waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <Apr.23.02.55.47.1993.3138@geneva.rutgers.edu>, jcj@tellabs.com (jcj) wrote:  > I'd like to remind people of the withering of the fig tree and Jesus > driving the money changers et. al. out of the temple.  I think those > were two instances of Christ showing anger (as part of His human side). >  Yes, and what about Paul saying:  26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: (Ephesians 4:26).  Obviously then, we can be angry w/o sinning.  Jon  ------------------------------------------------ Jon Ogden         - jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com Motorola Cellular - Advanced Products Division Voice: 708-632-2521      Data: 708-632-6086 ------------------------------------------------
He doesn't contradict himself.  The church is to last for all time. However, there are those who use the church to bolster themselves.  This is evident in many letters.  For instance, Paul talks about the "super-apostles" to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11-12), he mentions how people will be led away by miracles, signs, and wonders (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12), he tells Timothy that it is clear that some will abandon the faith and teach lies (1 Timothy 4:1-3) and that some will search for teachers to suit what they want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3-4). Such passages go throughout the letters and Jesus does warn about them (Matthew 24:4-14).  But look at the promise in this last part.  Verse 14:  "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."  Even today, there are false teachings.  I can name two which I am well familiar with:  the non-need of baptism and the "praying of Jesus into your life for salvation".  Both are taught.  Both are DEAD wrong.  They have been taken out of context from some verses, interpreted from others, and just plain made up.  The ONLY way Jesus taught is given in Luke 9:23-26 and Luke 14:25-33.  He then commands baptism in Matthew 28:18-20.  The church Jesus founded, though, is alive and well.  It's not being persecuted as much as back then (the laws won't allow it yet), but it is being persecuted.  Joe Fisher
In article <May.9.05.40.36.1993.27495@athos.rutgers.edu> koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes: >There seem to be many points to the speaking in tongues thing which >are problematic.  It's use as prayer language seems especially troubling >to me.  I understand that when you pray in tongues, the spirit is doing >the talking.  And when you pray, you pray to God.  And the Spirit is >God.  So, the Spirit is talking to Himself.  Which is why I only go >by the Pentecost use where it's an actual language.  What is wrong with "the Spirit talking to Himself."  Jesus intercedes for us, and Romans 8:26-27 tell of how the Spirit intercedes for us before God.  That is no theological problem.  Tounges as a prayer language finds support in I Corinthians 14:14-18.   >Moreover, the phrase "though I speak with the tongues of men and angels" >used by Paul in I Cor. is misleading out of context.   Some would then >assume that there is some angelic tongue, and if when they speak, it >is no KNOWN language, then it is an angelic tongue.  Its true that this could be (and has been) used as a rug to sweep any difficulties under.  But it is a valid point.  Paul does mention angelic tounges in the verse.    >Hmmm...in the old testament story about the tower of Babel, we see how >God PUNISHED by giving us different language.  Can we assume then that >if angels have their own language at all, that they have the SAME one >amongst other angels?  After all, THEY were not punished in any manner.  If the languages we sepak are the result of Babel, then it stands to reason that angels would speak a different language from us.  You do  have a valid point about multiple angelic languages.  But angelic beings maybe of different species so to speak.  maybe different species communicate differently.    >Trouble is, while such stories abound, any and all attempts at >verification (and we are to test the spirit...) either show that >the witness had no real idea of the circumstances, or that outright >fabrication was involved.  The Brother Puka story in a previous post >seems like a "friend of a friend" thing.  And linguistically, a two >syllable word hardly qualifies as language, inflection or no.  I have heard an eyewitness account, myself.  Such things are hard to prove. They don't lend themselves to a laboratory thing very well.  I don';t know if it is a very holy thing to take gifts into a laboratory anyway.  >Much as many faith healers have trouble proving their "victories" (since >most ailments "cured" are just plain unprovable) and modern day >ressurrections have never been validated, so is it true that no >modern day xenoglossolalia has been proved by clergy OR lay.  That's an unprovable statement.  How can you prove if somethings been proved? There is no way to know that you've seen all the evidence.  Once I  saw an orthodontists records complete with photographs showing how one of his patients severe underbite was cured by constant prayer.    John G. Lakes once prayed for someone and saw them healed in a laboratory, according to "Adventures in God."  Its an interesting book.
Nabil Ayoub writes:  >As a final note, the Oriental Orthodox and Eastren Orthodox did sign a >common statement of Christology, in which the heresey of >Monophysitism was condemned. So the Coptic Orthodox Church does not >believe in Monophysitism.  Sorry!  What does the Coptic Church believe about the will and energy of Christ?  Were there one or were there two (i.e. Human and Divine) wills and energies in Him.  Also, what is the objection ot the Copts with the Pope of Rome (i.e. why is there a Coptic Catholic Church)?  Do you reject the supreme jurisdiction of the 263rd sucessor of St. Peter (who blessed St. John Mark, Bishop of Alexandria was translator for) and his predecessors?  Or his infallibility?  Or what other things perhaps?
In article <May.11.02.36.45.1993.28090@athos.rutgers.edu> news@cbnewsk.att.com writes: >Paul repeatedly talks about the >"thorn" in his side, some think it refers to lust, others pride, but >who knows.  Whatever the thorn was, apparently it was not "compatible" >with Christianity, yet does that make his epistles any less?  There is no reason to believe that Paul's thorn in the flesh was  a sin in his life.  That makes little sense in the light of Paul' writings taken in totality.  He writes of how he presses for the mark, and keeps his body submitted.  No doubt Paul had to struggle with the flesh just like every Christian.  Paul does associate his  thorn with a Satanic messenger, and with physical infirmities and tribulation, but not with a sin in his life.
The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to Catherine Laboure, a nun of the sisters of Charity on July 18, 1830 at Rue du Bac, Paris.  Sister Catherine was awakened late that night by a small boy, age 5 or 6, who was literally glowing with some sort of interior light.  The child led her to the sanctuary of the chapel where he promised the Virgin Mary was to be found awaiting her. Our Lady appeared to her and instructed her for two hours or more on matters pertaining to her life and to the future of France and the world.  On November 27 Our Lady appeared again to Catherine. She instructed her to have a medal struck. She told her that those who wore this  medal would enjoy special protection from the Mother of God and would receive great graces. In less than a year there were three more apparitions. In June of 1831 the medals were a reality. Many reports were received by those who wore it. Within two years of its issuing the medal was known as the "Miraculous Medal". Catherine died in 1876. Her body to this day is remarkably preserved (incorrupt). She was canonized on July 27, 1947. Her body lies in the chapel at the motherhouse on the Rue du Bac where she had her first meeting with Our Lady.  The apparition on November 27 1830 was of average height and clothed in white with a veil that flowed over the head and fell to the floor. Above the altar, a pyramid painted to represent God's all knowing wisdom looked down on them. Our Lady's feet rested on a white globe and there was also a green serpent with yellow spots that she was stepping on. In her hands was a golden ball that represented the world. Great streams of light issued from her hands and she also showed  Catherine an image of two hearts, the Sacred Heart wrapped in piercing thorns and her own heart punctured by a sword. The sword represented her suffering with Jesus.  The apparitions announced the onset of the great battle and forewarned that a dark era lay in the immediate future. It was the apparition  leading up to the recent ones. Our Lady began to dispense secrets. And with the globe she revealed herself in worldwide dispute with the forces of the dark. She told Catherine "The times are evil. Misfortunes will fall upon France. The throne will be overturned. The entire world will be overcome by evils of all kinds."  Refer to books on St. Catherine for more of Our Lady's messages. A copy of the medal is also available in Catholic bookstores.  I will post other Marian events every few days or so including the ones happening today which are still under investigation. These postings serve only to introduce you to these events. Please look more into them and understand the reason for  the increasing number and urgency of these apparitions.  --
In article <Apr.10.05.33.59.1993.14428@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes: >The two historic facts that I think the most important are these: > >(1) If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then he must have done something >else equally impressive, in order to create the observed amount of impact. > >(2) Nobody ever displayed the dead body of Jesus, even though both the >Jewish and the Roman authorities would have gained a lot by doing so >(it would have discredited the Christians). > >--  >:-  Michael A. Covington         internet mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :    ***** >:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0358 :  ********* >:-  The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349 :   *  *  * >:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><  And the two simplest refutations are these:  (1)  What impact?  The only record of impact comes from the New Testament. I have no guarantee that its books are in the least accurate, and that the recorded "impact" actually happened.  I find it interesting that no other contemporary source records an eclipse, an earthquake, a temple curtain being torn, etc.  The earliest written claim we have of Jesus' resurrection is from the Pauline epistles, none of which were written sooner than 20 years after the supposed event.  (2)  It seems probable that no one displayed the body of Jesus because no one knew where it was.  I personally believe that the most likely explanation was that the body was stolen (by disciples, or by graverobbers). Don't bother with the point about the guards ... it only appears in one gospel, and seems like exactly the sort of thing early Christians might make up in order to counter the grave-robbing charge.  The New Testament does record that Jews believed the body had been stolen.  If there were really guards, they could not have effectively made this claim, as they did.
Bruce Webster writes: >Indeed, LDS doctrine goes one step further and in some cases >holds parents responsible for their children's sins if they have >failed to bring them up properly (cf. D&C 68:25-28; note that this >passage applies it only to members of the LDS church).  Hi Bruce.  How do you reconcile this practice with Ezekiel 18? Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins is the one who will die.  The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.  The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."  Is Ezekiel 18 not translated correctly in your eyes perhaps?  Sincerely,  Aaron Cardenas  P.S. I too am bothered to see offensive words being posted on this newsgroup.  Obscenity is out of place for anyone who wants to live by the Bible (Eph 5:4).  Moderator:  I would appreciate your not letting posts with foul language through, which has happened at least twice lately.  Thank you.
: I may be wrong, but wasn't Jeff Fenholt part of Black Sabbath?  He's a : MAJOR brother in Christ now.  He totally changed his life around, and : he and his wife go on tours singing, witnessing, and spreading the : gospel for Christ.  I may be wrong about Black Sabbath, but I know he : was in a similar band if it wasn't that particular group...     Yes, but Jeff also speaks out against listening to bands like Black Sabbath. He says they're into all sorts of satanic stuff. I don't know.
In article <Apr.21.03.25.41.1993.1322@geneva.rutgers.edu>   JBUDDENBERG@vax.cns.muskingum.edu (Jimmy Buddenberg) writes: >  > Hello all.  We are doing a bible study (at my college) on Revelations.  We > have been doing pretty good as far as getting some sort of reasonable > interpretation.  We are now on chapters 17 and 18 which talk about the > woman on the beast and the fall of Babylon.  I believe the beast is the > Antichrist (some may differ but it seems obvious) and the woman represents > Babylon which stands for Rome or the Roman Catholic Church.  What are some > views on this interpretation?  Is the falling Babylon in chapter 18 the same > Babylon in as in chapter 17?  The Catholic church? > Hate to step on toes. > thanks  An interesting interpretation of Revelation 17 and 18 has been given by   evangelist David Wilkerson.  I am not saying that I totally agree with his   interpretation, but it is certainly believable and good food for thought.  He   interprets the Babylon of Revelation 17-18 as being none other than the good   old U. S. of A.  That's right, America.  He supports his claim in several ways.    The Babylon of Revelation is THE world leader in trade and commerce, and the   WHOLE WORLD wept when Babylon fell.  The American dollar, despite the Japanese   success of the 20th century, is STILL the most sought after currency in the   world.  If the U.S. were destroyed, wouldn't the whole world mourn?  The bible   also talks about Babylon being a home of harlots, sin, and adultery (I am   paraphrasing, of course).  Babylon's sin affected, or should I say, infected,   the whole world.  It doesn't take much looking to see that the U.S. is in a   state of moral decay.  Hasn't the American culture and Hollywood spread the "do   it if it feels good" mentality all over the world.  I think, though, that what   Mr. Wilkerson uses as his strongest argument is the fact that Revelation calls   Babylon "Babylon the Great" and portrays it as the most powerful nation on   earth.  No matter how dissatisfied you are with the state of our country, I   don't think you would have too much trouble agreeing that the U.S. is STILL the   most powerful nation on earth.  Again, this interpretation is not NECESSARILY my own, but I do find it worthy   of consideration.
