HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Philippians 2: 6-8
Date: 13 Aug 92 07:49:31 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

On the talk.religion.misc group, a discussion has started regarding Phil 2:6-8.
The NIV version seems to be a clear statement of Jesus' divinity, but as
one reader has pointed out, it is a mistranslation.

Check out Strong's Greek Dictionary of the New Testament.  Morphe is #3444 
(form) and harpagmos is #725 (robbery).  The best rendering of verse 6 is in 
the KJV:

  "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

The writer in question, Tim O'Neill, has used the correct translation to say
this passage is a DENIAL of Jesus' divinity; Jesus not robbing God is
contrasted with Satan's attempt to overthrow God (see the t.r.m. board for
his full statement).  I want to hear some other interpretations of the passage.

Here's my effort:

From Matthew Henry's commentary, I quote
Status: O

  "...did not think himself guilty of any invasions of what did not belong
   to him, or assuming another's rights....It is the highest degree of robbery
   for any mere man or mere creature to pretend to be equal with God, or
   profess himself one with the Father.  This is for a man to rob God, not
   in tithes and offerings, but of the rights of his Godhead."

I think Mr. Henry is saying that it was not robbery for Jesus to claim to be
God.  Rather, it was his right.  Yet, despite his rights, Jesus emptied himself
and became man.  This is consistent with verses 3,4: "Do nothing from self-
ishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard
one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your
own personal interests, but also for the interests of others." (NASB)  The
model for this selfless attitude is Jesus (verse 5), which is where the
disputed passage comes in.  Jesus could have looked to himself as God and
thought himself (correctly) better than us and just stayed in heaven; it 
would not have been robbery to do so.  But, he emptied himself of all his 
glory and took the form of a servant.

I'm not necessarily advocating this view (I only found the commentary about
1/2 hour ago), though it sounds consistent with the preceding verses.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
From: west@esd.dl.nec.com	 (Mike West)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Prayer Request and Military question
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:10:31 GMT

[If this is inappropriate, I will understand if you discard
 it.  However, I would request that you don't since I have
 seen several other prayer request postings before, and I
 can't think of anywhere else to turn.  Thank you.]

My prayer request concerns my brother.  He is currently in the
military.  He has a roommate that is appearantly making
threats against him which are bad enough that he is now in
fear for his life.  Please understand that he has never
freely professed to be in fear before, and so, with the
severity of his reaction and fear, I would tend to believe
his assessment of the severity of the situation.  Unfortunately,
even after making repeated complaints, nothing has been done.

The roommate also has a checkered past and has recently
violated several procedures (including going AWOL), but
little has been done.  Currently he has been having his
girlfriend stay at their room, which is against the
regulations, but again, the military will do nothing.

My prayer request is first for protection and strength
and (most of all) peace for my brother and second that
this roommate would be removed from my brother's life.

My question is for anyone in the military who might
know:  What can my brother do?  He has gone to his
superiors, but nothing has been done, and the girlfriend
remains.  The only punishment the roommate has gotten
was from the AWOL, and the punishment was to simply
restrict him to the base (which, obviously, is of
no help to my brother).  If you have any informed
opinions or suggestions (of the helpful type), I
would greatly appreciate hearing them.

I thank you in advance.

In Christ,
     Mike West
west@esd.dl.nec.com
From: mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Lord's Table (Part 1 of 2)
Date: 16 Aug 92 04:43:31 GMT
Organization: Rice University

K. Paulson writes:
>[This is in response to Eric James Ewanco's posting:
>>Jesus Christ founded the FIRST New Testament church?  I'm afraid I disagree-
>>he founded the ONLY New Testament church, Matthew 16:18.  Jesus desired only
>>one church, and gave the "keys" (a symbol of authority) to Peter (Kepha,
>>meaning Rock) to this church.  He wishes the church to be one - John 17:11, 1
>>Cor 12:13.
>--clh]
>
>Peter got some "keys"?  What are the keys?  And why Peter?
>Please use scripture.  All the churches mentioned in the New Testament are
>local, independent churches.  There is no such thing as a Universal
>invisible or visible Church (assembly) I'm afraid.

How does this one grab you.
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever
thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt 
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  Matthew 16:18-19, KJV.

>Next you'll be telling us that mere men can forgive sins and
>and that Mary is a co-saviour with Jesus Christ.  Sorry, your mistaken.

And how about this one.
"And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Recieve
ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them;
and who soever sins ye retain, they are retained."  John 20:22-23, KJV.

I am really sick of Catholic-baiters who cry "We use Scripture, yes we do,
We use Scripture, how about you?"  The fact is that you are wrong, and that
these things are indeed based upon the Scripture you claim to be the only
authority.

If you are going to base your entire religion on "What the Bible says" you
might want to read it first.  From the looks of things the Catholic points
here are Scripturally based.  What does this say about yours?

