HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: This won't win me any friends, but...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 23:16:17 GMT

In article <920821125247.5a55@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU> MARK DRAKE <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU> writes:
>>Is not Mary called, wrongly of course, by the RC a "mediatrix" (sp?)?
>
>Yes, some RCC theologians believe this.  But last I heard, it was not official,
>and had RCC opponents as well.  Same with Redemptrix.

   Actually, the term "Mediatrix" is used in official Catholic
teachings.  It is accompanied by the the note, however, that this is
to be understood as neither adding to, nor subtracting from the
efficacy of Christ, the one Mediator.

   What is meant is that just because Christ is our Redeemer, doesn't
mean that He can't use Mary for His purposes.  Let's take an analogy.
When we discuss World War II, we may speak of General Patton's defeat
of Field Marshall Rommel's army.  Did Patton go out with a tank and
singlehandedly fight the battle?  No, of course not.  But he _did_ in
fact defeat Rommel as commander of the American troops at that battle.
Patton could have been in command of different troops and still have
won the battle, but a different commander over the same American
troops may not have won.  So we say the victory was Patton's.

   Now I know that isn't a perfect analogy.  Although Patton couldn't
have won that battle all by himself, Christ didn't need anyone to help
in our redemption.  But He is God, and therefore can achieve our
redemption in any way He sees fit.  But the way He saw fit to do so
included Mary.  This does not put Mary on the level of God.  Christ
could have used anyone to fill Mary's special role.  But He chose to
use Mary.

   So calling Mary the Mediatrix in this sense takes nothing away from
Christ, because He could have used anyone He wanted to in her role, or
achieved our redemption in any other way He saw fit.  Nor does it add
anything to Christ's sacrifice, because all the grace given to Mary
was given to her by God, and did not come about through her own merit.
All she had to do was accept it by saying, "I am the handmaid of the
Lord.  Let it be done to me as is Your will."

--Steve

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: timk@world.std.com (Tim King)
Subject: Re: brethren
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 04:45:48 GMT

Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU> writes:

>On Sun, 30 Aug 1992 21:01:11 -0700 Steven E. Hoell said:
><stuff deleted>
>>In Jewish practice, once a woman had a child by a man she was not
>>to have marital relations with anyone else, period. If she became
>>widowed, she didn't remarry and had to rely on the community for
>>support. Hence the New Testament emphasis on the welfare of widows
>>and orphans.

>Huh?  Nowhere in Jewish law (in either the Pentateuch or Talmud) is
>this specified.  References, please.

Yes.  Please do provide references.  And read Romans 7:1-6, remembering that
Paul was a Pharasee and a scholar.

I always thought that the emphasis on widows and orphans was that widows had
no husband to support them and orphans had no parents to support them.  In
the Romans passage, Paul urges young widows to remarry rather than burden the
church.  Or is this an example of an OT practice that was discontinued with
the NT?  (In this case, the reference to NT emphasis above should be struck
from the original statement.)

G'Day!
-TimK
-- 
Tim King                  |  Some of us favor logic in making decisions.
24 Myrtle Street          |  Some, emotions.  I, personally, get very    |\
Dedham, MA 02026          |  emotional about faulty logic! :-)           | >
timk@world.std.com        |                                             <>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:51:19 EDT
From:         Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject:      2 Peter 3
X-To:         Practical Christian Life <CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>

Jesse,

To state that the events described in 2 Peter 3 are a "done deal" begs
the question.  They are only a done deal if we accept the interpretation
that they were fulfilled in 70 A.D.  Again, please provide specifics.

Shalom,

Lon Mendelsohn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:28:08 CDT
Reply-To:     bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com
From:         Brad Kaiser <bradk%isdgsm@RTSG.MOT.COM>
Subject:      Our Lady of Guadalupe
X-To:         CHRISTIA%ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU@motgate.mot.com
              25 Aug 1992 14:15:42 CDT <9208251918.AA29342@motgate.mot.com>

>> No little girl, no pilgrims coming to see a cactus shirt, none of this.

>> Why all this superstitious bunk?

>> Tom Brewer

I'm sorry?  What is "superstitious" about eight million people baptized?

I don't care whether Juan Diego drew it with Crayola crayons, it
converted eight million people.  Or would you rather they had
continued to kill people to glorify stone gods?

