waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
jwindley@cheap.cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes: [material deleted]  >Some object to the idea that Christianity should involve secrets of >any kind.  Mormon scholars have provided historical evidence of early >Christian practices which parallel Mormon temple ceremonies. >Obviously one can choose whether or not to subscribe to such a >historical interpretation, but Mormon practice is not without >precedent in Christianity. [deletions]   I don't necessarily object to the secrecy but I do question it, since I see no  Biblical reason why any aspect of Christian worship should involve secrecy.   But I am interested in your claim that early Christian practices "parallel"  Mormon temple ceremonies.  Could you give an example?  Also, why do they only  parallel Mormon ceremonies?  Why don't Mormon ceremonies restore the original  Christian practices?  Wasn't that the whole point of Joseph Smith's stated  mission?
In article <Apr.13.01.04.21.1993.686@athos.rutgers.edu> dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) writes: >   seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) asks: > > What is the objection to celebration of Easter? >       The objection naturally is in the way in which you phrase it.  >Easter (or Eashtar or Ishtar or Ishtarti or other spellings) is the pagan >whore goddess of fertility.   > > It is celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. >      No, you are thinking perhaps of "Ressurection Sunday" I think.   Tsk.tsk. Too much argument on non-issues ! I'm Roman Catholic and it seems to me that people celebrate Easter and Christmas for itself rather than how it relates to Jesus. I don't really care about some diety. If people have some other definition of Easter, then that's their business. Don't let it interfere with my Easter.  "Resurrection Sunday" 8-) Where did that come from ? If people celebrate Easter for the Cadburry bunny, that's their business.   > > So from this I infer that there are different rules for > > Christians of Jewish descent?  What happened to "there is > > neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for > > all are one in Christ Jesus"?
Hal Heydt writes:  >That was only the fall of the *Western* Empire.  The *Eastern* Empire >continued for another 1000 years--and a key element in it's fall was >the *Christian* sack of Constantinople.  Note that I said the fall of Rome, not of the Empire.  The Roman Empire lasted until 1453, with its transfered capital in Constantinople.  The main reason for it's fall was not so much the sack of Constantinople by the men of the 4th Crusade (who were not Christians - they had been excommunicated down to the last man after attacking the Christian city of Zara in Croatia), but rather the disastorous defeat in the battle of Mazinkert.  After the Turks breached the frontier, it was only a matter of time before the Empire fell, the inability of the Empire to hold onto the rim of Anatolia, with the Ottomans and Rum Seljuks in the middle should be quite obvious to any student of history.  The sack of Constantinople only hastened the inevitable along.  For if the Greeks had wanted to save their empire, why would they not cooperate with the Crusaders when they came to do battle with the Saracens in the 1st-3rd Crusades?  Because of their obstinacy over cooperating with people they considered heretics, even though those "heretics" were fighting for the cause of the Empire and Christendom in doing battle with the Turkish hordes in Anatolia, Edessa, Lebanon, Palastine, and Syria, the some hordes who were to later sack Constantinople, and overrun a third of Europe (the Balkans, Hungary, the Ukraine, the Caucasus, etc.)
>ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) > >The deutero-canonical books were added much later in the church's >history.  They do not have the same spiritual quality as the >rest of Scripture.  I do not believe the church that added these >books was guided by the Spirit in so doing.  And that is where >this sort of discussion ultimately ends.  The Apocryphal books that are in the Septuagint were part of the canon  used by the Greek-speaking churches from the inception of the church. They were not added later (or much later).  This is a common misconception.  The preference of the Hebrew canon over the Greek canon is a later innovation.   The church did not need to be guided to "add" the books since they were part of the faith once received by the apostles and passed to the Church.  Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com) --
In article <May.3.05.01.53.1993.9964@athos.rutgers.edu> a.faris@trl.oz.au (Aziz Faris) writes:  >[I think you're talking about the "assumption of the Blessed Virgin >Mary".  It says that "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin >Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed >body and soul into heavenly glory."  This was defined by a Papal >statement in 1950, though it had certainly been believed by some >before that.  --clh]  So true.  I'm not sure of the basis of the belief, but it was a widely held belief among the laity of the RC church and their support of it lead to it being declared to be true.  Basically the teaching on infallibility holds that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine, the college of bishops is likewise infallible, and the laity is as well. The pope gets most of the attention/criticism but the consensus of the other bodies is equally infallible (according to RC teaching).
