waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
I appreciate if anyone can point out some good books about the dead sea scrolls of Qumran. Thanks in advance.
for SRC  In most languages, the Feast of the Resurrection of Our Lord is known as the PASCH, or PASQUE, or some variation thereof, a word which comes from the Hebrew PESACH, meaning "Passover." In English, German, and a few related languages, however, it is known as EASTER, or some variation thereof, and questions have been asked about the origin of this term.  One explanation is that given by the Venerable Bede in his DE RATIONE TEMPORUM 1:5, where he derives the word from the name of an Anglo-Saxon goddess of Spring called EASTRE. Bede is a great scholar, and it is natural to take his word for it. But he lived 673-735, and Augustine began preaching in Kent in 597. The use of the word EASTER to describe the Feast would have been well established before the birth of Bede and probably before the birth of anyone he might have discussed the subject with. It seems likely that his derivation is just a guess, based on his awareness that there had been an Anglo-Saxon goddess of Spring bearing that name, and the resemblance of the words. Thus, if the said resemblance (surely it is not surprising that a personification of Spring should have a name similar to the word for Dawn) is not in istelf convincing, the testimony (or rather the conjecture) by Bede does not make it more so.  Assuming that Bede was right, that would not justify saying that the Christian celebration (which, after all, had been going on for some centuries before the name EASTER was applied to it) has pagan roots. It would simply mean that the Anglo-Saxons, upon becoming Christians and beginning to celebrate the Resurrection by a festival every spring, called it by the name that to them meant simply "Spring Festival."  However, Bede's is not the only theory that has been proposed.  J Knoblech, in "Die Sprach," ZEITSCHRIFT FUER SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT 5 (Vienna, 1959) 27-45, offers the following derivation:  Among Latin-speaking Christians, the week beginning with the Feast of the Resurrection was known as "hebdomada alba" (white week), since the newly-baptized Christians were accustomed to wear their white baptismal robes throughout that week. Sometimes the week was referred to simply as "albae." Translaters rendering this into German mistook it for the plural of "alba," meaning "dawn." They accordingly rendered it as EOSTARUM, which is Old High German for "dawn." This gave rise to the form EASTER in English.   Yours,  James Kiefer
In article <May.6.00.34.49.1993.15418@geneva.rutgers.edu> marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:  > [ citing article <May.2.09.50.21.1993.11782@geneva.rutgers.edu> > mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) }  > I have a simple test. I take several people who can speak > only one language (e.g. chinese, russian, german, english). > Then I let the "gifted one" start "speaking in toungues". > The audience should understand the "gifted one" clearly > in their native language. However, the "gifted one" can > only hear himself speaking in his own language. > Works everytime. 8-)  This thread si starting to get really silly. Such nonsense do not belong in s.r.c and it really hurts me to read some of the posts on this issue.  We chose to believe whetever we want, but we are not allowed to define our own Christianity. we see in parts. If you see something that I do not see, or vice versa, it does not give me the right to play jokes on your belief!  There is no wonder that your "miracle" does not work. You designet it yourself, and even if you were able to collect a group of people like the one you describe, I see no reason why your "miracle" should really happen. God is the one who does miracles, not humans!  After all we are all on the same way, or at least, we are all headed for the same goal, following different paths. Remember that we are going to spend eternity together. If I can not stand your view here on earth, how can I possibly stand spending eternity together with you?  Tongues is a question of belief. Not wether you believe in Jesus, but if you believe that He is able to give you this gift. Just as any other of the gifts mentioned in the Bible. But there is no evidence in the Bible that people who do not accept these gifts are in any way better than others.  > Perhaps I would believe the "gifted ones" more if they were > glorifying God rather than themselves. Then perhaps we'd > witness a real miracle.  Maybe some of the people who have received spiritual gifts are more interested in glorifying themselves than glorifying God, I don't know. But if this is the case, it still does not suggest that the gifts are faked.  In the Bible you will find that Jesus did not always do miracles. He said that "I do nothing, except what my father tells me." Perhaps it woulkd be for the best of all if we where all able to live by that example!  In Him, Bjorn
From the June newsletter of the Latin Liturgy Association:  There is a new e-mail discussion group: LATIN-L, a forum for people interested in classical Latin, medieval Latin, Neo-Latin; the languages of choice are Latin (of course) and whatever vulgar languages you feel comfortable using.  Please be prepared to translate on request.  The field is open -- name your topic!  In order to subscribe, BITNET users should send an interactive message of the form "TELL LISTSERV@PSUVM SUB LATIN-L [your name]".  INTERNET users should send a message (without a subject line) to the address LISTSERV@PSUVM.PSU.EDU.  The message should read "SUB LATIN-L [your name]".  Once subscribed, one may participate by sending messages to LATIN-L@PSUVM or LATIN-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU.
