HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:44:11 -0500
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Blood of Christ

Excerpts from christia: 9-Nov-92 Re: Blood of Christ Angela
Zimmerman@ULKYVM. (697)

> Jesse, yes please write more, even if in email.  I don't understand why
> *blood* of all things, and of one man in particular at that, is the only
> thing that can "cover" sins.  It seems like people want a scapegoat so
> they don't have to take responsibility for their own sins.

First, the blood of Christ does not "cover" sins.  That is an
unscriptural assertion; the blood of Christ cleanses us from our sins,
blots them out, removes them.

Do you know where the term "scapegoat" comes from?

Leviticus 16:8-22 (NIV)  (The Day of Atonement, where Jews make
atonement for their sins):

"[Aaron] is to cast lots for the two goats--one lot for the Lord and the
other for the scapegoat [the goat of removal; Hebrew azazel].  . . . But
the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before
the Lord to be used for making atonement by sending it into the desert
as a scapegoat. . . . When Aaron has finished making atonement for the
Most Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting and the altar, he shall bring
forward the live goat.  He is to lay both hands on the head of the live
goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the
Israelites--all their sins--and put them on the goat's head.  He shall
send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for
the task.  The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary
place; and the man shall release it in the desert."

The scapegoat is a figure of Jesus.  Yes, Jesus quite literally IS the
scapegoat for our sins, for he has borne our sins into the desert, and
they are with us no more.  So what you say is exactly correct:  Jesus is
the fulfillment of the Old Testament type of the scapegoat; he bears the
punishment for our sins that we deserve.  He had to do that, because we
cannot BEAR the responsibility for our own sins (not the eternal
responsibility, that is, damnation and eternal separation from God).  We
still bear some temporal responsibility, however (this is where
Catholics and Protestants differ).

Eric
From: ROGER@TEMPLEVM.BITNET (Roger A. Phyall)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Trinity...
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:33:12 GMT
Organization: Temple University/SCT Computer Services
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

On Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:37:39 CST JLong said:
>Hi there!!!
>I'm new to this list and it is very encouraging to know that there are
>a lot of Christians out there in every day life.  I do not know what
>you have been discussing, so correct me if I ask the wrong question.
>Is not the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost one and the same?
>
YEP .... That's GOD!  But....

>Because I believe that Jesus went to the cross because we had no other
>way of getting back to God.  We had turned away from him with all the
>sins so God sent his son so that we could get back to him.  I believe that
>our Father loved us just that much!!!!!
>
>Janie

Also quite true .... But again, But ....

The discussion here has centered on how/why Jesus received the Holy Spirit
when He was baptisted.  As Memo just mentioned, and one can verify with the
Scriptures in St. John; "the Word was God ....; the Word became FLESH"!!!!
Does that clear up the confusion some?  Yes, God the Father, God the Son,
God the Holy Spirit; the three in one defines the "Trinity".  The Father
requested the Son to give up His holy place to become FLESH, be a sacrificial
Lamb in order to provide a way for man to be redeemed back to God.  This
Flesh, this sacrificial Lamb, was now "Perfect Man" and of course required
the Holy Spirit to "Do His Father's Will!"

     Yaw'll Heah that?

|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|                            |    Cordially & Sincerely yours,  |
| Temple University (038-15) |                                  |
| Computer/Math Bldg. Rm 851 |         Roger A. Phyall          |
| Broad St. & Montgomery Av. |       VM System Programmer       |
| Philadelphia,PA 19122-2585 |          (215) 787-1292          |
|                            |                                  |
|        Internet:           |              Bitnet:             |
|   ROGER@VM.TEMPLE.EDU      |           ROGER@TEMPLEVM         |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Tuesday, 10 Nov 1992 17:13:14 EST
From: World Leader <IK20050@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Prayer request

Hi!
This weekend I accepted Jesus Christ as my Personal Saviour....this
what what I needed.  A trauma had to happen to make me realize that
I needed Christ in my life.  He is Good and Powerful and He is always
there for me.  I need prayer so that I will stay in the Word of God
always, and trust in Him to make things right.  I know that prayer
works, and I have been praying that He will re-unite me with my fiance
in His Holy Love.

I would appreciate all prayers.....

Thank you.

In Christ, Andie.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 08:41:12 EST
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Angela Zimmerman <AMZIMM01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Freedom Withheld

Item Retrieval Assistant, DADS
Phone: 588-6757

In the article where the student wasn't allowed to put God Bless at the
end, was it an article that would be representing the school or only the
writer?   If it was only reflective upon the student, then I think he
should have been able to put God Bless at the end.  However, since it
was an article in a school paper, more than likely, it was supposed to
represent the entire school.  In that case, I don't think God Bless should
be allowed.  Christians, in cases like that, tend to forget that there
are many non-Christians.