You, sir, are not a kind person, in my opinion.  Not gracious, either.

Brad Kaiser
(bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com)

  "Hatred destroys.  Only love creates."
            -- St. Maximilian Kolbe, shortly before his arrest and
               martyrdom at the hands of the Nazis.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 08:09:25 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Absolution (was Re: Forgiveness of Sins, by Priests?)

Wolfgang,

You ask  "What about the other way around? Can a Catholic or Orthodox
Christian obtain God's forgiveness without confessing to anyone
except to God?"  If I sin and ask God for forgiveness, my sins are
forgiven.  (I am skipping details about kinds of contrition to stick
to the basic point.)  However, even though they are forgiven I must
still confess them to a priest out of obedience to God's plan.  In
that case the absolution would be a reaffirmation of the forgiveness
I had received when I confessed directly to God.

You say, "I can faintly imagine the answer, but I'd still like to ask
you why we should believe that God connected remission of sins under
the New Covenant to a certain class of clergymen."  St. Paul tells us
that in the Body of Christ we are analogous to the limbs, organs,
etc. of a human body and that different parts of the body have dif-
ferent functions (the eye, the foot, etc.).  We believe that Jesus
gave the power and authority to forgive sins in His name to the
Apostles  (John 20:21-23) and that their successors are those organs
of the body that have that function.

You are right.  This takes a lot of time.  However, it is important
that Christians understand each other better and that misinformation
be dispelled.  There are real differences between Christians, and
they must be left to the Holy Spirit to resolve, but we can clear
away misunderstandings that make us think we differ when we do not.

Marty Helgesen
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Anti-Catholicism: "Saul, Saul, why ..."
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:41:54 GMT

In article <BtGspv.LzF@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>	Christ did not set up the authorities of the RCC. The 
>authorities of the RCC are prone to error (e.g.: Callistus, Liberius, 
>Honorius). The Holy Spirit is not.

   No, Christ _didn't_ set up the RCC [sic].  The Church had not
been brought to Rome yet when Christ was still on earth.  He did,
however, set up the Catholic Church, as it was later to be called
(to distinguish the real Church from heretical sects also calling
themselves Christians, but whom even the Romans charged with
immorality).  The Church wasn't even known as the _Christian_ Church
while Christ was still on earth.

   Certainly there were some popes who were quite imperfect.  However,
when such a pope did reign, the Holy Spirit _kept him from_ perverting
the Church's doctrine.

   The Holy Spirit is not prone to error, but men's interpretations of
what He is saying to them certainly is.  Claiming to need nothing else
to interpret the Holy Spirit's words is the same as claiming personal
infallibility in interpreting them.

--Steve

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Original_To:  CHRISTIA
Original_cc:  HUTTER
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 11:39:00 N
From:         Wolfgang Hutter <HUTTER@DULRUU51.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forgiveness of Sins, by Priests?

In a message of Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:14:15 EST
Received on Thu, 27 Aug 92 10:48 N
Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM> wrote:

>To me , the scripture on confessing our sins to one another means
>that if I have sinned against YOU then I need to confess that sin to YOU..

Certainly they comprehend this, but I think that this is not all that
these passages mean, i.e. that they do indeed - besides the confession
to the offended one, which I take for granted - urge us to confess our
sins to one another.

>If I steal from you, I should confess it to you, seek your forgivness and
>then also compensate for your loss. Scripture likewise says is you forgive
>my sin then it is forgiven, but if you do not ,then it is not forgiven..

You don't mean to say that if a brother won't forgive me then I have no
forgiveness before God, do you?

>I do not believe however that I need to confess my Sin committed against YOU
>to a priest/pastor/elder. Its between you, me and God. Likewise if I sin
>against God then its between Him and ME..

O.K. I don't say that we  * need *  to confess to someone, but I'd like
to ask why we don't want to do it. The answer might get us close to
seeing why I think God wants us to do it. If I don't want to confess my
sin to a brother (as I said, it doesn't have to be a priest/pastor/elder)
then I think in 99% of the cases it comes from PRIDE! So why not take
this exercise and kill our pride by confessing sin?

Wolfgang <><
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:20:00 CDT
From:         BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU
Subject:      Re: 2 Peter 3

Dear Jesse,

Exactly what events in 2 Pet. 3 do you see as being fulfilled at the destruction
of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.?