In article <May.5.02.53.10.1993.28880@athos.rutgers.edu> koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:  >.....................................................There is dis- >crepancy even among charismatic organizations as to the proper use >of tongues.  Be it revelatory with interpretation, for prayer use, >or for signifying believers (which I doubt since any one can do it). >Pentecostals (Assembly of God, Church of Christ), seem to espouse all >three.  Neo-pentecostals tend to view prayer use and as a sign as the >uses.  Speaking in tongues during a service is not usually done by >neo-pentecostals because for the most part, they still attend Protestant >churches.  Non-denominational churches seem to view the use as a sign >as merely optional, but recommended.  Koberg,  	Just a couple of minor corrections here...  	1)  The Churches of Christ do not usually believe in speaking in tongues, in fact many of them are known for being strongly opposed to Pentecostal teaching.  You are probably thinking of Church of God in Christ, the largest African-American Pentecostal denomination.  	2)  I'm not sure what you mean by "signifying believers"  but it should be pointed out that the Assemblies of God does not now, nor has it ever, held that speaking in tongues is the sign that one is a Christian.  The doctrine that traditional Pentecostals (including the A/G) maintain is that speaking in tongues is the sign of a second experience after becoming a Christian in which one is "Baptized in the Holy Spirit"  That may be what you were referring to, but I point this out because Pentecostals are frequently labeled as believing that you have to speak in tongues in order to be a Christian.  Such a position is only held by some groups and not the majority of Pentecostals.   Many Pentecostals will quote the passage in Mark 16 about "these signs following them that believe" but they generally do not interpret this as meaning if you don't pactice the signs you aren't "saved".  	3)  I know it's hard to summarize the beliefs of a movement that has such diversity, but I think you've made some pretty big generalizations here.  Do "Neo-Pentecostals" only believe in tongues as a sign and tongues as prayer but NOT tongues as revelatory with a message?  I've never heard of that before.  In fact I would have characterized them as believing the same as Pentecostals except less likely to see tongues as a sign of Spirit Baptism.  Also, while neo-Pentecostals may not be inclined to speak in tongues in the non-Pentecostal churches they attend, they do have their own meetings and, in many cases, a whole church will be charismatic.
In article <Apr.21.03.24.13.1993.1268@geneva.rutgers.edu>, gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary) writes: >[Anecedotal material which ultimately shows that...]  > but from my experience, > the modern Jew is not known for his proselytism.
In article <C4z5u3.Jxo@spss.com> luomat@alleg.edu writes: > >This may be a really dumb one, but I'll ask it anyways: >	Christians know that they can never live up to the requirements of   >God, right? (I may be wrong, but that is my understanding)  But they still   >try to do it.  Doesn't it seem like we are spending all of our lives   >trying to reach a goal we can never achieve?  I know that we are saved by   >faith and not by works, but does that mean that once we are saved we don't   >have to do anything?  I think James tells us that Faith without works is   >dead (paraphrase).  How does this work? > So long as we think that good things are what we *have* to do rather than what we come to *want* to do, we miss the point. The more we love God; the more we come to love what and whom He loves.  When I find that what I am doing is not good, it is not a sign to try even harder (Romans 7:14-8:2); it is a sign to seek God. When I am aware  of Jesus' presence, I usually want what He wants. It is His strenth, His love  that empowers my weakness.
[4) "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21.27). Therefore, babies are born in such a state that should they die, they are cuf off from God and put in hell, which is exactly the doctrine of St. Augustine and St. Thomas.  Of coures, having only original sins on thier souls, they suffer the lightest punishment, the loss of the vision oand presence of God, but that does not change the undeniable fact that they cannot possibly come to a forgivenss of original sin, nor can they inherit eternal life.  "That," as St. Augustine said, "Is what the Pelagian heretics taught."  Which is why he said later, "If you want to be a Christian, do not teach that unbaptized infants can come to a forgivenss of original sin."]
Please realize that I am frequently getting in trouble for straying from orthodoxy, but here is my opinion:  In article <Apr.17.01.10.58.1993.2246@geneva.rutgers.edu>, mdbs@ms.uky.edu (no name) writes: > ... Moreover the Buddha says that we are  > intrinsically good (as against Christ's "we are all sinners").  I never thought of these two ideas being "against" each other. People might quibble about what "intrinsically" means but the reason we are sinners is because we do not behave as good as we are. The message of Christ is that each of us are not only good, but great, that we can approach perfection, albeit perhaps through a  different technique than you claim Buddhism teaches. Because we do not realize our greatness, we sin. Peter had no problem walking  on water until a little doubt crept in.  Doesn't David ask in the 8th Psalm "what is man that you [God]  should care for him, but you have made him just a little lower  than the angels"?  I probably exagerate in my mind what a scrawny little kid David was, just as I probably exagerate what a gigantic monster Goliath was, but David's power easily defeated Goliath's.  Remember the rich young man who comes up to Jesus and asks what he can do to enter the Kingdom, Jesus says follow the commandments. I always picture the smug look on his face as he says he's done that his whole life, probably anticipating an "attaboy" from the  Messiah. Instead Jesus gives him a harder task, sell everything and follow Him. Jesus is raising the bar. The desciples say how can anyone do this if it's so hard even for rich people. Jesus says anyone can do it, with God's help.  Jesus says not only can we avoid killing people, we can avoid getting angry at people. Not only can we avoid committing adultery, we can control our own desires.   I realize this was not your main point, but I wonder how other people see this.   > ... > 	Parting Question: > 		Would you have become a Christian if you had not > been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about > any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim > you are brain washed.  (Please forgive any generalizations I am about to make.)  Your point about how "hard" other religions are is a good one, just  as your "Parting Question" is a tough question. I think that Muslims worship the same God as I do, we can learn from their name "submission". Hindus and Buddhists and Taoists, etc. claim that "God" is impersonal.  Is God personal or impersonal? I say yes, but if I think a little more my answer is whichever is greater. I think it is greater  to be a personal entity, with an individual consciousness, but you're right that that might be a cultural bias. If I think more I must admit that God's personal nature is as far beyond my conception as His impersonal nature is beyond the Hindu's conception. If somehow Jesus could fit into Hindu cosmology then maybe I wouldn't have a problem, though that is hard to imagine.  Are there any former (or present) "Eastern Religion" members here  who could comment?
I have a few minor problems with the article posted as proof of  Christ's resurrection.    First the scriptural quotations:  This sort of reasoning is such that if you beleive you are justified, if not then your beleif is in vain, so you might as well beleive.  Most of these quotations are of people who do beleive.  People who would try to justify their own positions.  Second the logical proof:  >quoted text... > >From: xx155@yfn.ysu.edu (Family Magazine Sysops) >Subject: WITNESS & PROOF OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION >Date: 11 Apr 93 05:01:19 GMT > >[much deleted] > >            4.  In nearly 20 centuries, no body has ever been >                produced to refute Jesus' assertion that He >                *would indeed* rise from the dead. > >            5.  The probability of being able to perpetrate such >                a hoax successfully upon the entire world for >                nearly 20 centuries is astronomically negative! >                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >...end quoted text   The period of time that has elapsed from the event growing larger does not increase the odds that a hoax would be discovered.  In fact the longer a hoax is perpetuated the stronger it becomes.  Finally:  There is no proof of the resurrection of Christ, except in our spirits communion with his, and the Father's.  It is a matter of FAITH, belief without logical proof.  Incedently one of the largest stumbling blocks for rational western man, myself included.