A Lutheran with a clue,
Ernest Mueller

-- 
--------------\  /^--^\  /--------------  *     Ernest Conrad Mueller IV
   ------------\| 0  0 |/------------     *     mueller@owlnet.rice.edu
      ----------\_ <> _/----------        *     Rice U., Home of Owlnet
                /V\--/V\                  *     "Give a hoot - Don't compute!"
From: 751kaiser@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: a false prophet handling problem
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:56:32 GMT
Organization: Western Michigan University

hello again...

I have a question..
	a poser...
	 a corundum...

since Jesus has such a tissy fit over the merchants at the Temple at Jerusalem
how would Jesus (or how should myself) respond to a false teacher or false
prophet.

ie	someone acting like a know-it-all telling me that that I should never
	enter a brothel to save those within just because it's a brothel.
	
should i flame his behind
should i slap his wrist

i can't ignore him, obviously, and let him go his merry way

quizzical

matthew							galileo
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Please Prove it to me!
Date: 13 Aug 92 07:47:53 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

>From: studman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Daniel Tseng)
>> Currently I am as you might say a "non-believer", and I've been trying
>> to accept the basic premise of Christianity, the belief that Jesus was our
>> Savior and gave his life for our sins.  Now that's great and everything, but
>> it's very difficult for me to accept something without some sort of proof of
>> this.  Don't bring the bible into it, that's not a valid argument for me
>> either, I've read alot of the bible, Matthew, etc... and know about Jesus's
>> birth and his travels and the stories in Israel.  How do I and you know that
>> it's not all made up by some lunatic way back when.

I don't know if these are the sorts of clues you might be looking for, or
if it will help, but here are some things that come to mind.

The historical records do show, I believe, that a man named Jesus did live,
and attracted a large following of believers. I'm pretty sure that acconts
of this are in local histories, but also in Roman records.

Also, Jesus Christ did have very outspoken supporters after his death (and
resurrection) who travelled far from Israel and effectively evangelized
people from Europe up into Russia and out as far as Iran (maybe even India,
but this may be a myth.) Anyway, there is ample evidence that these men,
the apostles, died horrible deaths for what they preached. Now, if these men
really had never seen Jesus resurrected, would they have all died for their
new religion? I have yet to see a good argument to this, except that maybe
they never died.

The spread of Christianity was phenomenal. How could it be that a faith such
as this, which on promotes humility, self-discipline, responsibility, etc. 
a very demanding religion, indeed, have appealed so much to the pagans that
were evangelized all over? Wouldn't they rather have stuck to their
respective families of gods, which were far more permissive? The Roman gods
come to mind, here.

A final thought stems from the previous one. If people could be persuaded to
replace their (false) gods for the Christian one, then it must have been
due to the superiority of Christianity. I would ask you to see if there are
indeed truths which Christianity has revealed which normal everyday life
would not. These aren't meant to be persuasive arguments, but just rambling
comments and ideas. I hope this helps.

-ACF
.
From: west@esd.dl.nec.com	 (Mike West)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Prayer Request and Military question
Date: 17 Aug 92 07:03:32 GMT

Just wanted to give an update.

Prayer truly does work!  Within a two days of my mailing the
post, the roommate had been moved out.  I thank you for all
of your prayers.  And I praise God for His amazingly quick
response.

Also, I thank those who personally responded.  It was greatly
appreciated.

In Christ,
    Mike West
From: johnsone@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Erik A. Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: angels
Date: 18 Aug 92 04:19:02 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak) writes:
>A previous posting says:
>>>Actually, this is a topic which has interested me for some time.  What
>>>do people know\believe about angels?  I know that the Catholic Church
>>>has a detailed system of angelology, but I am unfamiliar with it.

Another good book explaining the scriptural data on angels (and demons) is

  _Angels:_Elect_and_Evil_, C. Fred Dickason, Moody Press, mid-70's (I think)


Erik A. Johnson        \    Internet: johnsone@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu     \       |
------------------------\    AmericaOnline: ErikAJ                   \    --+--
Graduate Student         \--------------------------------------------\     |
Aero/Astro Engineering    \  "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and    \    |
University of Illinois at  \  the truth, and the life; no one comes to  \   |
   Urbana-Champaign (UIUC)  \  the Father except through me.'" (Jn14:6)  \
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Mike Warnke Statement - Part 1
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:16:42 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab

In article <Aug.16.01.33.28.1992.1122@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng) writes:
> I believe Bob Larson was not involved in the conversion of Eric Pryor.
> I believe it was Larry Lea ministries and Dick Burnell (spelling?).