There are three events mentioned in 2 Pet. 3:

(1) The creation of the earth (v. 5)

(2) The destruction of the earth in the deluge (v. 6)

(3) The destruction of the world (kosmos) by fire (v. 10)


The first 2 were events literally happened.
It was the WORLD (kosmos)
that was created((in the physical sense) in event (1),
it was the WORLD (kosmos) that was destroyed (physically) in event (2).

What possible justification can there be for assuming that Peter now uses
the term kosmos to refer to the inhabitants of Jerusalem?

I think Lon has already mentioned this (and I apolgize for repeating him or
anyone else herebut my VAX has been dead for the last 24 hours) but I think
there is some circular reasoning going on here.  In order to say that event (3)
is figurative language, one must assume that cataclysmic/eschatological
language is always figurative  -- highly questionable hermaneutics if
 you ask me.


Brian
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:02:17 EDT
From:         Bernice Tennant <U1A9A@WVNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Christian Youth

Yvette,

       What age group are we talking about?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:39:30 EDT
Comments:     Resent-From: Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
Comments:     Originally-From: Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
From:         Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject:      Sukkot
X-To:         Practical Christian Life <CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>

Yvette,

Per your request.  I post something on each of the Jewish festivals when
they arrive.  Sukkot will be about the middle of October this year.

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Monday is the last day of Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles, which commemorates
the forty years that the children of Israel spent dwelling in tabernacles or
booths during their wandering following the exodus from Egypt.  The observance
of the feast is described in Lev 23:33ff and Deut.16:13ff.  The rabbis have
taught that this feast also commemorates God's protection and provision for
His people during this time, and it is also a harvest festival.  Observant Jews
build a sukkah and, if possible, live in it for the eight days of the feast.
At the very least, one is expected to eat his meals in the succah.  The sukkah
has three walls and a roof made of plant materials.  The roof must be sparse
enough  to offer no protection from the rain.  As a harvest festival, it also
symbolizes how God gathers His harvest into His all- embracing sukkah.  It is
a very joyful feast, being the only feast described in the Jewish liturgy as
"the season of our rejoicing."

As a Messianic feast, it has a variety of meanings.  As with the rabbinical
interpretation, Sukkot reminds us of our utter dependance on God's provision.
It is a feast on which we remember that Jesus gives the living water to all who
will believe in Him (John 7:2,37ff).  And finally, as with Rosh haShanah, the
feast has special eschatological significance, reminding us of that great day
of harvest, when God will gather in His children from all the earth to sit at
the table of the greatest Feast, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

Shalom,

Lon Mendelsohn
From: FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET (zane of dhahran)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: What's in the Name is the local church.
Date: 1 Sep 92 09:10:27 GMT
Organization: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, S.A.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET>

Daniel,

I enjoyed the fruit of your study on the names.  John sure has a way with words
doesn't he?

As long as we are making suggestions, how about:
1. stop calling the physical building the "church"
2. after you take down the signs, move in.
3. don't list yourselves in the phone book in the yellow pages under "churches"
4. don't go to church anymore - be the church and meet together with the church
   or at least part of the church

Just some ideas.  Peace, zane
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:59:00 EDT
From:         "Joseph_I.Scully" <21010JIS@MSU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: On-Line Bible: NASB availabl

John La Plante:

I'm interested in getting the on-line Bible that you mentioned down-
loading from an archive, but I don't understand how to do it. Is it fairly
easy to do? I'd appreciate any help you could give.

In Christ,

Joe Scully
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:04:22 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Matthew 24 -- when? Part 2/2

Dear Herr Kiefer ;

Are you sure that it was I who posted the alleged article?



Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:31:11 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Anathema

Several years ago it occurred to me that if someone named his dog
"Gum" he could chew and walk Gum at the same time.

It then occurred to me that if someone named his dog "Anathema" he
could say to it, "Anathema, sit."

(For those who have no Latin, as distinct from my very little Latin,
the words "Anathema sit" are the Latin for "Let him be anathema" and
were used in the (Latin) definitions of the Council of Trent.)

Anyway, it's tired and I'm late.  I don't have time for serious
discussions tonight.

Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:21:14 CDT
From:         Tom Brewer <NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Bible - Part 3

Defending the Bible, Part 3

     Should I formally debate with an unbeliever?

