Archeologist finds evidence of Old Testament Validity

Catholic News Agency ^ | January 28, 2005

[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.

[eastsider]

"Smokey Back Room"

[Rokke]

"It's a question of authority."

That is the question, isn't it. It is an interesting study to examine how the Catholic Church has evolved its "authority" from the original instructions of Christ. Perhaps you can offer a reference to where Christ leaves it to the Catholic church to determine what God did and didn't author. And with regard to Matthew 18... who is "you" in the following verse:

"And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother."

You are correct about Luther not claiming infallibility. Luther was fully aware of the fact that he was merely human. Infallibilty is one of those evolved authorities the Catholic Church now enjoys.

[netmilsmom]

Oh!
I just saw it. Worse than chat!

[eastsider]

Back chat : )

[olde north church]

It was unfortunate you got caught in the cross-fire.
Let me step back a moment, if I may.
To deny the possibility of Saul being struck by seizure would be to is somewhat narrow-minded. We can look back upon biblical stories and diagnose boils and leprosy from 20 centuries away from second hand stories. Yet, we dare not consider the possibility that a the description BY THE PATIENT of a "suffering a seizure" is remarkable. By Jacob and Ezekiel, we prove we accept dreams as a acceptable means of prophecy yet not seizures. A "ailment" that globally and through time has continually given the chance to view or hear God.
Perhaps "conduit to divinity" is somewhat charged but until you have experienced such a state you would not understand. Those who haven't experienced that state of consciousness shouldn't comment on it's effects on the "sufferer". As with most subjects in the religious realm there is no dictionary or theasaurus, only people who are trying to explain the occurance in a language that does not exist.
The list of those who have experienced seizures and responded with feelings of nearness to God and go forward with a deeper understanding is available. Is every person who has these experiences supposed to walk around with a neurologist and a transcriber?

[Aquinasfan]

Perhaps you can offer a reference to where Christ leaves it to the Catholic church to determine what God did and didn't author.

In Isaiah 22, we see the existence of the historical office of the vice-regent (king) of the kingdom of David. In the king's absence, the vice-regent held full plenary authority. As a sign of his authority, the vice-regent wore a pouch around his neck which contained a key --the key to the kingdom.

In the passage from Isaiah, we see this office being transferred from Shebna to Eliakim:

Isaiah 22:20-23

"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father.

Jesus is the eternal king of the House of David who is the power behind the keys.

Revelation 3:7

These are the words of him who is holy and true [Jesus], who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

When Jesus gives Peter the "keys to the kingdom," he is placing Peter in the office of vice-regent of the eternal House of David, Christ's Church:

Matthew 16:18-19

I tell you that you are Rock (Peter), and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Elsewhere in Scripture we see that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) and that anyone who doesn't listen to the church should be treated as "a pagan or tax collector." (Matthew 18:17)

Clearly Christ's Church has the authority to determine the canon of Scripture.

[olde north church]

Garbage in. Garbage out.
Your evidence is flawed. The classification of Episcopals is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. The Episcopal Church of the Colonies was still allied with the Church of England of which King George III was still head. The Episcopals were in, officially against the Revolution. Labeling someone an Episcopalian, then in parenthetically as a Calvinist would be similar to considering them schizophrenic.
The Calvinists were a decidedly anti-monarchist movement. Monarchs across Europe and England understood the Calvinist threat. That was the basis for the Calvinist Diaspora. They were evicted continually, the Puritans as evidence.
The French Revolution was more of a Calvinist revolution. Attacking the aristocracy, the monarchy and the Church. The French even copied the concept of the 12 member civic, which had served them so well in Geneva and Bern. Even to the point of labeling one of it's leaders, Robespierre "The Incorruptible".
Presbyterians, would be of course be in the lead, the Mecklenberg Declaration of 1775 was quite influential. It addressed the King for rights and representation.
There is also a more subtle point in the Calvinist belief regarding the Elect, equality and predestination. If you believe in predestination, one must also, taken to it's logical conclusion, are born into your place and can never expect to achieve change in status. There is no incentive to pursue a greater life.
While you may be equal to a king in Heaven, your lot in life is well, a result of birth as well. That is the Calvinist paradox, equality isn't a liberating force, it's an oppressing force. It probably wasn't Calvin's predestination, it was obviously the Church's free will.

[Dominick]

Perhaps "conduit to divinity" is somewhat charged but until you have experienced such a state you would not understand. Those who haven't experienced that state of consciousness shouldn't comment on it's effects on the "sufferer".

How would you know? Do you know what ailments I suffer from, or how God has touched me? Again, there isn't any reason to respond to someone who employs such tactics such as yours.

You want to call me a Pharisee, when you came out with a statement as unverifiable as the aliens implanted a undetectable transmitter in your skull.

Please don't ping me again, this is a waste of time.

[CouncilofTrent]

BUMP

[Matchett-PI]

"Your evidence is flawed. The classification of Episcopals is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. ..." ~ olde north church

Not so.

"In England, Calvinism also prevailed since it was the theology behind the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563) of the Church of England" (Paul Enns, *Moody Handbook of Theology*. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), p. 476.

The Episcopalians held as their subordinate standards the 39 Articles of Religion. This confession is Calvinistic in emphasis.

During that historic period, not only the 39 Articles of Religion ("Episcopalians"), but whenever you read of the Waldensians, the Bohemian Brethren (in Poland), the Huguenots, you're reading of churches that were Calvinistic.

Historic Protestant, Episcopalian doctrine is Reformed and Calvinistic. The Episcopalian church that adheres to its historic doctrine is still Reformed in the United States.

X. OF FREE WILL. 39 Articles of Religion.

The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

XVII. OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION

Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only- begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

http://smith2.sewanee.edu/gsmith/courses/Religion391/DocsOldSouth/1790-LelandEpisChurch.html

On Dissenting from the Episcopal Church. Leland, Virginia Chronicle, 1790.

... A church of Christ, according to the gospel, is a congregation of faithful persons, called out of the world by divine grace, who mutually agree to live together, and execute gospel discipline among them; which government, is not national, parochial or presbyterial, but congregational.

4. The church of England has a human head. Henry VIII cast off the Pope's yoke, and was declared head of the church 1533; which title all the kings of England have born since; but the gospel church acknowledges no head but king Jesus: He is law-giver, king and judge--is a jealous God, and will not give his glory unto another. [excerpt]

*

"There is also a more subtle point in the Calvinist belief regarding the Elect, equality and predestination. ..." - olde north church

"Calvinist belief"???? Hahahaha

Romans 8:28-30; 9:11-13;

Acts 13:48;

Eph. 1:4-6

Also see: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1331290/posts?page=349#349

*

"If you believe in predestination, one must also, taken to it's logical conclusion, are born into your place and can never expect to achieve change in status. There is no incentive to pursue a greater life. ...." ~ olde north church

Until minutes before he died, do you think the thief on the cross knew that he was one of God's elect chosen before the foundation of the earth?

*

"That is the Calvinist paradox, ... it's an oppressing force. ..." ~ olde north church

It is, huh? What will you say when you find out that all the murdered (deliberately aborted) babies are among those who are the elect of God? (As, I'm sure, are some of their mothers who murdered them.)

Of course many of those arrogant ones who embrace various and sundry doctrines in the man-centered religion actually believe that man - using his free-will - can thwart what God has done ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1331290/posts?page=349#349 ), and therefore - since those babies were murdered before they were born - they never had the opporfunity to earn their salvation, and are lost forever.

God laughs at that idea: Romans 9:11

[Rokke]

Aquinasfan,

I understand the passing of the keys, and the significance that the Catholic Church places on Matthew 16:18-19. But the Catholic Church also places great emphasis on the idea that there is the Bible, AND the church. Matthew 16:18-19 supports the doctrine that Peter is given the keys to the Church. It says nothing about the church being given the authority to determine what is and isn't the Word of God.

[Rokke]

On a related note, what powers do you believe Christ actually gives to Peter when He gives Peter the keys?

[olde north church]

Had the Founder's decided to create a theocracy, Calvin may have had a greater influence. Your quotes regarding freedom, predestination and the rights of man are related to religious rights/dogma not a civic government. As noted the Mecklenberg Declaration, by Presbyterians, Calvinists addressing the King? Calvinistic does not equal Calvin. There are remnants of the Roman Church in Episcopalianism.
-----
I'm waiting for your opinion regarding the French Revolution and the Calvinist influence. Where most of it was a response to corruption of the Crown and the Church rather than an intuitional response to a nearness to God.
----
We also had the Councils of 12 to oversee the Reformations to guide these changes and Henry's fear of the Pope that prevented him from taking the next step to leave the Church and there was biblical precedent with Saul when the Hebrews want a king they could see.
You have tried to make a distinction between "man centered religion" and I guess what God whispered to Calvin that He passed over Zwinglii and Luther. What allows the Calvin to speak for God?
----
You pick and choose your responses and statements to further your point of view and that is the nature of man. You are elevating Calvin in stature to that of God. I consider that he possessed a naturally superior religious intellect. Personally, I don't believe Luther was fit to bear Calvin's shoes. That being said, IT IS MY OPINION, he possessed the stubbornness of the know-it-all.

[Matchett-PI]

"I'm waiting for your opinion..."

Since you've either ignored or twisted what I've posted so far --- because you have no legitimate answers --- you're gonna have a L O N G wait. I'm outta your boat, too. See ya!

[Aquinasfan]

On a related note, what powers do you believe Christ actually gives to Peter when He gives Peter the keys?

What do I personally think? The keys must give to the pope the ability to teach without error with regard to matters of faith and morals. Why? The Church, as "the pillar and foundation of truth" (and because Jesus tells us that it's the place to which we should go to settle disputes), necessarily teaches without error with regard to matters of faith and morals. It logically follows that the pope, as the earthly head of this divine teaching authority, must teach without error with regard to matters of faith and morals.

But what ultimately matters is what Christ's Church says, not what I say.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

The teaching office

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command.415 They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

[Aquinasfan]

I understand the passing of the keys, and the significance that the Catholic Church places on Matthew 16:18-19. But the Catholic Church also places great emphasis on the idea that there is the Bible, AND the church.

The three "legs" of the Church are Scripture (Written Tradition), Oral Tradition and the Magisterium (the Church's teaching).

This must be so if we are to be able to know with certainty that what we consider to be Scripture is really the Word of God. Why? At the time of our Lord's death there were no New Testament writings. Jesus left his Apostles with a Church and Oral Tradition. Some Oral Tradition was recorded by various writers. Several centuries after Christ's death this body of Written Tradition was codified as Scripture by Christ's Church. From history we can see that Oral Traditon and the Church preceded Written Tradition (Scripture), and if Written Tradition is inerrant, than so must be Oral Tradition and the Church.

The argument for the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is a spiral argument.

Matthew 16:18-19 supports the doctrine that Peter is given the keys to the Church. It says nothing about the church being given the authority to determine what is and isn't the Word of God.

What authority would determine what is and isn't the Word of God? It would have to be a divine authority, wouldn't it? Would Jesus leave us a fallible authority to determine the canon of Scripture?

In fact, this is what R.C. Sproul believes. He believes that he has a fallible collection of infallible books.

But Jesus left us the Church, which He calls "the pillar and foundation of truth." Logically then, He tells us to take our disputes "to the Church." So that is where I look when I want to know what constitutes the canon of Scripture. See the link above.

[plain talk]

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.

That's your opinion and the opinion of the Catholic church and involves reading way too much into the scripture. Christ spoke in metaphors. This was another example of one. It's also not fair to compare those who believe its a metaphor to those who reject Christ or his gospel. In addition, this says nothing to justify that a current day Priest holding bread in communion is in fact holding up the physical body of Christ. The whole concept is bizarre.

[Rokke]

"The Church, as "the pillar and foundation of truth", necessarily teaches without error with regard to matters of faith and morals."

Necessarily teaches without error? I believe that is merely an assumption without evidence. And you must first believe that assumption to believe it "logically" flows that the Pope must also teach without error with regard to matters of faith and morals. I would argue that what really matters is what Christ Himself says. Not the church. It is quite amazing to me, that the simple phrase "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven," has evolved to mean that the Catholic Church teaches without error. I accept the fact that you believe that. It just doesn't pass my logic test.

[olde north church]

The reaction is typical, long-winded and knowledgable on "Scripture", short on understanding.

[plain talk]

Not that you've shared your "beliefs" we all are reminded of cautions placed into the Bible.

Rev 22:18 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book"