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.
Cannibalism? Can you clarify this?
Some – arguable many – people with in the Church do not adhere to the Bible; the Church is Christ’s and the core of true, that is, orthodox, believers compose the true Church – in every denomination.
Which Books of the Gospel do you reject?
So you don't accept the concept of transubstantiation as true?
Which Books of the Gospel do you reject?
True. Just as the other major Christian denominations (especially in this country) are all PROTESTANT.
"This differs from the 20,000 plus churches which each divulge a different doctrine based on interpretation."
You really don't appear to know what you are talking about here. As a life long protestant, I have at various times been a member of Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Methodist-Presbyterian, and Non-denominational Protestant churches. That isn't because I am searching for a denomination with a "doctrine" I support. I've belonged to all those different churches because I move regularly, and all major Protestant denominations are so "doctrinely" similar, I feel very comfortable in any of them. But the simple fact of the matter is, church "doctrine" plays such a minor role in Protestant Christianity, most Protestant's couldn't describe the "doctrine" of their prefered denomination if you begged them to. While Catholics study their church catechism, Protestants study the Bible. I was raised a Lutheran, but could tell you a lot more about the Apostles than I could about Luther. I would imagine Luther wouldn't have it any other way.
ALL Catholic Churches share the same doctrines. That is what unites them together as the "One, Holy, Catholic Church". There are no differences other than in the liturgy.
As does almost every Protestant denomination. In fact, most Protestant denominations and the Catholic church share the doctrine as expressed in either the Nicene and/or Apostles Creed. As we've discussed before, there are more similarities between Protestant Christianity and Catholic Christianity than there are differences. And there are vastly more similarities between Protestant denominations than differences. It is ironic that the same people who decry the divisions inside Christ's Church are usually the same people who try to bludgeon every faith but their own with comments about why their church is superior. (that is not a comment I'd direct at you)
"There are no differences other than in the liturgy."
You say that like it is some small thing. In my mind, it is. But based on the very heated posts between Catholics on these threads concerning which liturgy is the "true" liturgy, it obviously matters to many.
I don't know there are any that I do reject. Do you accept as fact transubstantiation?
Thats funny, because I was a protestant for most of my life. the Methodists believe that baptism does not produce sanctifying grace within the soul, while the Baptists do not believe in infant baptism, and the seventh day-adventists believe that we should worship on sat. instead of sun. The fact that Protestants cannot explain their own beliefs is sad.
Ohh so now are you going to argue the meaning of "is", like Clinton?
No. What is sad is that without church doctrine, you appear lost. I can explain my beliefs very clearly without relying on church doctrine. As I've stated before, church doctrine has very little to do with my faith. Reading your comments, I can understand why you've become Catholic. That is good for you.
I amend first sentence : First the other rites (including the Roman Rite) are Catholic.
John 15:1 I am the true vine...
You do not believe Christ is a literal vine, do you?
But you do believe that a piece of bread is literally the flesh of Christ?
Is there a reason that the first two examples should be taken as metaphors, while the third should not?
Then you accept the Bible as fact? You believe what you read in the Bible?
What is sad is the many errant who lost try to justify the dissenting wide path by attacking the narrow -His Church...
John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66). This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.
Sure Jesus spoke in metaphors sometimes. But not in John 6 when he spoke about eating his Body and drinking his Blood. This is certain because He Himself rejected a metaphoric interpretation of what he was saying. The context itself reveals this.
In John 6 we find that many of his disciples took him literally and therefore walked away in disillusionment. They knew full well that when he said "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood...", he was speaking LITERALLY. They even complained about it: "This is a hard saying" and at a minimum got the drift: "...how can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Nor does Jesus reassure them or dismiss their complaints or insist he was speaking figuratively--he does just the opposite. John, in fact, switches from the Greek word for "eating," which is "phago", to the Greek word "trogo" which literally means to "gnaw or chew." In other words, he was making sure the meaning could not be misunderstood--and he uses the word for "chew" four times, a term not in any way subject to any metaphoric interpretation!
Those who refuse this literal meaning--a meaning which was understood by the earliest Christians as literal--are behaving exactly like the disciples who left Jesus, shocked and disillusioned. Only rather than walk away, they prefer to deliberately misinterpret what he has said, denying its clear intent.
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.