Let me ask you this..if your child was to bring home the school newspaper,
and at the end of an article or two, were the words "All Praise Allah",
would you get upset?  I'm not talking about an editorial or an article about
Islam, I'm talking about your standard school article, one that represents
the entire school.  I think most Christians on this list would get rather
unsettled at something like that.  Comments?
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:16:03 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Blood of Christ

In article <01GQYLXY11Z48Y519D@ITHACA.BITNET>, MSIMMON1@ITHACA.BITNET says:
>
>I am puzzled, this message (about the cleansing powers of Jesus's blood) is
>signed by Theresa Black, but the return address (from the address page) is
>that of Angela Zimmerman -
>I trust that this is not an attempt to impersonate someone, Angela.
>MCS-IC

Oh, lay off. It's obviously an editing error. Anyone reading the data lines
at top knows full well who sent the message. It's quite uncharitable to look
for daemons under every bed
From: Lubosh.Hanuska@anu.edu.au (Lubosh)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: WHAT WE OFFER GOD?
Date: 8 Nov 92 23:31:04 GMT
Organization: ANU Canberra
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.49.12
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d11
X-XXDate: Mon, 9 Nov 92 18:30:05 GMT

In article <CHRISTIA%92110615234263@ASUACAD.BITNET> DRCV06::GRAHAM,
GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL writes:
>I'M SORRY, NOUR BOOK IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG.  WE ARE BORN INTO SIN, GUILTY
OF
>SIN, READY AND WILLING TO COMMIT SIN.  WE ARE INCAPABLE OF CHOOSING GOD,
HE
>MUST CHOOSE US.  WE HAVE N OTHING TO OFFER HIM UNTIL HE DOES A MIRACLE
>WITHIN US, THEN WE CAN ONLY OFFER THAT WHICH HE HAS PLANTED IN THE FIRST
>PLACE.
>
>IF THAT DOESN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION, RESTATE IT, PLEASE.
>
>DAN GRAHAM
Dear Dan,
many people call me a conservative, fundamentalist, and a bigot, and
whatever else you might think of, but I can't resist to reply to this.
Sometimes we have so much to offer to God. It is true that our human
nature is corrupt, weak, and intends to sin, incapable to find  God
without His help. We are just a bunch of bad thoughts, adultery is what
we think of most of the time (this might only apply to myself), but BUT
BUT: God gave us two great gifts : an immortal soul, and free will (add
more if my Catholic casics are not sufficient :-). We  owe not more, but
not less. So we have something to offer. We can decide, we can offer to
surrender our free will to follow His path. We are poor, but we are not
NOTHING. And I believe that everyone is capable to choose God, every
little one, the gift of free will is not limited for anyone... Don't you
have to decide to ask for His grace, for the gift of faith before you get
it - it can just be a flash of an honest thought, and one can receive the
Holy Spirit, and change the rest of his/her life. I know there is a
controversy we probably would never understand : "Do you first ask for
God's help, or do you need His help to be able to turn to Him for help?",
and I don't want to get into a predestination discussion. I accept we
cannot understand everything, and this is one of those mysteries... For
many things we can't ask, we can only thank.
Yours in Christ,
Lubosh
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: CHRIST, NOT PURGATORY
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:15:20 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <CHRISTIA%92110607354494@ASUACAD.BITNET> Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET> writes:
>Gareth ;
>
>The NIV is a concept translation, not a "verbatim" sort like the NASB.
>The term "flesh" has been debated, and the Context seems to favour
>it over the sin nature alternative ... at least in some places.
>Again, context defines terms ... not the reverse.
>
>
>
>Jesse


-- 
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:43:01 CST
From:         "St. Jesso of Esso" <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Whose will is dominant?
              12 Nov 1992 16:01:57 CST from <sweberg@GARFIELD.WES.ARMY.MIL>

Scott ;

Now my man, "How do you KNOW, in real Hermeneutical terms, that your
reference is more lucid on the matter you are addressing, and that Tom's
is NOT?"


Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 07:58:09 CST
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Demon of "Thrash" Oppression

Dear All on the "net"  ;

About a month or 2 ago, someone new on the net had stated that they had
newly become a Christian.  Stating their past to some extent, this person
said that he had formerly had an oppression from a demon of "thrash."

Now, just what is this "thrash" demon?

I ask because my little church has now experienced Warfare of the first order
among some of the members, albeit, maybe not of this type.