In article <Apr.12.03.42.49.1993.18778@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes: >I would like to see Christians devote a bit less effort to _bashing_ >paganism and more to figuring out how to present the Gospel to pagans. > >Christ is the answer; the pagans have a lot of the right questions. >Unlike materialists, who deny the need for any spirituality. > >  	One of the things I find intersting about pagan beliefs is their belief in a feminine deity as well as a masculine deity. Being brought up in a Christian household, I often wondered if there was God the Father, where was the mother? Everyone I know who has a father usually as a mother. It just seemed rather unbalanced to me.  	Fortunately, my own personal theology, which will probably not fall into line with a lot others, recognized God as a being both without gender and posessing qualities of both genders, as being both a masculine and feminine force. It provides a sense of balance I find sorely lacking in most theologies, a lack which I think is responsible for a lot of the unbalanced ways in which we see the world and treat each other.
Jesus was born a Jew.  We have biblical accounts of both his mother's ancestry and his father's, both tracing back to David.  It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that Jesus was Semitic. 	As an interesting aside, Jesus' being semitic makes him neither "white" nor "black," and in some sense underscores the point made earlier that his color was not important, it was his message, his grace, and his divinity that we should concentrate on. 	Finally, I would direct anyone interested in African involvement in the church to the account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts chapter 9 (I think it's chapter 9).  This is one of the earliest conversions, and the eunuch, treasurer to the queen of the Ethiopians, was definitely African.  Because "Ethiopia" at that time indicated a region just south of Egypt, many also speculate that this man was not only the first African Christian, but the first black Christian as well.   God bless, Charles Campbell
In article <Apr.9.01.09.22.1993.16580@athos.rutgers.edu> munns@cae.wisc.edu (Scott Munns) writes: >Eventually, we got around to how >we should pray in Jesus' name.  Then, an excellent question came up, one >that I don't have a real answer to.  The question was, "If we need to pray >in Jesus' name, what about the people before Jesus?  They prayed to God >and he listened then, in spite of their sins.  Why can't it be the same >way now?"  	"And in that day you will ask Me no question.  Truly, truly, I say to  	you, if you shall ask the Father for anything, He will give it to you  	in my name.  Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask, and  	you will receive, that your joy may be made full." 				-John 16:23-24  I don't believe that we necessarily have to say " . . . In Christ's name.   Amen," for our prayers to be heard, but it glorifies the Son, when we  acknowledge that our prayer is made possible by Him.  I believe that just as  those who were saved in the OT, could only be saved because Jesus would one day reconcile God to man, He is the only reason their prayers would be heard by  God.  	For all of us have become like one who is unclean, 	And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; 	And all of us wither like a leaf, 	and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. 				-Isaiah 64:6, NAS  Our prayers like the rest of our deeds are too unholy to go directly to the Father because they are tainted by our sin.  Only by washing these prayers with Christ's blood are they worthy to be lifted to to the Father.  	"First, I thank my God through Christ Jesus . . ." 				-Romans 1:8, NAS  Some scholars believe that this is Paul recognizing that even his thanks are  too unholy for the Father. 	Basically, prayer is a gift of grace, I believe that only through Jesus do our prayers have any power; thus, praying in His name glorifies and praises  Jesus for this beautiful and powerful gift He has given us.
Hi,    What presentation package would you recommend for a Bible teacher?    I've checked out Harwards Graphics for Windows. I think its more suitable for sales people than for preachers or Bible teachers to present an outline of a message.     I'm looking for one that: *  is great for overhead projector slides. *  has or imports clip arts *  works with Word for Windows or imports Word for Windows files. *  works with inkjet printers    If you know of any that meets part or all of the above, please let me know. Please email your response as I don't keep up with the newsgroup.
In article <Apr.23.02.55.31.1993.3123@geneva.rutgers.edu>   tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes: > 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.  excellent question timothy. i hpoe the answers you get will be satisfactory   as we can not understand the mind of god. but to attempt to answer you   clearly. GOD of the Bible has given us humans relativly little about how he   intends to judge mankind. the first test is those who have beleived that Jesus   Christ is the Son of GOD and that his death and resurrection was sufficent to   serve justice for all the acts we commit that are wrong in the eyes of god,   the bible calls this sin. for those who die before the end of the world/have   already died it is more complicated to explain without lapsing in to cliche.   God must judge people on the baasis of their works in this world. however   there is no plus and minus system for GOD. he has declared that he can not   tolerate spiritual imperfection, thus he can only based your worthiness to   live with him on the wrong in your life.    Good people, yes even Christians are going to constantly sin before GOD, The   Christian hoever thanks GOD that Christ has given his life for his sin's   penalty. the proscribed punishment for sin is death, just as the proscribed   punishment for robbery is time in jail. God then cannot ask for anything but   punishement for those sins. He does not want to condem. the Bible says in John   3:17, that God did not send his son in to the word to condem it but that   through him it might be saved." when i realize that i have sinned, and i do   with painful regularity, i must approach GOD and ask him to not hold thew sin   against me, i have that right and privlige only because of Christ. as for Jews   they are promised that they must believe on the Messiah who would come, and   dis come in Jesus of Nazereth. Muslims, i fear have been given a lie from the   fater of lies, Satan. They need Christ as do us all.   for those who don't have that right, in the view of the bible they stand   olone in their defense. are you going to hell? i can not answer that for you.   i can only say that perhaps it is eaiser to ask and answer how can i not go to   Hell? that step is much more rewarding.  stan toney stoney@oyster.smcm.edu my opinions are my own, you may borrow them
True.  Also read 2 Peter 3:16  Peter warns that the scriptures are often hard to understand by those who are not learned on the subject.
In article <May.16.01.56.47.1993.6695@geneva.rutgers.edu>, wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (Bill Hovingh, LPTS Student) writes: |> scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes: |> > "Hate the sin but love the sinner" [...] My question is whether that |> > statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not. |>  |> I'm very grateful for scott's reflections on this oft-quoted phrase.  Could |> someone please remind me of the Scriptural source for it?   It's not scriptural, but comes from the patristic age, I think: something about "amare errantem, interficere errorem", which sounds more like "love the errant, slay the error".  No doubt someone else  will know in particular who minted the phrase.  If I had to guess, I'd blame :-)  St Augustine, who seems to have had a gift for aphorism.
I've been thinking about the idea that was raised (by Michael Covington,  I think) that words mean what we think they mean, regardless of  etymology.  I've been reflecting on what certain words meant in my  childhood and tracing how this shaped some of my attitudes.   I grew up in a home where Christ was a bad word.  People who were very  angry said it.  The word Christian meant someone who was not a Jew.  It  carried connotations of otherness, of threat, of enemy.  It took some  time to figure out that there was a connection between `Christ' and  `Christian'.  When I accepted Jesus, I expected to be disowned.  To  become a Christian meant to join the enemy.  I knew others would  consider me a traitor.  At some level, I agreed, but was still prepared  to pay this price.  Like Esau, I sold my birthright.  However, I made a  better bargain.  He only got some stew, but I got the incomparable  riches of knowing Christ.  As it turned out, my parents did not disown me.  I found out later that  they were hoping it was a phase that I would grow out of.  By the time  they had decided it wasn't a phase, they were sort of used to it.  They  didn't disown me but they didn't completely accept the situation either.   For example, they didn't come to my wedding because it was in a church.    When I visited my grandmother in the hospital a few days before her  death, she said to me, "As far as I'm concerned, you still are a Jew."  What she meant was that she loved me and forgave me.  But I am not a  Jew.  I am a Christian.  (I'll concede, one that likes chicken soup with  matzoh balls.:-))   I do not keep kosher.  I do not celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday.  My  sons are not circumcised.  But these things are true of some people who  do consider themselves Jews.  It is not these rules that make people  Jews; it is the heritage from the past.  I gave up the past.  This is why I find it hard to relate to Messianic Jews.  Their  experience is unlike mine.  They still consider themselves Jews while  following Jesus.  Some would even say that I *must* do so, too.    I am at a stage of my life now where I would like to have a heritage.   It was not something I valued very much when I gave it.  But I did have  a sense that I was giving it for God.  It may have been a small  sacrifice.  It may have been an unnecessary sacrifice.  But I gave it  and do not want to ask for it back.  And while I don't have the heritage I was born with, I do have another.   I am an outcast from the house of Israel, but I am a member of the  Church.  One of the things I like about being a Catholic Christian is  that it is rich in tradition.  It gives me a feeling of, once again,  being rooted in the past.   This is probably one of the reasons why I don't like it when people mess  around with Christian traditions (for example, changing the name of  Easter).  These traditions fill an important emotional need of mine.  I suppose the point of all this is that people shouldn't assume that all  believers of Jewish background are the same.  For some `Jewish  Christian' is a good name, for others it is an oxymoron.
I read somewhere that Kurt Goedel argued that the ontological argument for God's existence was logically reasonable (or something to that effect).  Does anyone know if this is true, and have a citation?  Thanks.
In article <Apr.13.00.08.47.1993.28427@athos.rutgers.edu>, hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes) writes: >  > Say, for example, there are people living on a volcanic island, and a group  > of geologists determine that a volcano is imminent. They warn the people on  > the island that they are in danger, and should leave. A group of people on  > the island is given the task of warning others of the danger. >  > They believe the danger is real, but others may not.  >  > Does that mean that the first group are NECESSARILY arrogant in warning  > others of the danger? Does it mean that they are saying that their beliefs  > are correct, and all others are false?  But what if the geologists are wrong and these people are warning of a non-existent danger?  Analogies can only push an argument so far (on both sides).  Both Melinda's and yours assume the premises used to set up your respective analogies are true and thus the correct conclusion will arise.  The important point to note is the different directions both sides come from. Christians believe they know the TRUTH and thus believe they have the right (and duty) to tell the TRUTH to all.    Christians can get offended if others do not believe (what is self-evidently to them) the TRUTH. Non-christians do not believe this is the TRUTH and get offended at them because they (christians) claim to know the TRUTH.  (BTW this argument goes for anyone, I am not just bagging christians)  Neither side can be really reconciled unless one of the parties changes their mind.  As Melinda pointed out, there is no point in arguing along these lines because both approach from a different premise.  A more useful line of discussion is WHY people believe in particular faiths.  Personally, I don't mind what anyone believes as long as they allow me mine and we can all live peacefully.  > Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
> I've just read Carol's response and I just had to get into this.  I've > got some verses which are not subject to interpretation because they say                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > what they say.     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Joe, just 'cause you say they aren't subject to interpretation doesn't necesarily make it so.  That's *your* *interpretation* of these texts.  > They are 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and > Galatians 1:11-12.    2 Peter 1:20-21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter  of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.  The study notes in my Bible offer three possible meanings for verse 20. Apparantly it's not as clear to Charles Ryrie as it is to you.  2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.  Galations 1:11-12 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.  For I neither received it from man,  nor was I taught it, but I receieved it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.  When I read these passages, it was not immediately clear to me what every phrase meant.  I had stop and think about the possible connotations of words, what the intent of the author may have been, wonder if the translator used the correct English word to convey the  same meaning: I had to interpret.  If you want to believe that your  are not interpreting Scripture as you read, there's probably nothing  I can say to change your mind.  But I think it's naive to think that  our culture, experiences, education, do not affect everything we read.  > Also, based on the fact that Jesus is the Word incarnate and he judges > people if they follow him (see Acts 17:29-31 and John 5:21-27) and that > those who reject Jesus' teachings are judged by the very words he spoke > (see John 12:47-50), then Jesus' words are true and do not need > interpretation, nor would it be just of God to judge based on his word > if it had to be interpreted.  In college, I took an entire course in Biblical interpretation.  Go to any Christian bookstore, there are scores of books on interpreting and understanding Scripture.  If interpretation is unnecessary, there are  an awful lot of misguided Christians out there wasting a lot of time  and energy on it.
>  I'm concerned about a recent posting about WBT/SIL.  I thought they'd >pretty much been denounced as a right-wing organization involved in >ideological manipulation and cultural interference, including Vietnam >and South America. A commission from Mexican Academia denounced them in >1979 as " a covert political and ideological institution used by the >U.S. govt as an instrument of control, regulation, penetration, espionage and >repression." >  My concern is that this group may be seen as acceptable and even >praiseworthy by readers of soc.religion.christian. It's important that >Christians don't immediately accept every "Christian" organization as >automatically above reproach. >  >                                                                  mp  Good heavens, you mean my good friend Wes Collins, who took his wife and two  small children into the jungles of Guatemala, despite dangers from primitive  conditions and armed guerillas, so that the indigenous people groups their  could have the Bible in their native languages--the young man who led Bible  studies in our church, who daily demonstrated and declared his deep abiding  faith in the Lord of Love--you mean he really was a sneaky imperialistic *SPY*  whose _real_ reason for going was to exploit and oppress the ignorant and  unsuspecting masses?  Imagine my surprise!  I never would have thought it of  him.  How was this terrible deceit discovered?  What exactly was the "cultural  interference" they were caught committing?  Attempting to persuade the locals  that their ancestral gods were false gods, and their sacrifices (including  human sacrifices in some cases) were vain?  Destroying traditional lifestyles  by introducing steel tools, medical vaccines, and durable clothes?  Oh and by  the way, who did the denouncing?  I am terribly shocked to hear that my friend Wes, who seemed so nice, was  really such a deceitful tool of the devil.  Please provide me with specific  documentation on this charge.  There is some risk that I may not believe it  otherwise.