I must have missed the postings about Waco, David Koresh, and the Second Coming.  How does one tell if a Second Coming is the real thing, unless the person claiming to be IT is obviously insane?  I'm not saying that David Koresh is the Second Coming of Christ.  How could somebody who breaks his word be the Second Coming?  Koresh did promise that he would come out of his compound if only he was allowed to give a radio broadcast.  He didn't.  Still it seems to me that he did fool some people.  And, from my meagre knowledge of the Bible, it seems that Christians have been hard on the Jews of Christ's day for being cautious about accepting somebody that their religious authorities didn't accept as the Messiah.  So I was surprised that nobody had discussed the difficulty of wanting to be early to recognize the Second Coming while, at the same time, not wanting to be credulously believing just anybody who claims to be God.  [Mark 13:21   And then if any one says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!'  or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.  Mark 13:22   False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and  wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.  Mark 13:23   But take heed; I have told you all things beforehand.  Mark 13:24    "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be  darkened, and the moon will not give its light,  Mark 13:25   and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in  the heavens will be shaken.  Mark 13:26   And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with  great power and glory.   My understanding of Jesus' answer is that, unlike his first coming, which was veiled, the second coming will be quite unmistakeable.  He's telling us not to be misled by the other things that have to happen before his second coming -- the actual second coming will make his power openly visible.  By the way, from Koresh's public statement it's not so clear to me that he is claiming to be Christ.
I have been following this thread on talk.religion, soc.religion.christian.bible-study and here with interest.  I am amazed at the different non-biblical argument those who oppose the Sabbath present.   One question comes to mind, especially since my last one was not answered from Scripture.  Maybe clh may wish to provide the first response.  There is a lot of talk about the Sabbath of the TC being ceremonial.  Answer this:  Since the TC commandments is one law with ten parts on what biblical basis have you decided that only the Sabbath portion is ceremonial? OR You say that the seventh-day is the Sabbath but not applicable to Gentile Christians.  Does that mean the Sabbath commandment has been annulled?  References please.  If God did not intend His requirements on the Jews to be applicable to Gentile Christians why did He make it plain that the Gentiles were now grafted into the commonwealth of Israel?  Darius
In article <Apr.21.03.26.15.1993.1349@geneva.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:  >The basic problem with your argument is your total and complete reliance on >the biblical text.  Luke's account is highly suspect (I would refer you to >the hermeneia commentary on Acts).  Moreover Luke's account is written at >least 90 years after the fact.  In the meantime everyone he mentions has died >and attempts to find actual written sources behind the text have come up >with only the we section of the later portion of acts as firmly established. >Moreover, Pauls account of some of the events in Acts (as recorded in  >Galatians) fail to establish the acts accounts.   Even if there was no independent proof that Luke's account was valid, I find it strange that you would take the negation of it as truth without any direct historical evidence (at least that you've mentioned) to back it up.  The assertion was made, unequivocally that no Christian ever sufferred for their faith by believing in the Resurrection.  Luke's account suggests otherwise, and in the absence of direct eyewitnesses who can claim that Luke is mistaken, then I suggest that this unequivocal assertion is suspect.  >randy   --  John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata 7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810 McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729  [I think the original claim may have been somewhat more limited than this.  It was an answer to the claim that the witnesses couldn't be lying because they were willign to suffer for their beliefs. Thus it's not necessary to show that no Christian ever suffered for believing in the Resurrection.  Rather the issue is whether those who witnessed it did.  I do agree that the posting you're responding to shows that there can be liberal as well as conservative dogmatism.
In article 2262@geneva.rutgers.edu, Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley) writes: > I must have missed the postings about Waco, David Koresh, and the Second > Coming.  How does one tell if a Second Coming is the real thing, unless the > person claiming to be IT is obviously insane?  One rule of thumb is that if a person is making the claim, they are wrong.  I was just reading John 14 this morning (I think that is the right chapter, anyway it is close and I don't have a Bible at work to check with.) and in it Jesus is talking to his disciples about his impending death and he says that he will be going away and then later he will be with them.  He said something along the lines of "I will be in you and you will be in me."  (Again I cannot provide the exact quote or citation.)  Anyway, my understanding of this is that the Second Coming will not be an outward event.  It is an inward event, Christ will come to live in our hearts and we will live in him. If you look for a person you will be deceived.  It seems to me that the Jews had been looking for a Messiah that would be a political or military leader and so didn't recognize Jesus when he came.  Jesus tried to show that his Kingdom was not of this earth. A lot of what I have seen written about the Second Coming seems to based on an expectation of Christ coming back and finally taking over the world and running it the way it should be.  It sounds a lot like what the Jews were looking for.  The First Coming wasn't like that and I see no reason for the Second Coming to be like that either.  Oh and by the way, I don't expect it to happen once.  There is no one Second Coming, there are a lot of little ones.  Every time Christ comes into someones heart, Christ has come again.  Peace, Will.  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------  | William Taber         | Will_Taber@dg.com 	  | Any opinions expressed | | Data General Corp.    | will@futon.webo.dg.com  | are mine alone and may | | Westboro, Mass. 01580 |                         | change without notice. | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------- | When all your dreams are laid to rest, you can get what's second best,   | |	But it's hard to get enough.		David Wilcox               |
ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) writes:   	II. The deuterocanonicals are not in the canon because  		they are not quoted by the NT authors.  That is not quite accurate.  Otherwise we would have the book of Enoch in the canon (as Dave noted).  One can say that the  apocrypha are not quoted by Christ.    Dave also writes:  III. The deuterocanonicals are not in the canon because  		they teach doctrines contrary to the (uncontroverted)  		parts of the canon.    	then I answer:   		These is a logically invalid *a priori*.   		Besides, we are talking about OT texts-   		which in many parts are superceded by the NT  		(in the Xtian view). Would not this same  		principle exclude _Ecclesiastes_?  		This principle cannot be consistently applied.   I have to reject your argument here.  The Spirit speaks with one voice, and he does not contradict himself.    The ultimate test of canonicity is whether the words are inspired by the Spirit, i.e., God-breathed.  It is a test which is more guided by faith than by reason or logic.  The early church decided that the Apocrypha did not meet this test--even though some books such as The Wisdom of Ben Sirach have their uses.  For example, the Lutheran hymn "Now Thank We All Our God" quotes a passage from this book.  The deutero-canonical books were added much later in the church's history.  They do not have the same spiritual quality as the rest of Scripture.  I do not believe the church that added these books was guided by the Spirit in so doing.  And that is where this sort of discussion ultimately ends.
erh0362@tesla.njit.edu writes:  >    Could anyone enlighten me on how the Mormon church views  >children born out of wedlock?  In particular I'm interested to know if any  >stigma is attached to the children as opposed to the parents.    All children are born pure, i.e., without sin. However, most saints would view a pregnancy outside of marriage as an occasion of mourning. (Some church members would be much more judgmental, but that is *their* problem.)  In situations where welfare assistance is  provided through our Church, bishops usually require that the family be making some effort to live the Gospel standards and provide for  themselves.  However, there are occasions when assistance is provided because of the children in the home. As a former bishop of mine said, "Children are  always worthy before God."  >I'm especially  >keen to learn if there is or is not any prohibition in the Mormon faith on  >bastards entering heaven or having their names entered in the big genealogical  >book the Mormons keep in Salt Lake City.    I am not sure what you mean by the term "bastards" in this context.  Latter-Day Saints believe that through the temple ordinances the family unit may be preserved in eternity.  If you use genealogical material or software produced by the Church, you may notice a section for "temple ordinances."  Within that section there should be a spot for signifying "BIC" which stands for "born in the covenant."  The children born to couple sealed (married) within the temple are "born in the covenant" and are eligible to be part of that eternal family unit. Children born to other couples (whether in a civil marriage or not) would have to be sealed to their parents after their marriage is solemnized for eternity.  Supposing a child were born to a woman out of wedlock, he or she could be sealed to his or her parents at a later date or adopted into  any eternal family unit (which may include one of the birth parents).  >If this is an issue on which the  >"official" position has changed over time, I'm interested in learning both old  >and new beliefs.  E-mail or posting is fine.  All information or pointers are  >appreciated.  I can't say if this principle of adoption was revealed at the same time as the sealing  ordinances, but it has been accepted for the  ~15 years I have been in the Church.  I would tend to discount any admonitions from the Church authorities against having children out of wedlock because even though there are provisions within the Lord's plan to recover what we have done wrong the Church does not want to give anyone the impression we can sin and repent at our leisure.
In article <Apr.19.05.14.08.1993.29279@athos.rutgers.edu> atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:  >  I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition,  >eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.  There's no >reason Hell has to be especially awful--to most people, eternal death is bad >enough. >  Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since >the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  Personally, I don't think >that people in Hell will be thrust into flame any more than I expect to Jesus >with a double-edged sword issuing from his mouth--I treat both these statements >as metaphorical.  Phew! That takes a load off. I don't want to live forever.  I wish most Christians held this view.  You can't walk across campus in spring without being assailed by fire-and-brimstone preachers.  I really think the metaphor should be limited, at least with respect to teaching our children.  It's criminal to put these ideas into a young and trusting mind.  Besides, why not rely on the positive aspects of your religion to win their faith?   -Tim
In <Apr.23.02.55.31.1993.3123@geneva.rutgers.edu> Tim asks:  >I have stated before that I do not consider myself an atheist, but >definitely do not believe in the christian god.  The recent discussion >about atheists and hell, combined with a post to another group (to the >effect of 'you will all go to hell') has me interested in the consensus >as to how a god might judge men.  As a catholic, I was told that a jew, >buddhist, etc. might go to heaven, but obviously some people do not >believe this.  Even more see atheists and pagans (I assume I would be >lumped into this category) to be hellbound.  I know you believe only >god can judge, and I do not ask you to, just for your opinions. >    This is probably too simplistic for some, but John 3:16 saus,    "For God so loved the world that He gave His only son, that    whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life".     Genesis 15:6, "And he (Abram) believed the LORD; and He reckoned    it to him as righteousness".     I don't find anywhere that God restricts heaven to particular    ethnic groups or religious denominations or any other category    that we humans like to drop people into. But He does REQUIRE    that we believe and trust Him. In Hebrews it says that God spoke    of old by the prophets (the old testament), but in these last days    he has spoken to us by His son Jesus Christ. And we learn of    Him through the pages of the New Testament. The Bible tells us    what we need to believe. For those who have never heard, I leave    them in God's capable care, He will make himself known as he    desires. It behooves each one of us to act upon the knowledge    we have. If you reject the claims of Jesus, and still go to    heaven, then the joke's on me. If you reject him and go to hell,    that's no joke, but it will be final.      Gerry
In article <Apr.5.23.31.36.1993.23919@athos.rutgers.edu> by028@cleveland.freenet.edu (Gary V. Cavano) writes: >I'm new to this group, and maybe this has been covered already, >but does anybody out there see the current emphasis on the >environment being turned (unintentionally, of course) into >pantheism?  Yes.  (I am adamantly an environmentalist.  I will not use styrofoam table service. Please keep that in mind as you read this post - I do not wish to attack environmentalism)  A half truth is at least as dangerous as a complete lie.  A complete lie will rarely be readily accepted, while a half truth (the lie subtly hidden) is more powerfully offered by one who masquerades as an angel of light.  Satan has (for some people) loosened the grip on treating the earth as something other than God's intricate handiwork, something other than that on which the health of future generations is based.  It is being treated with respect.  You think he's going to happily leave it at that?  No.  When one error is rejected, it is his style to push people to the opposite error.  Therefore the earth is not God's intricate handiwork, not because it is rubbish, but because it is God.  Mother earth is the one you are to primarily love and serve.  I see two facets of a response to it:  1: Care for the environment.  Treat it with proper respect, both because it is    God's intricate handiwork and the health of future generation, and because    showing the facet of one who is disregardful of such things does not    constitute what the Apostle Paul called "becoming all things to all men so    that by all possible means I might save some."     Don't say "Forget the environment, I've got important things to spend my time    on." - putting your foot in your mouth in this manner will destroy your    credibility in expressing the things that _are_ more important.  2: Show that it is not the ultimate entity, that it is creature and not    creator.  Show that its beauty and glory points to a greater beauty and    glory.  Show that it is not the ultimate tapestry, but one of many cords    woven in the infinite tapestry.