You folks would not believe some of the things if I told you.
Truly the devil is a "roaring lion" who like the real lion, attempts to
paralize his prey with his roaring prior to pouncing.
I'm just glad the "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" is leading His chosen
called out ones through this morass of trouble.



Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:56:44 -0500
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Point to Eric.

Excerpts from christia: 11-Nov-92 Re: Point to Eric. Tom
Brewer@LSUVM.BITNET (203)

> Yo Eric:

> Are you serious about this????

> > but of course I reject the notion that God sovereignly controls each and
> > every event in history.

> If God is not in control, who is? Man? Satan?

> Tom Brewer

Nice try.

I didn't say God was not in control.  I said that God does not
sovereignly determine and fix by his will alone every single event in
history.  A parent is still in control of his child even when s/he
allows the child to choose what the child wishes.

This world is a battleground of wills between good and evil.  God and
his angels on one side, Satan and his minions on the other, with man
inbetween, his free will influenced by the spiritual forces.  God fixes
sovereign limits, and preordains some events according to His sovereign
will (for example, the Incarnation), but to suggest that God desired and
willed that Hitler rise up and kill millions of Jews, or that God
desired and willed the death of 21,000,000 babies through abortion,
makes God the author of evil.

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:07:48 -0700
From:         "(MARK DRAKE)" <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: WHAT WE OFFER GOD?

> You will find both Calvin and Edwards to be firm believers in man's total
> inability/depravity and lack of what we now are calling "free will" which is
> different from what they teach about man's will being free within its bounds.
> The bounds are made up of the sin nature or total depravity of man.

> Tom Brewer


	A lot of us who believe in free will believe that it is bound,
yet still free.  I offer Edwards' explanation of how that is so.  (ie
we are free to choose acorfding to our inclinations/desires, and in
fact always do choose acording to our inclinations, but our
inclinations are "depraved"; we have no inclination to obey God or
serve God.)  I realize that this is not the humanist definition of
free will.  But then again, I posted this before and we are on a
christian list, not a humanist list.


Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:06:39 CST
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: WHAT WE OFFER GOD?
              10 Nov 1992 13:12:00 -0500 from <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>

Eric ;

Now, lets quit this small stuff and get down to turkey.
Simply put, Calvin is not authoritative ... but neither is Augustine.
Only the objective Scriptures are authoritative.   AMEN.
By the way, your remarks on free will are "Groundless traditions of men
and have no basis in Scriptures" ... unless you wish to recant now.
But please no equivocating ... er, I believe the politically correct term now
is no "Waffling."


Jesse
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re:      Re: Whose will is dominant?
Date: 13 Nov 92 01:26:10 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <CHRISTIA%92111208011004@ASUACAD.BITNET>,         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET> writes:

> "Ability" is not necessarily concomitant to "Responsibility."
> Just because God commands us to obey, does not necessarily mean that He made
> us ABLE to do so.  If we are theoretically ABLE to obey God as HE commands us
> to do so -- and that is PERFECTLY, you know -- then WHY did He send Christ to
> live a perfect life and be a sin substitute?
> If we have got "what it takes", then WHY Christ?

You haven't proved we are completely unable to obey God, only that we are
not completely able to do so. It makes some sense for God to command us to
obey if we can only obey partially; much less if we are completely unable
to make any sort of effort at obedience.

-- 
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:59:09 CST
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The Gospel
              13 Nov 1992 09:54:14 -0500 from <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>

Eric ;

You have got to be kiddin' man!
You cannot be serious.
One last point :  The Scriptures ... not MY local church nor Bill Chapman's
nor Dave Talaga's has any ulitmate authority on ANY of these issues.

The Word of God stands TRUE alone ... no matter if the world dies and goes
to Hell in a hand basket.

As the Word says,  "Let God be true and every man a lier."



Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 09:03:11 -0500
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Before the Foundation of the World

Excerpts from christia: 11-Nov-92 Before the Foundation of th..
ksb@SANTAFE.EDU (1173)

> I have an infant godson who is going to be baptized in the Catholic
> church soon, and his parents have indicated to me that God will not know
> of this child's entry into the world until after he has been baptized.

>  Can anyone point me to a passage in the Bible indicating that God has
> knowledge of the entry into this world of each and every human being via
> a physical birth and that He has had this knowledge *on His own* since
> before the foundation of the world?

> While I do not intend to debate this point with the parents of my godson
> (nor do I wish to start a long thread of Catholic-Protestant debate [a
> fruitless endeavor for all] by asking this question), I would greatly
> appreciate your pointing me toward the appropriate passages in the
> Bible.

Well, I'm Catholic, and I think they are totally confused. To my
knowledge (and I know a goodly amount about this stuff) this idea has no
support in Catholic theology, it simply sounds like a myth.

Indeed I find it contrary to Scripture, where it says, "You knit me in
my mother's womb, you knew me before I was born."  Your friend's
attitude also denies God's omniscience, a fundamental tenet of the
Catholic faith.  It also denies that God created that child, for surely
if God had created the child He would know it existed!

The purpose of infant baptism in the Catholic faith is twofold -- one,
to remit original sin, for which we are all condemned and the presence
of which strictly prevents us from entering heaven.  Two, to spiritually
regenerate that child and bring the Holy Spirit into that child (cf.
Jesus's baptism.)

These people are confused, especially considering the fact that the
godparents are required to be Catholic, which I am assuming you are not?
(Or did I misread your message?)

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 08:28:47 EST
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Angela Zimmerman <AMZIMM01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Jealous God

Item Retrieval Assistant, DADS
Phone: 588-6757

God created people just for the purpose of worshiping him?  Doesn't that
sound like God is an egomaniac?  (sorry, but it had to be said).
Plus, if people are here only for the purpose of worshiping God, why
do people have jobs, families...basically, why do people have *lives*?
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:21:37 EST
From:         "(dave talaga x2752)" <talaga@E5SB.OSDHW.SYR.GE.COM>
Subject:      Re: WHAT WE OFFER GOD?

Eric Ewanco writes:

> Yeah, so? Being spiritually dead and having no free will are entirely
> different things.

Eric,

You don't really mean this, do you?  Being spiritually dead you are incapable of
 doing anything that is pleasing to God; so, since you have no "righteousness"
 (life), everything you do would be considered "wicked" in God's eyes.  If you
 are spiritually dead what are you free to will?  What choices do you have
 besides evil?

Furthermore, to be dead spiritually is to be dead physically -- the last gasp is
 just a matter of time.

> If it is by grace, then we have no reason to boast.  Our WILLS are
> merely weakened by Adam's sin; our lives are still dead without him.
> Our salvation rests solely on Jesus's merits, and not on our own.  Yet
> it is up to us to respond to God's grace.  I find the idea of God saving
> people against their will wholly repugnant and foreign to Scripture.

Why do you find that so repugnant?  If God is God, let Him be God.  Otherwise,
 He must subordinate His will to ours.  Under those circumstances He is can no
 longer act as God, but must "fret" over people while hoping for the best.  With
 such constraints, how could he guarantee the events leading up to the
 crucifiction, let alone the efficacy of it (what good's a party if nobody
 comes?).  Isn't that is the ultimate problem with "free" will?

On the other hand, if you say that we have a limited ability to excersize our
 will, I would concurr; but, in such a case, who sets the limits?  Even in a
 limited "free" will state, I don't see how that could extend to a choice of
 masters.  Our sin Master would never allow us our freedom unless one who is
 greater than him forced the issue; for that matter, the sin Master would never
 allow such an enemy near his subjects unless constrained to do so.

With all due respect, Eric, a final question (please, this is not a slam, or a
 inference that you are some kind of false "prophet"):  What is the difference
 between your "free will" and Michael Million's "free will?"

> "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and
> pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear
> from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land."  (2
> Chron 7:14)

"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with
 great patience the objects of his wrath -- prepared for destruction?  What if
 he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy
 -- even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the
 Gentiles?"

Romans 9:22-24

Dave Talaga
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Eckhart / Creation Centred Spirituality (was women)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:59:48 GMT


   Carol, in the United States there is a Catholic priest named
Matthew Fox who is heavily into "Creation Spirituality."  He even has
founded a Center for Creation Spirituality.  He has been in much
trouble with Rome over this.  At one point he was ordered not to speak
(or publish) in public for a year.  He was also ordered to return to
his province (the area in which his "home" is located) by his Ordinary
(similar to a bishop, but in this case the local leader of his order,
the Dominicans).  He refused, and either has been, or is expected to
be, expelled from the Dominicans.

   This type of spirituality also seems popular with the religious
feminist/Goddess worship crowd in North America.  I am currently
reading a book on the subject of this feminist activity, _Ungodly
Rage: the Hidden Face of [Religious? (I can't remember for certain the
subtitle)] Feminism_ by Donna Steichen (Ignatius Press).

   By the way, one of the faculty of Fox's CCS is a Wiccan witch named
Starhawk.  One of the tools used by these people seems to be
ambiguity.  Also they use orthodox terminology, but change the
definitions of the terms so that they aren't really orthodoxy.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU