waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
>There is a paragraph in the New Testament which in my opinion, clearly makes >a positive inference to reincarnation. I don't remember which one it is off of >the top of my head, but it basically goes like this: Jesus is talking with the >apostles and they ask him why the pharisees say that before the messiah can  >come Elijah must first come. Jesus replies that Elijah has come, but they did  >not recognize him. It then says that the apostles perceived that he was refering  >to John the Baptist. This seems to me to clearly imply reincarnation.  This was a popular belief in the Judaism of Jesus` time, that Elijah would return again (as he had been taken in to heaven in a chariot and did not actually die).  However Jesus was referring to John the Baptist not in the sense that Elijah was reincarnated as John (remember Elijah didn`t die) but that John was a similar prophet to Elijah.  John was a fiery preacher, he wore sackcloth and wandered rough through Israel preaching the coming kingdom.  The verses that describe him (in Mark`s gospel) can be linked to OT references about Elijah.  Hence John was similar to Elijah and Jesus was drawing the parallels between the two just as he drew parallels with the Suffering Servant in Isaiah (and other messianic figures) and himself.  A brief reply but I don`t have time to look up all the relevant stuff.  Suffice to say there is a very strong explanation.    Rick.  ________________________________________________________________  Richard Johnston                             Queen`s University 73 Malone Road                               Belfast Belfast                                  Northern Ireland                           BT9 6SB
I wish to echo what D. Andrew Kille wrote.  I know of no published form in English of the D-type recension of "Acts".  Of course, Bezae is quite bizarre in the gospels as well.  Only D-type texts share Bezae's strange readings. 	[By the way, "D" stands for Codex Claromontanus elsewhere.] 					Frank D
Dishonest money dwindles away, but he who gathers money little by little makes it grow.  Proverbs 13:11
In article <Apr.2.02.36.53.1993.22906@athos.rutgers.edu> cathye@cs.uq.oz.au writes: >I am fairly new to this group.  >I was wondering about people's opinions on  >ethical uses of the net, and of technology in general.  the classic references in this area are Jacques Ellul for a liberal/evangelical perspective and Os Guiness for a straight evangelical view.  If you want to look at non-christian sources try Alvin Toffler as the perennial optimist.  His views while blatently non christian explore where technology may be going.  >For example, there are some chain letters going >around which claim to have been written by a Christian missionary, but >which present a misleading image of the Christian religion.   This is regardless of technology.  Be careful to separate the issues of related to speed and dispersion of technology (how far the letter went and how quickly it got there) and the message being passed in the technology (something that seems to be totally wrong.)  >How can we help to make best use of computer technology ?  When lecturing in this area I challenge my (non-christan/atheistic) class about the impact technology has on life, quality of life and the rights that they consider important.  Depending on how you work out your faith will determine your response to the use of technology.  For example friends of mine are considering IVF due to a life threatening situation the wife is going through; when it is over they will have the baby. (God willing).  In this case the technology is available and my friends have to decide what to do.  In all cases though you must decide if the technology is against God's revealed word.  Regards  David
> ...there is nothing in Christianity that precludes the idea of  > repeated lives on earth.
|JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:                                                 |Joe Moore writes:                                                      |                                                                       | > Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at            | > Lourdes.  She referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception.     | > Since a nine year old would have no way of knowing about the        | > doctrine, the apparition was deemed to be true and it sealed        | > the case for the doctrine.                                          |Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858,         |four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the       |Pope.                                                                  |                                                                       | Yours,                                                                | James Kiefer  I forgot exactly what her age was but I remember clearly that she was born in a family of poverty and she did not have any education, whatsoever, at the age of the apparitions. She suffered from asthma at that age and she and her family were living in a prison cell of some sort.  She had to ask the 'Lady' several times in her apparitions about  what her name was since her confessor priest asked her to do so.   For several instances, the priest did not get an answer since  Bernadette did not receive any.  One time, after several apparitions passed, The Lady finally said, "I am the Immaculate Conception". So, Bernadette, was so happy and repeated these words over and over in her mind so as not to forget it before she told the priest who was asking.  So, when she told the priest, the priest was shocked and asked Bernadette, "Do you know what you are talking about?".  Bernadette did not know what exactly it meant but she was just too happy to have the answer for the priest.  The priest continued with, "How did you remember this if you do not know?".  Bernadette answered honestly that she had to repeat it over and over in her mind while on her way to the priest...  The priest knew about the dogma being four years old then. But Bernadette did not know and yet she had the answer which the priest finally observed and took as proof of an authentic personal revelation of Our Lady to Bernadette.  (Note: This Lady of Lourdes shrine has a spring of water which our lady requested Bernadette to dig up herself with her bare hands in front of pilgrims.  At the start little water flowed but after several years there is more water  flowing.)
>He is hoping to pass a resolution that more or less states that we, the >members of the church "Agree to Disagree" on the issue, admitting that >both sides have honestly studied the Scriptures and had the Spirit lead >them to different conclusions.  It worked last year when the abortion >issue threatened to do more or less the same thing, and he is hopeful that >the GA can foster a loving and caring attitude about people who disagree >with their own view. > >-- >Cliff Slaughterbeck           |  > >people would not be willing to.  Note that the church was not willing >to live with this kind of compromise with ordination of women.  The >one thing that will definitely prevent a person from becoming a >Presbyterian minister is if they indicate that they don't accept >ordination of women.  The argument is that we can't have half the >church not accepting the leaders of the other half.  Maybe people will > --clh]  It might be interesting for folk to know that the Church of Scotland (also a Presbyterian church)  managed to "agree to disagree" over women's ordination for 25 years.  The reasoning was that congregations are free to call whoever they wish, and that Ministers and Sessions choose elders.  If a congregation did not wish to have a woman, they were not obliged to, and if a Session did not wish to, they could not be forced to.  (Note that the who issue of freedom to call on the part of the Congregation is VERY important here - this year is the 150th Annivarsary of the Disruption, where the church split on that very issue, they didn't get back together for almost 80 years).  A couple of years ago on the 25 anniversary of the allowing of womens ordination the position was changed - so that, in theory, all ministers and elders must recognise that women can be ordained.  In theory, a minister who refused to ordain a woman to his Session, or refused to work with a woman minister in Presbytery, could be disciplined.  In practice this has not happened, and I believe it is unlikely to happen.  My personal view is that the new legislation was a mistake, and that the permissive (but not prescriptive) legislation worked very well.    We are going to start going round the homosexual debate at next years assembly.  At this years, a motion was put to ban the blessing of same-sex couples (after an Edinburgh minister did so).  Our Panel on Doctrine is currently looking at marriage, and will report next year - the matter will be considered and debated then.  Hope this is interesting
Tim Rolfe writes:     without active participation.  If you know the Latin, one really    beautiful way to hear the Passion is it's being chanted by three    deacons:  the Narrator chants in the middle baritone range, Jesus chants    in the bass, and others directly quoted are handled by a high tenor.  I heard the Gregorian chant of the Passion on Good Friday.  In this liturgy, our Lord is definitely *very* sad.  It's as if He has resigned Himself to die for these poor pitiful creatures who are killing Him.
_MY ADVOCATE_  I sinned. And straightway, posthaste, Satan flew Before the presence of the Most High God And made a railing accusation there. He said, "This soul, this thing of clay and sod, Has sinned. 'Tis true that he has named Thy name; But I demand his death, for Thou hast said, 'The soul that sinneth, it shall die.' Shall not Thy sentence be fulfilled? Is justice dead? Send now this wretched sinner to his doom! What other thing can righteous ruler do?" Thus Satan did accuse me day and night; And every word he spoke, O  God, was true!  Then quickly One rose up from God's right hand, Before whose glory angels veiled their eyes; He spoke, "Each jot and tittle of the law Must be fulfilled; the guilty sinner dies! But wait -- suppose his guilt were all transferred To Me and that I paid his penalty! Behold My hands, My side, My feet! One day I was made sin for him and died that he Might be presented, faultless, at Thy throne!" And Satan flew away.  Full well he knew That he could not prevail against such love, for every word my dear Lord spoke was true!   					by Martha Snell Nicholson  +++++++++++++++++++++++ I heard this poem read last night and wanted to share it with other  subscribers of this newsgroup.  It's such a wonderful blessing to see how  secure our salvation is because the Lord Jesus paid for what He did not owe  because we had a debt which we were not capable to pay.  Thanks and praise be to the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is seated at  the right hand of the Majesty on High, making intercession for us. ++++++++++++++++++++++++
mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:  >I heard on the radio today about a Christian student conference where >Christians were called to "repent" of America's "national" sins, such >as sexual promiscuity.  >How can I repent of _someone else's_ sin?   I can't.  >And when I claim to "repent" of someone else's sin, am I not in fact >_judging_ him?  Jesus equipped us to judge activities but warned us >not to judge people. "Judge not that ye be not judged."  Strictly speaking, you're right - we can't repent _for_ somebody else, for what they've done.  I guess I don't think it's out of line to talk about a generalized repentence for our contribution to or participation in "The sins of society" , or for our tacit approval (by our silence) of sinful attitudes or practices....it may be that we're also just plain begging for mercy, hoping God will withhold his hand of judgement on our whole country for the sake of a few, much as Abraham sought to do for the sake of Lot.  (Hmmm, the results there were pretty cautionary...)  A few times lately when I've observed some either out-and-out sinful  activity, or just some self-destructive activity, I've gotten a strong impression that many folks really don't know any better.  Christ's pity on the crowds as being "like sheep without a shepherd" rings true to me. If these folks don't have a clue, do I bear _any_ responsibility for my not having communicated a better way?  Worse still; have I expressed  judgement and disgust at their doings, and thus alienated them from any  positive relationship whereby I might pass along anything positive?   I _know_ I've got something to repent about on that score.  Anyway, it's a real interesting question.
Ezek 22:26 God seems to be upset with the priests who have made no difference between the holy and the profane.  This brought to my mind a sermon I heard recently in which the speaker said "God's second name does not begin with a D" referring, I believe, to use of God's holy name and titles as swear words.  I was also reminded of the experience of Moses at the burning bush when God told him "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground."  These and other texts seem to imply that God's people must treat holy things differently from other "common" things, or "make a difference" between holy and common things.  The obvious questions are   What makes something holy? and How are Christians (primarily) supposed to make this difference between holy and common things?  (e.g. God's name, the Holy Spirit, the Holy Bible, etc.)
In article <May.11.02.37.07.1993.28120@athos.rutgers.edu>, dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose) writes: |> 	"Raised in Oakland and San Lorenzo by strict fundamentalist |> 	Christian parents, Mason was beaten as a child.  ...  |> Were the San Jose Mercury news to come out with an article starting with |> "Raised in Oakland by Mexican parents, Mason was beaten...", my face would  >Perhaps because there is a connection here that is not there in the Mexican >variant you bring up.  This is true. The statement didn't say anything about Christians in general. It specifically said "strict fundamentalist" Christians. It reflects a common perception that people have about fundamentalists being strict disciplinarians. Whether or not this perception is justified is another issue.
In article <May.7.01.08.49.1993.14485@athos.rutgers.edu> gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock) writes: >I am not against capital punishment.  I feel this way because God is not >only a God of love, but a God of justice.  As we Christians are the >instruments of His will here on earth, we are expected to be true to the >mandate given us by the Lord to judge the actions of our fellow man. > >My favorite Scriptural reference in this regard is Romans 13:1-7. > >       Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for >       there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have >       been established by God.   Therefore, whoever resists authority >       opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will >       bring judgment upon themselves. > >My views reflect the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. > I would say only to the extent that the Roman Catholic Church neither approves nor disapproves of capital punishment, as confirmed in the recent catechism, though there are many RCs who were rather surprised and upset that capital punishment was not explicitly condemned.  For myself, as a Catholic, I see my own opposition to capital punishment as much the same as my opposition to abortion - a reverence for life. Here in the UK, the anti-abortion case is often let down by the explicit link which those on the political left make with anti-abortionists and pro-executionists. There is a tendency to condemn people who hold both views as hypocrites. I feel that if there were many more anti-abortionists who were also vocal in their opposition to capital punishment on a pro-life line, it would end this kneejerk association of anti-abortion as a right-wing thing, and get many to think seriously about the issue (there are plenty who are pro-abortion equally for a kneejerk left-wing reason).  I do not think your biblical quote can automatically be taken as support for capital punishment. I take it that as a Roman Catholic you are opposed to abortion, and would still onsider it wrong, and something to be objected to even if legalised by "authority".
JEK@cu.nih.gov writes: >I wrote that the Apostle Paul, in Romans 9, speaks of God as >choosing Jacob over Esau, and adds that this is not as a result of >anything that either child had done, since they had not been born >yet.  It's my understanding that Romans 9:13 "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." refers not to the two individuals, but rather to their offspring, the tribe of Jacob and the tribe of Esau  See Obadiah, for example.  In fact, if you scan through the OT, you will find similar references to the two tribes.
I'm looking for the following article:  	``The War Within: an Anatomy of Lust'' 	Leadership 3 (1985), pp 30-48  I've looked in the libraries of 3 UK Bible Colleges, but none of them subscribe to the Magazine (its a US publication, btw). If anyone has access to this article and would be willing to post me a photocopy (I presume that copyright restrictions will allow this?), please e-mail me. Thanks,
: You might want to re-think your attitude about the Holocaust after : reading Deuteronomy chapter 28.  On the contrary, after the Holocaust, I would be _very_ cautious about my interpretatoin of Deuteronomy 28.  Not everything that happens is in accordance with God's will.  (You might guess which side of the predestination issue I am on.)  I will never _assume_ that evil is  punishment by God, especially when I am speaking of the evil that falls on _someone else_.  For my own life, I will work to discern the hand of God in the evil that befalls _me_.  See the discussion earlier on Luke 13.
scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes:     "Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently,     ....  My question is whether that statement is consistent with Christianity.    I would think not.     Hate begets more hate, never love. ....     In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our     neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate. In fact, if anything, he     commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves. ....     - Scott  I too dislike the phrase "Hate the sin, love the sinner".  Maybe the definite article is also part of the problem, since it seems to give us license to fixate on our brother's peculiar pecadillo which we have managed to escape by a common grace of heredity, economic situation, or culture.  Our outrage at evil is too often just a cheap shot.  That said, I don't think Scott has adequately explored the flip side of this coin, namely the love of righteousness.  In the Beatitudes, Jesus blessed those who hungered and thirsted for righteousness.  In the New Testament, it is never enough just to behave well, one should always actively desire and work for the cause of good.  In that sense, it should be impossible to remain dispassionate about evil and its victims, even when these are its accomplices as well.  Maybe "mourn sin, love sinners" catches the idea slightly better than "hate", but only slightly, since grief usually implies a passive powerless position.  A balanced Christian response needs grief, love, and carefully measured, constructive anger.  Jesus has all three.  The European pietists during WWII whose response to Nazi atrocities was devoid of anger do not fare well as role models, however much love or grief they exemplified.  My sister is an actress in New York and a Christian.  A few years back, Jack, her long-time professional friend and benefactor, died of AIDS, impoverished by medical bills, estranged from his family, and abandoned by most of his surviving friends.  Only my sister and brother-in-law were there with him at the very end.  In her grief over Jack's death, my sister found quite a few targets for anger: callous bureaucracies, the rigid self-protective moralism of Jack's family, the inertia in Christians' response to AIDS, and, yes, even Jack's own lapse in morality that eventually cost him his life.  Jack himself shared that last anger.  Brought up with strong Christian values, he was contrite over his brief dalliance with promiscuous sex long before his AIDS appeared.  (I imply no moral judgement here about Jack's innate sexual orientation, n.b.)  Maybe the hardest job is making our anger constructive.
"Alan" == E Alan Idler <aidler@sol.uvic.ca> writes:  Alan> 2.  We can also analyze to whom the Lord is addressing: "Marvel Alan> not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (John 3:7). Alan> Here Jesus is clearly directing his remarks to Nicodemus -- a Alan> ruler of the Jews (not a child).  Yes, but Jesus also made a very general and doctrinal statement in the same conversation:  "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." (John 3:6)  Clearly infants are not born of the spirit.  Thus, without baptism they are unspiritual.  They are not born with the image of God, but in Adam's fallen image (cf. Gen 5:3).  They have no righteousness of their own, just as adults have no righteousness of their own.  There is only the imputed righteousness of Christ, which believers receive through faith.  Alan> 3.  We can ask ourselves why the Lord would even introduce the Alan> concept of spiritual re-birth through baptism if newborn babies Alan> weren't free from sin?  Your point is a little obscure here, but I think you are saying that Christ used the "innocence" of newborn babes as a metaphor for spiritual re-birth.  But this is not what he did. If you look at the text, he did not speak of spiritual re-birth but of spiritual birth.  We are born of the Spirit once, not twice or several times. We are also born of the flesh once.  The Lord makes it clear that these are separate and different events. It is true that other Scriptures refer to spiritual birth as re-birth because it is a second birth (for example, Titus 3:5).  But it is not a second *spiritual* birth.  The only thing the two births have in common is the concept of birth, which is used as a symbol of `new life' -- not of innocence.  When an infant is born (or conceived) a new life is begun--but it is neither innocent nor righteous.  Similarly when that same individual is baptized, or perhaps when they believe prior to baptism, they begin a new life in Christ (Romans 6:3, Colossians 2:12, Titus 3:5, Ephesians 2:5).  Then the believer has God's assurance of the forgiveness of their sins, and of Christ's imputed righteousness.  For references, see  	The Augsburg Confession Article II, Original Sin,  	The Apology to the Augsburg Confession,  		Article II, Original Sin,  	the Formula of Concord, Article I, Original Sin, and  	Luther's Large Catechism, Part 4, Baptism.    For something more recent, see "Baptized into God's Family: The Doctrine of Infant Baptism" by Andrew Das, available from Northwestern Publishing House.  Andrew is a graduate of Concordia Lutheran Seminary, St. Louis, and is now pursuing doctoral studies at Yale Divinity School.
In article <May.7.01.09.04.1993.14501@athos.rutgers.edu> easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet writes: >Hello all, >     I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago >that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven >because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot >find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it >originate? >Wondering, >Eddie
In article <Apr.10.05.32.47.1993.14396@athos.rutgers.edu>,  whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt) writes:  |> As for the dating of the oldest extant texts of the NT....  How would |> you feel about the US Civil War in a couple of thousand years if the |> only extant text was written about *now*?  Now adjust for a largely |> illiterate population, and one in which every copy of a manuscript is |> done by hand....  Considerably better than I feel about, say, the Punic Wars, or the  Peloponnesian War (spelling optional), or almost any other event in  classical history.  How close to the events do you think the oldest  extent manuscripts are in those cases?