     Regardless of your arguments, unbelievers might still remain
unconvinced of the proof of inspiration. "But the natural man
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are
foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned"(I Cor 2:14). If an unbeliever is consistent in
his reasoning against Christianity, he will never accept any Christian
premises. Hence, reasons, arguments or debates to prove the
infallibility and inspiration of the Bible are useless to convince the
unbeliever. The Christian and the unbeliever do not have a common
starting point.
     Now the Christian reader may wish to argue at this point, but I
would ask concerning faith that leads to salvation--is it not a gift
from God? "For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast
thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why
dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?"(I Cor 4:7; see also
Rom 10:17 & Eph 2:8). And is not the Word of God the very seed of
faith (Mark 4:14-15; I Pet 1:23; Rom 10:17)? So, in other words, as
John Calvin wrote in his Institutes, belief in the Bible as the Word
of God "cannot be produced but by a revelation from heaven."
     Much of what is called "Christianity" today will reject the truth
that God must produce belief in the Bible in the mind of the
unbeliever. The Apostle Paul, however, writes in I Cor 2:10-16 to
explain this is how we learn. Paul begins with, "But God hath revealed
them unto us by His Spirit...."
     Take another example from Matt 16:15-17 where Jesus asks Peter,
"But whom say ye that I am?" Peter had been given an illumination from
God; he had been given the ability to believe, which is evident in his
answer, "Thou art the Christ." The gift of faith from God is evident
because Jesus Christ said it was just that; i.e., Jesus said, "Flesh
and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in
heaven."
     The Christian can feel confident to believe and teach inspiration
of the Bible; however, instead of debating to win, the Christian can
work to clearly present the truth and leave the results to a prayer-
hearing God. Scholarly debates are not evil, but with our need to
redeem the time, debates just don't seem to be part of the better way
of sharing the truth in love.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:07:00 CDT
From:         "Love does not subtract, it multiplies." <HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Radical feminism, the ERA and Pat Robertson

<and publicize and pro-ERA groups chose to ignore.  For example:  the
<Court indicated that ERA *might* require the drafting of women
<when the nation moved toward conscription.  Schlafly said "the ERA
<will send your daughters into combat."  (or words to that effect).
<Those on the other side said, "Don't be ridiculous; the amendment is
<simple enough.  All you have to do is read it to see that it doesn't
<say that."

Ex<ctly who said that it would leave women exempt from the draft?  It was
certainly my understanding that a male-only draft would be unconstitutional
under the ERA.

Dan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 09:08:53 -0400
From:         "Toni J. Benner" <tjbenner@COLBY.EDU>
Subject:      Prayer request

Please pray for one of my favorite people and his wife specifically who has
cancer, and it doesn't look good for her. He is my former dr. who has been
retired now for quite some time. When my mother was dying from cancer, he
got quite angry when I mentioned that my pastor prayed for the sick. He
had misunderstood my pastor to be claiming that he could heal. They have
a mobile home in the Florida Keys, she seems to be dying, and their home
here in Maine was full of mold when they came home to it the other day.
These people are not Christians, so please pray that all of these
trials will lead them to the Lord, and pray for her healing also. I
love this man dearly, and he has done things as a dr. that no other
dr. would do. One time he held a hockey player's head up, leaning over
the front seat with his arm, all the way to Boston, which is 3-4 hrs.
This caused permanent damage to his shoulder.
Toni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:52:37 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Has Jesus Returned???

Dear Dan et al.

What I was alluding to earlier was the "Preterist view" of eschatology.
From what I can see in context of Scripture, the Second Coming of Christ
is a done deal in that the A.D.70 debacle at Jerusalem was closely tied to
that event.
It was the End of the Age, in that Judaism came to an end, and that the Temple
in Jerusalem was destroyed, and that the Second Advent occurred.
Of course, the obvious query is, "How can you believe this when there is no
evidence, historically, of such an event?"

By the way, I am going to deal with this in short bites, because I do not have
a PC nor modem at home.
Consequently, the REAL problem most people have with this issue is their poor
hermeneutics, especially when it comes in dealing with such as


Matthew 24-25
Mark 13
Luke 21
2 Peter 3
etc. ...

I will deal exegetically with Matthew 24-25 if called upon.
Mark 13, and Luke 21 are similar accounts.


Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU