADLY DEED UNITED;
	AND YET DELIVERING THOSE IN WHOM THE LORD OF HOSTS 
	    DELIGHTED;

	
     What or who am I?

Once again, good luck to those who wish to try.  You can reach me with the
answer (s)  at
Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu    or
Steve.Gross@lambada.unc.edu


God Bless, and HAVE FUN !!!
Steve Gross


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80