To my knowledge, that is correct.  However, the general perception among Pagans
is that Larson, Lea, and Burnell are cut from the same cloth.  If Mr. Larson
wishes us to trust him to the point that we can feel comfortable dialoging with
him, it is up to him to earn said trust.
 
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Eternal Security?
Date: 14 Aug 92 07:39:46 GMT
Organization: Fermi Lab

In article <Aug.12.02.14.48.1992.24368@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>
eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco) writes:

>I'm afraid I see no _solid_ Scriptural support for this belief. Not only
>that, I think history bears out that the Holy Spirit has always manifested
>himself throughout the entire history of the church.  You may suppose that
>the miracles and works of God stopped, but that is not so; miracles have
>been going on continuously for 2,000 years.  Maybe -- just maybe, not with
>the intensity that they occurred in the early church, but even that I doubt
>-- they are just spread out throughout the world.  I'm afraid that the media
>is not inclined to share with the rest of the world the extent of these
>miracles, even if they knew.

If you look at the conservative dating of the NT, the earlier books that list
the gifts of the spirits list things like tongues, healing, and prophecy, the
"sign gifts" if you will.  But in the books of a later date, these are not
listed.  Also, many of the church fathers held that the sign gifts where of the
Apostolic era, and that they had ceased even at their time.  (Please don't ask
me to look up references, look for yourself)
>
>Miracles were a sign to all people, not just to the Jews, and miracles were
>not only signs, but also for the benefit of the Christian people, for
>example, miraculous healings, miraculous rescues, and so forth.

Not in Biblical exegesis.  Israel always worked in the economy of outward
signs.  The whole wilderness thing.  The glory transference in and out of the
temple.  The inauguration of the church at Pentecost.  The gifts as the church
went out from Jerusalem.  Where did it go to -to synagogues.  Who goes to
synagogues, Jews.  
>
>I find that the belief that the age of signs and miracles is "over" is more
>of an attempt to explain apparent evidence than it is an honest and unbiased
>exegesis of Scripture.  But, I believe the apparent evidence is wrong. 

There may be some cases where people are healed but these are over whelmingly
the exception.  Also, the healing is not true to form to the NT healings.  If
these gifts were still available today, why don't the bearer of these gifts go
to the hospitals and cure the people there?  The 1st century church didn't heal
just Christians.  All I see today are the healings of those who can further the
financial stock of the one doing the "healing."
>
Rex
From: madhav@cs.albany.edu (MadHav Vishnu Marathe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Episcopal pre-nuptual document?
Date: 18 Aug 92 06:22:19 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, SUNY at Albany, Albany, NY 12222

In article <Aug.17.02.57.47.1992.14859@athos.rutgers.edu> nlt@gboro.glassboro.edu (N. L. Tinkham) writes:

	I'm reading the book _If_You_Marry_Outside_Your_Faith_, by James Pike,
   and I ran across a reference by the author to "the promise which the
   Episcopal Church requires a prospective couple to sign before marriage".
   I hadn't heard about such a document before.  Does anyone know

	   - if such a document is still required from couples married by
	     an Episcopal priest?  (The book is dated 1954, and many things
	     have changed since then.)

My wife and I were married by an Episcopal priest just over one year ago.
He never mentioned anything to us about such a paper.

Joseph Richardson
(Posting from a friend's account against school and department policy)
From: dlhpfm!dlh@ncoast.org (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Sola Fide & James 2:24
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:27:45 GMT
Organization: dlh Performance Marketing

eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco) writes:

> I wanted to ask a question that has really been on my mind lately.
> 
> eje> - How do evangelical Protestants justify (unintentional pun)
> eje> their "justification by faith alone" teaching when James directly
> eje> and explicitly contradicts it?

The moderator has already adduced the text which teaches that the faith
of which Paul spoke is incompatible with works. James does not
"explicitly" contradict Paul. Indeed, Paul himself taught in Col. 1 and
Eph. 2:10 that the faith which justifies issues in works. Calvin said
in the Institutes that while faith alone saves, the faith that saves
is not alone; it results in works.

> 
> eje> - How is it that even after 400 years, the word "alone" remains
> eje> (in people's minds) right where Luther added it, ignoring the
> eje> fact that Paul never said we were justified by faith alone, only
> eje> that we were justified by faith?

It is clear from reading Paul that he accords faith a place in the
implementation of justification he does not accord any other act. In
arguing against the Judaizers he explicitly and consistently favors
justification by faith apart from works.

> eje> - How can an evangelical in conscience rally around a slogan that is
> eje> patently contrary to Scripture?

