HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:46:18 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <70546@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> The encyclopedia I looked at this afternoon had 10 pages on Jesus Christ,
> but it only had about 2 pages on Julius Caesar and associated Juliuses.

Sigh, so the pages in an encyclopedia are valid historical truth nowadays.
Well, how did Jesus compare with other historical persons or events?
What does it really matter, most of the stuff in the encyclopedia
about Jesus are nevertheless non-verified data.

 
> At that time Jesus and his followers were not touching the world,
> but look at them soon after (Paul in Rome) and today.  He surely touches
> world history today.   On the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41) there
> were 3,000 converts to Christianity and soon after there were a
> total of 5,000 (Acts 4:4.)

For a while Beatles were bigger than Jesus, which I assume is a valid
thesis that people should have worshipped Beatles as Gods based on
your logic.

> |Explains the word "Christians" in his _Annals_ (written AD 115-117):
> |"Christ, from whom they derive their name, was condemned to death by 
> |the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius."
> 
> Not bad for supporting the Bible's claim.

So did this show that Jesus did miracles, rose from the dead, and is
part of a trinity concept of God? Or does it not?
 
> I read your comments.  Again, you said they agreed with the
> Bible, correct, or at least sounded like the Bible's account.
> The purpose was to show that other non-Christians (i.e., the
> Roman leaders) had comments on the trial (evidence) of Jesus.

We are still eagerly awaiting for historical evidence about
all the miracles and the immoral Jesus, Mr Pitts.

Kent

	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:18332 alt.politics.homosexuality:6445 alt.sex:33002 soc.singles:27794
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: "Evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:39:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.214452.2565@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>>By making that claim, you are also making the _implicit_ claim that searching
>>for God makes a _difference_ in whether or not you get food and clothes.
>>This implicit clam is _false_, and all the counterexamples proposed, such as
>>a billion Chinese, certainly _do_ serve to disprove it.
>Hardly.  A claim, even a conversational one, does not implicitly
>include its inverse.  I will offer a simple proof to counter this
>mistaken notion.
>Let us suppose every conversational claim implicitly includes its
>inverse.  Then the truth of the conversational premise:
>   Anyone who cheats on the final exam fails the course.
>implies the truth of the following:
>   Anyone who does not cheat on the final exam passes the course.
>The latter is obviously not true.  Therefore our supposition is false.
>It follows that a claim does not include its inverse.

Read more carefully.  The implicit claim is not the inverse of the original
claim.

In your example, the implicit claim is that cheating on the final exam has
some effect on whether people pass the course.  If all cheaters flunk, and
only some non-cheaters flunk, this implicit claim is true.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:03:42 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <70323@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> Peter wrote to and said that he was not bring to them clever tales, but
> he himself had been an eyewitness of Jesus' majesty - he saw him on the
> holy mountain - this is the same event that Matthew and Luke report
> about Jesus being on the mountain with Peter, James, and John, where
> Moses and Elijah came and talked with Jesus.

I have to double check how much Peter actually influenced the Gospels.
As it's today those were written by unknown people.

> Luke states he carefully researched his work.  John was the beloved disciple.
> Peter was the outspoken companion of Jesus.  Paul was called by the Lord
> and a separate event confirmed Paul's calling through Ananias (Acts 9.)
> Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture.

Paul had a vision. I do know of people (like my father's cousin) that
had a vision of Jesus. That's nothing unusual. As for the beloved
disciple, is there a uniform consensus that John was the beloved
disciple?

> |The 'devil's advocate' statement is that the Gospel writers didn't 
> |witness the events. Neither did Paul, the man behind modern Christianity.
> 
> See above.  It is no secret that the actual men were often not the writers
> of the actual letters, but they had scribes.  Paul even signed his own
> name one time so that the receipents would know it came from him.

So you state that the writers were actually scribes. That's an interesting
story I haven't heard before. Why didn't the actual writers then boldly
state it's their words? Fear of lying?

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (Charles Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Tom Lehrer, (ex-?) Catholic [Was:...credentials]
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 01:00:17 GMT

In article <nyikos.718158626@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>I have added talk.religion.misc and changed the subject line.
>
	And I've subtracted talk.abortion.
>In <1992Sep29.183205.24381@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>
[Regarding Tom Lehrer's highly hilarious "Vatican Rag"]
>
>>You mean that song that was written by a Catholic, Tom Lehrer?
>
>Of course he does.  Tom was poking fun at Catholics he perceived to
>be "pre-Vatican II", which translated to the overwhelming majority of
>Catholics at the time he wrote the lyrics.
>
	Actually, you've got it backwards.  Lehrer was poking fun at the
Church's attempts to "popularize" the Ordinary of the Mass, and especially
the (once-trendy) use of folk and popular song forms in the Mass.  This is
pretty obvious if you've ever actually heard his recording of it.

Chuck



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Historical/traditional answer to geneology of Christ
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:09:23 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Oct13.152425.28154@news.cs.brandeis.edu>,
aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) wrote:
> 
> One theory I've heard is that Matthew was tracing Jesus' claim to be the king
> of the Jews, i.e., tracing the royal lineage of Israel from David to Jesus which
> accounts for Matthew tracing the lineage through Solomon, whereas Luke was
> tracing Jesus' true human ancestry.  This makes sense given the purpose of 
> Matthew's gospel and Luke's gospel.

It's interesting to read about all the possible *theories* concerning
the different genealogies... 

Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 12:25:20 GMT

In article <70562@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|> In article <13715@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
|> >solely on the basis of sexual orientation.  So, to put the question more
|> >clearly Richard, if you were a voter in Oregon, would you vote for this
|> >initiative?
|> 
|> Yes.  
|> 
|> Have you forgot to mention the threats the opposition have made
|> to those who support the bill?  I've read and heard a little more
|> since the last postings.

Huh? Don't you have that *backwards* Richard? It's the supporters who have
(literally) been killing opponents.
|> 
|> Sincerely,
|> Richard Pitts 
|> -- 
|> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
|> Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
|>                         -|-  |  -|-
|>                          |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bloopers
Keywords: I'm baaaaaccckkk.......
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:30:09 GMT
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

<(Tom Albrecht) quotes an article by David Chilton of _World_ Magazine
who uses biblical authority to support his homophobia>

So. . .What is _World_ Magazine? 

And why are you reading it?

Daniel O'Connell (Dano)

P.S.: Hey t.r.m'ers. . .I see the hot topic has switched from Jehovah's
Witnesses to Mormons. What a difference a month makes! As you can tell
from me email address above, I have moved to Chicago. . .Just in time 
for winter! more later.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin)
Subject: Re: Gay attitudes...
Originator: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 13:46:56 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

[reposted.]

weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver):
> Is this a common attitude in the gay community?

you need to specify your own agenda more before i'm
going to touch this question.  i'm not really sure
what i need to address because i don't know what
you would like to understand.

in particular, it's very difficult to know what is
meant by the terms "common" and "gay community."
there aren't any scientific polls to measure what
is "common" in the "gay community," and no one
really agrees just *who* the "gay community" is --
what people comprise this community?

i would suggest that you avoid the problem of a
quantitative question and ask qualitatively.  in
other words, what has happened to a gay person who
espouses the views in the letter to "dear abby."
if you re-read the letter and think a little, you
might even answer your question on your own.
-- 
Queer Without A Cause!
Jason Coughlin ( jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
"I find myself suddenly in the world, and I recognize that I have one
right alone: that of demanding human behavior of the other." -- Fanon
From: csmith@pluto.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Keywords: LDS, Mormon, Joseph Smith
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:21:07 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science

In article <1992Oct12.202607.16726@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>
>     I follow the one that was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1,
>Luke 2:4). 
>
>     I think that the Mormons follow the one that was born in 
>Jerusalem (Alma 7:10).
>
>
>Please, please, if you are going to follow Jesus, make sure
>you got the right one.  
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>
>Brian Ceccarelli
>brian@gamma1.lpl.arizona.edu
>Tucson, Arizona

Are you sure you have the right interpretation? Many Jews believed at the
time that Jesus was born in Nazareth,  when they said "Can anything good`
come from" there.

I must confess that I cannot reference a copy of the Book of Mormon, but
I think it does not say that Jesus was actually BORN in Jerusalem.
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Historical/traditional answer to geneology of Christ
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:24:25 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

One theory I've heard is that Matthew was tracing Jesus' claim to be the king
of the Jews, i.e., tracing the royal lineage of Israel from David to Jesus which
accounts for Matthew tracing the lineage through Solomon, whereas Luke was
tracing Jesus' true human ancestry.  This makes sense given the purpose of 
Matthew's gospel and Luke's gospel.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:43:31 GMT

From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
>
>What sins would be insufficent for Christ sacrificee to cover.
>
>I would think that not accepting Christ and  his sacrifice would
>proably be one sin/transgression for which the blood is insufficent.

The LDS teach that Christ's sacrifice was for everyone, regardless
of their accpetance of Him.

   '...the mere fact of resurrection is called 'salvation by grace
   alone'
   Salvation in the celestial kingdom of God, however, is not
   salvation by grace alone.  Rather, it is grace coupled with
   obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel."
   (Mormon Doctrine, p.671)

   'Immortality is the gift of God, through Jesus Christ, to all men;
   by which they come forth in the resurrection to die no more,
   whether they have obeyed him or rebelled against him.  This
   gift is theirs...' (The Way to Perfection, p.329)

Now, if you want to be one of those 3rd heaven, copulating god
types -- then your gonna have to earn it.

>My limited understanding is that acceptance of the sacrifice is a
>requirment for the sacrifice to be any effect.

Not in the LDS, according to Apostle Hugh Brown,

   'We do not beleive in death-bed repentance nor in instantaneous
   salvation.'  (Mormonism, a tract published by the LDS Church)

Mark
<standard disclaimer>

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: "Evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 14:54:17 GMT

Like any analogy, the Idaho parody ultimately fails.  In this case the
dissimilarity arises from temporal differences: Idaho presently
exists, while the claims about Jesus are historical.  To improve the
analogy we should choose something from the past.  In the spirit of
the year, I suggest we choose Columbus' voyage (the Holocaust would
work as well, but some participating seem unable to recognize that
eyewitness testimony also comes exclusively from believers and thus is
subject to the same criticism).  I will take the role of the Columbus
Revisionist.  Are we able to discern that Columbus made the trip if we
discount evidence gleaned from believers?  What do we have that might
correspond to the "ticket to Idaho"?

Some related business...

Kent Sandvik wrote:
>I'm sure Greg [sic] has a really good explanation why the one billion people
>of China have food and shelter, and they don't believe in Jesus.

Do not confuse the claim, 

   P -> Q (those who seek first God's kingdom and righteousness [note:
   this is not the same as 'believe in Jesus'] will not lack food and
   clothes)

with it's inverse, 

   not(P) -> not(Q) (those who do not seek first God's kingdom and
   righteousness will lack food and clothes.)

Kent again asks about my purpose.  I'll repeat a third time: I'm
making light of the criticism that most "evidence" for "Jesus" comes
from believers.

He requested a "ticket to Jesus" something like a "ticket to Idaho."
I made a jump in the discussion which was perhaps too large.  The
statement which corresponds to "I can fly to Idaho" is "I can try out
Jesus' claims."  Both lack specifics.  If I fly to Idaho, when I
arrive I will have to check out specific claims, such as the locations
of supposed rivers, etc.  Jesus' claim about food and clothes is also
specific.  If the claim holds true, we have not proven Jesus'
validity, no more than locating the rivers proves Idaho's existence.
We simply move on to the next claim, until either one of them proves
false (P -> not(Q)), or the claims are exhausted.

(The claim I posted was simply off the top of my head.  If one feels it
is trivially satisfied, then check out the other claims of Jesus.  We
all know where they're listed.)
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.

--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Historical/traditional answer to geneology of Christ
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:00:53 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Oct12.150842.5351@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>The argument that Luke's genealogy refers to Mary does not stand
>up very well.  There definitely appear to be two genealogies of 
>Joseph.  Assuming that neither account is in error, we have a dilemma.
>Or, rather, a mystery.  There is another possible solution that cannot
>be resolved on the basis of the speculative debate format of this 
>newsgroup, but it is at least worth mentioning for anyone who would like
>to explore it further.  The resolution lies in that Matthew and Luke 
>are talking about two different children and two different sets of parents.
>The names (Jesus, Joseph, and Mary) are the same. 

Perhaps a better explanation lies in the traditional account which can be
found in works written within the first few centuries of the resurection.
According to this account, which can be found in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical
History (if I remember correctly he refers to Africanus, and perhaps also
to other sources where he read this information.)  It is a detailed
story about how that the geneology of Luke is  in a sense an adopted 
geneology.  Estha married a man and had a son and died.  Then she married
another man and had a son and he died.  (She may have had other children
too.  I don't know or remember.)  Anyway, one of the children, Heli,
died without a son.  So according the coustom of the people (which you can
look up in the Old Testament), Heli's half brother Jacob took Heli's
late wife and "raised up seed unto his brother" and had a son named Joseph
with her.

And that, according to church history/tradition is the story of the
geneologies.  

Link Hudson.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Mark Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:08:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.041429.16505@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>>
>>   Mark, Mark, Mark, you gotta keep your critisisms straight
>>
>>   Either your are arguing that Bethlehem is near Jerusalem in one
>>   post or you are arguing that some Mormon's speculation about
>>   the method of Christ's conception isn't kosher.
>>
>>   Keep your arguement is one thread or the other.  Which one are
>>   you going for now, or can't you make up your mind.
>>
	Well I guess, _your_ argument that Mormons worship a different
	Christ, cause he was born in Bethlehem and not Jerusalem is 
	not 
	    A dead issue.


	    OK
>>
>>   Refering to the other thread that you haven't yet followed up on,
>>   have you yet figured out why it is important that Mary has a special
>>   child without the normal assistance. Would you like to explain
>>   why you seem to foam at the mouth on the subject of virgin birth implies
>>   free from Sin. You haven't yet show _this_ to be a biblical doctrine.
>
>I have not been following the other thread because I do not beleive
>the issue concerns the relative dirtyness of sex.  The issue is
>that the Bible does not teach the LDS position: that God had sex
>with Mary.  

>I find it interesting that, within the same posting, you urge me to
>argue why God could not have sex with Mary, and at the same time
>refer to this long, and widely held LDS belief as 'speculation'.
>In other words, if you deny it is an LDS teaching, why do coax
>us to into an argument concerning 'whether it could have happened'.
>I saw one of your LDS brothers from Alaska complaining about the spirit
>of strife in this area.  I hope he sees your obvious attempt to
>encourage an argument concernging whether God could have done it --
>while at the same time deny that it is an LDS belief.

 Some Lds Believe and Some don't.  I guess that's why I might
 refer to it as speculation.  

 I believe that God is the father of Christ. Mary is his mother.
 I have no belief or understand of the method. I understand it to
 be one of the mystries   I believe that a some point in time I will
 understand it, I just don't know.


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



>
>Mark


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Heresy was (Re: Mormons are not Christians)
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:26:46 GMT

In article <b7JA02Nv25gw01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.151300.9313@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>>In article <75WH025l25aj01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LDS: All who become accountable have chosen sin, except for Jesus who
>>>>      did not sin.
>>>>
>>>> Rose and other Evag. "Christians":  Even little children are inheirently
>>>>      Sinfull. It is their nature, because of a sexual act on th part of 
>>>>      their parents.
>>>
>>>I nor anyone else here ever said that we were born into sin bacause of
>>>the sexual act of our parents!  You added that part friend.  I said that
>>>we were born into sin.  I said nothing about marital sex, or parental sex.
>>
>>>Where did you get that?  You are misrepresenting ME!
>>


 Your argument was: That mormons are _wrong_, wrong, _wrong_ for every saying
 that Jesus could have been born of a Sexual Act. If Jesus had been born of
 anything remotely sexual, he would have had a Sinful nature. Since He didn't
 have a Sinful nature, therefore His mother couldn't have had a Sexual Act
 involving the conception of Jesus.  << This IS one of _your_ major reasons
 why LDS's couldn't possibly be EV Christinas. >>

 If Jesus's Non-Sinful nature has nothing to do with Mary being a Virgin.
 why do _you_ insist that believing otherwise has anything to do with believing
 in Christ as a Savior?


 I read your post when they are short enough to follow. I skim when there is
 300+ line of quoted non-relevent material.



-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc