Posted on 01/29/2005 6:12:28 AM PST by NYer
Hamilton, Ontario, Jan. 28, 2005 (CNA) - Canadian archaeologist Russell Adams, a professor at McMaster University has recently unearthed evidence, which helps to show the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Professor Adams and his team of colleagues have found information that points to the existence of the Biblical Kingdom of Edom existing at precisely the time Scripture claims it existed.
The evidence flies in the face of a common belief that Edom actually came into existence at least 200 years later.
According to the Canadian Globe and Mail, the group’s findings “mean that those scholars convinced that the Hebrew Old Testament is at best a compendium of revisionist, fragmented history, mixed with folklore and theology, and at worst a piece of outright propaganda, likely will have to apply the brakes to their thinking.”
The Kingdom of Edom, mentioned throughout the Old Testament, and a continuous source of hostility for Biblical Israel, is thought to have existed in what is now southern Jordan.
The group made their discovery while investigating a copper mining site called Khirbat en-Nahas.
According to the Globe and Mail, radiocarbon dating of their finds, “firmly established that occupation of the site began in the 11th century BC and a monumental fortress was built in the 10th century BC, supporting the argument for existence of an Edomite state at least 200 years earlier than had been assumed.”
The evidence is also said to suggest that the Kingdom existed at the same time David, who scripture recounts as warring with Edom, was king over Israel.
Timothy did, St Paul specified a celibate one for those who were able, married if not. You keep ignoring that section of the Holy Writ in your campaign of lies. Why?
Yeah he was of the "old school" and would be spinning in his grave if he saw what the current crop of flaming liberals occuping the robes are like these days..
Yeah Bishop Sheen was a successor in my book..
You realize Bp. Sheen would be horrified at the lies you've told about his Church here, right?
Catholic is the Universal Church, Catholic = Christian. Our Lord founded ONE CHURCH.
Your lies are spilled all over this thread. You lie again and again about the Catholic Church.
When you claim "they have been making up doctrine that is contrary to what can be documented by Biblical references..", you LIE. Get it?
The Church came out in 1995 against all capital punishment for people convicted of capital crimes, on the contrary, the Bible specifies capital punishment in many places, and there is nothing to support the churches present day stand against it.... this is just a liberal notion as doctrine by the liberal clergy that is contrary to the Bible...
I am not Catholic but I will definately bump your rebuke of a narrow minded church basher.
"The Church came out in 1995 against all capital punishment for people convicted of capital crimes,..."
A lie. The Catechism of the Catholic Church did no such thing.
How do the actions of an individual translate into the Universal Church?
The Universal Church teaches, from Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition that homosexual acts are wrong. The Church also teaches that adultery is wrong. How many divorced and remarried pastors exist in whatever primitive, unorganized church you attend?
Again, you lie about what the Christian Church teaches and use the scandals of men to tar and lie about the Church. You endanger your own soul with such wilfull slanders.
"Tell them that Martin Luther will have it so."
Wrong Wrong wrong:
Intervention by H.E. Archbishop Renato R. Martino
Apostolic Nuncio, Permanent Observer
of the Holy See to the United Nations
before the Third Committee
of the 54th Session of the General Assembly
on Item 116A
Abolition of the Death Penalty
New York, 2 November 1999
Mr. Chairman,
For over two decades the international community has pursued the issue of restricting and abolishing the death penalty. The need for a moratorium on the death penalty is gaining momentum, as is reflected in the recent resolution adopted by the Commission on Human Rights ( 1999/61 ) of 28 April 1999. The Holy See Delegation welcomes the initiative for a resolution, under item 116a, on the reduction and possible abolition of the death penalty, and expresses its appreciation to all who contributed to this initiative.
The right to life is an inalienable right of every human person. Hence the present draft-resolution under discussion should be understood as a strong affirmation of the dignity of the human person and the sacredness and inviolability of human life. The international instruments on which this draft-resolution is based are, in fact, binding expressions of - and not substitutes for - this fundamental principle of the inviolability and sacredness of human life.
The position of the Holy See, therefore, is that authorities, even for the most serious crimes, should limit themselves to non-lethal means of punishment, as these means "are more in keeping with the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person" (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2267). States have at their disposal today new possibilities for "effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself.» (Cf. John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, n. 56).
It is well-known that Pope John Paul II has personally intervened on numerous occasions to appeal for clemency for individuals sentenced to death. He has appealed for a moratorium on recourse to the death penalty, at least on the occasion of the forthcoming Jubilee Year. On 27th January of this year in St Louis, he said:
"A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is cruel and unnecessary".
All too often, in many societies, the carrying out of the death penalty is accompanied by unacceptable public signs of frightening vengeance and revenge. All too often it is persons who are poor or who belong to ethnic minorities who are more likely to incur this penalty. Even young people and people with limited mental capacity are executed. How many innocent people have been wrongly executed?
Mr. Chairman,
Let me say clearly: anyone whose life is terminated in a gas chamber, by hanging, by lethal injection or by a firing squad is one of us - a human person, a brother or sister, however cruel and inhumane his or her actions may appear.
Criminal activity demands effective punishment. But there is no definitive evidence to support the belief that the death penalty reduces the likelihood of capital crimes being committed. Populist exploitation of feelings of fear or insecurity is no substitute for hard evidence. Crime will be overcome significantly by comprehensive policies of moral education, of effective police work and by addressing the root causes of criminality. Punishment should be secure and proportionate to the crime, but should also be directed at restoring the criminal, wherever possible, to being a constructive member of society.
Mr. Chairman,
At the dawn of a new millennium, it is befitting that humanity becomes more humane and less cruel. At the end of a century which has seen unimaginable atrocities against the dignity of the human person and his or her inviolable rights, giving serious consideration to the abolition of the death penalty will be a remarkable undertaking for humanity.
Abolition of the death penalty, laudable though it is, is only one step towards creating a deeper respect for human life. If millions of budding lives are eliminated at their very roots, and if the family of nations can take for granted such crimes without a disturbed conscience, the argument for the abolition of capital punishment will become less credible. Will the international community be prepared to condemn such a culture of death and advocate a culture of life? Human life demands protection and deserves respect. That protection and respect should be upheld at all stages of human life and everywhere in the world.
Mr. Chairman,
The discussion on restricting and abolishing the death penalty demands of States a new awareness of the sacredness of life and the respect it deserves. It demands courage to say "no" to killing of any kind, and it requires the generosity to provide perpetrators of even the most heinous crimes the chance to live a renewed life envisioned with healing and forgiveness. In doing so there is sure to be a better humanity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yep - thgose are OPINIONS of individuals, NOT formal dogmatic teachings of the Universal Church.
Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason, the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.
If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means.
Catechism 2266-67
The foregoing was definately Catholic and totally non-Biblical
Well, there are C-sections as well as traditional births; and of course traditional births may be in the backseat of a taxi, in a holistic birthing environment with midwife, or a cold, clinical hospital setting.
So maybe there are different ways of being "born again" too.
Cheers!
Wrong on BOTH COUNTS hillbilly.
What part of the OPINIONS posted by you are NOT congruent with the MERCY shown by Our Lord? "Go and Sin No More" He told the adulterous women.
The formal teaching of the Church is, and has always been, that under very specific circumstances, the Death Penalty is moral and licit. It is NOT mandantory, nor should it be.
Any more LIES?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.