Modern evangelicals tend to misunderstand sola fide, a slogan they
equte with a generic "saved by grace." When the reformers argued for
sola fide, they meant (a) God justifies the sinner on the grounds of
the active and passive obedience of Christ which God imputed
forensically to their account; (b) he thus accounts them righteous; he
does not make them righteous (the latter is called regeneration which
follows justification and issues in sanctification); (c) faith is the
sole instrument by which justification is appropriated, and it itslef
is a gift of God; (d) sanctification is a gift of God that accompanies
justification;  hence, those who are not sanctified are not justified.
This contrasts with the prevalent medieval view that justification
comprehends sanctification and regeneration and that God has respect to
men's merits when he justifies.

Andrew Sandlin posting from the account of
dan  of dlh Performance Marketing  POBox 1419  Mentor Ohio 44061
         NCoast.org!dlhpfm!dlh or ab.com!dlhpfm.uucp!dlh
From: dlhpfm!dlh@ncoast.org (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Paul, Could he be wrong?
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:49:03 GMT
Organization: dlh Performance Marketing

aj@hoqas2.att.com (Ahmad M Jrad) writes:

>   [Matthew]
> > 5:17  Do not think that I am come to abolish the law, and the prophets:
> > I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfil them.
> > Jesus did not specify the Jews here. He said "anyone who teaches others"
> > that would seem to include non-jews also.
....
> I am certainly not trying to discredit Jesus in any way, nothing could
> be farther from my mind. I was merely trying to understand why Christians
> don not follow the law in light of the quote from Matthew. I think that
> I understand that now. I thank you for helping me there. I am still 
> inclined to thinking that the quote from Matthew applies to all of Jesus'
> followers, since there is no mention of Jews or Israel in it at all.

I agree, Ahmad.

There is active rebellion against God within the church as well as
outside.  The usual sort of path taken to justify the position you have
difficulty understanding is:

  Jesus said the law is summed up in "you shall love the Lord your God
  with all your heart and soul and mind and love your neighbor as
  yourself."  Contemporary Christianity often takes that formulation as
  replacing the law (I have read suggestions of this on s.r.c today). 
  The next step is to take an understanding of "love" from the pagan
  culture around us instead of from Scripture ("love is a feeling that
  you feel when you feel you have a feeling that you never felt before"). 

In Scripture, love is never a feeling.  It is an action word.  Much of
First John and a chapter or two of James are about putting the feet on
your love.

When Jesus says, "you shall love...sums up the law and the prophets",
if your understanding of love is smaller than the requirements of the
law you are talking about something less than Jesus was talking about.

----

I want to quibble with a word in one of our moderator's responses in
this thread:

> [Jesus didn't exactly call the woman a dog, though I admit his initial
> language didn't seem very friendly.  However I note that he *did* heal
> her daughter, contrary to what you say.  (I assume you're referring to
> Mat 15:22 ff.)  I do not know of any case where Jesus really refused
> to heal someone, Jew or Gentile.  It's normally thought that he was
> simply testing her resolve.  

May I suggest that the incarnate creator God wanted to display her
faith and her perception of the situation for our benefit (and the
benefit of the crowd watching the incident) and asked her questions
that led her to articulate it and do so very well.

dan
From: Malachi.Robertson@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: resurrection question
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:25:40 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <Aug.18.01.54.47.1992.26692@aramis.rutgers.edu> tvh@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (HARRISON, TONY V) writes:
>
>	Just a quick question...Once we die do we go straight to heaven in a 
>new spiritual body, or do we remain in the earth until the Lord comes again?
>Obviously Moses appeared to Peter, etc., The rich man and Lazarus, upon death,
>were in hell and heaven, respectively.  Any verses of assurance in either 
>case?  Thanks in advance.
>			Tony H.

We don't go straight to heaven when we die.  I have seen many base this
notion on the I Corinthians text about being absent from the body and
present with the Lord.  When this is taken in the context of all Paul's
writings it shows that he was speaking of the redemption of the body at
the resurrection of the dead and the second coming of Jesus.  If anyone is
interested in how this works out I will find an old post I put on my local
BBS system about the matter.  As far as Moses appearing on the mount of
transfiguration, we have here in miniture the glory of the kingdom.  Here
is the glorified Son and a representative of the righteous resurrected
from the dead and the righteous living.  Now as far as the Rich Man and
Lazarus parable goes, it was recently pointed out to me how it is based
upon a Jewish view of the afterlife common at the time.  Josephus
apparently spoke of it.  In the parable the Rich man is taken to one area
of hades (not hell in the sense of gehenna, the place of burning) and
Lazarus is taken to Abraham's bosom (not heaven).  I can go into more
detail as to the problems of taking this parable as presenting a literal
teaching on the afterlife if you like.

I feel the Biblical evidence is weighed heavily in favor of viewing that
after one dies they remain in the grave until on of the two resurrections.
This rest in the grave is often portrayed as a sleep.  If you want to see
some of this evidence then notify me and I will try and find another old
BBS posting where I discussed the matter.

"Malachi" Ian Robertson Brown


--
   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